For the 2022 scenario building cycle ENTSOG and ENTSO-E have increased their ambition on stakeholder engagement as a key topic building upon the valuable lessons learned from the TYNDP 2020 Scenario Report. In order to ensure the credibility and integrity of the Scenario Report, the Scenario Building Team aims for further enhancing transparency and stakeholder engagement.
External feedback on the 2020 cycle showed that the following elements of the process were well-received:
- The Scenario Methodology Report offering a detailed description of the condition the underlying assumptions for the scenarios and modelling process.
- The publication of datasets on the TYNDP Scenario website allowing all users to scrutinize individual figures and break down results to a member-state level.
- The two public consultations (one on the storylines and one on the scenarios) giving all interested parties two occasions to offer input on the scenario building process.
- The multiple stakeholder workshops providing regular updates on the process, detailed presentations of specific issues and offering all users a platform to ask questions and share opinions.
These elements will therefore serve as the basis for further expansion of the stakeholder engagement in the TYNDP 2022 scenario building cycle.
For the TYNDP 2022 scenarios, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E plans to achieve total transparency throughout the entire process. Stakeholders will be able to accompany the development of the storylines, observe the determination of key data sets, and understand the methodology for the modelling of scenarios.
During the 2020 scenario building cycle some stakeholders had the impression that key strategic decision had already been made prior to stakeholder engagement. What is more, certain stakeholders responded that the complexity of the scenario building process had made it difficult for them to accompany the developments and to interact efficiently with ENTSOG and ENTSO-E. For the TYNDP 2022 cycle, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E will aim to improve transparency of the process and provide external stakeholders with more opportunity to interact directly with the work on the TYNDP 2022 scenarios. A key goal of the 2022 cycle was to ensure stakeholder engagement from the earliest phases of the process.. As a result, several key changes were made to the process.
Stakeholder Engagement from Day One
At the kick-off workshop for the TYNDP 2022 Scenario Report on 3 July 2020, stakeholders were offered the opportunity to ask questions and request clarity on key issues. The online format for this event (chosen initially due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) actually made this process more interactive than in the past. More than 200 participants at the event were able to ask questions in real time during the workshop via the Mentimeter tool.
In total more than 40 questions were received. The most popular of these (based on voting by public participants) were addressed directly during the workshop. All further questions have since been answered in writing by ENTSOG and ENTSO-E. Both the questions (anonymised) and answers have been made available to the public via the TYNDP Scenarios website.
Stakeholder Input on Key Parameters
In the 2022 cycle, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E are determined to use the expertise of external stakeholders to develop the underlying assumptions for the storylines. During the 2020 scenario building process, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E engaged with CAN Europe to calculate a carbon budget for the two top-down scenarios. This approach gave the carbon budget more credibility and provided ENTSOG and ENTSO-E with important insights from external experts that enhanced the final scenarios. After the success of this cooperation in the TYNDP 2020 Scenario Report, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E have decided to expand their interaction with external organisation.
A concerted effort is already being made to bring the latest data and a diverse range of expertise into the storyline development. To this end, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E have already conducted bilateral meetings with multiple NGOs and industrial organisations to exchange views and gain insight. These meetings will continue throughout the process. To ensure the transparency of these activities, the full list of the bilateral meetings held so far has been published on the TYNDP Scenarios website and input derived from these meetings has been factored into this report.
Consultation on Hard Data – Not just Concepts
Feedback from the 2020 cycle cited the perceived lack of transparency in determining the quantitative data used to build the different scenarios. To ensure the credibility of the scenario development, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E agreed that the storyline consultation should not only be focused on qualitative descriptions, but must also include quantitative parameters. Stakeholders can therefore better comprehend and, if necessary, challenge input assumptions so that refinements can be made from the start rather than end of process.
Transparent Documentation of Feedback and Interactions
After the kick-off workshop, external stakeholders were encouraged to provide detailed feedback and address their questions to ENTSOG and ENTSO-E. All feedback received has been answered directly. As with the questions asked at the Kick-off Workshop and the information from bilateral meetings, both the written feedback (anonymised) and the response from ENTSOG and ENTSO-E is publicly available on the TYNDP Scenarios website.
Questions and answers – Webinar 3 July 2020
|Category||Question||Answer from ENTSOG and ENTSO-E|
|Biomass||How did you take into account a limited availability of sustainable biomass for GA?||The use of European biomass in GA is 3% above the one in LT 1.5 Tech.|
|CBA||How does the TYNDP influence the selection of Projects of Common Interest under TEN-E? And what’s the influence of the scenarios on this?||Demand and supply level, repartition and profiles are specific of each scenario. As a result the need to transport energy from one country to the other differs between scenarios. Electricity and gas TYNDPs identify the investment gaps according to these needs and CBAs assess projects cost and ability to fill these gaps. Ultimately the selection of PCI project is up to EC and regional groups.|
|Is it correct that a CBA will only be done for the NT Scenario?||In electricity, NT is used as the Reference scenario for the CBA with a lighter analysis done in 2030 on the DE and GA scenarios. The three scenarios are used on equal basis for the gas CBA.|
|Climate||I am missing consideration of climate change impacts (e.g. less heating demand more cooling demand, worse performance of nuclear). NT scenario comes with higher impacts. Will you include that?|
Climate change is already changing energy system needs (less heating more cooling demand). How did you take future climate impacts into account?
|At this stage global warming impact is not taken into account in the scenario quantification. We invite people to contact us regarding the statement about a higher impact of NT.|
|What is the "dunkerflaute" situation?||Dunkelflaute' is a German expression for cold dark doldrums. This is cold spell of 2 weeks with unfavourable conditions for solar PV and wind generation. Under these high energy demand circumstances, the supply of electricity relies on dispatchable power plants.|
|Climate change should come into your scenarios via ensemble weather forecast scenarios from maybe the last 5 years and many members in order to have the extremes. Any comment on your plans there?|
What is about the selection of reference climate years at 2020 scenarios? Is a documentation about the selection available? Are there already inputs for 2022 discussed?
|Gas demand: gas demand in the scenarios are based on peak demand situations as stated by different regulation rather than a single climatic year. For the highest daily peak demand and the gas demand during a 2 week cold spell, the gas demand is based on the nationally defined temperatures (usually around -14 to -12 °C).
