Permit review according to the Renewable Energy Directive
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD supports the proposal as it facilitates permit processes for renewable energy 1. S considers the government's implementation to be insufficient, lacking a timetable and risking a fragmented system 2. S wants shorter deadlines, better coordination and earlier municipal veto 2. M argues that the proposals shorten lead times and simplify processes to strengthen investments and competitiveness 3. V considers that the government has delayed the implementation so much that the commission has sued Sweden 4. V argues that the government opposes renewable electricity production to favor nuclear power 4. C welcomes the government's steps but argues that they should have come earlier 5. MP argues that the government has opposed renewable energy 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Angelica Lundberg (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report 18 Permit assessment according to the renewable energy directive. The proposition addressed in the report is based on the EU's revised renewable energy directive, which concerns increasing the use of renewable energy in the EU in order to reduce the dependence on Russian energy and fossil fuels. It is fundamentally a very good and legitimate objective.
The proposed changes mean, among other things, that the County Administrative Board shall enter at an earlier stage and that their assessment of how extensive an environmental impact assessment needs to be shall also be given greater weight in the permit process. Furthermore, a rule is proposed that makes it easier to determine whether an activity affecting a Natura 2000 area can be approved. Regardless of whether it is the wind power industry or another industry, it shall be easy to understand which rules apply, and the processing times shall be reasonable.
It is positive that the countries in the EU that have a high proportion of fossil fuels or are dependent on Putin's Russia for their electricity supply are also working to move away from it. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Madam Speaker! This directive implies a clear orientation towards facilitating permit processes, primarily for types of renewable energy. The EU chooses to focus on renewable instead of fossil-free and introduces a fast track for renewable energy, while planned fossil-free power is not covered by the same regulatory framework. This makes it even more important that we in Sweden design the balance in our system so that all types of power are treated in a legally secure and predictable manner.
In the 90s, water and nuclear power accounted for electricity production in Sweden, which provided extremely stable and low prices. Production was then, just as it is now, virtually fossil-free. We had stable, secure and cheap electricity – exactly the kind of electricity production that all countries want. Then we began to tinker with it. Whether it was due to ignorance or political ideological views, I will leave unsaid. But the fact is that we have fundamentally changed our electricity production.
When nuclear power began to be phased out due to the political decisions made in the early 2000s, Sweden transitioned more and more towards wind power. Today, wind power accounts for approximately 20 percent of Swedish electricity production. Wind power and also solar power are weather-dependent. If it is not blowing and if the sun is not shining, of course, no electricity is produced.
When one has an excessively large proportion of weather-dependent power in a system, it becomes unstable. This leads to the severe fluctuations that Swedish households are now experiencing and creates uncertainty for companies that want to develop.
The EU's renewable energy directive has an ambition to reach 45 percent renewable by 2030. Despite the fact that Sweden already reached that goal in the 1990s, stable nuclear power was replaced by weather-dependent wind power. Today, Sweden's electricity production is approximately 70 percent renewable. Since Sweden already has a very high share of fossil-free electricity production, the challenge for us is not to replace fossil energy but instead to ensure a stable and functioning electricity system over time. We do not need to transition to a fossil-free energy system. We already have one.
Madam Speaker! That Sweden has once again gone too far in its pursuit of being the best in class has not benefited us this time either. It is therefore positive that the expansion rate for new wind power has been dampened in a situation where the stability of the electricity system needs to be protected and that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have created opportunities for new nuclear power.
The first application for new nuclear power at a new site in over 50 years has been submitted. That is good. It is necessary for us to be able to regain the stable electricity system we once had. The municipal veto is also an important part of this balance.
Madam Speaker! In summary, Sweden previously had a stable and predominantly fossil-free electricity system built on hydropower and nuclear power with low and predictable prices. Through political decisions, the system has changed in the direction of more weather-dependent production and less predictable power, which has increased the uncertainty in the electricity system.
