Certain procedural issues regarding electricity support for companies

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish households and companies are currently experiencing an economic pressure unlike anything we have seen in decades. At the same time as the economy is on the brink of a recession, inflation is at historically high levels. Electricity bills remain high, and unemployment is expected to rise.

In this very tough economic situation, Sweden lacks a decisive political leadership capable of doing what is required. Households and companies are not receiving clear instructions. The Government and the Sweden Democrats lack a plan for how the economic crisis should be met.

Madam Speaker! Now the government is finally coming to the Riksdag with a proposal for electricity support even for companies and organizations. It is not a day too early.

When the government presented requests for shortened motion time and rapid processing in the Riksdag, it was a self-evident matter for us to accommodate this. We have, in fact, been waiting for proposals from the government, and when they finally arrive, the Riksdag will naturally not put a stop to them. Despite that, I want to emphasize that we Social Democrats are critical of the government's sluggishness and lack of clear announcements when it comes to current and future electricity support.

The government has also chosen not to keep the matter regarding electricity support to companies together. Instead, it has chosen to break it up into a government ordinance and only send the so-called procedural questions to the Swedish Riksdag. This, in turn, has meant that the possibility for both oversight and motions has been limited, which is to be considered very noteworthy. The government's justification that it would thus go faster to get this in place is, of course, highly questionable.

Despite limited right to submit motions, I wish to state the following, Madam Speaker: The Government's management of the electricity subsidies to be paid out to households and companies has been characterized by a number of unfortunate choices and several decisive mistakes. Initially, it was chosen to issue promises that the electricity subsidy would be in place in the form of a high-cost protection as early as November 1 and be paid out before Christmas, despite all available information indicating that this was unrealistic. Furthermore, it was chosen not to set a cap for the payout of the electricity subsidy to households, which resulted in individual electricity customers being able to receive over 700,000 kronor in electricity subsidies while half of Sweden was excluded from the original electricity subsidy.

From the Social Democrats' side, we believe that the government should return to the Riksdag with an electricity subsidy that also includes companies and organizations in electricity area 1 and 2. The current subsidy to companies only covers companies in southern Sweden, despite the fact that high electricity prices have affected many companies even in the northern parts of the country.

After that, on several occasions, unnecessary confusion has been created and unclear messages have been given regarding which timetable should apply for the payment of the subsidies to companies. It has created stress and anxiety among already hard-pressed business owners when we are in the middle of a recession that further complicates the situation for Swedish companies.

Madam Speaker! It is also not possible to rule out that the delayed payment of the electricity support to companies has affected inflation. It is deeply worrying that the government has not done what is required to dampen inflation when the Swedish economy and Swedish households are under severe pressure.

Regarding the questions about how a future electricity subsidy should be designed and what measures the government intends to take before next winter, the government has still not been able to provide a clear statement. Several uncertainties need to be resolved. For example, it needs to be ensured that it is not possible to receive double payments of electricity subsidies. The situation also needs to be clarified for those who have the electricity cost as part of the regular rent.

Despite the government's significant delay in the payment of the electricity support to companies, it is welcome that the necessary legislation is now finally in place. However, it is worth noting the strong criticism that the Council on Legislation directs towards the government's preparation of the bill and towards several of the legal-technical choices that the government has made.

In order for the public to be able to scrutinize the payments, transparency and insight are important; this became particularly clear after the electricity subsidies that were paid out to households. Therefore, the government needs to clarify all possible ambiguities regarding secrecy concerning the payment of electricity subsidies to companies.

This winter's failed management of the electricity support for households and companies must not be repeated. Ultimately, household finances as well as Swedish jobs and companies are at stake. We therefore believe that the government must return to the Riksdag with clear decisions on how the electricity support for households, companies, associations and organizations across the country shall be managed if electricity prices become very high even during the coming winter.

With what I have now stated, we in the Social Democrats nevertheless support the proposal in the bill.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Karlsson has described in a very interesting and informative way how the Social Democrats reason regarding electricity support. He was also touching on the Swedish economy and inflation in general.

