The REALISEGRID cost-benefit methodology to rank pan-European

0 downloads 0 Views 229KB Size Report
Index Terms — European power system, electricity transmission planning ..... Italian and German markets, respectively IPEX and. EEX) and taking the increase ...


The REALISEGRID cost-benefit methodology to rank pan-European infrastructure investments G. Migliavacca, A. L’Abbate, I. Losa, E.M. Carlini, A. Sallati, C. Vergine

Abstract — The development of the Renewable Energy Source (RES) generation in Europe is lately occurring at a very fast pace under the push of the European energy and climate change policy targets and the consequent incentive schemes applied at national level. At the same time, the electrical borders of the European Countries have recently been opened to host a significant amount of cross-border trade. All these aspects put the European electricity transmission backbones on the critical path and call for their swift reinforcement. However, the European dimension of the problem requests a pan-European vision to the transmission planning, so as to overcome the country-based approach followed up to present by the Transmission System Operators (TSOs). This paper presents the new methodology set up by the European research project REALISEGRID for the cost-benefit analysis of new grid infrastructures, one of the main steps of the transmission planning process, and the basic hypotheses of its validation on a real-sized multi-national model. This test bed applies the new cost-benefit methodology to the ranking of the links belonging to the so-called EL2 priority axis mentioned in the TEN-E Guidelines document published by the European Commission in 2006. Index Terms — European power system, electricity transmission planning, infrastructure investments cost-benefit analysis



he European transmission grid is on the critical path for the achievement of the energy and climate change policy targets enforced by the European Commission at 2020, that aim at promoting a better integration of a steadily increasing amount of RES, while keeping acceptable standards for the security of supply and progressively removing all obstacles to the future creation of a unified European energy market. The central role of the transmission infrastructures within the European energy policy calls for a truly pan-European approach to the planning of new assets, especially those having a significant cross-border impact. This approach aims at harmonizing the different national regulations, fostering the achievement of a coherent policy promoting the most urgent reinforcements and the most techno-economical solutions, The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 219123 (REALISEGRID project). G. Migliavacca, A. L’Abbate, I. Losa are with RSE S.p.A., Milan, Italy (email: [email protected]). C. Vergine, A. Sallati, E.M.Carlini are with TERNA S.p.A., the Italian TSO, Rome, Italy (e-mail:[email protected]).

overcoming possible local opposition by means of a transparent information to the public able to provide clear figures of costs and benefits. Up to now, the TSOs have substantially kept a national scope in planning new infrastructure. However, this approach proved unable to provide a pan-European view and take into account the cross-border needs originated by complementary generation sources located in different European places. Recognizing this limitation, the European Commission issued in 2006 the Trans-European Networks Guidelines document (TEN-E Guidelines [10]), which featured a list of infrastructures recognized as priority projects of European interest. However, after a few years, this approach has shown evident limitations in that this list, actually collected with a bottom-up approach from the different TSOs, didn’t really highlight the true pan-European priorities. Therefore, two communications recently issued by the European Commission ([12] and most notably [11]), beyond stressing the centrality of transmission network development for the European energy policy, call for the creation of a pan-European methodological approach in prioritizing the projects of common European interest. In this direction, ENTSO-E, the new association gathering all the European TSOs created as an implementation of the Third Energy Liberalization Package [13], has brought an important contribution with the publication of the pilot TenYear Network Development Plan (TYNDP) in 2010 [9], to be updated every two years. Although the 2010 TYNDP was still obtained by means of a bottom-up data collection from the national TSOs, this methodology will be gradually changed in favour of a new pan-European approach. Transmission planning is the central subject investigated by the European research project REALISEGRID (, led by RSE, to which 20 European partners, among which 4 Transmission System Operators (TSOs), provide substantial contributions. One of the most important goals of REALISEGRID is establishing a pan-European approach for the cost-benefit analysis of new transmission assets. This aims at prioritizing new investments and is one of the key steps in the planning of new infrastructure. Focus of the present paper is to introduce this new approach, that candidates itself to provide an important methodological support to the above mentioned future Europewide approach for the prioritization of investments among the corridors of common European interest. Section II shows the typical workflow of the transmission planning process, of which the cost-benefit analysis constitutes


one of the main steps. Then, section III and IV examine the main benefits and costs of transmission expansion, which constitute the principal building blocks of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. The methodological approach is then explained in section V, while section VI focuses on the software tool used to support it. Then, the test application is explained in section VII. II. THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS Transmission network planning is a very complex process and recent trends and challenges make it even more complicated. In order to rightly position the methodology proposed by REALISEGRID, it is important to distinguish the different phases of the transmission planning process (Fig. 1). Scenarios development Security analysis

N Identification of first, broad group of solutions Technoeconomic assessment

Security criteria met?