At the same time as it is positive that the EU simplifies the permit processes and that more countries are reducing their fossil dependency, we need, for our part, to ensure the balance in the electricity system, among other things by enabling new nuclear power. We need a system that combines fossil-free status with stability and security of supply. Without it, we risk jobs, investments, and Sweden's competitiveness. We must not repeat historical mistakes but must ensure a responsible electricity production for the future.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report 18 Permit assessment according to the renewable directive. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 3.
It is important that Sweden has low electricity prices so that our companies can be competitive, but also to keep costs down for households. In that case, we need all types of power and for the permit processes for energy production to be fast and purposeful.
Sweden is in the midst of a historical transition where industry is being electrified, the transport sector is transitioning, and our dependence on fossil fuels is to be broken. For this to succeed, a powerful and rapid expansion of renewable energy is required. In that context, the permit processes are absolutely crucial. We Social Democrats therefore share the ambition to simplify and shorten the permit process. But we believe that the government's implementation of the renewable energy directive is insufficient and risks creating new problems instead of solving the problems that already exist.
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it is about tempo and responsibility. Sweden should have implemented parts of the directive already in 2024. Instead, we have been sued by the EU Commission for not having done so in time. It is not just a formal issue, but it sends a signal of a lack of decisiveness and creates uncertainty for companies and investors. When the industry stands ready to transition, the policy must deliver clear messages, not delays.
At the same time, we see how the government is driving several major changes in parallel. It concerns new rules linked to the renewable energy directive, a new environmental assessment authority, and extensive changes in the environmental assessment system. But these processes are not sufficiently connected. The risk is that we get a fragmented system where different regulatory frameworks overlap, create ambiguity, and in the worst case, lengthen the processes instead of shortening them.
I reservation 1 we emphasize the need for a clearer timetable and better coordination. Sweden needs a coherent system, not a patchwork of reforms.
Madam Speaker! Another central issue concerns the deadlines. The Renewable Energy Directive provides the opportunity to introduce shorter and more efficient processing times. But the government chooses not to fully utilize that opportunity, instead referring to it as not being realistic. It is a pity.
Long permit processes are today one of the major obstacles for investments in electricity production. If we are serious about the climate transition, we must dare to be more offensive. Sweden shall not settle for minimum levels; we shall be a leading country.
Madam Speaker! In one of the reservations, we also raise the issue of permits, which we have motioned for previously in accordance with an investigation.
Today, it is often difficult and unpredictable to make changes in existing operations. This causes investments in new technology, efficiencies, and climate transition to be delayed or omitted.
Investigations have pointed out that this hinders development and reduces the willingness to invest. Therefore, change permits should be the main rule if an application does not concern the entire operation, which the Environmental Assessment Inquiry also proposes, but this, like many other permit issues, is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.
It should be simple to upgrade facilities, to replace old technology with new, and to increase capacity where possible. It is a key to accelerating the transition and for companies to dare to upgrade without the entire facility having to be tested.
Madam Speaker! Finally, we must speak about advancing a municipal veto, which is a fully investigated proposal that we have presented twice but were voted down by the government parties, who received support from SD. Today, many wind power projects are stopped late in the process. This leads to uncertainty, increased costs, and lost investments.
We Social Democrats want to see an earlier municipal position instead. It would create greater predictability, reduce the risk of late rejections, and contribute to a faster expansion of renewable energy, which the Environmental Permit Investigation also proposes. It is not about overriding the municipalities but about creating clear rules of the game from the beginning.
Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more electricity and it quickly, but we also need a system that works in practice. The government's proposal takes some steps in the right direction, but it is not enough. We Social Democrats want to see a more offensive policy with better coordination, shorter deadlines, clearer rules, and reforms that facilitate investments. This is needed for us to manage the climate transition and to strengthen Swedish industry and create new jobs and thereby secure the welfare. Sweden needs a new direction.
Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)
Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more energy, higher growth and more investments. Therefore, it is not sufficient for important projects to get stuck in long and unpredictable processes. We need regulatory frameworks that both protect the environment and make it possible to make decisions in time. That is exactly what the report is about.
We are debating today proposals that implement parts of the EU's revised renewable energy directive concerning permit procedures. It is about shortening lead times, simplifying processes and creating better predictability for those who want to invest in renewable energy.
The Moderaternas energy policy line is simple: Sweden needs more electricity, more predictable power, and more of the investments that strengthen a robust fossil-free electricity system, including nuclear power.
Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a country where it pays to work and invest. Unnecessary obstacles and double reviews shall be removed. We shall have a system where serious actors can do things correctly from the start and receive a decision within a reasonable time.
Madam Speaker! The changes now being made to the Environmental Code mean, for example, that those who intend to carry out an activity or take a measure for renewable energy should give the County Administrative Board an opportunity to assess the consultation basis before consultations with other actors are initiated.
It will also result in a new order by having the County Administrative Board specify what extent and level of detail is required to constitute a sufficient basis for the continued environmental assessment. The possibility of demanding further supplements is limited to only special situations.
Furthermore, the proposals entail increased coordination between the permit process under the Environmental Code and assessments according to sectoral legislation. In many cases, this of course concerns the Electricity Act. A new environmental assessment shall, as a general rule, not be required if an environmental assessment has already been carried out for the same activity or measure.
Madam Speaker! To simplify the installation of energy technology facilities, amendments to the Planning and Building Act are also proposed, for example, that solar energy equipment under eleven kilowatts shall be completely exempt from the requirement for a building permit for facade changes. Facilities over eleven kilowatts shall be processed within ten weeks.
Activities and measures for renewable energy shall be presumed – assumed – to constitute a substantial public interest in Natura 2000 assessments according to Chapter 7 of the Environmental Code. This proposal will likely facilitate the permit processes for companies that wish to conduct a renewable energy activity, as the processes can proceed faster and with a greater degree of predictability.
At the same time, it should be mentioned that the requirement for early strategic planning is high and that legal advice will likely continue to be required. One cannot do just anything as quickly as one likes.
Madam Speaker! Much of this is technical, but in the end, it is about completely ordinary people: about the family with children who is already pressured by high living costs, about the local company that needs secure access to electricity to be able to continue growing, and about people who do the right thing and should be able to trust that society will also be there for them.
When permit processes take a long time, it does not only affect large projects on paper, it affects jobs, investments and household economies. Therefore, faster and more predictable processes are also a reform for ordinary households and small businesses.
Madam Speaker! The opposition parties will criticize the government for the fact that this has taken time. Yes, the process has taken time, but that is because this is not an isolated legislative change but part of a larger reform of the permit and environmental assessment system. What we are doing now is to move forward with what is finished, legally secure, and thoroughly worked out, while we continue the larger reform work, including a new environmental assessment authority.
Madam Speaker! Let me also mention that Sweden is already one of Europe's strongest countries regarding renewable energy. Preliminary figures for the previous year indicate that Sweden's renewable electricity production corresponded to approximately 90 percent of electricity consumption within the country's borders last year.
At the same time, it is not enough to just look at shares. A strong electricity system must also function every hour of the year, in the entire country. A large share of weather-dependent power places higher demands on balance, power, and grid capacity. Therefore, Sweden needs not only more renewable electricity but a stronger fossil-free electricity system that is also expanded with new nuclear power.
Madam Speaker! This report does not solve everything, but it takes Sweden in the right direction. Shorter and clearer permit processes strengthen investments, competitiveness, and the possibility of expanding the energy system that Sweden needs. Therefore, it is good that we can now make decisions and continue the major reform work forward.
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Industry's report NU18, which concerns permit assessment according to the renewable energy directive, which many have touched upon.
