text: OJ L 115, 25.4.2013, p.39. OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p.1. 3 In this Opinion, the term “proposed PCIs” indicates projects which are included in the draft regional lists submitted to the Agency, and the term “candidate projects” indicates projects for which an application for selection was submitted.

text: Cf. http://www.acer.europa.eu/official_documents/acts_of_the_agency/opinions/opinions/acer%20opinion%2001-2015.pdf 5 Cf. http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Opinions/Opinions/ACER%20Opinion%2001- 2014.pdf 6 In the sense of

text: article 4 (2) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: . 7 Cf. http://www.acer.europa.eu/official_documents/acts_of_the_agency/opinions/opinions/acer%20opinion%2015-2013.pdf 8 Cf. http://www.acer.europa.eu/official_documents/acts_of_the_agency/opinions/opinions/acer%20opinion%2016-2013.pdf

text: Proposed projects with commissioning dates in 2015 or earlier have been excluded from the draft regional lists. 11 Consolidated report on the progress of electricity and gas projects of common interest http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Publication/Consolidated%20report%20on%20the %20progress%20of%20electricity%20and%20gas%20Projects%20of%20Common%20Interest.pdf

text: Further details regarding e.g. level of maturity or Cost-Benefit Analysis Issues (as indicated in

text: Regulation (EU) No. 347/2013

text: Annex III.2 (1) will be analysed in section 3. 13 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-list-proposed-projects-common-interest For each candidate project, the question “In your opinion, is a proposed project significantly contributing to market integration/sustainability/security of supply/competition and therefore needed from an EU energy policy perspective?” was asked, allowing for an answer “yes” or “no” and the inclusion of comments.

text: It should be noted that 578 answers came from Germany, i.e. 89% of the total answers. Furthermore, out of 652 respondents, 507 were citizens.

text: Opinion of the Agency No 06/2012 on the European Ten-Year Network Development Plan 2012 and Opinion of the Agency No 01/2015 on the ENTSO-E draft Ten-Year Network Development Plan 2014. 16 Agency’s Opinion No 06/2012, p 14, and Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015, p.20. 17 As mentioned in the ENTSO-E TYNDP 2014 “The TYNDP methodology fails to capture the benefits of projects regarding Security of Supply”. 18 As mentioned in the Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015 on the ENTSO-E draft TYNDP 2014 “the security of supply calculations in the draft TYNDP 2014 does not fully implement the CBA methodology 2013”.

text: Recommendations in Agency’s Opinion No 01/2014 on the CBA methodology and the Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015 on the ENTSO-E draft TYNDP 2014. 20 Some of the cases noticed are the following: no cost data was provided for some candidate PCIs; the cost data provided was not agreed upon by all promoters involved in the candidate PCI; costs were provided at a cluster level and not disaggregated per investment item; only CAPEX costs were provided and not OPEX; OPEX provided was an annual cost and not discounted according to the CBA methodology rules for a 25 year period or was discounted over a longer period (for some storage projects); CAPEX provided was not calculated according to the CBA methodology rules (e.g. it was the expected undiscounted total investment cost, and therefore not a Net Present Value); the costs provided referred to a reconfigured project, which was different from the project in the TYNDP 2014. 21 Consolidated report on the progress of electricity and gas projects of common interest http://www.acer.europa.eu/official_documents/acts_of_the_agency/publication/consolidated%20report%20on%20the% 20progress%20of%20electricity%20and%20gas%20projects%20of%20common%20interest.pdf

text: Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015, p.15. 23 ENTSO-E SOAF 2014, p.128 24 ENTSO-E’s TYNDP 2014, p.45 25 Except for the “generic project between France and Spain” referred to in Section 4.2 of this Opinion. 26 JRC, “Assessment methodology for electricity infrastructure candidate projects of common interest” Non-technical summary, draft 19 June 2015.

text: Key Performance Indicators are techno-economic indicators, which are calculated as outputs of the TYNDP 2014, and were used by JRC in its methodology. 28 With an adapted TOOT methodology, see Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015, p.9. and ENTSO-E methodology February 2015, p.32

text: TYNDP 2014, p.77 The "Robustness and flexibility" indicator shows the ability of each project to withstand very wide conditions. This indicator measures each project’s ability to comply with: - important sensitivities (scenarios); - commissioning delays and local objections to the construction of the infrastructure; - sharing balancing services in a wider geographical area (including between synchronous areas). 30 The Agency, in its Opinion No 1/2015, p.4, already confirmed its view that the security of supply criterion should be further assessed and monetised by ENTSO-E before the TYNDP 2016.

text: See Agency’s Position on the ENTSO-E “Guideline to Cost Benefit Analysis of Grid Development Projects”, 30 January 2013, page 6 (benefit no.10). http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Position_Papers/Position%20papers/ACER%20Position%20ENTSO- E%20CBA.pdf

text: For instance, "under consideration" status in the TYNDP is a strong indication that a project is not yet mature. For this kind of projects, the priority would be to complete the feasibility studies, in order to eventually reach a level of higher maturity.

text: Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015, p. 25. 35 “NSI East” stands for North South electricity Interconnections in Central Eastern and South Eastern Europe, “NSI West” stands for North South electricity Interconnections in Western Europe, “NSOG” stands for Northern Seas offshore grid”, and “BEMIP” stands for Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan.

text: Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: Which were presented to the Regional Groups in line with Annex III.2(7) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: . 38 One checklist does not always correspond to one candidate PCI, as in some cases multiple checklists were submitted for 1 PCI, or a checklist included more than one candidate PCI or only part of a candidate PCI.

text: If the generic project between Spain and France is assumed to include one investment item.

text: If the generic project in the Baltic region is assumed to include one investment item.

text: New 400kV double circuit and new 400kV substation in Richborough Thames Estuary Cluster National Grid Electricity NSOG 74 449 connecting the new Belgium interconnector providing greater market GB (NEMO) Transmission coupling between the UK and the European mainland.

identifier: ACER Opinion No 14/2015

title: Coordinated-ACER Opinion 14-2015 on the Draft Regional Lists of Proposed Electricity PCIs 2015

text: Publishing date: 13/11/2015 Document title: COORDINATED-ACER Opinion 14-2015 on the draft regional lists of proposed electricity PCIs 2015 We appreciate your feedback

type: rubrik

text: OPINION OF THE AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS No 14/2015 of 30 October 2015

text: ON THE DRAFT REGIONAL LISTS OF PROPOSED ELECTRICITY PROJECTS OF COMMON INTEREST 2015

text: THE AGENCY FOR THE COOPERATION OF ENERGY REGULATORS HAVING REGARD to

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No

text: and amending Regulations

text: (EC) No 713/2009

text: (EC) No 714/2009

text: and

text: (EC) No 715/2009

text: , and, in particular, Annex III.2(12) thereof, HAVING REGARD to the favourable opinion of the Board of Regulators of 30 October 2015, delivered pursuant to

text: Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009

text: of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (the Agency), WHEREAS: (1) On 11 May 2015 and on 13 July 2015, the draft regional lists of proposed projects of common interest (PCIs) (cf. Annex I) falling under the categories set out in Annex II.1 of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: (for smart grids and for electricity priority corridors, respectively) were submitted to the Agency; (2) The Agency did not receive opinions of Member States concerning proposed electricity PCIs not located on their territories but which could have a potential net positive impact or a potential significant effect on them, which Member States may present to the Regional Groups, pursuant to Annex III.2(9) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: ; HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION: 1. Executive summary 1.1 The Agency’s key findings regarding the selection of electricity PCIs in 2015 - The Agency notes that the work in the Regional Group meetings focused mainly on procedural and methodological issues of the selection process, rather than discussing the specific infrastructure needs in each priority corridor and to which degree they were met by the candidate projects. - The Agency also notes that late notification of activities and circulation of the necessary information might have prevented stakeholders, and especially National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs), adequately to prepare their evaluations. These weaknesses might have been detrimental to the quality of the selection process and of stakeholders’ involvement. - The Agency highlights the non-alignment of the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) with the needs of the PCI selection process, which has resulted in a number of issues, some of which were already identified by the Agency in its Opinion No 01/2015 on the ENTSO-E draft TYNDP 2014 , as well as in its Opinion No 01/2014 on the ENTSO-E guideline on Cost Benefit Analysis of grid development projects . - The Agency also considers that the selection methodology proposed by the European Commission to the Regional Groups for electricity corridors suffers from significant shortcomings, notably in terms of choice of scenarios, use of indicators and consideration of the urgency criterion. - The Agency notes that all eligible project candidates were finally proposed as PCIs. When the number of eligible candidate projects is deemed manageable by the European Commission, therefore allowing their inclusion on the list, the Agency is of the view that a ranking methodology is not necessary. 1.2 The Agency’s key recommendations for future selection processes of electricity and gas PCIs The Agency provides the following key recommendations to facilitate and enhance both the future analysis of candidate projects and the future decision-making process: - The Agency recommends that the Regional Groups first assess the maturity of candidate projects (i.e. to what extent each candidate is sufficiently well defined/advanced). Then, Regional Groups should identify the needs for infrastructures , and lastly rank the projects according to their contribution to address them. The Agency points out that, as noted in its Opinion No 15/2013 on the draft regional lists of proposed gas PCIs 2013 and its Opinion No 16/2013 on the draft regional lists of proposed electricity PCIs 2013 , a simpler and faster evaluation should be applied to nonmature projects, as the uncertainties around the characteristics of such projects can strongly affect the robustness of the assessment. To this end, a standardised assessment methodology for nonmature projects should be defined well in advance of the next PCI selection. - The Agency believes that joint NRA assessments should constitute the starting point of the Regional Groups’ actual evaluation of candidate projects, after the relevant information becomes available. The NRAs, cooperating in the framework of the Agency, would indeed be well placed and ready to provide an important input to the Regional Groups regarding, first, the maturity of the candidate projects and, then, the role that each of them can play in the respective priority corridor, by providing a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative evaluation, notably by assessing the project-specific Cost Benefit Analysis (PS-CBA) results. - These requirements and the Agency’s relevant Opinions should be taken into due consideration by the ENTSOs before the TYNDPs are finalised. 2. On the process for establishing the draft lists of proposed PCIs In this Opinion, the Agency comments on aspects of the process leading to the definition of the draft regional lists of proposed PCIs for electricity and smart grids to the extent that these aspects are considered to have had an impact on the consistent application of the selection criteria or of the CBA. 2.1 Process schedule and main activities After the first cross-regional meeting in March 2014, intensive work for the identification of the PCIs was carried out in the framework of the Regional Groups. The meetings of the Regional Groups, which also met all together in Cross-Regional meetings, primarily aimed at:  Fostering regional cooperation on infrastructure projects between all the involved parties, i.e. Member States, NRAs, Transmission System Operators (TSOs), the European Commission, the Agency, the ENTSO-E, and other project promoters, in each region;  Establishing the draft regional lists of proposed electricity PCIs with the help of an assessment methodology, considering the contribution of the proposed projects to i) market integration, competition and system flexibility, ii) sustainability and iii) security of supply; The Agency considers that the approach applied during the cross-regional and regional meetings, as described in Table 1 below, was in line with the provisions set out in

