Response to the ENTSO-E / ENTSOG TYNDP 2024 storylines

• Ember commends efforts to develop a transparent gap closing methodology. However, we recommend the decision to reduce demand in any given sector should be based on transparent assumptions and consider the consequences on other sectors/ carriers. Ember also urges the “before” scenario data should be provided, as well as the resulting input data after gap filling.
• Final energy demand in Distributed Energy (DE) and Global Ambition (GA) scenarios is higher than in many leading net-zero scenarios due to an assumed slowing of the pace of demand reduction. This increases the supply-side challenge to provide clean energy and potentially results in over-sized (and more costly) energy infrastructure.
• Electrification levels are low compared to 1.5C aligned pathways. The GA scenario is an extreme outlier and while the DE scenario is more representative of leading transition scenarios, it is by no means a high-electrification scenario as it is sometimes interpreted.
• Ember expresses significant concern regarding the prices used for fossil fuels. Several recent sources, including the European Commission, contain price projections that are  more than twice those proposed in the draft TYNDP 2024 storylines.
• Ember expresses concern that a number of countries with a high renewable potential see a decrease in their maximum trajectories compared to the TYNDP 2022 results. Additionally, the 2030 maximum value for solar in the EU is lower than SolarPower Europe’s recent estimates based on a business-as-usual scenario. Ember urges ENTSO-E not to confine the long-term renewables trajectories by political considerations and to leave sufficient room for scenario divergence.
• Ember continues to commend the transparent definition of a carbon budget in the TYNDP. However, it remains unclear if and how this constrains the scenarios and impacts planning, and we strongly urge the ENTSOs to incorporate stricter enforcement of the carbon budget into the storylines and scenario development. Additionally, we disagree with the extrapolation of the carbon budget until the year 2100, as relying on negative emissions to recover overshoot post-2050 will have significant implications for infrastructure planning pre-2050 as well as inviting further climate risks that cannot be ignored.

Supporting materials

Downloads