What the matter is about is to implement the provisions on permit procedures in the EU's renewable energy directive. I just want to regret the remarkable fact that the government has put the implementation of the EU's renewable directive on such a long bench that the Commission has chosen to sue Sweden because the implementation of certain parts of the directive is delayed by several years. We thus risk having to pay a fine or penalty if we are convicted in the EU Court, just because the measures that the implementation entails make renewables even more competitive, which the government obviously knows, and complicates the government's wet dream of new nuclear power.
It is no news that this government opposes renewable electricity production – we even heard that from some members who belong to the government base. The reason is obviously that the more cheap electricity production enters the system, the worse the conditions become for new nuclear power. I also obviously understand the advantages of nuclear power.
It is crucial for us as a country with a heavy export-dependent industry that we also in the future have the EU's lowest electricity prices. This requires that all competitive fossil-free power sources are unleashed and that the permit processes associated with energy production are fast and purposeful, because protracted and unpredictable permit processes are one of the biggest obstacles to an effective expansion of a fossil-free energy system.
I can state that several extensive changes to the regulations concerning permit processes are being investigated or are under preparation, and that is good; good things are happening. But there is a significant risk that the lack of coordination and holistic perspective leads to short-term changes and unclear regulations, which in turn risk creating great uncertainty and longer permit reviews. This could thus, paradoxically, counteract the strive to shorten lead times and create more efficient review processes.
The government has on repeated occasions claimed that it prioritizes streamlining and shortening permit processes. The step between words and action has, however, often been incomprehensibly long. We note, for example, that the government still has not moved forward with the Environmental Assessment Inquiry's proposal to, as the Social Democrats were suggesting, introduce modification permits as a general rule in order to make it easier for operations to change their permits.
Of course, things are happening even under this government. Now, perhaps I am getting ahead of events a bit, but a proposition just arrived called Wind Power in Municipalities. It is obviously something that is moving in the right direction. But the municipalities, which have the power to stop establishments with their veto, receive no compensation. The requirement for municipal approval of wind power facilities, what we call the municipal veto, has in recent years stopped a significant proportion of the permit applications needed to expand wind power in Sweden.
We see this as very concerning in a time when fossil-free power production is needed in order for it to be possible to reach the climate goals and it takes so long before any new nuclear power can be put into operation. To speed up the expansion, we therefore believe that it is necessary to reform the municipal veto, preferably in combination with a model for compensation to municipalities and not just neighbors.
The proposal that exists and that I mentioned, Wind power in municipalities, does not give anything to the municipalities. My fear is that there will continue to be the same hesitation since the municipal citizens do not see the benefits when it is only the neighbors who are compensated – which is admittedly good. Many of the municipalities that are affected today and that may eventually be affected already have great difficulties getting the money to cover the basics that the municipalities are expected to provide.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of our joint reservation 5.
Rickard Nordin (C)
Madam Speaker! Today we face one of our time's greatest challenges: to transition our society from fossil fuels to sustainable energy and raw material sources. Our energy system is not at all fossil-free, as someone said from the rostrum. The electricity system is, yes, but when it comes to the energy system, there is much left to be desired. This is about Sweden's competitiveness, about the jobs, about the future of industry, about our security and about independence from rogue states like Russia. It is about being able to operate and live in the entire country.
The bill we are now considering, regarding permit assessment according to the renewable energy directive, is not about a technical detail but about a decisive part of how quickly and successfully Sweden manages to transition. We welcome that the government is now taking steps to shorten and simplify the permit processes. That is good, especially when it concerns renewable energy. We know that it takes far too long today. It is slow, unpredictable, and difficult to navigate.
But we must also be honest: These reforms should have been in place a long time ago. The government has dragged its feet when it comes to the implementation of the renewable energy directive. In the meantime, investments have been delayed. Projects have been pushed into the future. Uncertainty has increased for companies. The only thing they have truly focused on shortening are the processes for nuclear power. That is good, but when everything else is relegated to exceptions, it sends a signal to the business community and the investors that it doesn't matter. In a situation where the industry is crying out for electricity and the climate transition is urgent, Sweden cannot afford to wait.