We did receive answers to many questions, but I still think that Member Karlsson did not quite answer all the questions. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like to get a small clarification from Member Karlsson. Are the Social Democrats for an electricity subsidy, or are they against an electricity subsidy? I can very well imagine a short answer - yes or no.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The answer is yes.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I find it very pleasing to hear this. In the speech, one could not quite hear that Member Karlsson is truly in favor of an electricity subsidy. I thank you for the answer; it is good to hear that the Social Democrats are in favor of the electricity subsidy.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! So that there are no ambiguities, I shall repeat the last thing I said in my speech in the chamber debate: With what I have now stated, we in the Social Democrats do, however, stand behind the proposal in the bill. I hope that there are no ambiguities now that the Moderate Member Ahlstedt has also heard what the position is.

(Applause)

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

Bo Broman (SD)

Madam Speaker! Finally, we are one step closer to an electricity subsidy for companies in Sweden. As everyone knows, energy prices in Sweden and the rest of Europe have risen to exceptionally high levels following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Already in connection with the budget bill for 2023, the government announced that an electricity subsidy for companies was on the way, a subsidy financed by the so-called bottleneck revenues.

I have been an entrepreneur myself and still know many entrepreneurs, and I can say that the support is long-awaited. I repeatedly receive questions about when it will arrive, and now it is near. The goal is that companies in southern Sweden, that is, electricity price areas 3 and 4, should be able to start applying for electricity support on May 30, from a pot of 30 billion kronor with payment this summer - all on the condition that the EU Commission gives the green light as this falls under the EU's state aid rules.

Madam Speaker! It is not the support itself that we are debating and handling in the chamber today. The electricity support for companies is handled in a regulation, which is decided by the government. In the regulation, among other things, it is described which companies are entitled to the electricity support. That the support is granted to legal entities means that it can be relevant for both companies and organizations, for example, foundations, associations, religious communities, municipalities and regions.

The regulation also stipulates that the purpose of the electricity support is that it shall cover future costs. But to do this in a practical and reasonable way, the historical consumption is used multiplied by a certain support per kilowatt-hour. Unlike the support for private individuals, there will be a maximum amount for how much support can be provided per company or group depending on the area of activity. All of this is described in the regulation that it is up to the government to decide on.

What the Riksdag shall decide on is the bill concerning the procedure for the electricity support to companies. It is proposed that Skatteverket shall handle the payment of the electricity support. It is not normal for Skatteverket to pay out support, but to ensure an efficient, fast, and legally secure processing of the applications, the handling authority should be accustomed to processing a large number of support payments in a short time. Skatteverket did this during the pandemic and thus has exactly that experience. It is also the authority considered to have the best conditions to complete this task in the short time available.

The payments shall be handled via the tax account. If there is a surplus in the tax account, an automatic payment will be made. If there is a deficit, it shall be deducted according to the standard regulations for the tax account system.

Madam Speaker! The purpose of the bill is to ensure an efficient and legally secure handling of the electricity support for companies. This is reflected both in the choice of Skatteverket as the deciding authority and in the design of the individual rules. This entails a simpler and more economical management than if an entirely new system had needed to be built up.

I conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying a few words about Swedish economic policy and how the government views this. Here, the electricity subsidies are of course an important part.

We find ourselves in a strained situation with high inflation, low growth and a large proportion of people who cannot support themselves. In this situation, a plan is required, which Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson described very well in the debate in connection with the spring budget.

The government's economic plan is to fight inflation, support households, tackle the recession through a restored work line, and accelerate growth through structural reforms. This government has charted a clear course to take Sweden out of the crisis. It is a challenging time, and it is important to support those who have it hardest. This is a clear example that Sweden now has an action-oriented government. It has not always been that way.

The Social Democrats here in the house now seem to have almost made it a sport to try to convince the Swedish people that the government is not fulfilling its election promises. The government has not even sat for its first year, but that has not stopped the opposition from already from day one making up various different broken promises.

Let us therefore recall how it looked for the previous government. What was promised to become Europe's lowest unemployment instead became one of Europe's absolute highest after eight years of Social Democratic policy. They promised to turn over every stone to combat crime, but it required a change of government for a number of decisive reforms to crack organized crime to begin being investigated.

This stands in stark contrast to our new government which, already after a hundred days, has decided on an electricity subsidy for Swedish households, lowered fuel prices, and given the mandate to develop the electricity subsidy for companies, which is being realized with tomorrow's decision.

