Source - KTH Thesis V2G Sweden 2024

Master’s thesis from KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Industrial Management programme), conducted in collaboration with BMW Group Northern Europe. Supervised by Peyman Nivan (BMW) and Adam Uhrdin (KTH).

Title: Vehicle-to-Grid Integration in Sweden: Barriers, Drivers and Strategic Approaches for Automotive Manufacturers
Authors: Two KTH students (names not extracted from source)
Year: 2024
Method: PESTLE framework applied to 14 expert interviews + literature review
Scope: Swedish market; expert interviewees drawn from automotive manufacturers, energy companies, grid operators, researchers, and consultants active in V2G in Sweden

Research questions

RQ1: What are the acting barriers and drivers impacting V2G integration, and how do they shape opportunities and challenges for automotive manufacturers?
RQ2: In what ways can business strategies be developed by automotive manufacturers to facilitate V2G adoption?

Key findings — barriers

Political / regulatory

Absent regulatory framework: no clear rules for V2G utilization; businesses taking a cautious approach. Policymakers’ knowledge of V2G is “too low”; development is faster than regulation can follow.
Double taxation (dubbelbeskattning): charging an EV incurs energiskatt + moms; if electricity is fed back to the grid via V2G and sold to another customer, that customer is also taxed on the same electricity. Skatteverket allows a refund — but only when discharging to the same concessionary network where the electricity was charged. Cross-area discharge (charging in SE3, discharging in SE4) loses the refund mechanism.
Physical address requirement: Svenska kraftnät requires a registered physical address for ancillary services participation. Mobile EVs cannot provide V2G services from multiple locations without re-registering each new address.
Incentive gap: EV climate bonus (elbilspremie) removed; no equivalent incentive for V2G-capable vehicles. Home batteries benefit from tax deductions that EV batteries do not. Interviewees: “Why can I earn 40–50,000 kr per year on a home battery but not on an electric car battery?”

Technological / infrastructural

Software restriction: many vehicles are technically V2G-ready but OEMs have not unlocked the capability. Quote: “The truth is that many vehicles can actually use V2G already today, only that they are software restricted.”
AC vs DC trade-off: AC bidirectional chargers are cheaper (inversion happens inside the vehicle), but DC charging has more mature communication protocols; AC standard does not include state-of-charge data. No consensus among experts on which will dominate.
Standardization gap: grid codes differ by region and country; no confirmed standard ensuring V2G compliance across European grid codes. Vehicle+wallbox classification (as a joint generator) is inconsistently interpreted by different grid operators.
Battery degradation uncertainty: contrasting expert views — some expect V2G to double calendar degradation; others expect smart charging algorithms to minimize or even reduce it. No consensus.
Warranty risk: OEMs hold battery warranties and bear degradation costs. VW caps the energy cycled through its EV batteries for V2G. Battery warranty design must be solved before commercial rollout.
Installed base problem (Sweden-specific): Sweden’s high existing EV adoption means many consumers already own non-V2G-compatible wallboxes (7,000–30,000 SEK investment). Upgrading to V2G-capable wallboxes is a significant financial barrier not present in lower-EV-penetration markets.

Economic

Weak revenue case: existing studies show wide ranges — 7–14 SEK/year per vehicle (Sweden-specific) to 378 EUR/year (European simulation with pool optimization). Insufficient data for confident consumer value propositions.
High initial costs: V2G-compatible wallboxes approximately 2× the cost of unidirectional chargers.
Business model vacuum: roles, responsibilities, and revenue splits between OEMs, aggregators, energy companies, and grid operators are undefined.

Consumer behavior change required: EVs are parked 96% of lifetime. Convincing owners to maintain charge availability and plug in consistently requires behavioral change, especially in Sweden where charging habits are established.
User experience: systems must be “Apple-like” and “plug & play” with maximum 3 steps to set up. Complexity prevents mass adoption.

Key findings — drivers

Political interest (not yet legislative): general political positivity; previous green-tech incentive track record in Sweden (solar panels, home batteries) suggests V2G subsidies are not implausible.
Economic upside for OEMs: aggregating a sold EV fleet into a BSP portfolio could allow an OEM to exceed Svenska kraftnät‘s 100 MW threshold for ancillary service participation — making the OEM a major player in the flexibility market.
BSP/BRP reforms: the introduction of BSP and BRP roles (from May 2024) creates a pathway for private customers to join balancing markets via aggregation. (Aggregation › Nordic comparison: Sweden’s cross-BRP problem)
Swedish societal openness: Sweden is culturally receptive to new technology adoption (EVs, solar, e-bikes). Strong environmental consciousness supports V2G’s sustainability narrative.
V2H as gateway: V2H provides direct, visible consumer benefit (self-consumption of own stored energy) that can motivate adoption before the more complex V2G grid services are enabled.
Leasing integration: OEMs can embed V2G utilization into leasing contracts, sharing grid revenue as reduced leasing fees — creating a business model with aligned incentives across the value chain.
Expert consensus on timeline: experts who gave a specific estimate agreed V2G will reach mass adoption in Sweden before 2030.

Strategic recommendations (for OEMs)

First-mover vs. fast-follower choice: first movers can shape standards and form alliances; fast followers can observe market development and reduce uncertainty. Current environment is uncertain enough that either is defensible.
Fleet aggregation as BSP: OEMs aggregating their sold EV fleet can become major BSP/VPP operators — a fundamentally new revenue model outside the automotive industry.
Collaborative demonstration projects: OEMs, wallbox manufacturers, grid operators, energy companies, and regulators must run joint pilots to build data, establish standards, and define roles.
Customer-centric service design: V2G must be seamless, automated, and non-intrusive. The design burden falls on OEMs; poor UX kills adoption.

Theoretical framework

Uses Innovation Ecosystem Framework (EPM — Ecosystem Pie Model), Diffusion of Innovation theory, and PESTLE. The EPM maps the Swedish V2G ecosystem actors: automotive manufacturers, wallbox manufacturers, energy companies, grid operators, private customers, regulatory bodies.

Limitations

Study is qualitative (expert interviews); limited quantitative revenue analysis. Delimitated to Sweden. Battery degradation modeling not performed — dependent on manufacturer data not available to researchers.

Relevance

Most detailed qualitative analysis of V2G barriers and drivers in Sweden as of 2024. The BMW Group collaboration gives direct OEM perspective. The expert interview methodology captures practitioner knowledge beyond what academic literature covers. Primary source for Vehicle-to-Grid › Swedish regulatory grey area and Vehicle-to-Grid › Barriers sections.