It is also positive that the bill introduces clear time limits for permit processes and that a contact point, a one-stop shop, is being created to help actors through the process. These are not the government's own ideas, but rather requirements from the EU Commission and the EU's regulatory framework.
We have actually had to wait far too long – so long that the EU Commission has a bone to pick with Sweden when it comes to the implementation of this. Despite having talked about shortening the permit processes throughout this entire mandate period, we are in the final half-year before things actually start being implemented.
Delivery has also not been made regarding other central parts of the environmental licensing system. Important proposals from the Environmental Licensing Inquiry are still missing. There are amounts of completed proposals whose implementation the business community is crying out for, but which do not reach the Riksdag. These are reforms that would make a real difference, not just for renewable energy but for the entire societal construction – for industries, for new products, and for our competitiveness. Picking out certain parts of the inquiry and leaving the rest there is not only risking the creation of a half-functioning system; it creates an entire problem.
The Center Party has long pushed to simplify the permit processes. We know that companies today face a patchwork of rules, authorities, and examinations. It can even be the case that authorities appeal each other's decisions. Those who want to build something in Sweden, whether it is a house or a product, must navigate between municipalities, county administrative boards, courts, and state agencies without a clear path forward. The Center Party has compiled a list of the 101 worst rules, which should be scrapped immediately. Several of them are in the environmental area.
We now need to gather the simplification of rules into a coherent process. There, the government must take a holistic approach.
Firstly, it is about the implementation. Introducing new rules on paper is one thing, making them work in practice is another. Here, authorities must receive the right resources, the right competence, and clear mandates. Otherwise, this reform risks remaining merely as ambitions.
Secondly, it is about the pace. We are in a situation where other countries are running faster. The investments in green industry are mobile, not Sweden-sentimental. They go where the conditions are best. If Sweden is perceived as slow, uninterested, and unpredictable, the investors choose other countries. We see that now in area after area. Therefore, it is deeply problematic that the government has not moved forward with the proposals that are already fully investigated.
A central part of this bill is that activities for renewable energy shall be seen as a substantial public interest. This is an important marking which means that climate and energy benefits shall weigh heavily in various trade-offs. This is good and important when county administrative boards and others are to make their assessments. It is also reasonable, because we find ourselves in a situation where electrification and fossil-free energy are absolutely crucial for societal development and define what kind of society we are to have. Shall we be an import-dependent economy that is dependent on fossil fuels, or shall we be an electrostate where we produce our energy ourselves and can export the products to the rest of the world?
We safeguard the climate, but we also safeguard the local anchoring. Some talk about acceptance, but for me, it is not about that one should accept a development. One should want to be a part of the development. When people feel that decisions are made over their heads, it is a problem. Therefore, we must ensure that the local community gets influence and that a municipal veto for wind power is maintained. People need to feel that they get a part of something when decisions are made.
The government's decision to distribute wind power money is good. But they need to be enacted by law, so that one can rely on them coming year after year and not just in a single budget that can be changed overnight. The proposals that will soon come to the Riksdag, three years after the wind power investigation was completed, need to be implemented, so that one has the right to the buyout of a property if one feels that one does not want to stay when the wind turbines tower up. This sluggishness from the government harms our country. Sweden can do more.
The green transition is not only happening in the large cities. It is happening to a great extent in the rural areas, where the wind, the forest, the water, and the land for new investments are located. It is also there that many of the jobs are created. But then the regulations must work there as well. Small and medium-sized companies must be able to participate. Municipalities must have the capacity to handle the processes. The State must be present – not only with requirements but also with support.
