For the past ten years the European discussion about wind energy has been closely connected to discussions about the necessity of additional infrastructure. Nevertheless, citizens may be positive on the renewables aspect, while, due to possible NIMBY effects, may be less positive on infrastructure. As this conflict is well-known, a lot of political action has been taken to facilitate higher acceptance based on a better understanding that both elements are two sides of the same coin.
We know that accelerated grid development is one of the main building blocks to reach the European Energy targets: RES integration, market integration and security of supply. One year ago this was further emphasized by the strategy of the European Energy Union.
However, how much grid is necessary is subject to public debate, where stakeholders want to and shall be involved. Thus, during the past decade, European policies focused on increasing transparency of the grid planning process, enabling stakeholders to actively take part in it. This is helpful to avoid strong resistance at a late planning stage and to accelerate the overall process.
Let’s recall some important legal actions: Since 2009 planning routines for European high voltage grids changed significantly. Not only did the binding European 20% RES targets enter into force, but also did another new EU law require all 41 European TSOs from 34 countries to collaborate in the then new association “ENTSO-E” and to elaborate, among other things, a Pan-European Ten-Year-Network Development Plan (TYNDP) every two years. We have to jointly identify European bottlenecks and to define projects mitigating them.
RES level reached in the meantime 16% in 2014, i.e. doubled since 2004, and in ENTSO-E we are currently working on the fourth TYNDP edition, which is expected to be published for consultation in June this year.
An additional law from 2013 requires that these projects be assessed applying a new – and consulted – cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) methodology, determining the values of a series of indicators for each single infrastructure project, with results to be published in the TYNDP. Our guiding principle in ENTSO-E is that infrastructure investments should be made where the socio-economic gains are the largest.
Some results: The TYNDP14, having applied this new CBA method, shows that the change in generation mix, integrating significant amounts of variable renewables, is the main driver for European grid development in the next decade and beyond. About 50,000 km of new or refurbished lines are foreseen until 2030 at investment costs of 110-150 bn EUR, equaling 1-1.5 €/MWh. These investments save electricity generation costs of 2-5 €/MWh, i.e. benefits outweigh the costs – and save CO2 emissions.
Possible political assistance: If beneficial for project implementation, TYNDP projects fulfilling a set of criteria can gain a priority status, which is connected to possible privileges, e.g. fast track treatment for regulatory and permit procedures and financial support as well. The recent list of these projects of common interest (PCI) was published by the European Commission in November 2015, also including gas infrastructure, smart grid and oil projects.
So, what comes out of it? This brief overview above shows how transparency has increased, substantially facilitating early public involvement and in-depth discussions based on common and consulted results. Instead of browsing 41 TSO’s homepages in various national languages, today’s citizens find detailed information in one place, published in English. Projects across Europe can be compared to each other due to a consistent method being used when evaluating all projects against the same – and consulted – 2030 future visions. Long before stakeholders find these reports, they are actively involved in elaborating the methodologies, the scenarios, and the plans via workshops and webinars, and can have their say during consulting periods on a series of interim documents and data. Political assistance is offered to projects which might face implementation difficulties.
Looking back at this rather short period of time, I see huge improvements concerning our “output” – the plans – but also concerning their development and our communication about it.
I think another main benefit is the much closer TSO cooperation across Europe solving common tasks together; we learn from each other, improve and accelerate national and international procedures, become more efficient and enjoy collaboration with colleagues from countries from another end of Europe. For sure, we have differences in culture, in energy mix, in legal frameworks and regulations and in solutions. But nevertheless we have the common understanding that together we can much better manage the challenges of the European energy transition, which will further evolve according to recent COP21 agreements. I’m sure that this cooperation is essential for the efficiency and the success of the Energy transition.
Antje Orths
Chief Engineer, Ph.D.
Energinet.dk
Market Development and International Cooperation
Leave a Reply