Response to interpellations 2023/24:57 and 68 on the expansion of the electricity grid and increased electricity production

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! How pleasant that several members have signed up for the debate - wonderful to see engagement in these issues!

I will begin by thanking Monica Haider, who has asked me how I intend to, within my area of responsibility, create the right conditions for the green transition in Sweden, particularly regarding the expansion of the electricity grid. Fredrik Olovsson has asked me how I intend to, within my area of responsibility, create the right conditions for the green transition, particularly when it comes to the expansion of electricity production until 2030.

As Minister for Energy and Industry, the development of the Swedish electricity system is one of my primary priorities. It is my work and my hobby, and it occupies much of my time. Sweden's international competitiveness and the green transition are based, among other things, on good access to fossil-free energy at competitive prices throughout the country. In order for investments in electricity production, electricity distribution, and electricity use to proceed in sync both geographically and temporally, developed energy planning and efficient and predictable permitting processes are needed.

Today, the electricity system is larger than ever. Compared to 2013, there is today 10,000 megawatts more installed electricity production, but new establishments and expansion within the industry still cannot occur at the desired pace because the electricity system does not have sufficient capacity.

To take a holistic approach to the expansion of the electricity system, both the electricity grid and electricity production, the government intends to return to the Riksdag with an energy policy orientation proposition with two overarching goals for the electricity supply. The first is a planning goal and the second is a security of supply goal. The electricity system needs to be planned so that electricity production and the electricity grid are built with the right characteristics, in the right place and at the right time to be able to meet the demand for electricity for the green transition and be able to deliver stable and reasonable electricity prices.

In the budget bill for 2024, the government has laid a foundation to once again strengthen the electricity system and Swedish competitiveness with, among other things, investments for more efficient permit processes and advanced planning.

The government has also submitted several government assignments to the relevant agencies in the energy sector, which among other things aim to rebuild a robust electricity system and increase security of supply, provide better conditions for electricity grid expansion, and improve transparency regarding the conditions for industries and producers to connect to the electricity grid. In addition, the government is working towards a strengthened European electricity market design regarding both system operation, flexibility, and price stability as well as consumer protection and consumer rights.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! Today, countries are competing for the leadership position in the green transition to secure future investments and jobs.

Here, Sweden is at the forefront, and the previous Social Democratic government invested in the green industrial transition. Here, the government needs to take the lead so that the development does not stall. It is good that the government intends to produce a new re-industrialization strategy for northern Sweden, Norrbotten and Västerbotten. But the rest of Sweden, then? We have a fantastic development, for example, in Västra Götaland and several other parts of Sweden.

To manage the green transition and all the green investments that are being announced, we need more energy and an expansion of our power grids. Here, the permit process is of utmost importance. The Social Democratic government took important steps to investigate how we should shorten the lead times, and here there are now a number of proposals that are ready on the table. The government chose, however, to appoint a new investigation, without proceeding with the proposals that are already prepared, and that investigation shall not be finished until December 15, 2024. Does the Minister for Energy and Industry intend to proceed with some of the proposals that already exist?

I also cannot see that the government has moved forward with the proposals that were in the electrification strategy. There, the Social Democratic government gave a number of assignments to the authorities regarding making the process go faster, which have proven to yield good results. This concerns, for example, parallel processes in the permit granting, where Kronoberg was one of the pilots. I can state that the government has extended some of the assignments, which is very good.

Political leadership is required here to chart the course and for us to manage the electrification and the challenges and opportunities that it actually presents. From the Minister's response, it appears that developed energy planning and efficient and predictable permit processes are needed. A specific energy policy direction proposition shall also be presented with two overarching goals - a planning goal and a security of supply goal, just as the Minister described. That is all well and good, but when will the proposals arrive that actually make a difference in shortening the permit processes?

The Social Democrats see the need for a long-term cross-bloc energy agreement, and so do most others in fact – but not the government and the Sweden Democrats. Most recently, it was the chairman of Svenskt Näringsliv who, in the Sällskapet Politik & Näringsliv last week, emphasized the importance of broad political agreements on the energy issue. The business community wants to know what applies over time and when they should invest, and they demand long-term conditions. How does the minister intend to proceed here?

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have also proposed a goal of at least 60 terawatt-hours of new fossil-free electricity by 2030 to meet the needs in the short term and so that we do not lose the large investments and jobs planned throughout Sweden. If the industry's needs cannot be met in the short term, we risk losing these industries entirely and missing out on new establishments and jobs. In the short perspective, it primarily concerns wind power, both on land and at sea, but it also concerns solar power and power increases in existing facilities such as hydropower and nuclear power.