Electricity demand: The 3 climatic years (1982, 1984 and 2007) used to design the scenarios are the most representative of all parameters and they will be completed by a Dunkelflaute focus in next edition. The possible addition or change of climatic years could be investigated. More information regarding the climate years chosen can be found in at https://eepublicdownloads.blob.core.windows.net/public-cdn-container/clean-documents/tyndp-documents/TYNDP2018/consultation/Technical/DataExpertise.pdf.
|Questions already asked many times: present the data for cold years (1985, 2012) including peak and electricity grid solicitation during these peaks for these years, share of hybrid heat pumps||The market simulation have been run on the years 1982, 1984 and 2007. In the 2022 scenario building process there will be a review of the climate years to be used.
The demand hourly profiles for each climatic year between 1982 and 2016 can be downloaded for each scenario at https://www.entsos-tyndp2020-scenarios.eu/download-data/#download
The share of each heat pump category (including hybrid ones) can be found in the Visualisation Platform under Final Use Input (https://www.entsos-tyndp2020-scenarios.eu/visualisation-platform-final-use-input/).
|Would open data include all years modelled? What is key are cold years||Published data includes all the modelled years but as yearly aggregate. Figures 8 and 9 of the report presents a standard hourly profile of summer and winter day.|
|Consumer||Network operators are service providers for the consumers - what are you planning to do to take their needs more into account?||The sector coupling approach develops as part of TYNDP aims to better consider the need of sectors consuming energy. Collaboration with DSOs and district heating operators will help to better factor residential and tertiary needs. The consistency between European TYNDP and national plans also participates to consider national expectations.|
|Why is social welfare not taken into account as a key driver?||Social welfare is a too broad concept to be used as a single driver for scenarios which main purpose is infrastructure assessment. Scenarios rather describe the level of comfort and service used by people. Social welfare is use at later stage during the PCI selection process.|
|Cost||Long term simulations for the next 10 to 20 years should consider also the investment cost. An important approach is the topology of the transport and distribution network and the granularity of data.||As part of the transparency continuous enhancement, the next edition plan to take into account additional cost including those related to distribution level (e.g. HP, EV, RES) as far as made available to ENTSOG and ENTSOE. Specific information regarding cost of network development are provided at TYNDP stage.
The scenarios are assessed at bidding zone level (Macro). Going to a micro level of analysis is currently out of the scope of the TYNDP scenario development exercise and performing studies at this level would take exponentially more time. We consider that the split between market participant and non-participant technologies as being more relevant than the location of such technologies on the transmission or distribution grid.
|Data||Could you in the future publish stakeholder feedback and how you responded to each?||The final version of the TYNDP Scenario Report 2020 contains a specific chapter on the way ENTSOE and ENTSOG have handled stakeholder feedback. For the 2022 process we intend to provide this information on a more regular basis.|
|Can the scenario data be downloaded in excel spreadsheet format? And is there a web-link available?|
Did ENTSOs make available the datasets of TYNDP 2020? If not yet, when will they be available?
Regarding the transparency of data, I noticed that the draft scenarios offered figures per country but now they are aggregated for the EU-28 as a whole. Why's that?
|The Scenario website includes a wide set of data to be visualised online and downloaded in Excel format (including country details) at https://www.entsos-tyndp2020-scenarios.eu/download-data/|
|What about hydropower? The generation capacity graph misses out the largest installed renewable in Europe.|
The electricity balancing (example) sub drivers don’t mention hydropower? Electricity storage in reservoirs is and will be central to grid adequacy and flexibility planning and operations.
|We share the importance of hydro as a significant renewable energy and flexibility source. As the level of development is already high and similar in the different scenarios, it is not identified as a factor differentiating scenarios.|
|Do you consider providing a breakdown of the national figures at a local level (instead of a single figure for each country)?||In line with the 3rd Energy Package, TYNDP focuses on cross-border energy flows. National plan can provide more insight on local figures while ensuring consistency with European TYNDPs.|
|Are you planning to publish all the data and models under open source licenses?|
Does the open data licence also apply to the electricity grid data?
|All published data are covered by the open source license.|
|Why has an interim Annex A not been published? Without this we have no visibility on how many energy transition projects (ETR) are being considered.|
Will an interim Annex A be published? November 2019 is now out of date and no one has visibility of ETR projects now being considered.
