ENTSOG TYNDP 2015

6.3.1.3 Peak day under normal situation (without disruption)

The modelling approach does not provide flexibility between coal and gas in the power generation sector under the 1-day Design Case and 2-week Uniform Risk. This reduces the uncertainty on the peak gas demand and avoids to give an over optimistic perspective of RF that would result from a massive switch to coal under peak situation. This explains the demand disruption of Finland, FYROM and Greece even in 2015 at least for the Green Scenario. Part of demand curtailment in Greece derives from the very high share of gas-fired power generation estimated in line with the Vision 3 of ENTSO-E. The higher aggregated demand in the Green Scenario results in a lower level of RF at the European level. The only exception is for the United-Kingdom in 2035 where demand is higher in the Grey scenario and the Remaining Flexibility lower. The overall trend under the Low Scenario is a decrease of the RF and an increase of demand disruption in certain Baltic and South-Eastern Europe regions especially in the Green Scenario. This negative evolution is completely mitigated under the High Scenario for all countries with the exception of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and FYROM. This improvement results from the combined effect of new infrastructure projects enabling a better market integration and additional indigenous production (Black Sea, Cyprus, Shale gas and Biogas) as well as LNG terminals in areas where they grant the access to additional supply. Romania’s increasing demand can only be met through the decision to produce and connect Black Sea gas fields as assumed in the High Scenario. This has been taken into account only for the duration of current gas exploration licenses, which expire between 2030 and 2035. In Sweden and Denmark there will be an increase in the RF with the extension of the interconnection with Germany at the end of 2015 (not considered in 2015 case). In the long run the situation will continue to improve as the result of demand decreasing in Denmark and Germany at a faster rate than indigenous production.

\\ See figures 6.12 and 6.13 on pages 148–149

6.3.1.4 Peak day under Ukrainian disruption

From a European perspective, the disruption of transit through Ukraine results in a lower availability of supply as Russian gas cannot be completely diverted through other routes. This is becoming more significant along the time horizon under the Green Scenario as the need for imports is growing. The impact of the disruption is gradually moving from a regional issue (South-Eastern Europe and slight impact on Poland) in 2015 to a European wide issue by 2035. For South-Eastern Europe, the situation temporarily improves in 2025 with new supply and infrastructure projects in the High Scenario. In 2035, the increase in demand and the assumptions regarding Romanian Black Sea production (potential limited in time to the existing licenses) puts the region under pressure. An extension of the licenses and/or additional discoveries would mitigate this risk.

\\ See figures 6.14 and 6.15 on pages 150–151

6.3.1.5 Peak day under Belarus disruption

Under the Low Scenario, the impact of a transit disruption through Belarus would be limited to Baltic countries (from Finland to Poland) and there are enough Non FID projects to completely mitigate the impact by 2020. Under the High Scenario, new infrastructure projects and additional supplies are mitigating the risk of disruption.

\\ See figures 6.16 and 6.17 on pages 152–153

Ten Year Network Development Plan 2015 |

147