Regarding the permit processes: Is the Minister for Energy and Business going to proceed with any of the proposals that are already prepared, or will nothing happen before the new investigation is complete?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Energy and Industry for the answer.

Sweden has truly secured a strong starting position in the global race that is currently underway and which is being driven by the climate transition. Through close cooperation between politics and the business sector, Sweden has at least had a global leadership in that area; how it will be moving forward, we shall have to discuss. In any case, it has driven forward these large investments in our country, partly through the transition of existing production in existing companies, and partly in new industries – in battery factories, in new steelworks, and in a vehicle industry that is transitioning and electrifying.

This leads to new jobs, growing communities, and a belief in the future in many places around our country. Often, there is talk about the large industries in the northern part of Sweden, but we see the development in very many places in our country. Not least, we see the willingness to invest in Western Sweden and the tens of thousands of new jobs that are in the pipeline. It also shows, however, the risks of not succeeding.

A completely central issue for succeeding with the new industrialization is to meet the need for electricity in the near term. Clean and cheap electricity is a central prerequisite for the investments to be realized in Sweden. Today we have a substantial surplus of electricity, which can be exported to other countries - in 2022, Sweden was the country in the EU that was the largest electricity exporter. But the expansion rate in new electricity production will now decrease, not least due to the government's policy. Indeed, too few projects are receiving permits - at the same time as the needs increase sharply when the industry makes reality of its investment plans.

Without increased electricity production, the Swedish electricity surplus will turn into a deficit and make Sweden dependent on imports to cover the net need. I mean that this is an unreasonable starting point and development. Other Nordic countries, the rest of the EU and the USA are not waiting for the Swedish government to step up here in the near future, but they are increasing the pace here and now to catch up and run ahead.

Madam Speaker! Ebba Busch and I have essentially the same ambitions: to expand electricity production in the long term. We want to nearly double it by 2045. But it is, after all, a distant vision, and in the worst case, neither Ebba Busch nor I can really be evaluated and held accountable in 2045. That may mean that things do not get enough tempo here and now.

That is why we Social Democrats, as Monica Haider just said, have proposed a new energy policy goal for 2030 of at least 60 terawatt-hours of fossil-free electricity. We see that it is possible to increase the capacity of nuclear power and hydropower, and that we must bring in more solar and wind. That is how we can get there. The level is well-balanced to meet the increased needs coming from the new industrialization and electrification. The level is also well-chosen, because we see that the investments will end up somewhere else if we do not succeed with this. Then the investments will pass us by.

Therefore, the question is whether the Minister is prepared to do what is required by 2030 and ensure that we get such a goal from the government - as well as measures that ensure we can reach it by 2030.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting when you in the Social Democrats release the grip on the Green Party, Monica Haider and Fredrik Olovsson. Suddenly, you appear as supporters of nuclear power! Suddenly, you stand here and say that you want to expand energy in Sweden, and that is good. But where were you hiding during the last eight years? We wrote debate articles and held interpellation debates, but the Social Democrats were conspicuous by their absence here in the chamber – except on a few occasions.

One of the occasions was when you phased out well-functioning nuclear power with a single vote's majority here in the chamber. Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna pressed the button to shut down well-functioning nuclear power. It is a decision that has cost the business sector an enormous amount of money, and it is a decision that has cost households an enormous amount of money. I am happy and grateful that we now have a minister and a government that works around the clock to rectify eight years of misfortune.

In one of the interpellation debates I had with Anders Ygeman, he said: Yes, we must expand the power grid, because we are going to send electricity from the north to the south. I already said in that interpellation debate: No, but dear Minister - we are going to expand the power grid to send energy up! But where will that energy come from when you phase out nuclear power? It is precisely this chaos we saw during the last winter.

There is something else that is quite interesting. I share the view that it is good to have large, broad energy agreements. But I wonder what would happen if the misfortune were to occur in 2026 and it became a red government.

We can read what Miljöpartiet says, that is, the party that the Socialdemokraterna have given a veto in energy policy. It is not what one says, but what one does that counts. We can read an interview with Daniel Helldén - if I understand correctly, he is the selection committee's candidate for the spokesperson position in Miljöpartiet - in Dagens industri on October 20. He is crystal clear. He says that there will be no new nuclear power in Sweden. That message cannot be misinterpreted.

