lagen.nu
ACER Opinion No 13/2019

ACER Opinion 13-2019 on National Electricity TYNDP-National Development Plans Consistency

Utgivare
Europeiska unionens byrå för samarbete mellan energitillsynsmyndigheter
Antagen
2019-05-22
Språk
engelska
Källa
www.acer.europa.eu
Endast på engelskaEuropeiska unionens byrå för samarbete mellan energitillsynsmyndigheter har inte publicerat någon svensk version av detta dokument. Texten nedan återges på engelska, så som den publicerats av Europeiska unionens byrå för samarbete mellan energitillsynsmyndigheter.

PUBLIC

OPINION No 13/2019 OF THE AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS of 22 May 2019

ON THE NATIONAL ELECTRICITY NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THEIR CONSISTENCY WITH THE EU TEN-YEAR NETWORK DEVELOPLMENT PLAN

THE AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS, Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 , and, in particular, Article 8(11) thereof,

Whereas:

1. INTRODUCTION

(1) Article 8(11) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 tasks the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (‘the Agency’) with providing an opinion on the national ten-year network development plans (‘the NDPs’), to assess their consistency with the EU-wide ten-year network development plan (‘the EU TYNDP’). (2) If the Agency identifies inconsistencies between a NDP and the EU TYNDP, it shall recommend amending the NDP or the EU TYNDP as appropriate. If such NDP is elaborated in accordance with Article 22 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Agency shall recommend that the competent national regulatory authority (‘NRA’) amend the NDP in accordance with Article 22(7) of that Directive and inform the Commission thereof.

(3) NRAs have provided the Agency with essential information on the general regulatory framework, inputs, outputs and methodologies used for the development of the NDPs, as well as specific information on the latest draft or final NDP.

(4) Further, NRAs have provided the Agency with information on the draft EU TYNDP 2018 projects and corresponding investments which are located in their jurisdictions and on those investments which appear on their NDPs, have a cross-border relevance, but do not appear in the draft EU TYNDP 2018. The data collection from NRAs was completed on 29 April 2019.

2. DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE

(5) Similar to the Agency’s previous practice, the Agency considers as ‘national ten-year network development plans’ pursuant to Article 8(11) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 all relevant network planning instruments, even if they are referred to with a different title (e.g. investment plan) and a different time span.

(6) Further, for the purpose of this Opinion the Agency considered the following definitions:

(a) Cost benefit analysis (CBA): Conceptual framework applied to any systematic, quantitative appraisal of a public or private project to determine whether, or to what extent, that project is worthwhile from a social perspective.

(b) Infrastructure / investment need: Investment gaps which indicate a need for further development of the transmission system, e.g. a need to develop capacity across a boundary.

(c) Market study: Market studies are used to calculate the optimal dispatch of generation units. Besides the dispatch of generation and demand (if modelled endogenously), market simulations compute the market exchanges between bidding areas and the corresponding marginal costs for every modelled time step. Market studies results allow the computation of some of the CBA indicators, such as socioeconomic welfare (SEW), CO2 emissions, RES integration and the adequacy component of security of supply .

(d) Network study: Network studies are based on a detailed representation of the transmission network and are used to calculate the actual power flows that take place in the network under given generation/load/market exchange conditions. Network studies allow to identify bottlenecks in the grid, highlighted by the power

flows resulting from the market exchanges. Network studies results allow the computation of some of the CBA indicators such as: Net Transfer Capacity (NTC), grid losses and the stability component of the security of supply .

(e) Scenarios: A set of assumptions for modelling purposes related to a possible future situation in which certain conditions regarding demand and installed generation capacity, infrastructures, fuel prices and global context occur .

(f) Progress of a project: It indicates whether a project’s implementation is on track compared to its plan. A project is ‘on time’ if the commissioning date is unchanged compared to the commissioning date in the plan. A project whose implementation is sped up and for which therefore the expected commissioning date is now earlier than previously considered is ‘ahead of schedule’. A project, which falls behind its schedule is either ‘delayed’ or ‘rescheduled’, or both .

(g) Smart grid projects: ‘Smart grid’ means an electricity network that can integrate in a cost efficient manner the behaviour and actions of all users connected to it, including generators, consumers and those that both generate and consume, in order to ensure an economically efficient and sustainable power system with low losses and high levels of quality, security of supply and safety .

(7) The Opinion aims to review the NDPs of all the jurisdictions of EU Member States (Northern Ireland and Great Britain as separate jurisdictions) and of those countries, which participate in the Agency’s working structures on a voluntary basis, i.e. Norway, Switzerland and Montenegro, and to assess their consistency with the EU TYNDP.

3. PROCEDURE

(8) On 14 January 2019, the Agency invited the NRAs from the 32 aforementioned jurisdictions within the targeted scope of the Opinion to review their relevant NDPs and assess their consistency vis-à-vis the draft EU TYNDP 2018.

(9) By 29 April 2019, 29 NRAs provided input to the Agency via an online data collection tool (EU Survey) and/or by email on the relevant NDP (see Table 16) and/or national parts of projects . The list of NDPs on which the Agency has received information from the NRAs and the number and rate of reviewed national parts per jurisdiction is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. List of assessed NDPs and number and rate of reviewed national parts of projects

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE NDPS AND THE EU TYNDP 2018

General notes

(10) In the Agency’s view, the assessment of consistency of the NDPs with the EU TYNDP may cover in principle three fundamental aspects:

(a) Consistency of inputs (including scenario building);

(b) Consistency of analytical methodology (including identification of needs, CBA);

(c) Consistency of outputs (including list of projects).

(11) Based on NRAs review of their NDPs and on the Agency’s assessment of the draft EU TYNDP 2018 , the Agency concludes on major patterns, substantial differences and inconsistencies between the NDPs and the EU TYNDP (and the corresponding investments). The Agency stresses that not all differences constitute inconsistencies, as some differences may enrich the infrastructure planning (e.g. use of additional scenarios, sensitivities, more detailed modelling) or may arise from the development of the projects

over time (i.e. different timing of the plans). The Agency also identifies best practices for the development of the NDPs and the EU TYNDP and recommends that NRAs and/or other relevant national entities responsible for the elaboration and approval of the NDP follow them.

(12) The Agency positively notes that the vast majority of NRAs already (individually) assess the consistency of the NPDs in their jurisdictions with the EU TYNDP with respect to one or more of the three fundamental aspects referred to in recital (10) above : 2 NRAs (BE and PT) assess the consistency on all three aspects, 12 NRAs assess the consistency of inputs and outputs, 1 NRA assesses the analytical methodology and the outputs, 7 NRAs assess the consistency of the inputs only and 2 NRAs the consistency of the outputs only. 5 NRAs (CY, DK, EE, NO and RO) do not carry out individual consistency check on any of the three aspects. For more details please refer to Table 2.

Table 2. NRAs consistency check with EU TYNDP for the development of NDPs

Assessment of the NDPs

4.2.1. Consistency of the general regulatory frameworks for the development of the EU TYNDP and the NDPs

(13) The Agency examined the NRAs’ information on unbundling models chosen for the electricity TSOs, as the Independent Transmission System Operators (‘ITOs’) model, according to Chapter V of Directive 2009/72/EC requires stronger regulatory oversight, including review, consultation and monitoring of the NDPs compared to the Independent System Operator model (‘ISO’) according to Article 13 of the same Directive or the full ownership unbundling (‘OU’) model.

(14) Table 3 shows the different unbundling models for TSOs applied in the different jurisdictions, as well as the frequency with which NDPs are provided. The Agency notes that full ownership unbundling is applied in approximately half of the NRAs’ jurisdictions (15 out of 29), while the ITO model is applied in 7 jurisdictions (24%). The remaining (non-derogated) jurisdictions apply multiple models or the ISO model.

Pursuant to Article 44 of Directive 2009/72/EC, 3 Member States (CY, LU, MT) are derogated from the application of the unbundling requirement. In addition, Ireland has a similar derogation .

Table 3. Unbundling models and frequency of plans

4.2.1.1. Frequency of development of the plans

(15) Article 8(10) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 requires the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (‘ENTSO-E’) to adopt and publish an EU TYNDP every two year.

(16) Pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2009/72/EC, TSOs certified under the ITO unbundling model shall prepare a NDP every year. Article 37(3)(c) of the same Directive (indirectly) requires that ISOs also present a multi-annual NDP every year. TSOs under ownership unbundling models have no such legal obligations.

(17) The Agency finds that in approximately half of the jurisdictions (15 out of 29), the NDP is developed every year, in 11 jurisdictions every 2 years, and in the remaining 3 jurisdictions the NDP is developed less frequently (i.e. every 3, 4 or 6 years respectively).

(18) The Agency notes that NDPs which are elaborated every year appear to be slightly more exposed to complexities in fulfilling the legal deadline for the development of the NDP, which confirms previous findings of the Agency .

(19) While the Agency did not find a clear correlation between the date of the latest NDP and the number of identified differences, it is reasonable to assume that, as the projects develop over time, a lower frequency of development of NDPs increases the risk that

information provided in the NDPs become obsolete and differences occur between the NDP and the EU TYNDP, which may also result in later inconsistencies.

(20) Therefore the Agency recalls the importance of keeping the NDPs up to date. However, in order to avoid delays in the timely approval of the NDPs, the Agency reiterates its previous recommendation (see Agency’s Opinion No 08/2014, p.6) that NDPs are ideally prepared with a biennial frequency and be accompanied by a monitoring update in the years in between.

(21) The Agency notes that this recommendation is in line with the Commission’s proposals within the ‘Clean Energy Package’ which also foresees an ‘at least every two year’ frequency, instead of every year , and that some NDPs’ (CZ, DE, SK) frequency has already changed from annual to biennial, compared to the information provided in 2016 .

4.2.1.2. Project inclusion

(22) Pursuant to Article 8(10)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009, ENTSO-E shall develop a ten-year plan which is built on the NDPs. ENTSO-E shall ensure that the EU TYNDP does not discriminate between TSOs and third party project promoters.

(23) Article 22(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC provides a ten-year scope for the NDPs of TSOs certified under the ITO unbundling model (i.e. the NDPs shall indicate to market participants the main transmission infrastructures that need to be built or upgraded over the next 10 years, contain all the investments already decided and identify new investments which have to be executed in the next three years). The Agency notes that projects of common interests (‘PCIs’), including those which may be promoted by third parties shall also become an integral part of the relevant NDPs pursuant to Article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013.

(24) The Agency notes that the draft EU TYNDP 2018’s time horizon is indeed more than 10 years and includes investments with an expected commissioning date beyond 2030 and/or those which are still in study phase or under consideration (see Agency’s Opinion No 11/2019, p.5). The draft EU TYNDP 2018 includes and assesses third-party transmission projects and also storage projects.

(25) The Agency notes that NDPs only slightly vary in terms of the time horizon up to which the projects included in them are planned. The vast majority of the NDPs include projects which are expected to be commissioned in the next 10 years . Three NDPs (EE, DE, NO) have an even longer (i.e. 15-20 years) time horizon .

(26) In 23 jurisdictions out of 29 (79%), the NDPs include (in general) projects ‘under consideration’ (e.g. studies, projects conditional to specific circumstances). In 4 jurisdictions (CY, LU, GB, NL) they are provided separately from the NDP and in the remaining 2 jurisdictions (FR and BG) they are not provided either in the NDP or separately.

(27) As shown in Table 4, the Agency notes that, beyond the transmission projects, 12 NDPs include (or allow to include) SCADAs, ICT, cybersecurity and/or communication infrastructures, 7 NDPs include smart grid projects and 6 NDPs include storage projects.

1 NDP (HU) also includes distribution grid projects at 132 kV voltage level.

Table 4. Categories of projects included in the NDPs

(28) As shown in Table 5, in 13 jurisdictions, the relevant third-party projects are included or referred to in the NDPs: In some instances they are assessed together with the national TSO’s projects, in the others they are described or only listed, but not subject the same assessment (e.g. CBA). In 5 jurisdictions third-party projects are allowed to be included, but no application has been made yet. In the remaining 11 jurisdictions, third-party projects are not allowed to enter the NDP.

(29) The Agency positively notes the increase in the number of NDPs which include or refer to third-party projects, compared to 2016 (i.e. 5 NDPs ).

Table 5. Inclusion of third-party projects in the NDPs

(30) In line with its considerations in its Opinion No 08/2017 (p.4-5), the Agency recommends that network planning documents include/inform on studies and projects ‘under consideration’, even if they may go beyond the time horizon of the NDP and clearly flag them as such . The Agency is of the view that TSOs’ projects, which are not included (or approved, where applicable) in the NDPs, should be considered as projects ‘under consideration' by default.

(31) The EU TYNDP and ideally also the NDPs should have separate project Appendices: one listing the mid-term and long term (i.e. already ‘planned’ and expected within 10 years) projects and the other listing ‘future’ projects or studies (i.e. ‘under consideration’ or planned only beyond 10 years). Such a clear separation provides increased transparency with regard to the different levels of uncertainties associated with these two ‘categories of projects’.

(32) The Agency is of the view that the NDPs cannot provide the proper basis for the EU TYNDP regarding the inclusion (and exclusion) of third-party projects, where such projects are not allowed to enter the NDP. The Agency therefore recommends to expand the scope of the NDPs to allow the inclusion of third-party projects.

4.2.1.3. Consultation

(33) In line with Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009, while preparing the draft EU TYNDP, ENTSO-E shall conduct an extensive consultation process, at an early stage and in an open and transparent manner, involving all relevant market participants, and, in particular, the organisations representing all stakeholders. The consultation shall also involve NRAs and other national authorities, supply and generation undertakings, system users, including customers, distribution system operators (DSOs), relevant industry associations, technical bodies and stakeholder platforms. It shall aim at identifying the views and proposals of all relevant parties during the decision-making process.

(34) Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 also stipulates that the draft EU TYNDP shall be submitted to the Agency for an opinion. The Agency’s opinion is not binding to ENTSO-E, but the Agency expects that it is duly taken into account by ENTSO-E before the finalisation of the EU TYNDP.

(35) Regarding the elaboration of the draft EU TYNDP 2018, the Agency already reviewed the stakeholder involvement and concluded that ENTSO-E carried out an extensive consultation process .

(36) Pursuant to Article 22 of Directive 2009/72/EC, TSOs certified under the ITO model shall submit to the NRA their NDP after having consulted all the relevant stakeholders. The NRA shall also consult all actual or potential system users on the NDP in an open and transparent manner. The NRA shall publish the result of the consultation process, in particular possible needs for investments.

(37) As shown in Table 6, stakeholder consultations are part of the development process of most NDPs. However, the party responsible for the public consultation (i.e. the TSO or the NRA) and the level of involvement of stakeholders vary across jurisdictions. In 20 out of 29 jurisdictions (69%), the draft NDP is subject to public consultation (i.e. any stakeholder is invited to participate), some of them held additional separate consultation on the scenarios and/or the relevant analytical methodology. In 2 jurisdictions (LU, GB), only the scenario development part of the NDP is consulted, in 1 jurisdiction (DK) in addition to the scenarios also the large projects are consulted. In 4 jurisdictions, no public consultation is carried out, but the TSO has specific (bilateral) consultations at least with the NRA (CY, NL), or also with other stakeholders (HU, SI). In 2 jurisdictions (EE, SE), neither public consultation nor any specific or bilateral consultation is carried out.

Table 6. Consultations with regard to the development of the NDPs

(38) The Agency considers it of utmost importance that stakeholders are appropriately involved in the EU TYNDP and the NDP building process in order to increase its quality and public acceptance. In this regard, in its Opinion No 11/2019, the Agency already called on ENTSO-E better and more transparently to explain how the public consultation results are taken into account.

(39) Further, the Agency recommends that a public consultation be carried out in each jurisdiction on the draft NDP irrespective of the chosen unbundling model. In more advanced national frameworks, separate consultations on the major building blocks of the NDPs (e.g. scenario development, CBA methodology) should also be considered in order to ensure that stakeholder inputs are timely taken into account (i.e. before the assessment of the projects). The results of the public consultations should be published and information on the treatment of the stakeholder comments provided.

4.2.1.4. Approval of the NDPs and the NRA’s respective role

(40) The regulatory oversight of the EU TYNDP is mainly carried out through non-binding opinions of the Agency, while, in most jurisdictions, NRAs are formally empowered to approve, reject and/or validate the NDP proposals of the TSOs. As shown in Table 7, in

20 out of 29 jurisdictions, there is a public entity (i.e. the NRA in 14 jurisdictions, the Ministry in 5 jurisdictions and a 2-round procedure by the Ministry and the NRA in 1 jurisdiction) approving the draft NDP prepared by the TSO. Out of the remaining 9 jurisdictions, in 3 there is a binding opinion of the NRA, in 3 there is at least some scrutiny of the NRA (via a non-binding opinion or request to amend the NDP), while in

3 of them (EE, LU, SE) the NDP is not approved by any public entity and the NRA plays only a limited consultative role in the NDP elaboration process without any effective power.

Table 7. Approval of the NDP and NRAs’ respective roles

(41) The Agency notes that the legal requirements for the regulatory oversight is generally higher for NDPs than that for the EU TYNDP as in 79% of the jurisdictions, the TSO is bound by the approval or the opinion of an entity acting in the public interest (i.e. NRA or Ministry/ies, or both).

(42) In this regard, the Agency is of the view that the regulatory oversight over the elaboration of the EU TYNDP should be strengthened, e.g. by giving a binding nature to the Agency’s opinion.