|ENTSOG published an Annex A for TYNDP 2020 on the 5th of November 2019, available on the ENTSOG website. This annex provides an overview of all projects submitted for TYNDP, including ETR projects. From May to June 2020, ENTSOG held another submission for additional ETR projects. This additional collection (including new collected ETRs) will be published as part of Draft TYNDP 2020.|
|Traceability and transparency are very important for large-scale models as various assumptions influence the end results. Only if all assumptions and data is available model results can be validated.||The number of data published on scenarios increases each edition with already additional data compared to the draft version of the report.|
|DSO||How do you make sure infrastructure planning is aligned between TSOs and DSOs?||TYNDP is not as such a centralized infrastructure plan, it provides a common framework that investors can use. Coordination between national transmission and distribution operators is ensured at national level.|
|Do you envisage better cooperation with DSOs?||Following the last Copenhagen Forum, a cooperation roadmap has been put in place between ENTSOE and DSOs association. A TSO/DSO project is already started to work this out. As part of this project, we have regular TSO/DSO expert exchanges. Scenario building process is part of this process.|
|How can we insure that the involvement of DSO in gas can be achieved with the same level as in electricity? Due to the changes in the legislation DSO in electricity already have a defined role?||Even though these is not yet an official European DSO association, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E already exchange with DSO institutions in the scenario building process. A large part of DSOs are active both in electricity and gas, this will help to ensure a certain level of involvement. In any case gas DSOs feedback will be considered as part of the overall feedback received through the stakeholder engagement process.|
|Environment||How do you consider and reflect in these scenarios the impact of various energy mixes on Natura-2000 sides, protection of species vulnerable to onshore/offshore development, etc?||This assessment is not done for the generation mix, we do not go to a level of granularity where we place resources in specific locations.
The environmental impact of transmission projects are evaluated at TYNDP/CBA stage. Regarding the environmental impact of supply and demand assumptions of the scenarios, ENTSOE and ENTSOG welcome any suggestion.
|Flexibility||With the aggressive targets, variable renewables will increase balancing requirements. Flexible technologies will be required, not well captured in day-ahead models. How will this be addressed?|
How will the methodology capture the flexibility value of technologies, in particular in managing uncertainty, variability and short term balancing?
|Flexibility technology on the demand-side (VE, batteries, P2X…) can be reflected by ENTSOE models. Nevertheless the impact of using perfect foresight model on the assessment of the flexibility need in a highly renewable mix needs to be further investigated.|
|On demand response potential during tight situations, will you besides DSO cooperation also study the possibilities of increased flexibility of large industries connected to high-voltage grids?||DSM is already taken into account in our scenarios. We are looking how to better reflect on the differences between sectors (residential, tertiary and industry).|
|Demand side flexibility is taken into account in the investment loop defining the generation and related transmission capacity.||Demand side flexibility is taken into account in the investment loop defining the generation and related transmission capacity.|
|Decarbonisation paths look comparable to the 100% RES literature. Jacobson (2016) proposal is managing the related system costs through hydro, which Clack (2018) found highly debatable. What’s yours?||We are technology neutral in term of flexibility source. In 2040, DE and GA rely on a mix of gas-fired power generation, nuclear, hydro, batteries and DSM. Next scenarios will assessed flexibility management up to 2050 and will try to provide contrasted pathways with P2X playing certainly a role.|
|Gas||Saying that the gas infrastructure will dramatically change but only between 2040 and 2050 is a big bet. Why no scenario with a quicker phase out of natural gas?||TYNDP Scenarios primary role is to assess the electricity and gas system. The phase out of any energy carrier is not an objective per se as long as scenarios achieve carbon neutrality in 2050 and meet the predefined carbon budget. In all TNYDP scenarios the market share of natural gas will decrease. Part of it is replaced by renewable gas.
Gas supply shows already up to 54% decarbonisation by 2040, so more than half of the change will happen even before 2040, not between 2040 and 2050.
|How do you explain that your 2030 And 2050 gas demand is above that of EUCO and lts scenarios? What do you think will be different to their assumptions?|
Why is the gas demand so much higher than in the LTS? Is there a problem with the role of ENTSOG in this process?
|On the 2030 time horizon DE and GA consider a coal phase out whereas EUCO does not. It is compensated with higher gas demand in industrial sector and power generation. The latest is accentuated by the fact that electricity demand is higher in our Top-down scenarios.
On the 2050 time horizon, both scenarios are actually quite comparable to EC LTS 1.5 Tech and Life scenarios as shown in figure 42 in the report. The total gas demand (hydrogen plus methane) of DE is in between 1.5 Life/Tech scenario whereas GA gas demand level is less than 10% higher than the 1.5 Tech scenario.
|Is there no possibility to reduce the gas peak in line with the annual demand? e.g. using gas storages||Gas storage will not reduce peak gas demand in winter. Instead gas storage is part of the gas supply in winter. In the TYNDP scenarios up to one third of gas demand is covered by gas storage.|
|Why biomethane is presented as a centralized technology in top down scenario B instead of A?||The table maybe misleading. We expect that the development of RES in scenario A will be such that P2G will become a significant source of gas (hydrogen/methane) when in scenario B most of renewable gas will be biomethane.|
|Eurogas published very recently a 2050 scenario, it should be considered for your next report||In the creation of the scenarios for TYNDP 2022 ENTSOG and ENTSO-E will make use of the best available information including third party studies.|
|GHG Emissions||How do you take into account the proposed more ambitious EU- emission reduction target for 2030?||DE and GA are line with a 55% GHG reduction target in 2030. NT is a bit less ambitious as the Green Deal is posterior to the first NECP definition|
|Have you considered using the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) carbon budgets for the EU to be in line with the 1.5 degree target? A 50 Gt is an insufficient emission reduction target according to CAT.||The carbon budget of the 2022 scenarios is still to be defined.|
|Current political trajectory and scientific recommendations don't go to 55%, but 65%. Will you take that into account?||The intermediate 2030 target will be defined in parallel to the carbon budget taking into account that scenarios should reflect European and national energy policy (TEN-E regulation).|
|Is it fair to account negative emissions after 2050?|
Should not we stick to the carbon budget before?
|In the 2020 edition, scenarios reach carbon neutrality in 2050 which is ambitious when considering Paris Agreement commitment to reach carbon neutrality in the second half of the century. Next edition may be based on another carbon budget but it is necessary to ensure that the reduction of direct GHG emission in Europe does not result in higher global emission and environmental impact.|
|Did you consider methane leakage of (decarbonised) gas when calculating the GHG emissions?|
Are you including methane emissions (scope 1,2,3) in your climate target assessment? If not why not and how would it change your result?