text: Article 3

text: and Annex III of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: . Table 1: Main activities for transmission and storage projects carried out in the framework of the Regional Groups Month Main activities March 2014 First Cross-Regional meeting: discussion on the future strategy of the Regional Groups regarding the monitoring and implementation of PCIs particularly September 2014 Second Cross-Regional meeting: presentation of the time schedule, ENTSOs' presentation of their role, participation of stakeholders November 2014 - Applications for selection - Third Cross-Regional meeting: discussion on preliminary outcome of the candidate projects call, presentation and discussion on the terms of references of the Regional Groups and the assessment methodology December 2014 Start of the first public consultation (22-12-2014) on candidate projects January 2015 Fourth Cross-Regional meeting: agreement on the terms of reference of the Regional Groups, discussion on the assessment methodology, presentation of the preliminary assessment of the eligible PCI proposals, discussion on non-eligible projects March 2015 - First Regional Group meetings: discussion on the updated assessment methodology, project presentation of the project promoters, presentation of the updated assessment of the eligibility of the candidate projects - End of the first public consultation (31-3-2015) - Deadline for the submission of cost information for candidate projects (31-3-2015) April 2015 Second Regional Group meetings: presentation of the first public consultation results, discussion on (preliminary) assessment methodology of candidate PCIs; voting session on the so-called weighting factors and discussion on additional criteria June 2015 - Third Regional Group meetings, including a public session: presentation of public consultation results and feedback from the stakeholders' workshop, discussion on the revised assessment methodology, presentation of the ranking results, presentation of NRAs assessment of candidate projects. - Transmission of cost data to the Agency and the NRAs. July 2015 Meeting of the decision-making bodies of the Regional Groups and submission of the draft regional lists of proposed PCIs to the Agency July 2015 Start of the second public consultation on (additional) candidate projects According to

text: Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: , each Regional Group shall adopt its own rules of procedure, so-called Terms of Reference, which stipulate the tasks of the Regional Groups including the process for establishing the draft regional lists of proposed PCIs and the monitoring of the project implementation. The Terms of Reference were common for the Regional Groups related to the eight electricity and gas priority corridors with the purpose to maintain consistency across regions and between the sectors, as indicated in Annex III.1(2) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: . The first draft of the Terms of Reference was presented by the European Commission at the Third Cross-Regional Group meeting, and an agreement was reached in the fourth Cross-Regional Group meeting. A separate process, with similar timelines, was established to prepare and agree on the Terms of Reference for the Regional Group “smart grids”. The Agency appreciates the efforts of the European Commission and the other members of the Regional Groups to set common Terms of Reference across Regional Groups. Despite the tight schedule according to which the 2015 PCI selection process has been run, which often led to documents and information for discussion in the Regional Group meetings being delivered and circulated very close before the meetings, making preparation for such meetings difficult, the Agency appreciates common timelines across Regional Groups. The Agency, indeed, appreciates that most of the lessons related to organisational aspects learned from the last selection process have been taken into proper consideration. The Agency notes that the work in the Regional Group meetings focused mainly on procedural and methodological issues related to the selection process, rather than discussing the specific infrastructure needs in each priority corridor, and to which degree they are met by the candidate projects. The Regional Groups for smart grids were met a first time on 19 January 2015. The deadline for applications for candidate projects was set on 28 February 2015. A final meeting took place on 17 April 2015. The smart grids candidate projects were subject to a public consultation from 5 March to 15 April 2015. The tight planning of the smart grids activities did not allow the Agency to receive the applications, the NRAs to prepare a full assessment and the Regional Groups to fully take into account the assessment of NRAs. The Agency commends the smoother process applied for the smart grids Regional Group, however, for the improvement of the quality of the process it deems preferable that the activity is extended to the same time span as the other Regional Groups, so as to facilitate consistency in the application of the selection criteria. 2.2 Eligibility check For transmission and storage candidate projects, the so-called “eligibility check” was a crucial part of the PCI selection process, as failure to pass this check has resulted in discarding a significant number of candidate projects. To establish the eligibility of electricity transmission or storage candidate projects, the European Commission checked whether they fulfilled the following criteria of various articles of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: , as indicated below:  At least one of the criteria as set out in

text: Article 4(1)

text: (c) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: .  Contributes to one of the priority corridors, pursuant to

text: Article 4(1)

text: (a);  Has been approved by Member States hosting the candidate projects, pursuant to

text: Article 3(3)

text: (a);  Is included in the TYNDP 2014, pursuant to Annex III.2(3). On top of these criteria, commissioning dates of the candidate projects and some specific elements regarding their conformity with EU legislation (e.g. data submission for the purpose of the Agency’s PCI monitoring report for existing PCIs) were checked. The preliminary results of the eligibility check were presented in the fourth Cross-Regional meeting, and the promoters of the candidate projects which were considered non-eligible were invited to provide their views to the European Commission. After taking into consideration project promoters’ views, the European Commission presented at the first Regional Group meetings an updated assessment of the eligibility of the candidate projects, for which the eligibility remained to be clarified. For a few candidate projects, the eligibility status remained unclear until very late in the PCI selection process. The Agency appreciates the eligibility check approach , in general, and recommends that the European Commission and other members of the Regional Groups continue with this practice. The Agency recommends that the eligibility check is performed and completed at an early stage of the selection process. For smart grid candidate projects, the eligibility check was carried out by the European Commission according to the provisions of Annex IV.1(e) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: and presented in the meeting of 17 April 2015. 2.3 The role of stakeholders in the selection process According to Annex III.1(5) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: , Regional Groups shall consult the organisations representing relevant stakeholders — and, if deemed appropriate, stakeholders directly — including producers, distribution system operators, suppliers, consumers, and organizations for environmental protection. In line with this provision, the European Commission opened a first public consultation on electricity transmission and storage candidate projects from 22 December 2014 to 31 March 2015. The results of the online consultation have been presented in the second Regional Groups meetings: 652 respondents from 17 countries submitted their views on the proposed PCIs. Apart from the project-specific comments, the main general issues raised by the participants in the first public consultation were the following: - the need to respect environmental standards; - the lack of transparency due to high degree of confidentiality invoked by project promoters; - the need for a more comprehensible format of the provided information in order to avoid only "pro forma" participation; - the need for adequate timelines, meeting announcements and information distribution; - electricity storage projects should not be considered for a PCI status. A second public consultation, on some candidate projects which were not included in the first consultation, started in July 2015. This approach did not allow taking into account the results of this second public consultation in the selection prior to the submission of the draft PCI lists to the Agency. Furthermore, stakeholder groups had the opportunity to participate in selected public sessions of the Regional Groups meetings, and to the stakeholder workshops which were held on 15 and 17 June 2015 to discuss individual projects that were of particular interest to them. The Agency appreciates the effort of the European Commission to enhance adequate involvement of stakeholders and transparency, even though the focus on methodological procedural issues and the complexity of the selection methodology finally adopted, might have discouraged stakeholders participation and reduced the perceived transparency of the process. 3. The criteria and methodology applied for establishing the draft lists of proposed PCIs 3.1 Characteristics of TYNDP data in the context of the PCI selection The fact that the presence in the TYNDP was an eligibility criterion for all transmission and storage candidate projects significantly contributes to improving the comparability and data consistency among projects in this selection round. Despite the above mentioned improvement, the TYNDP was not prepared for and aligned with the data requirements of the PCI selection process and, therefore, significant data availability and quality issues were identified regarding the TYNDP results used for the assessment of the candidate projects. More specifically, the following issues have been identified:  The availability of TYNDP cost data is limited, as ENTSO-E TYNDP 2014 presented costs (indicator Cl “Estimated cost”) only as ranges at cluster level, and not at an investment level as recommended by the Agency in its Opinions No 06/2012 and No 01/2015 . Furthermore, it is unclear which cost information was included in the TYNDP indicator C1, e.g. whether life cycle costs were included or not and, if so, which of them.  While the clustering rules of the TYNDP 2014, which focused on the core investment items, led to the reduction of excessive clustering compared to the previous ENTSO-E’s TYNDP, the number of investments in one cluster remains large in some cases. In its Opinions No 06/2012 and No 01/2015, the Agency already recommended that ENTSO-E further develops the clustering methodology to make it more consistent throughout Europe . The fact that a significantly larger number of eligible candidate projects (107 according to the list provided by the European Commission in May 2015 for the purpose of NRAs’ assessment) correspond to 73 TYNDP clusters, is a clear indication of a loose interdependency of investment items within a cluster.  The availability of data for the TYNDP 2014 benefit indicator B1 “Improved security of supply” is very limited (notably, TYNDP 2014 provided non-zero results for this indicator only for ten clusters of projects), and as acknowledged by ENTSO-E and emphasized in the Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015 , this indicator does not properly reflect the contribution of each project to improved security of supply.  While the TYNDP values of indicator B4 “Variation in losses” are available for almost all TYNDP 2014 clusters, neither their monetisation, nor the reference values of losses were provided in the TYNDP 2014. The Agency expects that ENTSO-E’s implementation of the Agency’s recommendations in the future TYNDPs will improve the suitability of TYNDP data for the purpose of future PCI selection processes, in particular with regard to the calculation of benefits related to security of supply, system resilience and flexibility. 3.2 Methodology used for the draft regional lists of proposed transmission PCIs An assessment methodology for the evaluation of electricity candidate projects was developed with the support of the Directorate-General (DG) Joint Research Centre (JRC). This methodology attempts to cope with most of the issues due to the non-alignment of TYNDP data with the data requirements of the PCI selection process. The main elements of this methodology, the practice followed and the Agency’s opinion on the approach are presented in this section. 3.2.1 Cost data Due to the unavailability of TYNDP cost data at an investment item level, and the uncertainty of whether life cycle costs are included in indicator C1, project promoters were requested to provide, by 31 March 2015, cost information, i.e. capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) per investment item, calculated in line with the ENTSO-E CBA methodology. Not all project promoters met this deadline, a fact that led to a significantly delayed communication of the cost data to the Agency and the NRAs (the data was forwarded only on 11 June 2015), and consequently to a lower quality of the data assessment. The cost data submitted by project promoters varied a lot in quality and, in some cases, were neither comparable across investment items, nor consistent with the common rules of ENTSO-E CBA methodology . The Agency reaffirms that the approved CBA methodology should be applied in full, allowing reported costs to include also life cycle costs for each TYNDP investment item. The Agency underlines that operational expenditures may have a significant impact, as identified in the Agency’s consolidated report on PCIs (as average, 18% of CAPEX). 3.2.2 Consideration of the different scenarios In the JRC methodology, the TYNDP Vision 3 was chosen as the reference scenario, upon which the PCI assessment was based. The TYNDP Vision 1 and Vision 2 were not taken into account, as these visions were not considered to be compliant with the EU goals for 2030. Vision 4 was disregarded in view of the Agency’s recommendation to consider this vision with caution for the purpose of selection of PCIs . According to ENTSO-E, “the basic assumption concerning the Visions is that they differ enough so that the actual future evolution of the assessed parameters shall safely lie between the pathways of these four Visions. [...] The Visions are not forecasts and there is no probability attached to them” . The Agency stresses the fact that in absence of a “best estimate” scenario and due to the “contrasting futures” nature of each vision, none of the four visions defined by ENTSO-E alone can be used as a single reference scenario for determining the benefits of the candidate projects. Regarding Vision 3, ENTSO-E notes that “Vision 3 reflects an ambitious path […] achieving overall 50% of European load supplied by RES in 2030. Thus Vision 3 meets the EU goals by 2030. However in this Vision, every country tends to secure its own supply independently from the other, resulting probably into an overinvestment in generation assets at European level” . Therefore, the choice of Vision 3 as the reference scenario may lead to an overestimation of the benefits of some candidate projects, and to the subsequent inclusion in the list of projects that, under more plausible conditions, would not meet the criterion specified in

text: Article 4(1)

