ENTSOG TYNDP 2017 - Executive Summary

UA disruption Blue Transition 2020 Low

UA disruption Blue Transition 2030 Low

UA disruption Blue Transition 2017 Low

20%

20%

100%

Remaining Flexibility

Disrupted Demand

100%

50%

0%

0%

Figure 4.9: Risk of demand curtailment in the case of Ukrainian transit disruption, Green Evolution, Low infrastructure level (existing infrastructure and FID projects), Design Case peak day

Competition requires a fully functioning internal energy market

The infrastructure limitations pointed above, which locally lead to high dependence or an inability to sufficiently diversify supply sources, would also have an impact in terms of competition. In particular, the isolation of Finland prevents the country from mitigating a high Russian supply price. Infrastructure limitations also prevent the Baltic States to share the benefit of their access to LNG with Finland. In Central-Eastern Europe, countries are mainly supplied by Russian gas and face a low level of competition. In the South-Eastern part of Europe, barriers prevent Greece from sharing, to a large extent, the benefit of its access to LNG, in particular with Bulgaria. In Romania, the lack of interconnection does not allow for Romanian national production to benefit neighbouring countries. In the Western part of Europe, the limited ability of the Iberian Peninsula to substi- tute LNG with pipe gas would expose it in the case of high LNG price. Symmetrical- ly the assessment identifies barriers preventing the Iberian Peninsula to fully share the benefits of its access to LNG with France.The access to LNG in the United King- dom, France and Belgium can benefit countries to the East, up to a certain extent. 20% – 100% 0% – 20% Disruption Demand 20% – 100% 0% – 20% Disruption Demand

Remaining Flexibility

0% – 20% 20% – 50% 50% – 100%

Remaining Flexibility

0% – 20% 20% – 50% 50% – 100%

Ten-Year Network Development Plan 2017– Executive Summary | 23