We can see few number about the qty of CO2 emissions to be neutralized, what about the qty of other emissions to achieve net-zero emissions target?
|Non CO2 emissions (including methane leakage) are taken into account based on the LTS quantification|
|Carbon Budget?||A carbon budget is the cumulative emissions of a given geographic area on a given period. It reflects the fact that global warming results from the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere.|
|The current EU ambition for 2030 is more than -40% CO2 (see climate law draft). Have you adjusted your scenarios or do you plan on doing so?||The NT scenario based on NECP is in line with the current legal target of reducing GHG emission by 40% in 2030. The DE and GA scenarios achieved a 55% reduction in 2030 in line with the Green Deal ambition|
|Imports||To what extent does the GA scenario look at imported electricity as part of the imported energy" mix? or does it just focus on gas imports, in which case why?||The GA scenario takes into account import and export with Ukraine, Turkey and Tunisia but no major export project to Europe (e.g. Desertech). The situation may change in the next edition.
The main focus in terms of imports refer to gas, as today a large percentage of gas is imported into Europe, whereas this is not the case for electricity.
|It is unrealistic to think it will be possible to produce enough energy in Europe to meet the demand. Do not make a scenario considering this alone rather only together with imports.|
Don't you think that you'll actually will continue to need both, 'energy autonomy' and imports to quench our energy thirst?
|Both the use of low-carbon imports and a European autonomy largely based on renewables represent tremendous challenges with different implication in terms of energy system. For this reason, DE and GA are based on the combination of European renewable energy potential with energy imports. Their shares vary from one scenario to the other in order to illustrate the impact they have on energy infrastructure.|
|Blue box on slide 21 references 70% import dependency for gas. Do we continue to import natural gas then decarbonise it? Import H2 instead? Or import more power? Is self-sufficiency possible?||The residual energy imports (compared to present situation) covers abated natural gas, biomethane and hydrogen. Self-sufficiency may be a driver of future scenarios but it has to consider the full scope of economic independence (e.g. technologies, scarce resources, industrial sector...)|
|Industry||Industry offshoring would move manufacturing to more polluting jurisdictions- which planet does that help?|
After the Covid crisis, some governments have the objective of relocating the industry. May there be an impact on your demand scenario and jeopardize the achievement of CO2 reduction objectives?
|The case of the industrial sector is emblematic of the different equilibrium that may exist between energy, scarce resources and manufactured goods import/export balance. ENTSOE and ENTSOG welcome any feedback regarding the way to handle the topic in the future top-down scenarios.|
|Mobility||Regarding Driver 3, energy intensity and there "Transport". Is electrified small scale air travel taken in consideration (#Flugtaxi)?||There is a certain degree of electrification in the aviation sector in DE and GA scenarios without specification of the technology and mobility segment.|
|Model||With electrolysis, hydrogen and seasonal storage, there is a greater requirement for the market modelling to optimise over longer time-frames. How has this been addressed?||In the 2020 edition, P2G was modelled with dedicated RES outside the electricity network. Therefore the requirement in terms of market modelling was minimum. In the 2022 edition, P2G will modelled as part of the electricity network with greater modelling requirement. ENTSOG experience in seasonal gas storage will be helpful in modelling properly hydrogen and seasonal storage. In the next edition the optimisation timeframe will be part of the discussion.|
|To assess the feasibility of these scenarios, you already use probabilistic simulations, right? What are the attributes and criteria of probabilistic simulation? Are they different among countries?||Scenarios are built on the basis of storylines resulting from stakeholder engagement process. For the electricity sector, the level of generation capacity and interconnection results from an investment loop ensuring the adequacy in 1984 (the average year). Hourly simulations are then run on climate years 1982, 1984 and 2007. Therefore, the simulations in this edition were deterministic and not probabilistic.
The improvement of the adequacy check is part of the methodology to be developed for next edition.
|What kind of models did you use?||The storylines are developed with an in house developed tool (the Ambition Tool) similar to Quintel Energy Transition Model. Electricity demand profiles are developed with the Trapunta tool from Milano Multiphysics. Finally the electricity model is design through the investment loop of Plexos from Energy Exemplar, benchmarked with Antares, an open licence tool developed by RTE. P2X is modelled with PLEXOS.
For biomethane, a quantification tool was developed in cooperation with Navigant based on the assumptions of the Gas for Climate study.
