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.
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.
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.