Identification of second, restricted group of solutions

Cost-benefit analysis

Y No expansion

REALISEGRID proposed approach Environmental/ social assessment Final ranking of solutions

Traditional approach Decision making

Fig. 1 - Flow diagram of the transmission planning process

The basic tasks of transmission grid planning can be summarized with the following steps [2]: • check whether acceptable technical limits might be exceeded on the existing transmission network on the basis of scenarios forecasting future power and energy flows. This will allow to identify grid “bottlenecks” in standard conditions as well as in case of loss of one or several system components (security analysis); • devise, in presence of criticalities, a set of possible transmission reinforcements/strategies (candidates for the grid expansion) that could overcome the constraints; • perform a cost-benefit analysis among the candidates so as to rank them by priority order taking into account both costs and benefits provided to the system. In the traditional approach, an assessment of environmental and social implications of the new infrastructure is performed in a second stage in order to refine the ranking. The central idea of the REALISEGRID approach is to include into the cost-benefit methodology a complete range of benefits, much more complete than in the past, and to perform it in one only step by attributing a specific weight to each benefit.

III. MAIN TRANSMISSION EXPANSION BENEFITS Within the cost-benefit analysis, it is crucial to quantitatively assess the possible benefits1 provided by transmission expansion: this task, especially in a liberalized power system, generally represents a rather complex stage as the evaluation strongly depends on the viewpoint taken for each considered benefit. Manifold aspects in which a new infrastructure can affect the system have to be considered. These benefits can be grouped into several categories: system reliability improvement, quality and security increase, system losses reduction, market benefits, avoidance/postponement of investments, more efficient reserve management and frequency regulation, environmental sustainability benefits, improved coordination of transmission and distribution grids. However, only some of these items are quantitatively significant and can be measured by means of single indicators. An evaluation of the economic impact of reliability increase can be carried out by multiplying the EENS value (Expected Energy Not Supplied), by an estimation of the VOLL (Value Of Lost Load). The market benefits provided by transmission expansion can be summarized by two concomitant effects: the decrease of potential for exercising market power by dominant players (strategic effect) and the replacement of local inefficient generation by cheaper imported power due to the removal of existing transmission bottlenecks (substitution effect). Both effects can be measured by the Social Welfare parameter (SW)2. When planning the utilisation of fast power flow controllers such as FACTS (Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System) and HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current), an additional benefit could arise from the power flows controllability increase enabled by these technologies. However, this effect translates again into a substitution effect and, therefore, doesn’t constitute a separate benefit from one measured by SW. The environmental sustainability benefits by transmission expansion include: a better exploitation of a diversified generation mix (including RES generation), CO2, NOx, SO2 emissions savings and reduction of conventional generation external costs (externalities), reduction of fossil fuel consumption and costs. Transmission upgrades may bring some additional environmental benefits in terms of land use reduction, visual impact abatement and decrease of the electromagnetic field (EMF). Other benefits, which in the future may gain higher consideration, relate to the improved interaction of transmission and distribution grids within systems either experiencing high shares of distributed generation resources or even evolving towards SmartGrids schemes with a considerable deployment of distributed generation. A transmission reinforcement may prevent much more expensive reinforcements of the distribution networks. However, this benefit is very difficult to translate into the measurement of a specific indicator, since it implies a complex and manifold process. 1

It is key that the different benefits are not overlapping so as to avoid double-counting when they are summed up. 2 SW is defined as the sum of generators and consumers surplus, see [3].


