Lifting the ban on nuclear power in certain coastal and archipelago areas
What's at stake: The decision affects where in the country new nuclear power can be built, and thus future electricity supply and the climate transition, but also the natural environment, biodiversity and local industries such as tourism and fishing in the coastal and archipelago areas that would otherwise remain protected.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the current ban on building nuclear facilities in certain designated coastal and archipelago areas should be removed to enable new nuclear power, or whether the ban should remain in favour of other ways of increasing fossil-free electricity production.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee recommends adopting the government's proposal to remove the ban on nuclear facilities in the coastal and archipelago areas concerned. It highlights that nuclear power can supply large amounts of fossil-free electricity and support services that make the power system more robust and secure, that allowing more sites can encourage investment in new nuclear power, and that protection of natural and cultural values is still upheld because each individual project will still require a case-by-case review under the environmental code's resource-management rules, including special consideration for areas of national interest for tourism and outdoor recreation. It therefore recommends rejecting the countermotions seeking to reject the proposal.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 1 (S, V, C, MP)
S, V, C and MP hold that parliament should reject the government's proposal. The parties argue that an exclusive focus on expanding nuclear power risks becoming needlessly costly for the state, businesses and households while crowding out investment in other fossil-free electricity production. They question whether there is a genuine need to open the entire protected coastal and archipelago areas to nuclear facilities, which they say risks harming biodiversity and important local industries such as tourism and fishing. They are also critical of the government having submitted several closely related nuclear power proposals to parliament in separate rounds, which makes it harder to assess their combined consequences for energy policy as a whole.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: adopting the government's legislative proposal and rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 1 by S, V, C, MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
Vown reservation
–
No 0/21/0/0
Sown reservation
–
No 0/105/0/1
MPown reservation
–
No 0/18/0/0
Cown reservation
–
No 0/24/0/0
L
–
Yes 16/0/0/0
KD
–
Yes 19/0/0/0
M
–
Yes 66/0/0/0
SD
–
Yes 70/0/0/0
Committee proposal
Parliament adopts the government's proposal for a law amending the Environmental Code.
Thereby Parliament approves proposition 2025/26:160 and rejects the motions
2025/26:3961 by Birger Lahti et al. (V),
2025/26:3971 by Fredrik Olovsson et al. (S) motion 1,
2025/26:3979 by Rickard Nordin et al. (C) and
2025/26:3984 by Katarina Luhr et al. (MP).
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen antar regeringens förslag till lag om ändring i miljöbalken.
Därmed bifaller riksdagen proposition 2025/26:160 och avslår motionerna
2025/26:3961 av Birger Lahti m.fl. (V),
2025/26:3971 av Fredrik Olovsson m.fl. (S) yrkande 1,
2025/26:3979 av Rickard Nordin m.fl. (C) och
2025/26:3984 av Katarina Luhr m.fl. (MP).
Riksdag decision: The government wants to create better conditions for new establishment of nuclear technology facilities and presents proposals for amendments to the Environmental Code. Parliament approved the government's proposal.
The legislative amendments aim to enable nuclear power expansion in more locations on the coast, while maintaining protection for natural and cultural values.
The proposal entails that
the prohibition against nuclear technology facilities within coastal areas and archipelagos in Bohuslän, from the border with Norway to Brofjorden, in Småland and Östergötland, from Simpevarp to Arkö Sound, and in Ångermanland, from Storfjärden at the mouth of the Ångermanälven to Skagsudde, and on Öland is removed.
the prohibition against nuclear technology facilities within coastal areas and archipelagos from Brofjorden to Simpevarp and from Arkö Sound to Forsmark, along the coast of Gotland, on Östergarn and Storsudret on Gotland, and on Fårö, in places other than where certain industrial and similar facilities already exist, is removed.
The legislative amendments come into force on 15 July 2026.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants to maintain protection of coastal and archipelago areas against nuclear power plant establishment to protect nature and environmental values. (S, V, C, MP) — Reservation 1