Main findings of MAF 2020

The MAF is a pan-European monitoring assessment of power system resource adequacy of specific years up to 10 years ahead. It is based upon a state-of-the-art probabilistic analysis, aiming to model and analyse possible events with potentially adverse consequences for the supply of electric power and support stakeholders to take qualified decisions. The results indicate mostly low risks of inadequacy in the system for both target years with a positive evolution in some zones from TY 2025 to TY 2030. However, some countries do show high risks of inadequacy. The zones with the largest risks of inadequacy in TY 2025 are Malta, Sardinia, Turkey and Ireland. The results should not be interpreted nor utilized under the new legal framework of the Clean Energy Package, in other words, the MAF 2020 results should not be interpreted as being results under the European Resource Adequacy Assessment (see Disclaimer).

The assessment was carried out for two target years (TY), namely 2025 and 2030. TY 2025 was chosen as it represents a pivotal year for evaluating adequacy due to expected reductions in coal and nuclear capacity in Europe and enables a comparison with the MAF 2019. TY 2030 was chosen to allow for the evaluation of the adequacy situation further ahead, at the end of the 10-year time horizon.

The results illustrate the minimum and maximum loss of load expectations (LOLE) per region obtained by five modelling tools for TYs 2025 and 2030 respectively, using a state of the art Monte Carlo (MC) Simulation methodology.

LOLE TY 2025
Figure 1

Figure 1: LOLE values for TY 2025. Bidding zones with a LOLE lower than 0.1 hours/year over the average of the five tools are not represented1

LOLE TY 2030
Figure 2

Figure 2: LOLE values for TY 2030. Bidding zones with a LOLE lower than 0.1 hours/year over the average of the five tools are not represented1

What is a Monte Carlo (MC) Simulation and a loss of load expectation (LOLE)?

The core idea of the MC method is to use random input variable samples or inputs to explore the behavior of a complex system or process under several possible future grid states. The MC method is suited to the MAF studies as there is a high number of random input variables influencing a power system’s adequacy. In the MAF, MC Simulations are used to simulate each TY several times with different random inputs to obtain a large sample of results deriving from possible future states of the grid. The objective is to obtain a robust outcome given a set of assumptions. The random inputs are climate profiles and random outage events derived from available statistics and climate data.

Monte Carlo Method

For a given simulation year and a given country, the hours in which a country’s electricity demand cannot be met by the own available resources or imports via interconnectors, lead to energy not served (ENS) and are expressed in GWh per year. Furthermore, the number of hours during which ENS occurred is recorded as loss of load duration (LLD).

The LOLE of a given country is the average of the LLD values obtained thanks to all MC simulation years and is expressed in GWh per year.

1 Even though the same input data is used for all modelling tools, differences in LOLE results can occur due to different geographical or temporal distributions of unserved energy in the case of multiple optimisation solutions, as well as the different approaches to optimising hydro plants.

Purpose and Motivation of the MAF

Due to the increasing level of variable renewable energy sources in the European power system and the associated challenges for system development and operation, a pan-European analysis of resource adequacy has become ever more important, complementing the insights of regional analyses. Cooperation across Europe is necessary to accelerate the development of common methodological standards.

The MAF assesses the balance between net available generation and net load levels in the European power system on a continuous basis. The MAF should not be interpreted as an effort to predict the system’s security of supply but rather as a measure of the grid’s ability to maintain security of supply under a very high number of possible future grid states, due to different plausible climate conditions and random outages.

The MAF provides stakeholders with the data necessary to make informed, qualified decisions and promote the development of the European power system in a reliable, sustainable and connected way. MAF assessments have contributed to the spatial harmonisation of adequacy methodologies across European Transmission System Operators (TSOs). The MAF is also coordinated and consistent with other timeframe studies as the Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) and Seasonal Outlook. Over the past decade, the ENTSO-E has been improving its adequacy assessment and forecasting methodologies continuously and will continue to ensure that further progress is made under MAF evolution into the target European Resource Adequacy Assessment (ERAA).

The MAF introduces a set of simplifying assumptions in order to deal with the inherent complexity of such a large geographical scope. Simplifying assumptions on the network constraints are an example. The regional/national adequacy analyses carried out by individual TSOs and regional groups, are complementary to the MAF and they might model the respective grids in more detail. As such, they are more suited to detecting local resource or network constraints, highlighting the complementary nature of the pan-European MAF and the regional/national adequacy studies.

Figure 3

Figure 3: Resource adequacy: balance between net available generation and net load

COVID-19 impact on mid-term adequacy:
A survey among TSOs

Year 2020 is marked by the COVID-19 outbreak. In addition to the health crisis it caused and its adverse impacts on the economy, it has also impacted the energy sector. The assumptions used in the MAF 2020 do not include the impact of COVID-19. Accurately predicting the impacts of the crisis on the Energy Sector towards 2025 and 2030 is not possible, but in an effort to assess the severity of these, ENTSO-E asked its member TSOs to fill in a qualitative survey regarding the expected impact of COVID-19 on adequacy2.

It should be noted that TSOs are naturally not in a position to accurately predict the impact of COVID-19. The views are expressed in the Executive summary report.

