Second Opinion Effekttariffer Kjellström Vision (2026)

Title: “Effekttariffer bra och nödvändiga” Publisher note: Second Opinion Nyheter AB, run on behalf of Energiföretagen Sverige Author credentials: civilingenjör Language: Swedish

DEBATT — a pro-effekttariff counterpoint published the same month as the government’s EIFS 2022:1 repeal decision, arguing today’s static designs should be scrapped not because capacity pricing is wrong in principle, but in favour of dynamic tariffs enabled by smart-home technology and nätstation-level (substation) metering. Note on source status: Second Opinion ceased publishing 1 July 2026; see Demand Response › Effekttariffer — the double-edged price signal for the topic this connects to.

Key claims

Framing: two structural shifts make static tariffs obsolete — more weather-dependent generation, and a coming sharp change in household consumption patterns as villa customers shift EV charging and heating to follow Nord Pool hourly/quarter-hourly prices.

Smart-home enablement: consumer smart-home technology has become cheap enough (cites an IKEA 79 SEK temperature sensor usable as a room thermostat) that anyone can control their own power draw simply and affordably — the technical precondition for dynamic, signal-responsive tariffs no longer requires expensive dedicated hardware.

Where local peaks (and troughs) actually form: correlated response to a shared price signal produces peaks — and “effektbottnar” (power troughs) affecting voltage — concentrated among neighbours on the same street, i.e. at the low-voltage/nätstation level. Further up the network (regional/transmission), this street-level coincidence doesn’t recur in the same form — the load-diversity effect (sammanlagring) is a local-network phenomenon, not a system-wide one. Names a “granneffekt” (neighbour effect) as a secondary adoption driver — visible early adopters of EVs or heat pumps prompt imitation among neighbours.

Infrastructure already exists: many DSOs installed meters at their own nätstationer during the smart-meter rollout, which Kjellström argues makes introducing “smart dynamic effekttariffer” straightforward — the DSO’s nätstation meter can communicate directly with loads behind customer meters, positioning the DSO as an active “lastbalanserare” (load balancer) for its local network rather than a passive tariff-setter.

Policy recommendation: government should discard today’s static effekttariff design in favour of dynamic tariffs where the DSO sends steering signals — steering would be needed only occasionally, but would target actual power peaks more precisely when they occur.

Technical path: cites the emerging Matter smart-home interoperability standard as making cost-effective installation feasible — a nätstation meter could communicate with diverse customer-side loads without bespoke integration per device type. Notes a customer/DSO agreement of some kind would still be needed, and calls for field trials of different load-balancing methods combined with contracts and tariffs.

Notable comment (Göran Fredriksson): flags a specific downside risk for the dynamic-tariff vision — villa households with heat pumps that use direct electric heating as backup during cold snaps are exactly the households most likely to also be home-charging EVs, so at the coldest hours (when nearly all heat pumps need electric top-up) the grid faces a coincident spike regardless of dynamic signalling. Suggests incentivizing wood-stove backup heating instead, via a tariff-structure change to encourage small households to keep and add wood stoves for heating.

Relationship to existing wiki topics