(43) Similarly, irrespective of the unbundling model chosen for the TSO(s), in each jurisdiction the NDP should be subject to appropriate regulatory oversight. Therefore, the Agency recommends to strengthen NRAs’ or other public entities’ role regarding the development of the NDPs in those jurisdictions where the TSO currently adopts the NDP without any regulatory approval or binding scrutiny.

(44) Further, the Agency recommends that all formal acts on the NDPs, where applicable, (i.e. decisions, opinion, consistency analysis, monitoring) be published.

4.2.2. Consistency of inputs and methodologies

(45) Pursuant to Article 8(10) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009, the EU TYNDP shall include, among other features, scenario development, and it shall identify investment gaps, notably with respect to cross-border capacities.

(46) Pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013, ENTSO-E shall apply a harmonised energy system-wide cost-benefit analysis (CBA) at Union level, including on network and market modelling, for the preparation of each EU TYNDP.

(47) Regarding the study horizon of scenario development, the CBA methodology provides that the common input data set shall cover years n+5, n+10, n+15 and n+20, where n is the year in which the analysis is performed.

(48) Pursuant to Article 22(3) of Directive 2009/72/EC, TSOs certified under the ITO unbundling model should make reasonable assumptions about the evolution of generation, supply, consumption and exchanges with other countries, taking into account investment plans for regional and EU-wide networks for the purpose of the NDP.

4.2.2.1. Scenarios

(49) The EU TYNDP 2018 scenarios are described in the ENTSOs’ scenario development report . ENTSO-E studies one (short term) best estimate scenario for year 2025 and three (long term) scenarios for year 2030. Two out of the three long term scenarios feature ‘high economic growth’, while one considers a ‘moderate [i.e. average] growth’.

(50) The EU TYNDP 2018 assesses and provides the projects’ benefits for each of the aforementioned scenarios. The Agency’s views on these scenarios were provided in its Opinion No 10/2018 on the ENTSOs’ draft TYNDP 2018 scenario report. In that Opinion the Agency observed that, in particular for the ‘short-term’ study year (i.e. 2025), a sensitivity analysis (except with respect to climate years) was missing and, for the

‘mid/long-term’ study year (i.e. 2030), ENTSOs failed to consider a wide spectrum of possible futures, which would have increased the robustness of the assessment.

(51) The reviewed NDPs display a large variety of approaches in defining the future energy landscape. The Agency notes that all but three of the 26 NDPs (88%), for which this information is available, use multiple scenarios approach (or at least consider different combination of values for certain parameters) and, in most cases, assess the projects against several or all of these scenarios to decide on their necessity, which is a very significant change compared to the findings in 2016 . More than one third of the NDPs appear to also use a scenario which considers lower economic growth or demand. About two thirds of the NDPs include multiple study years for which the assessment is carried out. Most of the NDPs include a study horizons up to the year n+15, but 8 NDPs also assess the projects in a study horizon beyond 15 years. The details on the use of scenarios in each jurisdiction are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Scenarios used in the latest NDPs

(52) Further, the Agency notes that the vast majority (i.e. 79%) of the NDPs reflect on the EU TYNDP scenarios: out of 29 jurisdictions, 8 (27%) use both EU and national scenarios,

14 (48%) use only national scenarios, but take EU TYNDP scenarios into account and 1 (4%) use only EU scenarios. However, the Agency also notes that in 6 NDPs the EU TYNDP scenarios are not (or only potentially) taken into account.

(53) The Agency notes that scenarios developed for the NDPs take into account demand, generation and cross-border capacities basically in all jurisdictions, while other elements, including forecasts for demand response, use of heat pumps, electric vehicles and new storage facilities are remarkably less frequently, but still considered in about half of the jurisdictions, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Elements taken in account for the construction of scenarios in the NDPs:

(54) The way in which scenarios are developed and used is critical in terms of the assessment of a project, as the need for the project and the accompanying costs and benefits strongly depends on the chosen parameters. As pointed out in the Agency’s Opinion No 11/2019 (p.25), the project-specific CBA results in the EU TYNDP 2018 show important differences compared to those in the EU TYNDP 2016, which (as explained by ENTSO- E) were partially due to the new scenarios considered for the analysis.

(55) The Agency considers the ‘best estimate’ approach for the short term and the multiscenario approach for the long term as appropriate, so as better to consider the growing uncertainties over time and better to assess the resilience of the investment projects against them.

(56) The Agency also recommends to complement the near-term best-estimate scenario with appropriate sensitivity analyses. Such sensitivity analysis would be particularly useful in detecting the main factors on which a project outputs (benefits) depends.

(57) As regards the long term, the Agency deems that the fundamental objective of the scenarios is to depict an appropriate range of plausible futures. In this regard, the Agency reaffirms its view that considering a ‘low economic growth’/‘slow progress’ scenario could help to build trust in the scenario development, by not just building on policy goals, but also highlighting possible risks of not achieving these goals. Therefore, a ‘slow progress’ scenario should be investigated by the CBA, for all years where multiple scenarios are developed in the EU TYNDP.

(58) As regards the scenario-building method, the Agency recommends to develop at least one robust scenario with a top-down approach (i.e. consistent and coherent assumptions across Europe), which takes into account country specifics. This(ese) scenario(s) should be evaluated in the EU TYNDP and taken into account to construct the NDPs’ scenarios.

(59) When study years are used (instead of continuous description assessing each future year), the Agency considers it as a good practice that NDP scenarios and CBA assessments primarily refer to the rounded years (i.e. years ending with 0 and 5).

4.2.2.2. Infrastructure needs

(60) For the purpose of the EU TYNDP 2018, ENTSO-E released a report which aimed to depict infrastructure needs in 2040 . The Agency’s main considerations regarding the assessment of the infrastructure needs were provided in its Opinion No 11/2019 (p.14).

(61) Based on the NRA responses, as shown in Table 10, the Agency identified that for most NDPs (62%), the TSO does not conduct a formal (i.e. based on an approved methodology) infrastructure gap (needs) identification process, before projects are proposed; instead projects are defined based on the TSO’s experience and knowledge of the transmission system and their assessed benefits.

Table 10. Methodology used for the identification of infrastructure gaps (needs)

4.2.2.3. Methodologies used for the assessment of the projects

(62) In the draft EU TYNDP 2018, the projects are assessed using the ENTSO-E CBA methodology 2.0 approved by the European Commission on 27 September 2018 . The Agency’s view on the CBA methodology was already provided in its Opinion No 05/2017.

(63) The CBA methodology identifies two cost categories: investment costs (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX). According to their definitions, the CAPEX of the investments in the EU TYNDP 2018 should include the following cost elements (p.42):

(a) Expected costs for permits, feasibility studies, design and land acquisition;

(b) Expected cost for equipment, materials and execution costs (such as towers, foundations, conductors, substations, protection and control systems);

(c) Expected costs for temporary solutions which are necessary to realise a project (e.g. a new overhead line has to be built in an existing route, and a temporary circuit has to be installed during the construction period);

(d) Expected environmental and consenting costs (such as environmental costs avoided, mitigated or compensated under existing legal provisions, cost of planning procedures);

(e) Expected costs for devices that have to be replaced within the given period (consideration of project life-cycle); and

(f) Dismantling costs at the end of the equipment life-cycle.

(64) The OPEX figures in the EU TYNDP 2018 consists of the expected annual maintenance costs and the expected annual operation costs, reported as an annual average figure.

(65) The ENTSO-E CBA methodology includes eight (partially overlapping) benefit categories (i.e. SEW, CO2 variation, RES integration, societal well-being, grid losses, adequacy, flexibility and stability) and three residual impact categories (environmental, social, other). Beyond these, the EU TYNDP 2018 includes a so called ‘missing benefit’ or ‘declared values’ category, which allows the project promoters to report on benefits, which are either not captured by the CBA methodology or captured, but not adequately calculated in the EU TYNDP 2018.

(66) The projects, which were part of the reference (or ‘baseline’) network (for a certain study year), were assessed with the Take Out One at the Time (TOOT) methodology, the other (non-reference grid) projects were assessed with the Put IN one at the Time (PINT) methodology. For competing projects, ENTSO-E also used the multiple TOOT approach.

(67) Regarding the NDPs, as shown in Table 11, the way with which projects are assessed greatly varies across jurisdictions, but the use of the CBA has increased compared to the practice in 2016 . In 17 out of 29 jurisdictions (58%), a formal (e.g. based on a methodology approved by law or a public entity) CBA is carried out, in most of them only for some of the proposed projects (e.g. cross-border or high CAPEX projects). In the remaining jurisdictions the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSOs and in one instance the way how the projects are assessed was not specified. The Agency notes that the share of NDPs building on a formal CBA analysis is expected further to increase in the future (e.g. in GR).

Table 11. Methodology used for the assessment of the projects in the NDPs

(68) Regarding the costs, the Agency notes that the expected cost for materials and assembly and the expected costs for temporary solutions, which are necessary to realise a project, are included in the costs figures used for most of the NDPs, as shown in Table 12. However, not all cost elements identified by the CBA methodology are considered in many of the jurisdictions.

Table 12. Cost elements included in the total project expenditures available in the NDP or to the NRA

(69) Noting the different cost elements included in the total expenditure of the projects in the different jurisdictions, the Agency considers it important to clarify in the relevant NDPs, which cost elements the provided cost figures correspond to.

(70) The Agency notes that in those jurisdictions where a CBA is carried out, multiple benefits are considered, as shown in Table 13. The Agency notes that even in those jurisdictions where no CBA is carried out for the NDP, some aspects (e.g. contribution of the project to security of supply or adequacy) are quantitatively assessed.

Table 13. Benefit categories and their monetisation in the NDPs

(71) The CBA or other project assessments are carried out via different market, network and/or dynamic studies. As shown in Table 14, in about two third of the jurisdictions both market and network studies are used, in 1 jurisdiction (CY) only a specific market is used, in 8 jurisdictions only network studies are carried out. Most of the indicated studies use models covering the relevant region or beyond (i.e. EU level). Only few studies are carried out using only national assumptions.

Table 14. Studies carried out in the NDPs

(72) The Agency recalls its recommendation in its Opinion No 04/2016 (p.3) that the NDPs should include market studies for projects of cross-border relevance and use the multi-

national network models fully to assess the project’s influence on the interconnected network.

(73) The Agency is of the view that the CBA, which allows the comparison of the costs and benefits of a project, is a good practice and carrying out a CBA should be considered in each jurisdiction at least for the larger projects, as it promotes transparency and objectivity in the decision on the projects. In this regard, the Agency recalls the importance of avoiding double-counting of the benefits.

4.2.2.4. Discounting parameters used

(74) As described in ENTSO-E CBA methodology (p.24), in order to calculate the Net Present Value (NPV) of a project, its monetised costs and benefits must first be estimated using the same assumptions and then discounted such that those costs and benefits are all actualised to the year in which the study is performed). Discounted costs (negatives) and benefits (positives) can then be added in order to calculate the NPV of the project.

(75) In line with the Agency’s Opinion , the following discounting parameters should be applied in the EU TYNDP:

(a) 25 years of operation;

(b) residual value equal to 0;

(c) 4% (real) discount rate.

(76) Further, the ENTSO-E CBA 2.0 (p.14) provides that the mid-term horizon scenarios have to be representative of at least two study years and that (p.24) the benefits should be aggregated across years as follows:

- for years from the year of commissioning (i.e. the start of benefits) to the first midterm time horizon: the first mid-term year’s benefits are extended backwards;

- for years between different mid-term, long-term and very long-term time horizons (if any): benefits between the time horizons are linearly interpolated;

- for years beyond the farthest time horizon: benefits are maintained at the same level of this farthest time horizon.

(77) The Agency notes that these discounting rules are broadly applied for the NDPs as well. As shown in Table 15, out of the 17 NDPs for which a CBA assessment is carried out:

- in 14 NDPs (82%), all costs and benefits are discounted to the same year in 10;

- in 8 NDPs (47%), 25 years of operation are assumed;

- in 8 NDPs (47%), a 4% (real) discount rate is applied; and

- in 7 NDPs (41%), a 0 residual value is assumed.

Table 15. Application of the EU TYNDP 2018 discounting parameters in the jurisdictions with a formal CBA methodology

4.2.3. Publication

(78) Pursuant to Article 8(10) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009, ENTSO-E shall adopt and publish the final EU TYNDP. Since the EU TYNDP is subject to public consultation, the draft plan is also publicly available.

(79) Regarding the NDPs, the Agency notes that in all, but 2 jurisdictions (CY, LU), the NDP is published. (In 16 jurisdictions both the draft and the final NDP are published, while in

11 jurisdictions only the final NDP is published). Table 16 presents the list of the latest NDPs and the links to them.

Table 16. Latest NDPs and links to them

(80) The Agency considers that the public availability of the draft and final NDPs contributes to transparency and thus consistency of the NDPs vis-à-vis each other and vis-à-vis the EU TYNDP, as well as to the efficient infrastructure planning and implementation in Europe. Therefore the Agency recommends that the draft and final NDPs are published in all jurisdictions.

4.2.4. Transparency of the information

(81) The draft EU TYNDP 2018 mostly includes the following project specific information :

(a) The expected commissioning date for each investment;

(b) The status for each investment;

(c) Transfer capacity increase;

(d) Investment costs (CAPEX) for each investment;

(e) The annual average OPEX for each investment;

(f) Benefits.

(82) In addition, the draft EU TYNDP 2018 provides information about the evolution of the investment since the previous EU TYNDP.

(83) Information about the availability of project data in the NDPs was provided for 28 NDPs . The Agency notes that the status and the commissioning date are the most frequently publicly available information items: The commissioning date is available in 19 NDPs; the project status is available in 18 NDPs. In the remaining instances, the status information is available to the NRA only.

(84) The availability of other project or investment specific information (including costs, benefit and transfer capacity increase) is more limited.

(a) Investment cost information is publicly available in 13 jurisdictions (in two jurisdictions, in a separate document not in the NDP and in another one only for the most important projects) and in 14 jurisdictions available only to the NRA. In one jurisdiction (FI), the investment costs are not available to the NRA.

(b) Life cycle cost (or OPEX) information is publicly available in only 4 jurisdictions (in one jurisdiction in a separate document not in the NDP and in another one only for the most important projects) and in 15 jurisdictions available only to the NRA or the relevant competent authority. In 6 jurisdictions, the life cycle costs are not available to the NRA or the relevant competent authority. In the 3 remaining instances, the NRA did not provide information on the availability of this specific project data.

(c) Monetised benefits are provided in 7 NDPs and non-monetised benefits in additional 6 NDPs. In 8 jurisdiction the benefits are available to the NRA but not published, in 6 jurisdictions, no benefit data is provided to the NRA (or the competent authority), either in monetised or non-monetised form and in one instance, the NRA did not provide information on the availability of this specific project data.

(d) Expected increase of transfer capacity for each project is included in the public NDP in 13 jurisdictions, in additional 10 jurisdictions this information is provided only to the NRA or the competent authority, while in 4 jurisdictions it

is not available to them at all. In one instance, the NRA did not provide information on the availability of this specific project data.

(85) The Agency notes that only in one jurisdiction information on the progress of the projects and reason for their delay or rescheduling is not provided either publicly or to the NRA. In about half of the jurisdictions, the monitoring results are provided either in the NDP or in a separate publicly available document and in about half of them it is available only to the NRA. In one instance, the NRA did not provide information on the availability of this specific project data.

(86) The information published in the NDPs and/or available to the NRAs is shown in Table 17.

Table 17. Project specific elements included in the NDPs

(87) In its Opinion No 04/2016 (p.7), on the consistency of the NDPs with the EU TYNDP, the Agency already pointed out that the NDPs do not always provide the same set of information and insisted on the need for NDPs to contain the fundamental project information (full information on commissioning dates, project status, increase of transfer capacity and project cost). The Agency reiterates its recommendation that such fundamental information should be published in the NDPs.

(88) In order to enhance transparency and allow a better interaction between the EU TYNDP and NDPs, the Agency recommends that not only the EU TYNDP include a mapping of cross-references between the investment codes in different plans , but also NDPs use, beyond the national coding systems, cross-referencing with EU TYNDP coding.

Assessment of the projects in the NDPs and EU TYNDP

4.3.1. Inclusion in NDPs

(89) The NRAs reviewed 239 national parts of transmission projects and 20 storage projects, when carrying out the consistency check of the projects included in the draft EU TYNDP 2018.

(90) Out of 239 national parts of transmission projects, the NRAs identified 185 national parts (77%) which are fully included in the NDPs (i.e. all those investments, of the project which are located in the territory of a jurisdiction are included in the relevant NDP). 6 national parts (3%) which are only partially included (i.e. not all of the investments located in the territory of a jurisdiction is included) and 47 national parts (20%) which are not included in the relevant NDPs. Out of the 20 storage projects, 5 are included in the relevant NDPs. The list of projects not included or partially included in one or more of the relevant NDPs is provided in Tables 19-21 in Annex I.

(91) The number of national parts (47, 20%) of transmission projects which are not included in the NDPs remarkably decreased compared to the finding of the Agency’s analysis carried out in 2016 (when the number of national parts not included in the NDPs

represented 33% of the total), but is still significantly higher than in 2014 (when the share was slightly below 10%) .

(92) Most transmission projects which are not included in the NPDs, were not included as they were not advanced enough to enter the NDP or because the commissioning date of the project is beyond the time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned). These findings confirm the ones in 2016 (Agency’s Opinion 08/2016 p.5), when the most frequent reason for the absence of a national part in a NDP reported by the NRAs was also related to a commissioning date too far in the future or no sufficient progress.

