From Västra Götaland to Uppland, SVK representatives have provided the same response. They emphasize that the risk of faults increases at cable joints and that repair times for underground cables are significantly longer. Additionally, SVK claims that the cost of underground cables is five times higher than overhead lines, and overhead lines have twice the lifespan. They also point out that underground cables entail technical risks and limitations within the national grid, which, according to them, makes overhead lines the technically and economically advantageous option.

Professor Mats Leijon at Uppsala University has countered these claims in debates in both local and national media. Mats argues that SVK's assertions do not align with international research and industry data. The international organization Cigre has compiled fault statistics showing that underground cables have fewer faults per kilometer per year than overhead lines. Moreover, faults in 400kV underground cable systems are exceedingly rare. International experiences from countries like Germany and Japan demonstrate that underground cables can be successfully used in high-voltage networks without compromising system stability. Taking into account factors such as safety, land use, delays due to appeals, as well as climate and environmental impacts, underground cables may prove more cost-effective in the long term.

How SVK arrives at its conclusions is unclear. However, the debate about underground cables versus overhead lines underscores the importance of fact-based decisions to combine technological advancements with climate and societal goals. Developing Sweden’s power grid requires in-depth research, transparent information, and a strengthened research environment in cable systems and power technology, where initiatives like STandUP for Energy play a vital role.