Then one can say that the Social Democrats will still run over the Green Party. We heard the members standing here and praising the need for more energy production. But if one goes to the answer key and looks at how the Social Democrats acted in a government position, one sees that they gave veto power to the Green Party. It was the Green Party and those parts of the Social Democrats who demonstrably hate nuclear power who got to steer Swedish energy policy. It was even to the extent that Magdalena Andersson, in an inauguration speech, hypocritically mocked nuclear power and those of us who have always been pro-nuclear.

Now there has been a lot of talk about nuclear power, but we also have hydropower. Not only did the Social Democrats phase out nuclear power – they also gave the mandate to review hydropower. That review led to drastically reduced power from hydropower.

The previous government, with the Green Party at the helm, took on small-scale hydropower, which also has an important role in the energy system. They took on nuclear power and hydropower simultaneously, and the result of that policy could be seen by households last winter. The result exists. Every person who received a high electricity bill can send a thought to the Social Democrats.

It was good that a member in a previous interpellation debate asked if the Social Democrats will apologize to the Swedish people for their energy policy. There is an opportunity here today. Get up and make the next contribution, look into the camera and apologize to the Swedish people for giving Miljöpartiet a veto in energy policy!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the Minister's answer to the interpellations that have been submitted. When I listened to the debate, I felt that I also wanted to request the floor, for I just heard Lars Beckman from the Moderaterna accuse the Socialdemokraterna of the energy policy.

However polarized it may have been previously, we must still recall how it looked in 2016. Back then, both the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna were in the same boat as us, and together we blew up balloons and hailed the so-called energy agreement because it saved nuclear power. That is what the Moderaterna said and beat the big drum about. Today, it sounds completely different in the debate.

In that agreement and also afterwards, we have said that more wind power is needed and that it needs to be expanded, not least offshore wind power. As a point of information to Lars Beckman, I can say that he has a party colleague, Christofer Fjellner, who advocates for more wind power so that we can meet the needs that exist here and now.

I am very concerned about the situation that has actually persisted since the election campaign and since, among others, the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna left the energy agreement in 2019. It has been five years now, and there has basically only been a focus on 2045. There has only been a focus on nuclear power.

Of course, it may be that nuclear power needs to be expanded and that the goal of ten reactors is a limitation that we have also now said should be removed. But to meet the goal by 2030, more offshore wind power was needed.

I was at Preem in Lysekil on Friday. They see an enormous need for more energy in the short term. They are in the middle of a green transition and see electrofuels ahead of them, and to manage that, they need more energy. They say the only solution is offshore wind power, and that is why we Social Democrats also set a goal for more energy in the short term by 2030 with a volume of 60 terawatt-hours. If we cannot manage that, Sweden will lose large industrial investments, because it is roughly the same thing as saying that one does not need to come here and invest but can place those investments in other countries. We must take this with the utmost seriousness.

Västsvenska Handelskammaren, Västra Götalandsregionen, the County Administrative Board in West Sweden and the industries - even Volvo - say that they want to be involved in investing in the expansion of offshore wind power. That is fantastically good. But then the government must also step up, and what I would gladly have seen, Madam Speaker, is a broad agreement so that the long-term rules of the game that existed until 2019, but which disappeared then, are reinstated. Then one would dare to take steps, invest, save jobs and be part of the green transition and get more investments here to Sweden. In West Sweden alone, there is an import of electricity to the region of approximately 70 percent. By 2030, it is to increase by somewhere around 15-20 terawatt-hours. We can talk about nuclear power, but we won't solve that by 2030. It is offshore wind power that provides the solution.

Madam Speaker! I would very much like to receive an answer from Minister Ebba Busch on how she views the goal we set for 2030 of an additional 60 terawatt-hours. It would be an answer to the entrepreneurs who today are very worried about how they will manage the investments they are currently deciding on, which are dependent on more production until 2030.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I also take the opportunity to enter this debate, as I have noted that Minister Ebba Busch will need to spend the rest of the afternoon answering interpellations from all the Social Democrats who sit on the Committee on Industry. In that case, it might be appropriate for even a representative for the government base to enter at least one of the debates to try to balance this somewhat.

Suddenly, it sounds as if the Social Democrats have developed a newfound love for the energy system. Suddenly, they care about energy, power, and the electricity grid, which can well summarize the theme of the interpellations they have now submitted to the minister. Suddenly, they want to have and create conditions for an electricity-intensive industry. But we who have followed the news reporting over the past years while the Social Democrats have held government power have seen one and two—several—articles about companies that fear new investments in Sweden and who deliberately choose to establish industries in other countries because they do not trust the electricity system and the power supply that existed when the Social Democrats were in power.

