Energiforsk 2026-1190 Kapacitet för Tillväxt (2026)

Energiforsk Report 2026:1190, Kapacitet för tillväxt — Ökat utnyttjande av befintliga elnät (June 2026) — an international omvärldsstudie on how to free more capacity in existing grids while new build catches up. Authors: Malin Strand, Madelene Danielzon Larsson, Mattias Wondollek, Erik Berntsen. Commissioned by IKEM (Innovations- och kemiindustrierna), Göteborg Energi Elnät, and E.ON Elnät, with Västra Götalandsregionen support. A companion public summary (kapacitet-for-tillvaxt-10-juni, Raw/kapacitet-for-tillvaxt-10-juni-extracted.txt) restates the same study with Swedish DSO examples and is treated as part of this source.

Key claims

• Headline potential: 20–40% more capacity can be freed in congested parts of the grid via better measurement/data, active system operation, and new contract forms — with the first 10–15% relatively easy to realise. Examples from the Netherlands and Norway show 20–40% via systematic dynamic ratings.
• Capacity is not a fixed technical limit: allocatable capacity is the result of trade-offs — technical analyses, safety margins, uncertainty handling (future demand/production), the N-1 principle, and interaction between grid levels. “Is there 10 MW free?” hides extensive parallel calculations; technical potential does not automatically become allocated capacity. Capacity is a system question where technique, rules, and responsibility interact.
• Three measure families:
  • Technical — advanced grid monitoring, data-driven topology discovery, dynamic line/transformer rating (DLR), improved protection/control; operate closer to true limits by reducing uncertainty.
  • Operative — active system operation, network reconfiguration, improved risk assessment, clear operative loading rules; turns technical potential into allocated capacity. Requires more metering data, modernised forecasts, and a changed view of margins/risk.
  • Contractual — conditional and flexible connection agreements to allocate otherwise-idle headroom within security limits.
• Core thesis: increased capacity utilisation is primarily a delivery problem (genomförandeproblem), not a technology problem — determined by leadership, governance, and execution capability. DSOs needed to break silos and build cross-functional ways of working (planning + operation + customer dialogue) and to manage risk levels more deliberately. Progress depended heavily on clear political signals and stable rules.
• International examples:
  • Netherlands — national bottleneck programme (ACM mandate; three tracks: build faster / use grid more efficiently / smarter analysis & coordination). TenneT’s standardized conditional agreement TDTR (Time-Driven Transport Right): contracted power guaranteed 85% of the year → 50% network-fee discount; analysis of actual annual use identified ~9 GW allocatable to new customers who can be limited (the source says “a few hours”, though an 85%-of-year guarantee leaves up to ~15% of the year). Remaining firm (100%-access) capacity increasingly seen as a “luxury good.”
  • Liander (NL) — dynamic loadability via temperature measurement on transformers/cables freed 20–30% in identified bottlenecks (first 10–20% relatively easy); new upper limit of 120% of nominal loading where technically possible; trade-offs = higher losses, some shorter component life.
  • UK — Flexible Plug and Play pilot: active system management within fully flexible agreements → up to 87% lower connection costs and 57% shorter lead times; results folded into legislation.
• Connection-queue reform (state-led, not left to individual DSOs): UK “first ready and needed, first connected” (clear/clear out immature projects; prioritise readiness + national goals); NL national prioritization framework departing from first-come-first-served for priority categories (actors that free capacity for others, safety-critical, basic societal functions) on objective regulator-defined criteria.
• Swedish context (from the summary): EIFS 2023:6 defines effektivt nätutnyttjande as “low network losses and even power in the grid” (3 kap. §11). Swedish examples — Svk (villkorade anslutningsavtal, kapacitetsåtgärd procurement, AC flow steering, DLR pilot); E.ON (villkorad anslutning via styrning, OLCC overhead-line capacity calculation, belastningsguide, flexible-connection process); Göteborg Energi Elnät (~11% self-sufficiency → regionnät-dependent; effekttariffer, villkorade avtal e.g. reduce to 1 MW at 2h notice, LFM, risk-based dimensioning). Swedish villkorade-avtal rules require market-based alternatives exhausted first; agreements seen as last resort and time-limited to protect the customer collective.
• Five takeaways: (1) no technical margin → no actual power; (2) no working contract logic → no controllable flexibility; (3) no organisational capability → low practical impact; (4) no clear risk/responsibility split → no scalable solution; (5) no rules supporting efficient utilisation → potential stays on the drawing board.

Relevance to wiki

• New concept page Grid Capacity Utilization (the technical/operative/contractual taxonomy and the 20–40% headline).
• Dynamic Line Rating (Liander 20–30%, 120% loading), Villkorade Avtal / Flexible Connection Agreements (TenneT TDTR, UK FPP), Congestion Management, DSO Connection Queue Reform — The Swedish Policy Response (UK/NL prioritization), Distribution System Operator (EIFS 2023:6).
• Companion: Source - Energiforsk 2026-1175 Kapacitet för Tillväxt Intäktsreglering (2026) (the revenue-regulation half of the same project).