text: (b) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: (i.e. that “the potential overall benefits of the project […] outweigh its costs”). The Agency notes that considering a single scenario reduces the robustness of the assessment, and creates the risk of concealing the uncertainties which are by nature inherent to a costbenefit analysis. The Agency considers that a more in-depth discussion on the needs that can be addressed by one or several candidate projects would allow determining the relevant scenarios to be considered. 3.2.3 “Declustering” of benefit results Although in the current selection round all candidate projects were included in the ENTSO-E TYNDP 2014 , and comparability of candidate projects was improved compared to the 2013 PCI selection process, the consistent application of the clustering rules as defined by ENTSO-E in its TYNDP 2014 impacted the selection process. The problem was also highlighted by JRC - “PCI candidate evaluation needs to be done at an investment item level, however the ENTSO-E’s TYNDP is based on clusters of investment items” – and created significant difficulties to Regional Groups in selecting and assessing candidate projects. In general, CBA results were provided at the level of clusters, without breakdown to investmentitem level and without providing calculation details. Therefore, in order to be able to perform a quantitative assessment and extract as much useful information as possible from the TYNDP dataset (by assigning the key performance indicators – KPI - values of a TYNDP cluster to the included investment items), JRC had to re-cluster some candidate PCIs. Due to the lack of a clear methodology to assign values from a cluster to an investment item, the whole process was made less consistent and less transparent, although promoters’ and ENTSO-E’s feedback were to some extent taken into account. In the Agency’s view, simpler clusters in future TYNDPs, appropriate rules for “declustering” benefits of complementary projects and more accurate data are needed for the future PCI selection. The Agency recommends that a methodology for declustering benefits to an investment item level is proposed by ENTSO-E for future PCI selections. If this is not achieved in advance of the next PCI selection round, the Agency can propose such a methodology. 3.2.4 Treatment of competing projects Regarding competing projects, i.e. when the added value of one investment is decreased by the presence of another one, the Agency recommends that the projects addressing the same needs are identified by ENTSO-E and assessed together by the Regional Groups in order to avoid the risk of building unnecessary infrastructures. 3.2.5 Assessment criteria The methodology for the assessment of the three specific criteria stipulated in

text: Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: , based on the TYNDP indicators, and the Agency’s comments and recommendations are described below:  For the assessment of the market integration criterion, JRC considered the indicator B2 Socio-Economic Welfare “SEW” minus the monetised indicator B4 “Variation in losses”. In the absence of published information on the value of losses by ENTSO-E, the 2030 regional electricity prices included in the report "Assessment of the future electricity sector - Impacts of Electric Vehicles" commissioned by the European Commission and published in 2011 were used. The Agency considers that the indicators chosen for the assessment of this criterion are fit for purpose. The Agency also welcomes the monetisation of indicator B4 and its inclusion in the PCI selection process. The Agency considers that the future ENTSO-E TYNDPs should fulfill the CBA requirement and provide indication on the costs of losses for each scenario under study.  For the assessment of the criterion of security of supply, due to the quality issues identified with regard to the benefit indicator B1 “Improved security of supply”, and despite objections raised by some Regional Group members, it was decided to use the indicators B6 “Technical resilience/system safety” and B7 “Flexibility” of the TYNDP as proxies. A single Security of Supply indicator was then constructed by applying weights to the two TYNDP indicators (see Section 3.2.6 below). According to the TYNDP, indicator B1 “Improved security of supply” is defined as the ability of a power system to provide an adequate and secure supply of electricity under ordinary conditions. Adequacy measures the ability of a power system to supply demand in full, at the current state of network availability (i.e. the power system can be said to be in an N-0 state). Security measures the ability of a power system to meet demand in full and to continue to do so under all credible contingencies of single transmission faults (i.e. then a system is said to be N-1 secure). Instead, “Technical resilience/system safety” is defined as the ability of the system to withstand extreme system conditions (exceptional contingencies), and “flexibility” is defined also as the ability of the proposed project to be adequate in different possible future development paths or scenarios . Therefore, the Agency considers that indicators B6 and B7 do not reflect the core of the security of supply criterion (i.e. adequacy and security). Only B6 can be considered as complementary to indicator B1, while the link between B7 and security of supply is not clear. As a result, the combination of B6 and B7 cannot be considered a proxy of security of supply. Also, it must be noted that the values of these indicators are measured in ordinal values (thus independent from project size or cost) and they are based on TSO’s judgment, thus are not objective criteria. The Agency considers that for a proper assessment of the criterion of security of supply in the future PCI selection processes, the availability of adequate and reliable TYNDP data on each project’s contribution to security of supply is indispensable . As a general principle, the Agency recommends that a qualitative assessment is used when relevant quantitative results are not available, rather than inadequate proxies.  For the assessment of the sustainability criterion, the non-monetised value of indicator B3 “RES integration” (measuring the level of RES integration in MW or MWh) was used by JRC. The Agency notes that the reduction of renewable generation curtailments (avoided RES spillage, measured in MWh) is captured in monetary terms in indicator B2, and that the use of the two indicators B3 and B2 thus results into double-counting of this benefit which needs to be mitigated by ad-hoc statistical analyses. For the sake of simplicity, the Agency recommends not to consider the indicator B3 twice. The Agency welcomes JRC decision not to take into account indicator B5 “variation in CO2 emissions”, as avoided EU Emission Trading Scheme expenditures are already included in SEW indicator. The Agency recommends the use of a specific assessment to take into account, as far as possible, the benefits of infrastructures in terms of social and environmental sensibility . 3.2.6 Other steps of the assessment methodology Following the computation of the indicators for the three assessment criteria, the following steps were carried out, according to the methodology developed by JRC: - The market integration indicator, as calculated above, was divided by the overall project cost. - The sustainability indicator was solely based on the indicator B3, which was not divided by the project cost. - The security of supply indicator was composed by applying weights (decided by each Regional Group) for indicators B6 and B7. - Standardisation: a z-scores procedure of standardisation was applied in order for indicators, which are expressed in widely different units of measurement, to be comparable and their ranges of variation to be equalised. - Construction of a final composite indicator and ranking: the weights for the three assessment criteria, which were defined as the averages of weights assigned by Regional Group members, were employed in a weighted sum of the 3 standardised indicators, which yielded the final composite indicator, upon which the candidate projects were ranked. - Urgency of the project and final ranking: urgency was interpreted in terms of the contribution of the project to the 10% interconnection capacity target with respect to the production capacity of a Member State. The candidate projects were classified into three groups according to the interconnection capacity ratio of at least one of the Member State hosting the project as follows: - the Member State is in isolation; - at least one Member State hosting the candidate PCI has a less than 5% ratio of interconnection capacity to production capacity; - at least one Member State hosting the candidate PCI has an interconnection capacity ratio between 5% and 9%. Each project was then pushed up in the ranking list 3, 2 or 1 places respectively, depending on which of the above mentioned groups it belongs to. In the Agency’s view, the main concerns arising from these steps of the methodology are the following: - The incomplete monetisation of benefits in the CBA methodology does not allow for a proper assessment of whether the potential overall benefits of a project outweigh its costs (

text: Article 4(1)

text: (b) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: ). Although a full monetisation cannot necessarily be achieved, the Agency recommends that further progress is made in this respect, notably when it comes to the assessment of security of supply. - As, on one hand, the RES integration used for the sustainability criterion increases with the size of the project, and, on the other hand, this indicator does not take costs into account, such choice favoured the larger projects over the smaller ones. - The construction of a composite indicator hides the physical and economic meaning of the projects. Only understandable and meaningful indicators (i.e. indicators that can be interpreted) should have been used, and the goal should have been to facilitate the decisionmaking process and not to replace it. - The Agency considers that the urgency criterion should not be mixed up with the “assessment method on the basis of the aggregated contribution” to the specific criteria (cf.

text: Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: ). The treatment of urgency to meet EU policy targets is further analysed in section 3.4.3 of this Opinion. The Agency recommends that the Regional Groups focus, in their decision-making process, on understandable and meaningful economic indicators, the qualitative characteristics, the specificities of the selected projects and the priorities in each region. By doing so, the shortcomings identified in the selection methodology, as well as the concerns raised due to data availability and quality issues, could have been somehow mitigated. 3.3 Level of maturity of PCIs Annex III.2(1) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: stipulates that promoters of a project potentially eligible for selection as a PCI shall submit an application to the Group that includes, for projects having reached a sufficient “degree of maturity”, a project-specific CBA. The Agency remarks that in

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: “maturity” has different levels: a first degree of maturity suitable for filing an application for the PCI status; next, improved maturity suitable for the project to apply for permits; and, finally, sufficient maturity for the submission of an investment request for a project by the project promoter(s), including the CBA and the business plan where a large and reasonably accurate body of information about the project is contained. In the Agency's view, the main aspects to be considered when assessing maturity are: i) certainty of the expected costs and benefits and ii) knowledge about the factors affecting expected costs and benefits and their ranges. The Agency also believes that it is up to the project promoters to provide evidence about the degree of maturity of their projects, by submitting a project-specific CBA that demonstrates reasonably narrow ranges of probable values for costs and benefits. Despite the provision of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: and the Agency’s proposal for a distinction between mid-term mature projects, long-term mature projects and less mature projects formulated in its Opinion No 01/2015 on the ENTSO-E draft TYNDP 2014, no differentiation was made between mature and less mature projects during the selection process. For future selection rounds, the Agency deems necessary that degrees of maturity are defined . A simplified, standardised selection process could be considered for the less mature projects. The required data for the selection of these projects, and later for their monitoring, could be less burdensome, and this would reduce compliance costs for promoters while, at the same time, not preventing projects of relatively lower maturity to be granted the PCI status. When these projects reach a sufficient degree of maturity, they could be fully reassessed in the next PCI selection round. The Agency recommends that for the next PCI selection process, Regional Groups classify the candidate projects into different maturity groups based on the extent to which a project is sufficiently well-defined and advanced. The Agency considers that it is first up to the project promoters to propose a maturity level for their candidate project. Then, the joint NRAs’ assessments of candidate projects should also assess the maturity of each candidate project. 3.4 Other criteria for candidate PCIs’ assessment 3.4.1 Consideration of quantitative contribution to specific criteria in

text: Article 4(2)

text: The Agency welcomes the effort of the Regional Groups to use, to the extent possible, in this selection round quantified and monetised indicators available in the TYNDP, and to further monetise available indicators for the more objective assessment of candidate projects according to the specific criteria of

text: . 3.4.2 Complementary qualitative assessment Further to the quantitative aggregated contribution to the specific criteria, the Agency sees the need, for the future selection rounds, to complement the assessment of the candidate projects with due consideration to a qualitative check of the quantitative results. The Agency considers that the joint NRAs’ assessments of candidate projects should encompass a structured overall qualitative assessment of the needs addressed by the candidate projects and the plausibility of the CBA results. 3.4.3. Consideration of urgency to meet EU policy targets The approach adopted by the assessment methodology is that the urgency of a project to meet the Union energy policy targets is correlated to the contribution of the candidate project to the 10% interconnection capacity target over the generation capacity of a Member State. However, this target does not seem to be the right measure against which projects should be examined. This is because the size of the interconnection capacity does not capture features like the volume of electricity expected to flow between countries or the level of actual congestion and availability in the existing interconnection. Similarly, the generation capacity does not always reflect either these features, or features such as average or peak electricity demand. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all interconnection target based on installed electricity generation capacity cannot be considered as appropriate for all borders or Member States. In this respect, the Agency already recommended ENTSO-E to publish in the TYNDP quantitative results about the economicallyefficient target capacities at each border . In the Agency’s view, the urgency should be assessed qualitatively in the sense of

