EIA anatomy for a Swedish data-centre file

Reading order

Name the track before you staple the PDF. Activities and measures sit on Naturvårdsverket’s specific-assessment page. Plans and programmes sit on the strategic-assessment page and on Boverket’s detailed-plan pages. Chapter 6 section 35 headings belong to an activity MKB. Chapter 6 section 11 headings belong to a plan MKB. Do not staple a plan cover onto an activity file, or an activity cover onto a detailed plan.

Then name whether a specific assessment is required at all. Naturvårdsverket’s page lists, among other cases, a permit examination under Chapter 9 or Chapter 11 where the activity is assumed to have a significant environmental effect; government examination under Chapter 17; and a Natura 2000 permit under Chapter 7 section 28 a. If an examination is required but significant effect is not assumed, the developer still files a simpler statement — not a full MKB, and without a scoping consultation. The screening decision on significance (Chapter 6 sections 23–25) is a County Administrative Board decision on the cited pages.

Then name what this register will not invent. Operator news for Horndal (2 June 2026), SWE04 (23 February 2026) and Microsoft’s three municipalities are not screening decisions and not examining-authority completions. Ordinance 2017:966 sections 6–7 lists some activity types that always, or never, are assumed to have a significant effect. The cited Naturvårdsverket pages do not extract a data-centre megawatt threshold. This page will not publish one.

• Activity track versus plan track before the PDF cover.
• Significance decided — or still untested.
• Full MKB versus simpler statement.
• No invented hall outcome.

Screening, scoping, the MKB and the plan-track twin

Screening (undersökning) asks whether the activity or plan is assumed to have a significant environmental effect. For activities, Chapter 6 sections 23–25 and Naturvårdsverket’s page put that decision with the County Administrative Board. A screening that finds no significant effect still leaves a simpler statement to file when an examination is required. It does not mean “no paper.”

Scoping (avgränsningssamråd) is a consultation on the content and scope of the MKB. Naturvårdsverket’s specific-assessment page places it on the developer before the MKB is written. It is not the same meeting as a detailed-plan consultation. Boverket states that from 1 April 2020 the plan screening is carried out within the plan consultation, and that the municipality still takes a separate screening decision — a decision that cannot be appealed on its own. If the plan requires a strategic assessment, a scoping consultation and a Chapter 6 section 11 MKB follow on the plan track.

The MKB itself is a document with statutory headings. Activity MKBs use Chapter 6 section 35. Plan MKBs use Chapter 6 section 11. Naturvårdsverket’s permit-examination page sits next to this anatomy: it describes who examines what, not the outcome of a named hall. Boverket’s Planning and Building Act pages and detailed-plan pages describe the plan product. The two tracks can run in the same municipality in the same year. They remain two products.

Water, noise and cooling stay neighbouring files. The water-and-cooling page and the WUE page measure litres and loops. They do not write Chapter 6 headings. A heat-sale sentence does not close an environmental assessment. A detaljplan samråd is not an activity samråd. The parent environmental-permits page holds the investigation-versus-notification-versus-permit matrix. This page holds the document names.

What named primary sources show

Naturvårdsverket’s specific-assessment page (updated 15 February 2022) is the dated official definition of the activity track: developer scoping, MKB filing, examining authority completes the assessment after comments; specific equals EIA and strategic equals SEA; when a specific assessment is required; and the simpler statement without scoping when examination is required but significant effect is not assumed.

Naturvårdsverket’s strategic-assessment page is the plan-and-programme track. The permit-examination page describes who examines activities — not a named hall outcome. Boverket’s detailed-plan screening page (from 1 April 2020 inside consultation), the separate screening-decision page (not separately appealable) and the strategic-assessment page are the plan-track twins. Chapter 6 of the Environmental Code and Ordinance 2017:966, including sections 6–7, are the statute and the ordinance. This page does not extract a hall megawatt threshold from those sections.

Related pages on this portal: the parent environmental-permits matrix, the build hub, water-and-cooling, and water-use-and-WUE. Operator news pages for Horndal, SWE04 and Microsoft’s 2021 municipalities are not used as EIA outcomes here.

A matrix of document names

Draw products in rows and evidence in columns. Specific assessment, strategic assessment, activity screening, simpler statement, activity MKB, plan MKB and the plan screening decision are different rows. Statute, official commentary and a named hall file are different columns. Empty cells stay empty. An operator groundbreaking is not a column.

Do not invent which Swedish hall files landed in which bucket. Do not merge EIA and SEA into one PDF.

Common misreads

The first misread is “EIA and SEA are the same PDF.” Naturvårdsverket assigns specific assessment to activities and strategic assessment to plans. Chapter 6 section 35 headings are not Chapter 6 section 11 headings. The second is “no significant effect means no paper.” The specific-assessment page still requires a simpler statement when an examination is required but significant effect is not assumed.

The third is “the plan consultation is the activity scoping.” Boverket places plan screening inside plan consultation from 1 April 2020. Naturvårdsverket places activity scoping on the developer before the activity MKB. The fourth is to treat Horndal, SWE04 or Microsoft’s municipalities as EIA outcomes. Those cited pages are operator or company news. They are not County Administrative Board screening decisions.

What to ask next

Ask whether the file is an activity under Chapter 9 or 11 (or Chapter 17 / Natura 2000), a detailed plan, or both running in the same year. Ask whether the County Administrative Board has already decided significance — and if not, who files the screening material. Ask which heading list applies, and whether anyone has stapled the other cover on the PDF.

Then open the parent environmental-permits page, the detailed-plan page, water-and-cooling and the WUE page. If the authority has not been asked, write “untested” rather than “expected notification.” Do not fill the gap from an operator groundbreaking.

1. Activity track, plan track, or both named.
2. Screening decision dated — or marked untested.
3. Full MKB versus simpler statement labelled.
4. Heading list 6:35 or 6:11 named.
5. No invented hall outcome.

What this does and does not prove

This page proves that a Swedish hall file can sit in more than one Chapter 6 track, and that EIA and SEA are different products. It proves that Naturvårdsverket published the specific- and strategic-assessment pages, that Boverket published the plan screening and separate-decision pages, and that the Environmental Code and Ordinance 2017:966 name the documents.

It does not prove a permit forecast. It does not invent screening decisions, MKB outcomes or appeal results for Horndal, Falun, SWE04, Microsoft’s 2021 municipalities or any other named Swedish hall. It does not extract a data-centre megawatt threshold from Ordinance 2017:966 sections 6–7.

Unknown decisions stay unknown. Point to the named source gap. Until a later primary source publishes a named hall screening or completion, the anatomy is an anatomy.