Proposed methodology for the assessment of candidate projects for the 3rd PCI list. Electricity transmission and storage projects

Transcription

1 Proposed methodology for the assessment of candidate projects for the 3rd PCI list Electricity transmission and storage projects 1

2 INTRODUCTION This document describes a methodology of evaluating benefits, costs and other impacts of trans- European electricity infrastructure projects applying for the status of "Project of Common Interest (PCI)", and their contribution to the energy policy criteria, i.e. market integration, security of supply and sustainability. The methodology is to provide support to the electricity Regional Groups of the four electricity Priority Corridors established by the Regulation on guidelines for trans-european energy infrastructure (TEN-E Regulation) 1, i.e. Northern Seas offshore grid (NSOG), North-South electricity interconnections in Western Europe (NSI West Electricity), North-South electricity interconnections in Eastern Europe (NSI East Electricity), and Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP electricity). Results stemming from this assessment, complemented by the application of the qualitative assessment criteria, the consideration of an outcome of the public consultations process and the NRAs' and ACER's opinions will lead to the adoption of the regional lists and the Union list of PCIs. The methodology described in this document was developed by the "cooperation platform" which consists of representatives of the European Commission (DG Energy and Joint Research Centre), the Agency for the Cooperation of the Energy Regulators (ACER), and the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) and which provides technical support to the work of the Regional Groups. List of useful links TEN-E Regulation 347/2013: ENTSO-E Ten year Network Development Plan 2016: Current ENTSO-E guideline for Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid Development Projects (CBA methodology): E%20cost%20benefit%20analysis%20approved%20by%20the%20European%20Commission%20on%2 04%20February% pdf#search=CBA Draft 2 nd ENTSO-E guideline for Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid Development Projects (CBA 2.0 methodology): ments%20to%20acer%20opinion% /supporting%20doc_annex%20iv_entso- E_draft%20CBA%202.0.pdf 1 Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-european energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009; OJ L 115, , 39; 2

3 PRINCIPLES Projects will be assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TEN-E Regulation, notably Article 4 and annex IV. General criteria to be fulfilled by a PCI: it is necessary for the priority corridor in which it is a candidate its potential overall benefits (assessed according to the specific criteria) must outweigh its costs it must have a cross-border dimension according to one of the options in Article 4(1)(c) of the TEN-E Regulation Specific criteria for electricity transmission and storage projects: Quantitative assessment: contribution to i) market integration, competition and system flexibility, ii) sustainability, and iii) security of supply Qualitative assessment: give due consideration to the urgency of the project, the number of Member States affected, contribution to the territorial cohesion and complementarity with other projects. Where applicable and appropriate, the clustering of investment items as done in the Ten Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) will be followed. Where not all elements of a TYNDP cluster are proposed as PCI candidates, benefits of the remaining element in the cluster will be reduced in accordance with the Grid Transfer Capacity (GTC) contribution (%) to the cluster of investment items concerned. The following approach will apply: Step 1: Deduct the max GTC contribution of the items not included in the PCI (as percentage) from the 100% GTC contribution of the cluster as a whole. Step 2: Aggregate the GTC contribution of the investment items included in the PCI. When aggregating contributions, check if there are convoy lines within the project, and consider only once the contribution of convoy lines to avoid double-counting. Step 3: Select the lowest of the figures calculated in the previous two steps. Transmission projects and storage projects will be assessed separately. 3

4 METHODOLOGY Needs assessment The TEN-E Regulation contains a definition of each of the four electricity priority corridors, outlining the needs per corridor in general terms. Building on these definitions and in order to assess whether a project is necessary for at least one priority corridor, a list of needs per region was identified by the Regional Groups (annex 1). Each candidate project will need to address at least one of the identified needs in its priority corridor. Project promoters will be invited to present the contribution of their project to the needs of the corridor. The relevant Regional Group will decide whether each project indeed convincingly addresses at least one need in the corridor. Assessments of the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) on this matter will be taken into consideration by the Group. Cross-border/regional dimension The cross border requirements for electricity projects are Transmission: Crosses a border between 2 Member States or a Member State and an European Economic Area (EEA) country, or Internal line in a Member State which increases the grid transfer capacity by at least 500 MW at the border with one or several Member States or at any other relevant cross-section of a transmission corridor Storage: At least 225 MW installed capacity, and Capacity allows annual net electricity generation of 250 GWh/year These requirements can in most cases simply be checked against the information available in the TYNDP project sheets. In a few more complex cases, a further check involving the project promoters, ENTSO-E and/or NRAs is done. Potential benefits outweighing cost Use of scenarios The TYNDP provides a scenario for 2020 and four scenarios for For each of these scenarios the benefits of each (cluster of) project(s) is calculated and provided in the project-specific cost-benefit analysis (CBA). 4

