Market prices in the electricity grid do not work to incentivized lower consumption, and the latest few energy crisis in EU has demonstrated that clearly. You can't expect workers to go to work based on when the weather is optimal, and to stay at home (unpaid) when it is not. Rent do not go down according to weather, nor do food prices. Workers do not like to go to work at 3am in the night if that happens to be the time when the wind is blowing. Bakeries can't just choose to produce bread when its good weather and not delivery anything during other periods. Contracts in production chains are not written to consider weather patterns.
A bakery for example will produce bread at a loss if they have a contract and the value of the contract is higher than a temporary increase in electricity. If you allow market prices to rise unlimited, the price will increase to the point where breaking a contract is cheaper than not producing. Some companies in the last crisis did invoke force majeure when prices got too high, which as a society is a very poor way to incentivize behavior.
The result is that voters will elect a government that solves the problem, rather than change behavior. We have also seen that in eu for the last few elections. The Swedish elections in particular has been dominated around the topic of energy.
Hydro energy would help to keep the market stable in Sweden if the value of the natural resource would also stay in Sweden. Right now that resource is being primarily sold off by private actors through exports to countries like Germany and Denmark, thus doing little to keep the market stable for Swedish consumers. The government could nationalize that resource, deeming it as a natural resource owned by the Swedish citizens and thus any revenue gained from selling electricity would automatically go to Swedish citizens to pay their energy bills.