energy balances 2010 and power balances 2010/11 june 2007

ENERGY BALANCES2010

AND

POWER BALANCES 2010/11

June 2007

2 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s CONTENTS

Summary and Conclusions 3 - 4Forecasts 5 - 11Simulated energy balances 12 - 21Estimated power balances 22 - 26Probability of market failure and system failure 27 - 34

Appendices 35 - 441. Energy (purpose, definitions, fundamentals)2. Power (definitions, fundamentals)3. Energy (retrospect 2006)4. Power balance (retrospect 2006/07)

Prepared by Nordel's Balance Group June 2007

3 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s SUMMARY OF THE FORECASTS

The annual electricity consumption in the Nordic market is estimated to grow to about 420 TWh by the end of year 2010 (1.5%/a) from 395 TWh in 2006 (not temperature corrected, including electrical boilers). The production in the Nordic market in a year with normal conditions is estimated to be 411 TWh in year 2010, while the maximum available production capacity is 78300 MWh/h (operational reserves excluded).

The sum of the national peak demands in average temperature conditions is estimated to grow to 72 000 MWh/h in the winter period 2010/11. The forecast for the corresponding demand in the cold temperature conditions (statistically once in ten years nationally) is 3 700 MWh/h higher (75 700 MWh/h). On the Nordic level this corresponds to a probability of once in 30 to 40 years. Simultaneous peak demand is expected to be 1 700 MWh/h lower. Simultaneous all time high has been 69 000 MWh/h in 2001.

Investments in production capacity by the end of 2010 are estimated to increase the installed production capacity by about 7 000 MW. The decided and planned investments would increase the production capability by about 34 TWh/a by end of 2010, including the new nuclear unit in Finland, 13 TWh/a.

The new nuclear unit in Finland is included in the power balance 2010/2011, not in the energy balance for 2010.

Iceland is presented separately and it is not included in the other figures.

4 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s CONCLUSIONS

The Nordic electricity system is able to meet the estimated consumption and the corresponding typical power demand pattern in average conditions even without imports.

The energy balance in 2010 and the power balance in 2010/11 are better than the former Nordel estimates. This is due to additional investments in new generation capacity.

In order to meet the energy demand in low inflow conditions the Nordic power system needs to import from neighbouring countries. Some areas in Norway can be exposed to a risk of rationing in case of extremely low precipitation.

The Nordic production capacity is sufficient to meet without imports the simultaneous peak power demand also in cold conditions.

Analysis on security of supply show that all the Nordic countries fulfil the requirements of Nordel and UCTE for both normal winter temperatures and ten year winter temperatures. In a case of a common mode failure in several nuclear power plants (8000 MW) in normal conditions, the Nordic system can experience a difficult situation. However, this is a very unlikely scenario with very low probability.

In practice, the balance between Nordic supply and import/export will be based on the prevailing market situation between the Nordic electricity market and the neighbouring markets.

5 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s FORECASTS

Consumption and demand 6

Additions in production capacity 7 - 8

Changes in interconnection capacity 9

Cross-border trading capacities in 2010 10

Iceland 11

6 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND

Energy 2006

TWh/a

Energy 2010

TWh/a

Growth %/a

All time peak

MWh/h

Peak 2010/11 MWh/h

Cold

Denmark 36.4 39 1.7 6 480 7 200 1)

Finland 90.0 95 1.3 14 900 16 000 1)

Norway 122.6 135 2.4 23 050 24 000 1)

Sweden 146.4 153 1.1 27 300 28 500 1)

Nordel 395.4 422 1.6 69 000 75 600 2)

1) Probability once in 10 years

2) Sum of national peaks (probability once in 30 to 40 years)

7 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

NET ADDITIONS IN GENERATION CAPACITY 2007 to 2010 (decided and planned)

Hydro NuclearOther

thermalWind

Installed capacity

Available capacity at peak

Investment decided

Denmark

-290 550 260 -290 100 %

Finland 90 16001) 560 40 2290 2150 95 %

Norway 600 910 360 1870 1510 85 %

Sweden 490 1200 780 2470 1270 50 %2)

