Wind power in municipalities

Josef Fransson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Industry's report 20 Vindkraft i kommuner.

In one of my first parliamentary motions, from 2011, I raised how wind power affects people's living environment. I will take the opportunity to read out a bit of what I wrote then: "The construction of large industrial facilities such as wind turbines brings with it significant local consequences, such as damaged natural and cultural values and aesthetic as well as landscape values. ... Many of those who have the misfortune of having residential properties in the wrong place when the wind turbines are built can also be affected by noise and sun reflections. These consequences of the wind power establishment mean all too often that property owners around wind turbines see the value of their properties fall. On the basis of this insight ... the undersigned proposes legislation stipulating that those who establish wind turbines compensate neighbors for the potentially lowered property value."

This was, therefore, a quote from a parliamentary motion I wrote 15 years ago. I mean that it is interesting to bring it up. The knowledge of this has existed all the time, but there are far too many who have chosen to look the other way when ordinary families have had their lives shattered. Many times, these families have even higher mortgages than the property is worth after a wind power establishment.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are to decide on a law regarding revenue sharing for wind power installations. It means that neighbors to wind power installations shall be granted a right to compensation corresponding to a share of the wind power company's annual revenues. I naturally move for the proposal to be approved, but I must simultaneously state that the compensation to be awarded to those affected does not fully compensate for the actual lost property values.

The calculation model stipulated in the bill means that a family receives a share of at most 2.5 per mille of the revenues, but the compensation decreases the further away from the wind farm one lives. According to example calculations, the highest compensation amount can amount to approximately 38,000 kronor in electricity area 4 and 19,000 kronor in electricity area 1. These maximum amounts are based on having at least two wind turbines within five times the height of the wind farm; otherwise, the level of the amount diminishes. But, Mr. Speaker, even with maximum compensation, this is a rather meager consolation.

A study from KTH shows that a detached house property can lose 25 percent in value at a distance within two kilometers. In one notable case, the bank even halved the property value for a family. Everyone who knows what houses cost understands that it quickly becomes millions of kronor. So how long does it take to pay 1 million kronor if you receive 19,000 kronor per year in compensation? Yes: 53 years. Add the interest on 1 million and you have, conservatively calculated, additional costs of 30,000 kronor per year. It is still not a good deal.

I believe that when we see how this turns out, we must return to the compensation levels and adjust them to fully compensate for people's actual losses.

Mr. Speaker! It is welcome that the government is now also appointing an inquiry into redemption where the person who owns a property with a residence adjacent to a wind power facility shall have the right to have the property redeemed by the person who is the operator of the wind power facility. The right to redemption will act retroactively from the day the inquiry is appointed, which in this case is a few days away, unless it has already occurred during the day. I have not seen anything, at least.

The investigation is directed towards ensuring that residential properties shall be entitled to compensation at a price that corresponds to what the property would have been worth if the wind farm had not been constructed. It is a reform that definitely goes in the right direction, but it is still deeply sorrowful for those who are forced to uproot their living roots from the soil where their ancestors for generations have lived, struggled, and cultivated the land beneath their feet.

Mr. Speaker! The very best thing, of course, would be if we in Sweden did not produce any wind power at all. I actually cannot see a single acceptable reason for additional wind power, especially since we cannot use the electricity in Sweden. In principle, all added wind power goes to export. Due to wind power's irregular deliveries, in combination with the lack of controllable power, it becomes practically unusable and instead goes to the continent, where the irregular deliveries can be regulated with fossil power.

If we install an additional five terawatt-hours of annual wind power production, the export will also increase by approximately five terawatt-hours. The relationship is almost linear.

Instead of adding value for Sweden, wind power generates large costs. I have already mentioned how wind power has destroyed the values of residential properties. Just the fact that a wind power company applies to establish wind power causes the value to drop. But the costs are much larger than that. Since the expansion of wind power took off, Svenska kraftnät's investment frameworks have successively increased from under 1 billion per year to this year's 14.6 billion and are set to rise to a staggering 25 billion per year from 2029 onwards. And with expensive investments, we make expensive maintenance costs permanent. Exactly how much of this has been driven by wind power is not entirely clear, but it is, without further ado, about tens of billions just on the transmission grid. These are costs that are then added to our electricity grid bills. Poor energy policy in Sweden combined with poor energy policy in neighboring countries that affect us has driven the grid expansion. And we all have to pay for it.

The costs for grid capacity have skyrocketed since the red-greens decommissioned nuclear power. One must pay companies to shut down production at certain times or producers to refrain from producing electricity. Since 2020, it has cost the Swedish society, that is to say Swedish grid customers, an aggregate of 26 billion kronor.

The fact that we, due to the shortcomings of wind power, have a shortage of power to allocate to companies has resulted in missed investments on the order of hundreds of billions of kronor. Now, the Tidö parties have taken large steps towards new nuclear power in Sweden during this mandate period, but all this work is now at risk of being ruined by a red-green landslide victory. That, for example, Miljöpartiet would accept a government that builds new nuclear power, I consider unthinkable, and that S would relinquish power to get new nuclear power in place appears completely ruled out.

Since the four parties on the left seriously believe that we can solve Sweden's problems with the energy systems with more of the same that destroyed the energy system from the beginning is astonishing but unfortunately true. Our entire economy, our entire civilization, is sustained by the availability of energy. If one understands the importance and value of a robust energy system that can deliver stable electricity at a low system price, then it is Tidösidan that applies in the election.

