In the 1990s, electricity was simply a part of everyday life for many Swedes. The bill arrived, you paid it, and you forgot about it. Thirty years after the deregulation of Sweden's electricity market, that same basic necessity has become a source of financial anxiety. Governments of the left and right have taken turns running the country, energy sources have been pitted against one another, and billions have been debated. Meanwhile, senior executives in the energy industry can receive substantial compensation while customers are expected to accept ever greater financial uncertainty. I have nothing against high executive salaries, but the responsibility must be real. And I support nuclear power for as long as it is needed to restore balance. Because it is not a particular technology or market model that deserves defending. It is people's ability to live without constantly worrying about how much it will cost to keep their homes warm.
When Electricity Stopped Being Something We Could Take for Granted
I remember the 1990s. The electricity bill was hardly something you spent much time thinking about. It arrived in the post, you paid it, and life went on. Electricity certainly cost money back then, and of course there were families who struggled to make ends meet. But for many ordinary households, electricity was a relatively predictable expense, much like water or waste collection. You did not need to check tomorrow's electricity prices before switching on the washing machine. Nobody sat around the kitchen table trying to understand why electricity had suddenly become several times more expensive than the previous week. There was a fundamental predictability to the system, an unspoken understanding that electricity was an essential public service that was simply supposed to work.
Today, something fundamental has changed. Swedes are expected to understand spot prices, electricity bidding zones, transmission capacity, peak-demand charges, energy taxes, variable-rate contracts and marginal pricing. Ideally, they should also be able to plan their electricity consumption around weather forecasts and wholesale market prices. A cold winter month can become an unwelcome financial surprise, with consequences extending far beyond the electricity bill itself. Someone living in an electrically heated house may suddenly have to sacrifice other expenses simply to afford to keep their home warm. For pensioners and families with children living on tight budgets, this is not some theoretical debate about the efficiency of energy markets. It is about security in their own homes.
As the winter of 2026–2027 approaches, the issue is once again becoming urgent. Svenska kraftnät, Sweden's national transmission system operator, considers the risk of an actual electricity supply shortage to be low, while simultaneously warning of periods of high electricity prices. That distinction deserves some thought. An electricity system can function perfectly well from a technical perspective while the cost of using it becomes a serious problem for households. We have built a system capable of delivering electricity, but one that cannot always provide people with reasonable predictability about what it will cost.
How did we get here? And why, after thirty years of political decisions, have we still failed to find a solution that would make the electricity bill the ordinary, insignificant household expense it once was?
Thirty Years of Left and Right – But Who Takes Responsibility for the Whole System?
In 1996, Sweden restructured and deregulated its electricity market. Electricity generation and retail supply were opened to competition, while electricity networks remained regulated monopolies. The reasoning was understandable. Competition was supposed to improve efficiency, reduce costs and give customers the freedom to choose their suppliers. Sweden was hardly alone in thinking this way. It was an era when market-based solutions were increasingly presented as the answer to a growing number of social and economic questions, from telecommunications and transport to energy.
But electricity is not just another product. It cannot easily be replaced, consumed at another time or abandoned when the price becomes too high. A household can decide not to buy a new car or postpone a holiday. It cannot simply stop heating the home, using the lights, refrigerating food or cooking meals. The electricity system also depends on production and consumption being continuously balanced. That is a technical reality that does not disappear simply because trading is organised through a market.
Since 1996, Sweden has been governed by administrations from both traditional political blocs. Social Democrats, Moderates, Centre Party politicians, Christian Democrats, Liberals and other political actors have influenced developments through different governing arrangements. During this period, nuclear reactors have been shut down, wind power has expanded, electricity networks have developed, new international connections have been established, and Sweden has been divided into four electricity bidding zones. There has certainly been no shortage of political decisions. But taken together, those decisions have not delivered the long-term financial predictability that households should reasonably be able to expect.
Placing all the blame on a single political party would be both historically inaccurate and politically convenient. Energy policy has changed under several governments and through decisions supported by different parliamentary majorities. Nuclear reactor closures have occurred for different reasons and under different circumstances, just as the expansion of renewable energy has followed different political and commercial motivations. International energy crises, European market integration and technological developments have also changed the conditions. Reality is considerably more complicated than the slogans so often repeated in political debate.
That does not mean politicians can distance themselves from responsibility. Quite the opposite. In 2023, the Swedish National Audit Office published a review of government measures intended to develop the electricity system. Its conclusions were troubling. Several important decisions had been made without sufficient impact assessments, and in several respects the state had responded to problems only after they had already emerged. Government agencies had also identified significant developments well in advance. The knowledge existed, but it was not always used effectively enough.