In a previous debate, I noted not only that the Social Democratic governments acted in a way that prompted the decommissioning of four nuclear reactors, which the National Audit Office has now pointed out, but also that they chose to act in such a way that new investments in nuclear power were withheld, which by definition has led us to a situation where we are standing and treading in exactly the same place where we were in 2014 when the Social Democrats came to power and Vattenfall aborted its plans for two additional nuclear power plants at Ringhals. They could perhaps have been put into operation next year and definitely connected during this mandate period. It would have greatly eased our electricity system and could have supplied that part of Sweden with the power production that was so desperately needed.

Unfortunately, that is not where we are today, as a direct consequence of political decisions made by Social Democratic governments. This applies regardless of the extent to which the Social Democrats want to place the blame on Miljöpartiet or on Lars Beckman from Moderaterna, as was done earlier during this debate.

Now, however, one is a supporter of this. One also thinks it is important with broad political agreements, which was just raised in the debate. One wants dialogue and agreement. One wants to take responsibility jointly. It would have been very nice, Madam Speaker, if that were the case – but allow me to doubt.

I suspect that it is rather the case that the Social Democrats have concluded that this is the best strategy for them to try to hamper this government. Thus, they want to limit the room for reform and try to limit the conditions for the government, and not least Minister Ebba Busch, to implement the reform agenda that we collectively campaigned on. It is included in the Tidö Agreement, which the entire government base stands behind, and would, among other things, create conditions for large investments in predictable power production and help us contribute to the electrification of society that is currently taking place. But that is not what the Social Democrats want.

The Social Democrats are ready to let the stalemate that has existed in the area for ten years continue because they believe it is better than us, as the government basis, succeeding in achieving change and thereby, according to them, risking to regain the voters' trust and continue implementing our reform agenda.

Then one thinks that it is better to talk about broad agreements, try to lock ministers and departments in conference rooms and severely limit the conditions to actually work and achieve change in accordance with what the voters gave us confidence in. I believe that it is so simple that it is the ambition, Madam Speaker, not to ensure more fossil-free power production in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Olovsson and Monica Haider, for important interpellations! They probably deserved to be debated individually – power transmission and energy production are, to some extent, two different things.

I think that what the Minister for Energy and Business is raising in his answer regarding permit processes is highly relevant. But it takes a bit long. There are already ready proposals at the Government Offices that the market is requesting.

It is clear that if the battery factories and establishments in Mariestad and Gothenburg and several others are to become a reality, energy transmission capacity is required. And the situation we have today, with lead times of 17 years, is not acceptable. That was why the Social Democratic government appointed the Environmental Assessment Inquiry, the Climate Justice Inquiry, and several others, and several proposals are already finished. Despite that, this government is to investigate more. When will a bill reach the Swedish Riksdag so that the market knows that it might be possible to apply for transmission?

It is clear that it is the same thing in northern Sweden. There is plenty of electricity in the inland of northern Sweden, electricity that is produced in a very climate-smart way in our hydropower plants. But for it to reach the large consumers at the coast, the new industries, east-west transfers are required. New capacity is required.

For this to become possible, it does not only require permit processes. It also requires competence. Who does the Minister for Energy and Industry think should build this? We have, as we have learned, a major shortage of high-voltage electricians in Sweden. We need to train more people who can do the job. Or does the Minister for Energy and Industry think that someone else is going to come from somewhere else? We do not think so. We think that this must be a Swedish matter. We in Sweden must be able to build this ourselves. That requires educational places. It also requires a strategy for new competence in Sweden. The Minister for Energy and Industry can answer that now.

To Tobias Andersson and Lars Beckman, I can say thank you for the attention! Every time you say "Socialdemokraterna", I think the interest in us increases.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to address a few issues.

I will start at this end: I perceive that there is a consensus that we must have much more power production ahead. I perceive that there is a consensus regarding the frustration that it is going too slowly.

What do we do then? It can be summarized as that we are walking and talking at the same time. That is to say: No, it is not that we are just initiating new investigations. Parts of the proposals from the Environmental Assessment Investigation and the Climate Justice Investigation are already in motion – some came in regulatory letters to the authorities, and some have begun to be rolled out in separate decisions. But we actually did not think that it covered everything. There were white spots where there was a risk that it would still go far too slowly. Therefore, we have supplemented with additional investigations, including on how we can increase the local willingness to welcome land-based wind power.

It is the answer to a cluster of questions, one could say.

Another thing is about listening to the business community. I have not met a single entrepreneur who has said that this is exactly how an agreement on long-term rules of the game should look. They don't care if we put it in some fancy document somewhere. We just need to create a sound and good climate for dialogue where we start delivering and start doing things.

