Response to interpellations 2024/25:71 and 72 on southern Swedish companies' access to energy in the near term
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that all production types should bear their own costs and that connection fees for offshore wind power should not be subsidized by the grid customers 1. KD considers that the red-green electricity system with weather-dependent power has caused the worst power shortage ever 2 and that the electricity demand should be met through efficient transition, combined heat and power, nuclear power, and land-based wind power 1. KD wants offshore wind power that provides more power without shifting costs onto households 3. S argues that the government should not deny the addition of new electricity as it risks jobs 4. S considers that offshore wind power is an important solution for low electricity prices.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Good afternoon! Finally, we get the opportunity to debate this interpellation. The debate was postponed last time, because I could not manage the time as other matters in the chamber dragged on.
Marianne Fundahn has asked me what I and the government intend to do so that companies will have access to energy in the coming years so that the jobs that southern Sweden so badly needs are created. Adrian Magnusson has asked me if I and the government are prepared to reconsider our decision not to cover the cost of the land connection regarding offshore wind power projects. If not, Adrian Magnusson has also asked me how I and the government will compensate the people of Skåne for the loss in electricity production as a result of Vattenfall's decision to pause the offshore wind power project at Kriegers flak.
The previous governments led by the Social Democrats approved only a single application for offshore wind power during eight years. This government has, during its first two years in power, already approved two applications for offshore wind farms, Galene and Kattegatt Syd.
When a company operating on market terms makes an investment decision regarding new electricity production, it reasonably occurs with consideration of the overall picture of revenue and costs. The costs of connecting a production facility to the transmission grid are only one part of this cost picture. If the grid customer collective is to bear the cost of connecting offshore wind power in a way that is not socio-economically justified, it will mean that the grid customers are subsidizing the offshore wind power.
If Svenska kraftnät assesses that in an individual case it is socio-economically profitable to expand the transmission grid offshore, there is however nothing preventing such lines from being built. The Government's starting point is that all types of power shall have comparable rules of the game on the electricity market, that all types of production shall bear their own costs and that those who connect to the electricity grid shall bear the costs that the connection causes.
It is primarily the decommissioning of dispatchable electricity production that has led to a deteriorated power balance, where Skåne and electricity price area 4 have the greatest supply problems in the entire EU and great difficulties in connecting new consumption. Sweden currently has a large surplus of electricity production, but this electricity goes to export. The electricity surplus itself does not enable new consumption customers to connect. According to Svenska kraftnät's grid development plan for 2024-2033, there are no new consumption applications in SE4.
The energy policy direction proposal, which the Riksdag has adopted at the government's proposal, states that Sweden should currently plan to be able to meet an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours in 2045. In the short term, up to 2030-2035, it is primarily power increases within hydropower, combined heat and power, and existing nuclear power, as well as an expansion of land-based wind power and solar power, that can meet an increasing electricity demand.
The Riksdag has, on the government's proposal, decided to change the previous energy policy goal of 100 percent renewable electricity production to 100 percent fossil-free electricity production by 2040. The government wants to provide good conditions for all fossil-free types of energy and welcomes all new electricity production that strengthens the electricity system with the right characteristics and in the right location. Therefore, the government has realigned the energy policy partly to meet an increasing demand for electricity in the short, medium, and long term, and partly to secure a secure energy supply and efficient transition. It follows from the energy policy direction bill that flexibility, electricity production, and the grid shall contribute to a more secure electricity system that can be utilized more efficiently and meet the demand for electricity at competitive electricity prices.
Among the latest measures the government has taken to address the power shortage in the country and secure an increased expansion of fossil-free electricity production is the budget bill for 2025, that is, next year. There, the government has, among other things, proposed that a new investment support be introduced, the so-called Kraftlyftet, to increase the capacity in the electricity system where the needs are greatest. The measures shall strengthen the security of supply and the ability to deliver electricity where demand exists, in a timely manner and in sufficient quantity – that is, the exact opposite of how it is now. Through a robust electricity system with investments to bring in more power and more electricity where the needs are greatest, Sweden's competitiveness is strengthened, which will also benefit Sweden's households and companies.