|NRA||Regardless of the stakeholders' feedback, the most important for the base scenarios is always the NRA (at least for the NT scenario), correct?||The scenario building process shall be consistent with the TEN-E regulation requirement to be in line with European and national energy policies.|
|Nuclear||For hydrogen production, why is missing the nuclear low-carbon electricity category?||In the 2020 edition, electrolysis was not connected to electricity grid but supplied with dedicated RES. With the integration of electrolysis with the electricity market model, it is likely that part of hydrogen production will come from nuclear (for the scenarios including such technology in the generation mix).|
|How do you define nuclear trajectories?||The trajectory for each generation technology derives from data provided by each TSO.|
|Other||It would be important to illustrate the regrets of missing the different options||In the design of the TYNDP 2022 scenarios we will explicitly vary between the technology options. What has a high level in one scenario will likely have a low level in another. As such the scenarios will show the effect of low levels (or complete lack) of certain technologies|
|P2X||What is the threshold for your models to decide using P2X rather than using other generation technologies? I assume this transformation is done when there is insufficient transmission capacity?||For the 2020 edition, the annual share of each supply source of methane and hydrogen (P2G, imports, biomethane…) is defined ex-ante at storyline level in order to ensure sufficient differentiation. The potential need to update this approach for next edition is to be further analysed.|
|What do you assume as the source of power for P2G? Is it curtailed power, power below a price-threshold or dedicated renewable plants?||For the 2020 edition, P2G was supplied by dedicated RES and limited amount of curtailed RES. In the next edition, electrolysis will be modelled as part of the electricity system. As such the origin of the electricity will depend on the marginal generation. It is to be seen if some restrictions need to be added (e.g. limitation to the hours when the marginal technology is a renewable source) on top of the carbon budget approach.|
Questions and answers – Follow-up written feedback received after 3 July 2020 webinar
|Category||Author||Stakeholder comment||Answer from ENTSOG and ENTSO-E|
|CO2 ambition||EREF||It is incomprehensible to ignore a 65% target [in 2030] for the 2 top-down scenarios that are supposed to be compliant with the Green Deal and the Paris Agreement||The Green Deal, as recently proposed by the European Commission, seeks the further strengthen the Paris Agreement by increasing the EU CO2 reduction target in 2030 to at least -55% and the two top-down scenarios for TYNDP 2022 will comply with this target. If this target would change as voted by the European Parliament the scenario assumptions will be adapted accordingly.|
|German Watch||Ambition of EU climate targets will not only have to be increased but emission reduction also needs to be sped up in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C. At least one TYNDP 2022 scenario should therefore assess reaching climate neutrality by 2040 instead of 2050.||Both top-down scenarios for TYNDP 2022 will assume carbon neutrality no later than 2050.|
|Anonymous||We strongly encourage ENTSOs to develop at least (if not both) scenarios with no overshoot of the EU carbon budget by 2050.||The carbon budget is explicitly identified as a key driver in the scenario development. We aim to limit overshoot of the carbon budget by 2050.|
|CAN Europe||Future energy infrastructure planning in Europe needs to be fully aligned with the Paris Agreement. CAN Europe recommends to increase variation of TYNDP 2022 storylines by assessing higher ambition of greenhouse gas emission reduction. In order to reach the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement, a trajectory towards net zero emissions in 2040 should be assessed.||Both top-down scenarios for TYNDP 2022 will assume carbon neutrality no later than 2050.|
|E3G||It is important to be transparent on the emissions factors and scope you use and make sure it is in line with the objective of global decarbonisation– in particular for natural gas.||ENTSOG and ENTSO-E value transparency in their scenario building process. That is why we will continue to improve this through the release of additional data and especially the emission factors of all fuels being part of the mix.|
|E3G||All scenarios should be constraint by EU climate objectives, in particular climate neutrality which requires us to deliver net-zero emissions in 2020. Within that, we suggest you include a higher ambition scenario that reaches net-zero before 2050.||Both top-down scenarios for TYNDP 2022 will assume carbon neutrality no later than 2050. The inclusion of scenarios more ambitious achieving carbon neutrality before the 2050 deadline set by the Green Deal needs to be further investigated, together with the European Commission.|
|E3G||Including negative emissions infrastructure/costs: Some pathways have a greater requirement of negative emissions infrastructure/solutions and costs.||In the scenario report for TYNDP 2020 the details of required negative emissions are already laid out (Figure 3 of main report). For the next edition we will continue this practice. We also plan to release more information on our cost assumptions, as we already have done in the 2020 scenario report. An assessment of infrastructure is not part of the scenario report, but is covered in TYNDP.|
|Environmental CBA||German Watch||Future TYNDP scenarios should firstly include a transparent assessment of the climate benefits and costs that different technologies, energy carriers and infrastructure solutions bring about. In line with the EU’s “do no harm” principle the decarbonisation options must proof that they do not counteract climate ambitions.||Defining the most effective climatic scenarios is beyond our remit. Our scenarios are not meant to advise policy makers on the most appropriate way to reach the climate goals. Instead our scenario should be fit for purpose to assess gas and electricity infrastructure under various contrasted pathways. And to be able to show the benefits of projects under these circumstances. That is why we purposefully develop different scenarios which cover the reasonable extremes in terms of transmission network requirements. Climate ambitions are being considered in the scenario building process.|
|Gas||EREF||Lastly, it is incomprehensible for measures concerning a fossil gas phase-out to only be considered for the time frame 2040-2050. It is irresponsible to lock in fossil gas as an alleged bridge technology as the rapid technology development and cost decrease of renewable technology allows and requires to accelerate the full transition to renewables already today and most certainly well before 2040.||TYNDP Scenarios primary role is to assess the electricity and gas infrastructure. The phase out of any energy carrier is not an objective per se as long as scenarios achieve carbon neutrality in 2050 and meet the predefined carbon budget. Nevertheless if there are specific plans for phase-out in a certain country, these will be considered. It is expected that the new scenarios will confirm the strong decrease of natural gas before 2040. The upcoming consultation will provide stakeholders to further detail their view on such evolution.
