Source - Malakhatka et al V2G Service Blueprint Sweden (2026)
Full citation: Elena Malakhatka, Mia Johansson, Emanuella Wallin, Albert Petersson, David Steen. “V2G Service Blueprint Co-Design: Case Study from Sweden.” World Electric Vehicle Journal 2026, 17, 246. DOI: 10.3390/wevj17050246. Published 5 May 2026. Open access (CC BY).
Funding: Vinnova (Ref. No. 2023-00785), project: Implementation of Vehicle-to-Grid Services in Sweden. Partners: Polestar Performance AB (EV manufacturer), Vattenfall (energy company), Göteborg Energi (DSO), Svenska kraftnät (TSO), Easee (EVSE manufacturer), Chalmers University of Technology.
Authors’ affiliations: Chalmers University of Technology (Dept. of Architecture and Civil Engineering + Dept. of Electrical Engineering); Polestar Charging and Energy; Vattenfall Research & Development.
Stored in: raw/wevj1700246-extracted.txt
What this source is
A peer-reviewed academic paper applying service design methodology — specifically service blueprinting — to V2G in the Swedish context. This is not a technical feasibility study or economic model. It frames V2G as a multi-actor service system requiring orchestration across users, service providers, and grid actors, and develops a comprehensive blueprint through an 18-participant co-design process.
The paper explicitly addresses the gap between V2G’s well-documented technical potential and its limited real-world deployment, arguing that the barriers are primarily sociotechnical and institutional — not technological. This framing is consistent with and reinforces prior Swedish V2G research (Source - KTH Thesis V2G Sweden 2024, Source - FlexAbility Delrapport 1 (2025)).
Methodology
18 stakeholders from the Swedish V2G value chain participated in iterative co-design workshops:
| Actor type | Count |
|---|---|
| EV owners | 8 |
| EV producer / OEM (Polestar) | 1 |
| EVSE manufacturer (Easee) | 1 |
| Service operators / aggregators | 2 |
| DSO (Göteborg Energi) | 2 |
| TSO (Svenska kraftnät) | 1 |
| Insurance | 1 |
| Academia (Chalmers) | 2 |
Workshop materials and facilitator notes were iteratively reviewed to identify recurring themes, tensions, and convergences. Analysis is qualitative and interpretive — not statistically generalizable.
The V2G service blueprint
The blueprint maps the full V2G service lifecycle across nine phases:
| Phase | Customer (frontstage) | Key backstage activity |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Awareness & Interest | Learns about V2G via marketing | Aggregators/installers develop value propositions |
| 2. Selection & Request | Compares offers; submits pre-qualification inquiry | DSO performs grid capacity assessment backstage |
| 3. Decision & Contracting | Signs contracts with Aggregator and Energy Supplier | Aggregator + BSP finalize contractual terms; initiate onboarding |
| 4. Installation Preparation | Awaits scheduling | Aggregator, Installer, DSO verify technical requirements |
| 5. Installation & Onboarding | Bidirectional EVSE installed at premises | Installer confirms installation; Aggregator registers asset; initial DSO/TSO communication checks |
| 6. Test Pre-qualification | Notified of qualification result | Aggregator + BSP test EV/EVSE against FCR/aFRR/mFRR technical requirements with TSO |
| 7. Usage | Manages preferences via app; receives earnings | Aggregator platform optimizes charging/discharging; bids into energy markets and ancillary services |
| 8. Engagement | Contacts support; monitors performance | Aggregator monitors, provides maintenance and service upgrades |
| 9. Termination | Settles final billing; deactivates service | Aggregator, Energy Supplier, grid operators update systems to reflect deregistration |
Key findings
The pre-qualification dead zone
Hardware commissioning follows a 3–6 month trajectory after contracting. The subsequent Test Pre-qualification phase — where the Aggregator and BSP verify the EV/EVSE meets TSO requirements for FCR/aFRR/mFRR — adds 1–5 additional months of administrative and technical delay. Early adopters bear capital expenditure (bidirectional wallbox) with no ability to recoup investment during this window.
Proposed solution: digital twins of local grid segments could enable “one-click” pre-qualification at the contracting stage (Phase 3), potentially compressing months of delay.
Contractual complexity
V2G agreements span multiple actors (Aggregator, Energy Supplier, BSP, installer) with layered technical, financial, and regulatory obligations. Workshop participants consistently flagged complexity as a barrier — contracts must be simple, transparent, and legible to non-technical users. This aligns with prior Nordic research finding that V2G acceptance is shaped by perceived risk and contractual uncertainty.
Divergent value propositions
A clear misalignment between grid operator objectives and user motivations:
- Users prioritise financial clarity and battery state-of-health (SOH) monitoring
- Abstract grid-oriented benefits (CO₂ savings, system stability) are significantly less persuasive
- Social comparison features and environmental metrics are ineffective as primary motivators
Implication: V2G apps and interfaces should lead with financial projections and battery health data, not grid contribution metrics.
