Guideline for the Assessment of

Impact of Projects

Approved by SDC on 6 September 2011

Page 1/36
Table of contents
Aim and scope of the document .............................................................................................................. 3
A. Assessment framework ....................................................................................................................... 3
B. Evaluation methodology ...................................................................................................................... 5
1. Description of the reference case ........................................................................................................ 6
2. Identification of reinforcements .......................................................................................................... 6
3. Cost and environmental liability assessment ...................................................................................... 6
C.1 Total project expenditure............................................................................................................ 6
S.1 Social and environmental impact ................................................................................................ 7
4. Benefit assessment .............................................................................................................................. 8
4.1 Geographical scope of the analysis ............................................................................................. 8
4.2 Benefit analyisis ........................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Grid Transfer Capability Calculation ............................................................................................ 8
4.4. Methodology for each benefit category .................................................................................. 10
B1. Improved security of supply ................................................................................................... 10
B2. Social and economic welfare .................................................................................................. 12
B3. RES integration........................................................................................................................ 14
B4. Variation in losses (Energy efficiency ) ................................................................................... 15
B5. Variations in CO2 emissions.................................................................................................... 16
B6. Technical resilience/system safety margin ............................................................................. 17
B7. Robustness/flexibility.............................................................................................................. 18
Assessment summary ............................................................................................................................ 19
Appendix 1: Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 2: Example calculation of Social and Economic Welfare and CO2 benefits .......................... 21
Appendix 3: Example calculation of RES integration benefits ............................................................... 27
Appendix 4: Example calculation of Resilience and Flexibilty benefits ................................................. 33

Page 2/36
AIM AND SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT
The goal of project assessment is to characterise the impact of transmission projects, both in terms
of added value for society (increase of capacity for trading of energy and balancing services between
price zones, RES integration, increased security of supply….), and in terms of costs.
The present document proposes harmonised guidelines to characterise the impact of individual
investments or “projects (clusters of candidate investments1) within the Scope of the ENTSO-E
Standards for European Transmission Grid Planning.
The intention is both to create a common vision among TSOs, and to enable ENTSO-E to
communicate on these impacts in a coherent and transparent way. It is important to note that
ranking of projects is out of the scope of this document.

A. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
The assessment framework is a multi-criteria one. The criteria proposed in the present documents
have been selected on the following basis:
- They will enable an appreciation of project benefits in terms of EU network objectives:
ensure the development of a single European grid to permit the 20-20-20
•
objectives ;
• guarantee EU security of supply ;
• complete the internal energy market, especially through a contribution to
increased social welfare ;
• ensure technical resilience of the system,
as expressed in the Green paper on infrastructure networks, the European Regulation 2009-
714, the European Infrastructure Package and further detailed during the consultation on
the pilot TYNDP (2010) and the Stakeholder Workshop on the assessment of projects of
European interest (2011)
- They will give a measure of project costs and feasibility (especially environmental and social
impact).
- The indicators used will be as simple and robust as possible. This will lead to simplified
methodologies for some indicators.

Figure 1 shows the main categories that group the indicators used to assess the impact of projects.

Figure 1. Main categories of the project assessment

1 A project is a cluster of investments that have to be realised in total to achieve a desired effect. An interconnection project may
therefore be composed by the cross-border line, as well as internal reinforcements necessary to achieve the desired capability. Note: The
internal projects may also serve internal purposes. The influence of the given internal project on GTC is then given (ex: 20%). If the
influence is lower than 5%, it will not be a part of the project.

Page 3/36
Some investments or clusters of investments (“Projects”) will provide all the benefit categories,
whereas other projects will only contribute significantly to one or two of them.
Other impacts, such as benefits for competition, more flexible operation etc… also exist. These are
more difficult to model, and will not be taken into account at this stage.
This assessment has to be done independently for each evaluated scenario.
The Benefit Categories are defined as follows:
B1. Improved security of supply is the ability of a power system to provide an adequate and secure
supply of electricity in normal conditions.
B2. Social and economic welfare on electricity markets is characterised by the ability of a power
system to reduce congestions and thus providing an adequate grid transfer capability2.
B3. RES integration. Support to RES integration is defined as the ability of the system to allow the
connection of new RES plants and unlock existing “green” generation, while minimising curtailments.
B4. Variations in losses in the transmission grid is the characterisation of the evolution of thermal
losses in the power system . It is an indicator of energy efficiency.
B5. Variations in CO2 emissions is the chacterisation of the evolution of CO2 emissions in the power
system. It is a result of B2 (unlock of generation with lower carbon content) and B4 (variations in
losses).
B6. Technical resilience/system safety is the ability of the system to withstand increasingly extreme
system conditions (rare contingencies).
B7. Flexibility is the ability of the proposed reinforcement to be adequate in different possible
future development paths or scenarios, including trading of balancing services.

The Project costs are defined as follows:

C1. Total project expenditures are based on prices used within each TSO and rough estimates on
project consistency (e.g.: km of lines…). Land costs, costs of obtaining permissions, damages also
need to be thought of as variables between TSO’s. The project cost should consider life cycle costs.

The Project impact on society is defined as follows:

S.1 Social and Environmental impact characterises the project impact as perceived by the local
population, and as such, gives a measure of probability that the project will be built at the planned
commissioning date.

Assessment Summary Table

The collated assessments findings will be shown diagrammatically in the form of an assessment table
(see fig. 2 and part B below for more details). This table displays the assessment results mainly in
terms of a simple colour code for each of the benefits, and social and environmental impact. The
calculated Grid Transfer Capability (GTC) and total cost are also provided numerically.

2 The reduction of congestions is an indicator of social and economic welfare assuming equitable distribution of benefits
under the goal of the European Union to develop an integrated market (perfect market assumption).

Page 4/36
Project SoS Social and RES Energy CO2 Technical Flexibility
Economic efficiency resilience
Welfare
Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ
Project A,
Name,
description…
Project B,
Name,
description…

Figure 2. Colour coded benefit indicators. One table should be used per horizon analyzed.

The fields in the table due to their fluctuating level of importance in reinforcement justification,
caused by amongst other factors geographical or topographic effects across the EU, cannot be
weighted. Consequently, the table provides a very useful appraisal of individual aspects of projects
across the entire list of projects (i.e. a single benefit indicator) but should not be used to compare
projects in their entirety.
The approach mitigates as far as possible geographical and topographical effects on input data, and
the resulting impact on variation in the indicators across the EU. Similarly mitigation of
computational restrictions in analysing the entire European network in regional studies has been
considered in the selection of evaluation methodologies.
The best evaluation methodology used to populate each field in the assessment table for each
project is to be defined by the regional groups noting the impact on accuracy of the methodology,
and where deemed appropriate for projects, use of market and network methodologies to populate
all fields. This provides the best information that can be made available, although introducing
variation in methodologies when assessing the calculated benefit indicator across multiple projects.
The selection of a colour coded system for the assessment table not only provides an easy cross
project appraisal of individual benefits, but also allows easier appraisal of changes to the assessment
table over successive versions of the TYNDP.
This is particularly beneficial considering the normal dynamic changes in load demand, generation,
interaction with new projects, increasingly better quality information on individual projects through
their development (notably costs) etc, which will be necessarily reflected in individual projects to
maintain best available project assessment.

B. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The guideline includes 5 main steps.
1. Description of the reference case
2. Identification of the reinforcement strategies
3. Description of project costs (including environmental and social impact)
4. Description of project benefits
5. Assessment summary

Page 5/36
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REFERENCE CASE
The reference year to be studied is recommended to be the year that the TYNDP is published. The
reference network is the existing network and network under construction and advanced permitting,
and other projects that the TSO is contractually bound to construct.
The planning horizon year (confirming the performance of the proposed network/reinforcements) is
recommended to be 10 year post the reference year. For example the 2010 TYNDP would use 2010
as the reference horizon year and 2020 as the planning horizon year.
The generation of planning cases is described in the document “Guideline for the development of
planning cases”.
To estimate the benefits (quantitative as well as qualitative) of a project, at least two main situations
have to be compared: the planning horizon case, including all the projects in the portfolio, and the
same case where the project under evaluation has been taken out.

2. IDENTIFICATION OF REINFORCEMENTS
If the consequences found in chapter 3 of the ENTSO-E Standards for European Transmission Grid
Planning applied to the reference case are not acceptable, then reinforcement of the grid is planned.
Each project aims at increasing benefits compared to the reference solution. It may include cross-
border lines as well as internal reinforcements.
If there are several alternative projects, one has to create an option for each alternative. Each
project is taken out of the planning horizon case and the two situations with and without the project
is compared.

3. COST AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY ASSESSMENT

C.1 Total project expenditure
For each project costs have to be estimated. Within ENTSO-E, project expenditures are strongly
dependent on local conditions and therefore differing. Consequently, project costs may be
calculated by using local standard-cost.
The total project expenditures over the lifetime relate to a given period of years (that depends on
the type of installation) and have to include the following costs components:
- expected cost for materials and assembly costs (such as masts/ basement/ wires/
cables/ substations/ protection and control systems and so on);
- expected costs for temporary solutions which are necessary to realise a project (E.g. a
new overhead-line has to be built in an existing route, to facilitate the transmission task
during the construction period a temporary circuit has to be installed);
- expected costs for approval procedure (such as planning approval, regional planning
procedure, compensation costs and so on);
- expected costs for devices that have to be replaced within the given period (regard of
life-cycles) ;
- dismantling costs at the end of life of the equipment.
- other life cycle costs.

Page 6/36
S.1 Social and environmental impact
Early assessment of social and environmental impact will help increasing social compatibility and
successful licensing. A colour coded indication is determined to show the effects of the project. The
indication is found through an expert assessment, if possible supported by preliminary
environmental studies. It may also be used in a dynamic way, through project monitoring. It takes
into account the following aspects:
1) Impact on nature (crossing of protected areas, effects on fauna, flora and biodiversity…)
2) Impact on human activity (effects on agriculture, infrastructures, tourism, historical,
artistic and cultural assets…)
3) Social compatibility (visual impact, perception of need, former infrastructure conflicts in
the area, compensations programme…)
The social and environmental impact will be characterised using the “traffic light principle” (see
fig.3), using the following guidelines:

Indicative colours
- Green: the probability of carrying out a project at the planned commissioning date is
considered as high.
As the planned commission date should automatically reflect possible environmental impacts it is
indicative that:
- No protected or dense urban area is affected.
- There are no known former infrastructure conflicts in the area.
- The visual impact is perceived as low.
Example: connection of off-shore wind farms in special zones approved by the government.

- Amber: the probability of carrying out a project at the planned commissioning date is
considered as realistic but exposed to uncertainty.
As the planned commission date should automatically reflects possible environmental impacts it is
indicative that:
- Protected or urban area may be affected in a limited way.
- Visual impact is perceived as moderate.
Example: reconstruction of an overhead line in existing corridor or underground cable in urban areas.

- Red: the probability of carrying out a project at the planned commissioning date is
considered as low.
As the planned commission date should automatically reflects possible environmental impacts it is
indicative that:
1. Visual impact is perceived as high.
2. Protected or urban area may be affected.
3. There have been former conflicts in the area.
Example: construction of new interconnection overhead line though sensitive areas.

Project Social and

environmental impact
Project A, Name,
description…
Project B, Name,
description…
Project C, Name,
description…
Figure 3. Presentation of social and environmental impact assessment

Page 7/36
4. BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
4.1 Geographical scope of the analysis
The geographical scope of the analysis is the region defined by the SDC as a minimum. If necessary,
it can be extended to surrounding countries.
4.2 Benefit analyisis
The benefits will be quantified as far as possible. For all categories, a two-step methodology is given:
1. An evaluation method aiming at quantifying or describing qualitatively the impact of the
project.
2. An assessment method aiming at qualifying the added value provided by the project, carried
out using colour coding (see fig. 2 above).
The evaluation of the effects may be performed using both market studies and network analysis,
including expert assessment. ,
Market based assessment gives a detailed assessment of generation and consumption profile, using
a simplified representation of the grid. Market studies performing hourly analysis throughout the
year have the advantage of clearly highlighting the structural rather than incidental bottlenecks.
Network assessment is carried out on a samle of planning cases, selected on the basis of information
(system dispatch, frequency or gravity of constraints) given by the market study3. It has a simplified
representation of generation and demand, and a detailed representation of the grid. Network
studies have the advantage of taking into account internal congestions on the network (including
loop flows).
An iteration of both methods is strongly recommanded.
The present guideline will help assessing project using results from market studies carried out within
each regional Group or at a pan-European level. Appraisal for each category is generally given in
annual MWh. The resolution is generally hourly. Data can be obtained from the Pan European
Market Modeling Database.
Network based assessment is the long standing historical method used within ENTSO-E. Apparaisal
for each category is generally given in MW. The present guideline will help assessing projects in a
coherent way within the ENTSO-E.
Appendix 2 to 4 give examples of benefit calculations for the main indicators. Examples of GTC
calculation and SoS benefit calculation are given in the main text.

4.3 Grid Transfer Capability Calculation

The methodology to calculate the benefit indicators B1, B2, B3 and B5 for each planning case and for
each project is based the evaluation of Grid Transfer Capability variation4.
Grid Transfer Capability (GTC) is the ability of the grid to transport electricity across a boundary,
i.e. from one area (price zone, area within a country or a TSO) to another. It depends on the
considered state of consumption, generation and exchange, as well as the topology and
availability of the grid.

3 See Guideline on Selection of Planning cases.

4 According to “Draft Framework Guidelines on Capacity Allocation and Congestion Management for Electricity”, long term
and short term capacity calculation should be fully coherent.

Page 8/36
 The Grid Transfer Capability is oriented, which means that across a boundary, there may be two
different values.
A boundary may be fixed (border between states or price zones), or vary from one horizon or
scenario to another.