(93) In 8 instances (17%), the national part of a project is not included in the NDP as it is a third-party project and third-party are normally not included in the NDPs.

(94) Most of the storage projects were not included in the NDP, due to general non-inclusion of the storage projects in the concerned jurisdictions. Out of the 5 storage projects, which were included, one was only referred to, without any further assessment.

(95) 2 investments (corresponding to 3 national parts) have been mentioned by the NRAs as having cross-border relevance, but do not appear in the draft EU TYNDP 2018 . One is an Italian internal investment, another one is an Italian - Austrian interconnection. The Agency notes that, based on the information received by ENTSO-E, these investments were not proposed by the project promoters as candidates for the EU TYNDP 2018.

Table 18. Investments which have a cross-border relevance, but do not appear in the draft TYNDP 2018

(96) The Agency reiterates its view that, although the NDP is not legally binding in most jurisdictions within the EU, the implementation of the EU TYNDP projects strongly relies on the NDPs. Non-inclusion of a project in the NDP due to other reasons than the time difference in the elaboration of the plans or the limited scope of the NDP (e.g. when it does not include third-party projects) raises doubts on the credibility and feasibility of the implementation of the concerned projects, which feature should be clearly flagged in future EU TYNDPs.

(97) The Agency also reaffirms its recommendation that the (approved/scrutinised) NDPs should explicitly flag the cross-border relevant projects and ENTSO-E should include them in the EU TYNDP.

4.3.2. Analysis of project differences in the EU TYNDP 2018 and in the NDPs

(98) An assessment of the projects consistency between the NDPs and the EU TYNDP was carried out by the Agency and NRAs, by evaluating differences regarding 7 project features (i.e. technical features, clustering, transfer capacity increase, benefits, status, commissioning date and costs of the projects).

(99) As shown in Figure 1, most of the differences emerging from this assessment are related to the commissioning date, followed by the status and transfer capacity increase. These results are similar to previous findings and also appear to be in correlation with the Agency’s finding about the availability of the data in the NDPs and to the NRAs (i.e. that costs and benefits are the most common sources of missing information preventing an assessment of the consistency by the NRAs).

Figure 1. Project/investment differences in the NDP and draft EU TYNDP 2018 identified by NRAs

(100) The Agency notes that the non-reporting of a difference does not always mean a NRA validation of the data. For 45% of the data assessed in this Opinion (7 characteristics for 259 national parts of projects), the NRAs are not able to assess the consistency (e.g. the project is not mature enough, information is not available to the NRA). In total for 7% of the data the NRAs reported differences and for 45% they confirmed the data in the EU TYNDP 2018. The remaining 3% of the data was not available.

(101) Even if difference has been identified in only 7% of data, approximately half of the national parts of the projects listed in the draft EU TYNDP 2018 exhibit at least one substantial differences compared to the NDPs or the NRAs’ most recent information. Although for the vast majority of the (different) national parts one or two differences were identified (67% and 19% respectively), there were national parts (10%) featuring between 4 and 6 differences out of the 7 features.

(102) The Agency notes that the draft EU TYNDP 2018 (similar to the EU TYNDP 2016) seems more optimistic in terms of the commissioning date and the advancement status than the relevant NDPs. In this regard, the Agency reiterates it recommendation that in order to avoid excessively optimistic projections on commissioning dates, ENTSO-E should define reference project timelines (e.g. number of years from start of permitting to commissioning). For projects with status ‘under consideration’ or ‘planned, but not yet in permitting’, the future EU TYNDPs should provide the project promoters’ estimate

together with the ‘reference timeline’ estimate. In case of differences, the project promoters should explain them.

(103) The Agency notes that misalignments exist between different NDPs regarding some projects, in terms of timing of their implementation, status or cross-border capacities . The Agency is of the view that such misalignments for interconnections could be largely avoided with enhanced consultations and exchange of information between the concerned TSOs on specific projects. Project promoters should inform NRAs of the outcomes of such consultations.

(104) The Agency also acknowledges that due to different schedules for the elaboration of plans and other reasons (for example, changes in market fundamentals), the NDPs and the EU TYNDP may temporarily be out of alignment, even if excellent coordination and regular exchanges of information took place.

5. CONCLUSION

For the purpose of this Opinion, the Agency has reviewed the NDPs of all EU Member States, with regard to the general regulatory framework and the inputs, outputs and methodologies used of their development.

(105) The Agency concludes that these NDPs are broadly consistent with the EU TYNDP 2018 and observes that their consistency with the EU TYNDP improved compared to the previous Agency’s Opinion on the NDPs. This improvement can be explained by:

(a) A more widespread practice to move the frequency of the NDP from 1 year to 2 years; (b) The more systematic use of a multi-scenario approach (while previously, about half of the NDPs were developed against a single scenario); (c) A more widespread practice to introduce a CBA for projects and more benefit categories in the NDPs; (d) A more widespread practice to include third-party projects in the NDPs.

(106) However, the Agency also notes that different practices are still used for the overall development, review and adoption of the NDPs, and some of them might negatively impact the robustness, credibility and transparency of the NDPs or could result in inconsistencies with the EU TYNDP.

(107) Therefore, the Agency identified in this Opinion several areas for improvement.

HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

1. The Agency considers that the NDPs reviewed in this Opinion are broadly consistent with the EU TYNDP 2018.

2. The Agency recommends ENTSO-E further to enhance the consistency between the NDPs and the EU TYNDP by implementing the following measures:

a. The EU TYNDP should have two separate project Appendices: one listing the mid-term and long term projects (i.e. projects already ‘planned’ and expected to be commissioned within a ten-year period) and the other one listing the ‘future’ projects or studies (i.e. projects ‘under consideration’ or planned to be commissioned beyond 10 years).

b. While the ‘best estimate’ approach is appropriate for the short term, the nearterm best-estimate scenario for the EU TYNDP should be completed with appropriate sensitivity analysis. Such sensitivity analysis would be particularly useful in detecting the main factors on which a project outcome (benefits) depends.

c. While the multi-scenario approach is appropriate for the long term, so as better to consider the growing uncertainties over time and better to assess the resilience of the investment projects against them, a ‘slow progress’ scenario should be also investigated by the CBA, for all years where multiple scenarios are developed in the EU TYNDPs.

d. As regards the scenario-building method, at least one robust scenario with a topdown approach (i.e. consistent and coherent assumptions across Europe) should be developed, which takes into account country specificities. This(ese) scenario(s) should be evaluated in the EU TYNDP and taken into account to construct the NDPs’ scenarios.

e. Non-inclusion of a project in the NDP due to reasons other than the time difference in the elaboration of the plans raises doubts on the credibility and feasibility of the implementation of the concerned project and this concern should be clearly flagged in the future EU TYNDPs.

f. ENTSO-E should define reference project timelines (e.g. number of years from start of permitting to commissioning). For projects with status ‘under consideration’ or ‘planned, but not yet in permitting’, the future EU TYNDPs should provide the project promoters’ estimate together with the ‘reference

timeline’ estimate. In case of differences, the project promoters should explain them.

3. In order to increase the robustness, credibility and transparency of the NDPs, the Agency recommends that the parties responsible for their development, review and adoption take into account the following measures and pursue their implementation to the extent it is in their powers:

a. The NDPs should be prepared with a biennial frequency. The NDP should be accompanied by a monitoring update in the years in between.

b. The NDPs should include / inform on studies and ‘under consideration’ projects, even if they may go beyond the time horizon of the NDP and clearly flag them as such.

c. Ideally, the NDPs should have two separate Appendices: one listing the midterm and long-term projects (i.e. projects already ‘planned’ and expected to be commissioned within a ten-year period) and the other one listing the ‘future’ projects or studies (i.e. projects ‘under consideration’ or planned to be commissioned beyond 10 years).

d. NDPs’ scope should be expanded to allow the inclusion of third-party projects, where it is not yet the case.

e. A public consultation should be carried out on the draft NDP in each jurisdiction and the results should be published. Information about the treatment of stakeholder comments should also be provided.

f. NRAs’ or other public entities’ role regarding the development of the NDPs should be strengthened in those jurisdictions where the TSO adopts the NDP without any regulatory approval or binding scrutiny.

g. The NDP and all formal acts on the NDPs, as applicable in each jurisdiction (e.g. decisions, opinion, consistency analysis, monitoring) should be published.

h. NDPs should include market studies for projects of cross-border relevance and use the multi-national network models fully to assess the project’s influence on the interconnected network.

i. Carrying out a CBA, which allows the comparison of the costs and the benefits of a project, should be considered in each jurisdiction, at least for the larger projects.

j. Fundamental project information (i.e. commissioning date, project status, increase of transfer capacity and project cost) should be systematically published. k. NDPs should use a national coding system and cross-referencing with EU TYNDP coding. l. NDPs should explicitly flag the cross-border relevant projects. Done at Ljubljana on 22 May 2019.

- SIGNED -

Fоr the Agency Director ad interim

Alberto POTOTSCHNIG

PUBLIC

Annex I

Table 19. Interconnection projects which are not included in any of the respective NDPs

Table 20. Internal projects and national parts of interconnection projects which are not included in the respective NDP

Table 21. National parts of projects which are only partially included in one or more of the relevant NDPs