Households have already received their first support. It has worked well and has truly been welcome for many households. Försäkringskassan has handled the payments in an extraordinary manner, and all the complaining crows were wrong. The government delivered electricity support to households and is now doing the same for the country's companies.

It is time for the companies to receive their long-awaited and much-needed electricity support. The plan is that from May 30 onwards, it will be possible to apply for the support. Skatteverket will be the authority that handles the payments of the support. Skatteverket has the ambition to be able to automate as many of the applications as possible. Provided that the application is complete, the support can then be paid out within a week.

Just as it is the case regarding the support to households, it is important that this is handled by an authority that has routines, IT support, and experience in making large payments, which, among others, the Swedish Tax Agency has. Even in this area, the government delivers.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to once again describe why it is important with electricity support for both households and companies. There are fundamentally two reasons why the government has decided to compensate households and companies for the high electricity prices in this way.

Firstly, Sweden has a different system for capacity charges than other countries in the European Union. The Swedish capacity charges accounted for approximately 40 percent of what all countries collected during 2021. This means that we in Sweden have a different opportunity to compensate electricity customers without having to take it over the state budget. These funds also cannot be used for anything else. We could have chosen to take this over the state budget, but then it might have pushed out other pressing investments in police, the justice system, defense and, not least, lowered tax on fuels.

It has also been important to find a measure that does not stimulate increased electricity use but instead provides incentives to conserve electricity. It has also been shown that Sweden has actually succeeded in reducing electricity use during the last year by just over 12 percent.

Madam Speaker! I also want to remind why we find ourselves in this situation. How could there be a shortage of electricity? How could one of the world's most stable power systems suddenly not be able to deliver electricity when customers wanted electricity at reasonable prices?

During the last eight years, the previous governments have consistently and systematically dismantled the Swedish stable electricity system.

The previous government had a fear of nuclear power and the new technical possibilities that have emerged in recent years. The Social Democrats and the Green Party have closed well-functioning nuclear reactors in several rounds. As recently as 2020, a decision was made in this chamber regarding the decommissioning of Ringhals, a decision that was passed by a single vote. But already in 2015, a large nail was driven into the coffin of Swedish nuclear power when the power tax was increased, which led to significantly increased costs for nuclear power as a source of energy.

Madam Speaker! It is, therefore, largely why we find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to provide electricity support to both households and companies.

This government is, however, capable of taking action and knows what it wants. That is why we have electricity support in place for households where payments have already been made and electricity support for companies that is now on its way. We leave neither households nor companies in the lurch; instead, this government stands behind and supports Swedish households and companies.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Ahlstedt should initially receive a tip. The member should be more concerned about the reality that the government's election promises fail to meet and not about the rhetoric that the Social Democrats stand for in Sweden's Riksdag. We are, in fact, only saying what everyone knows and what is obvious to everyone else.

I know that the role that Ahlstedt has now received - to be the gatekeeper for the government - also involves, or can involve, that integrity and one's own perception are set aside. But I still want to ask a couple of questions to the member which he could provide answers to, because we have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter in its entirety but only the procedural issues.

There is a difference between the Riksdag and the government. We decide, and the government executes. We enact laws, and they carry them out. The Council on Legislation was clear in its referral opinion regarding its criticism that what we now choose to do means that we are legislating on procedural issues but giving the government the opportunity for a decree, and that the government can also change what we have decided on. It thus becomes an inverted order compared to how it usually is, namely that we decide and the government executes. Now we are giving them completely different opportunities.

The Council on Legislation writes that what the Riksdag proceeded from in its decision to adopt the bill later can be changed by the government. I am curious about how the member views that procedure. Is it right and reasonable that one limits the Riksdag's application? Is it right and proper that one limits the Riksdag's opportunity to say what is what applies and that the government shall then execute it, or does the member think this is a well-chosen order that shall also apply in future decisions in the Swedish Riksdag?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is important to keep in mind that there are both households and companies out there that need this electricity support. It is based on that principle that we have worked with all the time: to ensure that as quickly as possible, as legally secure as possible, and as accurately as possible, introduce electricity support for both households and companies. Based on that principle, it is incredibly important to ensure the different parts.

Member Karlsson asked whether similar proposals will be seen in the future, and I can inform Member Karlsson that for the time being, it may be the case that other proposals may come, but it may also be the case that instead this form should not be used. It is very difficult to answer how it will be in the future.

