The link between system adequacy and the TYNDP - entso-e

European Network of
Transmission System Operators
for Electricity
The link between system
adequacy and the TYNDP
Are there risks to Europe’s pan-European adequacy in the next five to ten years? Why is it important to assess adequacy
at a pan-European scale? What methodology is ENTSO-E using and does it cater for the rapid change in Europe’s
generation mix?
What is the mid-term adequacy
forecast or MAF?
The MAF replaces the Scenario Outlook and
Adequacy Forecast (SO&AF) previously published by
ENTSO-E. This new name marks the use of a revised
and up-to-date data focusing on a mid-term horizon
(in the range of 5-10 years).
How is the mid-term adequacy
forecast (MAF) linked to the
The EU legislation1 requires ENTSO-E to deliver a
Europe-wide network development plan every two
years – the TYNDP – that includes a Europe-wide
generation adequacy outlook built on the national
assessment prepared by each transmission system
operator (TSO).
Why is there a different time
horizon between the MAF and
the TYNDP?
As described in the ‘Future system perspective’
insight report, 2030 was chosen for the deadline
in the TYNDP scenarios as it coincides with the
realisation of key EU objectives in terms of climate
and energy policies.
Generation adequacy is however best performed
within a shorter period. As stressed by the ECG1,
adequacy assessments are useful if built on the midterm horizon (max 10 years forward) to diagnose
potential load shedding risks and send signals to
market players and decision makers to adapt the
generation fleet. This diagnosis is less relevant for
risk preparedness purposes on a longer term (more
than 10 years).
Furthermore, rather than explanatory scenarios used
for grid planning up to 2030, generation adequacy
forecast is best carried out using a best estimate,
predictive scenario and a bottom-up approach.
1 Regulation (EC) N°714/2009
The generation adequacy outlook based on a
predictive scenario with a 10 years time horizon
is the best tool to allow member states, regulators
and generators to take the necessary measures to
avoid any adequacy problems including through the
building of new infrastructure.
Why is the MAF published every
Although the European legislation talks about
a generation adequacy forecast every two year,
ENTSO-E decided upon its own initiative to make it
an annual publication. Indeed ENTSO-E’s adequacy
assessment are of an increasing relevance to decisionmakers and investors.
Furthermore, the fast evolution of the energy mix
(that is the growing development of renewable energy
sources and increased reduction of conventional
power plants), requires to have a view of the adequacy
situation year by year for the next decade.2
The publication each year of an adequacy forecast
is responding to stakeholder expectations. The
European Commission is planning to make proposals
for a revision of the European legislation on market
design and risk preparedness at the end of 2016. This
revision should include the need for an annual system
adequacy forecast looking at the next 10 years.
A similar recommendation was made by the ECG1.
The Pentalateral Energy Forum argued for the same
in its Joint Declaration for Regional Cooperation on
Security of Electricity Supply in the Framework of
the Internal Energy Market. Feedback received from
regulators also pointed for the need for an annual
mid-term adequacy outlook.
Furthermore, since the main scope of the report is
the assessment and detection of generation adequacy
risks due to uncertainties on investment cycles
for new generation and demand assets, an annual
publication ensures that the most up-to-date data
regarding for example mothballing, maintenance,
decommissioning of assets is used.
Is there not a risk of
inconsistency between the MAF
and the TYNDP?
In its last two opinions on the SOAF, the European
regulators’ agency, ACER, pointed out apparent lack
of consistency between the TYNDP report and the
SOAF. This confusion was mainly due to a difference
in the scenarios used.
ENTSO-E has thus decided to create the MAF, which
looks at generation adequacy in the mid-term –
this mid-term timeframe being necessary for risk
preparedness as explained above.
Longer term (beyond 10 years) adequacy forecast is
needed in the framework of the TYNDP3. In the 2016
edition, long term adequacy assessment is covered in
the Scenario Development Report and in the TYNDP
final report assessing the infrastructure projects and
their contribution to the long term balance between
generation and consumption.
How will the TYNDP and the
MAF evolve in the future?
In 2016 and 2018 the requirements of Regulation (EC)
714/2009 in terms of generation adequacy outlooks
will be covered through the following documents:
i. The TYNDP Scenario Development Report,
ii.The Mid-Term Adequacy Forecast (MAF)
iii.The TYNDP report and the regional investment
All system adequacy assessments should be based on
consistent assumptions and scenario development.
The mid-term and long-term assessments serving
different but complementary objectives.
3 This was explained especially during a webinar to ACER-NRAs
10 June 2015: “TYNDP 2016 scenarios – why adequate scenarios for
CBAs”. The point was to stress that the use of non-adequate PanEU scenarios (with, at Pan-EU level, more load L than generation
G can supply or more generation G that strictly needed to supply
2 Report of the European Electricity Coordination Group on
load L) would result in a biased assessment of the projects
The Need and Importance of Generation Adequacy Assessments
benefits: if G<L, some load shedding is unavoidable; therefore the
in the European Union, Ref. Ares(2013)3382105 - 30/10/2013:”the
benefit (=avoided redispatching or load shedding) of an additional
further ahead one assesses adequacy the greater the uncertainty.
transmission or storage project is reduced, possibly down to zero,;
There becomes a point where the uncertainty outweighs any
conversely if G>L, then competition due to overcapacity is high in
information that might be learnt from the assessment in the first
every price zone, levelling out prices and mitigating congestion,
place. It appears from the forecast periods utilised that this is likely
and therefore reducing the need for additional transmission or
to be in the range of 5-10 years.
storage assets.
The link between system adequacy and the TYNDP | 2
A “worst-case’ variant of the current 2030 TYNDP
scenarios could be considered in 2018. This would
demonstrate the added value of cross-border projects
on security of supply at pan-European level.
Long-term adequacy analysis can be complemented
by further investigation of more detailed technical
(hourly residual load analysis and ramps, etc.) and
economic issues (generation means usage with and
without the TYNDP projects, etc.)4. This longer term
adequacy sensitivity analysis of the TYNDP scenarios
is envisaged for the 2018 edition.
Regarding complementary assessments of system
inertia and frequency control, ENTSO-E agrees on
their importance, taking into account the evolution
of the electricity system towards a more flexible
and dynamic model. However, such assessments
require consideration of operational details beyond
the present scope and level of details of the TYNDP
package. Other dedicated reports within the System
Operations Committee are best suited to provide
these type of analysis.5
4 These issues are not necessarily critical for the soundness of
a scenario, as appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. making PV
devices able to contribute to frequency control) can be deemed
to be available in the scenario, without changing its inner logic.
However, in reality, such mitigation measures can be challenging
to implement for market players and it is worth measuring the
possible gap.
5 “Frequency Stability Evaluation - Criteria for the Synchronous
Zone of Continental Europe & Requirements and impacting
factors” – RG - CE System Protection & Dynamics Sub Group
The link between system adequacy and the TYNDP | 3