Svk FNA 2026 Slutrapport (2026)

Svenska kraftnät’s final report for Sweden’s first national Flexibility Needs Assessment (FNA 2026) — the actual results document, superseding the wiki’s earlier reliance on preparatory Bilagor, agreements, and webinars for what the FNA would eventually say.

Ärende nr: 2025/4663

Version: 1

Legal basis: Art. 19e, Regulation (EU) 2019/943 (as amended by 2024/1747); FNAM (ACER Decision 05-2025)

Key findings

Scope and method: Sweden’s first full application of the FNAM, covering target years 2030 and 2035, in two categories — system flexibility needs (bidding-zone level, from ERAA 2025 reference-scenario data) and distribution-network flexibility needs (from DNDP submissions). Explicitly a first-cycle exercise with acknowledged limitations: limited data access, modelling simplifications, some FNAM components excluded (transmission network, certain Art. 13 data types), limited weather-year sampling. Results should be read as indicative, not precise forecasts.

System flexibility needs (national + SE1–SE4)

• RES spill rises from ERAA’s raw ~3.43 TWh (2030) / ~4.55 TWh (2035) to 3.66 TWh (2030) / 5.22 TWh (2035) after DSO-data fine-tuning (only SE3 both years and SE4 2030 cross the 10% materiality threshold that triggers fine-tuning; SE1/SE2 unaffected). Spill is structural, not just extreme-hour: occurs in >50% of the year’s hours nationally, with clear daily patterns (daytime spring/summer/autumn spill peaking 9am–3pm on low-demand hours, nighttime winter spill from wind-heavy low-demand periods peaking around 3am).
• Existing flexible resources (DR, batteries, electrolysers, interconnection — all counted per Art. 19e(2)(b)) cover ~100% of hourly residual-load variability in 2030, dropping to 74% by 2035; only <20% of daily and ~24–30% of seasonal variability — short-duration resources are well-matched to hourly swings but structurally mismatched to longer-timescale surplus.
• Base-case RES target (81%/2030, 82%/2035, per NEKP) shows zero unmet RES-integration need. A sensitivity case using Energimyndigheten’s updated long-term scenario (90%/2030, 95%/2035) produces ~4 TWh of unmet need by 2035 — the entire “is there a real gap” question hinges on which RES-ambition scenario Sweden actually pursues.
• Ramping: unmet up-ramping events are few (~5/year nationally) but concentrated and growing in SE3/SE4 while falling in SE1/SE2. Covering the full SE3 up-ramping gap with batteries alone would need ~9× today’s installed Swedish battery capacity — illustrating that batteries are technically well-suited but any battery-only solution is economically implausible at this scale.
• Short-term (forecast-error) needs: unmet-need event frequency roughly doubles nationally between 2030 and 2035 (~1/week → ~2/week), typical duration stable at ~2 hours, concentrated in winter. SE1 is the only zone that doesn’t worsen. No overlap found between unmet up-ramping hours and ERAA’s LOLE (loss-of-load) hours — these are a distinct risk, not already captured by resource-adequacy analysis.
• SE3 is the most system-critical zone across nearly every indicator; SE1 consistently the least stressed.

Distribution-network flexibility needs (~70% of Swedish DSOs, via DNDP data)

• Summer down-regulation need roughly doubles 2030→2035; winter up-regulation rises ~1.5×. SE3 largest.
• National RES-linked share of down-regulation need: 52% (2030) → 71% (2035).
• No unmet/uncovered distribution-level need reported — DSOs believe existing resources and planned grid investment cover identified needs, so (unlike the system-level analysis) no separate unmet-need figure is published for this section.
• This is the standardized successor to Ei PM2025:03‘s first-round DNDP ranges (277–1,030 MW, 0–2 yr) — same underlying DNDP submissions, now aggregated to the FNAM’s target-year/direction/season/reason structure instead of a horizon range, which is why the totals below aren’t directly comparable to that earlier figure.

Tabell 23 — flexibility need by direction, season and reason, target year 2030 (MW; parenthetical = share of that season’s need attributable to RES-spill):

2030 totals: Ned 2,632 MW, Upp 1,059 MW. SE3 alone is 2,038 of the combined 3,691 MW (~55%).

Tabell 24 — same structure, target year 2035 (MW):

2035 totals: Ned 4,550 MW, Upp 1,431 MW, combined 5,981 MW — roughly 62% higher than 2030’s 3,691 MW, consistent with the “down-regulation roughly doubles, up-regulation ~1.5×” summary above once the seasonal split is accounted for.

(Extraction note: the vault’s pdftotext extraction of this table is unreliable — merged Riktning/Säsong cells across multiple wrapped rows produce misaligned columns in plain-text form. The figures above were read directly from the rendered PDF page and cross-checked by summing each row against its own stated subtotal; all four subtotals per table reconcile exactly.)

Market barriers and digitalization (FNAM Art. 15, Bilaga V)

• 91 anonymous survey responses (grid companies + other market actors); ~35% response rate among Sweden’s ~170 grid companies overall, 100% among the 5 regional grid companies; smaller local grid companies underrepresented.
• Four headline barrier themes: unclear/inconsistently-applied regulation; weak TSO-DSO-market coordination; insufficient economic incentives (especially in revenue-cap regulation); lack of long-term stability for investment.
• Digitalization flagged as key enabler: standardized data exchange, better data access, improved cross-market/cross-level coordination.
• As of this report, only two established Swedish local flexibility market programs exist: E.ON Eldistribution operates 11 markets; Göteborg Energi Nät + Mölndal Energi Nät jointly run 2 markets under Effekthandel Väst. (Stockholm Flex and CoordiNet are named as past demonstrations, winter 2019/20–2024/25, not ongoing programs.)
• This barrier analysis is explicitly flagged as less methodologically robust than the rest of the FNA (survey-based, not modelled) and is positioned as complementary to, not a replacement for, Ei R2023:18 Deluppdrag 5, the Ei/Svk/Energimyndigheten/Swedac genomförandeplan follow-up (Ei R2025:14), ACER’s “Unlocking flexibility” barriers report, and Sweco’s LFM mapping for Ei.

Conclusions and next steps

• Nationally: start FNA 2028 work early; improve modelling/analytical capability; improve DSO data quality/harmonization (tie to DNDP); strengthen TSO-DSO scenario coordination; develop a more independent/thorough market-barriers methodology for future cycles.
• Ei is designated as the responsible authority for setting Sweden’s indicative national non-fossil flexibility target (Art. 19f), based on this FNA’s results — the report’s stated next step after publication.
• Europe-wide: push for timely FNAM updates and continued ENTSO-E harmonization of interpretation across member states.

Relevance to existing wiki topics

• Flexibility Need Assessment — this is the actual FNA 2026 output the page’s framing (previously “due for Ei approval”) described in advance; resolves the “will DSOs populate nedreglering rows” data gap (they did: 52%/71% RES-linked share reported)
• The Regulatory Architecture for Swedish Flexibility 2026–2028 and NC DR Implementation in Sweden — What Changes and for Whom — both currently note “FNA 2026 results not yet ingested”; now resolved
• Congestion Management — SE3 concentration and the ramping/short-term need findings bear on DSO congestion planning
• SWITCH / E.ON Energidistribution — the “11 markets” figure is a new, officially-sourced count of E.ON’s SWITCH-platform local markets
• Independent Aggregation in Sweden — The Implementation Gap — the Art. 19f non-fossil flexibility target (Ei, informed by this report) feeds directly into the open aggregation-compensation design question