Nordel 690 2090 2380 1730 6890 4740

1) New nuclear unit in Finland 2010/2011

2) Many small projects (green certificates)

3) Available wind capacity at peak is 0% for each country but 6% for Nordic countries together

8 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

NORDEL (excluding Iceland)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MW

Oth. thermal

Nuclear

Hydro

Wind

Available at peak

INSTALLED PRODUCTION CAPACITY(at the end of year)

9 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

CHANGES IN INTERCONNECTIONSInterconnectionsNew interconnection NorNed (between Norway and the Netherlands) 700 MW (by end 2007) will increase the transmission capacity to outside Nordel. The interconnection between Jutland and Germany is expected to be upgraded to at least 1500 MW in both directions, presumably even higher in southbound direction, by 2009/2010.

Of the five prioritised Nordic grid investments Nea - Järpströmmen between Norway and Sweden is expected to be commissioned in autumn 2009. The other prioritised grid investments are scheduled as followed:

Great Belt, 600 MW connection between Eastern and Western Denmark, is expected to be commissioned 2010.Fenno-Skan 2, 800 MW new capacity on the connection between Finland and Sweden, is expected to be commissioned at the turn of the year 2010/11.South link in Sweden, investment decision is taken, but the technical solution is not decided, and therefore also not the capacity. Expected to be commissioned in 2013.Skagerrak 4, a Letter of Intent for the project is signed. According to the time schedule connection can be commissioned in 2012.

10 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

350

1500

2050

1350

100

100

35503350

600

600

1750

670

600

600

700

1000

1500 600 600

1000

350

1750

SwedenNorway

EST

PL

Denmark-E

700

0

30

1460 0

Denmark-W

Finland

NL

630

D

RU

AVAILABLE CROSS BORDER TRADING CAPACITIES AT THE END OF 2010, MW

Of the five prioritised Nordic grid investments,

Nea - Järpströmmen is expected to be

commissioned by 2010.

11 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s ICELAND

Iceland is not included in the figures

elsewhere in the report.

The annual energy consumption in Iceland is estimated to grow by about 6.6 TWh by year 2010 (14 %/a) due to one new aluminium plant to be started in 2007 and extensions in existing plants.

Consumption

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TW

h/y

ear

Consumption

Installed capacity (MW) and peak demand (MWh/h)

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

MW

, M

Wh

/h OtherGeothermalHydroPeak demand

12 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCES 2010

Energy balances

Average conditions 13 - 16

Low inflow 17 - 18

Extremely low inflow 19 - 21

13 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Average conditions

The Simulated Energy Market Balance on pages 14 to 16 illustrates the simulated physical exchanges between areas. The exchange between the Nordic and Continental markets is based on simulations in the Nordic market and the price forecast in the Continental market. The analysis show the situation before the fifth nuclear power plant in Finland is in operation.

Due to imports the production in the Nordic countries remains remarkably lower than the production capability.

There is remarkable import from Russia. Net exchange with Central-Europe remains small, with large export in peak

situations and large import in off-peak situations. It is expected that import from Estonia continues despite the closing of the

nuclear power plant Ignalina in Lithuania 2009.

14 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Average of all inflow years

P = Production, simulatedC = ConsumptionB = Balance without energy exchangeAll units in TWh

P 79C 95B -16

P 156C 153B 3

P 131C 135B -4

P 28C 23B 5

P 17C 16B 1

RU 12

P 411C 422

-11

RU 00,5

1,54

12

0,5

2

D0

0

PL 0

EST2

NL 0,5

Sweden FinlandNorway

Denmark-E

Denmark-W

Nordel

15 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

DENMARK

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

TW

h/y

ear Production

Net import

Consumption

SWEDEN

-30

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

TW

h/y

ear Production

Net import

Consumption

FINLAND

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

TW

h/y

ear Production

Net import

Consumption

NORWAY

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

TW

h/y

ear Production

Net import

Consumption

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(average of all inflow years)

2000 to 2006 actual values

16 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

NORDEL, excl. ICELAND

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

TW

h/y

ear Production

Net import

Consumption

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(average of all inflow years)

2000 to 2006 actual values

17 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(low inflow)

The Simulated Energy Market Balance on page 18 illustrates the simulated market balance in low inflow conditions. The inflow series used is 1978. It results in hydro power production once in 10 years.

