Auteurs :
OAI : oai:www.see.asso.fr:2991:3011
DOI : You do not have permission to access embedded form.




1.84 Mo


Creative Commons Aucune (Tous droits réservés)


<resource  xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
                xsi:schemaLocation="http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4 http://schema.datacite.org/meta/kernel-4/metadata.xsd">
        <identifier identifierType="DOI">10.23723/2991/3011</identifier><creators><creator><creatorName>Jean-Luc Bessède</creatorName></creator></creators><titles>
        <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="Text">Text</resourceType><dates>
	    <date dateType="Created">Fri 16 Nov 2012</date>
	    <date dateType="Updated">Mon 25 Jul 2016</date>
            <date dateType="Submitted">Sat 17 Feb 2018</date>
	    <alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="bitstream">2ec215712dc7cbf918133f6f3fe3c6fc0ae227e5</alternateIdentifier>
            <description descriptionType="Abstract"></description>

The REALISEGRID cost-benefit methodology to rank pan-European infrastructure investments Gianluigi Migliavacca RSE S.p.A. Project Coordinator EPRI Workshop – Manchester 8 December 2011 08-12-2011 2TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID 2TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Challenges for the pan-European transmission grids for 2020 and beyond Integration of very large amounts of variable RES, while keeping network security and reliability at acceptable levels Renewable generation exceeding local needs at a given time, requiring transport elsewhere Increasing role of active demand and distributed generation to relieve stress on European electricity system Liberalization of market inducing increased cross-border power exchanges rising uncertainties and congestion problems European electricity grids are on the critical path to meet the EU climate change and energy policy objectives Aging of the present transmission grid; difficulties to get consensus for building new overhead lines 08-12-2011 3TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID  TEN-E Guidelines: 32 projects labeled as “of European interest”: only 19% is completed, 5% under construction, 76% in the authorization path and/or in study. Bottom-up fixed-list approach failed!  Communication “Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond” Infrastructure Package (November 2010): new methodology for prioritizing projects not based on bottom-up TSOs contributes but on a shared methodology, long-term perspective of continental smart-supergrids. Improvement permitting and consensus, new financial tools The new EU Energy Policy  New Guidelines on trans-European energy infrastructure (now under discussion by the European Parliament): 210 b€ needs to be invested in cross-border infrastructure from now to 2020 (140 b€ in high voltage and smart grids) Definition of projects of Common Interest (PCI): – belonging to priority areas (12) – showing economic, social and environbmental viability – Involving at least two member states (or at least having “significant cross-border impact”) First list of PCIs ready by summer 2013. Decision taken by the Commission assisted by “Groups of Regional Cooperation” Permitting for PCIs: – Permitting iter capped to three year – One authority per member state – Impact assessment streamlining – Overriding public interest possible at given conditions Financing of PCIs: – ENTSOs must develop a standardized cost-benefit methodology – Need for common rules for cross-border costs allocation – Regulators have to incentivize risky priority projects – Connecting Europe Facility: extra 9.1 b€ funds (on top of 4 b€ of recovery funds) for studies and buildup within 2014-20 European cooprdinators can be appointed by the Commission to bring forward new projects. 08-12-2011 4TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID The project REALISEGRID (http://realisegrid.rse-web.it) Research centers and universities  RSE (I), Coordinator & WP3  Politecnico di Torino (I), WP2  Technische Universiteit Delft (NL)  Technische Universität Dortmund (D)  Technische Universität Dresden (D)  EC Joint Research Centre - Inst. Energy  Univerza v Ljubljani (SL)  The University of Manchester (UK)  Observatoire Méditerranéen Energie (F)  R&D Center for Power Engineering (RU)  Vienna University of Technology, EEG (A) TSOs • RTE (F) • APG (A) • Terna (I) • TenneT (NL) Industry • Technofi (F), WP1 • ASATREM (I) • KANLO (F) • Prysmian (I) • RIECADO (A) REALISEGRID developed a set of criteria, metrics, methods and tools to assess how the transmission infrastructure should be optimally developed to support the achievement of a reliable, competitive and sustainable electricity supply in the EU Ultimate goal is providing a methodological background supporting the implementation of the Infrastructure Package 08-12-2011 5TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Transmission planning process Scenarios development Security analysis Security criteria met? No expansion Y N Identification of first, broad group of solutions Techno- economic assessment Environmental/ social assessment Final ranking of solutions Identification of second, restricted group of solutions Decision making Cost-benefit analysis Traditional approach REALISEGRID proposed approach REALISEGRID integrated analysis of investments (welfare optimal and traditional reliability/security) cost- benefit Candidates selection 08-12-2011 6TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Overview of the methodology: what, why, how Cost-benefit assessment for new transmission infrastructure investments WHAT • Methodology for prioritizing alternative investments both at national and trans-national level (see Infrastructure Package) • Possible KPI for establishing a dynamic addendum to the ROI of the TSOs • Information to the public on system advantages from new infrastructure as well as about inaction cost WHY • OPF analysis with and without the new investment (or series of investments constituting a corridor) • The tool has to be able to take into account the reliability of both network elements and generators as well as the variable behavior of wind generators • New elements like PSTs and HVDC lines have to be correctly represented HOW 08-12-2011 7TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID The adopted methodology Transmission expansion