text: : “the urgency in order to meet the Union energy policy targets of market integration, inter alia through lifting the isolation of at least one Member State, and competition, sustainability and security of supply”. The Agency notes that no specific methodology was developed or applied to incorporate the following criteria into the candidate project assessment: - The number of Member States affected by each project, whilst ensuring equal opportunities for projects involving peripheral Member States; - The contribution of each project to territorial cohesion; - The complementarity with regard to other proposed projects. 3.5 Cross-regional consistency of the selection process Regarding the consistency of the datasets from the TYNDP, the Agency notes that although some degree of consistency is achieved due to the use, by all Regional Groups, of an overall common methodology developed by ENTSO-E, as elaborated in more detail the Agency’s Opinion No 01/2015 on the draft TYNDP 2014, the use of various market modelling tools across regions may have an impact on the estimated benefits, the degree of which is not known. Regarding the PCI selection, the Agency notes that the same methodology was applied for the calculation of the three specific criteria of

text: across all regions, and that the benefit data used in this assessment were all based on the TYNDP CBA results. Therefore, a basic level of consistency was safeguarded throughout the process and across all regions. However, the methodology allowed for different weights to be applied by each Regional Group for the construction of the security of supply indicator using the indicators B6 and B7 of the TYNDP (the formula used was Security_supply = w1*B6+w2*B7), and the final composite indicator using the standardised indicators for the three selection criteria (the formula used was Composite Indicator=v1*z_MI +v2*z_Sus+v3*z_SoS). The results of the decision process of the Regional Groups on these weights are presented in the following table: RG w1 w2 v1 v2 v3 NSI East 39% 61% 43% 28% 29% NSOG 41% 59% 42% 30% 28% NSI West 52% 48% 40% 26% 34% BEMIP 51% 49% 35% 32% 33% As noticed from the results of the above table, except for BEMIP Regional Group, which assigned almost equal significance to all three assessment criteria, not significant diversification across Regional Groups is noticed on v1, v2 and v3 values. The application of weights could have been a tool to reflect the specific policy priorities in the different EU regions. For this goal to be achieved, the selected weights should have been the result of a studied approach and a substantiated dialogue among the Regional Group members. The procedure followed by the Regional Groups did not allow for this dialogue to take place, and the weights selected were only the result of subjective voting of the Member States representatives. Furthermore, since, pursuant to

text: , each Regional Group shall determine its assessment method on the basis of the aggregated contribution to the specific criteria referred to in Article 4(2) of the same Regulation, the Agency sees no need for attaching a weight to each specific criterion. Rather, the contributions should be aggregated by simple monetisation, where feasible, especially if the benefits related to market integration, sustainability and security of supply are properly monetised. The Agency thus considers that the approach based on weights should not be used for future PCI selections, and believes that the recommendations in Section 1.2 of this Opinion would allow the Regional Groups to define their priorities at an early stage. 4. Agency’s Opinion on the draft Regional lists of proposed PCIs On 13 July 2015, the European Commission submitted to the Agency a table under the title “Draft regional lists per investment item” (Table 1) and a table under the title “Draft 2nd PCI candidates list vs the 1st PCI list” (Table 2). The table 1 and the relevant extract of Table 2 are presented in Annex I of this Opinion. After iteration with the European Commission, it was clarified that the investment items included in Table 1 should be grouped according to the grouping of projects proposed in Table 2. The combination of the two tables provided a total number of 107 proposed PCIs. Overall, the Agency notes that all candidate projects/investment items deemed eligible were included in the draft list of proposed PCIs, thereby significantly reducing the interest of a selection methodology aimed at ranking candidate projects from the first to the last. Furthermore, regarding storage projects, besides the eligibility check mentioned in Section 2.2 of this Opinion, the Agency has no evidence whether a methodology was applied in the Regional Groups for the evaluation of these projects. DG JRC noted that “information for candidate storage projects is provided in the TYNDP 2014. The same document does not provide any information on the Security of Supply, environmental impact and social impact KPIs for storage projects. Moreover, cost data are missing for these projects as well”. For future PCI selections, the Agency recommends that the selection methodology aims at defining the criteria to select or discard candidate projects, as explained above. In particular, when the number of eligible candidate projects is deemed “manageable” by the European Commission, therefore allowing their inclusion on the list, the Agency is of view that a ranking methodology is not necessary. The process could in that case be streamlined, and Regional Groups should rather focus on whether the benefits of the candidate projects outweigh their costs. This Opinion builds on the joint assessments of candidate projects by NRAs for the four electricity priority corridors , which were conducted by first indentifying the NRAs concerned by each project, and secondly by using common templates prepared by the Agency (cf. Annex II of this Opinion) for the joint evaluation of each candidate by all concerned NRAs. The templates were intended to facilitate the assessment of the availability, quantity and quality of data for each candidate project, and to help focus the evaluation on whether a candidate project met the general and specific criteria specified in the

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: . On 15 May 2015, all NRAs were asked by the Agency to indicate which candidate project affected each of them. On 1 June 2015, the list of the NRAs concerned by each project and the assessment templates were circulated to all NRAs. Cost data was however not available to NRAs until 11 June, which reduced significantly the time NRAs actually had to jointly evaluate the projects in a comprehensive way. Regarding smart grid projects, there was no consistent application of a single assessment methodology by the respective NRAs. NRAs submitted 103 checklists regarding 87 eligible and 9 non eligible candidate projects, compared to 107 eligible candidate projects included in the initial candidate list (provided by the European Commission to the Agency in May 2015). In the following table, some statistics of the NRAs submissions per corridor are provided: Assessment in Eligible Coordination with non Submissions per coordination with candidate EU country corridor other EU-NRAs projects (submissions) (submissions) NSOG 21 18 15 3 NSI West 28 23 12 1 NSI East 41 44 14 2 BEMIP 17 18 10 0 Total 107 103 51 6 Regarding the issue of whether “overall benefits outweigh costs” the replies received are presented in the following table: Yes 45 No 2 Not able to assess 54 Divergent views of the NRAs 2 Total 103 It must be noted that, in almost half of the cases, NRAs were not able to access whether overall benefits outweigh costs, mainly due to the lack or non-completeness of the available data. Regarding the question “Do NRA objects to the inclusion of the project in the final PCI Regional list?” the replies received are presented in the following table: No 93 Yes 6(*) Not able to assess 1 Divergent views of the NRAs 3 Total 103 (*) out of which 4 were eligible at the time of the NRAs’ assessment In the following paragraphs, the focus is on projects which are included in the draft lists of proposed PCI but: - were jointly opposed by NRAs; - did not provide cost data, or not in a satisfactory way; - were not included in the TYNDP; - whose perimeter has changed compared to the project included in the TYNDP. It is noted that the numbers of proposed PCIs mentioned in the following paragraphs may differ from the number of eligible PCIs due to variations of the groupings of investment items in the lists that were submitted to the Agency at various stages of the selection process. 4.1 Opinion on the draft regional list – NSOG RG In this Regional Group, 21 projects were proposed as PCIs. They correspond to 25 investment items out of the initially 30 candidate projects included in the consultation table of 22 December 2014, before the eligibility check was performed. As mentioned in the latest version of the TYNDP 2014 (December 2014, p. 153), the Greenwire project provided updated information to ENTSO-E on 24 November 2014, i.e. after preparation of the draft TYNDP 2014. The proposed PCI is now a standalone merchant interconnector, while the TYNPD project involved also onshore wind generation and larger interconnection capacity. The features of the project in the TYNDP 2014 are therefore different from the features of the proposed PCI. 4.2 Opinion on the draft regional list – NSI West RG In this Regional Group, 29 projects were proposed as PCIs. They correspond to 43 investment items out of the initially 48 candidate projects included in the consultation table of 22 December 2014, before the eligibility check was performed. A “generic project between France and Spain” was included in the draft list of proposed PCIs and in the July consultation on additional projects. The Agency in general does not support the inclusion of generic projects in the PCI list. In fact, it considers such an inclusion as very detrimental to the integrity of the PCI selection process for two main reasons: first, generic projects are typically not included in the TYNDP, which is a prerequisite for becoming a PCI in this round. Second, generic projects are, by their nature, more difficult to evaluate and therefore they are not on an equal footing with specific projects. However, the TYNDP 2014 notes that, for Spain to comply with the conclusions from the EU Council of 15 and 16 March 2002 and of 20 and 21 March 2014 setting a 10% interconnection target for all Member States, additional interconnection capacity would be needed at the border between France and Spain. Nonetheless, while the Agency understands the strategic importance of increasing the interconnection capacity between France and Spain, it has to express its reservations, for the reasons outlined above, regarding the inclusion of the “generic project between France and Spain” in the PCI list. Regarding the proposed PCI 31.642 “Interconnection between Airolo (CH) and Baggio (IT)”, it is noted that the candidate project was assessed only by the Italian NRA, with the following conclusion provided on 26 June 2015 “the evaluation of costs and benefits of the project does not allow AEEGSI to support the inclusion in the PCI list”. 4.3 Opinion on the draft regional list – NSI East RG In this Regional Group, 41 projects were proposed as PCIs. They correspond to 56 investment items out of the initially 87 candidate projects included in the consultation table of 22 December 2014, before the eligibility check was performed. Regarding the proposed PCI 150.616 titled “CCS new 10 (Italy – Slovenia interconnection)”, the Italian and Slovenian NRAs raised concerns on the candidate project during their assessment (provided at the Regional Group meeting on 26 June 2015). The NRAs agreed that the project shows socio-economic welfare benefits, but they are only in the order of 70% of the costs. Therefore, the project benefits do not outweigh the project costs. Furthermore, the Slovene NRA considered that the enormous CAPEX of this investment would have unacceptable and disproportional impact on Slovene tariffs. The draft regional list of proposed PCIs submitted to the Agency is accompanied by the following note: “further to the objections raised by the IT and the SI regulators, it was agreed by Commission, IT and SI that IT and SI will investigate the possibilities for potential reduction of costs and increase of benefits in the long term and will inform the Commission”. The Agency, the Italian and Slovene NRAs take note of updated information received, which indicate the possibility of cost reductions in the order of 25% by using an alternative route and an increase of benefits linked to different capacity assumptions on the Italian-Slovenian interconnection (without the project 148.68 Udine - Okroglo). 4.4 Opinion on the draft regional list – BEMIP RG In this Regional Group, 16 projects were proposed as PCIs. They correspond to 19 investment items out of the initially 30 candidate projects included in the consultation table of 22 December 2014, before the eligibility check was performed. The Agency notes that the definition of the “generic project on various aspects of the integration of the Baltic States' electricity network into the continental European network, including their synchronous operation” is arguably vague, and the perimeter of the project compared to the TYNDP 2014 is also unclear, resulting into possible overlapping with two other proposed PCIs (from cluster 170 of the TYNDP 2014) included in the draft list. The Agency points out than only a partial and preliminary CBA analysis was conducted in the TYNDP 2014 for this project, as it was still under consideration. Therefore, the Agency has to express its reservation regarding the inclusion of this project in the PCI list, unless there is a clear reference to which TYNDP 2014 projects it refers to, and unless it is clearly defined that there is no overlap with any other PCIs included in the list. 4.5 Opinion on the draft regional list – Smart grids The draft regional lists of electricity smart grids proposed PCIs were prepared by the respective Group covering all Member States. The preparatory work of the Group benefitted, inter alia, from previous activities on identification of performance indicators and benefits carried out by the Smart Grids Task Force, the European Commission DG JRC and by the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas. After the applications received at the end of February 2015, DG JRC checked whether each candidate project:  met the requirements of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: (with an eligibility checklist, see Section 2.2 of this Opinion);  contributed to the six policy criteria in