The simulation results show compared to average situation:

• hydro production is decreased by 17,5 TWh• thermal production is increased by 11 TWh• demand is decreased by 2 TWh (demand response)• import from outside is increased by 4 TWh

18 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Low inflow year (1/10 years)


P 81C 95B -14

P 151C 152B -1

P 122 (-9)

C 134 (-1)

B -12

P 30C 23B 7

P 21C 16B 5

RU 12

P 405C 420

-15

RU 00,5

08

33

5

D 0,51

PL 1

EST2

NL 0,5


Denmark-E

Denmark-W

Nordel

1

19 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010(extremely low inflow)

The Simulated Energy Market Balance on page 21 illustrates the simulated market balance in extremely low inflow conditions. The year used is 1970 which followed another low inflow year 1969. It results in the lowest hydro power production among the 50 inflow series used in simulations.

In this case water reservoirs are used more than the inflow thus resulting in decreasing water levels.

20 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (cont.)

(extremely low inflow)

An extremely low inflow corresponds to a reduction of about 41 TWh in hydropower production compared to average conditions (sum of extremes in Finland, Norway and Sweden). The simulation results show that compared to the average of all simulated inflow series:

In a hydro-based system the market price can temporarily be very high during dry years and can result in decreased demand.

Some areas in Norway can be exposed to a risk for rationing or other measures in case of extremely low precipitation.

• hydro power production is decreased by 41 TWh• thermal production is increased by 17 TWh• demand is decreased by 13 TWh (demand response)• import from outside is increased by 11 TWh

21 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010Extremely low inflow year (1/50 years)


P 85C 95B -10

P 144C 150B -6

P 106 (-25)

C 125 (-10)

B -19

P 30C 23B 7

P 22C 16B 6

RU 12

P 387C 409

-22

RU 00

412

5 3

7

1

D2 2

PL 2

EST2

NL 2


Denmark-E

Denmark-W

Nordel

22 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

ESTIMATED POWER BALANCES 2010/11

Available power capacity and peak demand

(average temperature) 23 - 24

Available power capacity and peak demand

(temperature once in ten years) 25 - 26

23 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY ANDPEAK DEMAND 2010/11

Average winter temperatures

The maximum available production capacity exceeds the peak demand by 8 000 MWh/h. Both sum of national peak demands and simultaneous peak demand is used in the forecasts. The simultaneous peak is estimated to be 1600 MWh/h lower. Considering this the capacity margin is even bigger and exceeds export capacity outside the area. The sum of national peaks corresponds to a probability of once in 30 to 40 years.

Peak load situation is, like last years balance, remarkably easier than in previous power balances due to investments in new generation capacity .

Every Nordic country is able to meet an average winter day peak demand with its own production capacity. As a whole the Nordic area is able to meet the demand without import.

New nuclear unit in Finland is included in the power balance. This gives a positive balance also for Finland.

24 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY ANDPEAK DEMAND 2010/11No exchange between areasAverage winter temperatures

P - maximum available production capacity (operational reserves excluded)

C - peak demand in each country B - power balance

All units in MWh/hP 25200C 22850B 2350

P 15400C 15200B 200P 29700

C 27000B 2700

P 3000C 2900B 100

P 4600C 4050B 550

P 78300C 70400B 7900

Nordic peak values1

Norway

Finland

Sweden

Denmark-EDenmark-W

1 Total Nordic values with coincident factors for both wind and demand

25 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11

Cold winter day

The national peak demands correspond a probability of once in ten years. The sum of these corresponds a probability of once in 30 to 40 years.

The sum of peak demands in cold conditions is estimated to be 3700 MWh/h higher than in average temperature conditions. The simultaneous peak is estimated to be 1700 MWh/h lower. The power balance is expected to be positive for the Nordic countries in this situation.

Nordic production capacity is sufficient to cover the simultaneous peak demand without import.

