26 / 232
26 |
Ten Year Network Development Plan 2015
FID
Non-FID
%
26
74
%
18
82
2013
2015
Figure 2.6:
Overview of the FID status of the projects as submitted by the promoters for
TYNDP 2015 and for TYNDP 2013
0
40
20
30
10
Projects
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Construction Start Year
Commisioning Year
FID year – Projects
Figure 2.7:
Overview of project scheduling
evidence that there is a need for further infrastructure developments to allow these
new Member States to catch up with the level of network integration across Europe.
As shown in figure 2.5, investment costs are in many cases commercially sensitive,
which is the reason why this information is not mandatory for inclusion within the
TYNDP. The number of projects for which this information is available in Annex A is
too low to draw any conclusion on the overall value of investment projects proposed
by promoters.
As shown above, the ratio of projects with an FID status has slightly decreased
compared to the previous TYNDP. This may result from many factors that delay pro-
moters’ decisions, which are detailed in the Barriers to Investment Chapter.
The analysis of project submissions above shows:
\\
An average of 9 months between the planned FID and the expected start of
construction
\\
An average of 2 years between the expected date of start of construction and
the commissioning of the first capacity increment
The analysis is not necessarily indicative of the project lead time for any future
projects. Moreover, the way FID is taken by each promoter may differ. Some may
take FID after the issue of permits and some, before initiating the permitting proce-
dure.