Madam Speaker! I believe that we will see - depending on the fact that we find ourselves in a very difficult economic situation - that further electricity support will be needed ahead. The proposals will be attempted to be adapted, and the possibility always exists to make changes of whatever form one uses.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I believe that we will see this type of proposal to a very limited extent.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Ahlstedt now had the opportunity to give a very short and concrete answer to the question I asked: yes or no. Instead, there came a two-minute sword where the question I asked was not answered. My consideration was whether the norm hierarchy between Sweden's Riksdag and the government shall apply. Should it be as the Council on Legislation says in its opinion - that it is a singularity, a one-time occurrence? For me, it is very simple.

I realize that in the role of government representative in the Swedish Riksdag, one is to be a gatekeeper, but there are also principles that one should not compromise on, for example, the relationship between the Swedish Riksdag and the government, who enacts the law and who then executes it. An inverted order is proposed, which the Council on Legislation criticizes and says should be a one-time occurrence. In my world—even if I had been a government representative and a gatekeeper—the answer would have been simple. It would not have been long. It would not have been a lot of words. It would have been: "Yes, it is a one-time occurrence, because that is not how we shall have it."

My second question I will state briefly. It concerns this matter of the obligation to repay, which the Council on Legislation also criticizes. Now they are also reversing that principle. If the applicant makes a mistake, it is reasonable that they become liable for repayment. What is being said now is that the applicant, in what is called erroneous payment, that is, when the applicant has done correctly and received money and it then turns out that Skatteverket has made a mistake, becomes liable for repayment. It is completely unreasonable in my world.

As the Council on Legislation writes, it is the case that for companies that have received support, but where the Swedish Tax Agency has made a mistake and subsequently requested the money back, this could mean that if the company has made investments for the future, the entire company's continued existence could be jeopardized. Is such an arrangement reasonable? I would also like the member to answer that.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I also think it is important that we stick to a one-time occurrence, but given the difficult economic situation we find ourselves in with high inflation and rising prices in several areas, one cannot rule anything out when it comes to what types of proposals will be submitted.

I share member Karlsson's basic principle regarding the hierarchy we have, but there may be occasions when exceptions will be made. I thought I was quite clear anyway.

Madam Speaker! The second question was about ensuring – there are quite complex corporate structures, and this electricity support is to go to both small businesses and large, international conglomerates – that the freedom of action exists, that is, that in certain situations one must be able to demand money back if things have gone wrong.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! In the bill that we are now to decide upon, there are proposals regarding the procedure for electricity support to companies. The Council on Legislation has, as we have heard previously, raised objections and argues that the government's proposal does not meet a sufficient standard, and we can observe that the haste has lowered the quality of the legislation. The Swedish National Audit Office has previously stated that this applied to many of the rapid bills that were prepared during the pandemic. But unlike the rapid decisions that were needed during the pandemic, this matter did not need to be prepared in full haste, as it has been known for quite some time that an electricity support was to be paid out. The government had, therefore, had time to do this in a significantly better way.

What we can also observe is that in order to bring down electricity prices in the future, it is required that we take back control over the failed electricity market. Vänsterpartiet's proposal on Swedish prices, to prevent the continent's high electricity prices from spreading here, is the natural solution. But it is precisely a solution for the future, even though it could have been introduced already last year if the previous or current government had listened to Vänsterpartiet, experts, Hyresgästföreningen, Villaägarna, and everyone else who has suggested that Sweden should be decoupled from the European electricity market where one pays the high electricity prices driven up by the continent's dependence on gas and oil while we in Sweden produce cheaper, renewable electricity.

For those who have been affected by the high electricity prices, compensation for the time that has passed is needed. Therefore, we stand behind the bill Certain procedural issues for electricity support for companies despite the shortcomings that the Council on Legislation has noted. The support for the companies, associations, and organizations that have been affected by the high prices must proceed. The Government has already delayed the support for private individuals, associations, and companies far too much and in that way exacerbated the crisis for both people and companies.

With that said, Vänsterpartiet is aware that many companies have been able to pass on the increasing costs to the customers, who have had to pay with increased prices. But this applies, of course, far from all companies. The companies that have not been able to raise their prices have often faced serious problems which, in the long run, threaten both companies and employment. It is primarily smaller companies that are price-sensitive and target the domestic market, such as restaurants, bakeries, and small-scale production.

