The Swedish Energy Markets Inspectorate, Swedish Competition Authority, National Institute of Economic Research and Research Institute for Industrial Economics were all highly critical of an inquiry into the subsidy scheme's format, including its conclusions, with the Markets Inspectorate going so far as to call for the government to go back to the drawing board and scrap the proposed subsidy system entirely.
Two energy companies, E.on and Skellefteå Energy, also complained about the departure from technological neutrality, while pointing out serious problems in the subsidy system proposed, with the latter telling the government to rethink its one-sided pro-nuclear push and calling for the proposed subsidy system to be scrapped.
There was also criticism from academia, with Chalmers Institute of Technology and Luleå Technological University (LTU) both issuing scathing responses and the latter rejecting it outright.
Mats Dillén, the economist tasked with drawing up a subsidy system sufficiently generous to draw in investors, delivered his conclusions in August, proposing that the state provide investors with cheap loans to cover 75 percent of the estimated 400bn kronor cost of building four new reactors, and also given them a guaranteed price of 80 öre a kWh (about double the current power price).
When newspaper DN asked Niklas Wykman, Sweden's financial markets minister, about the wide panning of the proposal, he said that the government could still adjust the funding model.
"This shouldn't be seen as a final destination, this is a part of a major piece of work and we are open to doing more things," he told the newspaper, pointing to the electricity markets inquiry which will deliver its own proposals in the spring.
Tomas Ramberg, political commentator for DN, wrote that the broad criticism of the proposal was "troubling" for Sweden's prime minister Ulf Kristersson, as his government's energy policy was based around bringing plans for new nuclear to such an advanced stage by the time of the next election that even if the left bloc were to win, they would be unable to stop the ball rolling.
Not every submission was negative.
Sweden's majority state-owned power company Vattenfall, which stands to benefit from the generous subsidy scheme, broadly welcomed it, as did the Finnish power company Fortum, although it warned of the political risk.
The Confederation of Swedish Industry also broadly welcomed the inquiry, although it called for another inquiry that would analyse a similar subsidy scheme for alternative technologies, such as large scale energy storage, which could provide the same stability to the power system that nuclear does.
The critical responses made many of the same arguments, with many criticising the decision not to be technology neutral.
The Swedish Energy Markets Inspectorate said it "advised against" the system proposed, complaining that the inquiry had not properly analysed the impact of the proposed funding system either on wind power, solar power and other sources, or on the way the power price is set in Sweden's auction system.
The National Institute of Economic Research complained that the inquiry had not done a proper cost-benefit analysis on whether such a massive investment in new nuclear was worth it for Sweden's society and economy, and called for the government to analyse alternative solutions before pushing ahead.
It also warned that the planned model would mean taxpayers carried a "very large" share of the risk during the construction phase, while the expected profit margin for the companies investing, at 12.5 percent, was "relatively high".
The Swedish Competition Authority warned that the proposed subsidies would distort competition between different types of power.
The Research Institute for Industrial Economics (IVF) said it was "sceptical" that such a complex and significant issue could be properly examined in a six-month "accelerated inquiry".
Chalmers Institute of Technology was scathing in its judgement, picking up in particular on the claim in the inquiry report that the subsidy system for new nuclear would somehow benefit wind producers. "We don't understand this and have not been able to find anyone else in the industry who does either."
The university complained of "major shortcomings both in the instructions to the inquiry and the way it has been carried out", with no evidence given that new nuclear would bring benefits to Sweden, an underestimate of the likely costs and of the risk that it would squeeze out other, cheaper power sources such as wind.
Luleå Institute of Technology picked holes in many of the proposals and argued that there was evidence that all of the government's energy market goals could be met more cheaply with alternatives to nuclear.
The KTH Royal Institute of Technology was more welcoming, but warned nonetheless that the enormous likely impact on Sweden's national finances meant that the government needed to carry out another inquiry into the socio-economic consequences.
E.on warned that the compensation offered investors for low power prices created "unlimited risk" for the Swedish state and for power consumers, while the system would create inefficiencies in the spot market which could put other types of power production out of business.
Comments (4)