Source - Ei PM2026:05 Connection Obligation Regional Transmission

Ei PM2026:05 — Granskning av region- och transmissionsnätens anslutningsskyldighet (2026). Energimarknadsinspektionen supervisory review of how regional and transmission grid companies fulfilled the connection obligation (Anslutningsplikt) during 2023–2024. Based on written requests to seven companies; no on-site inspections; Ei did not assess individual case determinations. Raw text: raw/Granskning-av-region-och-transmissionsnätens-anslutningsskyldighet-Ei-PM2026-05-extracted.txt.

Document metadata

• Publisher: Ei
• Series: PM-series (promemoria)
• Published: 2026
• Scope: 2023–2024 completed connections
• Legal basis: Ellag 4 kap. 1 § (connection obligation), 4 kap. 5 § (two-year presumption), 4 kap. 2 § (alternatives before deferral), 4 kap. 8 § (timetable obligation)
• Companies covered: Ellevio, E.ON Energidistribution, Jämtkraft Elnät, Skellefteå Kraft Elnät, Vattenfall Eldistribution, Öresundskraft Elnät, Svenska kraftnät

Summary

This is the regionnät/transmissionsnät companion to Ei PM2025:01, which covered the distribution (lokal) grid. PM2026:05 finds that connection times at regional and transmission level are generally long — especially for connections requiring grid reinforcement — but does not issue enforcement orders. Instead it documents a state-of-play and signals that Ei will use the findings to develop supervisory guidance and analyze whether rule clarification or legislative changes are needed.

Key findings: (1) offer and completion times are far in excess of the two-year presumptive maximum for the majority of connections; (2) flexibility alternatives such as Villkorade Avtal are essentially unused at this grid level, primarily because the rules are perceived as unclear and because most projects are physically too large for non-reinforcement solutions; (3) transparency about capacity status varies significantly between companies.

Key quantitative findings

Offer times (days from complete application to offer)

Jämtkraft Elnät, Skellefteå Kraft Elnät, and Öresundskraft Elnät reported no completions that exceeded two years and the customer’s requested timeline.

Completion times (years from complete application)

Connections within / outside two-year presumption (Table 5)

Key claims

Drivers of long connection times

The document identifies several interacting causes:

1. Permit processes (tillståndsprocesser): Handling of nätkoncessioner — including consultations, appeals, and multi-instance review — is the central time driver. Even when conducted in parallel with other work, their scope and uncertainty affect the ability to commit to and hold timetables. This is especially pronounced for larger projects in the transmission grid.

2. Grid reinforcement requirement: Connections requiring new lines or substations have fundamentally longer timelines than connections within existing grid. The data shows this clearly: Svk’s nätförstärkning 400 kV connections averaged 7.8–8.4 years, versus 3.7–4.7 years for connections within existing capacity.

3. Component delivery times: Transformers and other critical components have long lead times.

4. Customer project maturity: Customer investment decisions, financing, and readiness to proceed affect how quickly the process can advance. Several cases were paused because the customer was not ready when the grid company could have proceeded.

5. Demand surge: One company reported a 1,800% increase in connection inquiries since 2020.

6. Labour shortages: One company cited lack of qualified personnel.

Flexibility alternatives and villkorade avtal

Section 3.4 is the most policy-relevant finding. Ei asked companies how many cases of capacity shortage occurred and what non-reinforcement alternatives had been investigated and implemented.

The overall finding is that no company had systematically investigated or implemented flexibility alternatives (including Villkorade Avtal) at the regional or transmission grid level:

• Three companies said no alternatives were applicable because the facility requiring connection was too large for existing grid, because there was no regional grid in the area, or because there were no physical conditions for power exchange — making market-based solutions inapplicable.
• One company stated that the rules around villkorade avtal are perceived as unclear, and that the company therefore does not apply such agreements to any significant extent.
• One company (which operates a live flexibility market at distribution level) noted that alternatives to grid reinforcement include flexibility markets and villkorade avtal, but that customers have shown limited willingness to enter villkorade avtal because of the increased risk of curtailment. This company is also developing flexibility markets to enable earlier connections pending reinforcement. It calculated the value of deferring investment and used this as the basis for assessing cost-effective alternatives. It noted that permanent villkorade avtal have significant socioeconomic potential without requiring grid reinforcement.
• One company offers a villkorat avtal or customer-specific connection cost when there is a flexibility service meeting its reliability and availability requirements, using a cost-sharing principle (total flexibility service cost minus collective grid cost = customer-specific cost).
• Four companies have no established method to evaluate costs and benefits of non-reinforcement measures.

This picture contrasts sharply with the distribution grid, where villkorade avtal are increasingly used (see Villkorade Avtal).

Capacity information transparency

Three of the seven companies publish no information about their current capacity situation. One was developing capacity publication tools with a planned Q1 2026 go-live. The remaining companies publish some information — including connection queues, pending capacity, and project status — but content and currency vary significantly.

Ei notes that transparency matters not only for individual customer planning but for delivery security, efficient use of network capacity, and electrification planning more broadly.

Ei conclusions

• Connection times at regional and transmission level are often very long, particularly for reinforcement projects. Long times are not necessarily unlawful — 4 kap. 5 § allows more than two years if the connection’s scope and technical design require it or there are other special reasons — but they must be transparent and justified.
• The supervision reveals a discrepancy in how the legal framework is interpreted between companies and between cases. Ei will analyze whether clarifications or regulatory changes are needed.
• Long connection times even without formally established capacity shortage show that the quality and predictability of the connection process must be improved beyond just capacity management.
• Foreseeable processes are a prerequisite for electrification — investors and operators need early, realistic signals about timelines.
• This PM forms the basis for Ei’s continuing supervisory work including updating ställningstaganden.

Relevance to existing wiki topics

• DSO Connection Queue Reform — The Swedish Policy Response — Adds empirical Layer 2 data: offer times, completion times, Table 5 proportions, and the flexibility-alternatives finding.
• Villkorade Avtal — Key finding that VA are essentially unused at regional/transmission level; rules perceived as unclear; customer reluctance due to curtailment risk.
• Ei — Adds to Ei’s supervisory activity record; signals future ställningstaganden on connection process.
• Svenska kraftnät — Svk’s connection times at 400 kV are among the longest documented (avg 7.8–8.4 years for nätförstärkning); 15/25 completed connections exceeded both the two-year limit and the customer’s requested timeline.
• Anslutningsplikt — Empirical basis for how often the two-year presumptive maximum is exceeded in practice.