5 In order to ensure coherence with the EU policy scenario at year 2030, which assumes that all existing and proposed policy objectives for 2020, 2030 and 2050 are achieved 2 as well as with the process for the identification of gas PCIs, the scenarios 3 and 4 at year 2030 are taken as the basis for calculating the benefits of the candidate PCIs. For mid-term projects, the benefits for scenario 3 and 4 are calculated taking into account the benefits in 2020 expected progress scenario and 2030 scenario 3 and 4, with due interpolation and extrapolation (according to the ENTSO-E CBA methodology which is currently in place). For long-term projects and future projects, only the 2030 benefit results are taken into account. Benefits Transmission projects Requirements from the TEN-E Regulation Article 4.2 and annex IV (2)stipulate what are the benefits that candidate projects are expected to bring. These benefits need to be assessed on the basis of the following: 1. Market integration, competition and system flexibility, notably through: a. Impact on grid transfer capability (between countries, or at the border) b. Contribution to achieving a minimum interconnection capacity of 10% installed production capacity c. Impact on the system-wide generation and transmission cost and the evolution and convergence of market prices d. Impact on demand-supply balancing and network operations of internal bottlenecks within Member States. 2. Sustainability, through estimating the amount of generation capacity from RES which is connected and transmitted due to the project 3. Security of supply, interoperability and secure system operation, notably through a. Impact of loss of load expectations (generation and transmission adequacy) b. Where, applicable, impact on independent and reliable control of system operation and services Use of indicators Where possible, benefits are measured using monetised indicators. However, there are a number of benefits for which no monetised indicators are available at this stage. These will be measured using non-monetised indicators. 2 When comparing, the assumptions concerning macro-economic trends, energy use in transport, residential commercial sectors, industry and power generation, fuel prices and electricity demand which underlay the four 2030 scenarios of the TYNDP to those used for the European Commission's policy scenario, scenarios 3 and 4 are far closer than scenarios 1 and 2. 5

6 The project-specific CBA is the basis for assessing the benefits each (cluster of) project brings under the different TYNDP scenarios for 2020 and Where necessary, information was derived from other sources to enable the identification of all benefits. Market integration Monetised benefits The TYNDP indicator for Social Economic Welfare (SEW) captures and monetises a significant part of the benefits as defined in the Regulation and its annexes, notably grid transfer capability (between countries, or at the border), the system-wide generation and transmission cost and the evolution and convergence of market prices. The monetised value for losses is deducted from the SEW value. Non-monetised benefits (i) The CBA does not capture the project's contribution to achieving a minimum interconnection capacity of 10% installed production capacity. According to the needs assessment, based on latest figures resulting from the ENTSO-E Winter Outlook , the following countries are currently below the 10% interconnection target: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom. For projects addressing this issue in the 11 identified countries, a non-monetised benefit will be taken into account. (ii) A number of countries are facing internal bottlenecks, causing 'loop-flows' (unscheduled electricity flows) in neighbouring countries and leading to demand-supply balancing and network operation issues. The infrastructure needs assessment exercise (see annex 1) has identified this problem to apply to Germany, Poland and Czech Republic. For projects addressing this issue in the three identified countries, a non-monetised benefit will be taken into account. Sustainability Monetised benefits This benefit is considered to be fully captured in the value of the TYNDP indicator for SEW, through the impact of very low or zero-marginal cost electricity on market prices. The potential benefits to sustainability of candidate PCIs will therefore be measured in terms of their SEW values from the TYNDP. Security of Supply (SoS) Monetised benefits The current TYNDP calculation does not sufficiently address security of supply, when measured in terms of energy not-served. There are a number of security of supply concerns, which will only become more important in the future and which are not yet captured by the current TYNDP 6

