An IKN exemption is not a line concession — the list is complete, the risk sits with the line holder

Reading order

Seat the Electricity Act prohibition before any internal-network slogan. Chapter 2 section 1 says a strong-current line may not be built or used without a network concession. The IKN ordinance is the complete exemption list. Write the named paragraph and the dated paper on one line before you say the campus may trench.

Then keep linje, område, IKN and the connection agreement on separate rows. The line-concession page already owns linje versus område. A connection agreement answers offtake. An IKN row answers only whether this particular line needed a concession.

Then keep the automatic exemption and the binding statement on their own clocks. Ei says the exemptions apply by themselves. The binding statement is optional. Without it the holder bears the classification risk. The statement is not an environmental permit and not a bygglov.

Then keep named project rows as geography. Microsoft, Falun, Horndal, SWE04 Sollefteå and evroc Arlandastad stay operator papers. This register does not publish an IKN finding or a binding statement for those cadastral units.

• The ordinance is a complete list. There is no informal fourth exemption.
• Automatic application and a binding statement are different objects.
• A connection agreement is not an IKN finding.
• The 14 January 2025 storage row is still an exemption row, not reserved offtake.

What an IKN row and a binding statement actually measure

An IKN row measures whether a named line or network sits on the complete statutory list. Ei’s exemption page records internal-network language: transfer for the holder’s own account, with only limited transfer for others. A multi-tenant campus slogan that never names the paragraph has already left that test.

The 14 January 2025 changes measure new or rewritten list items, including storage under 22 a §. Those items are still exemptions from the concession duty. They are not a reserved hall megawatt and not a Svenska kraftnät connection agreement.

A binding statement measures Ei’s written answer to one classification question. It is appealable. It is free. It is not mandatory. Ei says that without it the holder bears the risk. The statement does not examine the environment and does not grant a bygglov.

Supervision and the criminal-risk sentence measure what happens if a line is built without a required concession. They are Ei handbook facts. They are not a filed case against a named hall.

What named primary sources show

Ei’s IKN hub, created 21 April 2023, remains the dated main-rule and complete-list commentary. The 14 January 2025 news remains the dated storage-row change. The binding-statement page remains the dated optional-decision paper. Ordinance 2007:215 and Electricity Act 1997:857 remain the statutory papers.

The line-concession page remains the neighbouring linje-versus-område letterhead. Named operator rows remain geography.

No cited source here publishes a project-specific IKN finding, a binding statement for a named hall or a reserved hall megawatt created by an internal-network slogan.

A matrix instead of one internal-grid slogan

Draw one page with object rows and evidence columns. Concession duty, named IKN paragraph, 14 January 2025 storage row, binding statement, connection agreement and a named campus town are different columns. Empty cells stay empty.

Do not invent a hall trench week or a reserved megawatt from the exemption list. Those remain classification facts from dated Ei pages.

Common misreads

The first misread is to treat any on-site cable as automatically IKN. The ordinance is a complete list. The second is to treat a binding statement as mandatory, or as an environmental permit. The third is to treat the 14 January 2025 storage row as reserved offtake.

The fourth is to treat a named campus town as proof that an internal network was already classified. The fifth is to collapse IKN into a line concession or a connection agreement. The sixth is to invent a hall trench week or a reserved megawatt. The seventh is to collapse this page into the line-concession page or the early-indication page.

What to ask next

Ask which IKN paragraph anyone is quoting, whether a binding statement exists, and which line object it names. Ask whether a connection-agreement slide has been pasted onto that classification.

Then open the line-concession page, the grid-connection page, the early-indication page and the on-site-versus-grid page. If the operator will not name the paragraph and the date, record the gap. Do not fill it from an internal-network slide. This page is not legal advice.

1. Which IKN paragraph is named — and does the line actually meet it?
2. Is there a binding statement, or is the holder carrying the classification risk?
3. Has a connection agreement been treated as an IKN finding?
4. Has the 14 January 2025 storage row been treated as reserved offtake?
5. Has a campus town been treated as a classified internal network?

What this does and does not prove

This page proves that Ei already publishes IKN as a complete, automatically applicable exemption list with an optional binding statement, and that the 14 January 2025 changes added storage rows — and that those facts are not a reserved hall megawatt.

It does not prove that a named Swedish hall holds an IKN finding. It does not invent a trench week for Horndal or Arlandastad. It does not treat a campus press note as a binding statement.

Empty cells stay empty. Until a later primary source names the paragraph, the line object and the dated paper, the IKN clock stays a method, not a census. DataCenterSweden records the method.