ENTSOG TYNDP 2015

evidence that there is a need for further infrastructure developments to allow these new Member States to catch up with the level of network integration across Europe. As shown in figure 2.5, investment costs are in many cases commercially sensitive, which is the reason why this information is not mandatory for inclusion within the TYNDP. The number of projects for which this information is available in Annex A is too low to draw any conclusion on the overall value of investment projects proposed by promoters.

2013

2015

18

26

FID Non-FID

%

%

74

82

Figure 2.6: Overview of the FID status of the projects as submitted by the promoters for TYNDP 2015 and for TYNDP 2013

As shown above, the ratio of projects with an FID status has slightly decreased compared to the previous TYNDP. This may result from many factors that delay pro- moters’ decisions, which are detailed in the Barriers to Investment Chapter.

Projects

40

30

20

10

0

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

FID year – Projects

Construction Start Year

Commisioning Year

Figure 2.7: Overview of project scheduling

The analysis of project submissions above shows: \\ An average of 9 months between the planned FID and the expected start of construction \\ An average of 2 years between the expected date of start of construction and the commissioning of the first capacity increment The analysis is not necessarily indicative of the project lead time for any future projects. Moreover, the way FID is taken by each promoter may differ. Some may take FID after the issue of permits and some, before initiating the permitting proce- dure.

26 |

Ten Year Network Development Plan 2015