In all TNYDP 2020 scenarios the market share of natural gas decreases. Part of it is replaced by renewable gas. The TYNDP 2020 scenario report already highlighted that fossil natural gas will decline substantially in the next 20 years. Gas supply shows already up to 54% decarbonisation by 2040. So more than half of the change will happen even before 2040, not between 2040 and 2050.
|German Watch||Green hydrogen deserves a stronger look than methane and decarbonized hydrogen. Following the EU hydrogen strategy, only hydrogen that is based on renewable electricity can play a long-term role in the EU energy system. This must also be reflected in the assumed amounts of imported hydrogen.||Demand and supply for hydrogen was identified as a main driver and explicitly be considered in the TYNDP 2022 scenarios. We will however consider all available sources of hydrogen in one way or another. In one of the proposed storyline green hydrogen will be the main focus. Whereas in the other we will see relatively more low carbon (blue) hydrogen production and more import. In this way we will explore multiple trajectories as also emphasized by the EU Hydrogen Strategy.|
|Anonymous||Therefore, a scenario based on a strong development of low carbon gases should integrate parameters of high cost risk||The consideration of a technology being mature or immature strongly depend on each stakeholder's background. In addition some technology are matured but not commercially developed because of a too low carbon price. Technology maturity is only one challenge of the energy transition, public acceptability of infrastructure and behaviour adaptation are challenges of a similar extent. The publication of cost assumption for each technology provide opportunity to stakeholders to make their own risk assessment for each scenario.|
|E3G||Disaggregate different types of gases and hydrogen in your figures: they all have different implications in terms of CO2 footprint and infrastructure needs.||This is completely true. That is why in the TYNDP 2020 scenario report we already made an explicit distinction between methane and hydrogen and also for the source (being fossil, decarbonised or renewable). Both in gas supply and gas demand. Datasets are available on the scenario website. For the TYNDP 2022 scenario we will continue to develop and enhance this practice.|
|Optimized scenarios||CAN Europe||Future TYNDP scenarios should firstly include a transparent assessment of the climate benefits and costs that different technologies, energy carriers and infrastructure solutions bring about. In this context, the variation of the carbon price is a key driver.||The primary role of scenarios is to create a consistent dataset that can be used by the TYNDP process to assess infrastructure projects. Our work with the ILM will provide further evidence on the synergies and insights into competition between infrastructure needed to enable the energy transition to net-zero.|
|E3G||TYNDP scenarios should run a cross-sectorial optimisation of infrastructure needs by comparing costs and availability of all options, be it on the generation side, on the demand side (building renovation, appliance efficiency,…) or related infrastructure solutions (e.g. heat networks).||The primary role of scenarios is to create a consistent dataset that can be used by the TYNDP process to assess infrastructure projects. Our work with the ILM will provide further evidence on the synergies and insights into competition between infrastructure needed to enable the energy transition to net-zero.|
|P2X modelling||Anonymous||From this perspective, we also encourage ENTSOs to consider the possibility for electrolysis directly from the electric power sector, instead of using dedicated resources that would not be connected to the electricity network.||For the TYNDP 2020 scenarios, P2G (electrolysis) was supplied by dedicated RES and in limited amount by curtailed RES. For the next edition we are improving our P2G methodology to better capture the behaviour of electrolysis within the electricity market.|
|RES development||EREF||As for the energy mix used as a baseline, the role of renewable energies is being underrated; there is not a single scenario envisaging 100% RES. At the same time, scenarios without nuclear should be considered||Both RES technologies and nuclear are identified as main technology drivers in defining our differentiated scenarios. In one of the proposed storyline we assume rapid development of renewable energy, reaching levels close to maximum potential. Whether a 100% RES scenario is feasible within the country specific boundaries we need to consider is yet to be seen. In the other proposed storyline we expect to see more (but not exclusively) low carbon technologies. In this storyline there is still room for nuclear in certain countries.|
|German Watch||In this context also a higher degree of electrification, compared to the rates included in the draft TYNDP 2020 scenarios, needs to be envisaged in all scenarios. Also, at least one TYNDP 2022 scenario needs to assess a 100% renewable energy system||In one of the proposed storylines we aim to reach even higher RES share and electrification rates compare to TYNDP 2020. Whether 100% RES share is feasible can only be concluded after we have performed our modelling.|
|Scenario drivers||German Watch||The learning curves and the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies are important drivers for the pace of their upscaling. These drivers are more relevant for a meaningful variation of TYNDP scenarios than building an artificial cleavage between a purely decentralised “autonomy” scenario and a purely centralised “global economy” scenario. Every scenario should combine decentralised and centralised solutions||We fully acknowledge the importance of renewable technologies as a scenario driver. We will also take this one on board. Furthermore we see all scenario drivers not as a purely all or nothing parameter, but more like a continuous scale. On this scale we choose different positions for each scenario to ensure differentiation. This also applies for the centralised versus decentralised driver.|
|German Watch||Changes in regulation and market design could be better integrated: For example, the revision of the EU-ETS, a possible introduction of a quota for renewable gases in certain end-use sectors, and so on.||Market design is an important component of energy system evolution. The scenarios represent different pathways requiring market design evolution to materialize and efficiently operate. At this stage we consider that market design evolution are consequential to the pathway selected by decision-makers rather than input to prospective scenarios.|
|German Watch||It is not clear to what extent digitalization and flexibilisation options will be considered appropriately in future TYNDP scenarios||Digitalisation will impact the energy system in many different ways from a wider citizen participation to DSM to data centres consumption and potential excess heat recovery. The DSO/TSO collaboration roadmap should help to better picture both consumers engagement and smart grid solutions.|
