Project 150 - Italy-Slovenia

The project consists in a new HVDC link between Salgareda (Italy) and Divača\Beričevo (Slovenia) which will strengthen the connection between Slovenia and Italy.

Classification Mid-term Project Boundary Slovenia - Italy PCI label 3.21

Promoted by TERNA;ELES

Investments GTC Evolution Investment Contribution Substation Substation Present Commissioning since Description Evolution Driver ID 1 2 Status Date TYNDP 2014 New HVDC On Slovenian side: Project interconnection between Slovenia Salgareda Design & Investment in the study phase. On 616 100% 2022 Italy and Slovenia. (SI) (IT) Permitting on time Italian side: Permitting procedure is still in progress.

Additional Information

PCI website: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/pci_3_21_en.pdf

2nd PCI list: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/5_2%20PCI%20annex.pdf

Clustering approach:

HVDC line represents an international commercial connection and is considered as cluster of one investment.

Slovenian NDP (only in slovenian): http://www.eles.si/za-poslovne-uporabnike/razvoj-in-uporaba-prenosnega-omrezja/strategija-razvoja-elektroenergetskega- sistema-rs.aspx

Link to the last release of the Italian National Development Plan: http://www.terna.it/it-it/sistemaelettrico/pianodisviluppodellarete/pianidisviluppo.aspx Investment needs

The project will reduce congestions on Slovenia-Italy border and increase cross-broder transmission capacity on the mentioned border and could at the same time increase the loading of the internal transmission grid. By this a higher market integration is expected (also indicated by an increase of NTC values on Slovenia-Italy border) and even higher level of market coupling could be achieved.

The biggest impact on neighbouring countries is increased security operation, higher market integration, elimination of congestions and increased transmission capacity on the border with Italy and will allow increased operational security in case of outages throughout Slovenia and neighbouring countries.

The high SEW/GTC values in the V2 and V1 are mainly related to the lower CO2 value used in the scenarios that makes coal generation cheaper than gas and leads to higher Italian import, especially for Vision2. On the opposite side in V3 and V4, the higher CO2 costs and the higher RES generation capacity lead to a different use of the Italian Northern boundary, characterized by a lower SEW, but higher RES integration indicators values.

Project Cost Benefit Analysis

This project has been assessed by ENTSO-E in line with the Cost Benefit Analysis methodology, approved by the EC in February 2015.

Projects 26, 31, 150, 174, 21, 210 and 250 at the North-Italian boundary are assessed with multiple TOOT steps to reflect the sequence of expected commissioning dates.The indicators B6/B7 reflect particular technical system aspects of projects based on a summation of qualitative performance indicators, in line with the CBA methodology; these cannot be used as a proxy for the security of supply indicator.

The assessment of losses variations induced by the projects improved in the TYNDP 2016 compared to the TYNDP 2014 with a comprehensive all year round computations on a wide-area model capturing all relevant flows.

The results must however be considered with caution and not totally reliable due to their very high sensitivity to assumptions regarding the detailed location of generation which are not secured. General CBA Indicators Delta GTC contribution (2020) [MW] SI-IT: 1000 IT-SI: 800 Delta GTC contribution (2030) [MW] SI-IT: 950 IT-SI: 950 Capex Costs 2015 (M€) 870 Source: Project Promoter

Cost explanation Downward variation of the total investment cost is 26,4 %.

S1 NA S2 NA B6 + B7 +

Scenario specific CBA indicators EP2020 Vision 1 Vision 2 Vision 3 Vision 4

B1 SoS (MWh/yr) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B2 SEW (MEuros/yr) 70 ±10 90 ±30 110 ±30 20 ±10 20 ±10 B3 RES integration (GWh/yr) <10 <10 <10 20 ±20 40 ±40 B4 Losses (GWh/yr) 75 ±25 -200 ±25 225 ±25 75 ±25 125 ±25 B4 Losses (Meuros/yr) 3 ±1 -11 ±2 10 ±2 4 ±2 8 ±2 B5 CO2 Emissions (kT/year) 1700 ±130 1600 ±500 1100 ±200 ±100 -200 ±100

Comment on SoS indicator:

Slovenia is because of the geographical position exposed to very high power flows. Dynamic analyses has showned that realization of the project 150 would increase transient stability and increase SoS on the regional level and prevent regioanl grid from falling apart to zones.

The project’s SEW accounts for saving in generation fuel and operating costs. The project could also enable savings avoiding investments in generation capacity, in particular for projects connecting electric peninsulas. The aspect has not been considered in the CBA methodology

Complementary information about the border on Vision 1 Vision 2 Vision 3 Vision 4 which the project is located Average marginal cost difference in the reference case 5.44 5.30 1.22 1.86 [€/MWh] Standard deviation marginal cost difference in the 9.65 8.85 7.12 9.59 reference case [€/MWh] Reduction of marginal cost difference due to all mid-term 7.93 10.83 1.91 0.40 and long-term projects [€/MWh]