Mr. Speaker! We are now moving towards a somewhat more just Sweden, where people affected by wind power will receive at least some compensation with the suffering money we are now going to provide. But what happens to all those who have already had their lives shattered, perhaps with bank loans larger than the house is worth? Yes, they will have to bite their tongues. The decisions we make in and with this report only apply to new establishments, with a certain retroactivity, admittedly, which extends from November 6, 2025. But before that then?

The number of people who would like to pursue legal proceedings against the wind power companies is large today, but the economic risks of losing in court are far too great. Therefore, I mean that we should look into introducing a counterpart to the Equality Ombudsman for persons who have been affected by lost property values as a result of wind power. There is already legislation in place in the Environmental Code regarding the fact that one can receive compensation for property damage if the activity causes a disturbance in the surroundings, for example noise, vibrations, aesthetic impact, pollution, or other similar effects.

What is said about an OV, the Ombudsman for wind power damages, with the mandate to help affected private individuals obtain compensation according to the provisions of the Environmental Code?

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

Kristoffer Lindberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to move for the approval of reservation 1.

A successful electrification is crucial to increase growth, to create prosperity and at the same time reach the national climate goals.

Sweden needs more electricity production, and we Social Democrats are open to all fossil-free types of power. This debate concerns wind power, and we agree with the government that in the short term it can account for the majority of the expansion of fossil-free electricity production. At the same time, we know that permits for a wind power installation are only granted if the municipality has approved it, and that both the number and the proportion of projects that municipalities have approved have decreased significantly, not least during this parliamentary term.

Cheap electricity will be a central competitive advantage for Swedish companies moving forward. For the economy to work for ordinary people, good access to electricity at a low cost is also required. This presupposes more electricity from all fossil-free power sources, and Sweden needs to increase the expansion rate for electricity production already in the near term.

Part of reversing this development concerns the revenue sharing from wind power to neighbors. We agree with the government that the proposal being debated today is fundamentally good, but we have some reservations where we believe the government's proposal is not sufficient. Allow me to elaborate on these.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal is about a small part of the revenue from a wind power operation being returned to the neighbors at the site where the electricity production takes place. That is good. But we also know at the same time that a large number of municipalities are blocking the construction of wind turbines. Revenue sharing with neighbors is, as the government also notes, not sufficient.

A prerequisite for the proposal on revenue sharing to neighbors, as well as other proposals aimed at increasing incentives for municipalities, to have any effect is that the municipality is also given financial compensation. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna have temporarily paid out compensation to municipalities that have wind power for the years 2025 and 2026. We believe, however, that if municipalities are to be persuaded to say yes to more wind power, the compensation needs to be provided long-term.

In my bill, the government expresses that in the coming years, financial compensation should be given to municipalities, if there is money. We believe that it is not a long-term decision that gives the municipalities the answers they need to say yes to wind power.

In order to create the incentive we all seem to agree is needed, we Social Democrats believe that the government should return with proposals for a long-term solution. The compensation should resemble that which the municipalities have received for 2025 and 2026, which has corresponded to the property tax.

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of how the municipalities will otherwise be compensated for this in the future, we Social Democrats want to see that those who now change a previous veto against wind farms that have progressed far in the process and could quickly be realized receive an extra bonus if a new, positive decision is given. The support could, for example, be designed so that the first 400 wind turbines share the money allocated to the purpose. This would provide a support of approximately 250,000 SEK per turbine to the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker! If the purpose of the bill is to increase the acceptance of wind power among the neighbors, the handling of this must be as simple as possible for those very neighbors. In the government's proposal, the right to revenue sharing from wind power is granted to those who live within nine times the height of the wind turbine. The responsibility to inform the neighbors about their right to revenue sharing is placed on the operator. Simply put, the one who operates a wind farm shall also inform the neighbors about their right to compensation.

The obligation to provide information shall, according to the government, be fulfilled through an advertisement in the local newspaper or in another appropriate manner. Thereafter, the neighbors are required to notify the wind power owner every year that they wish to claim their compensation. Anyone who has not reported this by the last day of February loses the right to compensation for the previous year. This applies even if the owner of the wind farm has not informed about the right to compensation. It states explicitly in the bill that no sanction is linked to if they fail to inform the neighbors.

In the next stage, the government argues that the operator, before payment, shall ensure that those who have applied to receive the compensation are actually entitled to it, "which can also be ensured through a check in the property register," as it states in the bill.

We mean that it is an all too complicated system which means that neighbors risk missing information about their right to share in the revenues. It also involves unnecessary administration when neighbors first have to apply and the operator then has to check the applications against the property register. We mean that when it comes to continued wind power compensation, the regulatory framework needs to be designed with automatic payment, and the starting point should be precisely the property register. If acceptance is to increase, it needs to be simple for those who are to accept, namely the neighbors.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to what the government has now proposed, more must be done to get the wind power construction started. Municipal decisions on wind power need to be finalized early in the process, so that the companies know whether it is worth proceeding with the application or not. It is problematic when development funds are invested by the companies – in some cases, the turbines are even purchased – and a veto against the construction follows thereafter. We need a system that resolves that problem. The municipal veto is, of course, retained, so that the municipality can continue to say yes or no to wind power, but the process becomes more efficient and predictable.

Companies need to be able to feel secure that a permit applies throughout the entire process. It could have a positive impact on the willingness to invest in new wind power. It is not at all unimportant when we discuss this proposition, which concerns increasing the incentives to grant wind power in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Right now we see how vulnerable the energy market is to unrest in the world. The situation around the Strait of Hormuz has in a short time contributed to price increases on oil and gas, which not only makes it more expensive to fuel the car but also has knock-on effects on the electricity market when Europe's gas turbines set the marginal price. If nothing of major significance happens, we are looking at a summer with winter prices.