Parts of this we have already done. The current government has a majority behind it in this chamber, so we can just go ahead. But I do believe it is good if it can be as broad and stable a support as possible for the long-term lines.

That is why we are now trying, and I want to emphasize this, with a different type of energy policy conversation that is not the classic, protracted, sometimes quite media-dramatic negotiations, but conversations where we really see and listen to each other and where we – in a way that is quite unorthodox for a government – very early try to let in views in texts in what will become the basis for the government bill. Usually, the government writes a proposal; it is motions in the Riksdag and bills from the government. The government submits a bill, and then one can have views on it. Here, we are trying to get the views before that and rather produce a tighter product with fewer but clear goals that will hold over time and that do not become so politically colored. Then there will be many different good and less good ideas from all of us, I believe. There, we have a very good and close dialogue, and I look forward to the government in different capacities continuing to meet all the parties in the Riksdag individually in order to really be able to delve deeply into some of these issues.

It takes me to 2030. There is nothing I wish for more than to be able to state a goal not for 2045 but for 2030 that is realistic. I still think the Social Democrats are responsible for the question of how it is to be done, but I am favorably disposed to a goal of 60 terawatt-hours by 2030. I myself have not managed to get a grip on it. Will it just be a goal that we state but where we have difficulty, so to speak, making the plans to get there credible? Some actors I meet point out that 70 terawatt-hours are needed; others say 55. One could also imagine setting a range. But I have high hopes that in the continued conversations we could concretize it further. I do not rule that out; on the contrary, that is where it really screams now. That is why we have had many investments that have been announced but where there is doubt about the future because one does not quite know what is happening now. I would like to delve deeper into that.

Then I look forward to talking a bit more about my own proposals here. I will be back shortly.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers. I understand that she did not have time to answer all the questions we asked. I have full respect for that. Therefore, she will be asked some questions once more for the sake of safety so that she does not forget them.

In the answer you delivered, Ebba Busch, you said that the development of the Swedish electricity system is one of your main priorities. Then one must say that Sweden's international competitiveness and the green transition are based on, among other things, good access to fossil-free energy at competitive prices throughout the country. I can agree with that. The expansion of our power grid and, of course, also our production is a very large part of that.

The Minister for Energy and Business has said that we are to become the best at permit processes. It then becomes very strange not to proceed with the proposals found in the reports of the Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry when it comes to permit processes for electricity grids. The Social Democratic government knew that these two inquiries were not sufficient, but doing nothing was simply not an option. One has to start somewhere.

In the investigations, there are proposals regarding technology choices, change permits instead of reassessments, and so on, which would be quite simple to make decisions on and which the entire industry working with the issue is truly demanding.

Now, the government has actually, since the last interpellation debate last spring on March 7, produced the incentive investigation. You mentioned this in your answer. I have not heard this before; I thought that even that was still in the drawer. It perhaps does not seem so now – you are welcome to follow up on this and explain if anything more is happening there.

The Moderates' new position at their convention in Umeå that the property tax should go to the municipalities is also interesting and perhaps also speeds up this investigation. We hope, therefore, that something happens there, because we really need more energy.

I want to return to the electrification strategy – which no longer exists, it seems. It is not on the government's website. But it is interesting where the content of it is located somewhere in the department. Is it the direction proposal that is to replace the electrification strategy?

Madam Speaker! What is happening in Sweden right now is happening thanks to our access to renewable and fossil-free energy at competitive prices. Most countries in Europe are very envious of the energy mix we have in Sweden; there are not many other countries that have it.

With this said, it is not sufficient given the needs we face. It is believed—and we are quite much in agreement on this politically—that the need will be up to 300 megawatt-hours by 2045. Then we must actually speed up the permit processes that this interpellation debate concerns today. We also need to build more electricity production in the short term, just as my colleagues have carefully pointed out here. Nuclear power is not an option in the short term, until 2030. If we do not manage this, we will not get these new industrial establishments and the jobs we want.

One question, then, is where the electrification strategy stands. And will there be an energy agreement? You answered somewhat vaguely on that – maybe, but not in the same way as before. When it then comes to the new industrialization strategy for northern Sweden, I want to ask: Why not a new industrialization strategy for all of Sweden, not just the north?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers! I think the tone in much sounds optimistic. That may not quite apply to the basis that exists here in the Riksdag; we have heard some input from them. But it is appreciated nonetheless if the government has a different starting point and listens carefully also to us and to the justified ambitions that we, like the business community as a whole, have to produce at least 60 terawatt-hours of new electricity by 2030.