7 calculation. These relate to the growing need for system stability and flexibility as the part of variable renewable energy generation continues to increase. Another growing concern is the system adequacy in a period where generation capacity is shut down for various reasons. These elements of SoS will be addressed in the revised CBA methodology, which is currently under development (CBA 2.0). The draft CBA 2.0 measures the security of supply benefits of projects in terms of their contribution to increasing 1. the adequacy margin, 2. system flexibility and 3. system stability. To enable a valuation of the contribution each candidate PCI project makes to security of supply, the approach proposed by ENTSO-E in CBA 2.0 will used to capture these SoS benefits. All candidate projects were given the opportunity to report such benefits through a survey conducted by ENTSO-E from April The reported benefits are assessed by the 'cooperation platform' to verify their validity, in particular with a view to avoiding any possible double-counting of benefits which are already reflected in the TYNDP indicators. Furthermore, there is a specific security of supply issue,, namely impact on independent and reliable control of system operation and services, which is relevant for the Baltic States. These States - being synchronously operated with the system of the Russian Federation and Belarus - show a level of dependence on the latter in terms of system operation and balancing reserves. Projects making a contribution towards the synchronous operation of the Baltic system with one of the European Union networks will contribute to the independent and reliable control of system operation and services. This benefit is monetised by taking into consideration the avoided cost of a potential blackout. The potential benefits to market integration and sustainability of candidate PCIs will therefore be measured in terms of 1. their SEW values from the TYNDP minus the monetised losses values from the TYNDP, 2. their contribution to reaching the minimum interconnection capacity of 10 % installed production capacity, and 3. their contribution to removing internal bottlenecks which lead to demand-supply balancing and network operation issues. The potential benefits to security of supply of candidate PCIs will therefore be measured in terms of the monetised benefits resulting from their contribution to improving 1. the adequacy margin, 2. system flexibility, 3. system stability, 4. independent and reliable control of system operation and services. Storage projects For storage projects the TYNDP also provides a CBA per scenario for 2020 and Only a part of the benefits for storage projects is captured by the CBA methodology. This is due to the fact that the CBA values are based on a model with a granularity of 1 hour, whereas many of the benefits of storage projects derive from ancillary services, provided mainly to the very short-term market. Furthermore, for many storage candidate projects the values for losses and generation cost savings in the TYNDP are identical across the TYNDP horizons and Visions. This is difficult to explain, since the values should vary in function of the RES penetration. Project promoters have therefore been invited to provide additional data on the following indicators: 7

8 more detailed information on losses per TYNDP scenario generation cost savings capacity utilisation of storage assets expected variation in Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) These additional benefits will be added as follows: the additional data for the first two variables are reflected in an economic indicator of annual storage benefits, as the sum of SEW and savings on ancillary services generation minus monetised losses. This is summed up into a measure of overall benefits by discounting it over the project's assumed life cycle: twenty years for ion battery storage (with replacement of the batteries half way through) and twenty-five for all other technologies. Cost Cost includes 1. the CAPEX as reported in the TYNDP 2016 project sheets, and if only part of the project was submitted for the PCI process, the adjusted CAPEX as submitted by the promoter; 2. the OPEX as annual figure as reported by each project promoter, or in absence of a reported figure the project's lifecycle costs were approximated, considering 22% of CAPEX for overhead lines, and 30% for cables. CAPEX and OPEX figures are verified by the NRAs as part of their assessment. Aggregated assessment of candidate PCIs Transmission projects The above approach will result in monetised benefits and non-monetised benefits which each candidate project is expected to bring. These different types of benefits need to be brought into a coherent common assessment framework. The net present value of monetised benefits is calculated as average of the net present values of benefits in scenario 3 and in scenario 4, when different values are available for such scenarios. The ratio between the net present value of monetised benefits and the net present value of costs will be normalised to a scale of 1-10, as described in the following table. 8

9 Benefit/cost Normalised value B/C < 0,25 1 0,25 <= B/C < 0,50 2 0,50 <= B/C < 0,75 3 0,75 <= B/C < 1,00 4 1,00 <= B/C < 1,50 5 1,50 <= B/C < 2,00 6 2,00 <= B/C < 2,50 7 2,50 <= B/C < 3,00 8 3,00 <= B/C < 4,00 9 4,00 >= B/C 10 The non-monetised benefits are assigned a value on the basis of their contribution to the criteria: 10 points for investments contributing to increasing the interconnection capacities of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom; 10 points for investments in Czech Republic, Germany and Poland contributing to the removal of infrastructure bottlenecks which cause loop flows. The monetised benefits (MB score) will be given a multiplying weight equal to 0.7. The non-monetised benefits (NMB score) will be given a multiplying weight equal to 0.3. The weighted monetised benefits and the weighted non-monetised benefits will be added up to provide the total project score. The following formula is proposed for the total project score and for the subsequent ranking of candidate PCI projects per corridor: PCI score = 0.7 * MB score *NMB score The candidate projects will be ranked per priority corridor according to their aggregated score. Storage projects Storage projects will be ranked per priority corridor on the basis of their monetised benefit/cost ratio, taking into consideration the additional monetised benefits that were reported. 9

