ENTSOG TYNDP 2015

In most of the cases, demand disruption is higher under the 1-day Design Case compared to the 2-week Uniform Risk due to the higher demand level. The only exceptions are in the Grey scenario for 2020 and 2025 when demand disruptions mostly occur in Greece where the peak balance relies on LNG tank storage. These facilities are usually not able to deliver at their maximum rate for a continuous four- teen day period assuming that there will be no additional cargo compared to an Average Winter day. This constraint is factored in the modelling approach. The evolution of the European aggregated demand disruption under the Green and Grey scenarios is very similar the latter being lower due to overall lower gas demand. This shows that without new infrastructure projects demand disruption will increase in the most vulnerable areas as a result of higher demand and lower indigenous pro- duction. The commissioning of Non-FID projects enhancing market integration of the most affected areas and additional supply in the high scenario will strongly mitigate even if not completely under the Green scenario. The demand disruption analysis of the European gas system covers situations of high daily demand (1-day Design Case and 2-week Uniform Risk). The analysis is being carried out with and without import disruptions (being technical or transit ones). The Remaining Flexibility indicator (RF) measures the resilience of a Zone. The value of the indicator is set as the possible increase in demand of the Zone before an infrastructure or supply limitation is reached somewhere in the European gas system. This calculation is made independently for each Zone meaning that they do not cooperate when accessing the European supply flexibility. The higher the indi- cator value is, the better the resilience. In the case the RF is zero, the assessment provides the percentage of the Zone demand which is disrupted. This new definition of the RF better measures possible supply or infrastructure limitations upstream from the considered country (see Annex F for the description of the indicator). As a consequence, identified RF levels are lower compared to those of TYNDP 2013. In addition, the new approach provides a better measure of the ability of the European gas system, from a supply perspective, to meet demand increases in small countries. Countries with large interconnection and relatively low demand will have a higher RF. In cases where the RF reaches zero, this indicator is replaced by the Disrupted Demand rate (DD) of the Zone. The level of disruption derives either from a cooper- ative approach (under the disruption cases) or uncooperative approach (under normal situation) between European countries in order to mitigate its relative impact. The following maps present results for the most extreme scenarios, which are the 1-Day Design Case of the Green Scenario both with and without disruption of Rus- sian gas transit through Belarus or Ukraine. In case of disruption, the flow pattern resulting from modelling minimises the demand curtailment by spreading it between more countries. Comprehensive results for all cases can be found in Annex E with the other import disruptions which are not inducing additional demand curtailment. 6.3.1.2 Geographical perspective of the Demand Disruption and Remaining Flexibility

146 |

Ten Year Network Development Plan 2015