A large part of the solution lies, of course, in wind power. The Sweden Democrats often remind us that they do not want to see more wind power in Sweden, and one can feel that this is also what the government thinks. They are worsening the conditions for connecting offshore wind power to the power grids on land, where we ultimately need the electricity.

The government parties chose both before and after the election to vote against a reformed permit process that could provide legal certainty for the wind power projects and the companies behind them. Therefore, we now see how finished parks receive a no very late in the process, even though they had previously received several yeses. In one of the cases, the turbines are even ordered and manufactured, but they cannot be erected—in any case, not in Sweden. This would have been avoided if the S-government's proposal had passed before the election and if the Riksdag and the parties here had voted through the proposal when we presented it in the spring.

But I note that it seems that the incentive study is not put on ice and that we can hope that both the reformed process that we have proposed and the incentive study perhaps can be carried out. That would, in that case, be very good.

There are also a number of other permit and regulatory issues that one might wonder if the government is truly taking seriously. Expanding the electricity grids is central - that has been said here previously. Despite the fact that there are completed and referred proposals, we do not see them from the government. They are not on the list of government bills, and no one speaks about when they could arrive. They should arrive quickly.

I will give a few examples of what it is actually about. One example is that exceptions should be granted for high-voltage power lines from the general biotope protection or the shore protection in the Environmental Code. One almost always gets a dispensation for this today, but it takes a long time to investigate. Therefore, the law should instead simply be changed.

Another example is that we want overhead lines to be the starting point for lines with high voltage levels. In practice, it almost always ends up that way, but time and money are spent investigating and processing these issues. One example is the case with Vattenfall and SSAB in Oxelösund, which has taken many years. It is an important issue.

These legislative changes are therefore ready to be presented to the Riksdag; they are finished. We will vote for them. There will be an enormous majority for these proposals, if the government only presents them.

One of the most important proposals is the one concerning making modification permits the main rule. This can shorten a huge amount of different permit processes. Here, the government has a fantastic opportunity. It is almost a bit luxurious to have such a proposal fully investigated, lying on its table. But then the government chooses to investigate this again so that it will take another year or a few years before this important proposal can be implemented.

The question to the Minister is why these proposals are not being presented and why you choose to investigate one of them again, when there is a preparatory basis for a long-awaited improvement and simplification of something as important as permit processes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Social Democrats should be judged for what they do and not for what they say. I believe that this is a reasonable starting point.

Unfortunately, we have eight lost years behind us, when you let Miljöpartiet have a veto over Swedish energy policy. This is significant when one hears the Socialdemokraterna talk about broad agreements. I also think it is good; Moderaterna naturally appreciate everyone who wants to stand behind the government's policy.

But it would still be interesting to know what common energy policy the Social Democrats' government base has. Those who are interested can go and read what Magdalena Andersson's finance minister candidate Nooshi Dadgostar writes on the Left Party's website. Nuclear power shall be phased out, period. One can read what their energy minister candidate Daniel Helldén's party writes. Nuclear power shall be removed, it says on the Green Party's website. It is clear that it has significance for the Social Democrats' credibility when three out of four parties in their intended government base say no to nuclear power, unless C has changed its mind.

Every person who received an electricity bill last winter can offer a thought to the Social Democrats and Magdalena Andersson. It was due to their government's policy and their decommissioning of nuclear power and - and I will return to this now - the small-scale hydropower and hydropower. The review that was made also caused energy production to disappear from the Swedish energy mix.

But I am not the one who gives up. Now you Social Democrats have the chance, in the next contribution, to apologize to the Swedish people for the energy policy you have pursued and explain what the common red energy policy, from the Center Party, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Social Democrats, looks like.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers! One still feels a bit positive after hearing the answers. There is interest in continued dialogue and deepening when it comes to what the goal for 2030 should look like. In some ways, it feels like we Social Democrats have hit the mark quite well. The entrepreneurs and the industry say somewhere between 55 and 70 terawatt-hours, and we have set a goal of 60. A solution to this that we see as completely obvious is that exactly offshore wind power will be realized and that the process for obtaining decisions from the government is shortened.

Today, we Social Democrats in the Committee on Industry had a discussion with the Swedish Union of Electrical Workers, who had representatives here in the Riksdag. Two of them are sitting in the gallery now, Petter and Magnus. We discussed competence supply, work environment issues, grid expansion and more energy production. For natural reasons, they are very well-informed, knowledgeable and proactive in these issues.

A question that they raised which is of great importance is precisely the competence shortage when it comes to being able to expand the backbone networks. That question is even more important when we see that it is approximately 50 people who have the competence, and the majority of them are of foreign origin - they have come here and have the competence to help build this.

