The community loses money on how the electricity market is designed claims CERE's Bengt Kriström in an article on Second opinion published October 29, 2014.
A lot can be won with more flexible regulations says CERE researchers with Bengt as spokesman. They calculated on Ljusnan as an example, if it was possible to demolish the two power plants on the river outlet while increasing the capacity of the third, you would get 150 km free fish migration routes. However, this is not possible with today's regulations, where each power plant is regulated separately: "Present state of hydropower is exactly as analogous as emissions were in the past. Then we looked at it chimney for chimney and how much each was allowed to emit. Today that does not matter, if you want to increase production, you can trade emissions with another country." says Bengt.
He also points out that with a "broader social-economic investigation" of how the fees to the Nuclear Waste Fund should be calculated, we can avoid unnecessary costs to the community: "- To me, this is about unnecessary efficiency losses, in these two cases, billions of kronor (sek) if not more is lost. And this is just one part of the electricity oddities, there are many more."
Read the full article "Bengt Kriström: "Flexiblare vattenkraftsreglering kan ge samhällsekonomiska vinster" (More flexible hydropower regulation can provide socio-economic benefits) on Second Opinion – only in Swedish.