When the situation is such, one must act. From the Philippines to Lithuania, countries and governments are now doing what they can to avoid the inflation shock that the oil crisis is preparing. Energy and economy are very closely linked with each other. Even the Swedish government is doing what is possible so that Sweden does not lose control in the way that occurred around 2022. The high prices must be fought, and the Swedish economy must be saved.

This is about the short-term view, Mr. Speaker. Now about the slightly longer view – and if one wants to be witty: the outlook.

Mr. Speaker! More electricity is needed in this country – for the sake of industry, jobs, and the climate transition, and so that companies will dare to invest and be able to grow throughout the country. That is why the government's energy policy line is as it is. We want more of everything. We are improving the conditions for power and district heating. We are developing a financing model for new nuclear power. We are removing legal hurdles for hydropower. And with today's consideration, we are tackling one of wind power's major sticking points: local acceptance.

Mr. Speaker! Energy policy is not just pie charts and visions. It is also about people, who can suddenly become neighbors with a wind farm and get the noise, the shadows, the flashing lights, and a changed landscape right in the middle of their everyday lives. In that case, it is not quite sufficient for politics to say: "You must just accept this." Especially not when much of the wind power is for export. If disadvantages arise locally, compensation should also be paid out locally. That is what we aim for with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Wind power has a role in the Swedish electricity supply. It is fossil-free, it can be built relatively quickly, and it produces a lot of electricity when the wind blows. But there are also downsides; wind power does not produce when Sweden decides it should, but when the weather allows it. It creates imbalances, increases the need for support services, and requires more regulation and more expensive power grids.

Wind power can therefore be profitable in itself but creates costs in other parts of the system, which others have to pay. For those of us in this chamber who have to take responsibility for the whole, it is an important insight and something to address politically. It should be said that when there is no wind, it is of no comfort that last week saw record production. That is often what is lost in the debate. Sweden does not just need more electricity on an annual basis, Sweden needs electricity when it is needed and where it is needed.

Mr. Speaker! This committee report concerns compensation to neighbors. The Government's proposal means that neighbors to new wind power facilities shall be entitled to compensation from the operator. The compensation shall correspond to a share of the annual revenues from the wind power facility and shall be higher the closer the residence is located. It shall also be tax-free to the extent that it concerns a private residence. It is reasonable.

One must also speak plainly in this context: This is what one could call a suffering payment. It is easy to be positive about wind power from a distance. It is more difficult when it is built where one lives, resides, and has one's view.

There are things such as safety distances, but it is not an exact science. One might say that it works somewhat well in different places.

Mr. Speaker! With this proposal, we are building a system that shall distribute benefits in the local area. It is not an attempt at bribery or a bandage on the wounds for those who feel wronged, but we believe it is a matter of justice. It is therefore important to note today that it is a system that is being put in place, and if the parameters or levels need to be adjusted in the future, we are of course open to that.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is on the right track in energy policy, but we are not finished in any way. What has been torn down takes time to build up. The planned power that disappeared will not return by itself. Bottlenecks in the power grids are not removed by good intentions alone, and an electricity system does not become robust just because the annual production is high.

Mr. Speaker! Today's report is not the entire solution, but it is an important position. It says that people who have to bear the local disadvantages of wind power should not be left without compensation. It says that those who have to live with the inconveniences should also receive a share of the value. It is fair, and it is a step towards a policy that holds together in the electricity system and in people's everyday lives.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions. Here and now, we do what Sweden needs in the short term to manage the crisis. We do what is required in the long term so that the Swedish economy will be robust, growing, and inclusive. What is needed is not a restart or a new direction. What is needed is that we hold the course and increase the pace.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The hour is late, so I had not intended to request the floor. But as the inaccuracies accumulated, I could not help myself. Josef Fransson was, in and of itself, easy to ignore, since not a word spoken from the rostrum was correct. But Jesper Skalberg Karlsson says, in any case, that he wants to promote wind power. That is at least one step forward, so to speak.

The statistics for this parliamentary term are quite devastating. The expansion rate has decreased by approximately 75 percent or more. Last year, the municipalities said no to 98 percent of all wind turbines. That means the expansion rate of renewable electricity, or fossil-free electricity for that part, has decreased radically during this parliamentary term. That is what has happened, despite all the beautiful words from Jesper Skalberg Karlsson.

There may still be quite a bit hidden behind the member's words, including his claim that imbalance costs are increasing due to wind power. That is directly incorrect. Svenska kraftnät has denied it and wrote clearly in a debate article some years ago that it is nuclear power and the offshore cables that cause the large imbalance costs. When large sources of power fall out at once, a lot of green base load is needed to support the system.

It is a bit strange how one can know that it is specifically the electricity from wind power that is being exported. I don't quite think that one has an understanding of how the electricity system works. All electricity is fed into the system. Furthermore, permits have been granted for connection for an extremely large amount of consumption in recent years. So that statement is not correct.

I must return to the question.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Lakso for his assertions. We did not quite get to the question.

It has been known for some time that we have different views on how the electricity system works. My view is that supply and demand is valid in the economy, and the same thing is valid in the electricity system. If you remove stable electricity production, you also remove stable electricity prices. If you have volatile production, you get volatile electricity prices.

It is not actually strange. What is strange is that one talks about green base power. The question is which green base power one means.

