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