Fuse overload risk
Identified as a critical operational hazard: if Aggregator backstage signals do not synchronize with local building loads, V2G discharge can exceed the household main fuse capacity, triggering localized outages. The paper labels this “Incorrect Load Balancing.” Mitigation requires local fail-safe mechanisms or smart inverters with autonomous load shedding capability. This is a distinct risk from the LV network stress documented in FlexAbility (which concerns substation-level overloads at high fleet penetration) — here the concern is individual household fuse protection.
Pause mode vs binary termination
Current service designs treat termination as binary, triggering full deregistration at TSO and aggregator levels. The paper recommends a “Pause” or “Vacation Mode”: maintaining asset registration during periods of inactivity to preserve historical battery health data and reduce re-onboarding friction. Strategically important for fleet retention and long-term battery lifecycle management.
Trust and transparency
18% of potential users cite data privacy and cybersecurity as major barriers. Users need immediate micro-feedback — haptic pulses or visual status indicators — to verify that backstage grid commands have been processed. Without this, V2G feels like a “black box,” undermining the social contract between the vehicle owner and the aggregator.
Communication protocol mapping
The paper maps protocols to specific V2G service lifecycle phases:
| Protocol | Function | Blueprint phase |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 15118 | EV↔EVSE bidirectional communication; Plug & Charge; negotiation of charging/discharging parameters | Phase 7 (Usage): EV connection, authentication, power negotiation |
| OCPP | EVSE↔Central Management System; remote control, monitoring, smart charging | Phase 5 (Installation): remote EVSE configuration; Phase 7 (Usage): V2G schedule delivery, meter values, firmware |
| IEEE 2030.5 | Utility/Aggregator↔end devices; DR signals, DER status, pricing | Phase 7 (Usage): demand response signals, load control, DER status |
| OpenADR | Price and DR event signals; VTN→VEN dispatch | Phase 7 (Usage): dynamic pricing and DR events influencing charging/discharging |
| IEC 61850 | Grid automation and coordination | Backstage/Support: grid monitoring, aggregated V2G dispatch, TSO/DSO coordination |
Key insight: OCPP is used at the Installation/Configuration phase (Phase 5) for remote EVSE setup — not only during ongoing operation. This distinguishes OCPP’s dual role from ISO 15118, which is purely a Usage-phase protocol.
Stakeholder roles as defined by the blueprint
| Actor | Primary role | Key backstage actions |
|---|---|---|
| EV Owner | Provides battery flexibility; sets preferences | Uses app; plugs/unplugs EV; contacts support |
| Wallbox Installer | Installs and commissions bidirectional EVSE | Coordinates installation schedule; confirms completion to Aggregator |
| Aggregator | Orchestrates service; intermediary between user and grid markets | Optimization algorithms; market bids; DSO/TSO data exchange |
| DSO | Manages local distribution network | Grid capacity validation; local flex market clearing; sets operational limits for Aggregators |
| TSO | Procures ancillary services; ensures system balance | Ancillary service dispatch; pre-qualification validation (Phase 6) |
| Energy Supplier | Retail electricity billing; V2G-specific tariffs | Metering; settlement with Aggregator |
| BSP | Interfaces between Aggregator and TSO balancing markets | Aggregates flexibility bids; interfaces with TSO market platforms |
| EVSE Manufacturer (Easee) | Supplies bidirectional charging hardware | Hardware capability defines which protocols and V2G modes can be implemented |
Opportunities identified
- Digital twins for one-click pre-qualification at contracting (eliminating the dead zone)
- V2H and V2B expansion (Vehicle-to-Home, Vehicle-to-Building) as gateway and emergency backup use cases
- AI-driven personalization learning user routines to ensure vehicle availability while optimizing SOH
- Personalized Value Dashboards — financial projections + battery health as the primary user interface
- Pause/vacation mode replacing binary termination
Relevance to existing wiki pages
- Vehicle-to-Grid: pre-qualification dead zone; 9-phase service lifecycle; pause mode; fuse overload risk; Easee as EVSE actor; Vinnova project ecosystem
- Flexibility Communication Protocols: protocol-to-stage mapping for V2G; OCPP dual role (Installation + Usage)
- Aggregation: Aggregator as pivotal orchestration actor in multi-actor V2G service
- Balancing Markets: FCR/aFRR/mFRR pre-qualification process at TSO level creates the dead zone
- Svenska kraftnät: TSO’s dual role — pre-qualification gatekeeper (Phase 6) and ancillary services procurer (Phase 7)
- Göteborg Energi Nät: named DSO partner in Vinnova project; backstage grid capacity assessment role at Selection phase
Limitations
Purposively selected 18-participant sample in the Swedish context; results may not generalize to other regulatory environments. The blueprint represents a designed service concept, not an empirically validated operational system. Some actor perspectives may dominate (8/18 participants were EV owners; only 2 DSO and 1 TSO representatives participated).