If I think of green, I might think of methane gas. It can perhaps be called base power, but it probably cannot be called green in the sense of climate-smart. If one thinks instead of wind power as green base power, I do not think it can be called base power because the production is available between 20 and 40 percent of the time. It probably cannot be called base power.

If one is to call something green base power, one might think of uranium and nuclear power. That is base power, but that cannot be what the member Lakso is referring to here.

I can only state that if you remove stable electricity production, you also remove stable electricity prices.

We have a lot of wind power in the Swedish energy mix, at least if we look at what is installed. There are approximately 17,000 megawatts installed. Those are large figures, but does it deliver what Sweden needs in January and February? I am doubtful.

We have had low prices during the previous years. They were the lowest in the union, which is very good. But my impression is that people living in southern Sweden are not entirely satisfied with that, when the electricity bills from January and February arrive and overturn the entire household economy. We need something else. We need a winter-proof energy policy, and then nuclear power was needed, even if it is not the theme of today's debate.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The underlying question is well how much the Moderates actually want wind power. Reality speaks its clear language, namely that one has basically stopped the expansion rate. The words that are said here in the chamber do not therefore match reality. I would like to know how things stand with this. But the answer crystallized actually quite well in this exchange of remarks.

One can simply say that green base power is exactly what Jesper Skalberg Karlsson, Moderaterna, and the government are financing through Kraftlyftet. It is a proposal that originally came from Miljöpartiet to get more green base power. It concerns controllable power of various types: combined heat and power, hydropower, gas turbines, batteries, and so on. Unfortunately, one has been so slow that not a single kilowatt has yet come from the initiative.

Regarding stability, nuclear power also leaves something to be desired. I looked at SVK's control room just before the debate. Half of the production now comes from wind power, which has pushed the price down to 12 öre per kilowatt-hour, but we have had very expensive electricity during the spring. This can also be read in Svenska kraftnät's control room.

This is due in no small part to the fact that Ringhals 4 is running at half power due to a leak in the generator. Oskarshamn 3, Forsmark 2 and Ringhals 3 are currently shut down. Furthermore, rising gas and oil prices are driving up electricity prices on the continent.

What is needed is more wind power but also more dispatchable power. That is what the Moderate-led government has totally failed to achieve during this mandate period.

I wonder how it is possible that reality and the words coming from the member's mouth agree so poorly.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is undoubtedly the case that nuclear reactors and wind turbines function in different ways and have different logics. If one has five nuclear power plants that do not quite suffice, one can build a sixth reactor. Thereby, one has increased the production by approximately 20 percent.

Wind power does not have the same logic. If you have five turbines and it is not blowing, it doesn't matter if you build a sixth turbine; it still isn't blowing. They are two different components in the energy system.

The Moderates' energy policy line is not like the Green Party's. We do not think that wind farms should be built everywhere, just anywhere, and at any cost. We have seen in proposals from the Green Party that they should be built in the inlet to Berga, at Musköbasen, and in a number of places that are unsuitable.

Our position regarding wind power is that it should be built where the power grid can handle it, where the demand exists, and where there is local acceptance. Today we can solve one of the problems, the local acceptance, but where the power grid is ready is governed by the laws of physics, not by us politicians. We must focus on what we can do, so that others can do what they can do.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today I am going to step in and debate a subject that I do not usually talk about – I usually try to stick to education policy. But now I am going to get to talk a bit about wind power.

Vänsterpartiet stands behind the new law which means that neighbors to wind power facilities shall be given the right to compensation corresponding to a share of the annual revenues from the wind power facility. It feels good, especially since Västernorrlands län, which I come from, produces the most wind power in Sweden.

So far that is good, but when we look at what has happened with the expansion of wind power during this government's time, we see that there is definitely no tailwind when it comes to wind power establishments. In the last year, 2025, the municipalities stopped 93 percent of the planned projects through the municipal veto that exists. In 2024, 63 percent of the projects were stopped. Vänsterpartiet believes that the government has not directly worked itself to death when it comes to finding ways to create incentives for municipalities to say yes to wind power projects, but now it is at least moving in the right direction.

The Government proposes in the bill that the wind power compensation shall be handled by the operator. This means that the wind power companies shall calculate and pay out compensation to the neighbors.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the proposal submitted in the report *Värdet av vinden* is preferable, which would mean that an authority is responsible for the system of revenue sharing and decides who is entitled to compensation, and that the wind power company is subsequently responsible for the payment. Such a system with a responsible authority is also advocated by several referral bodies.

Since neighbors are the group most affected by the expansion of wind power, the so-called wind power compensation can be a good way to increase local acceptance for wind power installations. I believe, however, that the government's proposal should be clarified in certain areas.

The Government proposes, among other things, that it should be the property owner who is entitled to the wind power compensation. Since the compensation model does not take into account the number of apartments in a property, this means, as Sveriges Allmännytta has also pointed out, that residents in multi-family buildings will receive a lower compensation. The Government assesses that this is a limited problem but says at the same time that it cannot be completely ruled out that multi-family buildings may be located at a distance that entitles the owner to compensation.

According to the government, at these occasions it shall be up to the wind power companies to decide whether they want to provide additional compensation beyond that which is statutory. In my opinion, this is an all too arbitrary reasoning, and the government should therefore return with a new proposal where it is clarified that the number of apartments in a property shall be taken into account and where it is regulated how the residents should be compensated.