A group that does not receive any electricity support at all are those companies and organizations that have electricity included in the rent. Instead, the electricity support then goes to the landlord, who can keep the support or distribute it to their tenants. The tenants are thus not guaranteed compensation for their electricity costs. There is also a tangible risk of double support for those who have a sole proprietorship and a joint electricity agreement for private and business consumption. This has been discovered as remarkably high electricity supports have gone to private individuals. These are private individuals who are also entrepreneurs and have an electricity subscription. And it is required that one should not be able to receive double support.

But these examples of weaknesses in the design of the electricity support are a result of the proposal having been prepared in haste, even though it was not necessary, and therefore does not meet a sufficient standard.

The government has only decided on electricity support for companies and organizations located in electricity area 3 and 4, that is, companies, associations and organizations in southern Sweden. The northern parts of Sweden are left without any possibility of compensation. Electricity area 1 and 2 are not included in the proposal. Vänsterpartiet considers this completely unacceptable. Northern Sweden is just as hard pressed as the southern parts, and there are countless companies and organizations on the brink of bankruptcy and closure. Electricity bills risk to knock the legs out from under companies in northern Sweden as well. Electricity area 1 and 2 also need electricity support urgently.

Vänsterpartiet wanted to submit a motion for electricity support to northern Sweden, but that motion could not be raised. Electricity support is, in fact, decided by the government. For the same reasons, the Minister for Energy and Industry did not want to come to the Committee on Taxation when she was invited to discuss this.

Madam Speaker! For all of Sweden to function and live, the government must return with proposals for electricity support for northern Sweden and also plan now for the upcoming winter, if we do not get Swedish prices. Low prices are always to be preferred over support and subsidies.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the proposal in the committee report on the procedure for electricity support to companies. But I also refer to the opposition's joint special statement.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the government's proposal. But I also want to say that we stand behind the special opinion.

Before I begin the speech that I have written, I would like to say one thing. As a Norrlänning, it hurts a little when many in the chamber choose to say that electricity subsidies have been paid out to private individuals and will soon be paid out to companies. This does not apply to the whole country at all. Private individuals in the north have not yet been able to receive the electricity subsidy. And there is no proposal whatsoever regarding electricity subsidies for electricity area 1 and 2. I know that most come from other parts of the country, and then it may be easy to forget this. But there are also some of us who live in the northern half of Sweden. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity to remind of this.

Madam Speaker! The economic situation is serious. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the aftermath of the pandemic years, and the highest inflation we have had in decades have created a very difficult situation for both households and companies. Therefore, the expectations for the government's ability to manage the economic difficulties are also great. Such a large expectation concerns the promised electricity support for companies—it does not concern private individuals in this report—not least because it was highlighted very much by many parties during the election. There were also promises of an electricity price cap.

It is very good that this electricity support is being implemented. I hope that this is the first round and that more will follow. I also think it is a pity that people have had to wait so long. Business owners have been very worried for many months, while prices have hit new records across the entire continent. It is not exactly a secret that it has been a cold winter and that there have been very high overhead costs in many different ways. But it is actually not until May 8, hopefully, that companies in electricity area 3 and 4 can apply for electricity support.

I wonder why this complicated way of paying out the electricity support has been chosen. It is very good that it is coming. But personally, I can think it is a bit complicated. Wouldn't it have been simpler to temporarily lower the electricity tax and the VAT? I know that a number of other countries have chosen to do that. Now that this electricity support is finally in place, it, as I mentioned initially, only goes to half of Sweden despite the whole country being affected. Bankruptcies are just as difficult for companies in the north as in Skåne, yet northern Sweden is left without support.

Madam Speaker! There are plenty of examples of high electricity prices even in the north. One example I want to mention is Bergeforsparkens Camping in Timrå in Västernorrland, which received an electricity bill of 260,000 kronor for the month of December. The year before it was 87,000 kronor. That is a difference of 173,000 kronor. Then, network fees of 74,000 kronor are also added. And you must remember that this company turns over 3 million kronor per year. Then anyone can understand that a tripling of the electricity bill in a single month makes it very difficult for a company like Bergeforsparkens Camping to survive.

