Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan GRIP 2017
5.1 ENTSOG TYNDP Modelling Cases
In the TYNDP 2017 report ENTSOG performed several models with different combinations of demand, supply and infrastructure scenarios together with calculation of several indicators. The analysis results can be found from the ENTSOG TYNDP 2017 report and they are not further analysed in this report. The infrastructure scenarios in the TYNDP 2017 report are categorised as shown in the Figure 5.1 below. The differences in the infrastructure scenarios between the TYNDP 2017 modelled scenarios and BEMIP GRIP additional cases regarding the infrastructure are only between the Low and Advanced infrastructure scenario in the TYNDP 2017. The differences are listed in table 5.1. This means that there is no additional value obtained from 2 nd PCI list and High scenarios of TYNDP 2017 modelling compared to the BEMIP GRIP analysis. Never- theless, the TYNDP 2017 analysis included more indicators than included in this BEMIP GRIP report.
INFRASTRUCTURE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TYNDP 2017 AND BEMIP GRIP MODELLINGS
TYNDP 2017 infrastructure scenario
BEMIP GRIP infrastructure case
Difference
Compared to TYNDP 2017, BEMIP GRIP scenario
Low
Low + GIPL
includes also: – GIPL project
Compared to TYNDP 2017, BEMIP GRIP scenario
includes also: – Tallinn LNG
– Enhancement of Latvia- Lithuania interconnection – Upgrade of LNG terminal in Świnoujście – Baltic Pipe – North–South Gas Corridor in Eastern Poland projects
Low including all PCIs in the Baltic States (LT, LV, EE)
Advanced
Low including all PCIs in the BEMIP countries
2 nd PCI list
No difference
High including all PCIs in the region
High
No difference
Table 5.1: Infrastructure differences between TYNDP 2017 and BEMIP GRIP modellings
BEMIP Gas Regional Investment Plan 2017 |
95
Made with FlippingBook