The government is also working on developing a wind power package intended to improve the conditions for expanding land-based and coastal wind power. The first step was the proposal in the budget bill to establish a support for the municipalities based on the property tax for wind power installations. Furthermore, the government intends to proceed with the three compensation proposals presented in the report The Value of the Wind (SOU 2023:18) in order to strengthen the local benefit and acceptance of wind power.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the answer to my interpellation. I will begin by commenting on the Minister's answer regarding the approval of offshore wind farms.
It doesn't matter how many offshore wind farms are approved by different governments if none are built. Then, it is positive that the minister, in the response, gives a half-yes to Svenska kraftnät being able to expand the transmission grid at sea.
Svenska Kriegers flak, which is located three miles south of my hometown Trelleborg, is Sweden's most mature offshore wind power project. It could start delivering in 2028 and, when fully developed, provide 2.7 terawatt-hours per year. This corresponds to just over half a million households. But Vattenfall has now decided to pause the project. The cost is too high to build the power grid at sea. The grid connection accounts for 25-30 percent of the cost. "It is not possible to take that cost and still make it profitable," says Vattenfall's CEO Anna Borg. The signal that the pause sends leads to concern in many circles.
When the decision was made, the question was that more offshore wind power projects would be paused. We received the answer quite quickly when information emerged that another large wind power project had been put on ice, namely Kattegatt Syd. Vattenfall's CEO Anna Borg says that they would gladly see a grid at sea. She continues: "It is actually a prerequisite if one wants energy production at sea." The question is: Does the government want it?
Without additional new electricity, there is not enough energy for all the industrial initiatives that are ongoing and planned in southern Sweden, and then there is a risk of losing many jobs - jobs that southern Sweden so much needs. Skåne has the highest unemployment in the country. In June it was 9.1 percent, compared to 6.7 percent in the country. Seven of the ten municipalities with the highest unemployment are located in Skåne.
Now also came the announcement that the defense says no to 13 offshore wind farms that were to provide Skåne with more electricity. Then the government must put on a coal and point out where along our coast it is possible to build offshore wind farms. Sweden has, after all, 240 miles of coastline, and somewhere along this coast it should be possible to build. Companies in southern Sweden are hit hard by high electricity prices. Therefore, the government needs to act now.
In Sweden, a large part of the energy is produced in northern Sweden, but the energy is used in southern Sweden. This means that the energy needs to be transported over long distances via the transmission grid. This gives rise to so-called congestion revenues. Svenska kraftnät uses the congestion revenues to reduce costs for electricity users and producers. Just as Svenska kraftnät can use congestion revenues to reduce prices in bidding zone 4 by building transmission grids to bidding zone 3, they should also be able to expand the transmission grid offshore.
In a committee initiative, we propose together with Miljöpartiet, C and V that the government should immediately task Svenska kraftnät with making socio-economic calculations and actively use bottleneck revenues or other financing for the purpose of improving the power balance, lowering electricity prices, and expanding the offshore grid. Unfortunately, that committee initiative was voted down by a majority in the committee. It was not considered necessary.
A similar proposal has been made by Teknikföretagen, which also wants the Tidö parties to act quickly and ensure that sufficient investments are made in electricity infrastructure.
How does the Minister for Energy and Business want to solve southern Sweden's energy needs over the next ten years, and what is her opinion on the proposal in the committee initiative and the proposal from Teknikföretagen?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Energy and Industry has today presented the text and the reasoning regarding the questions I have posed. I could actually summarize them much more briefly than what was just done in the speaker's chair opposite me.
The first question was: Is the Minister and the Government prepared to reconsider their decision not to cover the cost of grid connection regarding offshore wind power projects? The answer there is no.
The second question was: If not, how will the Minister and the Government compensate the people of Skåne for the loss of electricity production as a result of Vattenfall's decision to pause the offshore wind project at Kriegers flak? The answer is: not at all.
It is actually so—and I hope there is no discussion about it—that Kriegers flak fully built contributes 2.7 terawatt-hours of electricity per year from 2030, as was just said here. It is, as was also said, electricity for half a million households in Skåne. I hope that there is also no doubt whatsoever about that, Minister for Energy and Enterprise.