The government also emphasizes in the bill that long-term financial support based on the property tax for wind turbines shall be paid out to the municipalities. That is good, but the government has not presented any such concrete proposals.

Vänsterpartiet believes that the property tax for wind turbines should be returned directly to the municipalities instead of being allocated via the state budget. Such a system would create significantly greater long-term perspective and contribute to the municipalities knowing what conditions apply instead of being dependent on temporary budget initiatives.

Mr. Speaker! There would be so much to do if one truly wanted the local residents to feel that they are getting something in return when they relinquish their local environment for something that the whole country actually needs.

Onshore wind power is the fastest way to get new electricity production in place. Gaining acceptance for this among the municipal residents is, however, a challenge. Simply compensating neighbors can even have the opposite effect when it comes to the municipal support. Therefore, municipalities should receive compensation when wind turbines are placed in the municipality. This would increase the municipal treasury and make it possible for the municipality to make things better for everyone who lives there.

Vänsterpartiet wants to investigate and introduce a model that means that more of the value of the electricity created through wind power can be returned to the local community and shared with the residents. Such a system would function both as a compensation for municipalities that have already said yes to wind power and as an incentive for more municipalities to say yes to new wind power. I therefore propose that communities with wind power should also receive a production-based compensation that could be financed via the energy tax.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 8.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Election day is approaching rapidly, and soon we in the government will have served for four years. This government has managed to achieve a great deal in many different areas in a relatively short time. I feel pride in everything we have accomplished during these years, which have been characterized by the fact that we have had to handle all the world's crises, not least within energy policy.

Today, the debate is about wind power. Today, we grant neighbors to wind power facilities the right to compensation. It is a long-awaited legislative change for many, and I move, with the same certainty as a nuclear power plant, for approval of the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! For much of the time that I have been responsible for energy policy issues for the Christian Democrats in the Riksdag, it has been somewhat difficult to have a substantive discussion about wind power. For a long time, the debate was characterized by a power struggle that was of little use. From the opposition's side, our conviction regarding the importance of nuclear power was presented as an attack on wind power – as if we harbored some kind of animosity toward wind power, both as a technology and as an idea.

But Sweden's energy mix consists of several types of power that together contribute to the power system's many strengths. We have been spoiled in Sweden with our fantastic access to dispatchable and controllable energy, which has created stable conditions to also be able to add intermittent power production.

Hydropower has built prosperity. The rapid and successful expansion of twelve nuclear reactors has built Swedish prosperity. The expansion of wind power has also contributed to Swedish prosperity.

But the decommissioning of six nuclear reactors jeopardized that prosperity. An electricity system with an all-too-large share of weather-dependent production and an all-too-small share of secure production that can compensate when it is not blowing will be harmful for industry, for the climate transition, and for our total defense. A weather-dependent electricity system is problematic in peacetime and completely unacceptable in times of crisis and war.

We have tried to explain this many times. The question is not nuclear power or wind power. The question is how much nuclear power is needed so that we can have a system-beneficial wind power.

Mr. Speaker! It is important that we stick to the facts in the energy debate. Sweden today, together with Denmark, has the highest wind power production per capita in the world. Wind power is no longer a marginal element in our electricity system but accounts for a significant part of Swedish electricity production.

But when we discuss wind power, we must distinguish between installed capacity and available capacity. The fact that a wind turbine has a certain installed capacity does not mean that sufficient power is available during peak load hours.

Between 2013 and 2024, nearly 13,000 megawatts of installed production capacity have been added in Sweden, mainly in the form of wind and solar power. During the same period, some megawatts have also been removed. What, then, have these 13,000 megawatts been able to provide in terms of effect regarding consumption? Well, it amounts to 340 megawatts.

When the electricity system is under the greatest pressure during cold winter days, it is not the installed capacity that is decisive, but how much electricity can actually be delivered at that moment. Wind power contributes large amounts of fossil-free electricity throughout the year, but its production varies with the weather. It can therefore not alone sustain the electricity system when demand is at its highest. Therefore, Sweden needs more predictable power, not to replace wind power but to complement it. That is how we build a robust, secure, and fossil-free system.

Mr. Speaker! One can make the debate even more irrelevant: I myself have been accused of populism when I have raised the real problems that can arise in connection with wind power establishments or when I have shown understanding for municipalities and people who are actually skeptical – not because I want to phase out wind power, but because I want the problems to be handled.

Living near a wind turbine is not entirely without problems. It can affect people's physical, mental, and economic situation. Property values decrease. People can experience sleep difficulties and concentration problems as a result of noise and shadows from the rotor blades. The surrounding nature and wildlife are affected, as is the environment in cases of, for example, accidents or emissions of oil and other fuels.

That is why we Christian Democrats want to see compensation for neighbors. It is the least the state can and should do.

But, Mr. Speaker, we want to go further than that. We Christian Democrats also want to see a waste fund for wind power, similar to the one that also exists for nuclear power. There must be a clear responsibility for every wind power facility that reaches the end of its lifespan. There must be a plan for how the land is to be restored when facilities are taken out of operation and how the large amounts of material used are to be handled.

We also see new and interesting research regarding infrasound from wind turbines and how it may potentially affect people to a greater extent than today's guidelines for noise take into account. That research should be followed closely but also evaluated seriously.

Mr. Speaker! Today's bill is both reasonable, fair, and welcome. For wind power to function in the long term, its consequences also need to be managed. When the choice stands between large corporations and the state on one side and the individual human being on the other, I stand as a Christian Democrat on the side of the small person.