Table 22. Substantial differences between the draft EU TYNDP 2018 and NDPs

Fotnoter

  1. OJ L211, l4.8.2009, p.15. Page 1 of 84
  2. Opinion No 13/2019
  3. Adapted from the relevant text of ENTSO-E’s CBA methodology 2.0, p.15.
  4. Opinion No 13/2019
  5. Idem. 4 In line with the definition of ENTSO-E’s CBA methodology 2.0, p.3. 5 The term "delayed" corresponds to a project which is still needed according to the validating body (NRA or, where applicable Ministry) at the expected date, but cannot be delivered on time due to various external factors like permitting, environmental, legislative reasons, etc. The term "rescheduled" corresponds to a project which is voluntarily postponed by a promoter due to changes of its external driver (e.g. lower demand, less urgent need for an investment due to updated planning data or priority to other transmission solutions). 6 In line with the definition of Article 2(7) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013.
  6. Opinion No 13/2019
  7. Jurisdiction Assessed NDPs in Number of Number of Rate of reviewed this Opinion relevant national reviewed national national parts of parts of projects parts of projects projects
  8. Austria Yes 13 13 100% Belgium Yes 18 18 100% Bulgaria Yes 4 4 100% Croatia Yes 4 4 100% Cyprus Yes 1 1 100% Czech Republic Yes 3 3 100% Denmark Yes 9 9 100% Estonia Yes 3 3 100% Finland Yes 4 4 100% France Yes 17 17 100% Germany Yes 47 47 100% Greece Yes 6 6 100% Hungary Yes 3 3 100% Ireland Yes 7 7 100% Italy Yes 20 20 100% Latvia Yes 3 3 100% Lithuania Yes 4 4 100% Luxembourg Yes 2 2 100% Malta N/A (There is no 0 N/A N/A TSO)
  9. In this Opinion the part of an EU TYNDP 2018 project which belongs to a national jurisdiction is called “national part of a project”. E.g. if a project consists of an interconnector between countries A and B, and an investment item located in country A, it is considered that there are two national parts, one consisting of the part of the interconnector and the investment item located in country A, and the other one consisting of the part of the interconnector located in country B. The number of relevant national parts of projects is higher than the number of the EU TYNDP 2018 projects as in case of interconnection more than one national part was reviewed. The amount does not include 2 additional cross-border relevant projects which are not included in draft EU TYNDP 2018, but included in the Italian NDP. None of the EU TYNDP 2018 projects is located in Malta and the NRA did not identify any cross-border relevant project.
  10. Opinion No 13/2019
  11. Montenegro No 2 0 0% Netherlands Yes 13 13 100% Norway Yes 4 4 100% Poland Yes 6 6 100% Portugal Yes 3 3 100% Romania Yes 4 4 100% Slovak Republic Yes 2 2 100% Slovenia Yes 9 9 100% Spain Yes 18 18 100% Sweden Yes 6 6 100% Switzerland No 11 0 0% UK (Great Britain) Yes 24 24 100% UK (Northern Yes 2 2 100% Ireland) Total 29 272 259 95%
  12. No information was provided on the relevant national parts of projects 28 (‘Italy-Montenegro’) and 227 (‘Transbalkan Corridor’). No information was provided on the relevant national parts of projects 31, 174, 199, 231, 174, 199, 231, 250, 253, 263, 264, 265, 266 and 333. The Agency’s assessment regarding the draft EU TYNDP 2018 has been already provided by the Agency in its Opinion No 11/2019.
  13. Opinion No 13/2019
  14. Jurisdiction Consistency of Consistency of Consistency of No consistency inputs analytical outputs check is carried methodology out by the NRA
  15. Austria X X Belgium X X X Bulgaria X Croatia X Cyprus X Czech Republic X X Denmark X Estonia X Finland X X France X X Germany X X Greece X X Hungary X Ireland X Italy X X Latvia X
  16. Pursuant to Article 22(5) of Directive 2009/72/EC, the consistency check is legally required regarding the NDPs of the Independent Transmission System Operators (ITOs). In Germany, there is no consistency check referring to CBA methodologies so far, but it is under consideration for future NDP. In Italy, the consistency between CBA methodologies is checked via regular updates of the national CBA methodology. Consistency of inputs (unless duly motivated) is a requirement on the TSO.
  17. Opinion No 13/2019
  18. Lithuania X X Luxembourg X X Netherlands X Norway X Poland X X Portugal X X X Romania X Slovak Republic X X Slovenia X X Spain X X Sweden X UK (Great Britain) X UK (Northern X Ireland) Total 21 3 17 5
  19. In Lithuania, according to the legal acts the NRA shall assess whether the plan submitted by the TSO is compatible with the actual EU TYNDP. In Slovenia, the NDP is drafted on the basis of the "Rules on the methodology for drafting the development plans of operators and other providers of energy sector activities", which requires compliance in visions/scenarios between the NDP and the EU TYNDP. In Great Britain, the NRA does not require that the methodology be identical to the ENTSO-E CBA methodology - as such small differences in inputs and outputs are expected. However, the NRA asks how the outputs of the NDP methodology compare to the EU TYNDP outputs.
  20. Opinion No 13/2019
  21. Jurisdiction TSO Unbundling model Frequency of NDP
  22. Austria APG ITO 1-year (one NDP per TSO) VÜN Ownership unbundling Belgium Elia Ownership unbundling 4-year Bulgaria ESO ITO 1-year Croatia HOPS ITO 1-year Cyprus Cyprus TSO Derogation 1-year Czech Republic ČEPS ITO 2-year (but it happened that some approvals took place beyond the 2year timeframe) Demark Energinet Ownership unbundling 1-year Estonia Elering Ownership unbundling 1-year Finland Fingrid Ownership unbundling 2-year France RTE ITO 1-year (but it happened once that it was delayed to the legal changes) Germany Amprion ITO 2-year (joint NDP of the 4 TSOs) TransnetBW ITO TenneT DE OU 50Hertz OU Greece IPTO Ownership unbundling 1-year (but it happened that some approvals took place beyond the 1year timeframe) Hungary MAVIR ITO 1-year Ireland EirGrid Derogation 1-year (but it happened that some approvals took place beyond the 1year timeframe) Italy Terna Ownership unbundling 1-year (but the process is systematically delayed) Latvia AST ISO 1-year Lithuania Litgrid Ownership unbundling 1-year Luxembourg Creos Luxembourg Derogation 2-year Netherlands TenneT NL Ownership unbundling 2-year Norway Statnett Ownership unbundling 2-year
  23. Pursuant to Article 9(9) of the Directive, a Member State may decide not to apply any of the three models, where on 3 September 2009, the transmission system belonged to and there are arrangements in place which guarantee more effective independence of the transmission system operator than the provisions of the ITO model. The German national scenario report (SR) is prepared during even years, followed by the NDP during odd years.
  24. Opinion No 13/2019
  25. Poland PSE Ownership unbundling 3-year (or more often if needed) Portugal REN Ownership unbundling 2-year Romania Transelectrica Ownership unbundling 2-year (but it happened that some approvals took place beyond the 2year timeframe and the plans of different years have been combined) Slovak Republic SEPS ITO 2-year Slovenia ELES Ownership unbundling 2-year Spain REE ITO 6-year Sweden Svenska kraftnät Ownership unbundling 2-year UK (Great Britain) National Grid Ownership unbundling 1-year UK (Northern SONI Derogation 1-year Ireland)
  26. European Commission’s decision C(2013) 2169. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2013_059_uk_en.pdf In 2014, the Agency found that about half of the jurisdictions with a yearly frequency encounter delays or difficulties in fulfilling the different steps of the process of preparation of the NDP (See Agency’s Opinion No 08/2014).
  27. Opinion No 13/2019
  28. 24 Article 51(1) of the proposed recast of the Electricity Directive. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0864R%2801%29 25 Agency’s Opinion No 04/2016, p.6.
  29. Opinion No 13/2019
  30. Jurisdiction Transmission Smart grid Storage SCADAs, ICT, (including PST) cybersecurity and/or communication infrastructures
  31. Austria Yes Belgium Yes (>70kV) Bulgaria Yes Yes Yes Croatia Yes Yes Yes Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Yes Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes Denmark Yes Estonia Yes Finland Yes France Yes Germany Yes Greece Yes Yes Yes Hungary Yes Ireland Yes (>110 kV) No, but allowed No, but allowed No, but allowed
  32. The Spanish NDP is split into two parts. One part is Annex I (binding and with a 6-year time horizon) and the other part is Annex II (not binding and with a longer time horizon). The Danish NDP also shows possible grid structure in 2040, but it focuses on a 10-year horizon. The Hungarian NDP also includes distribution (132 kV) projects.
  33. Opinion No 13/2019
  34. Italy Yes (>35 kV) Yes (depending on technological solution) Latvia Yes Lithuania Yes Luxembourg Yes Yes Netherlands Yes Yes Norway Yes Poland Yes Yes Portugal Yes Romania Yes Yes No, but allowed Yes Slovak Republic Yes Yes Slovenia Yes (>=110 kV) Yes Yes Yes Spain Yes Sweden Yes UK (Great Britain) Yes No, but allowed UK (Northern Yes Ireland)
  35. Jurisdiction Third party projects Further description are included in the NDP?
  36. Austria Partially Only measures from the grid access point within the transmission grid are considered Belgium Partially Takes into account only the capacity that is needed by thirdparty projects that are included in the third Union list of PCIs, as well as in the EU TYNDP 2018 Bulgaria Yes Croatia No, but allowed
  37. See Agency’s Opinion No 04/2016, p.6.
  38. Opinion No 13/2019
  39. Cyprus Partially The third-party projects are mentioned in the NDP without providing any analysis or further details Czech Republic No, but allowed rd Denmark Partially Some 3 party projects are included Estonia Yes Finland No France No The NDP includes only projects that are developed based on a grid assessment (i.e. in practice only TSOs’ projects) Germany Yes Greece Partially (only 2 third-party projects are included in the last draft NDP (2019advanced projects) 2028) due to their prior inclusion in the EU TYNDP and Union list of PCIs and their level of maturity according to the Greek TSO Hungary No Ireland Yes All Irish projects (TSO and third-party projects) that are in the EU TYNDP are included in the NDP for information (i.e. without further assessment) Italy Yes Info/data on third-party projects are collected by the TSO 2-3 months before the submission of the draft TYNDP. They are not subject to CBA Latvia No, but allowed Lithuania No Luxembourg No Netherlands No Norway Partially Planned third-party projects are described, but the NDP does not include a CBA of the projects Poland No Portugal No, but allowed No third-party projects have been submitted so far Romania No, but allowed Projects of common interest (PCIs) promoted by third parties Slovak Republic No Slovenia No The NDP is drafted on the basis of the ‘Rules on the methodology for drafting the development plans of operators and other providers of energy sector activities’. Third-party projects are not foreseen by these rules Spain No Sweden No UK (Great Britain) Yes UK (Northern Partially Potential Northern Ireland third-party large scale Ireland) transmission projects are included in the NDP, including the projects of the NI DSO and the Irish TSO
  40. The EU TYNDP 2018 projects 219 (‘EuroAsia Interconnector’) and 1006 (‘Hydro Pumped Storage AMFILOCHIA’) are included in the last draft NDP (period 2019-2028). Other third-party projects that have not reached an adequate maturity status according to the Greek TSO, such as project 284 (‘LEG1’) and 293 (‘Southern Aegean Interconnector’), are not currently included in the Greek NDP.
  41. Opinion No 13/2019
  42. 31 I.e. to highlight that these projects are not yet included as ‘planned’ (or approved, where applicable) projects in the NDP.
  43. Opinion No 13/2019
  44. Jurisdiction Public consultation Other public Specific consultation regarding the NDP consultation (scenarios/CBA/needs)
  45. Austria Public consultation by TSO; Specific consultations of NRA, Public consultation by NRA other national stakeholders and foreign stakeholders Belgium Public consultation by TSO Specific consultations of Administration, Federal Planning Bureau Bulgaria Public consultation by TSO; No specific bilateral consultation Public consultation by NRA of any stakeholder Croatia Public consultation by NRA Public consultation of Specific consultations of Ministry future grid users by the and NRA TSO regarding their intentions for connection to the grid (or increasing the power for existing users) Cyprus No public consultation Specific consultation of NRA
  46. See Agency’s Opinion No 11/2019, p.9.
  47. Opinion No 13/2019
  48. Czech Public consultation by NRA Specific consultations of Ministry Republic and NRA Denmark No public consultation of the Public consultation Specific consultations of NRA NDP itself regarding scenarios; and other national stakeholders Public consultations on (DSOs, project promoters, local large projects authorities) Estonia No public consultation No specific consultation Finland Public consultation by TSO France Public consultation by TSO; Public consultation Specific consultations of Ministry Public consultation by NRA regarding scenarios and NRA Germany Public consultation by TSO; Public consultation Public consultation by NRA regarding scenarios Greece Public consultation by TSO Specific consultations of NRA, Public consultation by NRA DSOs, neighbouring TSOs and NRAs Hungary No public consultation Specific consultations of NRA and other national stakeholders (DSOs) Ireland Public consultation by NRA Public consultation Specific consultations of NRA, regarding scenarios DSOs and System Operator for Northern Ireland Italy Public consultation by NRA Public consultations Specific consultations of the regarding scenarios, Committee of stakeholders CBA and infrastructure (mostly associations of network needs users) and environmental organisations Latvia Public consultation by NRA Specific consultations of the Ministry, other national stakeholders and foreign stakeholders Lithuania Public consultation by NRA No specific consultation Luxembourg No public consultation of the Public consultation NDP itself regarding scenarios Netherlands No public consultation Specific consultation of NRA Norway Public consultation by TSO Specific consultations of NRA and other national stakeholders (all relevant stakeholders, including national authorities, network users, DSOs) Poland Public consultation by TSO Portugal Public consultation by NRA Specific consultations of Ministry, NRA, DSOs, other national and foreign stakeholders
  49. In France, apart from the NDP consultation, there is an additional public consultation regarding specific projects.
  50. Opinion No 13/2019
  51. Romania Public consultation by TSO; Specific consultations of Public consultation by NRA Ministry, NRA, DSOs, producers, professional associations, local public authorities and foreign stakeholders Slovak Public consultation by TSO; Specific consultations of Republic Public consultation by NRA Ministry, NRA and other national stakeholders Slovenia No public consultation Specific consultations of Ministry, other national stakeholders (DSO and large consumers) and foreign stakeholders (TSOs of neighbouring Member States and other countries) Spain Public consultation by NRA Specific consultations of Ministry, NRA, other national stakeholders (DSO, Autonomous Communities), and foreign stakeholders (international generation promoters) Sweden No public consultation No specific consultation UK (Great No public consultation of the Public consultation Specific consultations of Britain) NDP itself regarding scenarios and Ministry, NRA and regarding CBA analysis methodology: committee of other national stakeholders UK Public consultation by TSO; Public consultation Specific consultations of NRA, (Northern Public consultation by NRA regarding scenarios DSOs, TSO of Ireland Ireland)
  52. Opinion No 13/2019
  53. Jurisdiction Who approves Does the NRA Is the NRA’s Link to relevant NRA’s the NDP? provide an opinion binding? opinion or decision opinion and/or (where applicable) can require amendment of the draft NDP?
  54. Austria The NRA Yes Binding NRA opinion: https://www.econtrol.at/recht/entscheid ungen/vorstandstrom#p_p_id_56_INST ANCE_a0kxb5WT6wM y_ Belgium The Ministry Yes Non-binding NRA opinion: https://www.creg.be/nl/p ublicaties/advies-a1802 Bulgaria The NRA Yes Binding NRA opinion: http://www.dker.bg/uplo ads/reshenia/2018/res_dp rm-2_18.pdf Croatia The NRA Yes Binding The decision on the approval of the NDP (which may require also amendments): https://www.hera.hr/hr/d ocs/2017/Odluka_2017- 12-22_01.pdf Cyprus The NRA Yes Binding The NRA opinion is nonpublic Czech Republic The NDP approval The NRA cannot N/A N/A is a two-round amend the draft process by the NDP and does not provide an opinion on it. However,
  55. Opinion No 13/2019
  56. Ministry and the there is specific NRA consultation between the TSO and the NRA Denmark No approval of the The NRA cannot N/A N/A NDP (i.e. TSO amend the draft adopts it). NDP and does not However, there is provide an opinion a some interaction on it. between the NRA and the TSO before adoption Estonia No approval of the The NRA cannot N/A N/A NDP (i.e. TSO amend the draft adopts it without NDP and does not any interactions provide an opinion with other parties) on it. Finland No formal Yes Non-binding The NRA opinion is nonapproval of the (However, in public NDP, but there is practice the NRA some scrutiny by has jurisdiction to the NRA demand changes to the NDP if it does not meet the requirements set in national law) France No formal Yes Binding NRA opinion: approval of the https://www.cre.fr/Docu NDP, but there is a ments/Deliberations/Deci binding opinion by sion/sddr-rte-2016 the NRA Germany The NRA Yes Binding The reports that are finally approved (SR, NDP) essentially represent the opinion of the NRA. The approved NDP 2017-2030: https://data.netzausbau.d e/2030/NEP/NEP_2017- 2030_Bestaetigung.pdf The approved SR 2019- 2030:
  57. An approval of the NDP is a two-round process. In the first round, the Ministry issues a binding opinion on the NDP. In the second round, the NRA approves the NDP; the NRA’s approval is conditioned upon the Ministry’s opinion.
  58. Opinion No 13/2019
  59. https://www.netzausbau. de/SharedDocs/Downloa ds/DE/2030_V19/SR/Sze nariorahmen_2019- 2030_Genehmigung.pdf? __blob=publicationFile Greece The NRA Yes Binding Public, but the opinion on the draft NDP is not yet approved Hungary The NRA Yes Binding The NRA opinion is nonpublic. The NRA decision on the approval of the NDP: http://www.mekh.hu/do wnload/c/07/50000/1097 _2018.pdf Ireland The NRA Yes Binding The NRA opinion is nonpublic Italy The Ministry Yes Non-binding NRA opinion: https://www.arera.it/it/do cs/18/674-18.htm Latvia The NRA Yes Binding The NRA opinion is nonpublic Lithuania The NRA Yes NRA opinion: https://www.regula.lt/Sit eAssets/vkekk-2018-08- 16.pdf Luxembourg No approval of the The NRA cannot N/A N/A NDP (i.e. TSO amend the draft adopts it without NDP and does not any interactions provide an opinion with other parties) on it Netherlands No formal Yes Binding The NRA opinion is nonapproval of the public NDP, but there is a binding opinion by the NRA Norway The NRA Yes Binding The NRA opinion is public Poland The NRA Yes Binding The NRA opinion is nonpublic Portugal The Ministry Yes Non-binding The NRA opinion is public
  60. The NRA considering, inter alia, the public consultation results, communicates its remarks on the draft NDP to the TSO. Then, the TSO submits the final NDP to the NRA for approval. Finally, the NRA assesses the final NDP adopting a decision (publicly available). The NDP is subject to NRA’s approval, thus the NRA’s opinion should be duly taken into account by the TSO.
  61. Opinion No 13/2019
  62. Romania The NRA Yes Binding The NRA decision on the approval of the NDP: https://portal.anre.ro/Pub licLists/Decizie/GetDeci zieFisier?IdDecizie=181 3 Slovak Republic No formal Yes Binding NRA opinion: approval of the http://www.urso.gov.sk/s NDP, but there is a ites/default/files/ORE_V binding opinion by ysledky_konzultacie_10r the NRA PRPS_22-03-2017.pdf
  63. http://www.urso.gov.sk/s ites/default/files/dokume nty/Sprava-o-plneni- DPRPS-za-rok-2017.pdf Slovenia The Ministry The NRA cannot N/A N/A amend the draft NDP and does not provide an opinion on it Spain The Spanish Yes Non-binding NRA opinion: Council of https://www.cnmc.es/exp Ministers edientes/infde04415 Sweden No approval by The NRA cannot N/A N/A the NDP (i.e. TSO amend the draft adopts it without NDP and does not any interactions provide an opinion with other parties) on it UK (Great No formal Yes Non-binding Britain) approval of the NDP, but there is some scrutiny by the NRA. The NRA must formally approve the analysis methodology UK (Northern The NRA Yes Binding Public, but the opinion Ireland) on the draft NDP is not yet approved
  64. Opinion No 13/2019
  65. Opinion No 13/2019
  66. Jurisdiction Scenarios used Number of Is there any ‘low Description on how the scenarios per economic scenarios are taken into study years growth’ or ‘slow account for the assessment progress’ of individual projects scenario?