26 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

P - estimated productionC - peak demand in each country B - estimated net power exchange

export(+)/import(-)All units in MWh/h

AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11No exchange between areasTemperatures correspondingto a ten years winter day

P 25200C 24000B 1200

P 15400C 16000B - 600

P 3000C 2950B 50

P 29700C 28500B 1200

P 4600C 4250B 350

P 78300C 74000B 4300

Norway Finland

Sweden

Denmark-EDenmark-W

Nordic peak values1

1 Total Nordic values with coincident factors for both wind and demand

27 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11

The probability of market failure is calculated as the expected probability of supply and demand do not meet in the day ahead spot market. Production units used for system reserves are not taken into account.

The probability of system failure is calculated as expected loss of load probability, that means probability that loads have to be disconnected to maintain system security. In this calculation only 600 MW in total are kept for disturbance reserves for system security.

The calculations are made taking into account internal transmission capacities. Import possibilities from neighbouring systems are assumed to be half of the existing capacity.

The calculations are done for three scenarios: Load level corresponding to average winter temperatures Load level corresponding to ten years winter temperatures Largest type of nuclear power plant out of operation in normal conditions (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units in Finland and Sweden, 7950 MW)

28 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11

Conclusions:The probability of market failure is below the required 1‰ in all areas with normal winter temperature and with ten years winter temperature. With lack of approximately 8000 MW nuclear units in Finland and Sweden in normal conditions the probability of market failure is higher than 1‰ in southern Sweden and mid and eastern Norway. The margins in Norway, Finland and Sweden are between 2000 and 3000 MW in each area with normal winter temperature to the required 1‰ probability of market failure, 300 MW in eastern part of Denmark and 800 MW in the western part. With 10 years winter temperature the margins decrease especially in Norway and Sweden The lack of 8000 MW nuclear power in Sweden and Finland has only a minor influence on the margins in Denmark, but in Norway and Sweden the margins to the required 1‰ probability of market failure are negative. This means that in order to solve the situation some of the operational reserves have to be used.

29 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

Norway Finland

Sweden

Denmark-EDenmark.-W

MF - Margin to market failure average winter (MW)MF - Margin to market failure 10 years winter (MW)Margin to Nordel's criteria of 1 ‰ for market failure.

MARGIN TO MARKET FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter

MF 2200 MWMF 1000 MW

MF 800 MWMF 600 MW


MF 300 MWMF 200 MW


In a market failure situation the supply

capability is not sufficient to meet

the demand in the day ahead market

without use of some system reserves.

30 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter

MF - Probability of market failure average winter (‰)MF - Probability of market failure 10 years winter (‰)Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1 ‰.

Norway Finland

Sweden

Denmark-EDenmark.-W

MF 0.02‰MF 0.18‰

MF 0.00‰MF 0.00‰

MF 0.00‰MF 0.10‰

MF 0.00‰MF 0.00‰

MF 0.00‰MF 0.00‰

In a market failure situation the supply


the demand in the day ahead market

without use of some system reserves.

31 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

Norway Finland

Sweden

Denmark-EDenmark.-W

SF - Margin to system failure average winter (MW)SF - Margin to system failure 10 years winter (MW)Margin to Nordel's criteria of 1 ‰ for system failure.

MARGIN TO SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter

SF 3000 MWSF 1700 MW

SF 1000 MWSF 800 MW


SF 700 MWSF 700 MW


In a system failure situation the supply


the demand in the operational hour

without disconnection of some load.

The system reserves (except 600 MW)

are included in the supply capability.

32 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

Norway Finland

Sweden

Denmark-EDenmark.-W

PROBABILITY OF SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter

SF - Probability of system failure average winter (‰)SF - Probability of system failure 10 years winter (‰)Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1 ‰.

SF 0.00‰ SF 0.05‰

SF 0.00‰SF 0.00‰

SF 0.00‰SF 0.01‰

SF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰

SF 0.00‰ SF 0.00‰

In a system failure situation the supply


the demand in the operational hour

without disconnection of some load.

The system reserves (except 600 MW)

are included in the supply capability.

33 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

Norway Finland

Sweden

Denmark-EDenmark.-W

MF - Margin to market failure average winter (MW)SF - Margin to system failure average winter (MW)Margins to Nordel's criteria of 1 ‰ both for market failure and system failure.

The scenario is very unlikely and has a very low probability. In order to solve the situation some of the system reserves have to be used.