Table I summarises the main transmission expansion benefits with the corresponding key indicators necessary to quantify the impact assessment of each benefit. The calculation of such elements requires an appropriate power system and market simulation tool. In Table I the subscripts ‘with’ and ‘without’ refer to the situations in presence and in absence of the reinforcement, investigated transmission expansion respectively. The apex ‘strategies’ takes into account the bidup strategies of market players, while for the classic cost-based analysis (in absence of competition) the apex ‘costs’ is used. Symbols in Table I have the following meanings: L stands for the system losses; UFi and P respectively refer to the utilisation factor of concerned wind power plants which would decrease the wind energy curtailment and additional wind power capacity installed and being integrated by the system (in absence and in presence of the transmission reinforcement); Ec takes into account the emission-related costs; FFGC and FFGC_ext correspond to the fossil fuel generation costs (internal costs) and fossil fuel generation external costs (externalities), respectively. TABLE I TRANSMISSION EXPANSION BENEFITS AND INDICATORS Expansion benefit Reliability increase Congestion reduction (substitution effect) Market competitiveness increase (strategic effect) System losses reduction Increased exploitation of wind generation Emission savings External costs reduction Fossil fuel costs reduction

Key Indicator VOLL SW SW L UFi P Ec FFGC_ext FFGC

Impact assessment -(VOLLw ith - VOLLw ithout) (SW costswith – SWcosts without) (SW strategieswith – SW costs with) -(L with - Lw ithout) (UFiwith - UFiwithout) ( Pwith - Pwithout) -(Ecwith - Ecwithout) -(FFGC_extw ith - FFGC_extwithout ) -(FFGCw ith - FFGCw ithout)

IV. INVESTMENT COSTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURES Capital expenditures for transmission system assets are highly dependent on different parameters, such as equipment type, rating and operating voltage, technology maturity, local environmental constraints, population density and geographical characteristics of the installation area as well as costs of material, manpower and right-of-way. In general, environmental constraints increase costs and implementation time - e.g. for Overhead lines (OHL) - while technological advances in manufacturing usually reduce costs: this is the case for power electronics components or for underground XLPE (Cross-Linked Polyethylene Extruded) cables. Another aspect that plays a role in the determination of transmission assets costs (especially for innovative technologies) is that equipment prices continuously change due to a dynamic world market: costs of European transmission assets are then influenced and driven by external factors. In order to take into account all these factors, Table II reports up-to-date (average) ranges for the costs of different 400 kV transmission components in continental Europe [4][5][7]. In Table II the lower limit (min value) refers to installation costs in continental European countries with low labour costs, while the upper limit (max value) refers to installation costs in European countries with high labour costs. Costs for OHLs refer to the base case, wherein the installation of OHLs over

flat landscape and in sparsely populated areas is considered. Costs for installations over hilly and averagely populated land as well as over mountains or densely populated areas are to be taken into account by a surcharge of +20% and +50%, respectively. In the case of underground cables and GILs (Gas Insulated Lines), the cost component related to the installation expenditure can very much influence the final investment cost, depending on installation location, type of terrain and other local conditions [6][7]. The cost ranges provided for High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) converter equipment are presented “per terminal”, wherein a terminal includes all equipment at one side of the bipolar transmission line: both converters, reactive compensation (if needed), active filtering, AC/DC switchgear, engineering, project planning, taxes etc. except any costs related to the transmission medium. In fact, it has to be noted that, on the one hand, Voltage Source Converter (VSC)HVDC is by nature bipolar; on the other hand, bipolar HVDC installations are preferred within a synchronized power grid for system security reasons [4][5]. TABLE II AVERAGE CAPITAL COSTS (RANGE) OF TRANSMISSION ASSETS. Rating




HVAC OHL (single circuit)

Cost of components

1500 MVA




HVAC OHL (double circuit)

3000 MVA




HVAC underground XLPE cable (single circuit)

1000 MVA




HVAC underground XLPE cable (double circuit)

2000 MVA




HVAC GIL (double circuit)

2000 MVA




HVDC OHL bipolar

1000 MW




HVDC underground XLPE cable (pair)

1000 MW




VSC converter terminal (bipolar)

1000 MW




CSC converter terminal (bipolar)

1000 MW







local compensations (% installation costs)

