Elmarknadshubb

The Swedish policy concept for a central data infrastructure platform for the electricity market — enabling standardised data exchange between all actors (DSOs, suppliers, aggregators, customers, metering companies) through one national hub rather than fragmented bilateral IT connections.

The concept has been through a complete policy reset: the original “elmarknadshubb” mandate (to Svenska kraftnät, 2015) was paused in 2020 and formally cancelled in September 2025. It was replaced by a new government assignment — a centralt datahanteringsverktyg (central data management tool) — assigned jointly to Ei and Svenska kraftnät, with a proposal due by September 2026.

Why it matters for flexibility

Without a central data platform, the data barriers to flexibility market participation are structural:

• Aggregators need metering data from dozens of different DSO systems — each with proprietary formats and access rules
• DSOs need resource data from providers registering in different markets — no single registry
• Settlement for independent aggregation (CEP Art. 13) requires BRP energy-transfer tracking that doesn’t exist in standardized form
• The Network Code on Demand Response‘s Flexibility Information System (FIS) requirement — a single national register for all CUs and service providers — cannot be fulfilled without underlying data infrastructure
• Small actors (aggregators, prosumers, communities) face disproportionate data access costs — large DSOs and suppliers have bespoke IT; small entrants do not

Ei‘s 2023 evaluation explicitly named the absence of the hub as a structural barrier to flexibility market development, and recommended it be resumed (Source - Ei Flexibility in Distribution Grids (2023)). The 2024 Elmarknadsutredning (SOU 2025:47) confirmed: “better data handling is significant for promoting flexibility and would reduce the threshold for new actors to enter the market.”

An Ei-commissioned market actor survey (IVL, January 2023) provides bottom-up confirmation: market actors — aggregators, suppliers, DSOs — explicitly called for “standardisera mätdata i centralhubb” (standardized meter data in a central hub) as enabling infrastructure for aggregation optimization. Without it, aggregators cannot optimize across DSO boundaries, each of which has proprietary formats and access rules. (Source - IVL Konsumentperspektiv Efterfrågeflexibilitet (2023))

The original elmarknadshubb (2015–2025)

The 2015 mandate

In June 2015, the government assigned Svenska kraftnät to develop and operate a central information handling model (central informationshanteringsmodell; ref. M2015/2635/Ee). The mandate embedded two ambitions:

1. Central IT system — a hub through which all metering data, customer data, and settlement information flows, replacing bilateral DSO-to-supplier data exchanges
2. Elhandlarcentrisk modell (supplier-centric market model) — a structural market reform in which the electricity supplier (not the DSO) becomes the customer’s primary contact for metering, billing, and switching; this is the Nordic standard model used in Norway, Denmark, and Finland

By 2021, Svk had delivered: a prototype, initial core functionality, a structural data inventory from market actors, a migration strategy, and a management organisation plan. (Source - Projektstatus Elmarknadshubben (2021))

The 2020 pause

The project paused in autumn 2020 pending lagstöd — the legislative support needed for Svk to operate the hub and for the supplier-centric model rules to apply. The proposed legislation was delayed with no clear timeline.

The September 2020 budget proposition separated the two ambitions: the government narrowed its near-term focus to getting the hub operational for data exchange; the supplier-centric model reform was explicitly deferred to after the hub was running.

Status through 2020–2025: project paused, regulations stalled. Ei‘s R2023:05 report flagged the paused hub as a critical gap and recommended it be immediately resumed.

The 2025 cancellation

On 18 September 2025, the government issued a new formal decision (Regeringsbeslut I:4, KN2025/01781) that explicitly terminated the 2015 mandate:

“Uppdraget till Affärsverket svenska kraftnät att utveckla och driva en central informationshanteringsmodell (M2015/2635/Ee) ska upphöra.”