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: (with technoeconomic KPIs);  was economically cost-effective (with a societal CBA approach). The analysis of policy criteria was carried out by the analysis of 21 individual KPIs measured in a simplified visual approach (green / yellow / red). The Agency notes that the three electricity smart grid proposed PCIs having applied for PCI status are included in the draft regional list, and that no objections were raised by NRAs. The Agency considers that the KPI approach introduced since 2010 with the ERGEG “Position Paper on Smart Grids” had some merits in facilitating the initial understanding of smart grid projects. However, smart grids metrics evolved significantly in the last years, and it was possible to perform a full CBA assessment in line with the requirements of

text: Article 4(1)

text: (b) of

text: Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

text: . Therefore, the Agency recommends simplifying the future smart grids PCI selection process further by focusing on CBA and limiting the relevance of any KPI-based approach. Done at Ljubljana on 30 October 2015 For the Agency: [SIGNED] Alberto Pototschnig Director Annex I In this Annex the table under the title “Draft regional lists per investment item” and an extract of the table under the title “Draft 2nd PCI candidates list vs the 1st PCI list” is presented. Table 1- Draft regional lists per investment item

text: Investment Project Corridor index Project Name Investment Index Name Countries Project Promoter Code Number

text: National Grid NSOG 25 62 IFA2 Tourbe (FR) - Chilling (GB) FR/GB Interconnector Holdings Limited, RTE

text: TenneT TSO GmbH, Southern Norway - Germany Germany – Norway interconnection between Wilster (DE) and Statnett SF, KfW NSOG 37 142 DE/NO (Nord.Link) Tonstad (NO) (NORD.LINK) Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Energinet.dk; TenneT TSO NSOG 39 144 DKW-DE, step 3 Interconnection between Kassö (DK) and Audorf (DE) DK/DE GmbH

text: NSOG 71 427 COBRA Cable Endrup (DK) - Eemshaven (NL) DK/NL TenneT and Energinet

text: National Grid Thames Estuary Cluster NSOG 74 443 Thames Estuary Cluster (NEMO Link) GB Interconnector Holdings (NEMO) Limited, Elia SA/nv

text: NSOG 107 810 Celtic Interconnector Great Island or Knockraha (IE) - La Martyre (FR) IE/FR RTE, Eirgrid

text: For practical reasons the last column of the table “Web link” is omitted.

text: National Grid

text: NSOG 110 424 Norway - Great Britain (NSN) Norway - Great Britain (NSN) GB/NO Interconnector Holdings

text: Limited, Statnett SF

text: RTE, Transmission NSOG 153 387 France-Alderney-Britain Cotentin Nord - Exeter FR/GB Investment

text: National Grid

text: NSOG 167 998 Viking DKW-GB DKW-GB (Viking Link DK/GB Interconnector Holdings,

text: Energinet.dk.

text: NSOG 172 1005 ElecLink Sellindge-Le Mandarins (FR) GB/FR ElecLink

text: Energinet.dk; TenneT TSO NSOG 183 1018 DKW-DE, Westcoast Interconnection between Endrup (DK) and Niebüll (DE) DK/DE GmbH

text: Element Power, NSOG 185 1020 Greenlink, Greenwire IE-GB GB – IE GB/IE Greenwire, Greenlink

text: Element Power, NSOG 185 1021 Greenlink, Greenwire IE-GB GB – IE GB/IE Greenwire, Greenlink

text: The Scottish Government, Irish-Scottish Links on Energy NSOG 189 1024 Cuachan - Argyll hub NI/GB DCENRand Northern (ISLES) Ireland

text: The Scottish Government, Irish-Scottish Links on Energy NSOG 189 1025 Argyll hub GB DCENRand Northern (ISLES) Ireland

text: The Scottish Government, Irish-Scottish Links on Energy NSOG 189 1026 Coleraine hub NI DCENRand Northern (ISLES) Ireland

text: The Scottish Government, Irish-Scottish Links on Energy NSOG 189 1027 Coolkeeragh hub NI DCENRand Northern (ISLES) Ireland

text: NorthConnect: Norway-Great NSOG 190 1033 Sima - Peterhead GB Northconnect KS Britain

text: North South Eastern German NSOG 209 147 Internal line between Hamburg/Nord and Dollern (DE) DE TenneT TSO GmbH Corridor (one of 6 projects)

text: NSOG 209 148 North South Eastern German Internal line between Audorf and Hamburg/Nord (DE) DE TenneT TSO GmbH

text: Corridor (one of 6 projects)

text: North South Eastern German NSOG 209 667 Internal line between Brunsbűttel and Niebűll (DE) DE TenneT TSO GmbH Corridor (one of 6 projects)

text: Landsnet, Landsnet,

text: NSOG 214 1082 Interco Iceland-UK Interco Iceland-UK IS/UK Landsvirkjun and National

text: Grid

text: PCI compressed air energy Gaelectric Energy Storage NSOG 221 storage in United Kingdom - PCI compressed air energy storage in United Kingdom - Larne UK Ltd Larne

text: Sea Water Pumped Storage at Glinsk, Mayo and transmission Organic Power Limited NSOG 228 1113 MAREX IE line from Glinsk, Mayo (IE) to Connah's Quay (GB) Project 228: Marex

text: NSI 1 2 RES in north of Portugal Pedralva (PT) - Sobrado (PT) PT REN West

text: NSI V.Minho (by Ribeira de Pena and Fridão) - Feira (by Ribeira de 1 4 RES in north of Portugal PT REN West Pena and Fridão)

text: NSI 1 474 RES in north of Portugal Ribeira de Pena (PT) Substation PT REN West

text: NSI 1 941 RES in north of Portugal Fridão switching station PT REN West

text: NSI Interconnection Portugal- 4 18 Beariz (ES) - Fontefria (ES) ES REE West Spain

text: NSI Interconnection Portugal- 4 496 Fontefría (ES) - Vila do Conde (PT) (By Viana do Castelo) ES/PT REN/REE West Spain

text: NSI Interconnection Portugal- 4 498 Fontefria (ES) Substation ES REE West Spain

text: NSI Interconnection Portugal- 4 499 Beariz (ES) Subsation ES REE West Spain

text: NSI Interconnection Portugal- 4 500 V. Castelo (PT) Substation PT REN West Spain

text: NSI Western interconnection FR- 16 38 Gatica (ES) – Aquitaine (Cubnezais) (FR) ES/FR RTE/REE West ES

text: NSI Grande Ile (FR) - Piassasco (IT) (currently known as Savoie (FR) 21 55 Italy - France FR/IT Terna (IT) / RTE (FR) West - Piémont (IT) )

text: NSI 24 445 Belgian North Border Zandvliet - Lillo BE Elia SA/nv West

text: NSI 24 604 Belgian North Border Lillo - Mercator BE Elia SA/nv West

text: NSI 24 605 Belgian North Border Lillo BE Elia SA/nv West

text: NSI 24 608 Belgian North Border Horta - Mercator BE Elia SA/nv West

text: NSI 31 642 Italy Switzerland Interconnection between Airolo (CH) and Baggio (IT) IT Terna (IT) West

text: NSI Elia SA/nv & Creos 40 650 Luxembourg-Belgium Interco Bascharage (LU) - Aubange (BE) LU/BE West Luxembourg

text: NSI 47 219 AT - DE Westtirol – Zell/Ziller AT/DE Austrian Power Grid AG West

text: NSI 81 462 North South Interconnector Woodland (IE) - Turleenan (NI) IE/NI EirGrid, SONI West

text: NSI 82 463 RIDP I Srananagh (IE) - New substation in South Donegal (IE) IE EirGrid, SONI West

text: NSI 82 896 RIDP I South Donegal (IE) - Omagh South (NI) IE/NI EirGrid, SONI West

text: NSI 82 897 RIDP I Omagh South - Turleenan NI EirGrid, SONI West

text: NSI Area of Oberzier - Aachen/Düren (DE) - Area of Lixhe - Liège Elia SA/nv & Amprion 92 146 ALEGrO DE/BE West (BE) GmbH

text: NSI Elia SA/nv & Amprion 92 1045 ALEGrO Lixhe - Herderen DE/BE West GmbH

text: NSI Elia SA/nv & Amprion 92 1048 ALEGrO Lixhe - Herderen DE/BE West GmbH

text: North South Western NSI Germany - Ntherlands interconnection between Wesel- TenneT TSO B.V., Amprion 113 145 German Corridor DE/NL West Niederrhein (DE) and Doetinchen (NL) GmbH (Doetrichem - Niederhein)

text: NSI North South Western Amprion GmbH (DE); 134 660 Osterath (DE) - Philippsburg (DE) DE West German Corridor TransnetBW GmbH (DE)

text: NSI North South Eastern German Internal line between Brunsbüttel to Großgartach, Wilster to TenneT TSO GmbH, 164 664 DE West Corridor Area Grafenrheinfeld TransnetBW GmbH

text: NSI 174 1014 Greenconnector Verderio (I) - Sils (CH) IT/CH Worldenergy West

text: NSI 184 594 PST Arkale Arkale (ES) ES REE (ES) West

text: NSI 193 927 Godelleta-Morella/La Plana La Plana/Morella - Godelleta ES REE (ES) West

text: NSI Amprion GmbH (DE); 198 985 Area of Lake Constance point Rommelsbach - Herbertingen DE West Transnet BW GmbH (DE);

text: NSI Amprion GmbH (DE); 198 986 Area of Lake Constance point Wullenstetten (DE) - point Niederwangen (DE) DE West Transnet BW GmbH (DE);

text: NSI Amprion GmbH (DE); 198 1043 Area of Lake Constance Neuravensburg - border area (DE/AT) DE West Transnet BW GmbH (DE);

text: NSI 203 537 Aragón-Castellón Nudejar (ES) ES REE West

text: NSI 203 538 Aragón-Castellón Morella (ES) - La Plana (ES) ES REE West

text: NSI 203 1069 Aragón-Castellón Mezquita - Morella ES REE West

text: NSI 203 1070 Aragón-Castellón Mudejar - Morella ES REE West

text: NSI Extension of the pump TIWAG-Tiroler 222 Extension of the pump storage powerplant Kaunertal AT West storage powerplant Kaunertal Wasserkraft AG

text: NSI Verbund Hydro Power 223 Limberg III Limberg III AT West GmbH

text: NSI Hydro Pumped Storage 224 Hydro Pumped Storage Pfaffenboden in Molln AT Wien Energie GmbH West Pfaffenboden in Molln

text: NSI Donaukraft Jochenstein 226 Energiespeicher Riedl Energiespeicher Riedl AT West AG

text: NSI Generic project to reach 10% ES/FR West interconnectivity

text: NSI East 26 63 Austria-Italy Interconnection between Lienz (AT) and Veneto region (IT) AT/IT Terna (IT) / APG (AT)

text: NSI East 26 218 Austria-Italy Lienz – Obersielach AT APG (AT)

text: NSI East 28 70 28 (Italy-Montenegro) Interconnection between Villanova (IT) and Lastva (ME) IT/ME Terna (IT)

text: Converter station of Villanova (IT) the new 1000MW HVDC NSI East 28 621 28 (Italy-Montenegro) IT/ME Terna (IT) interconnection line between Italy and Montenegro

text: Converter station in Lastva (ME) of the new 1000MW HVDC NSI East 28 622 28 (Italy-Montenegro) IT/ME Terna (IT) interconnection line between Italy and Montenegro

text: Czech North South Corridor – NSI East 35 311 Kocin (CZ) Upgrade of the existing substation CZ ČEPS, a.s. Phase 2

text: Czech North South Corridor – NSI East 35 313 Kocin (CZ) - Mirovka CZ ČEPS, a.s. Phase 2

text: Czech North South Corridor – NSI East 35 315 Kocin (CZ) - Orestice (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. Phase 2

text: NSI East 35 316 Czech North South Corridor – Mirovka (CZ) - Cebin (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s.