Once again, a new agency being created gets its headquarters in Stockholm, even though we know that it is all around the country that the large investments are occurring. If the headquarters is to be located in Stockholm, there must be local anchoring. Otherwise, this will not work. The centralization that is occurring is completely insane.
In conclusion, I want to say that we support this bill. It is heading in the right direction, addresses a real problem, and is necessary. But it is not sufficient. The government must increase the pace. We will increase the pace after the election, when we are part of governing Sweden. We will deliver the remaining parts of the environmental assessment investigation. We will take a comprehensive grip on the permit processes.
I therefore move for approval of reservation 1, as Sweden cannot afford more lost years. The green transition must go faster. Sweden can do more.
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Madam Speaker! Over the last nearly four years, the Government has tried to make it its image that it is a government that gets things done instead of just talking. Propositions have been pumped out to the right and left during the mandate period, without much regard for what expert agencies, researchers, or interest organizations thought about the matter. But within energy policy, it has on the contrary been very much talk and very little workshop. Of what has nevertheless been done, much has been directly harmful.
At the beginning of the mandate period, the Tidö parties made a big deal out of changing the energy goal to that it should be fossil-free. All fossil-free types of energy shall be welcome, it sounded like. But the reality is different. The type of energy whose use has increased the most in Sweden is fossil energy, with 14 terawatt-hours in increased annual use just between 2022 and 2024. That is an increase of about 10 percent.
When the four Tidö parties took power in 2022, the red-green government had increased the expansion rate for new electricity production to over 3 gigawatts per year. Now we see that the expansion rate for new power is plummeting. In fact, the expansion rate for renewable energy has plummeted by 75 percent during the mandate period, something we just heard that the Sverigedemokraterna are proud of. The Tidö government has constantly opposed renewable energy. This question is no exception, which is also noted in the report.
The EU's renewable energy directive entered into force in November 2023, and the majority of the provisions were to be transposed into national legislation by May 21, 2025, at the latest. Some of the provisions on permit procedures for renewable energy projects were, however, to be transposed as early as July 1, 2024. These provisions include measures to simplify and accelerate the permit procedures, both for renewable energy projects and for infrastructure projects that are necessary to be able to integrate the additional capacity into the energy system. The provisions include, among other things, clear time limits for permit procedures. In short, it would become faster and simpler to apply for permits to build renewable energy production in Sweden.
Sweden was therefore supposed to have incorporated an initial number of provisions from the directive into the national legislation by July 1, 2024, in order to simplify and shorten the permit procedures. Since Sweden had not notified any transposition measures, the Commission sent a formal notice to Sweden in September 2024 and a reasoned opinion in February 2025. In October 2025, the Commission decided to bring an action against Sweden before the Court of Justice of the EU for the failure to notify transposition measures. The Commission also requested that economic sanctions be directed against Sweden for this.
The Tidö government has thus opposed renewable energy to such a mild degree that it has been sued by the EU Commission. Now, some of the measures are finally to be implemented, and it is welcome but far too late. Sweden is therefore less well-prepared than when the Tidö government took office for the crisis that we now see due to the Iran war. Sweden is now more dependent on fossil fuels produced in Putin's Russia, the mull-rich Iran, or the dictatorship family's Saudi Arabia than before Ebba Busch became energy minister and Ulf Kristersson became prime minister. Sweden is therefore weaker and more vulnerable, and those who have to take the hit from the government's incompetence are the households.
Madam Speaker! Since Miljöpartiet was formed, we have fought for a fossil-free world and to promote renewable energy. It is actually astonishing that we still have to fight against political headwinds. But there are concrete reforms that can be implemented easily to favor the renewable. For 16 years, Miljöpartiet has advocated that the property tax from wind power should go to the municipality where the wind power is located and that neighbors should get to share in the profits from the wind power. We welcome that a majority in Sweden's Riksdag has finally stood behind Miljöpartiet's policy. But it remains to reintroduce the property tax for hydropower and to make the municipal veto legally secure. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 5.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.