This news is from May 2026.

https://www.europesays.com/dk/80254/

> Sweden has ordered the expansion of a key power interconnector to Denmark to be halted after failing to reach agreement with the European Commission over bottleneck fees.

The interconnect already exists as Konti-Scan 1 and 2. Konti-Scan Connect, when built, will replace them.

What are "bottleneck fees"?

https://swedenherald.com/article/surplus-from-electricity-cu...

> Bottleneck revenues, or capacity fees as they are also called, arise when there are large price differences between electricity areas, often between electricity area 2 (southern Norrland) and 3 (Svealand and northern Götaland). The price differences arise when the capacity in the network is not sufficient to transfer the electricity surplus in the north to the south where the supply is too small. When Svenska kraftnät handles this, revenues arise for the authority corresponding to the price differences.

In the UK, which has a single electricity market for the whole country, we have curtailment fees. There is insufficent grid capacity between Scotland and England. When lots of power in England is needed, Scottish wind farms could provide it, but the grid can't deliver it. So the grid operator pays twice -- a curtailment fee to the wind farms to ask them to dump their energy, and a fee to English power stations to switch on the gas turbines and provide the power England needs that it can't get from the bottlenecked grid connection to Scotland.

I have the suspicion that Sweden fears having to pay the equivalent of curtailment fees to Denmark. The EU agreed that wouldn't have to happen... but the EU still wants to constrain Sweden into using its collected bottleneck fees to upgrade its grid infrastructure, hastening their demise, rather than use it to subsidise power production.

> In March, the Commission agreed that Sweden would not have to share bottleneck fees paid to Svenska Kraftnät with other EU countries. But a new conflict has blown up over some of the Commission’s other proposals. According to TT, the Commission will not agree to let Sweden use the bottleneck fees to fund power production as well as grid expansion.

▲

try-working 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sweden will not pay curtailment fees, such a thing does not exist. The reason is exactly what you quote at the end.

To state it again:

1. The intranational powercables means that German demand raises electricity prices in southern Sweden, which means businesses and consumers pay a premium vs what they would have paid without the cable

2. The extra charge is captured by network operators as what is called bottleneck fees and it's billions of euros per year, very large sums

3. The EC first wanted to confiscate these funds, which come from Swedish consumers and businesses. Now they want to rule about their use. Obviously this is completely unacceptable and nothing more than a bureaucratic powergrab, and no country would accept it.

▲

m101 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Costs not born by those who made the decision is kind of a key property of the EU integration project in general.

▲

try-working 11 hours ago | parent [-]

You must always remember that the European Commission is unelected and has the same level of democratic involvement as that of China's Standing Committee.

▲

master-lincoln 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The European council (which consists of elected country heads) nominates a Comission President and the members of the parliament (elected politicians) vote on the nominated president candidate and need absolute majority to confirm. That president then tries to form the commission with one representative from each member state. The parliament then has to vote again to confirm the commission.

Sure it's not ideal. But compared to China, the population of the EU has influence.

▲

try-working 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The European population had no say in VDLs appointment and she would not be there if we did.

▲

amiga386 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Each member state elected their own government, which in turned determined their head of state by their own country's rules, then those heads of governments appointed VDL.

	▲	selfhoster1312 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do we even have a real choice with our governments? As a minor yet dramatic exemple, last year in France the Front Populaire won the last parliamentary elections, and according to republican tradition and common interpretation of the constitution, should have formed a government. But that was refused by Macron who named yet again an even more impopular proto-fascist government because it's technically in his power.

▲

selfhoster1312 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate to make this argument because the PRC is far from a political ideal for me, but the chinese political system also has elections and votes. Voting is not what democracy is about, and very indirect elections for a vast body with immense powers even less so.

I have yet to meet anyone happy with the european commission policies, except for very minor and timid arrangements such as the USB-C connector (and even then, Apple fanboys complained). The rest is all about destroying every pro-consumer/pro-worker/pro-environment regulation in favor of big multinationals who employs thousands of lobbyists across Brussels and Strasbourg.

	▲	Gud 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed. Every time it is mentioned(without fail) how undemocratic the European Commission is, someone points out that the demos has a say via 3 levels of indirections. But that is not at all what democracy is all about. I am supposed to have a say about how the country I live in is run. That is democracy. Not that I get to vote on a person who votes on a person who votes on another person who may or may not agree with me. It's why I live in Switzerland now, and not the EU.

▲

surgical_fire 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Following that logic, any minister appointed by a head of government is "unelected and has the same level of democratic involvement as that of China's Standing Committee".

But that statement would be bullshit.

▲

amiga386 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So,

1. What does this have to do with Denmark? This is about upgrading an existing link from Sweden to Denmark (seems mainly for maintenance reasons, not capacity; it's only increasing from 715MW to 1000MW)

2. Why did the EU have to reassure Sweden wouldn't have to pay bottleneck fees to Denmark?

3. If you have such great power generation in the north of Sweden, why isn't it available to South Sweden where the demand is? (whether that's to Germany, Denmark or Sweden itself)

▲

try-working 10 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	amiga386 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Rude. 1. Let's consult the map: https://www.entsoe.eu/data/map/ Also https://www.svk.se/services/imagehandler/v1/image/55796/1300 Germany is currently getting power from you directly, as well as via the existing Denmark connection (this project is merely upgrading it from 700MW to 1000MW), as well as via Lithuania if it wanted. Germany gets more of its energy from Norway and Denmark directly without involving you. Not to mention all the other countries that surround Germany. So if your problem is Germany, why are you complaining about Denmark? 2. No, I see the issue now. It's not that Sweden objects paying money to Denmark, it's that Sweden objects paying for any other country's grid upgrade. 3. I ask about Northern Sweden because I heard it had lots of potential for electricity generation, but it can't even get it to Stockholm, never mind Malmö, due to north/south grid capacity issues purely inside Sweden. Your current curtailment is about 3.8TWh per year. I read that when you can't get power into the SE4 area, which can happen daily, the prices shoot up as it needs to import from Denmark, Germany, etc. Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if this was addressed? You then wouldn't have such a price differential between areas of your own country.

▲

lrasinen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh for Pete's sake, Sweden. Anything to avoid building more North-South connectivity.

Sweden is currently split into four pricing areas due to lack of grid capacity. All the cheap electricity is typically in the north (hydro) and then the price creeps up when you head south.

It's too bad the live electricity flow data is offline today, but there's a common pattern where SE1 pricing area in the north sends little under 2 GW to Finland (single zone) and most of it gets exported to SE3 around Stockholm.

▲

contravariant 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hmm, so basically Sweden has a surplus of goods (electricity), but the EU commissions is trying to pay for it with coupons that look like money but can't be used to buy everything, and now Sweden is saying "no, tak".

	▲	try-working 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sweden does not have surplus electricity. We have production of electricity that is better matched to demand than other nations, most notably the disaster that is Germany. German demand is causing Swedish industrial production to shut down due to increased energy prices, which makes production unprofitable.

▲

leonidasrup 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Commission will not agree to let Sweden use the bottleneck fees to fund nuclear power production. Or to be more precise, German and Danish high electricity prices financing the expansion of Swedish nuclear sector.

"Sweden’s center-right government is simultaneously pursuing one of Europe’s most ambitious nuclear expansion agendas, seeking financing frameworks for four large-scale reactors or equivalent modular nuclear capacity totaling roughly 5,000 MW. Half of this capacity is targeted for commissioning by 2035. The government increasingly views congestion revenues as an important funding mechanism to support these ambitions."

https://constructionreviewonline.com/konti-skan-connect-proj...

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]