Reason given: the new assignment “partially overlaps” with the old one, and parts of the old assignment “are today overtaken by events.” (Source - Uppdrag Centralt Datahanteringsverktyg (2025))

The new assignment: centralt datahanteringsverktyg (2025–)

What changed

Four purposes of the new tool

The government decision specifies the datahanteringsverktyg shall:

1. Improve flexibility and grid use — through improved and simplified access to electricity usage and grid tariff data
2. Streamline actor data exchange — secure and cost-effective
3. Improve statistics and policy data — for planning, policy design, and monitoring; energy system planning and totalförsvars perspective specifically prioritised
4. Simplify EU and national legislation implementation — including the NC DR FIS requirement and NIS 2 cybersecurity directive

The security dimension

The new mandate has a substantially larger security scope than the old one. The risk analysis must cover personal data protection, security-classified information, and total defence implications. FRA, Försvarsmakten, and SÄPO are all required consultees. This reflects how the threat landscape for critical infrastructure has changed since 2015. The DHV as a centralized national data store is the clearest instance of the concentration-of-control security risk analysed in Security and Resilience of the Digitalized Flexible Grid.

NC DR linkage

The government decision explicitly names the NC DR as context: the NC DR is expected to require a Flexibility Information System (FIS). The datahanteringsverktyg is in effect Sweden’s vehicle for developing that national FIS. This means the tool must be designed with NC DR interoperability requirements in mind — single access point, GUI + API, data portability, register-once principle. (Network Code on Demand Response)

A building block already exists: Svk publishes a machine-readable market-data vocabulary — the EMDO (Electricity Market Data Ontology) and BASE ontologies (RDF/Turtle, on data.svk.se), covering reserve products, bidding zones, interconnectors, production types, auction rounds, forecast horizons, and units. EMDO is the kind of structured, machine-readable data model the FIS portability / register-once principle presupposes; whether the DHV/FIS data model is built on (or aligned with) EMDO — versus the IEC CIM or an ENTSO-E model — is an open design question. (Source - Svk EMDO BASE Ontologier (2026))

Aggregation compensation

The government explicitly names compensation for independent aggregation as a required function:

“ett datahanteringsverktyg är nödvändigt för en effektiv administrering av kompensation vid oberoende aggregering”

Independent aggregators (CEP Directive Art. 13) can activate customer resources without supplier consent, but any resulting energy-transfer imbalance between BRPs must be settled. Without central data infrastructure, this settlement is manually intensive and practically infeasible at scale. This is the concrete reason aggregation market development in Sweden is limited. (Aggregation)

Svk’s September 2024 compensation model proposal (Government assignment KN2023/03647) makes the dependency explicit: Model 4 (flexibilitet med kompensation / korrigerad faktura) — the recommended long-run model for independent aggregation — cannot function without the central information system. The report explicitly defers consequences analysis for Model 4 because the system design is unknown. Only Model 3 (multiple delivery points, no central clearing) is available during the transition. Svk estimates 4–6 years from government decision to an operational system. The September 2025 government assignment to Ei + Svk for the datahanteringsverktyg is the direct response to this gap. (Source - Svk Kompensationsmodell Delrapport 1 (2024), Source - Svk Kompensationsmodell Delrapport 2 (2024))

Nordic context

Sweden’s neighbors completed comparable data hubs years earlier:

The lag has concrete consequences: Norway’s Elhub has enabled the independent aggregation market to scale; Swedish aggregators lack comparable data access. (Source - Ei Flexibility in Distribution Grids (2023))

DHV + FIS architecture — the 2026 proposal

In early 2026, Ei and Svenska kraftnät published a consultation document for a digital stakeholder meeting presenting the emerging proposal. This is the most detailed public statement of what the tool will look like ahead of the September 2026 formal report. (Source - Ei Förslag Centralt Datahanteringsverktyg (2026))

Two-component architecture

The proposal establishes a single coherent national function with two components:

DHV (centralt datahanteringsverktyg) — the market data backbone:

• Holds all electricity market master data: meter points, grid contracts, supply contracts, customer-BRP-supplier mapping, and meter values
• Includes machine-readable network tariffs (maskinläsbar elnätstariff för styrtjänster) as an explicit data category — enabling standardised automated steering services across DSO boundaries. Norway’s Elhub lesson is the direct motivation: “Borde ha inkluderat data om nättariffer” (it should have included tariff data). Without this, each DSO’s tariff structure must be integrated individually, making cross-DSO automated control services prohibitively costly to develop. (Source - DHV Presentation 2026-04-27)
• Performs centralized grid settlement (nätavräkning), replacing individual DSO processing and bilateral data distribution
• Manages all customer consents and customer representatives (kundombud) centrally via “Mina sidor”
• DSOs continue to ensure meter points and meter values are registered, but no longer perform settlement or distribute data themselves

