Flex›Source - Ei Förslag Centralt Datahanteringsverktyg (2026)

Source - Ei Förslag Centralt Datahanteringsverktyg (2026)

Type: Consultation document (remissunderlag) for digital stakeholder meeting
Authors: Energimarknadsinspektionen (Ei) + Affärsverket svenska kraftnät
Date: 2026 (pre-report; full proposal due 30 September 2026)
Written comment deadline: 8 May 2026
Government assignment basis: Regeringsbeslut I:4, KN2025/01781 (18 September 2025)

Summary

This document is the consultation underlay for Ei and Svenska kraftnät’s digital stakeholder meeting presenting the emerging proposal for a centralt datahanteringsverktyg (central data management tool, DHV) and flexibilitetsinformationssystem (FIS). It outlines what the two systems would do, the design principles behind them, lessons from comparable systems in neighbouring countries, and the proposed implementation approach.

The document represents the most detailed public statement to date of what the DHV+FIS architecture will look like, ahead of the formal September 2026 government report.

The proposed DHV+FIS architecture

Ei and Svenska kraftnät propose a single coherent national function with two components:

DHV (centralt datahanteringsverktyg) — the market data backbone:

  • Handles all electricity market master data: meter points, grid connection agreements (elnätsavtal), supply contracts (elhandelsavtal), customer relationships (BRP, supplier), and meter values
  • Performs centralized grid settlement (nätavräkning) and distributes data to relevant actors
  • Manages all customer consents (samtycken) and customer representatives (kundombud) centrally via a “Mina sidor” portal
  • Replaces bilateral DSO-to-actor data exchange with a standardized central channel

FIS (flexibilitetsinformationssystem) — the flexibility data layer:

  • Registers all flexibility resources nationally (single registration, valid across markets)
  • Handles SP qualification processes, resource grouping, and flexibility agreements
  • Collects and manages resource-level meter values; calculates reference profiles
  • Verifies delivered flexibility by comparing reference profiles with actual meter values at activation
  • Produces centralized settlement basis (avräkningsunderlag) for all affected actors
  • Reduces the need for each procuring market operator to build and maintain their own parallel IT systems
  • Critical dependency: FIS requires DHV v1 to be live first, as FIS depends on the correct and current delivery structure that DHV provides

Together DHV and FIS form one functional whole: resource connections, qualification, activation, and verification handled in a coordinated and reliable way.

Six design principles

  1. No direct actor-to-actor communication — actors no longer exchange information directly in market processes; all flows go via DHV
  2. DHV takes over DSO administrative tasks — DSOs continue to ensure meter points and meter values are registered, but no longer perform grid settlement or distribute data to other actors themselves; DHV handles validation, updating, and distribution
  3. DHV as single source of truth for the delivery structure — the mapping of customer ↔ supplier ↔ BRP ↔ meter point is administered in DHV; all actors access the same validated, current information
  4. Centralized consent management — consents and customer representatives managed in DHV; customers access via “Mina sidor” with e-legitimation
  5. FIS for flexibility — all flexibility resource information managed in one national system; registration once, usable across all markets; agreements coordinated with delivery structure in DHV
  6. Mina sidor — a central customer-facing interface (functional concept, not necessarily one specific portal; can be realized via integrations with DSO/supplier portals)

Five stated benefits

  1. Efficient meter value access — standardized APIs replace 170 heterogeneous DSO interfaces; enables automation; common access costs rather than individual DSO pricing
  2. Enabling local flexibility markets — common structural data, standardized processes, and traceable settlement basis; lower barriers for small DSOs and small FSPs; enables participation without bespoke IT
  3. Simplified NC DR implementation — DHV/FIS provides the data exchange infrastructure NC DR requires; FIS is the national FIS mandated by NC DR Arts. 24–28
  4. Well-functioning electricity market — standardized supplier switching, unified customer view; supports transition from “anvisad elleverantör” to “sistahandsleverantör” system (new rules from 1 July 2027)
  5. Energy sharing — centralized calculation of energy sharing deductions for suppliers; reduces development costs for energy sharing arrangements; enables energy sharing at lower cost for participants

Nordic and European comparison

The document explicitly compares five countries:

CountryModelKey outcome
NorwayElhub — centralizedStandardized processes, improved data quality, clear responsibilities
FinlandDatahub — centralizedSimilar benefits; strong legal mandate emphasized as success factor
DenmarkDataHub Denmark — centralizedSimilar benefits; implementation challenges in migration phase
EstoniaCentralizedDocumented efficiency gains
AustriaDecentralized (P2P)E-Control found inadequate: lack of cost transparency, difficult debugging, unclear responsibilities, limited central statistics, not fit for complex data-driven energy system

Key lesson: A centralized data hub is not a pure IT project — Norway, Finland, and Denmark all found the greatest challenges in governance, organization, stakeholder cooperation, and management. Data migration and quality improvement must be treated as a dedicated subproject with dedicated resources and extensive testing. Staged (“stegvisa”) rollouts are more robust than big-bang implementations.

Legislation lesson: Clear statutory mandate is essential. Finland and Norway emphasize that the hub must be expressly regulated by law with clearly defined tasks, responsibilities, and purposes. Sweden’s 2015 mandate was paused partly due to lack of legislation — the new assignment must produce legislative proposals alongside the technical design.

Implementation approach

Proposed operator: Svenska kraftnät is recommended as the entity assigned to develop and operate DHV and FIS, reusing structural capital (business processes, requirements material) from the previous Elmarknadshubb work.

Staged implementation:

  • First version (DHV v1) covers the core: meter points, grid contracts, supply contracts, meter values, grid settlement, consents, and Mina sidor — the minimum needed for central market processes to function in the new system
  • Later stages can add energy sharing and customer representatives
  • FIS can be developed in a parallel track but must wait for DHV v1 before going live; it can be designed and built simultaneously but its launch depends on DHV v1

Market model unchanged: The proposal explicitly does not change the current market model (today’s DSO/supplier roles remain; the supplier-centric model, elhandlarcentrisk modell, is not part of this assignment).

Data privacy and personal data

The document addresses that consumption data can constitute personal data (consumption patterns can indirectly reveal religious, ethnic, or health information). The operator of DHV/FIS will be independently responsible as personuppgiftsansvarig for processing within the tool. DSOs and suppliers remain responsible for processing within their own systems up to the point of transfer to DHV.

Key claims for the wiki

  • The proposal resolves the open question of what replaces the cancelled elmarknadshubb: it is DHV+FIS under SvK, not a supplier-centric market model
  • FIS = the Swedish vehicle for NC DR Arts. 24–28 FIS requirement
  • DHV enables aggregation compensation (the specific use case named in the government’s September 2025 assignment)
  • The design explicitly enables energy sharing/communities as a benefit
  • Austria’s decentralized P2P model is used as the negative reference case