Calculation of benefit in terms of Grid Transfer Capability variation is different from one benefit
category to another. There is nevertheless a common basis. It consists of the following steps:

Step 1. Load flow calculation in the reference cases

Market studies provide an expected generation dispatch, which is used as a starting point for
network studies. GTC is calculated by summing the flows of active power, taking account of flow
direction, in all of the circuits that cross the boundary between the two areas being considered.

Example of Step 1 for n planning cases:

Figure 4. GTC weighted method: example of step 1

Step 2. Maximum grid transfer capability

Maximum grid transfer capability across a boundary between two areas is found, in a certain
direction, assuming that the flow is to be maximised in the direction of the net flow across the
boundary in the reference condition. This is based on the premise that the flow is initially from an
area of relatively low cost generation to an area with a higher cost generation, and that the
maximum, benefit will come from the maximising this flow. In analysis work, generation is increased
on the exporting side of the boundary, and decreased on the importing side. Within one time
horizon the power flow direction may not be consistent between cases. Consequently an area may
be importing in some cases, and exporting in others. GTC calculation is done with and without the
project to obtain the two different values that are to be compared in order to obtain the indicator
level. The criteria included in the ENTSO-E Standards for European Transmission Grid Planning must
be fulfilled.

Example of Step 2 for n planning cases:

Figure 5. GTC weighted method: example of step 2

Page 9/36
Step 3. Total benefit of reinforcement
The benefit will be calculated for each case taking into account the GTC calculation and the relation
of the benefit indicator with the GTC. The mean annual value of the benefit will be calculated, taking
into account the weight of each case.

The total benefit for each project and indicator is thus obtained combining the benefit for each
planning case according to the formula:

where:
TC = number of planning cases that represent the horizon

= Benefit for each planning case calculated as the difference of maximum benefit
with and without the project

= the total number of hours that the planning case represents /8760
Example of Step 3 for 6 planning cases:

Figure 6. GTC weighted method: example of step 3

4.4. Methodology for each benefit category

B1. Improved security of supply

In the network based assessment the benefit is evaluated by the improvement of security of supply
under contingencies defined in the ENTSO-E Standards for European Transmission Grid Planning. The
assessment shall be focused on a delimited geographical area. The boundary of the area may consist
of the nodes of a quasi-radial sub-system or semi-isolated area (e.g. with a single 400 kV injection).
In order to keep the workload of computation manageable, no further remedial actions - like scaling
down loads - are assumed. The system is then at risk if the given contingency criteria are not fulfilled
in some of the planning cases.
The energy secured by the project can be calculated from the assumed weight in hours as explained
in chapter 4.3. The improvement a project brings for the security of supply is the difference between
the cases without the project and with the project.

Page 10/36
In the market based assessment the evaluation is not limited to predefined planning cases, but
probability based methods are typically run over a year or even over several years if variation
between years can be significant.
A comparable result to network based assessment of improved security of supply can be obtained
without extra simulations directly from duration curves of power flows on transmission system
cross-section when proposed projects are implemented and increased grid transfer capabilities
assumed accordingly. This is illustrated in figure 7. However, it should be noted that when physical
flows are very different from market flows, these results should be conforted by a network analyisis.

Figure 7. Deriving an estimation of security of supply improvement from the market based
simulation results (a duration curve of power flow in a cross-section under study) when a project
is implemented. Grid transfer capabilities with (GTC+WP, GTC-WP) and without (GTC+WoP,GTC-WoP )
the project have to be known.

In market based methods the contribution of proposed projects to security of supply can be further
refined by calculating the expected energy not served (EENS) with the reference system and with
systems reinforced with alternative projects.

Indicative colours
• White: the project will not improve security of supply, i.e. for supplying electricity for normal
contingencies, during the ten years following its commissioning
• Light Green: the project improves the security of supply under normal contingencies as
defined in the ENTSO-E Standards for European Transmission Grid Planning during the ten
years following its commissioning.
• Green: the project additionally improves the security of supply under rare contingencies as
defined in the ENTSO-E Standards for European Transmission Grid Planning during the ten
years following its commissioning.

Page 11/36
B2. Social and economic welfare
The social and economic welfare benefit is calculated from the reduction in total generation costs5
associated with the GTC variation that the project allows. By removing network bottlenecks that
restrict the access of generation to the full European market, a project can facilitate increased
competition between generators, reducing the cost of electricity to end consumers. Similarly, a
project can contribute to reduced costs by providing a system connection to new, relatively low cost,
generation.
Ideally this cost reduction would be calculated from combined network based and market based
analysis, including both a full network model in the area of the project, and an economic
optimisation in which individual generators are assigned costs. In practice, a good indication of the
benefit can be obtained from separate network based and market based assessments, with iteration
between the two.
Both assessments use the GTC, as described in 4.3.
In the market based assessment an economic optimisation is undertaken to determine the optimum
cost of total generation dispatch, with and without the project. The benefit for each case is
calculated from:
Benefit (for each hour) = Generation costs without the project – Generation costs with the project
The total benefit for the horizon is calculated by summing the benefit for all the hours of the year.
The optimisation attributes specific costs to each generator, based on the Pan European Market
Modelling Database for existing generators, and forecast values for new generators. A simplified
network model is used. This may be a dc load flow with a small number of nodes and branches – this
could be as simple as one node per area and one branch across each boundary. It is important that
the network model includes limits on boundary flows, such that the GTC of each boundary cannot be
exceeded. The boundary flow limits are preferably derived from full network studies in line with the
Planning Standard, but can be based more simply on the thermal capability of the circuits.
The optimisation has the objective to minimise the total cost of generation. The resulting generation
pattern and network flows may not fully utilise the project: the boundary flows may be less than the
GTC. It should be noted that the limited network model may lead to generation patterns that cannot
be technically achieved.
This method has the advantages of taking proper account of individual generator prices, and
performing a separate analysis for each hour of the year. This will mean that the true marginal cost
for both the import and export areas will be used throughout the year. The limitation of the method
is that full account is not taken of the technical restrictions the network may impose on the optimum
economic generation despatch.
In the network based assessment, the limiting transfer capability across a boundary between two
areas is found, assuming that the direction of flow is to be maximised in the direction of the net flow
across the boundary in the reference condition. This is based on the premise that the flow is initially
from an area of relatively low cost generation to an area with higher cost generation, and that the
maximum benefit will come from maximising this flow. In the analysis work, generation is increased
on the exporting side of the boundary, and decreased on the importing side. Within one time
horizon the power flow direction may not be consistent between cases. Consequently an area may
be importing in some cases, and exporting in others.
The benefit for each case is calculated by comparing the cost of generation required in the reference

5 Since electricity demand is considered inelastic, net decrease in generation costs is a relevant measure for social benefit.
Only variable costs are taken into account (no investment costs or subsidies are considered).