|German Watch||If TYNDP 2022 scenarios focus on opposing “independency” and “autonomy”, such scenarios might not necessarily help to identify the best pathway towards the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target.||It is not the purpose of our scenarios to identify the best pathway to the Paris agreement 1.5°C target. We aim to identify the main uncertainties for the infrastructure development. For this purpose the autonomy versus import dependence is very relevant, as it determines energy transport flows|
|German Watch & CAN Europe||Instead of opposing an “autonomy” scenario versus a “globalised” scenario, TYNDP scenarios should run a cross-sectorial optimisation of infrastructure needs by comparing costs and availability of all flexibility and decarbonisation options, be it on the generation side, on the demand side or be it related to infrastructure solutions.||Cost-optimized scenarios would be very dependent on the cost inputs (highly uncertain when looking 30-year ahead) and may not result in a range of scenarios wide enough to serve the purpose of infrastructure assessment. European energy autonomy is perceived by a range of stakeholders as a political objective to be pursued. It requires a different energy system than a scenario with a larger room for energy imports. As such it is a valuable driver for analysing investment needs.|
|Anonymous||There should be an alignment on the EU objectives and European Commission Long Term Strategy scenarios by 2050. The global set of scenarios has to be credible and contrasted enough to assess long-term uncertainties in TYNDP analyses.||We do share the twofold objective of the scenarios, ensuring consistency with the European energy and climate policy while providing different pathways in order to form the basis of robust analysis of infrastructure needs. Even though scenarios have similar climate ambition, they can still be very different due to different driving forces.|
|Anonymous||At least one scenario should consider a stronger evolution of electricity in the energy mix and in parallel a substantial reduction of gas.||The final TYNDP Scenario Report 2020 shows a differentiated evolution of gas and electricity energy carrier (e.g. direct electrification range between 47% and 54%). Furthermore this contrast in electrification is also part of the proposed storylines. With smart sector integration (E-gas and E-liquid), electricity generation could be a better metric then direct electrification to evaluate the role of electricity in the energy mix. In particular the Distributed Energy storyline assumes high uptake in this respect. Regarding gas, the potential development of a hydrogen economy as foreseen by different European and national strategies will require a better differentiation between hydrogen and methane and their respective evolution.|
|Anonymous||Both scenarios should target a low dependency on import while looking at other differentiating factors. To better consider the risk of sunk costs in particular in the gas infrastructure, it is also necessary to feature at least one storyline without the possibility to import “low carbon gases”.||TYNDP Scenario Report 2020 already foresees a sharp decrease of energy imports compared to present situation. The expected storyline intending to maximize European RES potential is likely to result in the simultaneous minimization of both low-carbon energy and imports.|
|Anonymous||Need of a better articulation between the bottom-up scenario based on so-called national trends, and the top-down scenarios going towards 2050 ambitious targets.||Due to the lead-time between the definition of European energy and climate policies and strategies (e.g. Green Deal, Sector coupling and hydrogen) and national ones, it is likely that the top-down and bottom-up scenarios will differ. We share the value of identifying those differences as part of the TYNDP Scenario Report.|
|CAN Europe||Instead of primarily opposing “decentralised” and “global” solutions in the TYNDP 2022 storylines, at least one scenario should analyse how to prepare European energy infrastructure for a 100% renewable energy system in the most efficient way, combining the best out of both “decentralised” and “global” futures.||Our intentions are not to oppose neither drivers nor storylines. Actually, an efficient pathway will certainly combine many features including decentralisation and global interactions. With two top-down scenarios having to describe differentiated pathways for infrastructure assessment purpose, it is necessary to emphasis different drivers. The extent of EU RES maximisation is certainly of the scenario drivers to be explored in the proposed storylines.|
|CAN Europe||In previous TYNDP 2020 scenarios, the mobilisation of energy savings potentials and energy efficiency gains did not vary strongly. TYNDP 2022 storylines should assess more ambitious assumptions on energy savings and energy efficiency as these are important parameters for energy infrastructure development.||Energy savings are crucial components of the energy transition. Distributed Energy scenario shows higher energy efficiency than 1.5 Tech/Life scenario of the EC LTS. We need to further analyse the potential benefit of using different level of energy savings in our top-down scenarios.|
|CAN Europe||It is not clear to what extent digitalisation will be considered as a cross-cutting driver in future TYNDP scenarios. Storylines should be detailed and transparent enough to identify which consumers under which condition will be engaged in demand response schemes and so-called smart grid solutions and what are the benefits for the entire energy infrastructure.||Digitalisation will impact the energy system in many different ways from a wider citizen participation to DSM to data centres consumption and potential excess heat recovery. The DSO/TSO collaboration roadmap should help to better picture both consumers engagement and smart grid solutions.|
|Scenario drivers||CAN Europe||TYNDP 2022 scenarios should differentiate the degree of circularity in industrial activity which then impacts its energy demand as well as its resources demand, thus influences its carbon footprint. If TYNDP 2022 scenarios focus on opposing “independency” and “autonomy”, such scenarios might not necessarily help to identify the best pathway towards the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target.||We do agree that circularity and its impact on industrial activity and raw material consumption is important driver. As presented during the 3 July webinar, it will certainly be used to differentiate scenarios.|
|CAN Europe||Although recycling is an important element in a circular economy approach for transforming and modernising industries, the reduction of raw material demand and the degree of reusing raw materials and products also should be integrated.||We do agree that circularity and its impact on industrial activity and raw material consumption is important driver. As presented during the 3 July webinar, it will certainly be used to differentiate scenarios.|
