Flex›Swedish DNDP First Round — DSO Profiles (2025-2034)

Swedish DNDP First Round — DSO Profiles (2025-2034)

Per-company profiles of the four major DNDP submissions covering 2025–2034, from the first mandatory DNDP round (December 2024). Also includes the Skåne regional cross-DSO synthesis. For the EU framework, legal basis, aggregate Ei PM2025:03 findings, digitalization, and forecasting standardization, see Distribution Network Development Plan.

Vattenfall Eldistribution DNDP 2025–2034

Vattenfall Eldistribution‘s first mandatory DNDP (December 2024) covers five operating areas (Norr, Mellan, Stockholm, Öst, Väst) and 22 major investment projects. (Source - Vattenfall Eldistribution Nätutvecklingsplan 2025-2034, Source - VF NUP Bilaga 1 Prognos Lokalnät per Kommun)

Forecast methodology: Only customers with signed förstudieavtal (pre-study agreements) are included. 18,000 MW consumption + 38,000 MW production pipeline is excluded as too immature or blocked by stamnät capacity. Price-driven demand reduction is not modelled (acknowledged as creating upward bias). Local grid: annual collection of municipal exploitation plans from ~90 municipalities; probability-adjusted by planning stage.

Flexibility stance — no market-based procurement: Vattenfall explicitly states it sees no need for flexibility solutions other than villkorade avtal with customers. This directly explains the N/A in Ei’s DNDP data tool — a deliberate policy choice, not a reporting gap. Vattenfall’s quantified threshold for market viability (supply ≥5× demand, ≥5 independent actors) is not met at any constrained location. Both flex market pilots (Uppsala/UppFlex and sthlmflex) have been closed. See Vattenfall vs E.ON — DSO Approaches to Flexibility for a full comparison.

Three-pillar compliance: Vattenfall covers all three pillars (scenarios, needs identification, project selection). Notable gap: production-side flexibility needs are not quantified.

Municipal-level annex (Bilaga 1): Added in response to consultation feedback. Provides incremental kW forecasts for ~90 municipalities. Local grid adds ~110 MW (2025) growing to ~623 MW (2034) — separate from the regional grid’s ~7,500 MW growth.

Ellevio DNDP 2025–2034

Ellevio‘s first mandatory DNDP (published 2024, preliminary version 13 September 2024) covers 17 delområden across both regionnät and lokalnät. (Source - Ellevio Nätutvecklingsplan 2025-2034, Source - Ellevio Bilaga B Samrådsredogörelse (2024))

Network scale: ~8,360 Swedish mil (≈83,600 km) of grid; ~1 million customers. Ellevio operates primarily in western Sweden (Halland, Skaraborg, Orust-Tjörn, Norra Bohuslän), greater Stockholm (Stockholm city + 5 surrounding lokalnät areas), central Sweden (Värmland, Dalarna), and Hälsingland — plus four production clusters in Ljusdal/Härjedalen (Torpberget, Olingan, Laforsen, Tovåsen). Stockholm alone is ~500,000 customers and connects directly to Svk at 220 kV (5 gränspunkter); most other delområden connect to Vattenfall Eldistribution’s regionnät.

Forecast methodology: bottom-up from four components (borgerlig last growth, punctual loads, EV home charging, underlying DSO forecasts), temperature-adjusted from 2022 baseline; municipal dialogue for demand-side scenarios. Explicitly aligned with Energiforsk industry methodology.

Key growth areas: Skaraborg (+255% consumption, +526% production by 2034 — industrial and solar), Hälsingland (+174% consumption — data centers and hydrogen), Dalarna (+50% consumption — industrial and renewables), Värmland (+31% — industrial electrification). Stockholm +24% driven by population, metro expansion, logistics, and data centers.

Three-pillar compliance: all three pillars covered — scenarios (Scenario 1: high-certainty; Scenario 2: indicative), needs identification (per delområde capacity assessment), and solution selection (investment packages + flexibility tools).

Flexibility stance — no market-based procurement: Ellevio explicitly states that “marknadsmässiga lösningar i dagsläget saknas i Ellevios delområden” — no market-based flexibility solutions currently exist in any of its 17 areas. Four non-market tools are in use: villkorade avtal, tillfälliga abonnemang, effektabonnemang (capacity tariffs), and produktionsgaranti (production guarantee contracts). Ellevio describes itself as “relatively early in the maturity ladder for flexibility solutions.” This contrasts with E.ON Energidistribution (active markets) but differs from Vattenfall Eldistribution‘s explicit closure to market development — Ellevio remains open to markets as the ecosystem matures.