Page 12/36
condition without the project, to the cost of generation required with the project included, for each
flow direction, and is given by:

Benefit = i =1 (Cimp i * MWchange ) −  j =1

Im portGens ExportGens
(Cexpj * MWchange )

Where
ExportGens = number of generators in the exporting area, including new generators, with an
increased output
ImportGens = number of generators in the importing area with a decreased output
Cexpi = MWhr cost, in Euros, of the ith generator with an increased output on the exporting
side
Cimpj = MWhr cost, in Euros, of the jth generator with a decreased output on the importing
side
MWchange = the difference in MW for the generator in the case with and without the
project for each hour

It is assumed that the optimum power flows are those that result in boundary flows at the GTC level.
TSOs should base the generation costs on their best view, taking into account the system dispatch
given by the market study. Where the level of power generation is increased by the greater
utilisation of existing generation of a specific type, or by new generation that is expected to connect,
the average variable cost of marginal generation in the exporting area should be used. Where new,
as yet unplanned, generation is used to increase the transfer, average costs for the exporting area
should be used. In the importing area, the cost of each generator removed or reduced should be the
average variable cost for the marginal generation in the importing area6.
The network based assessment will give an indication of the benefit if the project is fully utilised.
However, this may not be the economic optimum, particularly if the generation in the export area
displaces similarly priced generation in the import area that is closer to the loads, or where it is
necessary to run expensive plant in the export area to achieve the full export capability.
The total benefit for each horizon is calculated from the benefit in each planning case with
thecombination method described in section 4.2.
The advantage of this method is that the benefit is calculated for a transfer level that can be
technically realised. The disadvantages are that the true costs are not used, and that a limited
number of studies are used to represent the year. If insufficient studies are used, the GTC may not
be technically realisable in all cases, reducing the benefit of this method.
Due to the limitations of both methods, it is recommended that iterations between them are
undertaken. Examples of both the network and market based assessment methods are shown in
Appendix 2.
Indicative colours are assigned as follows:
• White: the project has an annual benefit < € 30 million
• Light green: the project has an annual benefit between€ 30 and € 100 million
• Green: the project has an annual benefit > or = to € 100 million

6 It should be noted that the network losses will be different with and without the project. The cost of the change in losses will be
inherently included in network based assessment of the social and economic welfare benefit, as the volume of generation will be adjusted
so that it always equals demand plus losses

Page 13/36
B3. RES integration.
RES integration is facilitated by:
1. Connection to the main system
2. Increasing the GTC between an area with excess of RES generation to share this with other
areas in order to facilitate higher level of RES penetration.
For case 1, RES integration is measured by amount of MW connected in a given area. For case 2, the
border for calculating the GTC is to be placed in a way that divides an area with an excess of RES
from an area where that RES generation can be consumed. The RES integration benefit is then
calculated in MW through the calculation of the increase in GTC provided by a project.
For the network based assessment, the analysis process consists of taking two cases, one with and
one without the project, and for each case increasing the renewable production in the excess
generation area until the criteria of the ENTSO-E Standards for European Transmission Grid Planning
is not fulfilled.
The maximum production level at the point before this criteria is no longer met is used to calculate
the GTC indicator (as described in section 4.3) for each case, with and without the project.The total
RES benefit for the period of the year the two cases represent, is obtained by the difference
between the values of GTC (with and without).
The total benefit for each horizon is calculated from the benefit in each planning case with the
combination method described at the beginning of section 4.3
Market studies may be used to calculate RES energy that is integrated in the model in the area with
excess of RES. This modelling is performed as one node separated from the area where the RES
production is consumed, by a connection with a capacity equal to the GTC calculated.
If several GTC values are used, market studies can calculate energy in a more accurate way, taking
into account RES production time profiles.
Examples of both the network and market based assessment methods are shown in Appendix 3.

Indicative colours are assigned as follows:

• White: has a neutral effect on the capability of integrating RES;
• Light Green: the project allows integrating additional RES production, but the amount is less
than 500 MW for network based assessment or 1000GWh for market based assessment.
• Green: the project allows integrating additional RES production, but the amount is higher of
equal to 500 MW for network based assessment or 1000GWh for market based assessment.

Page 14/36
B4. Variation in losses (Energy efficiency )
The energy efficiency benefit of a project is measured through the reduction of thermal losses (MW)
in the system. The losses in the system are quantified for each case, with and without the project.
The total energy efficiency benefit is then calculated as the difference between both values. The
generation mix should be the cheapest one that is compatible with ENTSO-E Planning Standards; this
means that the case with project can have a different generation mix than the case without the
project.
The total benefit for each horizon is calculated from the benefit in each planning case with the
combination method described in section 4.3.
Examples of both the network and market based assessment methods are shown in Appendix 3.

Indicative colours are assigned as follows:

• White: the project contributes to increase the volume of losses on the grid

• Light Green: “neutral = no clear traned” : the project may help decreasing losses in some
situations and increasing them in others

• Green: the project the project contributes to decrease the volume of losses on the grid

Page 15/36
B5. Variations in CO2 emissions
By relieving congestion, reinforcements may enable low-carbon power plants to generate more
electricity than without the reinforcement; replacing conventional plants with higher carbon
content. Shifts in generation dispatch will depend on relative fuel prices and emission allowance
prices. An assumption on price of CO2, integrating the EU allowance scheme, is included in the
variable cost of each power plant7. The CO2 benefit thus depends on the specific difference in CO2
emission factor of the generation portfolio with and without the project8.
Furthermore, reinforcements may reduce losses in the grid, and thus reduce the amount of
generation needed to cover demand. The CO2 benefit thus depends on the CO2 content of losses.
Calculation of CO2 variations is therefore a two-step approach:
1) CO2 benefit linked to substitution effect
Generation dispatch and unit commitment used for calculation of Social and economical welfare
benefit with and without the project is used to calculate the carbon impact, using standard emission
rates.
Benefit = VG * CO2
Where :
Benefit = CO2 emission savings in ton CO2 due to substitution effect
VG = Volume of generation with the project minus volume of generation without the project
CO2 = CO2 emission factor for each plant

2) CO2 benefit linked to variations in losses

Amount of losses with and without the project is used to calculate the carbon impact using standard
emission rates.
Benefit = VL * CO2
Where :
Benefit = CO2 emission savings in ton CO2 due to energy efficiency
VL = Volume of losses with the project minus volume of losses without the project
CO2 = CO2 emission factor generation portfolio

The total CO2 benefit in tCO2 is calculated as the sum of the CO2 impact due to the substitution
effect and the CO2 impact due to losses. The total benefit for each horizon is calculated from the
benefit in each planning case with the combination method described in section 4.2. Conversion
from tCO2 to euros may be done using the CO2 price given in the Pan European Market Data Base.
Examples of both the network and market based assessment methods are shown in Appendix 2.

Indicative colours are assigned as follows:

• White: the project has no positive effect on CO2 emissions

• Light Green: the total of projects reduces CO2 emissions by < 500kt/year

• Green: the total of projects reduces CO2 emissions by > 500kt/year

7 Producers include price of CO2 into their costs. Therefore, CO2 benefit is included the socio-economic benefit calculation.
When a CO2 benefit in Euros is calculated, the socio-economic benefit should be modified accordingly, in order to avoid
double accounting.
8 Using standard emission rates (CO2 emission) for each power plant given in the Pan European Market Data Base

Page 16/36
B6. Technical resilience/system safety margin
A quantitative summation of the technical resilience and system safety margin of a project is
performed by scoring a number of key performance indicators (KPI) and aggregating these to
provide the total impact of the project.
Note: Some of the KPI’s given below may be used as part of the assessment criteria to determine the
acceptability of a project as a viable solution to the network needs. In this case they will not be
applicable for inclusion under B6.