For far too long, people living near wind power facilities have had to bear the costs while others have shared in the benefits. Today, we listen to their stories. Today, we take a step towards ensuring that expanded electricity production does not need to mean that people are caught in the crossfire.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in the midst of a historical electrification. Industry is transitioning, the transport sector is transitioning, and our entire society needs more fossil-free electricity. If we are to manage the transition, strengthen our competitiveness, and create jobs across the country, we must expand electricity production. Wind power will play an important role in that development.

In the discussion about new nuclear power, is land-based wind the type of power that needs to be expanded the most in all realistic scenarios regarding the increased electricity consumption? I would like to send a small pass and a clarification to the Sweden Democrats that we have fantastic resource reserves in Sweden. They are called hydropower. They are called combined heat and power. There is a potential there that is many times larger than the resources that the government now wants to create with its new nuclear power. I also want to inform Josef Fransson that there is a difference between correlation and causality when it comes to wind power and exports.

But for the expansion to succeed, local anchoring is also required. People who live near wind power facilities and municipalities that take responsibility for Sweden's energy supply must receive a share of the values created. Therefore, I and the Center Party welcome the ambition that the government now has when it wants to introduce compensation for neighbors. It is reasonable that people who are affected by an establishment also receive a share of the economic benefit.

At the same time, we have the feeling that the government is doing this because they feel compelled to. It has taken more than three years from the time the investigation was presented until we are now going to make a decision. During that time, municipalities, mostly led by Tidö parties, have rejected applications for wind power – applications that could have provided more electricity, more power and lower electricity prices, especially during winter time because that is when it blows the most, which Camilla Brodin forgot to mention.

The government's model is also unnecessarily complicated. We in the Center Party want to see simpler, more transparent and more long-term systems for local benefit. If people are to feel confidence in the regulatory framework, it must also be easy to understand and easy to administer. Otherwise, we risk creating bureaucracy where we should be creating drivers.

The government's proposal means that owners of residential buildings who wish to receive the compensation must annually report their claim for compensation in writing to the operator. Talk about creating unnecessary bureaucracy, slow permit processes, and increased regulations! It is completely unreasonably complicated.

Instead, the compensation could have been paid out automatically by checking the property register to see who actually owns the property. It would have been much simpler, much smoother and much faster for everyone involved.

The investigation also proposed that the rules should apply from the submission of the investigation. When the Sweden Democrats stand and say that they would have liked to see a retroactivity and that it was better if more people had been able to take part in this, they have actually negotiated away that possibility themselves in the proposal that is now being presented. It was submitted more than three years ago, and the people affected could have been able to take part in these things if only the Sweden Democrats had wanted to. But obviously, they do not want to.

We also heard that there should be waste funds for wind power. Wind power already sets aside money – in advance, unlike nuclear power. It is written into the environmental permits.

And the research on infrasound, which was spoken about here, is very clear. There is no research that says it is a huge problem. If one wants to take it seriously, one should dismiss it.

A lot of shit is being talked in this speaker's chair. Furthermore, things that Wind Europe has shown are being spread in social media as disinformation. Infrasound is a typical example of this. Microplastics are another. And it is also being spread by members of this assembly. It is not taking responsibility.

Those who, on the other hand, take responsibility are many municipalities. They take responsibility for Sweden's energy supply. They grant land, manage planning issues, and live with the consequences that large energy facilities entail. Still, the largest part of the values goes back to the state, to Stockholm, or somewhere else. This needs to change.

We want the municipalities that contribute to the national electricity supply to also receive a stable, long-term economic benefit in return. A natural way to achieve this is to let the property tax, not just from wind power but from all energy facilities, remain locally to a greater extent. This should not only happen through individual budget decisions, as this government wants, but through legislation. It creates stronger incentives for new electricity production. It contributes to more municipalities seeing the value of the energy transition.

Wind power is a first step, but it must apply to all types of power. I move for approval of reservation 6 in the committee report precisely because of the property tax.

We must have respect for the people who are affected by an establishment. That the government has not included the question of buyout in the bill is a failing grade. One has had three years to come to the point of appointing the investigation – an investigation that, moreover, the first investigation stated in its report, The Value of the Wind, needed to be carried out. There has been plenty of time.

This is another way for this government to delay, postpone, and maintain the culture war conflict surrounding wind power.

The question of redemption is one of the most important. When I meet people who will have wind power in their vicinity, it is this they ask me about. This is a way for them to know how it will turn out – a guarantee to be able to test and not have to sell their property in advance, before receiving notice whether it will be wind power or not. One gets the opportunity to see how it turns out in the end, and one gets a guarantee to be able to stay.

One can look at the statistics. The fact is that those who live near wind power are more satisfied with their living environment than those who do not have wind power in their vicinity. Therefore, the government needs to return immediately with proposals regarding the right of redemption.

Finally, Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more electricity. Sweden needs faster permit processes. Sweden needs local engagement and local momentum. We do not achieve that by pitting city against countryside or national interests against local interests. We achieve that by ensuring that people and municipalities that contribute to the energy supply receive the right incentives and get to share in the value. It is about competing for wind farms in the same way as one competes for industrial establishments. That is achieved when the incentives are right and when those affected are the ones who win the most. That is the Center Party's policy, and it is a policy for a Sweden that can do more.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I was addressed and was then, at this late hour, inspired to chime in with a few remarks.

I have spoken a number of times about the fact that there is a close correlation between precisely the wind power's electricity supply to the Swedish power system and the net export leaving the country. I went back as far as 2013, when there were 10 terawatt-hours in from wind power and 10 terawatt-hours out of the country in net export. These two have followed each other more or less linearly ever since. Now it is rather 30 terawatt-hours in from wind power in a year and 30 terawatt-hours out – approximately.