MARGIN TO MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 8000 MW nuclear units out of operation (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units)

MF -100 MWSF 1000 MW

MF 700 MWSF 800 MW

MF -900 MWSF 200 MW

MF 300 MWSF 700 MW

MF 1200 MWSF 1500 MW

34 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

Finland

Denmark-EDenmark.-W

MF 1.14‰SF 0.17‰

MF 0.00‰SF 0.00‰

MF 3.67‰SF 0.75‰

MF 0.00‰SF 0.00‰

MF 0.00‰SF 0.00‰

MF - Probability of market failure average winter (‰)SF - Probability of system failure average winter (‰)Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1 ‰ both for market failure and system failure.

The scenario is very unlikely and has a very low probability. In order to solve the situation some of the system reserves have to be used.

PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 8000 MW nuclear units out of operation (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units)

Norway

Sweden

35 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s APPENDICES

1. Energy (purpose, definitions, fundamentals) 36

2. Power (definitions, fundamentals) 37 - 39

3. Energy (retrospect 2006) 40 - 41

4. Power balance (retrospect 2006/07) 42 - 44

36 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s Appendix 1

ENERGY

PurposeThe purpose of this presentation is to give a picture of the energy balance for each country and the whole Nordic electricity market. Focus is set on production capacity and need for import from the neighbouring countries outside Nordel.

DefinitionsLow inflow = There is a probability of 10 % to obtain energy below the estimated value. Extreme low inflow = There is a probability of 2 % to obtain energy below the estimated value (1 out of 50 years)

FundamentalsThe exchange between the Nordel countries are market based. Hence it is the spot price that decides flow directions and volumes. The exchange between the Nordel countries and its neighbours is developing towards a market based operation. The method does not necessarily indicate possible problems in certain areas.Forecasted consumption/demand includes demand response during extreme dry years. Forecasted production in the energy balance does not include the 5. nuclear plant in Finland.Consumption/demand includes network losses.

37 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s Appendix 2.1

POWER

DefinitionsAvailable capacity = installed capacity - unavailable capacity - reserves

Reserves = frequency controlled momentary and fast disturbance reserves.

Peak Demand = maximum one hour load in temperature circumstances with occurrence probability one winter during respectively two and ten years, denoted as an average winter day and a cold winter day.

Ten years winter. The peak demand is based on a temperature that has an occurrence of one out of ten years in each country separately. A simultaneous peak demand in all the countries at a working day has an occurrence probability less than 7 %.

38 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s Appendix 2.2

POWER

FundamentalsEstimated power exchange takes into account limitations both in transmissions and production capabilities. The method does not necessarily indicate possible problems in certain areas.

Generation

Unavailable capacity is based on experiences from earlier peak demand situations. Not available hydropower is approximately 13 % (6000 MW) of installed capacity.

Nuclear power output is supposed to be 100 % of full capacity.

Availability of other thermal power is reduced by e.g. forced outage rate, max heat production in combined heat and power plants, use of fuel other than oil etc.

The available wind power during peak load is assumed to be 0 % in each Nordic country individually, and due to coincidence factor, 6 % for the total of the Nordic countries.

39 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s Appendix 2.2

POWER

Demand

The coincident factor used for the total consumption of the Nordel is 97,7 % of the sum of the country specific demands.

Demand forecast for ten years peak load includes demand response.

Reserves

Nordel has recommended common fast disturbance reserves. From a total of 5 200 MW (3 200 MW in production capacity and 2 000 MW in dispatch able load ) it can be reduced to a minimum of 600 MW in a connected system without severe bottlenecks before load shedding is executed. The recommended reserves have been subtracted from available production capacity.

40 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s Appendix 3.1

ENERGYRetrospect 2006

Total consumption in 2006 was 395.3 TWh (394.0 TWh in 2005). During spring and summer 2006 the reservoir levels fell far below the long term median due to lack of accumulated snow and due to low precipitation, but much precipitation at the end of the year normalized the hydrologic balance going into 2007. The Nord Pool spot price was relatively high throughout the year, especially for late summer and autumn, due to poor power balance in addition to lack of Swedish nuclear power and high prices of raw material (oil, gas etc.).