Score
KPI
(either ++/+/0)
Able to meet the recommendation R3.1 (Failures combined with
maintenance) set out in 3. Technical Criteria for Planning of ENTSO-E
standards for European Transmission Grid Planning (as applicable)
Able to meet the recommendation R3.2 (Steady state criteria) set out in 3.
Technical Criteria for Planning of ENTSO-E standards for European
Transmission Grid Planning (as applicable)
Able to meet the recommendation R3.3 (voltage collapse criteria) set out
in 3. Technical Criteria for Planning of ENTSO-E standards for European
Transmission Grid Planning (as applicable)

Indicative colours are assigned as follows:

• White: the score of KPI’s is 0

• Light Green: the score of KPI’s is < or = 3+

• Green: the score of KPI’s is > 3 +

Page 17/36
B7. Robustness/flexibility
A quantitative summation of the flexibility and robustness of a project is performed by scoring a
number of key performance indicators and aggregating these to provide a total impact of the
project.

Score
KPI
(either ++/+/0)
Able to comply with all planning scenarios recommendation R2.1
(investigation of cases using results of market studies) set out in 2.
Planning Scenarios of ENTSO-E standards for European Transmission Grid
Planning (as applicable)
Able to comply with all planning scenarios recommendation R2.2
(investigation of cases using a probabilistic or multi-case approach) set out
in 2. Planning Scenarios of ENTSO (as applicable)
Able to comply with all planning scenarios recommendation R2.3
(investigation of cases taking out some of the foreseen reinforcements)
set out in 2. Planning Scenarios of ENTSO (as applicable)
Ability to modify project
Ability to facilitate sharing of balancing services on wider geographical
areas, including between synchronous areas

Indicative colours are assigned as follows:

• White: the score of KPI’s is 0

• Light Green: the score of KPI’s is < or = 5+

• Green: the score of KPI’s is > 5+

Page 18/36
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The assessment of projects will be shown in a table divided into separate parts: a benefit part of the
table, an environmental part and a cost part (see figure 8). One benefit table should be used per
horizon analyzed.

Project SoS Social and RES Energy CO2 Technical Flexibility Environmental Cost in GTC in
Economic efficiency resilience / Social impact €M’s MW
Welfare
Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ
Project A, 100 3000
Name,
description…
Project B, 30 1500
Name,
description…

Figure 8. Example of assessment summary table

Page 19/36
APPENDIX 1: DEFINITIONS

Boundary: Grid section at international borders, or within a country, or any combination of those
(e.g. exports from PL to DE+CZ+SK), across which it appears relevant for TSOs to assess grid transfer
capability values (in order to auction capacity, to advertise the possibility of new generation
connection upstream, or to communicate on securing load growth for a several years downstream).
A boundary, across which a grid transfer capability assessed, is hence:
• oriented, i.e. relates to a specific direction of power flows (for an international border A-B, one
boundary A>B and another boundary B>A can be defined. The PL>DE+CZ+SK is a boundary;
CZ>PL is another)
• internal boundaries may be defined on a case by case basis for every issue (partially or totally
separating one part of the grid from another). Boundaries may be limited by price zones,
geographical borders, or congestions.
Period of analysis: The period of analysis is the time frame used for calculation of costs and benefits
of a reinforcement project.
Market model: A market model is a mathematical representation of the interactions among market
players. It is based on a market database which contains technical and economic parameters of the
generation park and demand by country, covering different time horizons, as well as information
based on this market database at a time horizon (e.g. a set of national or regional power balances).
Power system model: A power system model is an electrical representation of a network and other
system elements. It is based on a power system database at a given time horizon, containing the
following elements:
Electrical parameters of the network; topology
Power plants information per node; types of generation
Information per node: generation and load ranges
Covering different time horizons and grid development scenarios
Project: A project one or several investments that have to be realised in total to achieve a desired
effect. An interconnection project may therefore be composed by the cross-border line, as well as
internal reinforcements necessary to achieve the desired capability.
Note: The internal reinforcements may also serve internal purposes. The influence of the given
internal project on GTC is then given (ex: 20%). If the influence is lower than 5%, it will not be a part
of the project.
Sensitivity analysis: Sensitivity analysis is used to determine how “sensitive” a model is to changes in
the value of the input assumptions (economic parameters or scenarios).

Page 20/36
APPENDIX 2: EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WELFARE AND CO2 BENEFITS
Figure A2.1 shows a network in which power generally flows from one area to another. The flow is
often limited by the capability of the circuits across the boundary between the areas. In some cases
the limitations are because of stability or voltage considerations, in which cases the thermal
capability of the circuits cannot be fully utilised.

E3=500MW
G G E5=750MW G G E6=500MW EXPORT
E2=1000MW
GE4=500MW GROUP
G G E8=300MW
E7=400MW

E1=100MW G

Demand Demand
Demand

Thermal
capability =
1700MW

IMPORT
Demand Demand
GROUP

G I4=500MW

I1=500MW Demand
G G G I3=200MW
Demand I2=600MW

Figure A2.1. Existing network

It is proposed to add a fourth circuit between the areas, as shown in Figure A2.2.

E3=500MW
E5=750MW E6=500MW
E2=1000MWG G G G
EXPORT
G E8=300MW GROUP
E4=500MW G
E7=400MW
G

E1=100MW G
Demand Demand
Demand

Thermal
capability =
2300MW

IMPORT
Demand Demand GROUP

I4=500MW
G

I1=500MW Demand
G G G I3=200MW
Demand I2=600MW

Figure A2.2. Proposed project

Page 21/36
Network based assessment
In the network based assessment a small number of deterministic studies are undertaken, and the
results combined, on the basis of the hours that each represents, to give a year round benefit. In
each case, the network is modelled in detail, and the generation adjusted to maximise the transfer
between the areas. The solution is fully compliant with the planning standard.
The Social and Economic welfare is found from the difference in total generation costs with and
without the project, based on the changes that can be made to the generation dispatch, and the
marginal generation prices in the import and export areas. The CO2 benefit is found from the
changes in CO2 emissions that result from the generation re-dispatch, and is calculated from the
emissions of the marginal generation in the two areas, using a standard price for CO2.
Figure A2.3 shows one particular case for the existing network. In this case, the GTC is limited to
1500 MW, which is 200 MW lower than the thermal capability of the boundary.

E3=500MW
G G E5=750MW G G E6=500MW

E2=1000MW
EXPORT
G E8=300MW GROUP
E7=400MWG G
E4=500MW

E1=100MW G
250MW 600MW
800MW

Boundary GTC =
1500MW

IMPORT
1000MW 1000MW GROUP

I4=500MW
G

I1=500MW 450MW
G G G I3=200MW
850MW I2=600MW

Figure A2.3. Generation permitted with existing network

With the addition of the project, the GTC increases to 2100 MW, still 200 MW below the thermal
capability. This additional transfer is realised by bringing generators E1 and E3 on to the system, and
displacing generator I2. This is shown in Figure A2.4.