benefits Competitiveness RES exploitation Emissions savings External costs reduction Fossil fuel costs reduction Reliability increase Congestions reduction Market competitiveness increase Losses reduction Security of energy supply Environmental sustainability Utility function translation into monetary terms Weighted sum translation a mono-dimensional ranking € Solution A Solution B Solution C Sensitivity analysis on weighing factors needed Years 0 Authorization phase Building phase RoWRoW Amortization phase II ΔB1,t1 ΔB2,t1 … ΔB1,t2 ΔB2,t2 … ΔB1,tn ΔB2,tn … ΔB1,t1 ΔB2,t1 … ΔB1,t2 ΔB2,t2 … ΔB1,tn ΔB2,tn … NPVNPV00NPVNPV00 CCCCCC C CC CCCCCC C CC 08-12-2011 8TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Lienz (AT) - Cordignano (IT) New interconnection between Italy and Slovenia Udine Ovest (IT) - Okroglo (SI) S. Fiorano (IT) - Nave (IT) - Gorlago (IT) [completed] S. Fiorano (IT) - Robbia (CH) [completed] Venezia Nord (IT) - Cordignano (IT) St. Peter (AT) - Tauern (AT) Südburgenland (AT) - Kainachtal (AT) [completed] Austria - Italy (Thaur-Brixen) interconnection through the Brenner rail tunnel. Cost-benefit analysis: test bed REALISEGRID is going to use the new methodology to carry out a cost/benefits classification of the most important projects belonging to Trans European Network priority axis "EL.2. Borders of Italy with France, Austria, Slovenia and Switzerland: increasing electricity interconnection capacities". This region is one of the most interesting ones to assess the impact and the benefits of future cross-border transmission projects. 08-12-2011 9TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID The considered benefits 1. social welfare [€] - Congestion means lower market efficiency: substitution effect: more efficient generators replace less efficient 2. reduction of losses [MWh] - translated into money by valorizing them at market price (opportunity cost). New corridors increase the overall transit and losses usually grow (negative benefit) 3. reduction of wind overproduction [MWh] - translated into money by multiplying by a remuneration factor to wind owners (market price), New corridors increase overall transit and losses grow (negative benefit) 4. reduction of load shedding [MWh] - translated into money by multiplying EENS by the VOLL. The highly meshed European system has a very high security of supply and load shedding stays very low. 5. reduction of CO2 emissions [t CO2] - translated into money by assuming an average 2010 ET price. New corridors allow cheaper but not necessarily “greener” generation to be dispatched (e.g. German coal replaces Italian gas): may be negative 6. reduction of cost for extra-EU fuel - increases the reliability of supply, has a positive effect on the European trading balance, reduces the incumbence of fuel monopolists 08-12-2011 10TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Scenario hypotheses • Three reference years: 2015, 2020, 2030 • Two only scenarios among the four of the WP2 o Optimistic: emission target reached in 2020 o Pessimistic: emission target reached in 2030 • Fuel prices: from WEO 2009 • The perimeter of the test-bed model includes: France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia and western Balkans. • Basic model: UCTE 2008 Winter Peak STUM (for grid, load and generation) • Grid updates: ENTSO-E TYNDP 2010 + System Adequacy Forecast + info by Terna/APG 08-12-2011 11TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Benefits figures in the three tab-years Corridor 1 (optimistic scenario) B1 Social welfare B2 Losses B3 Load curtailment B4 Wind overproduction B5 CO2 emissions B6 extra-EU fuel import -300.000,00 -200.000,00 -100.000,00 - 100.000,00 200.000,00 300.000,00 400.000,00 500.000,00 600.000,00 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 benefits k€ 2015 2020 2030 08-12-2011 12TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Cost-benefit ranking of the three corridors (NPV) Benefits-costs [M€] C1: (Veneto- Austria)C2: (Friuli – Slovenia) C3: (Brennerpaß) Wie Immer Ohne Gewähr With benefits B1÷B6 Optimistic case Pessimistic case Corridor C1 Corridor C2 Corridor C3 Corridor C1 Corridor C2 Corridor C3 NPV 3223 2533 4682 NPV 3658 2882 4845 NPV/IC 15 12 5 NPV/IC 18 13 6 With benefits B1÷B5 Optimistic case Pessimistic case Corridor C1 Corridor C2 Corridor C3 Corridor C1 Corridor C2 Corridor C3 NPV 1728 1342 2208 M€ NPV 2105 1470 2059 NPV/IC 8 6 3 NPV/IC 10 7 2 08-12-2011 13TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Conclusions  The SW benefit (B1) is the prevailing one, but fuel import reduction (B6) is very impacting too.  The benefits are usually able to recover the costs just after two years of operation (this is evident from the cash flows).  Better interconnecting Germany with Italy produces, of course, a decrease of the total dispatching costs as well as of the prices difference between the EEX and IPEX markets.  However, unless specific regulatory provisions are taken, the CO2 emissions are likely to grow: the Italian gas generation is mostly replaced by cheap German coal generation and not by the North Sea RES generation (due to bottlenecks in Germany but also to the insufficiency of the wind production, mostly consumed in Germany). This is particularly evident for the pessimistic case, where nuclear is completely phased out in Germany.  Losses are generally increased by opening new corridors.  The benefit by a load shedding reduction is very small in all cases.  A reduction of wind curtailment is possible only if the new corridors allow to reach the wind area in the North Sea.  In any case, while some data unavailabilities, concerning the network setup and the generation set, don’t allow to draw from the test case any conclusion on grid investments, the real advance brought by the test case is to show the applicability of the theoretic framework of the multi-criteria cost-benefit analysis elaborated by REALISEGRID to a realistic case encompassing a significant range of European nations.  The extension of the model to a fully pan-European case seems not to present particular additional criticities, but also in this case the availability of real data would be the key element for drawing reliable evaluations 08-12-2011 14TREN/FP7/EN/219123/REALISEGRID Gianluigi Migliavacca via Rubattino,54 20134 Milano E-mail: gianluigi.migliavacca@rse-web.it Thank you for your attention…