Madam Speaker! This government has tried very stubbornly to give the appearance that things are now happening in energy policy. During the 2022 election campaign in Skåne, more energy production was promised and that it would be quickly implemented. A high-cost protection was also promised before Christmas. Dishonest, one could call it.
We all know what happened with the high-cost protection – it became nothing. But one could imagine that something could come of the energy production. Here, the government could step forward and say: Now we will ensure that electricity is provided to the people of Skåne – and very quickly.
The government is happy to boast about having granted permission for two offshore wind farms. There is nothing wrong with that; it is welcome. But as Member Fundahn said: It makes no difference if no offshore wind power is built.
The wind farm at Kriegers flak, which could provide a very large amount of electricity by 2030, is being allowed by the government with unmitigated boldness to be transformed into zero and nothing. It is actually quite astonishing when one thinks about it - or thinks about it a little - especially when one, like I did, stood in the debates in Malmö, Lund, Ystad, or wherever it was in Skåne and heard the minister's party comrades blather about more electricity production now and that it would go quickly. When the government finally gets the chance to ensure that more energy production is created - furthermore, quickly - it instead steps in and lays a ban on that energy production.
There may be two reasons for this. The first is what I think can be inferred from the answer: that it is market-liberal considerations that are playing a role. It is then important to suddenly become a hardline ideologue and take a step back from increasing energy production for the people of Skåne. It is a position one can take, but in that case, I assume that the market-liberal principles will permeate the entire energy policy, from north to south, and all types of power, and not just the energy policy for people in Skåne and offshore wind farms.
The second possible reason is that the aversion to wind power is so strong that all attempts to expand it, even offshore, are stopped or at least met with stubbornness and indifference.
We know that there are representatives for the government base who almost get choked, that is, physically choked, just at the thought of wind power. In that case, the reasons are not typically ideological but rather principled.
Madam Speaker! Before I conclude, I want to urge the Minister for Energy and Industry to let go of the ideological blinkers or the principled positions or whatever it is and ensure that more energy production is created in Skåne. One can make a purely cost-based calculation: What will it cost Skåne and the people of Skåne if this investment is not made? Besides this with jobs and growth, it will dig holes in the people of Skåne's wallets. Is that what the Minister wants?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I intend to try to go through the facts here. I perceive it as that at least one of the interpellants, Adrian Magnusson, and I sit with completely different worldviews. Now we must put the facts on the table and see what reality actually looks like.
Adrian Magnusson has asked two questions. The first is a question regarding whether I am prepared to impose even more costs on Swedish households when it comes to covering the connection fee for a single type of power. So it is not for any other type of power - not land-based wind power, not hydropower, not nuclear power. The answer is correctly understood. It is no.
I do not meet a single Swede who thinks: It is so much fun to pay electricity bills, because it is so cheap. Therefore, I think the Social Democrats should be very careful about saying that the proposal they have is that it will become much more expensive for the Swede.
I urge everyone listening to this debate to go home and look at their electricity bill. How much are you paying for electricity, and how much are you paying for the electricity grid? The grid costs have skyrocketed. It is a direct result of a red-green electricity system. It has been said: We are pushing in a lot of intermittent, that is to say weather-dependent, power production. Then the electricity grids must explode, and it is very expensive to build electricity grids. I also think that one should be honest about that. This is driving up the costs.
Furthermore, the price goes up and down like a yo-yo. There are negative prices on some days. It is several kronor on other days. Why then? Yes, that is how it is because there is a huge amount of wind in the system. If one wants to predict what the electricity system will be able to deliver, one can skip all other news and go straight to the weather forecast at the end of the news broadcast. We have a weather-dependent electricity system.
How much more electricity has been added since I became Minister for Energy? Let's look at the figures. The forecast for what was actually added last year and what is projected to be added this year - that is, over two years - is 6,100 megawatts. Perhaps some in the gallery are wondering: How much is 6,100 megawatts? Well, it is as much electricity as can be obtained from five nuclear reactors. It is just that 6,100 megawatts of weather-dependent power production does not function in the system in the same way as 6,100 megawatts of base load - hydropower or nuclear power - so we cannot connect more companies, more industry.