text: Phase 2

text: Austrian Power Grid AG / NSI East 47 212 AT - DE St. Peter (AT) – Isar/Ottenhofen (DE) AT/DE TenneT TSO GmbH

text: NSI East 47 216 AT - DE St. Peter – Tauern, “Salzburgleitung” AT Austrian Power Grid AG

text: New Hungary - Slovakia interconnection between Gabčíkovo

text: New SK - HU interconnection (SK) - Gönyű (HU) - Veľký Ďur (SK) (the substation in Veľký Ďur NSI East 48 214 SK/HU SEPS a.s. MAVIR ZRt. - phase 1 (SK) was added, however accoriding to ENTSO-E this change

text: does not affect the TYNDP 2014 assessment results)

text: PCI Hungary - Slovakia interconnection between Sajóvánka

text: (HU) and Rimavská Sobota (SK) - Connection of the two New SK - HU interconnection NSI East 48 695 existing SK/HU SEPS a.s. MAVIR ZRt. - phase 1 substations (R.Sobota (SK) -Sajoóivánka (HU)) by the new

text: 2x400 kV line (preliminary armed only with one circuit).

text: New SK - HU interconnection NSI East 48 696 2x70 Mvar shunt reactors in station Sajóivánka (HU) HU MAVIR ZRt. - phase 1

text: New SK - HU interconnection NSI East 48 697 Second 400/120 kV transformer in station Sajóivánka (HU) HU MAVIR ZRt. - phase 1

text: New SK -HU interconnection - 43 NSI East 54 720 Erection of new 2x400 line between Velké SK/HU SEPS a.s. MAVIR ZRt. phase 2

text: PSE NSI East 58 140 GerPol Power Bridge Eisenhüttenstadt - Plewiska DE/PL 50Hertz

text: PSE NSI East 58 353 GerPol Power Bridge krajnik (PL) - Baczyna (PL) PL 50Hertz

text: PSE NSI East 58 355 GerPol Power Bridge Mikulowa (PL) - Swiebodzice (PL) PL 50Hertz

text: PSE NSI East 58 726 GerPol Power Bridge Gubin (PL) PL 50Hertz

text: PSE NSI East 58 1035 GerPol Power Bridge Baczyna PL 50Hertz

text: Interconnection Vierraden (DE) – Kraijnik (PL) and coordinated PSE (PL) NSI East 94 139 GerPol Improvements DE/PL installation and operation of phase shifting transformers 50Hertz (DE)

text: NSI East 94 796 GerPol Improvements PST in Mikułowa PL PSE S.A. (PL)

text: NSI East 94 992 GerPol Improvements PST in Vierraden DE 50Hertz (DE)

text: Agency’s note: The title is proposed to be amended as follows:“Erection of new 2x400 line between Velké Kapušany and Kisvárda area”.

text: North South Eastern German Internal line in Germany between Wolmirstedt (DE) and area NSI East 130 665 DE 50Hertz Amprion GmbH Corridor (one of 6 projects) Gundremmingen (DE)

text: New 400 kV double circuit OHL Cernavoda – Stalpu, with one

text: NSI East 138 273 Black Sea Corridor circuit derivation in/out in 400 kV substation Gura Ialomitei RO Transelectrica (RO)

text: (RO);

text: NSI East 138 275 Black Sea Corridor Smardan - Gutinas RO Transelectrica (RO)

text: Upgraded the 220/110 kV substation Stalpu to 400/110kV NSI East 138 715 Black Sea Corridor RO Transelectrica (RO) (1x250MVA) (RO);

text: Transelectrica (RO) ESO- NSI East 138 800 Black Sea Corridor New 400 kV simple circuit OHL Dobrudja – Burgas (BG); BG EAD (BG)

text: Interconnection between Žerjavinec (HR)/Heviz (HU) and ELES d.o.o. (Slovenian NSI East 141 223 CSE3 HR/HU/SI Cirkovce (SI) TSO)

text: ELES d.o.o. (Slovenian NSI East 141 225 CSE3 Internal line between Beričevo and Podlog (SI) SI TSO)

text: ELES d.o.o. (Slovenian NSI East 141 Internal line between Divača and Beričevo (SI) SI TSO)

text: ELES d.o.o. (Slovenian NSI East 141 Internal line between Podlog and Cirkovce (SI) SI TSO)

text: Elektroenergien Sistermen

text: interconnection line 400 kV between maritsa East (BG) and Operator EAD, Bulgaria NSI East 142 256 CSE4 BG/GR Nea santa (GR) IPTO Greece (Greek part

text: of the interonnection)

text: Internal 400 kV OHL between Maritsa East (BG) and Plovdiv Elektroenergien Sistermen NSI East 142 257 CSE4 BG (BG) Operator EAD, Bulgaria

text: Internal 400 kV OHL between Maritsa East (BG) and Maritsa Elektroenergien Sistermen NSI East 142 258 CSE4 BG East 3 (BG) Operator EAD, Bulgaria

text: Internal 400 kV OHL between Maritsa East (BG) and Burgas Elektroenergien Sistermen NSI East 142 262 CSE4 BG (BG) Operator EAD, Bulgaria

text: Transelectrica (RO) –JP NSI East 144 238 Mid Continental East Corridor New 400 kV double circuit OHL Resita (RO) – Pancevo (RS); RO/RS EMS (Serbia)

text: NSI East 144 269 Mid Continental East Corridor New 400 kV simple circuit OHL Portile de Fier – Resita (RO); RO Transelectrica (RO)

text: Upgrade of existing 220kV double circuit line Resita-Timisoara- NSI East 144 270 Mid Continental East Corridor RO Transelectrica (RO) Sacalaz-Arad to 400kV double circuit (RO);

text: New 400 kV substation Resita (T400/220 kV, 400 MVA + T

text: NSI East 144 701 Mid Continental East Corridor 400/110 kV, 250 MVA), as development of the existing RO Transelectrica (RO)

text: 220/110 kV substation (RO);

text: Replacement of 220 kV substation Timisoara with 400 kV NSI East 144 705 Mid Continental East Corridor RO Transelectrica (RO) substation (2x250 MVA, 400/110 kV) (RO).

text: ELES d.o.o. and TERNA PCI Italy – Slovenia interconnection between Salgareda (IT) NSI East 150 616 CCS new 10 IT/SI SpA (Slovenian and Italian and Divača — Bericevo region (SI) TSO) NSI East 200 306 Czech North South Corridor Vutjiv (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. NSI East 200 307 Czech North South Corridor Vernerov (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. NSI East 200 308 Czech North South Corridor Vernerov (CZ) - Vitkov (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. NSI East 200 309 Czech North South Corridor Vitkov (CZ) - Prestice (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. NSI East 200 312 Czech North South Corridor Mirovka (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. NSI East 200 314 Czech North South Corridor Mirovka (CZ) - V413 (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. North South Eastern German 50Hertz NSI East 205 193 Vieselback (De) - Redwitz (DE) DE Corridor (one of 6 projects) TenneT TSO NSI East 210 1071 E15 Würmlach (AT) – Somplago(IT) interconnection AT/IT Alpe Adria Energiea SpA HPS Complex Agios Georgios NSI East 217 (blank) HPS Complex Agios Georgios and Pyrgos (HPS Amfilochia) EL TERNA ENERGY S.A. and Pyrgos (HPS Amfilochia) Hydro-pumped storage in Natsionalna Elektricheska NSI East 218 (blank) Hydro-pumped storage in Bulgaria-Yadenitsa BG Bulgaria-Yadenitsa kompania Ead (NEK EAD) NSI East 219 949 EUROASIA interconnector Internal line between Korakia, Crete(EL) and Attica (EL) EL DEH Quantum Energy LTD

text: NSI East 219 971 EUROASIA interconnector Interconnection between Vasilikos (CY) and Korakia, Crete(EL) CY/EL DEH Quantum Energy LTD

text: NSI East 219 1054 EUROASIA interconnector Interconnection between Hadera (IL) and Vasilikos (CY) IL/CY DEH Quantum Energy LTD

text: BEMIP 36 141 Kriegers Flak CGS Ishøj /Bjæverskov(DK) - Bentwisch (DE) DK/DE 50Hertz Energinet.dk; BEMIP 59 379 Lit Pol Link Stage 1 Kruonis (LT) - Alytus (LT) LT Litgrid AB Interconnection Estonia – Augstsrieguma tikls. BEMIP 62 386 Kilingi-Nomme (EE) - Riga CHP2 (LV) EE/LV Latvia Elering Interconnection Estonia – BEMIP 62 735 Harku (EE) - Sindi (EE) EE Elering AS Latvia BEMIP 60 385 Nordbalt (LV reinforcement) Ventspils-Tume-Imanta (LV) LV Augstsrieguma tikls. BEMIP 123 335 LitPol Link Stage 2 Ostrołęka – Olsztyn Mątki PL PSE S.A. (PL)

text: BEMIP 123 373 LitPol Link Stage 2 Stanisławów – Ostrołęka PL PSE S.A. (PL) BEMIP 123 1038 LitPol Link Stage 2 Alytus converter station (2nd) LT Litgrid AB BEMIP 124 733 NordBalt phase 2 Ekhyddan- Nybro/Hemsjö (SE) SE Svenska kraftnät Augstsprieguma tikls BEMIP 163 1010-1013 BalticCorridor 2 EE-LV interconnections and 2 EE internal lines EE-LV Elering AS BEMIP 163 1062 BalticCorridor Riga CHP 2 (LV) - Salaspils (LV) EE-LV Augstsprieguma tikls BEMIP 170 380 Baltics synchro with CE Visaginas (LT) - Kruonis (LT) LT Litgrid AB BEMIP 170 1034 Baltics synchro with CE Substation in Lithuania (state border) LT Litgrid AB BEMIP 211 (blank) Muuga HPSPP Muuga HPSPP EE Energiasalv OÜ BEMIP 212 (blank) Kruonis HPSPP extension Kruonis HPSPP extension LT Lietuvos Energija Generic project on various aspects of the integration of the Baltic States' electricity network into the continental European network, including BEMIP their synchronous operation LT, LV, EE

text: Table 2 - Extract of the table “Draft 2nd PCI candidates list vs the 1st PCI list” In this table the proposed projects which were deemd elibible are included.

text: TYNDP TYNDP Priority PCI Status Description Countries Project promoter 2014 2014 Corridor Project ID Inv Item

text: National Grid

text: Interconnector NSOG 1.1 1.1.1 Candidate Thames Estuary Cluster (NEMO) Thames Estuary Cluster (NEMO Link) GB 74 443 Holdings Limited,

text: Elia SA/nv

text: New 400kV double circuit and new 400kV

text: substation in Richborough connecting the new National Grid North Seas offshore grid NSOG 1.1.2 Candidate Belgium interconnector providing greater GB Electricity 230 449 infrastructure scheme market coupling between the UK and the Transmission

text: European mainland.