  67. Austria Only EU TYNDP Multiple scenarios No Projects are assessed against for multiple study all scenarios years, i.e. 1 (2020) and 4 (2030) Belgium Both EU TYNDP Multiple scenarios Not specified Projects are assessed against and national for multiple study all scenarios years, i.e. 1 (2025), 4 (2030), 3 (2035), 3 (2040) Bulgaria Both EU TYNDP Multiple Not specified Not specified and national scenarios, i.e. 2 (study year(s) are not specified) Croatia Only national Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Low Not specified for multiple study demand’) years (not specified)
  68. In 2016, about half of them used a single scenario. The NDP assessment summarises and refers to the CBA results from the EU TYNDP 2016.
  69. Opinion No 13/2019
  70. Cyprus Only national Single scenario N/A Projects are assessed against (may take into for multiple study all scenarios account EU years, i.e. 1 TYNDP (2019), 1 (2024), scenarios) 1 (2028) Czech Both EU TYNDP Multiple scenarios None of the Projects are assessed against Republic and national for multiple study scenarios all scenarios. years, i.e. 4 primarily focused Positive CBA results are (2030), 4 (2040) on the GDP necessary at least for one growth or EU scenario policy targets. Denmark Only national Single scenario N/A N/A providing year-toyear changes for the period 2019- 2040 Estonia Only national (but Multiple study No Projects are assessed against taking into year i.e. 2022, all scenarios account EU 2025 TYNDP) Finland Only national (but Not specified Not specified Not specified taking into account EU TYNDP) France Only national (but Multiple scenarios Yes Interconnection projects are taking into for multiple study assessed against all account EU years, i.e. 3 scenarios, whereas national TYNDP) (2021), 4 (2030) grid development projects are assessed against national forecasts, taking into account the TYNDP scenarios. Germany Only national (but Multiple scenarios No The assessment of projects taking into for multiple study in the NDP is based on (n-1) account EU years, i.e. 1 security investigations so TYNDP (2025), 3 (2030), far . There is no 1 (2035) combination of scenario results, but investment projects can only receive approval if they perform in all relevant scenarios. This can be regarded as indirect consideration of probabilities
  71. The NDP is based on the "best guess" scenario provided by the Danish Energy Agency. The scenario provides year-to-year changes for the period 2019-2040. A CBA for cross-border projects will be introduced in the NDP 2019-2030.
  72. Opinion No 13/2019
  73. Greece Only national Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Low Projects are assessed against for multiple study demand’) all scenarios years, i.e. 6 (2019-2028) Hungary Only national (but Multiple scenarios None of the The assessment of projects taking into for multiple study scenarios in the NDP is based on (naccount EU years, i.e. 2 primarily focused 1)-security investigations so TYNDP) (2022), 2 (2027), on the GDP far. There is no combination 2 (2032) growth or EU of scenario results, but policy targets. investment projects can only receive approval if they perform in all relevant scenarios. This can be regarded as indirect consideration of probabilities. Ireland Only national (but Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Carbon Projects are assessed against taking into for multiple study Living Slow all scenarios account EU years, i.e. 4 Change TYNDP) (2017), 4 (2020), Consumer’) 4 (2025), 4 (2030), 4 (2040) Italy Both EU TYNDP Multiple scenarios Not mandatory Results for at least two study and national for multiple study (albeit contrasting years are to be used years, i.e. 1 scenarios are (2020), 2 (2025), requested) Cross-border projects and 2 (2030) internal-congestion projects have to be assessed against all scenarios
  74. For the evaluation of cross-border projects, RAE uses the TYNDP scenarios and respectively the TYNDP CBA (EU-level) results in an indirect manner, given the fact that the investment requests submitted by the project promoters are based on these scenarios. For the assessment of internal projects, for the time being, RAE asks from the Greek TSO an adequate justification of the project's necessity based on the national scenarios, because the adoption of a national CBA methodology in the context of the NDP, consistent with that of ENTSO-E, is still pending. However, especially for the case of islands’ interconnection projects, RAE has established a committee (by virtue of its decision 469/2015) with the purpose of examining if the interconnection of a non-interconnected island with the mainland is beneficial or not. The above committee uses a CBA methodology issued by RAE by virtue of its decision 651/2018. This CBA methodology is based on that of ENTSO-E (using a base case scenario and similar indicators). Then, the Greek TSO can assess the findings of this committee and submit its proposal in the context of the NDP. All four scenarios are used for the determination of needs. A reference scenario is used to assess comparative performance of competing alternatives/options. All four scenarios are used to compare economic performance, and Least Worst Regrets Analysis is used at a minimum. The same requirement is not present for other projects (e.g. reliability, quality of supply, resilience to extreme events).
  75. Opinion No 13/2019
  76. Latvia Both EU TYNDP Not specified Not specified No CBA is carried out and national Lithuania Only national Multiple scenarios Yes Not specified for multiple study (‘Pessimistic’) years, i.e. 3 (2020), (2027) Luxembourg Only national Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Low LU Projects are assessed against i.e. projection of needs’) all scenarios low/medium/high LU needs (study years are not specified) Netherlands Both EU TYNDP Multiple scenarios No Two scenarios are used to and national for multiple study identify potential years, i.e. 4 infrastructure gaps in the (2018), 4 (2020), national grid 4 (2025), 4 (2030) and 4 (2035) Norway Only national Multiple scenarios No Projects are assessed against for multiple study one scenario and sensitivity years, i.e. 3 analysis (2016-2040) Poland Only national (but Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Low In each scenarios, potential taking into for multiple study demand’) network candidates are account EU years, i.e. 16 analysed along with an TYNDP) (2020), 16 (2025), indication of the optimal 16 (2030) timing moment of their introduction into the NPS identified by the PLEXOS model. If an investment is not needed for NPS, it will not be selected during the analysis period Portugal Both EU TYNDP Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Low Information is not available and national for single study consumption’) to the NRA year, i.e. 6 (2030) Romania Only national (but Multiple scenarios No For internal projects TSO taking into for multiple study used both scenarios (best account EU years, i.e. 1 estimate and green). For TYNDP) (2022) and 2 interconnection projects (2027)
  77. These scenarios contain the calculation of the development of the expected capacity. In four different exercises per scenario are the effects on marginal cost optimisation and also the effects of the variation of available solarand wind power assessed. Scenarios were created in which four basic elements influencing the functioning of the power system were diversified: forecast of demand for electricity and power (2 forecasts), fuel prices (2 forecasts), volume and type of cross-border exchange (2 forecasts), volume and location of new wind sources (2 forecasts). The individual scenarios were created by a combination of the above elements.
  78. Opinion No 13/2019
  79. TSO used ENTSO-E TYNDP. Slovak Only national (but Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Crisis Not specified Republic taking into for multiple study scenario’) account EU years, i.e. 3 TYNDP) (2023) and 3 (2028) Slovenia Both EU TYNDP Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Slowest Information is not available and national for single study progress’) to the NRA. The NDP is year, i.e. 4 (2026) approved by the Ministry Spain Only national (but Multiple scenarios Yes (‘Lower GDP Projects are assessed against taking into for multiple study growth’) multiple planning cases (i.e. account EU years scenarios) TYNDP) Sweden Only national (but Single scenario N/A N/A taking into for single study account EU year, i.e. 1 (2040) TYNDP) UK (Great Only national (but Multiple scenarios Other The GB NDP for Britain) taking into for single study interconnectors (NOA IC) account EU year, i.e. 4 (2050) assesses the NPV of TYNDP) potential (none specific) future interconnection options under each scenario. This provides the optimal level of interconnection for each future scenario. UK (Northern Only national (but Not yet defined N/A The TSO assess several Ireland) taking into options against multi-criteria
  80. The NDP was developed to be consistent with the most probable economic scenario and the European energy targets for 2020 regarding energy efficiency, renewable energy and environment. The electrical system analysis performed during the planning process includes three scenarios regarding the GDP growth (upper, central and lower scenario) to cover the potential uncertainties that a forecast may implies. The electrical system analysis is carried out taking into account different scenarios that represent a possible evolution of the main variables that allows to define a specific situation (for example: demand growth, evolution of the power generation mix, fuel prices, etc.). Several planning cases are studied for every scenario. These cases represent the different situations: season (summer/winter); demand hours (peak/flat/valley); year; climatic conditions (wind/sun/water/temperature); dispatch generation; volume of cross-border exchange. The system´s behaviour is studied in a future “N” year taking into account the transmission network state as of 31st December of the year N and modelling the nodal demand from the global demand forecast. The GB scenarios are assessed in the framework of the UK’s 2050 carbon reduction targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, which is the UKs contribution to the contribution to the Paris Agreement. Whilst all scenarios show progress towards decarbonisation, only two of the GB scenarios meet the UK’s 2050 target (the “Community renewables” and the “Two degrees” scenarios). The drivers for speed of decarbonisation are policy, economics and consumer attitudes – as such these scenarios are not specifically low, moderate or high GDP growth scenarios. SONI will be shortly consulting on the future scenarios. Following this consultation the final scenarios will be published and reviewed every two years.
  81. Opinion No 13/2019
  82. account EU analysis including at a high TYNDP) level, environmental and cost benefit assessments to identify shortlisted potential options.
  83. NDP Demand Generatio Cross- Demand Heat Electric New n mix border response pumps vehicles storage capacities facilities
  84. Austria X X X X X X X Belgium X X X X X X X Bulgaria X X X Croatia X X X Cyprus X X X X X Czech X X X X X X X Republic Denmark X X X X X Estonia X X X X Finland X X X (X) (X) (X) (X) France X X X X X X X
  85. Existing and/or planned cross-border capacities with the neighbouring countries.
  86. The EU TYNDP 2016 scenarios were used for the Austrian NDP 2018. Demand response, heat pumps, electric vehicles, new storage facilities are mentioned as changes in operational environment and claimed to have been taken into consideration in the NDP. However the estimates of the effects are unclear.
  87. Opinion No 13/2019
  88. Germany X X X X X X X Greece X X X X Hungary X X X Ireland X X X X X X X Italy X X X X X X X Latvia X X X X X Lithuania X X X Luxembourg X X X X Netherlands X X X X Norway X X X X X X X Poland X X X X X Portugal X X X Romania X X X X Slovak X X X X X Republic Slovenia X X X X X Spain X X X X Sweden X X X X X UK (Great X X X X X X X Britain) UK (Northern X X X X X X X Ireland) Total 29 29 28 18 14 17 16
  89. Including a scenario in which all coal fired plants are phasing out.
  90. Other new technologies such as CCUS.
  91. Opinion No 13/2019
  92. 57 ENTSO-E: “European Power System 2040 - Completing the map: The Ten-Year Network Development Plan 2018 System Needs Analysis”.
  93. Opinion No 13/2019
  94. Jurisdiction Infrastructure gap Description of the methodology / needs identification (needs) identification exercise
  95. Austria No formal exercise Belgium No formal exercise Market studies and network simulations are carried out by the TSO to identify infrastructure gaps Bulgaria No formal exercise Croatia No formal exercise Based on national and regional ENTSO-E network studies and regional ENTSO-E market studies Cyprus No formal exercise Infrastructure gaps are identified during the NDP process. Network simulations are carried out to identify infrastructure gaps, measures that might be able to resolve those gaps are then proposed by the TSO in order to ensure security of supply Czech Republic No formal exercise Infrastructure gaps are identified by the TSO as part of the NDP. Gaps are identified with market model, according to the congestion of the reference grid for each scenario Denmark No formal exercise Estonia No formal exercise Infrastructure needs are identified by the TSO, based on a national methodology Finland No formal excercise France Formal infrastructure Infrastructure needs are identified upstream from the NDP gap identification process through the analysis of current network constraints Germany Formal infrastructure Infrastructure gaps are identified during the NDP process. gap identification Market and network simulations are carried out to identify infrastructure gaps, measures that might be able to resolve those gaps are than proposed by the relevant TSO Greece No formal excercise The projects proposed by the TSO derive from the needs identified by the national scenarios (different demand forecasting levels, islands’ interconnections), the investment requests for RES penetration and the TSO's experience and knowledge of the operation and the needs of the national transmission system and its interconnections to neighbouring countries Hungary Formal infrastructure Infrastructure gaps are identified during the NDP process. gap identification Network simulations are carried out to identify infrastructure gaps, measures that might be able to resolve those gaps are then proposed by the TSO in order to ensure security of supply Ireland Formal infrastructure Infrastructure needs are identified by the TSO, based on a gap identification national methodology Italy Formal infrastructure Target capacity identification exercise is conducted by the TSO, gap identification based on a national methodology. But it does not directly affect the NDP projects Latvia Formal infrastructure Based on national and regional ENTSO-E network studies and gap identification regional ENTSO-E market studies
  96. Opinion No 13/2019
  97. Lithuania No formal excercise TSO is obliged to forecast the long-term power balance of the power system and to provide market participants with information on the projected lack or limitations of power generation or transmission power, to ensure the reliability of the work of the transmission network equipment and the long-term ability of the system to meet reasonable electricity transmission needs and to guarantee the safety, reliability and efficiency of the transmission network operation, to provide system services to all market participants. The TSO by its internal methodology periodically performs related assessment Luxembourg No formal excercise The 20 year ahead scenario helps the TSO to define the infrastructure gap according to the forecasted needs Netherlands No formal excercise Infrastructure gaps are identified by the TSO, based on the outcome of sensitivity analysis of two scenarios in four different runs per scenario Norway Formal infrastructure Infrastructure needs are identified by the TSO, based on gap identification simulated power flows, capacity limits and price differences in the power system model Poland Formal infrastructure The developed scenarios are subjected to market analyses in the gap identification area model, i.e. on a simplified model of the system, in which groups of nodes have been focused in areas, and connections between areas represent links, mapping network connections. The task of the calculations performed in this step is to assign generation candidates to the areas and to assess and identify investment (network) needs in the area of inter-territorial connections Portugal No formal excercise Romania Formal infrastructure Needs for network development and corresponding projects gap identification are proposed and assessed based on the market, network and dynamic studies Slovak Republic No formal excercise Slovenia No formal excercise Infrastructure gaps are identified by the TSO as a part of the NDP. Based on national and regional ENTSO-E network studies and regional ENTSO-E market studies. Spain No formal excercise Network (load flows, short-circuit, stability) and market (generation, demand, RES integration, etc.) studies are carried out during the planning process to identify infrastructure needs. In addition, the different actions will contribute to reinforce the areas where have been detected technical constraints Sweden No formal excercise UK (Great Formal infrastructure The SO identifies future transmission capability requirements, Britain) gap identification and the TOs identify future transmission options. In response to
  98. The TSO assesses the status of transformer substations and power transmission lines, develops strategies for the transformation of transformer substations and power transmission lines and methodologies for the assessment of individual electrical equipment, analyses the actual load on the electricity transmission network, thereby determining the least loaded substations and lines.
  99. Opinion No 13/2019
  100. the data on boundary capabilities and requirements produced by the SO, TOs identify and develop multiple credible options that deliver the potentially required boundary capabilities. The SO has the opportunity to suggest concepts to the TOs for options to achieve the boundary requirements. The options that the TOs provide are listed and described in the NOA report along with SO alternative options such as operational options. The SO alternative options might include liaison with TOs, distribution licensees or third parties. The NOA and the NOA Methodology describe how the SO assesses the required levels of network transfer requirement, the options available to meet this requirement and the SO’s recommended options for further development. It is important to note that whilst the SO recommends progressing options in order to meet system needs, any investment decisions remain with the Transmission Owners (TOs) or other relevant parties as appropriate Northern Ireland Formal infrastructure Projects with cross border impacts on the network, market and gap identification ancillary/balancing services across the island of Ireland are assessed at an pan-European network model level
  101. Opinion No 13/2019
  102. 60 In its Opinion No 04/2016, the Agency identified only 8 out of 28 jurisdictions (i.e. 28%) where some monetisation of the benefits were carried out.
  103. Opinion No 13/2019
  104. Jurisdiction Application of a formal CBA methodology in the TOOT PINT Sensitivity NDP for the assessment of the projects analysis
  105. 62 63 Austria The EU TYNDP 2016 CBA results are used. X X 64 65 Belgium A CBA based on ENTSO-E CBA methodology is X X X performed for the most important projects Bulgaria ENTSO-E CBA methodology is applied for cross- X X border relevant projects. For other projects there is no formal CBA methodology applied Croatia No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Cyprus No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Czech ENTSO-E CBA methodology is applied for cross- X Republic border relevant projects. For other projects the same CBA is performed as well, but simplified to the necessary extent (e.g. the NTC increase is not calculated). Denmark No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Estonia A CBA is performed for cross-border projects X Finland No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSO France A formal CBA methodology is approved and the X CBA is performed for some cross-border projects Germany A formal CBA methodology is approved and the X X CBA is performed for cross-border projects Greece No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected X according to the planning criteria set by the TSO
  106. Additional assessments by changing single input parameters. For reference grid projects. For non-reference grid projects. For reference grid projects. For non-reference grid projects. National grid development projects and interconnection projects, which don’t request EU funding, are assessed through the incentive regulation framework of the NRA. A formal CBA methodology is approved and performed for interconnection projects requesting EU funding. A CBA for cross-border projects will be introduced in the NDP 2019-2030. For the time being, the NDP does not include a CBA methodology, but the adoption of such a methodology for the most important projects is on its way. The projects are proposed by the TSO based on the needs identified by the national scenarios, the investment requests for RES penetration and the TSO's experience and knowledge of the transmission system.
  107. Opinion No 13/2019