Demand decreased in all countries except Finland. The increase of demand in Finland was 5.5 TWh, partly because of paper industry dispute in 2005. Demand decreased in Norway by 3.3 TWh mainly due to high energy prices and mild weather. Denmark and Sweden showed minor changes.

The total production in 2006 was 383.9 TWh (394.9 TWh in 2005 and 379.3 TWh in 2004).The hydro power production was 199 TWh (222/184 TWh), wind power 8 TWh (8/8 TWh), thermal power excluding nuclear was 97 TWh (73/91 TWh) and nuclear power was 87 TWh (92/97 TWh).

In 2006 the Nordel countries together had a net import of 11.4 TWh (0.9 TWh export in 2005, 11.6 TWh import in 2004). The import from Russia was 11.7 TWh, Poland 1.2 TWh while there was a net export of 1.5 TWh to Germany.

41 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

P - productionC - consumption B - energy balance (P-C),

export (+) / import (-)

11.5RU

3.8

0.3PL1.6

DD

4.2

0.2RU

0.2

7.2

2.3

1.8

3.9

Appendix 3.2

ENERGY BALANCE 2006 [TWh]Retrospect

3.4

0.1

7.7

1.5

1.5

1.91.9

1.00.61.1

2.1P 25.7C 21.2B 4.5

Denmark-W

P 121.7C 122.6B -0.9

Norway

P 140.3C 146.4B -6.1

Sweden

P 78.6C 90.0B -11.4

Finland

P 16.6C 14.2B 2.4

Denmark-E

P 383.9C 395.3B -11.4

Total Nordel

EST0

42 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s Appendix 4.1

POWER BALANCE, Retrospect 2006/07

Synchronous Peak Demand 21 February 2007, hour 18-19Peak demand this winter was 67 950 MWh/h, while a peak demand with a ten years temperature was estimated to 72 300 MWh/h. The total maximum winter peak demand 2000/2001 was 69 000 MWh/h which is the all time high peak demand in the Nordel system.

It was very cold in the northern Nordic countries during the winter peak 2006/2007. This seasons peak load was recorded in Norway and Sweden the same hour as the synchronous peak.

Compared to estimated peak demand for ten years winter the difference was between 5% and 16% in the individual areas.

Country specific peak demandsThe different Nordic countries had their peaks between January 11 and February 21, 2007. The sum of the individual peaks was 1,5% higher than the synchronous peak.

The demand in Finland the 8. of February 2007 was a new all time high, 14900 MWh/h.

43 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

Norway

Denmark - E

FinlandSweden

Denmark - W

Nordel67 95072 300

69 000

3 5004 1603 780

14 25015 00014 900

26 20028 90027 000

21 45022 90023 050

Appendix 4.2

PEAK LOAD 2006/2007IN THE TOTAL NORDEL AREAMeasured on 21 February 2007, 18 - 19,estimated 1 in 10 years and all time high(average temperature of the day)

Measured consumtion [MWh/h]Forecasted peak demand [MWh/h](one of 10 winters)All time high [MWh/h]Simultaneous all time high;5 Feb 2001 [MWh/h]

-15°C -17°C

-11°C

0°C

0°C

-18°C

-12°C

-12°C -13°C

-22°C

2 5503 0302 700

-15°C

0°C

44 (44)

O r

g a

n i s

a t

i o n

f o

r N

o r

d i c

T r

a n

s m

i s

s i o

n S

y s

t e

m O

p e

r a

t o r

s

P - production C - consumptionB - power balance excluding exchange

export (+) / import (-)H - hour, CET

Appendix 4.3

COUNTRY SPECIFIC PEAKDEMAND 2006/07 [MWh/h]

Denmark - E

FinlandSweden

Denmark - W

Norway

P 4130C 3740B 39024 Jan 07H 17 - 18

P 22830C 21430B 140021 Feb 07H 18 - 19

P 23250C 26200B -295021 Feb 07H 18 - 19

P 12070C 14900B -2830

8 Feb 07H 06 - 07

P 2310C 2650B -34025 Jan 07H 17 - 18

energy balances 2010 and power balances 2010/11 june 2007

Documents