Adrian Magnusson's proposal is that we should continue on the same path. Adrian Magnusson's medicine against the lack of effectiveness in southern Sweden is to continue pumping in exactly the same thing that has caused the disease that Sweden has today - the worst lack of effectiveness in the entire EU. I am proud that we are changing the policy.
Did it become as my KD colleagues and coalition partners said at the last election, namely much more electricity? Yes, it became 6,100 megawatts more. But we are now trying to get more power out of this. That is the difference compared to just talking about more electricity production. Adrian Magnusson speaks of 2.7 terawatt-hours from Kriegers flak - that is over a year.
Madam Speaker! I wonder if Adrian Magnusson has any idea how many more companies or industries I can connect with that power production. I get a capacity factor of 18 percent from offshore wind power, 74 percent for nuclear power and 85 percent for the water-based power production.
It is the difference between saying "More electricity!" and talking about more electricity where it is needed, when it is needed, and at a sensible price. That is what southern Sweden needs, not more of what has caused us to have the worst power shortage ever – the legacy of eight years of red-green energy policy.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! Vattenfall is currently developing offshore wind power projects in Sweden which together have a potential to deliver 18 terawatt-hours annually to electricity areas 3 and 4. Svenska Kriegers flak would account for 2.7 terawatt-hours of these.
The waters of the Kriegers Flak are divided between the economic zones of Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Since 2016, a wind farm with 80 turbines has stood in the German part of the Kriegers Flak. In the Danish zone, Vattenfall inaugurated a wind farm in the summer of 2021 that can produce electricity for 600,000 Danish households and which in one stroke increased the capacity in Danish wind power production by 16 percent.
Some of the advantages of offshore wind power are that it does not disturb neighbors in the same way as onshore wind power, and thanks to the winds being stronger and more constant, the capacity factor is also higher. Many countries in Europe have seen these advantages and are expanding offshore wind power.
There, the state-owned company Vattenfall is a major player. Horns Rev in Denmark, where Vattenfall's agreement with the state provides an electricity price of 77 öre per kilowatt-hour, is among the cheapest in Europe, and with the construction of Horns Rev, Vattenfall is on its way to becoming one of Europe's largest wind power producers.
It is very good that Vattenfall, which today operates 1,300 wind turbines, is increasing the production of energy in Europe so that people there can get electricity at reasonable prices. It feels strange, however, that it is not being done in Sweden and in southern Sweden so that we too can get low electricity prices.
Sydsvenska Handelskammaren states that if no new electricity is added to Skåne by 2030, either in the form of new production or better power transmission, the electricity price could rise by 40 öre per kilowatt-hour. According to the chamber of commerce, this would mean up to 200,000 fewer jobs and a price shock for Skåne's electricity consumers.
What measures does the Minister and the Government intend to take so that Vattenfall and other energy producers will dare to expand production offshore in southern Sweden, so that we can avoid this price shock?
Madam Speaker! In my local newspaper Trelleborgs Allehanda, the CEO of Trelleborgs Energi, Magnus Sahlin, is interviewed today because the government is saying no to three offshore wind farms off Trelleborg. He says: "It is very bad. Not just for Trelleborg, it is very bad for all of southern Sweden."
In the article, it is further written that "electrification risks stalling and electricity prices becoming more expensive in Trelleborg and Southern Sweden." Magnus Sahlin does not question the defense's assessment but lacks a backup plan from the government and says: "Southern Sweden is already worst in Europe regarding power balance. 'Everyone' has counted on offshore wind."
When the government presented its wind power proposal, they spoke of an investment in land-based wind, something that Magnus Sahlin judges as unrealistic. He says that there are no available areas in Skåne to build on.
What is the Minister for Energy and Industry's answer to Magnus Sahlin?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! We are two interpellants in this debate, but it was hardly understandable from the Minister's answer. I managed to provoke the Minister to such a mild extent that it was I who received a response to my contribution – so be it.
Energy policy and the energy policy debate are characterized by history. People often want to talk about what has happened, what has been said, and what has been done instead of what one wants to do moving forward and how one views their responsibility as a government representative here and now. Sometimes it seems more important to use such questions as political cudgels instead of actually solving people's problems.