  108. Hungary No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected X according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Ireland A CBA is performed for all projects X X 69 70 Italy A formal CBA methodology is approved, but the X X X CBA is performed only for projects above a optionally (only for CAPEX threshold (i.e. 15 million Euros) short term study year) Latvia No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Lithuania No formal CBA methodology Luxembourg No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Netherlands No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Norway A formal CBA methodology is approved, but the X CBA is performed only for the most important projects Poland No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected X X according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Portugal A formal CBA methodology is approved, but the X CBA is performed only for the most important projects Romania A CBA is performed for some projects X X Slovak No CBA is conducted, but the projects are selected Republic according to the planning criteria set by the TSO Slovenia A formal CBA methodology is approved, but the X X CBA is performed only for the most important projects 73 74 Spain A CBA analysis is performed for the most X X X important projects (according to the ENTSO-E CBA methodology) Sweden A CBA is performed for all projects
  109. Primarily, sequential TOOT may be used in case of multiple capacity increases on the same boundary. Sensitivities are requested for the short term study year (which was 2020 in recent NDPs). However, in practice, 2025 and 2030 study year results were mostly used for CBAs. These are multi-scenario, without sensitivities. The Lithuanian NRA informed that in the NDP (2018-2027) it was indicated that all projects were currently under review by CBA criteria. A CBA is performed for internal projects (according to ENTSO-E methodology). For PCIs, the CBA is performed at ENTSO-E level. For refurbishment of existing equipment, there is no CBA in the NDP, only in the feasibility studies. For reference grid projects. For non-reference grid projects.
  110. Opinion No 13/2019
  111. UK (Great A formal CBA methodology is approved and the X X Britain) CBA is performed to assess the optimal level of interconnection . UK A CBA analysis is performed for all projects X (Northern Ireland)
  112. Jurisdiction Expected Expected Expected Expected Dismantling Maintenanc cost for costs for environmen costs for costs at the e costs and materials temporary tal and devices that end of life of costs of the and solutions consenting have to be the technical life assembly which are costs replaced equipment cycle costs necessary to within the realise a given period project (regard of life-cycles)
  113. Austria X X X Belgium X X X X Bulgaria X X Croatia X X
  114. The NOA for interconnectors assesses the optimal level of interconnection for GB consumers. The methodology for delivering this is approved by Ofgem and involves setting a baseline of projects with a threshold of regulatory certainty, and then assessing the NPV of potential (none specific) future interconnection options above that baseline in an iterative optimisation process. This is not, however, a formal CBA for the purpose of assessing the viability of specific projects. Sensitivities are used to enrich the analysis for particular boundaries to ensure that issues, such as the sensitivity of boundary capability to the connection of particular generation projects, are adequately addressed. The SO and TOs use a Joint Planning Committee subgroup as appropriate to coordinate sensitivities. This allows regional variations in generation connections and anticipated demand levels that still meet the scenario objectives to be appropriately considered. Such as masts/basement/wires/cables/substations/protection and control systems. E.g. a new overhead line has to be built in an existing route, and a temporary circuit has to be installed during the construction period. Such as environmental costs avoided, mitigated or compensated under existing legal provisions, cost of planning procedures, and dismantling costs at the end of the life time.
  115. Opinion No 13/2019
  116. Cyprus X X X X Czech X X X Republic Denmark X Estonia X X X X X Finland France X X X X X Germany X X Greece X X X Hungary X Ireland X X X X X Italy X X X X Latvia X X Lithuania X Luxembourg X X X Netherlands X X Norway X X X Poland X X X Portugal Romania X X X X Slovak X X X Republic Slovenia X X X Spain X X X X X X Sweden X X X X X UK (Great X Britain) Northern X X X X X Ireland
  117. No information was provided by the NRA regarding the cost elements. Not specified by the NRA (i.e. The NRA informed that total costs include direct and indirect costs and financial costs. No disaggregation of costs). The forecast cost is a central best view. The TOs and SO agree each year the cost basis to be used for NOA analysis. The information that will have to be agreed includes but is not limited to: price base, that is the financial year of the prices and should be current year prices; annual expenditure profile reflecting the options’ earliest in service dates; any major risks for options costed appropriately; delay costs; the TO’s Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). The TOs provide the individual elements of the investments that provide incremental capability. For consistency of assessment across all options, the TOs provide all relevant cost information in the current price base. The SO reviews the costs that the TOs submit with their options and checks that they are reasonable. This is to help ensure the highest quality data goes into the NOA report process.
  118. Opinion No 13/2019
  119. h on tc mand fare a de esti sp g 2 wel n n sses lity ic o e-di o c r CO l t om ibi fit on ratio to meet y pac on n of n of n in n of cti o o o o l well-being bene -ec sdi o ati ati ati ati cieta stem flex stem stability Juri Soci Vari rent Vari costs RES integ Vari emissions Vari So Adequac Sy Sy Social im Other
  120. Jurisdictions in which a formal CBA methodology is applied Austria X X X X X X X X (M) Belgium X X X X X X X X X X (M) (M) Bulgaria Czech X X X X X Republic (M) (M) Estonia X X X X X X France X X X Germany X X X X X X X (M) (M) (M) (M) Ireland X X X X X X X Italy X X X X X X X X X (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) Norway X X X X X X X X (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) Portugal X X X X X X (M) (M) Romania X X X X X X X X X X (M) (M) (M) (M) (M)
  121. The Austrian NDP refers to the EU TYNDP 2016 benefits. No specific benefit indicator was indicated by the NRA. E.g. competition, reduction of costs for ancillary services, reduction of emissions (non-CO2), avoidance of the renewal/replacement costs of infrastructure. Reduction of costs for ancillary services, avoided emissions (different than CO2), deferred investments. Not specified. Reduction of emissions (non-CO2) - only for internal projects.
  122. Opinion No 13/2019
  123. Slovenia X X X X X X X 90 91 Spain X X X X X X X X X Sweden X X X X X X X X (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) (M) UK (Great X X X X X X Britain) (M) (M)
  124. UK X X X X X X X X X X (Northern (M) Ireland) Jurisdictions in which no formal CBA methodology is applied Cyprus X X X Croatia X X X X Denmark X X X Finland X X X X X Greece X X X X X X X Hungary Latvia X X X X X X X Lithuania Luxembourg X Netherlands Poland X X Slovak X Republic
  125. Transmission projects are evaluated by criteria marked, however results of evaluation are not presented nor monetised in NDP. The final NDP 2015-2020 includes a CBA analysis carried out by the TSO according to the TYNDP 2014 methodology and the “Guideline for Cost Benefit Analyis of Grid Development Projects. October 2014”, for the new investments of the network transmission, mainly for the international interconnections, e.g. Biscay Gulf project. Cross-border exchanges. Including avoidance of the renewal/replacement costs of infrastructure. Not specified. Benefit categories were not specified. Security of Supply.
  126. Opinion No 13/2019
  127. Jurisdiction A combined Market study Network Dynamic
  128. network with a multi- Specific to Other market study studies and market zone evaluate the study study optimisation impacts of model projects on ancillary/ balancing services Austria X Belgium X X X X Bulgaria Croatia X X Cyprus X N/A (isolated system) Czech X Republic Denmark X Estonia X Finland X France X X (for X X interconnecti ons) Germany X Greece X X Hungary X Ireland X X
  129. I.e. including the full network description and costs/bids, to assess e.g. redispatching effects. To simulate the European market behaviour (as used in the EU TYNDP). The Austrian NDP 2018 refers to the EU TYNDP 2016 CBA results. Market study for Belgium only. ENTSO-E CBA methodology is applied for cross-border relevant projects. For other projects there is no formal CBA methodology applied. For the assessment of projects with cross-border impact, the results of the latest EU-TYNDP are used, including imports and exports data. Particularly, the reports of Regional Investment Plan (Continental South-East) are used, which are based on the Pan-European market study results combined with European and/or regional network studies. Furthermore, the TYNDP 2018 Regional Insight Report for the North-South Interconnections East is considered. Additional studies include: harmonic, insulation co-ordination, transient and small signal stability. The range of studies depends on the technology and case being studied.
  130. Opinion No 13/2019
  131. Italy X X X X X (only for (for some (for some (for some specific benefits) benefits) benefits) projects) Latvia X X X Lithuania X X Luxembourg X Netherlands X Norway X Poland X X X Portugal X X Romania X X X X Slovak X X Republic Slovenia X X Spain X X Sweden X UK (Great X X Britain) UK X X X X X (Northern Ireland)
  132. Multiple models, as needed (e.g. national model to study local developments, multi-national model for transfer capacity calculations). Synchronisation studies, adequacy studies, studies on integration of offshore wind power plants. Cross-border flows have been determined on the basis of analyses of the EU market model. In the next step, a market model is used with the full national transmission network model and designated cross-border flows. The analysis carried out with such a model allows to identify bottlenecks and propose investments eliminating them, taking into account the greatest effects for the power system. For cross-border relevant projects the EU TYNDP results are used. For the time horizons not covered in TYNDP and the related PEMMDB, specific (detailed, unit-by-unit based) market studies are carried-out at national level, with the appropriate assumptions on the exchanges. The SO uses the scenarios and the criteria stated in the NETS SQSS to produce the future transmission capability requirements by using an in-house tool called ‘Peak Y’. The SO then passes these capability requirements to the TOs to identify future transmission options. In response to the data on boundary capabilities and requirements, TOs identify and develop multiple credible options that deliver the potentially required boundary capabilities. The SO then undertakes the cost-benefit analysis studies on these options. Not specified.
  133. Opinion No 13/2019
  134. 110 Agency’s Opinions No 01/2014, p.7 and No 05/2017, p.7.
  135. Opinion No 13/2019
  136. Jurisdiction All costs and 25 years of 0 residual 4% (real) The benefits benefits are operation value discount rate are calculated discounted to with the the same year ENTSO-E CBA interpolation rules
  137. Austria X X X X X Belgium X X Bulgaria Czech Republic X X X Estonia X X X France X X X X X Germany X Ireland X Useful lifetime X WACC of asset Italy X X X X X Norway X X Portugal X Romania X X X X X Slovenia X X Spain X X X Sweden X
  138. The Austrian NDP 2018 refers to the EU TYNDP 2016 CBA results. No details are disclosed to the NRA on the discounting rules, but the TSO refers to follow the EU TYNDP principles.
  139. Opinion No 13/2019
  140. UK (Great X 40 years Other Britain) UK (Northern X Ireland) Total 14 8 7 8 5
  141. Jurisdiction Date of the Status of Which Link to the latest (draft or final) NDP latest NDP the latest version of NDP the NDP (i.e. draft or final) is public?
  142. Austria 2018 (Dec) Final Both http://www.vuen.at/de/html/uebertragungsnetz _netzentwicklung_2018.html Belgium 2019 (Apr) Final Both https://eliafederaalontwikkelingsplan.be/ https://planfederaldedeveloppementelia.be/ Bulgaria 2018 (Nov) Final Both http://eso.bg/fileObj.php?oid=1799 Croatia 2017 (Dec) Final Only the http://www.hops.hr/wps/portal/hr/web/hees/ra final zvoj Cyprus 2018 (Nov) Final None N/A Czech 2018 (May) Draft Both https://ceps.cz/cs/rozvoj-ps Republic Denmark 2019 (Apr) Final Only the https://energinet.dk/Omfinal nyheder/Nyheder/2019/04/15/RUS-plan-2018 Estonia 2018 (June) Final Only the https://elering.ee/en/publications final Finland 2017 (Oct) Final Both https://www.fingrid.fi/globalassets/dokumentit /fi/kantaverkko/kantaverkon-
  143. Benefits are discounted with HM Treasury’s Social Time Preferential Rate and costs are discounted with WACC.
  144. Opinion No 13/2019
  145. kehittaminen/kantaverkonkehittamissuunnitelma-2017-2027.pdf France 2017 Final Both https://www.rtefrance.com/fr/article/transition-energetique-etrevolution-numerique-plus-de-10-milliards-deuros-d Germany 2017 (Dec) Final Both Final NDP 2017-2030: https://www.netzausbau.de/bedarfsermittlung/ 2030_2017/nep-ub/de.html Draft NDP 2019-2030: https://www.netzentwicklungsplan.de/de/netze ntwicklungsplaene/netzentwicklungsplan- 2030-2019 Greece 2018 (Nov) Draft Both http://www.rae.gr/site/categories_new/about_r ae/activity/global_consultation/current/231118 .csp Hungary 2018 Draft Only the http://mavir.hu/documents/10258/15454/HFT final _2017.pdf/8826edb7-d17a-463e-8983- 29b616337f76 Ireland 2017 Final Both http://www.eirgridgroup.com/sitefiles/library/EirGrid/TDP_2017_Final_for_Pu blication.pdf Italy 2018 Draft Both https://www.arera.it/it/comunicati/18/170529p ds.htm Latvia 2018 (Sept) Final Both https://www.sprk.gov.lv/uploads/doc/Lemums N111D28092018pielikums.pdf Lithuania 2018 Final Only the http://www.litgrid.eu/index.php/tinklofinal pletra/lietuvos-elektros-perdavimo-tinklu-10metu-pletros-planas-/3850 Luxembourg 2018 (Nov) Draft None N/A Netherlands 2017 (Dec) Final Only the https://www.tennet.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/ final Company/Publications/Technical_Publication s/Dutch/TenneT_KCD2017_Deel_II.pdf Norway 2017 (Oct) Final Only the https://www.statnett.no/for-aktorer-ifinal kraftbransjen/planer-og- (redacted analyser/nettutviklingsplan-ogversion) kraftsystemutredning/ Poland 2018 Draft Both https://www.pse.pl/dokumenty Portugal 2017 Final Only the www.ren.pt final Romania 2018 Final Both http://www.transelectrica.ro/web/tel/planperspectiva Slovak 2017 (Nov) Final Both https://www.sepsas.sk/Dokumenty/ProgRozvo Republic j/2018/07/DPR_PS_2018_2027.pdf
  146. There is one detailed version, which is not public because it includes confidential information about the power system. One shorter version without confidential information is public. Approved by competent authority in February 2019.
  147. Opinion No 13/2019
  148. Slovenia 2019 Draft Only the https://www.eles.si/Portals/0/Novice/aktualnefinal teme/Dokumenti/Razvojni%20nacrt%202017- 2026.pdf Spain 2015 (Oct) Final Both https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2015/10/23/pdfs/ BOE-A-2015-11398.pdf Sweden 2017 (Nov) Final Only the https://www.svk.se/siteassets/omfinal oss/rapporter/2017/svenska-kraftnatssystemutvecklingsplan-2018-2027.pdf? UK (Great 2019 (Jan) Final Only the Future Energy Scenarios: Britain) final http://fes.nationalgrid.com Electricity Ten Year Statement: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/insights/elec tricity-ten-year-statement-etys Network Options Assessment: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/insights/net work-options-assessment-noa UK 2019 Draft Both https://www.uregni.gov.uk/sites/uregni/files/c (Northern onsultations/2019-04- Ireland) 18%20TDPNI%20Consultation.pdf http://www.soni.ltd.uk/media/documents/TDP NI2018-for-consultation.pdf
  149. The Agency also noted in its Opinion No 11/2019 (p.12-13) that in some instances such information is not provided, nor a justification for the absence of the required information is offered.
  150. Opinion No 13/2019
  151. 117 Although in Cyprus and Luxembourg the NDP is not published, they are still taken into account in this assessment. The information regarding the availability of any project data was not provided for Bulgaria.
  152. Opinion No 13/2019
  153. Jurisdict Monitori Reason Status Commiss CAPEX OPEX Benefits Transfer ion ng of for delay ioning capacity projects /resched date increase uling
  154. Austria available public public public public not public not to the available (only non- available NRA to NRA monetised) to NRA Belgium public public public public public for public for public public the most the most important important projects projects for others for others available available to the to the NRA NRA Bulgaria 118 Croatia available available available public available not not not to the to the to the to the available available to available NRA NRA NRA NRA to the the NRA to NRA NRA Cyprus available available available available available available available to available to the to the to the to the to the to the the NRA to the NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA Czech available public public public public public public Republic to the (only non- NRA monetised)
  155. No information was provided by the NRA regarding the availability of the project data in the Bulgarian NDP. Only the total transfer capacity increase of all planned projects is publicly available.
  156. Opinion No 13/2019
  157. Denmark public available available available available available available to available to the to the to the to the to the the NRA to the NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA Estonia available public public public available available available to public to the to the to the the NRA NRA NRA NRA Finland not not public public not not not not available available available available available to available to the to the to the to the the NRA to the NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA France public available public public available available public available to the to the to the (only non- to the NRA NRA NRA monetised) NRA upon upon upon request request request 120 121 122 only only only Germany public public public public available available public available (separate (separate to the to the to the from from NRA NRA NRA NDP) NDP) (total cost is publicly available) Greece public public public public public not not public available available to to the the NRA NRA Hungary public public public public available available available to available to the to the the NRA to the NRA NRA NRA Ireland public available public public available available public available to the to the to the (only non- to the NRA NRA NRA monetised, NRA monetised available to NRA) Italy public public public public public public public public Latvia available public public public public available available to public to the to the the NRA NRA NRA Lithuania available available available available available available available to available to the to the to the to the to the to the the NRA to the NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA
  158. I.e. no systematic disclosure. I.e. no systematic disclosure. I.e. no systematic disclosure. Only qualitative information is available.
  159. Opinion No 13/2019
  160. Luxembo available available available available available not not available urg to NRA to the to the to the to the available available to to the NRA NRA NRA NRA to the the NRA NRA NRA Netherlan available available available available available not not available ds to the to the to the to the to the available available to to the NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA to the the NRA NRA NRA Norway public public public public public public public public Poland available available available public available available available to public to the to the to the to the to the the NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA (the total (total benefit is cost is publicly publicly available) available) Portugal available public available public public available public public to the to the to the NRA NRA NRA Romania public public public public public public public public (separate) (separate) Slovak available available public public public available public Republic to the to the to the NRA NRA NRA Slovenia public public public public public available public public to the (only noncompeten monetised) t authority Spain available available available partially not public not to the to the to the included available available NRA NRA NRA in the to the to the (separate (separate (separate NDP NRA NRA from from from NDP) NDP) NDP) Sweden public public public public UK available available available available available available available to available (Great to the to the to the to the to the to the the NRA to the Britain) NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA 125