Does Rickard Nordin mean that this is just a coincidence, that there is no causal connection and that it just happened to turn out this way?

In various contexts on social media, I usually create diagrams based on Svenska kraftnät's data to visualize this. Then one can look at a month and see that the supply from wind power has become the completely dominant factor when it comes to how much we export in a single hour. There are several factors. It can be seasonal variations. It can be daily variations. It is about weekends and such. But wind power has become the absolutely dominant factor.

It is not an absolute correlation, but over a year these figures correspond more or less exactly. So it is year in and year out.

The member may very gladly answer the question: Does the member mean that this would be a pure coincidence, or is there actually some causal connection?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now Josef Fransson corrects himself and says that there is no absolute connection. Now he is talking about how it looks over the year. Yes, then it could be any electricity at all. He obviously misses the physical connection entirely. But the fact is that there is a point. We have expanded the electricity system, and we have done so because we know that we need to electrify in order to get rid of the fossil fuels.

What has happened is that this government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has slowed down the electrification and ensured that fossil is the power source that has increased the most during this mandate period.

But what I find most interesting is that Josef Fransson makes it sound as if a surplus of electricity and that we export electricity is something bad. If we did not have a surplus of electricity, we would have higher electricity prices. Increased production pushes down price levels. It is a very simple economic relationship.

Josef Fransson says, then: We should not have had any wind power. We should have had less production in Sweden.

Then we would also have had higher prices. The Sweden Democrats and Josef Fransson are saying, therefore, that it would be good if we had higher electricity prices. That is an important message to the Swedish people. It is an important message this summer, when prices, according to the forecasts that exist, are going to increase. This is very important for everyone who is going to vote in the election on September 13. The Sweden Democrats want to increase electricity prices in Sweden. It will result in higher electricity bills with the Sweden Democrats' policy. It is a message to the Swedish people.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are actually many problems with Sweden's energy system. To begin with, the irregular deliveries from wind power have broken the electricity market. It is not every day that it is positive in the large whole to have low electricity prices. People want steady electricity prices, but they must also be at such a level that those who actually produce the electricity receive enough to cover their own expenses. This can, for example, concern things such as maintenance and reinvestments.

We pushed the electricity prices down very much when we had both nuclear power and a lot of wind power that the market had not requested at all. At that time, we had doped it to low prices. It is harmful for those who are to produce electricity on a cold winter day so that we do not freeze.

For me, it is crystal clear that we cannot utilize wind power in a sensible way. We therefore have a power deficit. Activities and companies are queuing to receive power allocation, not least in southern Sweden. As the member surely knows, prices in SE4 have become significantly higher, which has led to us losing amounts of Swedish jobs. It is amounts of investments and expansions of companies that simply have not materialized.

We have a surplus of electricity in northern Sweden. We can certainly pump in even more and get an even larger electricity surplus, but the problem is that we must have an electricity system that holds our country together. We must have an electricity system that serves people where people live. It is in Stockholm, the Gothenburg area, Västra Götaland and Skåne, not least, where the energy production must take place. Otherwise, we get these large differences. The member surely knows that it is tough to conduct electricity-intensive activities in Skåne. We must fix that, and we do not do that with more wind power.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! According to all international assessments, Sweden has the world's best electricity system. To claim otherwise is a lie. There is no broken electricity system. We have the world's best electricity system.

When it comes to power allocation to companies in southern Sweden, the big problem is that we do not have local production there, or alternatively, not a sensible transmission.

Everyone who needs electricity today gets electricity. On the other hand, one does not always get an allocation on the grid side, but that is a grid issue. This is not solved by building nuclear power in large nodes. It does not make local grids any better. Perhaps it is better if one focuses a bit more on the things that can provide an effect here and now at a reasonable price, for example, combined heat and power. The government has completely neglected it. There is a potential in combined heat and power of approximately 2,000 megawatts. That is almost as much as what the government is going to spend 983 billion on – nuclear power. The cost for this would be some single percentage. Furthermore, it could be realized in the near term. Sveriges Ingenjörer has shown that one could get combined heat and power equivalent to approximately one nuclear power plant in place in three years. It could therefore have been completed during this mandate period.

How much new effect has this government delivered? Nothing when it comes to combined heat and power. They have possibly extended the life of a fossil-fueled power plant in Malmö.

The problem with this government is that it has gotten stuck in a track, a track that was said to be cheap and fast and which turned out to be expensive and slow. That is the case in all other countries as well.

If one is truly to be able to solve the problems regarding more power in the electricity system and manage volatile electricity prices, as the member says, one needs flexible power. If one has power that runs all the time, one only pushes the prices down, and the volatility remains.

It is obvious that Josef Fransson, Sverigedemokraterna and the other Tidö parties do not understand the electricity market, because there is not a single expert who believes that nuclear power is the solution to the problems we have.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a powerful expansion of new fossil-free electricity production, and it has been this government's ambition to provide good conditions for all fossil-free types of energy. Therefore, a commitment to support municipalities affected by wind power establishments has now also been proposed.

We know from countless surveys and several concrete cases in different parts of the country that local acceptance is absolutely necessary and a prerequisite for us to be able to continue expanding wind power. For Sweden to be able to expand fossil-free electricity production at the pace that the climate transition requires, local anchoring is needed. This applies to wind, but it also applies to all other energy production.