Flexibility needs (Tabell 3): Ellevio does report quantified needs, unlike Vattenfall’s N/A. Key areas: Värmland (0→320 MW consumption; 0–240 MW production, indicative), Skaraborg (0→450 MW production, indicative), Stockholm (0→130 MW, contingent on Svk packages ~2031), Täby (0–40 MW). Several smaller areas (Nynäshamn, Ekerö, Lidingö, Vallentuna) show 0–15 MW needs driven by the same Stockholm Svk dependency.

Adequacy assessment: Stockholm-area cluster (Stockholm, Lidingö, Täby, Ekerö, Nynäshamn, Vallentuna) all have overlying stamnät constraints expected to resolve ~2031 via Svk’s “Stockholm Ström” and “Storstockholm Väst” packages. Hälsingland: no flex need — NordSyd resolves constraints. Dalarna: production constraint (~350 MW) resolving ~2032. Tovåsen: risk of constraint at end of period (post-2030). Värmland and Halland: ongoing dialogue with Svk/Vattenfall; residual overlying constraints.

Consultation: 41 responses received. Notable outcomes: Täby municipality explicitly confirmed Ellevio’s 15% growth forecast is consistent with Täby’s own 25–30% to 2040 energy plan; Falun’s 50 kV capacity issues added to final version after Falu Elnät raised them; municipal-level granularity deferred to future editions. See Source - Ellevio Bilaga B Samrådsredogörelse (2024).

Produktionsgaranti (production guarantee) is an Ellevio-specific tool not seen in E.ON’s or Vattenfall’s DNDPs: contracted production availability from large generators that can be dispatched when consumption threatens to exceed Ellevio’s subscription limit. Primarily used in Värmland (hydropower, notably Fortum’s Höljes facility) and potentially Dalarna.

E.ON DNDP 2025–2034

E.ON Energidistribution‘s DNDP 2025–2034 (December 2024) is the first actual Swedish DSO DNDP available as a source in this wiki. It follows Ei’s EIFS 2024:1 template. (Source - E.ON Nätutvecklingsplan 2025-2034)

Capacity assessment methodology: E.ON uses N-1 dimensioning with a three-level rating (A/B/C) per municipality and time horizon (0–2, 3–5, 6–10 years), separately for production and consumption. The N-1 criterion: the grid must handle the dimensioning fault (typically one of two parallel transformers at a substation failing) at any operating state.

Three-pillar compliance: E.ON’s DNDP covers all three pillars — scenario development (bottom-up forecast from substations, EV/solar models, societal growth, AFIR-based heavy transport assumptions), capacity needs (N-1 simulations across all operating corners), and project selection (investment vs. flexibility cost-effectiveness analysis).

Anticipatory investments: E.ON explicitly applies anticipatory dimensioning in its meshed regional grid — taking account of expected large future connections when sizing projects, even before formal connection applications.

Alternative solutions documented: the DNDP lists four tool categories (flexibility markets, villkorade avtal, tariffs, technical alternatives including Dynamic Line Rating) consistent with NC DR Art. 43–44 requirements.

GENAB (Göteborg Energi Nät) DNDP 2025–2034

Göteborg Energi Nät‘s DNDP (December 2024) is the most granular Swedish DNDP in this wiki for flexibility quantification, going significantly beyond the EIFS 2024:1 MW minimum. (Source - GENAB Nätutvecklingsplan 2025-2034 (2024))

Network: GENAB is a city DSO covering Gothenburg municipality (~270,000 customers), with its own 130 kV network. Three delområden: A and B connect to Vattenfall Eldistribution’s regional network; C connects to Ellevio. Area A is the critical constrained zone, driven by harbour electrification, heavy transport charging, and new industrial connections.

Three-pillar compliance: Full — scenario development (§2.1), capacity needs (§2.2–2.3), investment and flexibility solutions (§3).

Forecast methodology: Normalkall vinterdag (normal cold winter day) basis; segmented by stad/transport/industri; Energiforsk method + GENAB-specific assumptions; 1% annual efficiency reduction from existing customers.

Capacity growth (Tabell 3): Area A 567 → 951 MW (2025–2034, +92% vs 2022–23 baseline); Area B +12%; Area C +21%. Growth is driven almost entirely by large industrial point loads in Area A.

Flexibility need — MW (Tabell 7):

Area0–2 years (MW)3–5 years (MW)6–10 years (MW)
A0–100170–230160–240
B0–50–1010–30
C000

Flexibility need — GWh/hours/occasions (Tabell 8) — unique multi-dimensional characterisation not seen in Vattenfall, Ellevio, or E.ON DNDPs:

HorizonGWh/yearHours/yearOccasions/year
0–2 years0–50–1400–20
3–5 years30–80650–1,20090–120
6–10 years25–95550–1,30080–130

The rationale: MW tells the DSO how to size a resource, but hours/year and occasions/year determine which product is appropriate. A few-hour peak calls for fast-response market products; sustained 650–1,200 hours/year requires dispatchable production or large contracted capacity. Occasions/year drives the availability pricing logic for LongFlex/ShortFlex products.