  161. A total CAPEX value for all the infrastructures is included in the NDP. In addition, there are some projects (requested by agents) that also have an individual CAPEX value. For the rest of projects, the individual CAPEX value is not available to the NRA. The purpose of the GB NDP for interconnectors (NOA IC) is to act as a market signal on the potential benefits of interconnection from baseline of projects that have been assessed by Ofgem. The purpose is not therefore not assess the viability of current and future projects, and as such the NOA IC does not provide project specific information.
  162. Opinion No 13/2019
  163. UK available public public public public available public public (Northern to NRA to the (only non- Ireland) NRA monetised, monetised available to NRA)
  164. 126 Agency’s Opinions No 01/2015, p. 11 and No 04/2016, p. 4.
  165. Opinion No 13/2019
  166. Jurisdictio Investmen Substation Substation Investmen Status Commissi CAPEX n t number 1 2 t item oning date in the descriptio NDP n
  167. Italy 252-N Dobbiaco Lienz (AT) Dobbiaco - Planned, after 2025 55 (IT) Austria but not yet in permitting Italy 206-P Volpago - Volpago Planned, 2025 165 (IT) substation but not yet in permitting
  168. 127 Agency’s Opinion No 08/2017, p.4. 128 Based on ARERA order 674/2018, the Italian draft NDP 2018 also includes 3 interconnection projects by third parties with status ‘under consideration’ (beyond the 6 TPPs which are present in the TYNDP 2018), and 3 projects by Terna with status ‘under consideration’ (codes 5-S, 205-S and 605-S), as already indicated in the Agency’s Opinion No 08/2017, p.29.
  169. Opinion No 13/2019
  170. 129 Agency’s Opinions No 01/2017, p.5 and 08/2017, p.6. 130 In the Agency’s Opinion No 08/2017, p. 6, the most frequently reported difference is the commissioning date of the investments which emerged for 24 national parts and constitutes 33% of all reported substantial differences. Further, NRAs reported differences regarding the transfer capacity, the clustering of the investments, the technical description, the costs, the status and the classification of the projects.
  171. Opinion No 13/2019
  172. Opinion No 13/2019
  173. 131 See also Agency’s Opinion No 06/2019 p.13-16.
  174. Opinion No 13/2019
  175. Opinion No 13/2019
  176. Opinion No 13/2019
  177. Opinion No 13/2019 Annexes: Page 60 of 84
  178. EU TYNDP Project name Jurisdictions Reason for the absence NRAs objection to
  179. 2018 project inclusion in the number EU TYNDP 2018
  180. 247 AQUIND UK (Great In France: The cluster is a third party or non-TSO project and third party or non- No Interconnector Britain), France TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP In UK (Great Britain): Not included within the NDP because its exemption request pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 was rejected. Aquind is expected by the NRA to be included within future NDP if it submits a CBCA request and/or the project moves forward via another feasible route
  181. 260 New Great The In the Netherlands: The commissioning date of the cluster is beyond the time span No Britain – Netherlands, of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) Netherlands UK (Great In UK (Great Britain): The project is not advanced enough to be included in the interconnection Britain) NDP 296 Britib UK (Great In France: The project is a third party or non-TSO project and third party or non- ES NRA objects the Britain), France, TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP inclusion in the EU Spain In Spain: Until the date, the Spanish NRA has not received updated information TYNDP 2018 about this project In UK (Great Britain): The project is not advanced enough to be included in the NDP th 330 4 400 kV CZ- Czech Republic, The commissioning date of the project is beyond the time span of the NDP (i.e. No SK Slovak Republic time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) interconnector
  182. Opinion No 13/2019
  183. 335 North Sea Wind Denmark, In the Netherlands: The commissioning date of the project is beyond the time span No Power Hub Germany, the of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) Netherlands 349 MAREX Ireland, UK The project is not advanced enough to be included in the NDP baseline. No Organic Power (Great Britain) Interconnector
  184. It will be included in the TDP 2018 in Ireland.
  185. Opinion No 13/2019
  186. Jurisdiction EU TYNDP Project name Internal / Reason for the absence NRAs objection to
  187. 2018 interconnection include the project project or some of the number investments in the EU TYNDP 2018
  188. Austria 336 Prati (IT) – Steinach (AT) Interconnection The project itself is a DSO project and thus not assessed No in the NDP. There is only one side effect of the project included in the NDP which is the connection of this line to the TSO grid Austria 375 Lienz (AT) - Veneto region Internal The project was downgraded to a reconstruction of the No (IT) 220 kV existing line. Thus, the project does no longer need permission via the NDP Bulgaria 342 Central Balkan Corridor Interconnection The commissioning date of the project is beyond the No time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) Croatia 241 Upgrading of existing 220 kV Interconnection The commissioning date of the project is beyond the No lines between HR and BA to time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which 400 kV lines year a project can be planned) Croatia 243 New 400 kV interconnection Interconnection The commissioning date of the project is beyond the No line between Serbia and time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which Croatia year a project can be planned) Cyprus 219 EuroAsia Interconnector Interconnection The project is a third party or non-TSO project and third No party or non-TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP Denmark 175 Great belt II (DKW-DKE) Internal The project is very preliminary / under consideration No and not part of the analysis premises for the NDP
  189. Opinion No 13/2019
  190. Denmark 179 DKE – DE (Kontek2) Interconnection The project is very preliminary / under consideration No and not part of the analysis premises for the NDP Denmark 234 DKE-PL-1 Interconnection The project is very preliminary / under consideration No and not part of the analysis premises for the NDP France 270 FR-ES project -Aragón- Interconnection The project is not advanced enough to be included in No Atlantic Pyrenees the NDP France 276 FR-ES project -Navarra- Interconnection The project is not advanced enough to be included in No Landes the NDP France 280 FR-BE: study Lonny-Achene- Interconnection The project is not advanced enough to be included in No Gramme the NDP France 285 GridLink Interconnection The project is a third party or non-TSO project and third No party or non-TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP France 299 SACOI3 Interconnection The project is a third party or non-TSO project and third No party or non-TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP Germany 245 Upgrade Meeden - Diele Interconnection The project is under construction No Germany 256 Study to upgrade Interconnection The project is not advanced enough to be included in No interconnection DE-NL the NDP Germany 263 Lake Constance East Interconnection The project is not advanced enough to be included in No the NDP Germany 113 Doetinchem - Niederrhein Interconnection The project has been commissioned No Germany 179 DKE - DE (Kontek2) Interconnection The TSOs have not applied for the project within the No NDP Greece 293 Southern Aegean Interconnection The project has not reached an adequate maturity status No Interconnector according to the Greek TSO, so it is not currently included in the Greek NDP. Furthermore, the design of the project in the EU TYNDP is different from that the Greek TSO and NRA are aware of. Considering that this project is included in the TYNDP 2018, the Greek
  191. Opinion No 13/2019
  192. TSO should incorporate it in its NDP, according to the Article 22 (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC and also RAE' s (Greek NRA) view, subject to its benefits and cross border impact Greece 284 LEG1 Interconnection The project has not reached an adequate maturity status No according to the Greek TSO, so it is not currently included in the Greek NDP. Considering that this project is included in the TYNDP 2018, the Greek TSO should incorporate it in its NDP, according to the Article 22 (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC and also RAE' s (Greek NRA) view, subject to its benefits and cross border impact Netherlands 344 Reinforcements Ring NL Internal The commissioning date of the project is beyond the No phase II time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) Netherlands 347 Maasvlakte – Noord Brabant Internal The commissioning date of the project is beyond the No connection NL time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) Netherlands 377 Upgrade BE-NL Internal The project was not included because the latest NDP No interconnector VanEyck- was prepared earlier than the draft EU TYNDP 2018 Maasbracht Norway 294 Maali Interconnection The project is not advanced enough to be included in No the NDP Romania 259 HU-RO Interconnection The commissioning date of the project is beyond the No time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) Romania 341 North CSE Corridor Interconnection The commissioning date of the project is beyond the No time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned)
  193. Opinion No 13/2019
  194. Slovenia 323 Dekani (SI) - Zaule (IT) Interconnection The project is a third party or non-TSO project and third No interconnection party or non-TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP Slovenia 324 Redipuglia (IT) - Vrtojba (SI) Interconnection The project is a third party or non-TSO project and third No interconnection party or non-TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP Spain 233 Connection of Aragon Internal It is only a conceptual project and the required network No Pumping hydro is not still defined in the TYNDP 2018. It will depend on the future pumping hydro to be planned. Sweden 267 Hansa PowerBridge II Interconnection The commissioning date of the cluster is beyond the No time span of the NDP (i.e. time horizon up to which year a project can be planned) UK (Great 214 Interco Iceland-UK Interconnection This project was considered as a generator in the NDP No Britain) rather than as a transmission project.
  195. UK (Great 121 Nautilus: 2nd interconnector Interconnection The necessity of the project is not confirmed by the No Britain) Belgium - UK NRA or still under discussion
  196. Austria 1000 Hydro Pump Storage Power Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP and not No Plant Pfaffenboden in Molln assessed by the NRA Austria 1001 Kaunertal Extension Project Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP and not No assessed by the NRA
  197. The GB NDP includes commissioned interconnectors, projects included within Cap and Floor (C&F) window 1, projects included within C&F window 2 and projects with an approved exemption.
  198. Opinion No 13/2019
  199. Estonia 1004 Estonian PHES (pumped- Internal The project is a third party or non-TSO project and third No hydro energy storage) party or non-TSO projects are normally not included in the NDP Germany 1026 Hydro pumped storage Riedl Internal Storage projects are only indirectly included in the NDP No (i.e. by considering generation facilities for scenarios). Ireland 1025 Silvermines Hydroelectric Internal The project will be included in the TDP 2018 No Power Station Ireland 1030 Marex Organic Power Energy Internal The project will be included in the TDP 2018 No Storage Netherlands 1013 CAES Zuidwending, NL Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No Spain 1011 Reversible pumped-storage Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No hydroelectric exploitation ‘Mont-Negre’ power 3,300 MW Zaragoza, Spain Spain 1012 Purifying -Pumped Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No Hydroelectric Energy Storage (P-PHES Navaleo) Spain 1019 Two Reversible Hidroelectric Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No Plants: Girones & Raimats in Spain Spain 1027 P-PHES CUA Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No UK (Great 1014 Coire Glas Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No Britain) UK (Great 1015 Cruachan II Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No Britain) UK (Great 1022 CARES (Compressed Air Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No Britain) Renewable Energy Storage) UK (Great 1023 Cheshire Gas CAES Internal Storage projects are not included in the NDP No Britain)
  200. Opinion No 13/2019
  201. Jurisdiction EU TYNDP Project name EU TYNDP Status of the Commissioning Reason for the Proposal on how to
  202. 2018 2018 investment date absence amend the NDP / EU project investment TYNDP number number
  203. Austria 210 Wurmlach (AT) - 1380 In permitting 2021 The project is a third No Somplago (IT) party project and third interconnection party projects are normally not included in the NDP Germany 206 Reinforcement 682 Planned, but not 2025 The necessity of the Yes. The investment Southern Germany yet in permitting investment is not should be removed from confirmed by the NRA the EU TYNDP 2018 or still under discussion Germany 231 Concept project 1457 Under 2034 Only investment 1282 No Germany - consideration is part of the German Switzerland NDP. The investment 1457 is probably not advanced enough Italy 325 AT, SI, IT – South- 1631 Under 2035 The only investment Yes. The investment East Alps Project consideration item concerning Italy should be removed from has been cancelled the EU TYNDP 2018 Poland 170 Baltics synchro 1034 Planned, but not 2025 The project was not No with CE yet in permitting included because the latest NDP was prepared earlier than
  204. Opinion No 13/2019
  205. the draft EU TYNDP 2018 Slovenia 325 AT, SI, IT – South- 1483 Under 2035 The project is not Yes. The investment East Alps Project consideration advanced enough to be should be removed from included in the NDP the EU TYNDP 2018
  206. In the NDP, investment 1034 a new HVDC connection was not included with a submarine cable between Lithuania and Poland. The new HVDC connection has only been shown schematically in the directions of the transmission grid development. The investment is implicitly present only as a long-term concept of upgrade 220 kV grid to 400 kV. However this concept is far beyond time horizon of the current NDP.
  207. Opinion No 13/2019
  208. Project Project name Investment Jurisdiction Reported Most recent data available to the NRA / proposed amendment of the number item difference by the NDP / EU TYNDP 2018 by the NRA NRA
  209. 13 Baza project 570 Spain Status The project status should be changed from ‘under consideration’ for ‘in permitting’ in the EU TYNDP 13 Baza project 569 Spain Status The project status should be changed from ‘under consideration’ for ‘in permitting’ in the EU TYNDP 13 Baza project 31 Spain Status The project status should be changed from ‘under consideration’ for ‘in permitting’ in the EU TYNDP 13 Baza project 570 Spain Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed from 2025 for 2020 in the date EU TYNDP 13 Baza project 569 Spain Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed from 2025 for 2020 in the date EU TYNDP 13 Baza project 31 Spain Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed from 2025 for 2020 in the date EU TYNDP 16 Biscay Gulf France Transfer capacity The EU TYNDP states that the capacity in the Spain to France direction increase is 2200 MW, while the French NDP states 2600 MW 21 Italy-France France Transfer capacity The EU TYNDP states 1000 MW in the IT-FR direction, while the NDP increase states 1200 MW in both directions 21 Italy-France 55 France Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2020 in the EU TYNDP date 21 Italy-France Italy Benefits There is no benefit analysis provided in the EU TYNDP 2018.
  210. If the investment items are not specified in the table, the difference refers to the all investment items within the project.
  211. Opinion No 13/2019
  212. 23 FR-BE: 60 France Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2020 in the EU TYNDP Avelin/Mastaing- date Avelgem-Horta HTLS 25 IFA2 UK (Great Transfer capacity Small difference between the NG Interconnector register and the Britain) increase TYNDP. The register states 1150 MW export compared to 1100 MW in the EU TYNDP. It is unclear however whether this exact value was used in the baseline for the NDP and it is not deemed to require amending 26 Reschenpass Italy Benefits Disagree with the quantification of the benefit B4-RES Interconnector Project 28 Italy-Montenegro Italy Clustering of the The project is composed by two investment items (70 and 624) under investment items construction to be commissioned in 2019 and by one item (1503) which is under consideration according to ARERA Opinion 674/2018, with commissioning in 2026. The project should be accordingly declustered into two new projects, with their own CBAs 28 Italy-Montenegro Italy Transfer capacity It should be 600 MW (1st phase) + 600 MW (2nd phase) and not 1200 increase MW altogether 28 Italy-Montenegro Italy Benefits As the clustering is wrong, the benefit calculation is wrong and should be performed separately for the two amended projects. SEW: Inappropriate clustering (in addition to mistakes in the ENTSO-E TYNDP reference grid and obscure/wrong definition of some scenario assumptions, see ACER Opinion 10/2018) B4: No benefits provided SOS: Inappropriate clustering + different baselines for the calculation of experimental SoS and for the calculation of B1 Losses: As declared by ENTSO-E, the losses calculation is not reliable 28 Italy-Montenegro 1503 - 2nd Italy Status The project status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the EU phase TYNDP 28 Italy-Montenegro Italy Costs It should be clarified why the OPEX for the first phase (above 0.6% of CAPEX per year) is significantly higher than the OPEX for the second phase (about 0.2% of CAPEX per year)
  213. Opinion No 13/2019
  214. 29 Italy-Tunisia Italy Benefits The project should not be in the reference grid (as it is under consideration), thus the benefits may not be consistent. SEW: mistakes in the ENTSO-E TYNDP reference grid and obscure/wrong definition of some scenario assumptions, see ACER Opinion 10/2018 B4: No benefits indicated SOS: different baselines for the calculation of experimental SoS and for the calculation of B1 Losses: As declared by ENTSO-E, the losses calculation is not reliable. Furthermore, for this project, the variation of losses across scenarios is very large 29 Italy-Tunisia 635 Italy Status The project status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the EU TYNDP 29 Italy-Tunisia Italy Costs The TYNDP project sheet describe CAPEX uncertainties, however no uncertainty range is provided. OPEX: consistent. yearly 0.5 % of CAPEX is a figure in line with available benchmarking data regarding HVDC submarine links 31 Italy-Switzerland 642 Italy Technical features Given the technical features (AC line + HVDC), there should be at least two investment items i) All'Acqua (CH) - Pallanzeno (IT) 380 kV upgrade and ii) Pallanzeno (IT) - Baggio (IT). Furthermore, the TYNDP project sheet indicates that the project is under review and currently being remastered. (‘the technical solution will be updated’) 31 Italy-Switzerland 642 Italy Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed in the EU TYNDP according date to the ongoing project review 31 Italy-Switzerland Italy Clustering of the There is a problem with the definition of investment items investment items 31 Italy-Switzerland Italy Transfer capacity The Italian draft NDP 2018 indicates a transfer capacity (TTC) of 1000increase 1100 MW 31 Italy-Switzerland Italy Benefits The B4-RES indicator provides a single figure for year 2030, which was calculated for a 2030 scenario of the TYNDP 2016. This figure may be outdated and should be better removed (or recalculated).
  215. Opinion No 13/2019
  216. SEW: The analysis carried out for the other CH-IT project identify serious deficiencies in the calculation of SEW. Furthermore, there are mistakes in the ENTSO-E TYNDP reference grid and obscure/wrong definition of some scenario assumptions, see ACER Opinion 10/2018 B4: B4-RES is related to old scenarios. While some benefits are possible, the quantification provided cannot be accepted. SOS: different baselines for the calculation of experimental SoS and for the calculation of B1 Losses: As declared by ENTSO-E, the losses calculation is not reliable 33 Central Northern Italy 1041 Italy Technical features The length of the project 432-P is 443 km in the Italian draft NDP 2018, vs. 350 km in the TYNDP 33 Central Northern Italy 90 Italy Commissioning The commissioning date is 2023 date 33 Central Northern Italy 1041 Italy Commissioning The investment is labelled as ‘long term’. Future NDPs should provide date more clarity about the date. 33 Central Northern Italy Italy Costs National CAPEX: 181 + 66 million Euro (vs. 220 + 140 million Euro in the TYNDP 2018) 37 Norway - Germany, 406 Norway Commissioning The commissioning date for Voltage uprating of existing 300 kV line NordLink date Sauda/Saurdal - Lyse - Ertsmyra - Feda - 1&2, Feda – Kristiansand is 2021/2022 in the NDP and not 2020 as indicated in the EU TYNDP 2018. The commissioning date for the part related to Upgrade Samnanger - Mauranger is 2022 in the NDP and not 2020 as indicated in the EU TYNDP 2018 Long term/uncertain need of Blåfalli-Samnanger. Commissioning date is not indicated in the NDP 39 DKW-DE, step 3 Germany Clustering of the Project 39 is clustered together with Project 251 in the NDP (TTG-005) investment items 47 Westtirol - Vöhringen 689 Germany Commissioning In the draft NDP 2019-2030 the commissioning is planned for 2023. The date necessity and effectiveness will be checked during the NDP 2019-2030. The investment was not approved in the final NDP 2017-2030