|E3G||We’d recommend simplifying the framing around the four critical determinants for our energy system going forward. The complexity you propose will make it hard to trace back interactions in the model as lots of individually uncertain assumptions will cancel each other out. The four key determinants for the shape of the energy system going forward are: (1) availability of green hydrogen, (2) energy efficiency/DSR in buildings, (3) electricity balancing with and without thermal power generation and (4) energy system design as business as usual versus drastic change.||We assume that the draft storylines will cover different development of the four quoted determinants:
|SoS/Adequacy||E3G||Include climatic stress, e.g. impact on performance of key bits of supply or networks as the climate changes (e.g. on hydro, nuclear, grids,..) and geographical changes in heating and cooling needs.||We agree on the value of analysing these risks. Currently the impact of climatic stress in demand is explicitly considered and analysed. Additionally, some climatic stress conditions concerning supply or also covered, like synchronised temperature, wind and solar timeseries to capture Dunkelflaute events. Please also keep in mind that further assessments will be provided by the next steps of the TYNDP (infrastructure needs and project assessment). The extension such analysis to other climatic events like floods exceed the scope of our scenario building. As these are more related to security of supply analysis.|
|E3G||Include demand side interventions among possible responses to new supply side risks from climatic change which would be more prevalent in some of your low ambition scenarios: precipitation changes affecting power plant energy production (hydropower, thermal power); disruption to energy distribution networks due to lightning, high wind speeds and flooding; and changes in bioenergy crop yields.||The level of Demand side intervention will certainly differ between scenarios. The top-down scenarios are likely to be of similar ambition while their exposure of climatic risk will differ. As stated above, we do not yet the most appropriate process to detail such risks.|
|Technologies||EREF||The first proposals overall heavily rely on unproven technologies such as hydrogen and CCS. Whilst those technologies might have the potential to play an important role for some applications or – later – for negative emissions, where they are needed when emissions cannot be avoided, it is important to include scenarios without them, only based on renewable energy and energy efficiency.||Each scenario, including one purely based on RES and energy efficiency, will face technical challenges. Many technologies underlying hydrogen and CCS development are already mature (e.g. hydrogen network across French, Belgium and Dutch borders or Enhanced Oil Recovery in the US). Scenarios will rely on a wide range of technologies but at different degrees. We intend to identify the nature of the challenges (technology, public acceptance, way of life...) that each scenario will face.|
|Anonymous||It would be relevant to include at least in one top-down scenario the risk that EU cannot rely on imports of low carbon gases nor CCUS and has to manage a more significant drop in final gas demand.||Each scenario, including one purely based on RES and energy efficiency, will face technical challenges. Many technologies underlying hydrogen and CCS development are already mature (e.g. hydrogen network across French, Belgium and Dutch borders or Enhanced Oil Recovery in the US). Scenarios will rely on a wide range of technologies but at different degrees. We intend to identify the nature of the challenges (technology, public acceptance, way of life...) that each scenario will face.|
|Anonymous||It would be relevant to consider the possibility to maintain nuclear generation at its 2030 level (or increase where possible) in EU countries that are open to this climate neutral technology.||New nuclear units (partly compensating capacity decommissioning) are likely to be part of the scenario storyline using low carbon technologies and imports to complement European RES. The level of development of nuclear is still to be defined. In any case the Bottom-up scenario based on national energy and climate policy will take into account the latest country specific outlooks.|
|CAN Europe||The policy framework beyond the NECPs as a driver could be better integrated in the top-down scenarios, e.g. in view of potentially more national governments pursuing dedicated phase-out policies to end the use of fossil fuels in the buildings sector.||Scenarios are expected to be coherent with NECP in terms of phase-out policies. Doing so they will distinguish the end of commercialisation of a technology and the disappearance from the stock.|
|CAN Europe||The impact of novel technologies in transport could be included more in detail, e.g. in view of efficiency gains or long-term electrification of parts of aviation and which energy infrastructure needs are caused by a potential market introduction of liquid synthetic fuels as a substitute for fossil kerosene.||The TYNDP 2020 Scenario Report already includes some degree of electrification of the aviation and the synthesis of e-liquids. The next edition will provide the opportunity to provide additional details.|
|E3G||Critical assumptions with high uncertainties around cost or deployment rate/potential should be highlighted and individual stress tests performed, currently these would include for example CCS location, potential and cost, hydrogen potential and infrastructure cost, energy efficiency deployment rate.||The TYNDP Scenario building process needs to strike the right balance between the number of scenarios to capture stakeholder expectations, the level of details required to assess infrastructures and the 2-year timeline in order not to endanger TYNDP and PCI processes. As a result the critical assumptions are reflected through 2 top-down scenarios combining differently the key parameters. In the scenario report we plan to be as transparent as possible on the assumptions we have considered (and the challenges/risks associated with them).|
|Transparency||E3G||Greater transparency would aid buy-in, this should include:||ENTSOG and ENTSO-E value transparency in their scenario building process. Data publication is improving on continuous basis as illustrated the wide set of new data release with the final version of the TYNDP Scenario Report 2020. For the 2022 Scenario Building process, ENTSOG and ENTSO-E will release Questions and Answers after each consultation phase (including webinar).|
|E3G||Benchmarking: input assumptions should be drawn from a wide range of sources, including scientifically verified sources.||Benchmark of our figures has always been important in TYNDP scenario development. This was also highlighted in the final scenario report for TYNDP 2020 where we benchmark key topics to EC LTS scenarios. And benchmarking will remain an important topic for TYDNP 2022 scenario development. We have continuous bilateral engagement with stakeholders to obtain best available information for identifying input parameters. Even if potential evolution of parameters is beyond the scope of scientifically verified sources. For this reason, stakeholders are invited to provide their views on the parameters in consultations as well.|