V. THE COST-BENEFIT METHODOLOGY Aim of a full-fledged cost-benefit analysis is to provide a criterion to co-evaluate the effect of each benefit weighing them together to provide one single ranking value. This value represents the degree of optimality of a single expansion project. In this way, different alternatives can be compared, the highest ranked being the most suitable to be financed and realized. In other words, creating a merit order (ranking) between alternative reinforcements means mapping the different evaluations of the benefits of each single infrastructure into one mono-dimensional space. According to the theory of multi-criteria analysis [3], a weighed sum is performed by adding up the value of each benefit and subtracting investment costs to this amount. In order to take into account the long lifetime horizon of the entire investment cycle (authorization time, building time, amortization time following the entrance in service of the new infrastructure), the Net Present Value (NPV) algorithm has to be applied, see Fig. 2. The weights associated to each single benefit mimic the importance associated to each of them: this operation, even if not codified, is already performed by each TSO. What is still needed (and


what REALISEGRID aims at) is to clarify this procedure by widening as far as possible the list of benefits and bringing it to a structured state, so that a general agreement can be finally reached among the European TSOs. B1,t1 B1,t2 B2,t1 B2,t2 … …

candidates is the one included in the TEN-E priority axis EL2 [10]: borders of Italy with France, Austria, Slovenia and Switzerland (see Fig. 3). These priority projects have been declared of European interest by the European Commission.

B1,tn B2,tn …





CC Years

Authorization phase

Building phase




Amortization phase


Fig. 2 – Phases of the authorization procedure, costs and benefits timeline (I= Investment; RoW=rights of way; C= capital rental; CC=capital cost rate; B=increase of benefit due to new infrastructure)

VI. THE TOOL The evaluation of the benefits provided by a new infrastructure with respect to the status quo has to be performed by a tool able to assess the improvement of each benefit in the case “with” the new infrastructure respect to the case “without” it. This tool has to consider the real network situation in which the variability of RES generation as well as the reliability of each element in the grid are both accounted for. Additionally, the case to be considered has to be based on a “projection” to the future of the system, able to account for its evolution and its most severe criticities. With this aim, REALISEGRID has developed a new tool to conduct analysis of static reliability of complex electric systems that operate in a liberalized market context and are divided in areas. This might then be a situation typical of European regional markets. In comparison to conventional planning tools, the new tool quantifies both indices generally used to assess reliability of electric systems and indices aimed at innovatively assessing from the economic point of view the effects and the eventual criticalities caused by the market structure on the transmission system evolution. Main features of this tool are: • full network representation adopting the simplified direct current model; • an Optimal Power Flow (OPF) algorithm; • probabilistic simulation of one year of operation of the power system using a non-sequential Montecarlo method starting by the reliability characteristics of the system components (components of both the transmission system and the generation set); • probabilistic definition of the characteristics of variable wind generation, that is treated by the Montecarlo methodology as well; • quantitative assessment of the reliability and economic benefits (both substitution and strategic effect), as well as other types of benefits (security of supply, environmental, etc). VII. THE TESTING BED A real sized test case is set up and run in order to validate the cost-benefit methodology. The considered list of expansion

Fig.3 - Projects in priority axis EL.2 and related three corridors

The impact of the above projects is being investigated in the “tab” years 2015, 2020 and 2030, for which relevant simulation scenarios, with and without the new infrastructure, are developed. The following hypotheses apply: • It is supposed that the region TSOs want to invest in new interconnection projects with a limited amount of available funds: therefore only the projects showing the best cost-benefit characteristics will be selected. The temporal priorities indicated in the TYNDP 2010 for the EL2 infrastructure are temporarily disregarded (but considered for analyzing the study results). • The investment is supposed taking place one-shot in 2008, and the building phase (see Fig. 2) taking exactly seven years for all alternatives (differences due to public consensus are disregarded), so that the new infrastructures become operative in 2015. Then, the benefits are considered and actualized back to the investment time T0 for a period equal to the amortization phase, supposed 20 years long after the entrance into service of the new infrastructure. The actualization rate is supposed equal to 8%. The results at 2015 are supposed indicative for a period up to 2019, Those at 2020 up to 2029 and those at 2030 up to 2035, when the amortization time ends. • It would be nonsense to reinforce one line while leaving untouched all the others topologically in series with it: they would become the new system bottlenecks. Therefore, the EL2 reinforcements were grouped into three distinct corridors that don’t mutually interact, whereas within each corridor all the reinforcements are necessary in order to obtain an overall increase of the transit capability. Needed internal reinforcements have been added to the corridors bundle too: 1-Brenner, 2Veneto-Austria (via Cordignano-Lienz) and 3-FriuliSlovenia (via Udine-Okroglo) - see Fig. 2. • Only six benefits are considered (thus simplifying the complete list shown in section III of this paper): o social welfare (SW) increase (actually, since the load is un-elastic, this is equivalent to dispatching cost reduction). This parameter is measured in [ ]. o reduction of CO2 emissions, [tCO2] o reduction of losses, [MWh] o reduction of wind overproduction, [MWh] o reduction of load shedding, [MWh]