Page 22/36
 E3=500MW
G G E5=750MW G G E6=500MW

E2=1000MW
EXPORT
G E8=300MW GROUP
E4=500MW
E7=400MW
G G

E1=100MW G
250MW 600MW
800MW

Boundary GTC =
2100MW

IMPORT
1000MW 1000MW GROUP

I4=500MW
G

I1=500MW 450MW
G G G I3=200MW
850MW I2=600MW

Figure A2.4. Generation permitted with project

Social and Economic Welfare benefit for the case
The benefit for the project is calculated from the changes in generation output, and the marginal
generation prices in the two areas.
If the marginal prices in this case are €50/MWh in the import area, and €40/MWh in the export area,
the benefit is:
(600 * 50) – {(500 * 40) + (100 * 40)} = €6000 / hour

CO2 benefit for the case

If the marginal CO2 emissions for the two areas are 0.96 t/MWh in the import area, and 0.8 t/MWh
in the export area, the benefit is:
(600*0,96t) – {(500 * 0,80t) + (100 * 0,80t)} = 96t / hour

Annual benefits
Hours Social and Economic Welfare CO2 benefit per hour (t)
Benefit per hour (€)
1600 6000 96
1400 3000 60
1160 8000 90
2400 5000 60
2200 1000 20
If we assume that this case represents 1600 hours of the year, and four other cases, as shown above,
are used to represent the total year, then the annual Social and Economic welfare benefit is
calculated as:
(6000*1600) + (3000*1400) + (8000*1160) + (5000*2400) + (1000*2200) = 37.28M€

Page 23/36
Therefore, the annual CO2 benefit is given by:
(96*1600) + (60*1400) + (90*1160) + (60*2400) + (20*2200) = 530 000t
Assuming a CO2 price of 25€/t (scenario B), CO2 benefit in Euro's is:
530 000t*25€/t = 13,25M€
Note: Cost of CO2 is included in generation costs. Therefore, when calculating CO2 benefit in Euros,
CO2 benefit should be deducted from social and economic welfare benefit.
Social and economic welfare benefit without CO2 is therefore 24.03M€

Market based assessment

In the market based assessment, a simplified network is modelled, but specific costs are assigned to
each generator. As the network is not fully modelled the GTC must be calculated within the
assessment, based only on the total thermal capability of the interconnecting circuits, or limits
derived from more detailed network studies must be explicitly included in the assessment.
As in the network based assessment, the Social and Economic welfare is found from the difference in
total generation costs with and without the project. In this assessment, the comparison is made
between the total costs of economically optimal dispatches. The CO2 benefit is found from the
changes in CO2 emissions that result from the generation re-dispatch, taking account of specific
emissions values for each generator, using a standard price for CO2.
In this example, we assume the following prices for the generators that may be brought on and
taken off:
E3 = €40/MWh (the marginal price in the export zone)
E1 = €60/MWh
E8 = €35/MWh (this does not generate because of stability or voltage issues)
I2 = I3 = €50/MWh (the marginal price in the import zone)
and the following CO2 emissions:
I2 = I3 = Coal = 0,96t/MWh (marginal in the import zone)
E3 = Fuel = 0,80t/MWh (marginal in the export zone)
E1 = CCGT = 0,36/MWh
E8 = Decentralised thermal generation = 0,40t/MWh

Figure A2.5 shows a market based assessment in which the GTC is assumed to match the thermal
capability.

Page 24/36
 EXPORT
GROUP
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8

100MW 1000MW 500MW 500MW 750MW 500MW 400MW 300MW

G G G G G G G G
1650 MW

Boundary
capability =
2300MW

3300 MW
G G G G
I1 I2 I3 I4

500MW 600MW 200MW 500MW

IMPORT
GROUP

Figure A2.5. Market assessment using thermal capability

In this case it is economic to bring on both E3 and E8, displacing I2 and I3.
The Social and Economic welfare benefit is:
{(600 * 50) + (200 * 50)} – {(500 * 40) + (300 * 35)} = €9500 / hour
If the GTC calculated in network assessments is used, the case is shown in figure A2.6.

EXPORT
GROUP
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8

100MW 1000MW 300MW 500MW 750MW 500MW 400MW 300MW

G G G G G G G G
1650 MW

Boundary
capability =
2100MW

3300 MW
G G G G
I1 I2 I3 I4

500MW 600MW 200MW 500MW

IMPORT
GROUP

Figure A2.6. Market based assessment using actual GTC

Page 25/36
In this case E8 is fully utilised, as it is the lowest priced generator, and E3 is partially used.
The Social and Economic Welfare benefit is:
(600 * 50) – {(300 * 40) + (300 * 35)} = €7500 / hour
and the CO2 benefit is:
(600*0,96t) – {(300 * 0,80t) + (300 * 0,36t)} = 228t/hour
The CO2 benefit in Euros is 228t * 25 €/t = 5700 €/hour
In either case, separate studies are run for each hour of the year, and the overall benefit is found
from summing the results of each assessment.

Discussion of results
None of the three examples above accurately identify the project benefit.
The network based assessment derives a technically compliant operating condition, but utilises the
uneconomic generator E1.
The two market based examples recognise the economic benefit of generator E8, but do not account
for the technical restrictions on its use in this case. The market based method that uses the GTC
calculated in network studies is better than that based on the thermal capability, but it will utilise E8
unless a rule is included within the assessment to prevent it.
Consequently it is advised that iteration between the network based and market based assessments
are used in order to reduce inaccuracy. However, it is likely that there will always be some
uncertainty in the results of assessments by these methods.
It should be noted that, for simplicity, none of these examples have considered the changes to
transmission system losses that will occur.

Page 26/36
APPENDIX 3: EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF RES INTEGRATION BENEFITS

Figure A3.1 shows a network in which there are two areas, one with excess of RES production (4050
MW of RES installed power) and another one that has demand able to consume the excess of RES
from the other area. The flow of RES production is often limited by the GTC between the areas.
In this example, we assume that the generators E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8 are RES while
generators I1, I2, I3 and I4 are not RES.

E3=500MW
E5=750MW E6=500MW
E2=1000MWG G G G AREA WITH
GE4=500MW EXCESS OF
E8=300MW RES
E7=400MWG G

E1=100MW G
Demand
Demand
Demand

Thermal capability
= 1700 MW

IMPORT AREA
Demand Demand

I4=500MW
G

I1=500MW Demand I3=200MW

G G G
Demand I2=600MW

Figure A3.1. Existing network

It is proposed to add a fourth circuit between the areas, as shown in Figure A3.2.