  217. Opinion No 13/2019
  218. 62 Estonia-Latvia 3rd IC Latvia Transfer capacity In the EU TYNDP is 600 MW which is maximum capacity. In NDP the increase transfer capacity in direction LV>EE is 500 MW 62 Estonia-Latvia 3rd IC 386 Latvia Costs In the EU TYNDP investment item 386 CAPEX is 120 million Euro, in NDP 83,70 million Euro 74 Thames Estuary UK (Great Transfer capacity Very small difference between the NG Interconnector register and the Cluster (NEMO-Link) Britain) increase TYNDP. The register states 1020 MW import and 1046 MW export. It is unclear however whether this exact value was used in the baseline for the NDP and it is not deemed a significant enough difference to require amending 94 GerPol Improvements Germany Clustering of the The investments are clustered separately within two projects 50HzTinvestment items P128, 50HzT-003 in the NDP 94 GerPol Improvements 796 Poland Costs CAPEX in the NDP is 43.5 million Euro compared to the value in draft EU TYNDP 2018 (i.e. 36.5 million Euro) 107 Celtic Interconnector Ireland Benefits The methodology applied to compute the SoS benefit consists in adapting the scenarios in order to attain a given adequacy standard, thus creating a discrepancy between the SEW and the B6 indicators. Instead of modifying the scenarios to compute some of the benefits, the TYNDP should be based on scenarios representing a realistic view of the electricity system (in terms of economic and adequacy viability) 113 Doetinchem - 145 Germany Status The project status should be changed for ‘commissioned’ in the EU Niederrhein TYNDP 121 Nautilus: 2nd UK (Great Transfer capacity The NG interconnector register states 1500 MW import and 1500 MW interconnector Belgium Britain) increase export, compared to the TYNDP which states 1400 MW for both - UK 123 LitPol Link Stage 2 Poland Technical features In new NDP draft the technical data on line length was updated 123 LitPol Link Stage 2 Poland Clustering of the investment items 123 LitPol Link Stage 2 373 Poland Status Status of investment in EU TYNDP was based on previous NDP. In new NDP draft the status was updated to ‘under construction’
  219. Opinion No 13/2019
  220. 123 LitPol Link Stage 2 373 Poland Costs The CAPEX for the investment is 79.7 million Euro in the NDP. The indicated CAPEX in the draft EU TYNDP 2018 (i.e. 335 million Euro) appears to include other already implemented investments 124 NordBalt phase 2 385 Latvia Costs In the EU TYNDP- the investment item 385 CAPEX is 190,8 million Euro. In NDP the CAPEX is 128,52 million Euro. NDP indicate only stage 3. CAPEX which is the last stage of the project 127 Central Southern Italy 86 Italy Technical features The investment item should read Foggia - Gissi, because the part Gissi - Villanova was commissioned in early 2016 127 Central Southern Italy Italy Clustering of the Unclear why the Laino - Altomonte investment item is clustered investment items together, given that only the other two investment items are reported in the Italian NDP (2017 version) to increase transfer capacity from Italy South to Italy Center South (Bisaccia - Deliceto +400 MW and Foggia - Gissi + 600 MW). Another project affecting the capacity from Italy South to Italy Center South (Montecorvino - Avellino - Benevento + 200 MW) is not reported in the TYNDP project 127 Central Southern Italy Italy Transfer capacity The transfer capacity from Italy South to Italy Center South is identified increase as 0 MW. This is wrong, because the capacity increase is around 1000 MW 127 Central Southern Italy 96 Italy Status The project got full permitting in 2017 127 Central Southern Italy 96 Italy Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2021 in the EU TYNDP date 127 Central Southern Italy 86 Italy Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2024 in the EU TYNDP date 127 Central Southern Italy 86 Italy Costs The CAPEX of the investment is overestimated because the 400 million Euros relate to the entire Foggia - Villanova line (including the already constructed part). The Foggia - Gissi CAPEX should be around 170 million Euro
  221. Opinion No 13/2019
  222. 134 North-South Corridor 176 Germany Commissioning The commissioning is planned for 2023 in Western Germany date (section South)
  223. 135 N-S Western Germany Clustering of the In the NDP the Investments are separated into two projects. DE_parallel lines investment items 142 CSE4 Bulgaria Costs The CBCA decision on investment item 256 allows a deviation of CAPEX ±5%, in relation to the submitted value in the context of Investment Request 142 CSE4 Greece Costs The CBCA decision on investment item 256 allows a deviation of CAPEX ±5%, in relation to the submitted value in the context of Investment Request. There is a significant difference on OPEX of investment no. 256 between the CBCA decision (0.15 million Euro) and the data submitted by the Project Promoters in the ENTSO-E draft TYNDP 2018 project sheet (1.1 million Euro). This deviation has to be clarified 150 Italy-Slovenia 616 Italy Technical features Uncertainty on project phase 1 (see TYNDP 2018) 150 Italy-Slovenia Italy Benefits The TYNDP project sheet states that the commissioning date may be after 2025 due to the status of the project in Slovenia. In such a case, benefits will not be delivered in 2025 150 Italy-Slovenia 616 Italy Status The project status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the EU TYNDP 150 Italy-Slovenia 616 Italy Commissioning The commissioning date may be a later date date 150 Italy-Slovenia 616 Slovenia Status The project status should be changed from ‘in permitting’ for ‘under consideration’ in the EU TYNDP 150 Italy-Slovenia 616 Slovenia Commissioning The commissioning date is expected to be beyond 2030, (instead of date 2025) 153 France-Alderney- UK (Great Transfer capacity Very small difference between the NG Interconnector register and the Britain Britain) increase TYNDP. The register states 1460 MW export capacity compared to 1400 MW in the TYNDP. It is unclear however whether this exact value
  224. Opinion No 13/2019
  225. was used in the baseline for the NDP and it is not deemed to require amending 164 N-S Eastern Germany Clustering of the Project 164 consists of three separate NDP projects (P24, P43, TTG- DE_central section investment items 006). 167 Viking DKW-GB UK (Great Transfer capacity The NG interconnector register states 1500 MW import and 1500 MW Britain) increase export, compared to the TYNDP value of 1400 MW for both. It is unclear however whether this exact value was used in the baseline for the NDP. 170 Baltics synchro with 1010 Latvia Commissioning The commissioning date is 2023. CE date 170 Baltics synchro with 1011 Latvia Commissioning The commissioning date is 2024 CE date 170 Baltics synchro with 1010 Latvia Costs Investment item 1010 is 53.66 million Euro in the EU TYNDP , while 23 CE million Euro in the NDP 170 Baltics synchro with 1011 Latvia Costs Investment item 1011 is 27.2 million Euro in the EU TYNDP, while 22 CE million Euro in the NDP 170 Baltics synchro with Poland Technical features The differences in line lengths were identified, which result from CE updating the data for TYNDP and NDP 170 Baltics synchro with Poland Clustering of the In NDP, there is no investment related to the new HVDC connection CE investment items from Lithuania to Poland 172 ElecLink 1487 France Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2020 in the EU TYNDP date 172 ElecLink UK (Great Transfer capacity Very small difference between the NG Interconnector register and the Britain) increase TYNDP. The register states 1050 MW export, compared to 1000 MW in the TYNDP. It is unclear however whether this exact value was used in the baseline for the NDP so does not require amending 174 Greenconnector Italy Benefits SEW should be amended by adding extra-SEW, as communicated by the promoter, to take into account the impact of some ancillary-servicerelated constraints in the day ahead market simulations. Furthermore, in case of higher NTC, the benefits would be higher. There are mistakes in the ENTSO-E TYNDP reference grid and
  226. Opinion No 13/2019
  227. obscure/wrong definition of some scenario assumptions, see ACER Opinion 10/2018 B4: No data were provided, albeit the promoter seems interested in calculating it (as long as ENTSO-E data would be available) SOS: different baselines for the calculation of experimental SoS and for the calculation of B1. ARERA supports the promoter request to use the Italian VOLL for the Italian ENS. Losses: As declared by ENTSO-E, the losses calculation is not reliable 183 DKW-DE, Westcoast 1018 Germany Commissioning The commissioning for the German part of the connection between date Klixbüll and the border (DE/DK) is planned for 2021 in the draft NDP 2019-2030 187 St. Peter (AT) - 997 Germany Commissioning The commissioning is planned for 2025 in the draft NDP 2019-2030 Pleinting (DE) date 191 OWP TenneT Northsea 1513 Germany Status The project status should be changed for ‘commissioned’ in the EU Part 2 TYNDP 192 OWP Northsea TenneT 659 Germany Commissioning Ongoing evaluation of environmental aspects for the area that would be Part 3 date connected by the system. Therefore, the commissioning date is currently not available 193 Godelleta-Morella/La Spain Technical features There is a typographical error in the length of the line in the EU TYNDP. Plana The right value is 227,5 km per circuit. However, this is a preliminary data and could change in future plans 194 Cartuja 561 Spain Status The project status should be changed for ‘in permitting’ in the EU TYNDP 194 Cartuja 929 Spain Status The project status should be changed for ‘in permitting’ in the EU TYNDP 194 Cartuja 561 Spain Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2023 in the EU TYNDP date 194 Cartuja 929 Spain Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2023 in the EU TYNDP date 197 N-S Finland P1 stage 2 Finland Transfer capacity According to 2017 NDP transfer capacity increase is 700 MW and increase according to EU TYNDP it is 1000 MW
  228. Opinion No 13/2019
  229. 207 Reinforcement 940 Germany Commissioning The commissioning is planned for 2029 in the draft NDP 2019-2030 Northwestern DE date 207 Reinforcement 676 Germany Commissioning The commissioning is planned for 2029 in the draft NDP 2019-2030 Northwestern DE date 219 EuroAsia Greece Commissioning Interconnector date 230 GerPol Power Bridge I 355 Poland Status Status of investment in the EU TYNDP 2018 was based on previous NDP. In new NDP draft the status was updated to ‘under construction’ 230 GerPol Power Bridge I 353 Poland Status Status of investment in the EU TYNDP 2018 was based on previous NDP. In new NDP draft the status was updated for ‘under construction’ 230 GerPol Power Bridge I 1035 Poland Status Status of investment in the EU TYNDP 2018 was based on previous NDP. In new NDP draft the status was updated for ‘under construction’ 230 GerPol Power Bridge I 1232 Poland Status Status of investment in the EU TYNDP 2018 was based on previous NDP. In new NDP draft the status was updated for ‘under construction’ 230 GerPol Power Bridge I 1035 Poland Commissioning Commissioning date in the EU TYNDP 2018 was based on previous date NDP. In new NDP draft the commissioning date was updated to 2022 230 GerPol Power Bridge I Poland Costs In NDP CAPEX was updated according to the maturity (change of status) of the project 240 380-kV-grid 1460 Germany Commissioning The commissioning is planned for 2022 in the draft NDP 2019-2030 enhancement between date Area Güstrow and Wolmirstedt 242 Offshore Wind Baltic 194 Germany Clustering of the Investment 194 consists of three Offshore-Connection Systems Sea (I) investment items 244 Vigy - Uchtelfangen 1514 France Commissioning The commissioning date should be changed for 2028 in the EU TYNDP area date 247 AQUIND France Benefits The NRA observes discrepancies between the scenarios used to compute Interconnector the SEW and the SoS indicator 247 AQUIND France Commissioning Commissioning date seems to be underestimated in the EU TYNDP (i.e. Interconnector date 2022) and has been updated by the project promoter during the ongoing PCI selection process (i.e. 2023)
  230. Opinion No 13/2019
  231. 248 Offshore Wind Baltic 1248 Germany Clustering of the Investment item 1248 consists of three Offshore-Connection Systems Sea (II) investment items 248 Offshore Wind Baltic 1613 Germany Commissioning Ongoing process to evaluate the exact commissioning date and technical Sea (II) date configuration. The commissioning date will be available with the final NDP 2019-2030 248 Offshore Wind Baltic 1627 Germany Commissioning Ongoing process to evaluate the exact commissioning date. Due to legal Sea (II) date circumstances, the area that is supposed to be connected by the system is currently not available. Therefore, no commissioning date available yet 250 Merchant line Italy Clustering of the As indicated in the TYNDP project sheet, the Castasegna - Mese line is Castasegna (CH) - investment items complementary and connected to grid reinforcements. These grid Mese (IT) reinforcements in Italy should be displayed as separate item(s) 251 Audorf-Dollern Germany Clustering of the TYNDP Projects 251 and 39 are clustered together in the NDP (TTGinvestment items 005) 267 Hansa PowerBridge II 1262 Germany Commissioning The commissioning is planned for 2035 in the draft NDP 2019-2030 date 269 Uprate the western 1228 Spain Status The investment was commissioned in June 2018, the investment status 220kV Sevilla Ring should be changed for ‘commissioned’ in the EU TYNDP 270 FR-ES project - 1211 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Aragón-Atlantic EU TYNDP Pyrenees 270 FR-ES project - 1212 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Aragón-Atlantic EU TYNDP Pyrenees 270 FR-ES project - 1214 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Aragón-Atlantic EU TYNDP Pyrenees 270 FR-ES project - 1215 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Aragón-Atlantic EU TYNDP Pyrenees
  232. Opinion No 13/2019
  233. 270 FR-ES project - France Commissioning The commissioning date in the EU TYNDP 2018 (i.e. 2027) seems to be Aragón-Atlantic date underestimated and has been updated by the project promoter during the Pyrenees ongoing PCI selection process (i.e. 2030) 270 FR-ES project - France Benefits The NRA observes discrepancies between the scenarios used to compute Aragón-Atlantic the SEW and the SoS indicator and raised methodological concerns in Pyrenees the assessment of societal return of the investment and ‘accelerated project implementation’ benefits (already mentioned in the Agency’s Opinion on the draft EU TYNDP 2018) 276 FR-ES project - 1206 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Navarra-Landes EU TYNDP 276 FR-ES project - 1207 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Navarra-Landes EU TYNDP 276 FR-ES project - 1208 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Navarra-Landes EU TYNDP 276 FR-ES project - 1210 France Status The investment status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the Navarra-Landes EU TYNDP 276 FR-ES project - France Commissioning The commissioning date in the EU TYNDP (i.e. 2027) seems to be Navarra-Landes date underestimated and has been updated by the project promoter during the ongoing PCI selection process (i.e. 2029) 276 FR-ES project - France The NRA observes discrepancies between the scenarios used to compute Navarra-Landes the SEW and the SoS indicator and raised methodological concerns in the assessment of societal return of the investment and ‘accelerated project implementation’ benefits (already mentioned in the Agency’s Opinion on the draft EU TYNDP 2018) 283 TuNur Italy Benefits Missing benefits are not acceptable (no monetisation, no studies). Furthermore, the non-CO2 benefit seems to relate to CO2 emissions 283 TuNur 1378 Italy Status The project status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the EU TYNDP 283 TuNur 1430 Italy Status The project status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the EU TYNDP
  234. Opinion No 13/2019
  235. 285 GridLink France Costs Potential inconsistency is observed regarding the CAPEX indicated in the EU TYNDP: The project is composed of only one investment, which CAPEX is 906 million Euro, but the total project CAPEX is 860 million Euro 285 GridLink France Benefits The B4 monetisation in the EU TYNDP shows methodological weaknesses. 285 GridLink France Commissioning The commissioning date in the EU TYNDP (i.e. 2022) seems to be date underestimated and has been updated by the project promoter during the ongoing PCI selection process (i.e. 2024) 285 GridLink UK (Great Transfer capacity The national grid interconnector register indicates an increase of 1500 Britain) increase MW import and 1500 MW export, compared to 1400 MW for both in the TYNDP. It is unclear however whether this exact value was used in the baseline 296 Britib 1437 France Commissioning The commissioning date in the EU TYNDP (i.e. 2024) appear to be unrealistic 296 Britib 1437 France Costs The project is composed of only one investment, which CAPEX is 2040 million Euro, but the total project CAPEX is 2200 million Euro. The project is composed of only one investment, which OPEX is 20 million Euro/year, but the total project OPEX is 22 million Euro/year. 299 SACOI3 Italy Benefits Doubts (at least lack of clarity) on the consistency of scenarios for calculating B6. experimental SoS 316 Upgrade of 220 kV line Slovenia Costs In approved NDP 2017 total cost estimated is 130 million Euro. Bericevo-Divaca to In draft NDP 2019 no cost data - project in study phase. 400 kV 321 Herbertingen - Tiengen 1475 Germany Commissioning The commissioning is planned for 2030 in the NDP 2019-2030. date 322 Wullenstetten - Border Germany Clustering of the The project covers two NDP investments. Area (DE-AT) investment items, Start and ending points of the TYNDP project should be clarified/better Technical aligned with NDP description
  236. Opinion No 13/2019
  237. 323 Dekani (SI) - Zaule Italy Transfer capacity The promoter provided a TC increase of 150 MW for the Italian NDP (IT) interconnection increase 2018. Such value is significantly higher than the 10 MW TC increase (Slovenia to Italy), which is displayed in the TYNDP 2018 324 Redipuglia (IT) - Italy Transfer capacity The promoter communicated a NTC increase of 150 MW for the Italian Vrtojba (SI) increase NDP 2018 (vs. 20 MW in the TYNDP 2018 - ENTSO-E estimate) interconnection 325 AT, SI, IT - South-East Italy Clustering of the Presence of a cancelled investment Alps Project investment items 325 AT, SI, IT - South-East Italy Transfer capacity Inconsistency due to the presence of a cancelled investment Alps Project increase 325 AT, SI, IT - South-East Italy Benefits Inconsistency due to the presence of a cancelled investment Alps Project 325 AT, SI, IT - South-East 1631 Italy Status The project status should be changed for ‘cancelled’ in the EU TYNDP Alps Project 328 Interconnector DE- 1620 Luxembourg Technical features Not clear from the TYNDP description which country is concerned LUX 328 Interconnector DE- 1629 Luxembourg Commissioning The commissioning date is 2026 in the NDP LUX date 328 Interconnector DE- 1620 Luxembourg Commissioning No information in LU NDP LUX date 336 Prati (IT) – Steinach Italy Transfer capacity The TC increase in the Italian draft NDP 2018 is 100 MW (vs. 90 MW in (AT) increase the TYNDP 2018) 336 Prati (IT) – Steinach Italy Benefits No benefit analysis is carried out (AT) 338 Adriatic HVDC link Italy Costs Italian draft NDP 2018: 1115 million Euro while TYNDP: 1150 million Euro (no information whether the small difference is due to normal project progress and updated estimates) 343 CSE1 New 1534 Croatia Costs In NDP it costs 52 million Euro, while in TYNDP it costs 65.5 million Euro
  238. Opinion No 13/2019
  239. 375 Lienz (AT) - Veneto Italy Technical features The Italian draft NDP 2018 was vague regarding the features (and region (IT) 220 kV possible alternative options) for this project 375 Lienz (AT) - Veneto Italy Benefits The benefit B4-RES is not acceptable region (IT) 220 kV 375 Lienz (AT) - Veneto 1555 Italy Status The project status should be changed for ‘under consideration’ in the EU region (IT) 220 kV TYNDP 375 Lienz (AT) - Veneto 1555 Italy Commissioning The investment start construction in 2024/2025 region (IT) 220 kV date 381 OWP Northsea Part 4 211 Germany Commissioning Ongoing process to evaluate the exact commissioning date. Therefore, date no commissioning date available yet. The commissioning date will be available with the final NDP 2019-2030 381 OWP Northsea Part 4 1485 Germany Commissioning Ongoing process to evaluate the exact commissioning date. Therefore, date no commissioning date available yet. The commissioning date will be available with the final NDP 2019-2030 1029 PSPP Kozjak Slovenia Commissioning Commissioning date is uncertain due to environmental problems in date construction of 400 kV OHL connection to transmission system