Madam Speaker! The Council on Legislation has directed sharp criticism at the very design of the support. And I hope that the government takes this to heart, not least because the coming winter is also expected to be cold and prices are expected to skyrocket. Then it may also be relevant to have an electricity support for the companies.

In conclusion: When I have the chance, I want to return to the demand for electricity support for the entire country. Why should only southern Sweden be compensated for the high electricity prices, while northern Sweden gets zero kronor? At the same time, it is in the north that the large part of the country's electricity production is located, where rivers have been developed for hydropower and many wind farms are spreading out. Even in the southern parts of the country - electricity areas 3 and 4 - which most often have the highest electricity prices, there is an opportunity to expand more electricity production. But many municipalities say no. Furthermore, it must be remembered that energy consumption is greater in the north due to the colder climate and longer winters. But we also generally have higher municipal taxes and electricity grid fees. Therefore, it becomes incomprehensible to me that the government does not say a word about this.

My question, which someone from the government parties or the Sweden Democrats would be welcome to answer if you have the opportunity, even though you have already had your contributions and the question may become rhetorical, is: Will the companies in northern Sweden also receive electricity support for high electricity prices in a second round?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! The electricity support for companies in southern Sweden is truly long-awaited. I am therefore pleased today to stand behind the committee's position to adopt the government's proposal on the procedure for electricity support to companies.

To alleviate the ongoing energy crisis, the government has taken a number of measures both in the short and long term. It has been about rallying together and freeing up every available kilowatt-hour. It has been about saving and together reducing the risk of disconnection. It is about supporting both households and companies through various electricity subsidies. We do this so that families with children can better manage their livelihood, and we do this for pensioners, for single-person households, for Swedish companies, and for the jobs.

Madam Speaker! This government took over an electricity system that was dismantled during eight years of Social Democratic rule. In southern Sweden, the situation has been particularly troublesome. Electricity area 4 is the region in Europe that, according to reports, has the least installed electricity production compared to the needs that exist. This contributes to a heavy burden on the electricity system in the entire country in terms of both supply and price level.

The current government has initiated the rebuilding of a robust energy system. It will take time, but it must be done. We Christian Democrats are now ensuring that the work gets done. We must secure the supply of electricity now and for upcoming winters. All good forces are needed: sun, wind, water, and nuclear power, including new nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! Do not doubt that we have acted from day one to ensure that the support reaches as quickly as possible! The previous government had absolutely no support at all for companies during last winter. Our support is therefore significantly more extensive than the previous government's support. And more help is on the way. This government has shown that we can consolidate, save, and support. Together we will manage it.

Madam Speaker! This electricity support for companies is based on the consumption from October 2021 through September 2022. During this period, companies in southern Sweden have had electricity costs of several kronor per kilowatt-hour for long periods. In northern Sweden, it has only been over 79 öre on occasional days. Why the support is directed at companies in southern Sweden is clear. It is based on the previous year's consumption. This is important, as it should not stimulate higher consumption now and in the future. All electricity that can be saved is good for our future electricity supply. This applies to both households and companies.

Madam Speaker! The bottleneck revenues, which we have used uniquely in Sweden, will decrease in the future. It will therefore not be possible to have the same type of support going forward. We Christian Democrats have long pushed to lower the electricity tax, and we will continue to work for that even in this government. How future support will look, we therefore cannot answer right now.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here today to talk about the extraordinary electricity support, which we have been waiting for. It has almost been like waiting for Godot, for those of you who have seen the play.

To begin with, I would like to say something about this with lower prices. There are many ways a responsible government can act to lower prices for households and companies. This government, together with its support party Sverigedemokraterna, has shown a remarkable ability to act slowly, so to speak, in more than one area.

Two things that can be used to lower prices both in the short term and in the long term for households and companies are energy efficiency and new renewable production, for example wind power. In that regard, the government has had time but taken very quick decisions. For example, it did not hesitate when it chose to prematurely shut down the Investigation on white certificates. The investigation showed that Sweden could obtain several terawatt-hours as a supplement to the electricity system, and in a short time: over a seven-year period.

We look forward to seeing how the government intends to proceed with the issue of energy efficiency, as it is considered important. We have not yet seen any concrete proposals in this area. Another issue that is important and completely central to lowering electricity prices for households and companies is new production. Energy efficiency, flexibility, and smart grids are not enough. We must have new production. The absolute fastest way to get new production in place at very reasonable prices and also with geographical distribution across all of Sweden is onshore and offshore wind power.