Member of Parliament Fundahn mentioned that 200,000 jobs are threatened now that this wind farm will not be established. It was not me and Marianne who met at her home in Trelleborg and thought that we would come up with the figure 200,000, but it is the Sydsvenska Handelskammaren that has arrived at that. That electricity becomes 40 öre more expensive per kilowatt-hour because this offshore wind power will not be established is also not a figure that we have come up with; it has come from somewhere.
The question of the completion of Kriegers flak has not become any less urgent since the government chose to lay a dead hand over energy production in the entire southern Baltic Sea. Here we have a park that is largely ready to begin being put into operation in four years. Nevertheless, it is decided through principled, ideological stances that it shall not be built.
The Minister states in his response that "in the short term, until 2030 to 2035, it is primarily power increases within hydropower, combined heat and power, and existing nuclear power, as well as an expansion of land-based wind power and solar power, that can meet an increasing electricity demand". Vattenfall has itself stated that this park can begin production in 2028 and be completely finished in 2030.
Now I must be prepared for an engineering-political account in the next contribution; that is usually how it goes. The Minister for Energy and Industry has grasped something that we others have not; that is the current trend.
I think it becomes quite clear that the government puts politics and principles ahead of what is best for area 4 and southern Skåne. It is not the first time, and it is probably not the last time either. It seems to be more of a custom than a mistake.
There does not seem to be any interest in solving the problems that exist in Skåne. We will simply have to see what the electricity bills of the people of Skåne look like in 2028, 2029, or 2030. It does not seem as if Kriegers flak will be completed. I think it became quite clear here in the answer that the government is not interested in changing its decision regarding the connection of Vattenfall's offshore wind farm at Kriegers flak.
It is only to be regretted that one does not listen to Teknikföretagen, Sydsvenska Handelskammaren, electricity consumers, Scanian politicians, municipal representatives, regional representatives and everyone else in Skåne who say that it would be very desirable if this offshore wind farm were established.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Marianne Fundahn simply did not say things as incorrect as Adrian Magnusson did – hence, I directed my attention to scrutinizing what he said.
Now, some more of what Adrian Magnusson called the engineering-political will is coming. It is my task to understand the electricity system better than those who do not have responsibility for the electricity system. It is literally my mandate from the Swedish people and in the government.
I would like to go back to this matter of facts. I sometimes receive letters from those who sit and listen to these interpellation debates, so I will try to go slowly and pedagogically for those who wish to take notes.
We focus on southern Sweden, what is called electricity area 4 and is usually abbreviated SE4. How much electricity is installed in this area? 6,200 megawatts. How much electricity was needed during a normal winter? 4,800 megawatts. That is what was needed during a normal winter.
Depending on what characteristics this electricity has, i.e., whether it is weather-dependent power production or whether it is base load, the conditions are different when it comes to being able to deliver steadily over a year. If we have 6,200 megawatts in installed capacity and 4,800 megawatts are needed during a normal winter, one understands that there is more installed capacity than is needed when it is at its worst and the electricity demand is at its highest. But how much is available, given what characteristics the electricity in the system has? The demand is 4,800, but there is only 1,800 megawatts available.
I am zero interested in a blame game. You have not heard me today say things that came up during the election campaign: "It was you who shut down nuclear power." I can say such things some other time. I think the short version of the long word is relevant. Is it working well today? The vast majority say no. Both Marianne Fundahn and Adrian Magnusson have highlighted several of the actors who say it works too poorly today. I agree. But then it is relevant to still draw the conclusion: Okay, we tried to think correctly, but it turned out badly.
So, ten years later, I can state that the red-green energy policy has meant that during the last ten years, much more electricity has entered the system, but we can only connect approximately the same amount of companies, industries, and households to consume today as we could ten years ago. There is no other area where one would accept that. Say, for example, that the Police Authority receives 10,000 more police officers, but when we ask what the effect was—how many more crimes have been solved—the answer would be that three more crimes have been solved. That is roughly what it is with the electricity system now. One cannot do the same thing moving forward.
What do we do? Yes, we clean up the mess. There have been unpredictable decision-making processes for offshore wind power. For eight years, the red-greens let all the offshore wind power companies play sinking ships with the Armed Forces. In December, a proposal will finally arrive that will mean we designate areas. Sweden is last to leave the system that has cost millions for Sweden.