10 P r o Problems that can be addressed through infrastructure needs Annex 1 Infrastructure needs per corridor as agreed by the Regional Groups on 13 December 2016 Needs in the NSOG Corridor that can be addressed by infrastructure Article 4(2)(a) Problem* as identified at RG meeting Market integration Security of supply Sustainab ility Need Countries affected High price differentials Integration of renewables and of flows Infrastructure to enable the reduction of price differentials (by adding capacity) across the EU ( ) Infrastructure to mitigate RES curtailment and to improve of flows Partial isolation Infrastructure to increase interconnection level to at least 10% Decreasing generation adequacy Decreasing system flexibility and stability Infrastructure to address system adequacy deficiencies Infrastructure to improve system flexibility and stability Grid congestion Covered by need 'Infrastructure to mitigate RES curtailment and to improve of flows' IE, UK, NL, BE, FR, DE, SE DE, DK, UK, IE, NO, IS DE, FR, UK, IE BE, FR, UK, IE, LU, NL BE, DE, UK, IE, NL, SE Needs in the NSI West Electricity Corridor that can be addressed by infrastructure Article 4(2)(a) Problem* as identified at RG meeting Market integration Security of supply 10 Sustain ability Need Countries affected High price Infrastructure to BE, FR, IE,

11 Problems that can be addressed through infrastructure needs spreads Integration of RES and of flows Decreasing generation adequacy Partial isolation of countries in terms of not meeting the 10% target Decreasing system flexibility and stability enable the reduction of price differentials (by adding capacity) across the EU Infrastructure to mitigate RES curtailment and improve of flows. Infrastructure to address system adequacy deficiencies Infrastructure to achieve an interconnection level of 10% Infrastructure to improve system flexibility and stability IT, NL, ES, UK AT, DE, IT, ES, PT, UK BE, DE, FR, UK, IE, IT, LU, NL IE, IT, PT, ES, UK BE, DE, ES, IT, NL, PT, UK Needs in the NSI East Electricity Corridor that can be addressed by infrastructure Article 4(2)(a) Problem* as identified at RG meeting Market integration SoS Sustain ability Need Countries affected High price differentials Integration of renewables and of flows "Partial isolation" Infrastructure to enable the reduction of price differentials (by adding capacity) across the EU Infrastructure to mitigate RES curtailment and to improve accommodatio n of flows Infrastructure to contribute GR, HU, IT, PL, RO,DE, SK, SI, CZ AT, BG, GR, DE, IT BG, CY, DE, IT, PL, RO 11

12 Problems that can be addressed through infrastructure needs ( % target currently not met) Adequacy issues due to significant changes in generation mix System flexibility and stability Impact of loop flows Ending electricity isolation to achieve the interconnectio n level to at least 10% Infrastructure to ensure system adequacy deficiencies Infrastructure to improve system flexibility and stability Internal infrastructure to reduce the occurrence of loop flows in the borders between CZ- DE, DE-PL BG,GR, IT, CY, DE, PL CY, CZ, DE, IT, HU, GR, SI, DE, PL, CZ CY Needs in the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) Electricity priority corridor that can be addressed by infrastructure - Electricity Cross Regional Group meeting of 13 December 2016 Article 4(2)(a) Problem* as identified at RG meeting Market integratio n SoS Sustaina bility Need Countries affected Integration of RES and of flows High price differentials System flexibility and stability Infrastructure to mitigate RES curtailment and improve of flows Infrastructure to enable the reduction of price differentials (by adding capacity) across the EU Infrastructure to improve system flexibility and Germany, Denmark Norway Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany Germany, Finland, Denmark, 12

13 % target currently not met Address adequacy issues due to significant changes in generation mix Dependence of the Baltic States on the Russian/Belarusia n system - in terms of system operation and balancing reserves stability Infrastructure to contribute to achieving the interconnection level of 10% Infrastructure to address system adequacy deficiencies Infrastructure to allow by 2025 for the synchronisation of the Baltic States with the rest of the EU network (option pending Member States' decision) Estonia, Sweden Germany, Poland Finland, Germany, Norway, Poland, Sweden Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania * Internal grid congestion will require special attention in the next Ten Year Network Development Plan 13