Then one can ask how this works from a security perspective. Is it appropriate that a foreign power can gain access to Swedish infrastructure regarding the expansion of the backbone network with the information and so on that is there? And if we do not manage the competence supply ourselves – when Ukraine is to be rebuilt, much competence will be drawn there – it becomes vulnerable in many aspects. What plan do the Minister and the Government have to solve that challenge?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have now had the opportunity to listen to four Social Democrats in a joint attack on the Minister and on the government's policy in this area. Suddenly, all Social Democrats seem to rave about and defend efficiency, energy, power grids, permit processes, skills supply, and everything else that is needed and important. It is such things that this government also, as is known, is working on at the moment.

It is typically Social Democratic to have all these revelations just after one has had to leave Rosenbad and the various departments. When one no longer needs to take responsibility, it is easy to demand everything and bet everything on everything. It is easy to demand more from others than one ever demanded of oneself and one's party colleagues when one was in the situation that Minister Ebba Busch is in right now.

Then it is appropriate for a Social Democrat to sober up and come forward with proposals that are important in this area. But these proposals were completely missing during the eight years when the Social Democrats sat and governed in various constellations! That is also why the work is now so intensive and urgent for Minister Ebba Busch and other parts of the government base. We have, after all, seen eight lost years.

Several times during the debates that have taken place now, the question has been asked whether one believes the Social Democrats can take responsibility for the situation they have put Sweden in or if they, as Lars Beckman has requested, want to apologize to the Swedish people when they have the chance. Until now, it has been deathly silent, but I want to once again give them an opportunity to at least admit that all the decisions they took were not perfect and that it would have been good if some of the proposals and opinions now being presented had come a little earlier.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I think that what Mattias Jonsson is raising is particularly important. There are far-reaching security aspects to this. We need to strengthen our own capacity and competence, not least in the area of energy transmission.

If we are then to build new nuclear power, which much of this debate is about, competence is also required. Training is required. The Sweden Democrats and the Moderates promise that it shall be built quickly and that it preferably should have happened yesterday, but none of this seems to be becoming a reality. It seems as if there is something that is causing friction within the government base.

We say that we need to build nuclear power, and we need to focus on the sites that already have an electricity grid. There, one also understands the importance of the right competence, the right equipment, and the right efforts. There is an understanding among the municipalities. There, it is possible.

Since then, there is no one here who can say that nuclear power is fast or cheap. We have learned that clearly. We can also remember the previous alliance government. Much can be said about Fredrik Reinfeldt - we even miss him sometimes - but that the industry was "basically gone" he can say for himself. What the Social Democrats did was to get the wheels of industry turning. It is clear that we are very worried now when we see that the influence of the Sweden Democrats is braking the wheels of industry.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the question from Mattias Jonsson regarding Elektrikerförbundet. It sounds like it could actually become a separate session. Generally speaking, many of the basic basic training courses need to be re-evaluated. There, I believe that political leadership and the signals we convey are the future.

In this rather dark time, there is hope for a better future, more job opportunities, and that more people will be able to stand on their own feet and support themselves and potentially also a family. I believe there is great value in that many of us carry the message that the future is here. There are so many Swedes who nevertheless have a rather dark view of the future, given all the terrible things happening in our country and in the rest of the world. Here is a message about opportunities for many jobs, but then we need to signal that it is about both present and future jobs. We need many more young people to get an education and many more to change careers in the middle of life.

Therefore, I am pleased that a clear prioritization of vocational training has been made generally speaking. I believe that we need to do more of this and join forces in those issues. We also need to safeguard and develop the transition support for those who have worked in an industry that, during recent years, has developed in a completely different direction while demand within, for example, the energy sector is increasing.

I would like to return to the security aspects of this. We are to have an efficient labor immigration, but we also have an unemployment in Sweden that I believe could be pushed down further if we could more clearly channel and direct people to where the demand is. There is a security dimension to this. We should not have entire sectors consisting of foreign labor, but it should be a sensible and sound mix. We should also not be naive about what are key professional groups and what information we disclose and to whom.

When it comes to the electrification strategy, I would like to answer that the entire government's environmental and climate policy is based on electrification. The industrial policy is based on electrification. That we achieve high climate goals with many jobs and growth is based on electrification. We are to electrify the transport sector. We are to electrify heavy industry and enable more private individuals to electrify. From that perspective, it is well-integrated into the entire base that was presented in the autumn of 2021 by Khashayar Farmanbar, the minister at that time.