Then there is one more thing I want to emphasize, which is really important. I am coming from a meeting today with a number of wind power companies. How do we get more effect out of all the electricity produced with storage, batteries, and "regulators" with hydrogen? Wind power is important for us, but we must ensure that it is not just a little electricity only when we feel like it, but rather more power that can solve southern Sweden's power problem. And that is exactly what we are doing now.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister often points out that the country's energy system is poor and broken. That is not true. Sweden's electricity system is ranked as the world's best by the World Energy Council. The fact is that we have enough electricity today, but at the beginning of the 2000s, when we had ten reactors in operation, we imported electricity. In 2003, we imported electricity for 7,902 of the year's 8,760 hours. Since 2017, we have exported electricity on practically all days of the year. We can state that the wording in the Tidö Agreement regarding energy policy harms development in Sweden.
Does the blackening of Sweden's energy system in fact involve legitimizing subsidies for nuclear power? Is it not a risk that the development of new technology is slowed down in Sweden when the focus is on old technology such as nuclear power?
Recently, we have also seen large price differences between the different electricity areas in Sweden. It is not reasonable. There should not be a 6,500 percent difference between the electricity areas. That is how much it differed between the cheapest and the most expensive electricity area last Tuesday, when electricity cost barely 3 öre per kilowatt-hour in electricity area 2 and almost 2 kronor in electricity area 4.
The government must act now so that the companies in southern Sweden can get electricity prices so that they can compete on equal terms, grow and develop.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! In the latest contribution, we heard the Minister for Energy and Business, the Deputy Prime Minister, as Member Fundahn said, paint a bleak picture of Sweden's energy system. It was clear and obvious, in my opinion.
Then it would have been more honest to say that the question of whether or not to support land connection is unimportant, that one does not want more offshore wind power into the system. It would also have been a solution to say that it is not offshore wind power that applies, but rather the line that Marianne Fundahn suggested, namely subsidies for nuclear power, which is the way forward. Other types of power may also be relevant, but it is primarily a question of nuclear power.
In some way, we can stand here and ask ourselves whether the state should charge a fee for land connection or not. But it becomes clear that the question is irrelevant because it is not what is wanted.
If, on the other hand, one would say that one wants offshore wind power, why can one not ensure that Kriegers flak, which can largely produce energy within just a few years, produces electricity to the system?
It is a strange discussion where one tries to keep two things in mind at the same time.
If the government considers that no more offshore wind power should enter the energy system - yes, then say that! Say that it is nuclear power that counts.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I do not say that because it is not the government's policy. What I can get access to in the coming years is sun, wind and power increases of existing power production. We can perhaps look at gas turbines, but I would like them to be fossil-free – and it will not be cheap.
Mr. Speaker! I try to be careful not to attribute opinions to the Social Democrats that they do not hold. I do not want that either. It is not honest, and it does not solve a single problem for Sweden.
I would almost like to meet over a cup of coffee because I am getting so frustrated that we do not seem to understand each other. How can one submit an interpellation on energy policy and talk about how we export a huge amount of electricity all year round and be satisfied with that? Then one has not understood that it says nothing about whether there is enough electricity to satisfy the demand every day all year round.
I am not painting a black picture of Sweden's electricity system, but I am talking about reality as it is. I am talking about the power shortage that affects everyone living in southern Sweden. It is tens of thousands of jobs that Sweden is losing.
I have brought with me a picture with bars that I am now showing. It is on the government's website under a press briefing that I have held, and the picture shows all the electricity that has entered the system over the last ten years. It is a question of 13,000 megawatts, which has resulted in that we can use an additional 340 megawatts. It is the power problem, and one cannot be proud of that. That is what we shall solve.
I want offshore wind power, but I want it to provide more power – not more of the same power shortage that we have, and that it only runs on export. I serve Swedish households, not private companies' profit margins, and I do not want to dump the cost of connecting a single type of power onto households, which I also do not do for any other type of power. So we are not building Sweden's power system robustly forward.
FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN
I must remind the Minister of the prohibition on props in the chamber when it comes to books, illustrations and so on. But it is fine to share them, so each person can reflect on that when they watch the clip.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.