Perhaps that is the most disturbing part of the entire story. We are talking about a vital public service that requires planning across several decades, yet it has too often been handled within the boundaries of four-year electoral cycles. The timescale of the electricity system and the timescale of politics have not always been the same. The result is a recurring pattern in which problems are discussed only when their consequences are already appearing on household bills.
Yes to Nuclear Power – But Not as a Political Religion
I support nuclear power. Not because I have any particular emotional attachment to nuclear reactors, and not because I believe this technology must dominate Sweden's energy supply forever. I support it because Sweden needs a stable foundation for an electricity system that must function every day of the year, regardless of temperature, wind conditions or international crises.
The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability to deliver substantial quantities of electricity continuously, with relatively low direct greenhouse gas emissions. It does not depend on whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Together with hydropower, it can help provide a more stable generation mix, while wind power, solar energy, energy storage and other technologies serve important complementary functions. It is precisely the interaction between different energy sources that should be at the centre of the discussion, rather than which technology wins the next political argument.
But nuclear power is no miracle cure. New reactors require enormous investments, long-term financing, extensive safety procedures and lengthy construction processes. Someone has to pay those costs, ultimately through electricity prices, taxation or other financing arrangements. A nuclear programme that becomes excessively expensive could therefore create new financial problems even if its electricity production is reliable. Replacing one problem with another and then calling it a success would be absurd.
We also need an honest discussion about time. New nuclear power stations will not solve this winter's electricity bills. Even if decisions are made today, construction will take years. In the meantime, Sweden needs to strengthen existing generation, improve transmission capacity, reduce unnecessary bottlenecks, develop storage and flexibility, and create better financial conditions for households that have limited opportunities to adjust their electricity consumption.
My position is therefore pragmatic. Use nuclear power where it serves a genuine purpose. Expand and maintain hydropower within reasonable environmental limits. Continue developing wind and solar energy where they make technical and economic sense. Invest in research that may produce better solutions in the future. But do not turn households into experimental subjects in an energy policy experiment where every change of government threatens to rewrite the rules.
We need to stop discussing energy sources as though they were rival football teams. They are technical tools. Their value should be judged by how effectively they work together to create a reliable, competitive and economically sustainable electricity system.
And the real objective must be greater than the technology itself: allowing people to live their lives without constantly worrying about the cost of electricity.
High Executive Salaries Must Come with Real Responsibility
There is something almost absurd about the fact that Sweden can generate a substantial electricity surplus over the course of a year and still experience periods of extremely high prices. The explanation is that annual electricity production and the generating capacity available at a particular hour are two different things. Electricity must be available in the right place at the right time. Sweden is also part of a European market in which electricity prices are influenced by international demand, gas prices, transmission connections and electricity generation in other countries.
International electricity trading has advantages. It makes it possible to sell surplus production, import electricity when necessary and use available generating capacity more efficiently. But it also raises a fundamental question: How much of the financial risk associated with international energy markets should ordinary households reasonably be expected to carry? A pensioner in Skåne, in southern Sweden, has limited opportunities to compensate for high electricity prices by increasing personal electricity generation. A family with children living in an older house cannot immediately invest hundreds of thousands of Swedish kronor in a new heating system. Yet both are expected to behave like rational market participants, adjusting their consumption to price signals that can change from one hour to the next.
Then come network charges, energy taxes, VAT and fixed fees. For many households, the final bill is considerably more complicated than the electricity price itself. And because electricity distribution networks operate as local monopolies, consumers cannot simply choose another network operator when charges increase. The state must therefore demand high standards of regulation, transparency and reasonable pricing. This becomes particularly relevant when network companies justify increased charges by pointing to investment needs while employing executives whose compensation can be far above the earnings of ordinary employees.
Personally, I have absolutely nothing against a CEO receiving a very high salary. Someone who leads a large and socially important organisation, makes difficult decisions and carries genuine responsibility should naturally be able to earn substantial compensation. Competence, experience and the ability to lead through crises have real value. But I also expect responsibility to mean more than a sentence in an employment contract. When electricity customers are struggling with high bills, network charges are increasing, and households are being told to prepare for another expensive winter, there is every reason to examine both executive compensation and management accountability. Particularly in businesses where customers cannot even choose a competing network supplier.
It is not high executive salaries themselves that bother me. What I find difficult to accept is the idea that substantial financial rewards can sometimes become disconnected from personal responsibility. An ordinary employee who fails to do their job properly risks losing their livelihood. A corporate executive may, under certain circumstances, leave a position with a generous severance package and move on to another highly paid leadership role. That does not mean every departing CEO has failed, or that all severance agreements are unjustified. But the principle deserves scrutiny. I want business leaders who remain accountable when the storm arrives, who stand behind their decisions and accept the consequences when things go wrong. Not a system in which financial risks can effectively be transferred to customers and employees while senior executives have negotiated protection from much of their own exposure.
