An area concession is not a line concession — Ellagen 2:2 is a geographic network right

Reading order

Name the object before you name a monopoly. Chapter 2 section 2 splits line and area. A coloured municipality is not an area concession. Write the holder, the highest voltage and the geography before you say the hall “sits inside the local network.”

Then keep the local door and the regional door on separate rows. Ei’s page, reviewed 24 August 2026, writes a highest-only voltage as the local network and a highest-plus-lowest interval as the regional network. Exclusive-right language sits on the local door. The regional door still lets others apply for a line concession.

Then keep land rights, Environmental Code papers and IKN on later rows. An area concession is not a ledningsrätt. It is not a 12:6 consultation and not an IKN exemption. The line-concession page already owns the line object.

Then keep named project rows as geography. Microsoft, Falun, Horndal, SWE04 Sollefteå and evroc Arlandastad stay operator papers. This register does not publish a section 15 decision for those cadastral units.

• Section 2 splits line and area; they are different objects.
• About 300 area concessions apply until further notice.
• A local-network exclusive right is not a regional-network exclusive right.
• The concession is not a right to use another person’s land.

What the area right, the voltage test and the application actually measure

The area right measures a geography plus a voltage, not a hall pad. Section 15’s two tests are a suitable unit and no overlap both in space and in voltage. Ei’s page repeats those tests and adds a suitability test on the applicant under section 16. A municipal welcome is not that decision.

The voltage test measures four statutory regards under section 10. Foreseeable operating voltage, environmental effect of later expansion, a socio-economically justified expansion, and consequences for customers and other holders. Raising the voltage is a new area concession that replaces the old one. It is not a hall upgrade week.

The application measures named papers. Ei’s page, used here, asks for a plan of future transfer need, a map, highest and where relevant lowest construction voltage, an environmental description of later expansion, a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis, consequences for customers and holders, and the existing facility number on a highest-only file. A map at 1:1 200 000 was not enough in the published example; Ei asked for 1:50 000 so that section 15’s overlap test could be read. A GIS polygon is required. Those rows are not a reserved megawatt.

Land and neighbouring permits sit on later desks. Ei writes that an area concession is not a right to use another property, and that Environmental Code consultation, water-operations notification and cultural-heritage permits can still apply when new lines are built. The easements page already owns ledningsrätt. The IKN page already owns the exemption list.

What named primary sources show

Electricity Act chapter 2 sections 2, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 21 remain the statute. Act (2013:207)’s 1 June 2013 transition row remains the dated “until further notice” clock for concessions that already applied. Do not invent a data-centre paragraph.

Ei’s area-concession page, created 14 May 2024 and reviewed 24 August 2026, remains the dated agency desk. The “about 300” sentence and the local-versus-regional exclusive-right split stay on that page. Named operator rows remain geography.

No cited source here publishes a project-specific section 15 decision, a section 11 consent or a reserved hall megawatt created by colouring a municipality.

A matrix instead of a monopoly-pad slogan

Draw one page with object rows and evidence columns. The area object, the voltage door, the section 15 overlap test, a line concession, an IKN exemption and a named campus town are different columns. Empty cells stay empty.

Do not invent a hall monopoly from the “about 300” sentence. That sentence is a national count, not a campus right.

Common misreads

The first misread is to treat a coloured municipality as already a section 15 decision. The statute asks for a suitable unit and no overlap. The second is to collapse an area concession into a line concession. Those are different section 2 objects. The third is to treat the local-network exclusive right as also true on the regional door.

The fourth is to treat a named campus town as proof that the hall already sits inside a named area. The fifth is to treat the concession as a ledningsrätt. The sixth is to invent a hall monopoly pad. The seventh is to collapse this page into the line-concession page or the IKN page.

What to ask next

Ask which dated paper anyone is quoting — a section 15 decision, a highest-only local door, a highest-plus-lowest regional door, a section 11 consent or only a coloured municipality — and which cadastral unit it names. Ask whether the neighbouring object is actually a line concession or an IKN exemption.

Then open the line-concession page, the IKN page, the easements page and the power hub. If the operator will not name the area object, the voltage and the date, record the gap. Do not fill it from a monopoly slide. This page is not legal advice.

1. Is the paper an area concession — or a line concession or an IKN row?
2. Is the live door highest-only local, or highest-plus-lowest regional?
3. Which holder, which voltage and which geography are actually written?
4. Has the concession been treated as a ledningsrätt?
5. Has a campus town been treated as a section 15 file?

What this does and does not prove

This page proves that Electricity Act chapter 2 already writes an area concession as a geographic network right with a voltage, a no-overlap test and an until-further-notice clock, and that Ei’s 24 August 2026 page publishes about 300 such areas with a local exclusive-right door and a regional non-exclusive door — and that those facts are not a reserved hall megawatt.

It does not prove that a named Swedish hall sits inside a named area. It does not invent a monopoly pad for Horndal or Arlandastad. It does not treat a campus press note as a section 15 decision.

Empty cells stay empty. Until a later primary source names the holder, the voltage and the dated paper, the area-concession clock stays a method, not a census. DataCenterSweden records the method.