text: Interconnection between Endrup (DK) and Energinet.dk; NSOG 1.3 1.3.1 Candidate DKW-DE, Westcoast DK/DE 183 1018 Niebüll (DE) TenneT TSO GmbH

text: North South Eastern German Internal line between Brunsbűttel and Niebűll NSOG 1.3.2 Candidate DE TenneT TSO GmbH 209 667 Corridor (one of 6 projects) (DE)

text: Interconnection between Kassö (DK) and Energinet.dk; NSOG 1.4 1.4.1 Candidate DKW-DE, step 3 DK/DE 39 144 Audorf (DE) TenneT TSO GmbH

text: North South Eastern German Internal line between Audorf and NSOG 1.4.2 Candidate DE TenneT TSO GmbH 209 148 Corridor (one of 6 projects) Hamburg/Nord (DE)

text: North South Eastern German Internal line between Hamburg/Nord and NSOG 1.4.3 Candidate DE TenneT TSO GmbH 209 147 Corridor (one of 6 projects) Dollern (DE)

text: TenneT and NSOG 1.5 Candidate COBRA Cable Endrup (DK) - Eemshaven (NL) DK/NL 71 427 Energinet

text: NSOG 1.6 Candidate Celtic Interconnector Great Island or Knockraha (IE) - La Martyre (FR) IE/FR RTE, Eirgrid 107 810

text: RTE, Transmission NSOG 1.7 1.7.1 Candidate France-Alderney-Britain Cotentin Nord - Exeter FR/GB 153 387 Investment

text: National Grid

text: Interconnector NSOG 1.7.2 Candidate IFA2 Tourbe (FR) - Chilling (GB) FR/GB 25 62 Holdings Limited,

text: RTE

text: NSOG 1.7.3 Candidate ElecLink Sellindge-Le Mandarins (FR) GB/FR ElecLink 172 1005

text: TenneT TSO GmbH,

text: Southern Norway - Germany Germany – Norway interconnection between Statnett SF, KfW NSOG 1.8 Candidate 44 DE/NO 37 142 (Nord.Link) Wilster (DE) and Tonstad (NO) (NORD.LINK) Kreditanstalt für

text: Wiederaufbau

text: Element Power,

text: NSOG 1.9 1.9.1 Candidate Greenlink, Greenwire IE-GB GB - IE GB/IE Greenwire, 185 1020

text: Greenlink

text: 1024, 1025, NSOG 1.9.2 Candidate Isles project GB-IE GB/IE Scottish Government 189 1026, 1027

text: Stattnet, National Kvildall (NO) - Blythe (GB), Sima (NO)- NSOG 1.10 Candidate NSN, NorthConnect NO-GB Grid, Northconnect 110, 190 Peterhead (GB) KS

text: interconnection between Glinsk, Mayo (IE) and NSOG 1.11.4 Canndidate MAREX GB-UK Organic Power Ltd 228 Connah’s Quai, Deeside (UK)

text: PCI compressed air energy PCI compressed air energy storage in United Gaelectric Energy NSOG 1.12 Candidate storage in United Kingdom - UK 221 Kingdom - Larne Storage Ltd Larne

text: Landsnet, NEW NSOG 1.aa Interco Iceland-UK Interco Iceland-UK IS/UK Landsvirkjun and 214 1082 candidate National Grid

text: National Grid

text: NEW Interconnector NSOG 1.bb Viking DKW-GB DKW-GB (Viking Link) DK/GB 167 998 candidate Holdings,

text: Energinet.dk.

text: Austrian Power Grid NSI West 2.1 Candidate AT - DE Westtirol – Zell/Ziller AT/DE 47 219 AG

text: Area of Oberzier - Aachen/Düren (DE) - Area of Elia SA/nv & NSI West 2.2 2.2.1 Candidate ALEGrO DE/BE 92 146 Lixhe - Liège (BE) Amprion GmbH

text: Area of Oberzier - Aachen/Düren (DE) - Area of Elia SA/nv & NSI West 2.2.2 Candidate ALEGrO DE/BE 92 1048 Lixhe - Liège (BE) Amprion GmbH

text: Area of Oberzier - Aachen/Düren (DE) - Area of Elia SA/nv & NSI West 2.2.3 Candidate ALEGrO DE/BE 92 1045 Lixhe - Liège (BE) Amprion GmbH

text: Elia SA/nv & Creos NSI West 2.3.2 Candidate Luxembourg-Belgium Interco Bascharage (LU) - Aubange (BE) LU/BE 40 650 Luxembourg

text: Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, “Tonstad” is proposed to be replaced by “Ertsmyra/ Tonstad”.

text: Grande Ile (FR) - Piassasco (IT) (currently known NSI West 2.5 2.5.1 Candidate Italy - France FR/IT Terna (IT) / RTE (FR) 21 55 as Savoie (FR) - Piémont (IT) ) NSI West 2.7 Candidate Western interconnection FR-ES Gatica (ES) – Aquitaine (Cubnezais) (FR) ES/FR RTE/REE 16 38

text: NSI West 2.8 Candidate PST Arkale Arkale (ES) ES/FR EREE (ES) 184 594 Amprion GmbH (DE); North South Western German 45 NSI West 2.9 Candidate North South Western German Corridor DE TransnetBW GmbH 134 660 Corridor (DE) North South Eastern German Internal line between Brunsbüttel to TenneT TSO GmbH, NSI West 2.10 Candidate DE 164 664 Corridor Großgartach, Wilster to Area Grafenrheinfeld TransnetBW GmbH Amprion GmbH (DE); TransnetBW GmbH 46 (DE); Swissgrid AG NSI West 2.11.2 Candidate Area of Lake Constance Border area (DE-AT) - Rüthi (CH) DE/AT/CH 198 985, 986 (CH); Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (AT) Amprion GmbH (DE); TransnetBW GmbH NEW 47 (DE); Swissgrid AG NSI West 2.11.3 Area of Lake Constance Border area (DE-AT) - Rüthi (CH) DE/AT/CH 198 986, 1043 candidate (CH); Vorarlberger Übertragungsnetz GmbH (AT) North South Western German Germany - Netherlands interconnection TenneT TSO B.V., NSI West 2.12 Candidate Corridor (Doetrichem - between Wesel-Niederrhein (DE) and DE/NL 113 145 Amprion GmbH Niederhein) Doetinchen (NL) NSI West 2.13 2.13.1 Candidate North South Interconnector Woodland (IE) - Turleenan (NI) IE/UK EirGrid, SONI 81 462 Srananagh (IE) - New substation in South 463, 896, NSI West 2.13.2 Candidate RIDP I Donegal (IE); South Donegal (IE) - Omagh South IE/UK EirGrid, SONI 82 897 (NI); Omagh South - Turleenan

text: Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, the project description is proposed to be replaced with the following: “Germany internal line between Osterath and Philippsburg (DE) to increase capacity at Western borders”. Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, the project description is proposed to be replaced with the following: “Internal line in the region of point Rommelsbach to Herbertingen”. Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, the project description is proposed to be replaced with the following: “Internal line point Wullenstetten (DE)-point Niederwangen (DE) and internal line Neuravensburg”.

text: NSI West 2.14 Candidate Greenconnector Verderio (I) - Sils (CH) IT/CH Worldenergy 174 1014 Interconnection between Airolo (CH) and NSI West 2.15 2.15.1 Candidate Italy Switzerland IT/CH Terna (IT) 31 642 Baggio (IT) NSI West 2.16 2.16.1 Candidate RES in north of Portugal Pedralva (PT) - Sobrado (PT) PT REN 1 2 V.Minho (by Ribeira de Pena and Fridão) - Feira NSI West 2.16.3 Candidate RES in north of Portugal (by Ribeira de Pena and Fridão); Ribeira de PT REN 1 4, 474, 941 Pena (PT) Substation; Fridão switching station 18, 496, NSI West 2.17 Candidate Interconnection Portugal-Spain 2 ES/PT REN/REE 4 498, 499, 500 Extension of the pump storage Extension of the pump storage powerplant TIWAG-Tiroler NSI West 2.18 Candidate AT 222 powerplant Kaunertal Kaunertal Wasserkraft AG Verbund Hydro NSI West 2.20 Candidate Limberg III Limberg III AT 223 Power GmbH Donaukraft NSI West 2.21 Candidate Energiespeicher Riedl Energiespeicher Riedl AT 226 Jochenstein AG NEW 445, 604, NSI West 2.aa.1 Belgian North Border Zandvliet-Lillo, Lillo-Mercator, Lillo substation BE Elia SA/nv 24 candidate 605 NEW NSI West 2.aa.2 Belgian North Border Horta-Mercator BE Elia SA/nv 24 608 candidate NEW Nudejar (ES); Morella (ES) - La Plana (ES); 537, 538, NSI West 2.bb Aragón-Castellón ES REE 203 candidate Mezquita - Morella; Mudejar - Morella; 1069, 1070 NEW Hydro Pumped Storage NSI West 2.cc Hydro Pumped Storage Pfaffenboden in Molln AT Wien Energie GmbH 224 candidate Pfaffenboden in Molln NEW NSI West 2.dd Godelleta-Morella/La Plana La Plana/Morella - Godelleta ES 193 927 candidate NEW Generic project Iberian NSI West 2.ee Generic project Iberian Peninsula ES/FR generic1 candidate Peninsula

text: Austrian Power Grid NSI East 3.1 3.1.1 Candidate AT - DE St. Peter (AT) – Isar/Ottenhofen (DE) AT/DE AG / TenneT TSO 47 212 GmbH

text: Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, the project description is proposed to be replaced with the following: “Isar/Altheim/Ottenhofen(DE) to St. Peter (AT)”.

text: Austrian Power Grid NSI East 3.1.2 Candidate AT - DE St. Peter – Tauern, “Salzburgleitung” AT 47 216 AG

text: Interconnection between Lienz (AT) and Veneto NSI East 3.2 3.2.1 Candidate Austria-Italy AT/IT Terna (IT) / APG (AT) 26 63 region (IT)

text: NSI East 3.2.2 Candidate Austria-Italy Lienz – Obersielach AT APG (AT) 26 218

text: Alpe Adria Energiea NSI East 3.4 Candidate E15 Würmlach (AT) – Somplago(IT) interconnection AT/IT 210 1071 SpA

text: Elektroenergien

text: Sistermen Operator

text: interconnection line 400 kV between maritsa EAD, Bulgaria IPTO NSI East 3.7 3.7.1 Candidate CSE4 BG/GR 142 256 East (BG) and Nea santa (GR) Greece (Greek part

text: of the

text: interonnection)

text: Elektroenergien Internal 400 kV OHL between Maritsa East (BG) NSI East 3.7.2 Candidate CSE4 BG Sistermen Operator 142 257 and Plovdiv (BG) EAD, Bulgaria

text: Elektroenergien Internal 400 kV OHL between Maritsa East (BG) NSI East 3.7.3 Candidate CSE4 BG Sistermen Operator 142 258 and Maritsa East 3 (BG) EAD, Bulgaria

text: Elektroenergien Internal 400 kV OHL between Maritsa East (BG) NSI East 3.7.4 Candidate CSE4 BG Sistermen Operator 142 262 and Burgas (BG) EAD, Bulgaria

text: New 400 kV simple circuit OHL Dobrudja – Transelectrica (RO) NSI East 3.8 3.8.1 Candidate Black Sea Corridor BG 138 800 Burgas (BG); ESO-EAD (BG)

text: New 400 kV double circuit OHL Cernavoda –

text: Stalpu, with one circuit derivation in/out in 400

text: NSI East 3.8.4 Candidate Black Sea Corridor kV substation Gura Ialomitei (RO); Upgraded RO Transelectrica (RO) 138 273, 715

text: the 220/110 kV substation Stalpu to 400/110kV

text: (1x250MVA) (RO)

text: New 400 kV double circuit OHL Smardan – NSI East 3.8.5 Candidate Black Sea Corridor RO Transelectrica (RO) 138 275 Gutinas (RO);

text: Interconnection between Žerjavinec (HR)/Heviz ELES d.o.o. NSI East 3.9 3.9.1 Candidate CSE3 HR/HU/SI 141 223 (HU) and Cirkovce (SI) (Slovenian TSO)

text: ELES d.o.o. NSI East 3.9.2 Candidate CSE4 Internal line between Divača and Beričevo (SI) SI 141 225 (Slovenian TSO)

text: ELES d.o.o. NSI East 3.9.3 Candidate CSE5 Internal line between Beričevo and Podlog (SI) SI 141 225 (Slovenian TSO)

