ENTSO-E s Ten Year Network Development Plan Jussi Jyrinsalo Fingrid Oyj Neuvottelukunta 16.12.2014
The Ten-year Network development plan at a glance Identification of all challenges in building the necessary infrastructure Regulation (EC) 714/2009 Regulation (EC) 347/2013
What is new in the TYNDP 2014? Exploration up to 2030 New clustering rules for projects of pan-european significance Full quantification of projects assessment according to the CBA (assessment of all PCIs) Target interconnection capacities thanks to an improved interactive process
Energy Policy Goals Require significant increase in grid capacity Ensuring the development of a single European grid in line with 20-20-20 targets and upcoming 2030 targets EIP Guaranteeing security of supply Completing the internal energy market
The Ten-year Network development plan 2014: main findings 150 billions for projects of pan-e significance by 2030-2 to -5 /MWh for bulk power prices by 2030 50000 km of new or refurbished grid investments by 2030: +1%/year An optimised land use: the crossed urbanised (resp. protected) areas account for less than 4% (resp. 8%) of the total TYNDP projects routes Contribution with 20% of the CO2 emissions mitigation for the European power sector by 2030 Integration of RES up to 40-60% of total consumption in 2030
Taylor made solutions, adapted to every specific situation 50000 km of new or refurbished investments 21000 km of new HVDC lines 15% of all investments are upgrade of existing assets
Interconnection capacity must on average double by 2030
Transmission adequacy by 2030 Integration of iberian peninsula is the main concern Solution concepts must still become tangible projects to meet highest RES development goals (Vision 4)
TYNDP 2014 next steps 10 July 20 September 2014 web based stakeholder consultation 4 September 2014 - TYNDP 2014 stakeholder workshop End October 2014 - TYNDP 2014 submission to ACER for opinion End 2014 final TYNDP 2014
TYNDP 2014: Scenarios
Bottom-up scenarios Top-down scenarios
4 contrasting Visions Total X-border Exch. 605 TWh Demand incl. Pumping 4167 TWh RES Penetration 49% CO2 Reduction (1990) 62% Total X-border Exch. 734 TWh Demand incl. Pumping 4327 TWh RES Penetration 60% CO2 Reduction (1990) 78% Total X-border Exch. 660 TWh Demand incl. Pumping 3610 TWh RES Penetration 41% CO2 Reduction (1990) 42% Total X-border Exch. 757 TWh Demand incl. Pumping 3712 TWh RES Penetration 40% CO2 Reduction (1990) 36%
Regional view Baltic Sea Region
Key findings in Baltic Sea Region In studied visions main flow direction North to South. One of the main drivers in the Baltic Sea region is an expected Nordic surplus Interconnections between Nordics and Central Europe highly beneficial, European goal to integrate energy peninsulas; Baltic States integration to European energy markets In total the Regional Investment Plan assesses an investment portfolio of about 55-75 billion Euros for the countries within the Baltic Sea Region. Germany is having the largest investment portfolio. Delays caused by authorization process a challenge.
Identified areas of interest for 2020-2030 horizon 1. Arctic area new consumption and RES 1 2. North-south flow through Norway/Sweden/Finland 3. Increased capacity Nordics Continental Europe/UK 4. North-South through Baltic States 5. Power flow control on Russian border 6. Baltics synchronous operation with Continental Europe 3 2 4 6 5 8 December 2014 Page 15
Main flows from North to South Main flows in Visions 1&2 Main flows in Visions 3&4 8 December 2014
Power, MW Variation of flow btw FI-SE in visions 2030 4000.00 Sweden to Finland 3000.00 2000.00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0-1000.00 Vision 1 Vision 2 Vision 3 Series4 Vision Green -2000.00-3000.00-4000.00 hours 8 December 2014
Project package mid term & long term Midterm Projects Long term projects 8 December 2014
Suunnitelman merkitys Suomelle + Yhteistyö verkkosuunnittelussa + Euroopan tasolla tunnistettu kantaverkon vahvistusten tarve energiapolitiikan toteuttamisessa + Euroopan tasolla tunnistettu sujuvan luvituksen tärkeys + Tukea johtohankkeiden yleiselle hyväksyttävyydelle + Mahdollisuutena tuki tärkeän Suomi-Ruotsi hankkeen eteenpäinviemiseksi + Mahdollisuus myös tärkeiden hankkeiden rahoitukseen ei kuitenkaan todennäköistä Suomen hankkeille - Uhkakuvana regulaatiossa oleva mahdollisuus kustannusten jakamiseen tärkeiksi nimettyjen (PCI) hankkeiden eteenpäin saattamiseksi - Suunnittelun Brysselvetoisuus vie lähtöoletuksia kauemmas suomalaisesta ja pohjoismaisesta todellisuudesta