Appearance
What ENTSO-E's latest scenarios actually predict
ENTSO-E, the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, published the 2026 edition of its Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) in February. The headline coverage focused on the topline cross-border interconnection build — a tripling by 2040 — but the actually interesting forecast lives a few layers in, in the demand-side assumptions of the three central scenarios.
Here is what those scenarios actually predict, what they assume, and what they get wrong.
The three scenarios, in plain English
ENTSO-E (jointly with ENTSOG for gas) builds three reference futures for Europe. The 2026 TYNDP calls them:
- National Trends 2050 (NT) — a bottom-up sum of every member-state's existing energy and climate plan. Conservative, regulator-friendly.
- Distributed Energy (DE) — a scenario where citizens and communities lead decarbonisation. Heavy on rooftop solar, heat pumps, EV-to-grid, community storage.
- Global Ambition (GA) — a top-down scenario aligned with the EU's net-zero-by-2050 trajectory. Heavy on large centralised renewables, offshore wind, hydrogen imports.
All three scenarios deliver net-zero electricity by 2045–2050. They differ in how, which is what makes the comparison useful.
The peak-demand surprise
Here is the number that does not get enough attention. In the Distributed Energy scenario, total European electricity annual demand in 2040 is 4,920 TWh — roughly 65% above 2024. But peak demand in winter rises only 18%, from 580 GW to ~685 GW.
That ratio is the headline. A 65% increase in annual energy with only an 18% increase in peak power is only possible if a large fraction of that new demand is time-flexible — heat pumps with thermal storage, EV charging with smart scheduling, hydrogen electrolysis run at the marginal cost minimum.
In Global Ambition, the same arithmetic looks different: 5,140 TWh annual, but 765 GW peak — a 32% peak increase. Same energy, much harder peak problem, because GA assumes more centralised hydrogen production and less behind-the-meter flexibility.
In National Trends — the conservative scenario — peak demand rises by 26% to 730 GW.
In other words, the three scenarios agree on roughly how much energy Europe needs and disagree by ~80 GW on how much peak power. The difference is almost entirely a flexibility assumption, not a technology assumption.
What gets built where
The cross-border build numbers, by 2040:
| Corridor | NT | DE | GA |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Sea (offshore wind hubs) | 38 GW | 41 GW | 52 GW |
| GB–Continent | 14 GW | 12 GW | 18 GW |
| Iberia–France | 11 GW | 8 GW | 14 GW |
| Italy–N. Africa (via Tunisia) | 6 GW | 4 GW | 9 GW |
| Baltic–Nordic | 9 GW | 8 GW | 11 GW |
The Global Ambition scenario consistently builds more transmission because it concentrates generation (offshore wind in the North Sea, solar in Iberia and North Africa) and has to move it further. The Distributed Energy scenario does less transmission because more generation is local to load.
That tension — concentrate-and-transmit versus distribute-and-balance-locally — is the genuine open question in European grid planning, and TYNDP 2026 is the clearest articulation of it yet.
What the scenarios get right
Three calls that look defensible:
- Hydrogen demand for grid-scale storage is small. All three scenarios have hydrogen, but only as an industrial feedstock and shipping fuel. Hydrogen power-to-power gets less than 4% of grid energy in any 2050 scenario, even in GA. ENTSO-E is implicitly siding with the modellers who think the round-trip economics never work.
- Offshore wind is the dominant new generation source. In all three, North Sea offshore wind is the single largest 2040 generator. The scenarios differ in whether the wind is hubbed (DE/NT) or radially connected (GA), but not in the volume.
- Demand-side flexibility moves from optional to load-bearing. TYNDP 2026 is the first edition where flex is modelled as a procured resource with explicit volumes and prices, not as a soft adjustment to the demand curve.
What they likely get wrong
Three calls that look optimistic:
- Industrial heat electrification is assumed early. All three scenarios show >40% of industrial heat below 200°C electrified by 2035. The current rate is ~6%. The capital-stock turnover assumption is heroic.
- EU-wide cross-border flow assumptions ignore politics. TYNDP optimises flows as if there were a single European market operator. In practice, capacity allocation, congestion management, and inadequate cross-border regulation routinely strand 15–25% of nominal interconnector capacity.
- The 2040 capacity factor for offshore wind is set at 51%. Today's installed-fleet capacity factor is ~44%. The TYNDP assumes new turbine size and siting will deliver the gap. Plausible but unforgiving — a 47% real number would knock 8% off forecast annual generation.
What this means for the GB read
For a GB-focused publication, the most important number in TYNDP 2026 is buried in Annex 4: the assumed GB–Continent interconnection capacity in 2040.
Under all three scenarios, GB ends up with more interconnection than today (currently ~8.4 GW). Under DE and NT, the build is restrained — about 12 GW. Under GA, it's 18 GW, dominated by additional Norway and Denmark links plus a third Belgium connection.
The TYNDP assumes those connectors run at high utilisation (60–70% load factor). Whether they actually do depends on relative wholesale prices, which depends on the relative pace of decarbonisation either side. In a scenario where Britain electrifies industrial heat faster than the Continent — possible if the Climate Change Committee's 6th Carbon Budget recommendations bite — the import direction reverses, and the interconnector earns its keep differently.
The reading list
If you want to engage with the scenarios directly, the four documents that matter are:
- The TYNDP 2026 Scenarios Report (170 pages, but you can stop at the executive summary)
- The Distributed Energy scenario data tables (CSV downloads — these are where the actual numbers live)
- The GB-specific assumptions annex (40 pages, and the only place to find the assumed industrial-electrification trajectory)
- The Independent Stakeholder Forum response compiled by ACER (where the scenarios get challenged)
The TYNDP is not a forecast in any rigorous sense. It is a planning document; it exists to identify which infrastructure projects clear cost-benefit thresholds across multiple scenarios. Reading it as a forecast is a mistake. Reading it as the largest single piece of pan-European energy modelling, with all the assumptions visible — that is what it's for, and what makes the 2026 edition genuinely worth the time.