FIS (flexibilitetsinformationssystem) — the flexibility data layer:

• Registers all flexibility resources nationally: single registration, valid across markets; no duplicate entry per DSO or platform
• Handles SP qualification, resource grouping, and flexibility agreements
• Collects resource-level meter values; calculates reference profiles; verifies delivered flexibility at activation by comparing reference profile to actual metering
• Produces centralized settlement basis for all actors affected by each flexibility delivery
• Reduces the need for each procuring market operator (DSO, platform) to build their own parallel IT systems

Critical sequencing: FIS can be developed in a parallel track, but its live operation depends on DHV v1 being in place first — FIS requires the current and correct delivery structure that DHV provides. DHV v1 does not depend on FIS.

Six design principles

1. No direct actor-to-actor communication — all information exchange in market processes goes via DHV
2. DHV takes over DSO administrative tasks — DSO settlement and data distribution moves to DHV
3. DHV as single source of truth for delivery structure — customer↔supplier↔BRP↔meter point relationships all maintained in DHV
4. Centralized consent management — consents and kundombud in DHV “Mina sidor”
5. FIS for flexibility — all flexibility resource data in one national system
6. Mina sidor portal — customer access to consents, agreements, and authorizations (functional concept; may be realized via integrations with DSO/supplier portals)

Five stated benefits

Proposed operator and implementation

Proposed operator: Svenska kraftnät is recommended to develop and operate DHV and FIS, reusing structural capital (business processes, requirements material) from the earlier elmarknadshubb project.

Staged implementation:

• DHV v1 covers the core: meter points, contracts, meter values, grid settlement, consents, Mina sidor
• Later stages add energy sharing and extended kundombud functionality
• FIS development runs in parallel; goes live after DHV v1 is operational

Nordic and European reference models

Sweden’s chosen direction follows Norway/Finland/Denmark. The Austrian decentralized model is explicitly used as the negative reference case.

“Team Semantics” approach (Netherlands) not directly mentioned but consistent with the unified definitions principle embedded in the centralized architecture.

Timeline

Stakeholder concerns (April 2026 consultation)

The April 27, 2026 digital consultation meeting surfaced the following industry concerns with the DHV+FIS architecture: (Source - DHV Presentation 2026-04-27)

• Data quality governance: who bears responsibility for ensuring master data accuracy? Multiple actors (DSOs, suppliers, aggregators) hold overlapping, inconsistent records today; migrating to a single source of truth requires resolving ownership disputes.
• Transition costs: ~170 heterogeneous DSO IT systems must integrate with DHV. The migration effort is substantial, particularly for smaller DSOs with limited IT capacity.
• Privacy / GDPR: centralising customer consumption data in one national system creates significant personal data obligations; legal basis and data minimisation approach require clarification.
• Aggregator access rights: aggregators need direct API access to metering data and FIS resources without mediation by suppliers or DSOs; the design must ensure non-discriminatory access in practice, not only in principle.
• Sequencing risk: FIS cannot go live until DHV v1 is operational; any delay to DHV directly delays Sweden’s ability to meet NC DR FIS obligations.

Data gaps

• How the security agencies’ (FRA, SÄPO, IMY) requirements will shape the tool’s final architecture
• DHV+FIS implementation phasing and go-live dates — post-September 2026 proposal; NC DR FIS sequencing not yet public; whether FIS will be open to third-party platform feeders or mandated as a single regulated utility

Related pages

• Network Code on Demand Response — FIS (Flexibility Information System) requirement; the EU-level mandate the tool must meet
• Aggregation — aggregation compensation as an explicit required function; DHV is the enabling infrastructure
• Energy Communities — DHV provides centralized energy sharing calculation; named as a direct benefit in the proposal
• Ei — coordinating agency for the new assignment
• Svenska kraftnät — proposed operator; old mandate cancelled
• Flexibility Market — data access as structural barrier to market entry; FIS removes it for small DSOs and FSPs
• Distribution System Operator — DSO administrative tasks (settlement, data distribution) move to DHV