Page 27/36
 E3=500MW
E5=750MW E6=500MW
E2=1000MW G G G G
AREA WITH
GE4=500MW E8=300MW EXCESS OF
E7=400MW
G G
RES

E1=100MW G
Demand
Demand
Demand

Thermal capability
= 2300 MW

Demand Demand
IMPORT AREA

I4=500MW
G

I1=500MW Demand
G G G I3=200MW
Demand I2=600MW

Figure A3.2. proposed project

Network based assessment

In the network based assessment a small number of deterministic studies are undertaken with a
small number of planning cases, and the results are combined on the basis of the hours that each
planning case represents, to give a year round benefit. In each case, the network is modelled in
detail, and the generation adjusted to maximise the RES integration. The solution is fully compliant
with the planning standards.
The RES integration benefit is found from the difference in RES total production with and without
the project, based on the changes that can be made to the generation dispatch in order to maximize
RES integration being compliant with the planning standards.
Figure A3.3 shows one particular case for the existing network. In this case, the GTC is limited to
1500 MW, which is 200 MW lower than the thermal capability of the boundary. The demand in RES
excess area is only 1650 MW but not all the excess (2400 MW) can be transferred due to GTC
limitation.

Page 28/36
 E3=500MW
G G E5=750MW G G E6=500MW

E2=1000MW
AREA WITH
GE4=500MW E8=300MW EXCESS OF
E7=400MW
G G
RES

E1=100MW G
250MW 600MW
800MW

Boundary GTC =
1500MW

1000MW 1000MW
IMPORT AREA

I4=500MW
G

I1=500MW 450MW
G G G I3=200MW
850MW I2=600MW

Figure A3.3. Generation permitted with existing network

With the addition of the project, the GTC increases to 2100 MW, still 200 MW below the thermal
capability. This additional transfer capacity permits generators E1 and E2 to produce (and displace
generator I2, which is not RES). This is shown in Figure A3.4.

E3=500MW
G G E5=750MW G G E6=500MW
AREA WITH
E2=1000MW G EXCESS OF
E8=300MW
E7=400MWG G
E4=500MW
RES

E1=100MW G

250MW 600MW
800MW

Boundary GTC =
2100MW

IMPORT
1000MW 1000MW
GROUP

I4=500MW
G

I1=500MW 450MW
G G G I3=200MW
850MW I2=600MW

Figure A3.4. Generation permitted with project

Page 29/36
RES integration benefit for the case
The benefit for the project is calculated from the change in RES production. In the case the benefit is
600 MW, equal to the increase in GTC due to the fact that there are no restrictions inside each area.

Annual benefits
If we assume that the case shown above represents 1600 hours of the year, and four other cases
have also been analyzed, as shown below, to represent the total year
Hours RES integration (MW)
1600 600
1400 300
1160 800
2400 500
2200 100

then the annual RES integration benefit is calculated as:

(600*1600) + (300*1400) + (800*1160) + (500*2400) + (100*2200) = 3728 GWh

Market based assessment

In the market based assessment, only GTC between areas are modelled. As the network is not fully
modelled the GTC between areas must be calculated derived from more detailed network studies. In
a detailed network study each planning case analysed would lead to two different values for the
GTC, one with the project and another one without project. In the case of market based assessment,
the highest simplification would be to use two values, one with project and another without project,
keeping each of these values the same throughout the year. Another option would be to use several
values, each of them assigned to a specific period of the year (i.e. seasonal).
As in the network based assessment, the RES integration is found from the difference in total RES
production with and without the project.
Figure A3.5 shows the situation at one specific hour in a market based assessment in which the GTC
is calculated without the new project. During this hour the RES production is equal to 3150 MWh.
This calculation has to be done for all the hours of the year, modifying the demand (and maybe the
GTC) according. The total RES energy is calculated adding up the RES production for the 8760 hours
of the year.

Page 30/36
 AREA WITH
EXCESS OF RES
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8

100MW 1000MW 500MW 500MW 750MW 500MW 400MW 300MW

G G G G G G G G
1650 MW

Boundary GTC =
1500 MW

3300 MW
G G G G
I1 I2 I3 I4

500MW 600MW 200MW 500MW

IMPORT AREA

Figure A2.5. Market assessment without the project during one hour

Figure A2.6 shows the same demand situation as in figure A2.5 but with a GTC calculated with the
new project. During this hour the RES production is equal to 3750 MWh. This calculation has to be
done for all the hours of the year, modifying the demand (and maybe the GTC) according. The total
RES energy is calculated adding up the RES production for the 8760 hours of the year.

EXPORT
GROUP
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8

100MW 1000MW 300MW 500MW 750MW 500MW 400MW 300MW

G G G G G G G G
1650 MW

Boundary GTC =
2100MW

3300 MW
G G G G
I1 I2 I3 I4

500MW 600MW 200MW 500MW

IMPORT
GROUP

Figure A2.6. Market assessment with the project during one hour

Page 31/36
Once the RES production (in energy) is calculated with and without the project both values are
subtracted to obtain the benefit value.

Discussion of results
The network based method takes into account accurately the network with all possible restrictions
but only considers a few demand situations. With OPF is possible to give priority to RES production.
The market based method takes into account demand evolution during the year but does not take
into account possible restrictions inside each area. To take into account variation in GTC during the
year several network calculations should be done. With market based method RES spillage can be
estimated.

Page 32/36
APPENDIX 4: EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF RESILIENCE AND FLEXIBILTY BENEFITS

1) Example calculation of Resilience benefits

Score
KPI
(either ++/+/0)
Able to meet the recommendation R3.1 (Failures combined with
maintenance) set out in 3. Technical Criteria for Planning of ENTSO-E
standards for European Transmission Grid Planning (as applicable)

Able to meet the recommendation R3.2 (Steady state criteria) set out in 3.
Technical Criteria for Planning of ENTSO-E standards for European
Transmission Grid Planning (as applicable)
Able to meet the recommendation R3.3 (voltage collapse criteria) set out
in 3. Technical Criteria for Planning of ENTSO-E standards for European
Transmission Grid Planning (as applicable)

Table 1: Tabulated scoring system for B6 Technical Resilence

Benefit requirement B6 Technical resilience is defined by a tabulated scoring system outlined above
in Table 1. Scores for each Key Performance Indicator (KPI) are added to the table and are summated
to give an overall score for the project. Each KPI can be given a score of 0, a single or double ‘+’.
Given the highly variable and complex nature of each project, in part due to the wide type and scale
of projects in the TYNDP, the scoring of each KPI is not by algorithmic calculation but rather by
professional power engineering judgement.
This professional judgement is informed by network analysis for the proposed project in the TYNDP,
and a detailed knowledge of the engineer of the specifics of the network and its future development
within which the project is to perform, possibly supported by additional studies.

Failures combined with maintenance

The scoring for the first KPI is driven by ability of the project to meet the requirements set out in
Recommendation 3.1, to be able to provide N-1 compliance whilst items of equipment are out for
maintenance, for the agreed combinations of equipment set out in the table below:
Possible combined degradations Justification for studying the event
Overhead circuit + generating unit Regular shut-down of generating units (e.g.
Transformer + generating unit revision) and long repair
Several generating units
Overhead circuit + overhead circuit Long non-availability due to overhaul and maintenance

Transformer + transformer Long repair times both for transformers and Cables
Cable + cable
Overhead circuit + transformer
Cable + transformer
Overhead + cable

In the event that it is judged that no equipment can be maintained, whilst N-1 compliance is

Page 33/36
retained in local region of the transmission network that the project is to connected into, a score of
‘0’ would be given. The local region will be considered to within 2 transmission node connection
points of the project. A score of a double ‘+’ will be given if equipment greater than 75% can be
maintained in the local region whilst retaining N-1 compliance otherwise a single ‘+’ will be scored.

