233 / 288
Ten-Year Network Development Plan 2017 Main Report |
233
From 2025, the expiration of the leasing agreement for the Klaipėda LNG FSRU
reported in the low infrastructure level, is not compensated by the advanced infra-
structure level. Finland and the Baltic States are not protected from monopolistic
supply behaviour.
The commissioning of some projects listed in the advanced infrastructure level help
Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia, as well as Poland, to
decrease the dependency on differentiated pricing politics. These benefits result
from an enhanced market integration in Central and Central-Eastern Europe provid-
ing access to competitive supply sources. In Romania, the benefits fluctuate over
time based on the reported indigenous production forecast.
6.4.4 CONCLUSION ON THE COSTS-BENEFITS
ANALYSIS OF ADVANCED PROJECTS
The TYNDP lists 52 advanced projects.
These projects prove efficient in terms of improving security of supply, diversification
and competition.
In terms of security of supply advanced projects provide the following benefits:
\\
Croatia is protected from demand disruption in case of peak demand,
including on the long-run.
\\
The Baltic States and Poland improve their resilience in case of short-term
Belarus route disruption.
\\
South-Eastern countries are left with a very limited demand disruption in case
of short-term Ukrainian route disruption.
\\
N-1 for ESW-CBA improves for a number of countries.
The advanced projects additionally deliver in terms of improving competition, by
increasing route and supply diversification and consequently lifting local high
dependence to specific supply sources. In particular the Baltic States and Finland
are connected to the main EU gas grid and can access three supply sources,
decreasing their dependence to Russian gas.
Finally the advanced projects, by improving competition and market integration,
prevent a large number of Eastern countries to be subject to monopolistic supply
behaviour.
The overall investment costs for all advanced projects represent 16 Bn€. The actual
costs of achieving the above listed benefits would much certainly be lower as the
some advanced projects potentially compete in terms of delivering security of
supply, competition and market integration to the areas in need.
Even with the materialisation of advanced projects, some needs would still not be
covered:
\\
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, FYROM, Lithuania, Ireland, Portugal,
Romania, Serbia and Sweden the N-1 for ESW-CBA remains below 100% on
the long run, and in Denmark the N-1 for ESW-CBA remains below 120%.
\\
In Romania the interconnection with neighbouring countries are still not
sufficient for the country to share its indigenous production.
\\
On the long run diversification decrease for Bulgaria, FYROM and Greece
which end up having significant access to only two supply sources.