What I would like to emphasize a bit is that we are, in periods, one of the largest electricity exporters, but despite this, there is a shortage of power. We have pushed 10,000 megawatts into the system. Despite this, municipal councilors of all possible colors are forced to say no to company establishments. They cannot welcome job opportunities in their municipality, because they cannot guarantee that there is electricity.

Now we are trying to do something about the imbalances occurring in the system. But we must have sufficient capacity and not just more power production. During my last 20 seconds in this exchange, I therefore want to ask: What is the interpellants' view regarding what should be base load? My greatest concern regarding the next five to ten years is that we now have an electricity system that has difficulty handling more wind power and more solar power. It is solar power and wind power that we can release quickly, but it is also what is fragile in the system. From where shall the base load come?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answers. I agree with my colleagues here that it is welcome that the Minister is positive towards a dialogue and wants to continue it. At the same time, I do not know how much wiser I have become after this debate regarding what the government intends to do to speed up the permit processes concerning the expansion of the power grid and production. It is a new investigation, and the Minister told us here today about some other proposals that we did not know about previously.

I think it would be very simple to make decisions on the proposals that already exist and are sitting in the drawer, just as my colleague Fredrik Olovsson very creditably said earlier. The business community demands it, and the authorities also demand these decisions. And with a fool's persistence, I want to repeat that the business community also demands a long-term cross-party energy agreement. Here I would have thought to say that the government is tone-deaf, but that didn't quite sound right today. I hope I heard correctly.

I note that the Minister has invited a dialogue. We shall see what comes out of it. The process in every agreement does not need to look exactly the same as it has in the past, so this is something we truly look forward to.

Then I think it is very interesting - I must comment on it - that Lars Beckman has appointed the upcoming government, during the next mandate period, with Social Democrats in government. We thank you for believing in it. We do too, I can say.

I also think it is interesting that Tobias Andersson stands here and says that our proposals should have come a bit earlier. All the proposals that I, and several of us, have talked about here today are Social Democratic proposals, not the government's proposals.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Olovsson (S)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to Lars Beckman, one might believe that we in Sweden are producing less electricity today than before. We are not. Furthermore, we are the largest exporter in the entire EU. We were, at least in 2022, and it does not look much worse for the current year. It is also true, just as the Minister said in his interpellation answer, that we have a sharp increase in installed capacity in the Swedish system. That is the truth. What Lars Beckman is talking about is something completely different.

Furthermore, it is the case that it does not really help that we have done all this. What lies ahead of us is, in fact, something much larger. We may perhaps need to double our electricity system.

We have a fantastic opportunity to be winners in the transition. Industry has the will to transition and can create tens of thousands of jobs all over the country if we keep the lead jersey we have taken on and actually ensure that we increase the pace. Then we will need much more electricity in the coming years. It is clear that a very large part of the answer then lies in increasing the capacity of what is possible in the form of nuclear power and hydropower and then pushing in as much wind and solar power as we can manage. It is also about building the power system as robustly as possible with all the technology that exists and all the opportunities for flexibility and storage that we can develop during these years.

That is the mission. If one does not take on that job, the message to the business community and to everyone who wants to invest in the transition in practice is that it is not in Sweden that one should do it, but somewhere else.

It is possible that the Sweden Democrats could be satisfied with that direction - so it sounds sometimes in the debate. But for me as a Social Democrat - and I hope that is the case for the government - it is precisely the opposite. We should set the highest possible pace to generate the power and the energy that we need. Can the Minister not agree with me on that?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe fundamentally that we now have a golden opportunity, a unique window, to agree on a long-term foundation for Swedish energy supply moving forward. There will be many "details" in this to continue discussing ahead. There will be various creative ideas regarding how one can increase the pace in some of the permit processes or increase economic incentives for this and that. But I believe that we are so many within politics, broadly, and within the business community who think that perhaps it is not in this area that the most ideologically colored political decisions should be made. I also believe that it is the general will of the people.

It is something as fundamental as Swedish households' ability to have enough electricity at sensible prices that is what needs to be protected here. Now it is something as fundamental as a completely unique competitiveness in the world. There are inexorable and high-reaching climate goals regardless of governments coming and going. Here we can compete with the USA, because their climate ambitions have come and gone with governments. Here we can discuss the pace and what is the best decision. But that we take climate change seriously, that the ambitions are high and that we shall do this in a way that protects economic growth and jobs is a unique selling point for Sweden.

I believe that the way forward is delivery security goals, planning goals and more power production with the right characteristics, which ensures that we do not only become exporters but also have sufficient power where it is needed when it is needed. I look forward to the continued discussions before the bill later this autumn.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)