But despite there being so much to do for the government and despite that one has not managed to get the promised electricity support in place on time, one has managed to make changes in already decided investigations, for example the incentive investigation where it has now become very difficult conditions for the investigator to carry out their assignment. The assignment was to increase the incentives to get wind power in place for the benefit of municipalities and regions. They should view getting wind power positively and profit from it locally and regionally. From the government's side, one has chosen to tweak the assignment so that it ultimately hardly amounted to a thumb's breadth, as we heard last week. This speaks against the high-flown words from the government and from its parties' representatives during today's debate: One says to safeguard lower electricity prices for households and companies.

The high electricity prices have hit households and companies hard. Had we had the opportunity to submit a supplementary motion, we would have argued some points that I am raising now, but unfortunately that is not the case. We have heard previous speakers speak well about that matter.

We want to highlight the Council on Legislation's extremely serious criticism, which we have heard several other members speak about. That criticism is stinging. The Council on Legislation describes the proposal as a rush job. Submitting such substandard proposals risks undermining confidence in Swedish legislation and Swedish politics.

Another thing that we also react to, and which some before me have mentioned, is that the support only applies to companies and organizations in electricity area 3 and 4, Madam Speaker. Once again, northern Sweden is excluded from the state compensation for the skyrocketing electricity prices, even though many companies have seen dramatic increases in electricity prices in electricity area 1 and 2 as well. Miljöpartiet would have wanted to see support for all of Sweden's companies and organizations, not just those in southern Sweden.

It is also the case that some of these companies have fixed their electricity prices. We would have liked to see some kind of balance there; if one has had their electricity price fixed over long periods, one should not be overcompensated through the support, we believe. As it is now, companies that have not had increased costs for electricity are compensated in a disproportionate manner.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and refer to our special statement.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! It is truly time that we will soon decide on a law to be able to pay out support to companies that have had high electricity prices. This bill regulates how the support will be paid out to the companies that have had abnormally high electricity prices since 2021, that is, in this case to the companies that are in electricity area 3 and 4. The law will enter into force on May 8, and the support will be available to apply for until September. It is the Swedish Tax Agency that will handle the applications, and the money will be paid into the tax account.

I think it is good that we do what we can to help those companies that for several years now have had such high electricity prices that it has knocked them off their feet or risked doing so. Furthermore, competition has been distorted as it has suddenly become much more expensive to run companies in electricity area 3 and 4 than in electricity area 1 and 2. That being said, I am fully aware that the energy crisis has now also spread northward and that all electricity areas are affected by high electricity prices for both companies and households, even if electricity prices remain higher in southern Sweden. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that we need to do something more in the future to support all of Sweden's companies and private individuals in these difficult times.

Madam Speaker! Earlier in the debate, the Social Democrats have stood at the rostrum and criticized the government for sluggishness. Let me then remind you that the previous S-led government in May 2022 paid out electricity support solely to private individuals. That time, the companies received no reimbursement at all.

The member of the Left Party is talking about Sweden prices and cutting cables to Europe. At the same time, they do not want to include planned nuclear power. I wonder if the Left Party thinks that companies should pause their operations when it is calm or cloudy.

Madam Speaker! We cannot have it that way. The most important thing right now is to solve the real cause of the problems and get our energy system in order. Ever since Ringhals 1 and 2 were closed prematurely due to the then government's political decision, we have had large differences in electricity prices between electricity areas in Sweden. Before that, there was no major difference. We had stable hydropower in the north and nuclear power in the south, which was complemented by wind and solar power. It was a good fossil-free electricity system that gave us reliability at reasonable prices.

It is back here we must return. The companies want to make their journey towards becoming fossil-free. For that, much more electricity is required that is stable, predictable, fossil-free, and cheap. It is of the utmost importance to continue with this focus.

Madam Speaker! It nevertheless means that we here and now have these problems that we must handle. This electricity support is therefore a good way to solve a bad situation that the previous S-led government has put all of Sweden's inhabitants and companies in. But actually, I hesitate to call it a support. It is in fact nothing other than a reimbursement to the companies that have paid incredibly high electricity bills for a long time.