Five-step planning hierarchy: GENAB documents a structured five-step approach — Tänk om → Optimera → Avtala → Bygg om → Bygg nytt — where Steps 1–3 are non-wire alternatives (including Step 3: flexibility markets and villkorade avtal) and Steps 4–5 are capital investment.

Least-worst-regret methodology: Larger investments are evaluated using the least-worst-regret method (adapted from UK electricity sector practice). The DNDP includes a worked example with NPV calculations showing how to choose between a two-transformer-ready station and a single-transformer station under uncertainty about future demand. This is the clearest documented example of the method in a Swedish DSO DNDP.

Kapacitetsprogrammet: GENAB has launched a named programme to build and enable flexibility resources, layered by operational state (normal/strained/overload risk). This makes GENAB one of the few Swedish DSOs with an institutionally distinct non-wire alternatives programme alongside the grid investment programme.

Flexibility stance: Market-based flexibility (via Effekthandel Väst) + villkorade avtal (1 MW threshold, “last resort” philosophy, never-activated goal) + local plannable production (CHP/gas turbines). Unlike Vattenfall (no markets) and Ellevio (open but no markets yet), GENAB has an active and growing flexibility market as its primary non-wire tool.

Consultation: Svenska kraftnät (no comments); Länsstyrelsen Västra Götaland (3 clarification requests, all answered).

Skåne regional DNDP synthesis — cross-DSO findings

Skånes Effektkommission published a synthesis of all 20 Skåne DSO NUPs in May 2025 (covering the 2025–2034 period), providing the first regional cross-DSO meta-analysis of DNDP submissions. (Source - Nätutvecklingsplaner i Skåne 2025-2034 Region Skåne (2025))

Methodology fragmentation at regional scale

The synthesis explicitly notes that direct cross-company comparisons are unreliable because different DSOs used: different base years, different definitions of “need” (additions vs. total capacity; with or without production), different treatment of point connections, and different diversity assumptions. This is the same problem identified by Ei PM2025:03 at national level. The Skåne finding strengthens the case for: (1) the Effektkommission NUP harmonisation working group; (2) the Energiforsk national top-down method; (3) Ei’s proposed bemyndigande to prescribe structured data reporting.

Regionnet as structural planning constraint

A cross-cutting pattern across all 20 Skåne DSOs: investment planning is contingent on the overlying E.ON Energidistribution regionnet capacity. Multiple DSOs (Kraftringen at Härby/Klippan, C4 Elnät at Kristianstad, Höganäs, Sjöbo, SENAB) explicitly state their plans depend on E.ON upgrading the regionnet before their own capacity can be expanded. This structural dependency means that lokalnät DNDPs can only plan their own investments partially — the binding constraint sits at the regionnät level and is outside their control. The pattern confirms that inter-DSO coordination is a prerequisite for meaningful DNDP adequacy assessments at lokalnät level.

Solar reverse-flow as emerging dimensioning dimension

Several southern coastal Skåne DSOs project solar production exceeding consumption load by the end of the decade:

  • Sjöbo Elnät: installed solar capacity forecast to reach ~56 MW vs ~52 MW consumption (+40%)
  • Södra Hallands Kraft: production 23→74 MW (+222%), primarily solar/wind
  • Österlens Kraft: solar growth up to 250% in high scenario; both areas
  • Skånska Energi Nät: in some areas, max solar injection is the dimensioning case, not peak consumption

These DSOs can no longer plan using consumption-only peak dimensioning — a structural change with implications for both investment planning and flexibility need direction (downward regulation becomes as important as upward).

Point connections as primary forecast uncertainty

Most Skåne DSOs explicitly exclude large point connections from their forecasts because feasibility is uncertain (pending connection applications, unclear grid capacity). SENAB, Staffanstorps Energi, and Ystad Energi all note that queued connections exceeding network capacity are not counted. This mirrors the national finding in Ei PM2025:03 — the wide 277–1,030 MW first-year range largely reflects this exclusion. The implication: DNDP flexibility need figures are systematic underestimates in areas with large connection queues.

Demand context

Region Skåne’s companion publication (Source - Effektprognoser Skåne Region Skåne (2025)) provides municipal-level demand forecasts: Skåne-wide +40% power demand and +30% electricity demand by 2040, with transport the dominant driver (power ×16, electricity ×22). These forecasts are produced using the same Energiforsk lathund methodology used by most DSOs for their NUPs, ensuring methodological consistency between the regional demand forecast and individual DSO capacity planning.