reduction of the amount of money spent to import fuel from extra-EU countries, [ ]. In order to make it possible to algebraically add up the actualized value of the different benefits for each year of the amortization time (together and with the investment cost supposed concentrated at T0) it was decided to transform all benefits into monetary terms. To do so: o losses reduction and reduction of wind overproduction were monetized by multiplying them by an average European market price. This was assumed equal to 54 /MWh in 2010 (intermediate between the annual average historical figures for the Italian and German markets, respectively IPEX and EEX) and taking the increase trend shown in [16], see Fig. 4 o reductions of CO2 emissions were translated into money units by assuming an average 2010 price at the European emissions trade market: 14 /tCO2 and taking the forecast values for 2020 and 2030 from [15], see Fig. 5 o the reduction of load shedding was monetized by multiplying the energy non-supplied parameter (EENS) by an estimation of the value-of-loss-of-load (VOLL). The latter is assumed equal to 15000 /MWh, figure estimated for Italy in the report [14], see Table III. Concerning costs for the different kinds of infrastructures, the assumptions are summarized in Table IV ([8]). o

54 54.56 56.78

57.34 58.46


WEO forecast

50 40




20 10 0 2005







Fig. 5 - Cost for CO2 allowances (2020/2030: source [15]) TABLE IV INFRASTRUCTURES COSTS CONSIDERED FOR THE STUDY HVAC OHL, single circuit 400 kV: HVAC OHL, double circuit 400 kV: HVAC OHL (220>400 kV) uprating: HVDC underground cable pair 1000 MW: GIL 400 kV: VSC converter terminal (bipolar) 1000 MW:

600 k /km 1000 k /km 500 k /km 1300 k /km 5500 k /km 100000 k

The simulation models take transmission network data mainly from the STUdy Model (STUM) provided by ENTSO-E for 2008 (winter peak scenario 2008). Further precisions were taken from the expansion plans published by the European TSOs. Some additional details were provided by the four TSOs members of the REALISEGRID consortium. The dimension of the test-bed is very wide and includes France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Croatia and western Balkans. Generation park and demand data were set up according to two scenarios: “optimistic” and “pessimistic” (see hypotheses in Table V), taking data both from both the System Adequacy Forecast published by ENTSO-E [17] and the long-term scenarios developed within the project REALISEGRID ([18]) TABLE V Scenario hypotheses (source [18]) Drivers

Fig.4 - Projection of European electricity cost components and price [16] and, in red, rescaling to 54 /MWh TABLE III VOLL ESTIMATION FOR SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (SOURCE [14]) Country Great Britain

Sector All sectors Transmission


not supplied



4.18 52.9


All sectors



Urban Suburban Rural

12.0 8.8 7.4


Residential Commercial Industrial

0.96 11.8 7.9

NOTES Distribution Transmission Transmission

2.5 1.9 1.6


Population Welfare Climate Change Mitigation Technological Improvement Oil and gas supply Electric interties











The simulations are still on-going while this paper is being written. Therefore, we are unable to show the results (that however will be fully included into the report [19] of the REALISEGRID project.