I would therefore like to extend a big thank you to you business owners. You make it possible for people to go to a job in these tough times. It is the difference for many to even manage at all in times of high inflation and skyrocketing prices. You contribute tax money to our welfare, which is also under severe pressure from these times. Now we finally have a government in place that sees you, that knows how important our companies are in the country, and that will act accordingly.

To you business owners, I want to say that I will always have as my focus to work so that business owners have as good conditions as possible to be able to drive and implement structural reforms for an even better business climate throughout Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I know how important these companies are, and the Liberals know it. That is why we work hard every day to improve and facilitate for the companies that exist here and now and for those that have not yet been created.

Therefore, we want to see, just as members have previously said here, that the tax on electricity is lowered in order to eventually become as low as possible. It is completely unreasonable to have a system where the state collects high taxes and fees from companies and private individuals to then give it back and call it support with complicated rules and, furthermore, an administrative burden.

It is much wiser not to take those funds from the companies from the very beginning. It also creates much better predictability and an efficient state apparatus. With that, I stand behind the committee's report.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to check one thing. I thought I heard the member say that because production companies had chosen to shut down nuclear power, Sweden had received higher prices. That is not true at all, in fact. Since 2019, Norway has built cables to the United Kingdom which have increased their exports. That has caused us to receive higher prices. We have received greater competition for the production that has existed, quite simply.

Furthermore, Sweden has produced the most electricity in all of Europe. We are net exporters. If one has produced a lot but still has capacity problems, it is a matter of transmission. The transmission capacity is insufficient in Sweden. I wonder how the member views that.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Marielle Lahti, for the question!

The transmission capacity is absolutely a problem here and now, but it has a cause. It is that Miljöpartiet were major drivers for making nuclear power inefficient.

Our entire electricity system is built for planned, reliable hydropower in the north and planned, reliable nuclear power in the south. That is what the entire system is built for. When Barsebäck is then shut down and two reactors at Ringhals are shut down, we naturally get an electricity deficit in southern Sweden. Naturally, there will then be problems with the transmission capacity.

Regarding the price picture, one only needs to go in and look at the history. After Ringhals two reactors were decommissioned prematurely, there was a divergence in the prices between bidding zone 3 and 4 and bidding zone 1 and 2. That is how it is.

The spokesperson for the Green Party stood here in the speaker's chair last Friday and spoke in the special debate about that the Green Party does not want to give any advantages to any types of power sources. But what has been done is that during all these years, one has subsidized wind power. One has disadvantaged nuclear power, which is a predictable, stable electricity producer. Therefore, we have the situation we have here and now.

I say yes to wind power. I say yes to solar power. But it must not be at the expense of the stability that secures low prices.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have also maintained a stable system. Sometimes I hear representatives saying that the system has somehow failed. That is not true at all. We have excellent system services that work even with renewable, intermittent energy and also nuclear power, hydropower and so on.

To replace the production that a privatized company chose to shut down, there were incredible opportunities, especially in southern Sweden in price area 4 and 3, for new production of wind power. There, the municipalities have consistently said no to it. They have utilized their municipal veto, because they have not had sufficient incentives.

That is why it is extra serious that the government chooses to limit the type of assignments that concern increasing incentives for municipalities and regions. Then it becomes untrustworthy.

Nuclear power does not solve everything. It is an important part of our energy system, absolutely. But one must also see the whole puzzle in order to be able to solve the challenges.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! That we have a stable electricity system that maintains the correct frequency is paramount above all else. I did not even think that needed to be said from the rostrum.

However, the Riksdag's decision was that Ringhals 1 and 2 had to be decommissioned prematurely. That is a fact. To say anything else is to distort history.

There are currently several projects underway with offshore wind farms, including in southern Sweden. We need all the fossil-free electricity we can get, absolutely. But you cannot build the roof of the house if the foundation fails. The foundation of our stable Swedish fossil-free electricity system is hydropower in the north and nuclear power in the south. It needs to be there as a base.

To believe that one can build our electricity system solely on renewable energy sources such as wind power is naive. There is not even a technology for that yet. What will it cost to expand hydrogen in the large quantities? Will it be competitive?

It is absolutely good that we are working with battery solutions, energy storage, and flexibility services. But it is the roof tiles on the house and not the foundation. The foundation must exist. That is what the government will now ensure.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 May.)

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