Flexnavet › WikiWiki ›Svk Träffa Balansmarknad Forum 2
Flexnavet
BläddraBrowse

Svk Träffa Balansmarknad Forum 2

Source Updated 2026-09-23 Cited by 2 pages
Source details
Type
Presentation
Publisher
Svenska kraftnät
Published
2021-11-26

Presentation — Träffa Balansmarknad, Forum 2 (published Friday 26 November 2021 per the raw’s “Fredag 26/11” — the year is inferred from context, e.g. the presentation referencing the already-existing Ei R2021:03, and is not itself stated in the raw). Svenska kraftnät. Presenters: Jenny Lagerkvist, Mats Elmér, Zarah Andersson, Maja Isaksson, Andrea Badano (analysts); Mikael Brask (project manager, BSP/BRP).

A public Svk stakeholder forum — not an internal-only document; documentation was published on Svk’s public “Möt Svenska kraftnät” meeting page, with open registration and a recorded, publicly-summarized Q&A — explaining Svk’s position on the BSP (Leverantör av balanstjänster) and BRP (Balansansvarig part) role split, and the placement of the independent aggregator (Oberoende aggregator, OA) within this market structure. The “Träffa Balansmarknad” series was a recurring dialogue between Svk and market actors on balancing market development.

Summary

The presentation covers two overlapping regulatory reform layers: the EB GL (“Balansförordningen” in the raw, which doesn’t give the EU regulation number 2017/2195 itself) introducing the BSP and BRP roles, and the Clean Energy Package (raw cites Förordning 2019/943 and Direktiv 2019/944 explicitly) introducing the independent aggregator (OA) role. A report from Ei with proposed rules on independent aggregators (matching Ei R2021:03, though the raw doesn’t give the report number) is described as having been submitted to the Infrastructure Ministry for further processing.

BSP and BRP — legal basis and timeline

  • BSP/BRP roles replace the previous single balansansvarig role
  • Legal basis: the EB GL (raw does not cite specific article numbers); implemented through Ei-approved Svk villkor
  • Timeline as of the presentation: Svk submitted terms to Ei in 2018 and 2019; Ei issued change requests in 2019 and 2020; a third version (version 3) had been submitted, per the raw’s timeline graphic — the graphic doesn’t state in text form which stage was current at presentation time
  • Svk’s position: balanstjänster (balance services) in the BSP context means FCR and FRR

Definitions used

  • Leverantör av balanstjänster (BSP): a market actor with units or groups providing reserves and offering balance services to TSOs
  • Balansansvarig part (BRP): a market participant (or their designated representative) responsible for the actor’s imbalances

Svk’s position on the independent aggregator (OA)

Svk holds that the OA role is not a unique market role but a function exercised through existing roles:

  • An aggregator acting on the balancing market does so as BSP
  • A BSP must take responsibility for its imbalances — either by being a BRP itself or via a BRP of its own choosing
  • The independence principle (no need for supplier consent) governs market access, not the fundamental balance responsibility obligation

Svk’s target model

The model rests on the principle that BSP delivers the balance service and is/has a BRP of its own choice; the BRP is independently responsible for the imbalance at that point; BSP and BRP are independent of one another.

Four role design principles (raw’s “Rollerna” list — scalability belongs to the separate “Principer” list below, not to this one):

  1. Commercially viable (affärsmässiga)
  2. Possible to implement (möjliga att införa)
  3. No negative effects between roles
  4. Must fulfil legislation

Five BSP design principles:

  1. Independent BSP
  2. No negative effect on other actors
  3. Asset owner as central party
  4. No mandatory BRP for BSP? (question mark — unresolved at time of presentation)
  5. Scalability

Four open questions explicitly listed by Svk

Svk identified four unresolved design challenges in its target model:

  1. Verification of BSP delivery: how to verify that the BSP actually delivered what was activated
  2. Compensation/information to electricity supplier (LEV): should there be one? Yes or no? Method? How?
  3. The purpose of BSP’s own BRP: what is the BSP’s BRP for, given the BSP is independent?
  4. Phased implementation: how to sequence the rollout

Question 2 maps directly onto the compensation mechanism debate in Ei R2021:03 and the KKV critique.

Ongoing dialogue

Svk ran an open discussion group for BSP/BRP questions: short meetings with 2-day advance notice, agenda and meeting link sent one week ahead, interested parties could register. The next Träffa Balansmarknad forum was scheduled for 17 December 2021.

Key claims

  • Svk’s legal interpretation: aggregator = a function, not a separate market role — it participates in balancing markets through the BSP role
  • BSP independence from BRP is a legislative requirement; Svk accepts this constraint
  • The four open questions reveal where Svk expected implementation complexity as of late 2021 — all four remained active design problems in the eventual BSP/BRP implementation years later
  • Svk’s art. 18 villkor process (Ei approval cycle) was the formal constraint preventing faster implementation

Relevance to wiki

Cited by 2