Flex›Source - Ei R2021-03 Oberoende Aggregatorer

Source - Ei R2021-03 Oberoende Aggregatorer

Ei R2021:03 — Oberoende aggregatorer: Förslag till nya regler för att genomföra elmarknadsdirektivet (February 2021). Energimarknadsinspektionen. Authors: David Fried, Roger Husblad, Marie Swenman, Karin Tvingsjö. Published in accordance with NordREG recommendations.

Ei’s major legislative proposal for enabling independent aggregation in Sweden, superseding the earlier Ei R2020:02 proposal. The report proposes amendments to ellagen (1997:857) to allow aggregators to operate independently without requiring consent from the customer’s existing electricity supplier or BRP.

Summary

The report establishes that existing Swedish law — which only permits one BRP per uttagspunkt (grid connection point) — is incompatible with the EU Electricity Market Directive’s requirements for independent aggregation (Arts. 13 and 17) and the Electricity Market Regulation’s balance responsibility requirements (Art. 5.1). Swedish aggregators must currently obtain consent from each customer’s existing BRP to operate, which violates the EU requirement that aggregators access markets without approval from other market actors.

Two legal models proposed, aligned with NordREG recommendations:

Model 1 — Multiple BRPs per metering point: The aggregator creates a balanspunkt (balance point) behind the customer’s main meter (uttagspunkt). The aggregator’s own BRP holds balance responsibility specifically at this balanspunkt for the imbalances caused by aggregator activations. The customer’s existing BRP retains responsibility at the uttagspunkt for all other consumption. This requires sub-metering behind the main meter and DSO administration of the resulting measurement data.

Model 2 — Single BRP with compensation mechanism: The existing BRP remains the sole BRP at the uttagspunkt. When the aggregator activates flexibility, it compensates the BRP for the direct costs of the imbalances caused. Svk designs the compensation methodology; Ei must approve it before use. The methodology uses a referensprofil (counterfactual consumption baseline — what the customer would have consumed without activation) priced at a market reference rate.

Proposed legislative changes:

  • Ellagen 1 kap.: new definitions for balanspunkt and efterfrågeflexibilitet
  • Ellagen 3 kap. 10–12 §§: metering obligations extended to balanspunkter; DSO may not charge for meter data handling in balanspunkter
  • Ellagen 8 kap. 4 §: balance responsibility framework updated to permit aggregator’s own BRP choice at balanspunkter
  • Ellagen 9 kap.: new chapter on aggregators establishing rights, obligations, and compensation mechanism; Svk mandate to design methodology

Nordic context: Denmark had already mandated its TSO to design the compensation model; Finland was moving similarly. Norway is not bound (not EU member). NordREG’s 2020 report A Nordic Regulatory Framework for independent aggregation provided the two-model template this proposal follows.

Balancing market context: The minimum balancing market bid size was scheduled to decrease from 5–10 MW to 1 MW under the EB GL — reducing but not eliminating the aggregation threshold needed to reach balancing markets.

Why the earlier Ei R2020:02 proposal was insufficient: The 2020 proposal had required the existing BRP to sign an agreement with the aggregator on request. Ei now concluded this does not satisfy the EU requirement for free choice of BRP — being forced to use a specific pre-existing BRP is not equivalent to free choice.

Key claims

  • Current Swedish law is non-compliant with EMD Arts. 13 and 17 — aggregators cannot operate independently without a framework change
  • An aggregator’s right to choose its own BRP is a direct requirement of EMR Art. 5.1 — a third-party BRP assigned by the customer’s supplier does not fulfil this right
  • The balanspunkt concept is technically distinct from the uttagspunkt; the main grid connection point stays under the customer’s existing BRP; the aggregator’s BRP covers only the sub-meter balanspunkt
  • DSOs must not charge for meter data at balanspunkter — charging would create an entry barrier inconsistent with enabling independent aggregation
  • Both models require Svk to design the compensation methodology; the methodology requires Ei approval before use
  • Aggregation without economic responsibility for imbalances is already occurring in Sweden — and this is non-compliant with EU law

Relevance to wiki

Data gaps

  • Whether Model 3 (multiple delivery points, immediate) or Model 4 (compensation mechanism, requires centralt datahanteringsverktyg) will be the primary operational path for independent aggregation — Prop. 2025/26:240 codified the BSP/BRP framework in primary law but left the compensation model design to implementing regulations; Svk’s kompensationsmodell report recommends both co-exist (Model 3 as interim, Model 4 once DHV is live ~4–6 years out)
  • Current status of Svk’s compensation methodology design and Ei approval process — compensation mechanism (8 kap. 15–26 §§ elmarknadslag) is not yet operational