All sectors




All sectors



The present paper illustrates a new methodology for


prioritizing different investment alternatives in electricity transmission infrastructure on the basis of a multi-criteria analysis co-evaluating fixed costs with a wide range of benefits. Due to its neutral and general theoretical framework, this methodology candidates itself for being selected for a future pan-European management of the expansion of the European backbones, as called for by the already mentioned communication [11] of the European Commission. The guidelines of a wide-scale testing bed that is being carried out within the REALISEGRID project are described too. Two other fields can be mentioned in which, in the view of the REALISEGRID project, the cost-benefit analysis methodology outlined in the present paper could be helpful: • The difference between costs and actualized benefits could be useful to set up a possible Key Performance Indicator (KPI) upon which a basis Return On Investments (ROI) parameter could be increased to provide the final remuneration of the TSOs for the investments carried out in new infrastructure. This addendum could stimulate the TSOs themselves to adopt an optimal investment policy for the system, notwithstanding the different difficulties connected with the authorization process of specific infrastructures. Such a cost-benefit difference could, indeed, be measured on the field after the new infrastructure is put in service, but this would require waiting the usually long time needed for authorizing and building new line(s). A very interesting alternative is to draw the same parameter from a possible future pan-European simulation model trusted by both the European Commission and ENTSO-E. • A quantification of the cost-benefit difference could be helpful to provide a fair information to the public about the advantages deriving from new infrastructures as well as about the economic costs deriving from unneeded delays in the authorization procedure (the so-called inaction cost). This could also be useful to tackle the endemic dissent attitude manifested by the public opinion, often unilaterally polarized by environmentalists’ topics. IX. REFERENCES [1] [2]




REALISEGRID project G. Fulli, A.R. Ciupuliga, A. L’Abbate, M. Gibescu, “Review of existing methods for transmission planning and for grid connection of wind power plants”, REALISEGRID Deliverable D3.1.1, Jun. 2009, A. L’Abbate, I. Losa, G. Migliavacca, A.R. Ciupuliga, M. Gibescu, H. Auer, K. Zach, “Possible criteria to assess technical-economic and strategic benefits of specific transmission projects”, REALISEGRID Deliverable D3.3.1, Apr. 2010, S. Rüberg, H. Ferreira, A. L’Abbate, U. Häger, G. Fulli, Y. Li, J. Schwippe, “Improving network controllability by Flexible Alternating Current Transmission Systems (FACTS) and by High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission systems”, REALISEGRID Deliverable D1.2.1, Mar. 2010, A. L’Abbate, G. Migliavacca, U. Häger, C. Rehtanz, S. Rüberg, H. Ferreira, G. Fulli, A. Purvins, “The Role of FACTS and HVDC in the future Pan-European Transmission System Development”, Proc. of the 9th IET Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission, London, Oct. 20-21, 2010.




[9] [10]

[11] [12]


[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

R. Benato, P. Brunello, E.M. Carlini, C. Di Mario, L. Fellin, G. Knollseisen, M. Laußegger, M. Muhr, A. Paolucci, W. Stroppa, H. Wörle, R. Woschitz, “Italy-Austria GIL in the new planned railway galleries Fortezza-Innsbruck under Brenner Pass”, Cigré 2006 Session, Paris, Aug. 27 – Sep. 1, 2006. MVV, Tractebel, “Study TEN-Energy Tunnel for the analysis of synergy between transport and energy sectors by high voltage transmission in rail-road tunnels in EU25 (including Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia)”, Report for the EC DG TREN, 2006. A. L’Abbate, G. Migliavacca, “Review of costs of transmission infrastructures, including cross border connections”, REALISEGRID Deliverable D3.3.2, Mar. 2011, (to be published). ENTSO-E, “Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) 20102020”, Jun. 2010, Decision 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision 96/391/EC and Decision 1229/2003/EC”, Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 262, 22.09.2006 P. 0001-0023. European Commission, “Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond - A Blueprint for an integrated European energy network”, COM(2010) 677 final, Nov. 2010. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Energy 2020 - A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy”, COM(2010) 639 final, Nov. 2010. European Parliament and Council, Regulation (EC) no 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 I. Losa, O. Bertoldi, “Regulation of continuity of supply in the electricity sector and cost of energy not supplied”, International Energy Workshop 2009, Venice, Italy, June 17-19, 2009. International Energy Agency IEA – World Energy Outlook 2009 European Commission, DG-TREN – Trends to 2030 – Update 2007 ENTSO-E – System Adequacy Forecast 2010-2025 (2010) E. Lavagno, R. Loulou, M. Gargiulo, “Energy services demand and scenario assessment”, REALISEGRID Deliverable D2.2, Nov. 2009, REALISEGRID – Report D3.5.1 (to be published)