With this proposal on compensation to the municipalities, we create clear incentives to say yes to wind power. In that way, we can better ensure that the transition also strengthens the local communities.

Madam Speaker! Wind power can, in the short term, account for a large part of the expansion that we need. It plays a very important role in ensuring that we do not lose momentum with the electrification that we need in order to be able to reach the goal of net-zero emissions.

We know that permission for a wind power installation may only be granted if the municipality has said yes to it. Since the end of the 2010s, we have seen that both the number and the proportion of projects that municipalities say yes to have decreased sharply, which is a reflection of the fact that the local opposition among the population has been great.

In order for us to be able to have fossil-free electricity production throughout the country in the extent that electrification requires, we must reverse this development. There is, generally speaking, support in the population for electricity production through wind power, but the resistance can, paradoxically, be large locally. This is naturally because wind power can affect the surroundings where it is located but provides limited local benefit for neighbors and for the municipality.

The proposal that we have discussed today gives residents near wind power facilities the right to compensation corresponding to a share of the annual revenues. This compensation is proposed to be higher the closer the residential building is to the facility.

This is a way to make it more attractive for municipalities and municipal residents to say yes to the opportunity to have wind power in the surrounding area, and it is therefore also a step towards improving Sweden's energy supply. Compensation to municipalities will contribute to the work we need for electrification.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! We clearly face great challenges, and we need more cheap, sustainably produced energy in Sweden for the climate transition, for our competitiveness, and for our security. In light of the Hormuz crisis, I believe no one has missed how harmful it has been to be so deeply dependent on fossil fuels.

Madam Speaker! We had a government that actually took this seriously. After eight years with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna in government, Sweden had increased the expansion rate of fossil-free power to the equivalent of one large nuclear power plant per year – 3 gigawatts. Despite all the beautiful words we have heard from the Tidö parties tonight, we now see instead that the expansion rate of fossil-free power is plummeting. The entire electrification and climate transition is collapsing with Tidö politics. The expansion rate has plummeted by 75 percent or more during the mandate period, this in a situation where we need more fossil-free electricity.

The energy source whose use has increased the most during the Tidö government is instead the fossil energy. The fossil has increased by 10 percent or the equivalent energy amount from two nuclear power plants. It is incredibly harmful in this situation.

Madam Speaker! How did we end up here? The truth is that the Tidö parties have opposed renewable energy throughout the entire mandate period and consistently favored the fossil. We lack short-term goals to achieve more energy and capacity by 2030 or 2035.

The Green Party has pushed for compensation for wind power to municipalities and neighbors for over 15 years, so I am actually very happy that we now have a majority in the Riksdag for both of these very important principles. But one can really wonder why it has taken so incredibly long for others to realize the need for this. Great damage has already been done. Through the municipal veto, the Tidö parties have already stopped the majority of all wind power that could come before 2030. During last year, that is 2025, the municipalities stopped 98 percent of all wind turbines. The Green Party, together with the Center Party, says yes in about 70 percent of the cases. One can compare how much more power production we would have had then.

It remains to be seen, Madam Speaker, how the local Tidö politicians will react to this regarding compensation to municipalities and residents, but I know in any case that it will play a major role for the regions where wind power is being built. I have, in fact, visited a number of places where wind power has been built and a local compensation, something in return, has been given. It is a very good example of how it could have looked in all of Sweden if we had had this in place much earlier.

Among other things, I visited Vindbyarna, as they call themselves, outside Malå in the interior of Västerbotten. Springliden, Mörttjärn, and Lainejaur receive money annually from a nearby wind farm, and these wind power funds are used for village development. Among other things, the village house in all three villages has been renovated. "Here in the village, one experiences that one has been given a good chance to develop the village thanks to the wind power money. Here, no one is complaining. [– – –] Previously, we had almost nothing. We could never repair the village house or the electricity line," says Roland Lundqvist, a resident of Springliden and chairman of the association Vindbyar.

Madam Speaker! It is regrettable that the government wants to distribute the compensation to the municipalities based on installed capacity instead of the actual property tax for wind power. This results in lower compensation, especially during the first years, and thus reduces the municipalities' incentives to say yes to new projects.

The incentives now proposed, both to neighbors and to municipalities, are not sufficient to produce enough electricity by 2035. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to supplement this. It should be long-term, but we also want a speed bonus, a one-time compensation to municipalities that approve wind power projects, both new ones and those where "no" was previously said. We also want to simplify the compensation to neighbors so that it is paid out automatically both to property owners and to residents in, for example, apartments.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 5.

The expansion of wind power is, together with energy efficiency measures and investments in green baseload power, absolutely crucial for securing low electricity prices, strengthening Sweden's preparedness, and enabling both the climate transition and a green industrial development. There is a broad consensus that land-based wind power is needed. The Swedish base industry's energy cooperation, SKGS, has analyzed the industry's increased needs and calls for a rapid expansion of land-based wind power. Svenskt Näringsliv writes that the amount of land-based wind power will be completely decisive for the electricity price moving forward.

Three years ago, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that he wanted to look at everything that could increase the conditions to drastically increase electricity production in the coming years. You will remember that I mentioned that the expansion rate has, on the contrary, decreased by 75 percent, so we can state that the government has fatally failed.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we need a new government, a government that increases the production of electricity in Sweden and has the will to electrify both the transport sector and industry through a long-term and stable industrial and energy policy. We also need a government that actually takes the climate threat seriously and offers sustainable energy at a low cost for both households and industry.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 9 June.)

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