text: ELES d.o.o. NSI East 3.9.4 Candidate CSE6 Internal line between Podlog and Cirkovce (SI) SI 141 225 (Slovenian TSO)

text: Internal line between Korakia, Crete(EL) and DEH Quantum NSI East 3.10 3.10.1 Candidate EUROASIA interconnector EL 219 949 Attica (EL) Energy LTD

text: Interconnection between Vasilikos (CY) and DEH Quantum NSI East 3.10.2 Candidate EUROASIA interconnector CY/EL 219 971 Korakia, Crete(EL) Energy LTD

text: Interconnection between Hadera (IL) and DEH Quantum NSI East 3.10.3 Candidate EUROASIA interconnector IL/CY 219 1054 Vasilikos (CY) Energy LTD

text: Vutjiv (CZ), Vernerov (CZ), Vernerov (CZ) - 306, 307, NSI East 3.11 3.11.1 Candidate Czech North South Corridor CZ ČEPS, a.s. 200 Vitkov (CZ) 308

text: NSI East 3.11.2 Candidate Czech North South Corridor Vitkov (CZ) - Prestice (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. 200 309

text: Czech North South Corridor – Kocin (CZ) Upgrade of the existing substation, NSI East 3.11.3 Candidate CZ ČEPS, a.s. 35 311, 315 Phase 2 Kocin (CZ) - Prestice (CZ)

text: Mirovka (CZ), Mirovka (CZ) - V413 (CZ), Kocin 200, 35 312, 313, NSI East 3.11.4 Candidate Czech North South Corridor CZ ČEPS, a.s. (CZ) - Mirovka (313) 314

text: Czech North South Corridor – NSI East 3.11.5 Candidate Mirovka (CZ) - Cebin (CZ) CZ ČEPS, a.s. 35 316 Phase 2

text: North South Eastern German Internal line in Germany between Wolmirstedt 50Hertz Amprion NSI East 3.12 Candidate 49 DE 130 665 Corridor (one of 6 projects) (DE) and area Gundremmingen (DE) GmbH

text: North South Eastern German 50 50Hertz NSI East 3.13 Candidate Halle/Saale (DE) – Schweinfurt (DE) DE 205 193 Corridor (one of 6 projects) TenneT TSO

text: Eisenhüttenstadt - Plewiska, Gubin (PL), PSE NSI East 3.14 3.14.1 Candidate GerPol Power Bridge DE/PL 58 140, 726 Plewiska (PL) 50Hertz

text: PSE NSI East 3.14.2 Candidate GerPol Power Bridge krajnik (PL) - Baczyna (PL), Baczyna, PL 58 353, 1035 50Hertz

text: PSE NSI East 3.14.3 Candidate GerPol Power Bridge Mikulowa (PL) - Swiebodzice (PL) PL 58 355 50Hertz

text: Interconnection Vierraden (DE) – Kraijnik (PL) PSE (PL) NSI East 3.15 3.15.1 Candidate GerPol Improvements and coordinated installation and operation of DE/PL 94 139 50Hertz (DE) phase shifting transformers

text: (PST in Mikułowa), Substation Krajink, PST in NSI East 3.15.2 Candidate GerPol Improvements PL PSE S.A. (PL) 94 796, 992 Vierraden

text: New Hungary - Slovakia interconnection

text: New SK - HU interconnection - between Gabčíkovo (SK) - Gönyű (HU) - Veľký NSI East 3.16 3.16.1 Candidate SK/HU SEPS a.s. MAVIR ZRt. 48 214 phase 1 Ďur (SK) (the substation in Veľký Ďur (SK) was

text: added, however accoriding to ENTSO-E this

text: Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, the project description is proposed to be replaced with the following: “Wolmirstedt (DE) to Bavaria (either Gundremmingen or Isar) (DE)”. Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, the project description is proposed to be replaced with the following: “Altenfeld (DE) to Redwitz (DE)”.

text: change does not affect the TYNDP 2014 assessment results) PCI Hungary - Slovakia interconnection between Sajóvánka (HU) and Rimavská Sobota New SK - HU interconnection - (SK) - Connection of the two existing 695, 696, NSI East 3.17 Candidate SK/HU SEPS a.s. MAVIR ZRt. 48 phase 1 substations (R.Sobota (SK) -Sajoóivánka (HU)) 697 by the new 2x400 kV line (preliminary armed only with one circuit). New SK -HU interconnection - 51 NSI East 3.18 3.18.1 Candidate Erection of new 2x400 line between Velké SK/HU SEPS a.s. MAVIR ZRt. 54 720 phase 2 Interconnection between Villanova (IT) and Lastva (ME), Converter station of Villanova (IT) the new 1000MW HVDC interconnection line 70, 621, NSI East 3.19 3.19.1 Candidate 28 (Italy-Montenegro) between Italy and Montenegro, Converter IT/ME Terna (IT) 28 622 station in Lastva (ME) of the new 1000MW HVDC interconnection line between Italy and Montenegro ELES d.o.o. and PCI Italy – Slovenia interconnection between TERNA SpA NSI East 3.21 Candidate CCS new 10 IT/SI 150 616 Salgareda (IT) and Divača — Bericevo region (SI) (Slovenian and Italian TSO) New 400 kV double circuit OHL Resita (RO) – Transelectrica (RO) – NSI East 3.22 3.22.1 Candidate Mid Continental East Corridor RO/RS 144 238 Pancevo (RS); JP EMS (Serbia) New 400 kV simple circuit OHL Portile de Fier – Resita (RO); New 400 kV substation Resita NSI East 3.22.2 Candidate Mid Continental East Corridor (T400/220 kV, 400 MVA + T 400/110 kV, 250 RO Transelectrica (RO) 144 269, 701 MVA), as development of the existing 220/110 kV substation (RO); Upgrade of existing 220kV double circuit line Resita-Timisoara-Sacalaz-Arad to 400kV double NSI East 3.22.3 Candidate Mid Continental East Corridor circuit (RO); Replacement of 220 kV substation RO Transelectrica (RO) 144 270, 705 Timisoara with 400 kV substation (2x250 MVA, 400/110 kV) (RO). NSI East 3.22.4 Candidate Mid Continental East Corridor Internal line between Timisoara and Arad (RO) RO Transelectrica (RO)

text: Natsionalna

text: Hydro-pumped storage in Elektricheska NSI East 3.23 Candidate Hydro-pumped storage in Bulgaria-Yadenitsa BG 218 (blank) Bulgaria-Yadenitsa kompania Ead (NEK

text: EAD)

text: HPS Complex Agios Georgios HPS Complex Agios Georgios and Pyrgos (HPS NSI East 3.24 Candidate EL TERNA ENERGY S.A. 217 (blank) and Pyrgos (HPS Amfilochia) Amfilochia)

text: BEMIP 52 50Hertz 4.1 Candidate Kriegers Flak CGS Ishøj /Bjæverskov(DK) - Bentwisch (DE) DK/DE 36 141 Electricity Energinet.dk;

text: BEMIP Augstsrieguma tikls. 4.2 4.2.1 Candidate Interconnection Estonia – Latvia Kilingi-Nomme (EE) - Riga CHP2 (LV) EE/LV 62 386 Electricity Elering

text: BEMIP 4.2.1 Candidate Interconnection Estonia – Latvia Harku (EE) - Sindi (EE) EE Elering 62 735 Electricity

text: BEMIP 4.4 4.4.1 Candidate Nordbalt (LV reinforcement) Ventspils-Tume-Imanta (LV) LV Augstsrieguma tikls. 60 385 Electricity

text: BEMIP 4.4.2 Candidate NordBalt phase 2 Ekhyddan- Nybro/Hemsjö (SE) SE Svenska kraftnät 124 733 Electricity

text: BEMIP Ostrołęka – Olsztyn Mątki, Stanisławów – 4.5.2 Candidate LitPol Link Stage 2 LT/PL 123 335, 373 Electricity Ostrołęka

text: BEMIP 4.6 Candidate Muuga HPSPP Muuga HPSPP EE Energiasalv OÜ 211 Electricity

text: BEMIP 4.7 Candidate Kruonis HPSPP extension Kruonis HPSPP extension LT Lietuvos Energija 212 Electricity

text: BEMIP NEW 4.aa LitPol Link Stage 1 Kruonis (LT) - Alytus (LT) LT Litgrid AB, PSE S.A. 59 379 Electricity candidate

text: BEMIP NEW 4.bb LitPol Link Stage 2 Alytus converter station (2nd) LT Litgrid AB 123 1038 Electricity candidate

text: BEMIP NEW 4.cc BalticCorridor Riga CHP2 (LV) - Salaspils (LV) LV Augstsprieguma tikls 163 1062 Electricity candidate

text: BalticCorridor (also BEMIP NEW Elering and 4.dd contributing to 170 Baltics Tartu (EE) - Valmiera (LV), Balti (EE) - Tartu (EE) EE/LV 163 1010, 1012 Electricity candidate Augstsprieguma tikls synchro with CE)

text: BalticCorridor (also BEMIP NEW Tsirgulina (EE) - Valmiera (LV), Eesti (EE) - Elering and contributing to 170 Baltics EE/LV 163 1011, 1013 Electricity candidate Tsirguliina (EE) Augstsprieguma tikls synchro with CE)

text: Agency’s note: To allow easy reconciliation with the NDP, the project description is proposed to be replaced with the following: “Tolstrup Gaarde (DK)- Bentwisch (DE)”

text: BEMIP NEW 4.ee Baltics synchro with CE Visaginas (LT) - Kruonis (LT) LT Litgrid AB 170 380 Electricity candidate BEMIP NEW Baltics synchro with CE Substation in Lithuania - State border LT Litgrid AB 170 1034 Electricity candidate Generic project on various aspects of the integration of the BEMIP NEW Baltic States' electricity network LT, LV, EE generic2 Electricity candidate into the continental European network, including their synchronous operation

text: Annex II — The checklist for the preparation of NRAs assessment In order to promote a consistent approach in the NRA assessment of electricity candidate PCIs, an assessment by NRAs was planned and implemented in the framework of the Agency, based on checklists. For the purpose of the preliminary identification of the concerned NRAs, and NRAs’ preliminary objections to the inclusion of a candidate project to the PCI list, an initial checklist was prepared and circulated by the Agency on 15 May, 2015. The results of this checklist facilitated the timely preparation of NRAs cooperation in assessing the projects, and the better planning of the upcoming Regional Group activities. Following the preliminary checklist, a second checklist was prepared and circulated on 1 June, 2015. With this checklist the NRAs provided their assessment and views on the following issues: • Criteria set out in

text: article 4.1

text: .c of Reg.

text: (EU) 347/2013

text: (cross border relevance); • Contribution of the projects to the specific criteria set out in art. 4.2.a of Reg.

text: (EU) 347/2013

text: (market integration, sustainability, security of supply); • Identification of inconsistencies regarding the provided cost data (CAPEX, OPEX); • Identification of inconsistencies regarding the available benefits (SEW, SOS, losses); • NRAs view on projects’ commissioning dates; • NRAs view on Regulation additional criteria (art. 4.4): urgency, territorial cohesion and complementarity. The checklist templates were prepared bearing in mind the following general and technical principles: • Apply similar approach for electricity and gas, with some differences in recognition of the specific features of these two energy sectors, in particular the different stages of development of TYNDPs and of cost-benefit analyses; • Make the checklists straightforward and short, so to minimise the time required to fill them out. The structure of the checklists included the following five parts:  Respondent(s) contact information;  Project information;  Opinion on the compliance with the Regulation 347/2013 selection criteria;  Opinion on project commissioning date, urgency and other criteria;  Overall assessment.