X. BIOGRAPHIES Gianluigi Migliavacca graduated in Electronic Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Milan in 1991 and joined the Automation Research Center of ENEL in 1994, working on mathematical modeling and dynamic simulation of thermal power plants. In 2000 he joined CESI and then CESI Ricerca (now: RSE), where he is head of the transmission network planning research group. Focus of his research activities is on mathematical modeling and regulatory issues concerning deregulated electricity markets, cross border trade issues and transmission planning. During 2005 he was consultant at the Italian Regulator about the development of a common energy market in South-East Europe and about congestion management in Central-South Europe. Now, he is coordinator of the European FP7 research project REALISEGRID. Angelo L’Abbate graduated in Electrical Engineering at the Politecnico di Bari, Italy, in 1999. In 2003-2004 he received his Ph.D. in Electrical Energy Systems at the Politecnico di Bari, Italy, in partnership with the University of Dortmund, Germany. In 2004-2005 he was active researcher at the Mediterranean Agency for Remote Sensing (MARS), Benevento, Italy, and at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, as a CNR-NATO Fellow. In 2005-2008 he was contractual scientific agent (post-doc) at the EC - DG Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy. Since 2009 he has been working with CESI RICERCA (now RSE), Milan, Italy. His fields of interest include modeling and planning of power T&D systems, RES and distributed generation

7 integration, FACTS, HVDC. He is currently deeply involved in the EC FP7 REALISEGRID project. He is an IEEE Member. Ilaria Losa graduated in Energetic Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Milan in 2007 and joined the CESI RICERCA (now: RSE) in 2008, where she is currently working in the transmission network planning research group. Focus of her research activities are: transmission planning, transmission network modelling and regulatory issues concerning transmission planning and integration of renewable sources into European transmission network. Currently she is working in the European FP7 research project REALISEGRID in particular in the task devoted to the development of a new methodology for the cost-benefit analysis of new transmission investments. Enrico Maria Carlini is currently Head of Dispatching and Operations for the Central South Italy in TERNA, the Italian Transmission System Operator. He graduated in M.Sc. Electrical Engineering with First Class of Honours (Planning Power System). He has worked in ENEL since 1993 to 1999 in field of generation and transmission of electric energy. Since 2000 to 2005 he has worked in GRTN (Italian Independent System Operator) and since November 2005 he is working in TERNA (Transmission System Operator). In his career, was deeply involved in security analyses on Italian transmission network and EU interconnected systems, medium and long term system planning. He is expert in cross-border capacities assessment, EU congestion management and regulatory issues. He also head of Smart Grid project in the Italian TSO. As major international assignments is currently chairman of IEC - TC99 “System engineering and erection of electrical power installations in system with nominal voltages above 1 kV AC and 1.5 kV DC” and Deputy Convenor of ENTSO-E Regional Group Continental Central-South Europe. Alessio Sallati graduated in Electrical Engineering at the University of Rome “Sapienza” in 2008 and joined in the Investment and Grid Planning Department of Terna S.p.A. (Italian Transmission System Operator) working on Network analysis of the Italian transmission system. He collaborates to Profitable Index Analysis of development projects on the transmission grid, Energy Market Analysis, collaborative activities with local network distributors and the drawing up of the Development Plan of the national grid. During 2009 he participated in the training on the job of Albanian TSO, in 2010 he was involved at ENTSO-E to the release of the first Ten Year Network Development Plan. He is currently involved in the research project REALISEGRID. Chiara Vergine graduated in Electronic Engineering, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy, 2001. 2000-2001, she joined ENEA, Italian Research Institute for Energy and Environment, Casaccia (RM) as technical collaborator for designing and building Parallel Program; in 2003-2005 she joined in GRTN and Terna as expert for the calculation load flow, voltage and short circuit current analyses and Grid connection.