Ei Karttjänst DNDP Data (2025)

Title: Data från karttjänsten över elnätsföretagens nätutvecklingsplaner (Excel export from Ei’s karttjänst)

Coverage: ~147 unique reporting entities (235 total rows including delområde/sub-area breakouts) — an earlier version of this page said ~155; published DNDPs per EIFS 2024:1

Summary

Ei’s centralized mapping service aggregating key DNDP data from all Swedish DSOs that have published Distribution Network Development Plans (nätutvecklingsplaner) under the mandatory EIFS 2024:1 framework. The data is publicly available via Ei’s karttjänst (map tool) and downloadable as Excel. This dataset provides the broadest available cross-DSO view of Swedish grid forecasts, investment plans, flexibility needs, and adequacy assessments.

The dataset has four sheets covering the four primary DNDP content categories. It is the primary public source for system-wide comparisons of Swedish DSO planning data. Its most significant limitation is inconsistent methodology: DSOs have interpreted the reporting format differently, mixing MW and MWh, using ranges vs. point estimates, and applying different geographic disaggregation schemes.

Data structure: four sheets

Sheet 1 — Behovet av överföringskapacitet (Capacity forecasts)

Annual consumption/production need in MW, 2025-2034, per DSO (and sub-area). Approximately 147 unique reporting entities. Most small-to-medium DSOs report single peak MW values. Large complex DSOs (E.ON, Vattenfall, Ellevio) use structured formats: Höglast/Låglast, Förbrukning/Produktion, or range formats, broken down by county or internal sub-area.

Key entries:

• E.ON Energidistribution: reported by county as höglast (peak demand); Skåne is by far the largest area at ~2,921 MW höglast in 2025
• Vattenfall Eldistribution: reported by area (Norr, Mellan, Stockholm, Öst, Väst) as “Förbrukning regionnät” + “Förbrukning lokalnät” + “Produktion”
• Göteborg Energi Nät: 567 MW (delområde A, 2025) growing to 951 MW (2034)
• Luleå Energi Elnät: 209 MW (2025) → 246 MW (2034) — modest growth in this snapshot (note: Luleå’s capacity need for flexibility is 305 MW/yr by 6-10yr horizon, far exceeding this base; see also the “Key insights” note below correcting an earlier version’s conflation of the 2025 and 2034 figures)

Sheet 2 — Planerade investeringar (Investment plans)

Binary yes/no per DSO sub-area: does the DNDP contain planned investments? Nearly universal “Ja” among reporting DSOs, with roughly 22 “Nej” exceptions — a mix of standalone small DSOs (e.g. Degerfors, Hallstaviks, Hjärtums, Höganäs, Sandhult-Sandareds, Vaggeryds, Åsele) and sub-areas (delområden) of larger/medium multi-area companies (Kraftringen, Skellefteå Kraft, Öresundskraft, Ulricehamns Energi, Trollhättan Energi, Lerum Nät, Sjöbo Elnät) — an earlier version of this page characterized the exceptions as uniformly “typically very small DSOs,” which overstates how consistent the pattern is.

Sheet 3 — Behov av flexibilitetstjänster (Flexibility needs)

Reported in MW per DSO/sub-area, across three time horizons:

• 0–2 years
• 3–5 years
• 6–10 years

Critical finding — Vattenfall N/A: Vattenfall Eldistribution reports N/A for all five areas across all three horizons. This is not a data gap or reporting error — it is a deliberate policy stance documented in the main DNDP: Vattenfall explicitly states that market-based flexibility services are not viable at any of its constrained locations and sees no need for flexibility solutions other than villkorade avtal. See Source - Vattenfall Eldistribution Nätutvecklingsplan 2025-2034 for the full explanation.

Selected DSO flexibility needs (MW):

Luleå Energi (10 → 85 → 305 MW/yr across the three horizons) is among the most dramatic growth trajectories in the entire dataset — driven by Norrbotten industrial electrification (LKAB, Hybrit-related steel, data centers). Note Luleå uses MW/yr units rather than the more common MW, reflecting an energy throughput rather than peak capacity framing.

Göteborg Energi delomr. A (0–100 MW rising to 160–240 MW in later horizons) represents the largest reported flexibility need of any Swedish DSO area outside E.ON’s Skåne — reflecting Gothenburg’s significant industrial and port electrification.

Reporting inconsistency: The unit and format variations (MW vs MWh, ranges vs point estimates, annual vs peak, per-substation vs aggregated) make cross-DSO comparison difficult. This inconsistency is a known issue that the FNA 2026 standardization (FNAM Tabell 15) is designed to address for the next cycle.

Sheet 4 — Möter åtgärderna behovet (Adequacy assessment)

Two yes/no questions per DSO/sub-area:

1. Do planned measures meet the need in the DSO’s own network?
2. Are there limitations in the overlying network?

Response categories: Ja / Nej / Delvis, se nätutvecklingsplan / Det kan finnas / Otillräcklig information / N/A

Vattenfall adequacy:

Vattenfall’s own network meets need in almost all areas. For the overlying-network column, “Nej” means no limitation in the overlying network — so Stockholm and Öst (both “Nej”) show no confirmed overlying constraint; only Väst (“Ja”) represents a confirmed overlying constraint. An earlier version of this page had Stockholm and Öst backwards, describing them as “binding constraints.” Note also that the raw data separately breaks “own network” adequacy into Regionnät and Lokalnät sub-levels per area — this table uses the Regionnät value throughout, which for Väst specifically differs from Lokalnät (Regionnät: “Delvis, se nätutvecklingsplan”; Lokalnät: “Ja”).

E.ON adequacy:

E.ON’s own network does not meet need in five counties — Skåne, Jönköping, Kalmar, Kronoberg, Stockholm. These are the areas with active or planned flexibility markets.

Relevance to wiki

Resolves data gaps

• Flexibility Need Assessment: Cross-DSO flexibility needs in the pre-FNA benchmark — Vattenfall N/A explained, Göteborg Energi and Luleå data added
• Vattenfall Eldistribution: Confirms adequacy by area; explains the Ei data tool N/A entries
• Source - Vattenfall Eldistribution Nätutvecklingsplan 2025-2034: Vattenfall’s N/A is referenced here and now fully explained

Key insights

• Concentration of stated flexibility needs: E.ON and Göteborg Energi report among the largest flexibility needs of any DSOs with active procurement strategies. (An earlier version of this page claimed their combined total “substantially exceeds all other DSOs combined” — given the sheet’s own unit inconsistency (MW vs MW/yr vs MWh/år, ranges vs point estimates), a rigorous sum isn’t really possible from this data alone, and a rough top-end comparison against Luleå (305 MW/yr), Västerbergslagen (143 MW), and Mälarenergi (63 MW) doesn’t obviously support “substantially” — this claim has been softened pending a more careful analysis.)
• The two-camp structure: Swedish DSOs split into two camps — those reporting quantified flexibility needs (E.ON, Göteborg Energi, Ellevio, and roughly 40–50 others with at least one nonzero value across some horizon — an earlier version of this page said “~25–30 others,” an undercount) and those reporting N/A or zero (Vattenfall and a number of smaller DSOs). This structure is more visible in Ei’s data tool than in any single DNDP.
• Luleå outlier: Luleå Energi’s 305 MW/yr in the 6–10 year horizon is extraordinary for a DSO of its size (209 MW base load in 2025, not 246 MW — 246 MW is the 2034 forecast, and an earlier version of this page conflated the two despite correctly distinguishing them in the Sheet 1 section above). If realized, it would require flexibility resources roughly comparable to its current total load — driven entirely by Norrbotten’s industrial transformation.