Steady state criteria

The scoring for the second KPI is driven by ability of the project to meet the requirements set out in
Recommendation 3.2, meeting the steady state criterion following a rare contingency on the
network.
A rare contingency is defined as the (unusual) loss of one of the following elements:
- A line with two or more circuits on the same towers if a TSO considers this appropriate and
does not include this contingency in its normal system planning
- A single busbar
- A common mode failure with the loss of more than one generating unit or plant
- A common mode failure with the loss of more than one DC link
To meet the steady state criterion, no cascade tripping must occur, the network must be within
maximum permissible thermal limits and maximum and minimum voltage limits. These are defined
further in the ENTSO-E Standards for European for Transmission Grid Planning.
In the event that it is judged that the network cannot meet the steady state criterion in the local
region of the transmission network that the project is connected to post any of the rare
contingencies (outlined above) a score of ‘0’ will be given. The local region will be considered to
within 2 transmission node connection points of the project. A score of a double ‘+’ will be given if
the steady state criterion can be maintained for more than 2 rare contingencies in the local region of
the transmission network, otherwise a single ‘+’ will be scored.

Voltage collapse criteria

The scoring for the third KPI is driven by ability of the project to meet the requirements set out in
Recommendation 3.3, meeting the voltage collapse criterion for both intact and post normal
contingencies situations. A normal contingency is the (not unusual) loss of one of the following
elements:
- Generator.
- Transmission circuit (overhead, underground or mixed).
- Transformer between two voltage levels of the transmission system.
- Shunt device (i.e. capacitors, reactors, ...).
- Single DC line.
- Network equipment for load flow control (phase shifter, FACTS, …).
- A line with two or more circuits on the same towers if a TSO considers this appropriate and
includes this contingency in its normal system planning
To meet the voltage collapse criterion, system voltages should be within normal voltage level ranges
for an intact network and remain stable but not necessarily within normal levels after normal
contingencies.
In the event that it is judged that the network does not meet the voltage collapse criterion for intact
or normal contingencies (outlined above) in the local region of the transmission network that the
project is to connected a score of ‘0’ will be given. The local region will be considered to within 2
transmission node connection points of the project. A score of a double ‘+’ will be given if for more
than 75% of normal contingencies in the local region of the transmission network the voltage
collapse criterion is met. Otherwise a single ‘+’ will be scored.

Page 34/36
 2) Example calculation of flexibility benefits (B7)
Score
KPI
(either ++/+/0)
Able to comply with all planning scenarios recommendation R2.1
(investigation of cases using results of market studies) set out in 2.
Planning Scenarios of ENTSO-E standards for European Transmission Grid
Planning (as applicable)
Able to comply with all planning scenarios recommendation R2.2
(investigation of cases using a probabilistic or multi-case approach) set out
in 2. Planning Scenarios of ENTSO (as applicable)
Able to comply with all planning scenarios recommendation R2.3
(investigation of cases taking out some of the foreseen reinforcements)
set out in 2. Planning Scenarios of ENTSO (as applicable)
Ability to modify project
Ability to facilitate sharing of balancing services on wider geographical
areas, including between synchronous areas

Table 2: Tabulated scoring system for B7 Flexibility

Benefit requirement B7 Flexibility is defined by a tabulated scoring system outlined above in Table 2.
Scores for each Key Performance Indicator (KPI) are added to the table and are summated to give an
overall score for the project. Each KPI can be given a score of 0, a single or double ‘+’.
Given the highly variable and complex nature of each project, in part due to the wide type and scale
of projects in the TYNDP the scoring of each KPI is not by algorithmic calculation but rather by
professional power engineering judgement.
This professional judgement is informed by network analysis for the proposed project in the TYNDP,
and a detailed knowledge of the engineer of the specifics of the network and its future development
within which the project is to perform, possibly supported by additonal studies.
For clarity as some KPI’s for projects are impacted by the synchronous area or country which they
cross, the most onerous related impact to the scoring of a KPI should be given.

Market studies
The scoring for the KPI assessing the ability of the project to maintain the planning standards for
cases beyond the typical reference cases (i.e. summer peak, winter peak) defined by market analysis
as set out in Recommendation 2.1.
In the event that it is judged that no market based reference cases can meet the planning standards
in the local region of the transmission network that the project is to connected into, or none have
been examined a score of ‘0’ will be given. The local region will be considered to within 2
transmission node connection points of the project. A score of a double ‘+’ will be given if greater
than 75% of market based reference cases can be meet the planning standards in the local region
otherwise a single ‘+’ will be scored.

Page 35/36
Probabilistic or multi-case approach
The scoring for the KPI assessing the ability of the project to maintain the planning standards for
cases defined by multi-criteria or probabilistic techniques, as set out in Recommendation 2.2.
In the event that it is judged that no multi-criteria defined cases can meet the planning standards in
the local region of the transmission network that the project is to connected to or no multi-criteria
cases have been developed a score of ‘0’ will be given. The local region will be considered to within 2
transmission node connection points of the project. A score of a double ‘+’ will be given if greater
than 75% of multi-criteria based reference cases can be meet the planning standards in the local
region otherwise a single ‘+’ will be scored.

Variance from foreseen development plan

The scoring for the KPI assessing the ability of the project to maintain the planning standards is
defined by the impact, when other projects in the regional area are delayed, as set out in
Recommendation 2.3. In the event that it is judged that delaying any of the other projects in the
region will impact on the ability of the project to meet the planning standards, or their impact
cannot be judged a score of ‘0’ will be given. The region will be considered to be the same as the
regional groups in Entsoe. A score of a double ‘+’ will be given if greater than 75% of the planned
projects in the region do not affect the projects ability to meet the planning standards, otherwise a
single ‘+’ will be scored.

Ability to modify project

The scoring for assessing the KPI on the ability of the project to be modified, centres around the
professional knowledge of local experts to their specific equipment designs to be able to be modified
based on historical experience. Where projects in the past have required either new planning
permission or greater than 50% of the original capital cost to required to modify the project to an
standard arrangement then a ‘0’ would typically be given. Where projects avoid planning permission
and require 25% or less of the original capital cost to modify a score of ‘++’ should be given. Where
projects either avoid planning permission or require 50% or less of the original capital cost to modify
a score of ‘+’ should be given.

Balancing services
The scoring for assessing the KPI on the ability of the project to facilitate balancing services centres
around the professional knowledge of local experts to their local network strategic plans as well as
European trading needs and plans in their areas.
Where projects cannot provide balancing services (i.e. equipment replacement due to fault levels),
or is in an area which (based on professional judgement) has sufficient balancing services a ‘0’ would
typically be given. Where projects are in an area in need of balancing services and increase the
ability to provide balancing services a ‘+’ would typically be given. For projects that can provide
balancing services directly themselves (i.e. DC links) a ‘++’ would typically be given.

Page 36/36