The Evolution of MAF to ERAA under the Clean Energy Package (CEP) (renaming of The “Clean Energy for all Europeans” package and evolution of MAF)

With the coupling of European energy markets, the integration of renewable energy sources and efforts to decarbonise energy systems, adequacy monitoring needs to be intensified. In the current fast-paced landscape, the European resource adequacy assessment, i.e. the annual screening of adequacy in Europe for the upcoming decade, must provide input for strategic decisions regarding, for instance, the introduction of capacity mechanisms (CMs). The ERAA methodology as approved by ACER on 2 October 20203, 4 has introduced significant changes and its stepwise implementation will begin in 2021. The MAF 2020 is thus the last MAF report anterior to the ERAA implementation.

What are the upcoming challenges and future steps for resource adequacy?

Economic viability, capacity mechanisms, increased temporal granularity, more sensitivities: undoubtedly, the “Clean Energy Package” aims high, introducing significant challenges and improvements for future pan-European and regional adequacy assessments.

The recent legislative package on Clean Energy for all Europeans, specifically Regulation 2019/943 of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity, has placed resource adequacy in a central position in European energy policy. Under this regulation (Article 23), European resource adequacy assessments are required to consider, amongst others, the following aspects:

  • An Economic Viability Assessment (EVA) of resource capacities;
  • Flow-Based (FB) modelling of the power network (when applicable);
  • Impact of climate change on adequacy;
  • Analysis of additional scenarios, including the presence or absence of CMs;
  • Consideration of energy sectoral integration;
  • Time horizons of 10 years with annual resolution.

Current MAF Downloads

Executive Summary

MAF 2020 is divided into three sections in an effort to assist stakeholders in identifying relevant information. The MAF 2020 motivation, followed by:

  • The main adequacy results for the target years (TY) studied, namely 2025 & 2030;
  • Survey results of COVID-19 expected impacts on adequacy;
  • The CEP/ERAA and main methodological differences.
Download (PDF, 3.3 MB)
Appendix 1 – Input Data & Detailed Results
Appendix 2 – Methodology
Appendix 3 – Country views on the MAF 2020
Appendix 4 – Definitions & Abbreviations
Appendix 1 – Input Data & Detailed Results
Appendix 2 – Methodology
Appendix 3 – Country views on the MAF 2020
Appendix 4 – Definitions & Abbreviations
Appendix 1 – Input Data & Detailed Results
ENTSO-E MAF 2020 Appendix 1
Download Appendix 1 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Appendix 2 – Methodology
ENTSO-E MAF 2020 Appendix 2
Download Appendix 2 (PDF, 1.4 Mb)
Appendix 3 – Country views on the MAF 2020
ENTSO-E MAF 2020 Appendix 3
Download Appendix 3 (PDF, 0.6 Mb)
Appendix 4 – Definitions & Abbreviations
MAF2020 Appendix 4
Download Appendix 4 (PDF, 0.4 Mb)

Regulation (EU) 943/2019 (hereinafter “Electricity Regulation”) and Regulation (EU) 942/2019 (hereinafter “Risk Preparedness Regulation”), as part of the Clean Energy Package (CEP) in combination with the European Resource Adequacy Assessment (ERAA) methodologies as approved by ACER on 2 October 2020, have introduced significant changes to the ERAA’s future role. In particular, under the CEP, the ERAA will be the key tool in the detection of adequacy concerns at a European level and the related potential introduction of capacity mechanisms.

However, the 2020 Mid-term Adequacy Forecast Report (hereinafter “the MAF 2020”) and its findings should not be interpreted in light of the CEP for the following reasons:

  • The MAF 2020 is not an ERAA report;
  • The collection of the input data and the scenarios used do not follow the CEP requirements;
  • The methodology followed does not yet comply with the important elements of the CEP/ERAA framework which are notably, but not limited to, an economic viability assessment and the implementation of the flow-based methodology.

Consequently, the MAF 2020 cannot and should not be used for the purposes meant in the CEP and ERAA, namely assessing the need for the introduction of capacity mechanisms or providing the basis for national adequacy assessments.

Thus, the MAF 2020 results can be deemed as presenting an optimistic view on the European adequacy situation given the combination of large amounts of new capacities assumed to be introduced throughout Europe for the analysed time horizons – as, for example, announced by market actors or the corresponding governments – and the fact that no economic viability or feasibility checks on those inputs have been implemented yet.

ENTSO-E and the participating TSOs have followed accepted industry practice in the collection and analysis of available data. Although all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this data, neither ENTSO- E nor the TSOs are responsible for any loss that may be attributed to the use of this information. Prior to taking business decisions, interested parties are advised to seek separate and independent opinions with respect to topics covered by this report and should not rely solely upon the data and information contained herein. Information in this document does not amount to a recommendation with respect to any possible investment. This document is not intended to contain all the information that a prospective investor or market participant may require.

ENTSO-E emphasises that both itself and the TSOs involved in this study are not responsible in the event that the hypotheses presented in this report or the estimations based upon these hypotheses are not realised in the future.