There is a particular irony here when it comes to the energy industry. Households are told they must adapt, conserve electricity, accept new pricing structures and understand market conditions. At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to ask how those same expectations of adaptation and responsibility are reflected in the compensation arrangements of corporate management. A high executive salary does not necessarily conflict with customers' interests, but it should be justified by genuine performance and clear accountability. If an energy executive expects compensation reflecting exceptional responsibility, then that responsibility should also be exceptional.
That should be every bit as obvious as the expectation that electricity customers pay their bills on time.
And perhaps this is where a larger social question begins to emerge. We have created economic systems in which risks are not always distributed in the same way as rewards. Those with sufficiently strong bargaining positions can sometimes protect themselves from consequences that others must bear in full. This is hardly unique to the energy industry, but in an essential public service such as electricity, the contradiction becomes particularly visible.
When the Electricity Bill Becomes a Non-Issue Again, We Will Have Succeeded
Sweden's electricity system is not a failure in every respect. The country has extensive fossil-free electricity generation, a high level of electrification, considerable technical expertise and an electricity system that is fundamentally robust. These are important strengths that should not be underestimated. But a technically functioning system is not automatically a socially successful one. A society must also be judged by how its essential services affect people's everyday lives.
For me, the objective is remarkably simple. I want the electricity bill to become a non-issue again. That does not mean electricity should be free or that nobody should have to think about their energy consumption. Resources cost money, and efficient use matters. But the cost must be reasonable and, above all, predictable enough for an ordinary household to plan its finances without fearing the arrival of next winter.
That requires an energy policy extending far beyond the next election. The political left and right do not need to agree on everything, but surely they should be able to agree that the electricity system is critical national infrastructure that cannot be redesigned after every new political agreement. Investments in generation and electricity networks must be considered over thirty, forty and fifty years. There must be long-term rules that both producers and consumers can rely upon.
At the same time, we need to discuss how essential household needs can be protected against extreme price fluctuations. Long-term electricity contracts, clearer consumer protections, better regulation of network monopolies and models for more stable pricing of essential household electricity consumption all deserve serious examination. There is no free solution, and costs hidden on one bill have a habit of appearing somewhere else. But the fact that reform requires careful thought is hardly a reason to accept the current uncertainty.
Nuclear power should be part of the solution for as long as it remains technically, economically and safely justified. It would be unwise to reject functioning technology for ideological reasons, just as it would be unwise to build new technology without examining its costs and consequences. If other solutions can one day deliver the same stability at a lower overall cost, we should naturally remain open to them. Nuclear power itself does not need to be protected forever. What needs protecting is the ability of households and society to access reliable electricity.
Politicians must also begin measuring success differently. Not only in installed megawatts, the number of new wind turbines, approved nuclear reactors or electricity export revenues. But also in the stability of household costs, the size of regional price differences and how well the electricity system functions during the coldest days of winter. The same clarity must apply to corporate leadership. If substantial compensation is justified by substantial responsibility, there must also be an understandable connection between pay, performance and consequences.
Over the past thirty years, we have been told that the market would solve the problems, that new technology would solve the problems, that increased transmission capacity would solve the problems and that different energy sources would solve the problems. Each proposal contains elements of a possible solution. But no single energy source, no individual reform and no temporary subsidy can replace the need for a properly considered system as a whole.
The next time a Swedish government presents its energy policy, I would therefore like to hear something other than yet another argument about who was right or wrong about nuclear power. I would like a concrete answer about how Sweden intends to restore predictability for people who simply want to live in their homes, cook their meals and stay warm. I would also like to hear energy company executives talk as much about the financial security of their customers as they do about investments, profitability and returns.
Because that was, after all, what electricity once represented. Not a daily financial gamble, not speculation about tomorrow's weather and not an endless conflict between political parties.
Simply an essential part of a modern, functioning society.
I support nuclear power until we have restored the balance. I support every well-considered technological solution that can contribute to a more stable electricity system. I support high salaries for people who carry substantial and genuine responsibility. But I do not accept ordinary households being used as financial shock absorbers when the system fails to deliver the security society needs.
The day the electricity bill once again arrives, gets paid and is forgotten — and those who lead the energy system are expected to carry the genuine responsibility their compensation suggests — that is the day we will have made real progress.
By Chris...
Sources and Further Reading