Data

72
Documentation

Deutsches Institut fr Wirtschaftsforschung 2014

Electricity Sector Data

for Policy-Relevant Modeling
Data Documentation and Applications to the
German and European Electricity Markets

Jonas Egerer, Clemens Gerbaulet, Richard Ihlenburg, Friedrich Kunz, Benjamin Reinhard,
Christian von Hirschhausen, Alexander Weber, Jens Weibezahn
IMPRESSUM
DIW Berlin, 2014
DIW Berlin
Deutsches Institut fr Wirtschaftsforschung
Mohrenstr. 58
10117 Berlin
Tel. +49 (30) 897 89-0
Fax +49 (30) 897 89-200
www.diw.de
ISSN 1861-1532
All rights reserved.
Reproduction and distribution
in any form, also in parts,
requires the express written
permission of DIW Berlin.
Data Documentation 72

Jonas Egerer 1234, Clemens Gerbaulet23, Richard Ihlenburg2, Friedrich Kunz3,

Benjamin Reinhard2, Christian von Hirschhausen23, Alexander Weber2,
Jens Weibezahn2

Electricity Sector Data for Policy-Relevant Modeling:

Data Documentation and Applications
to the German and European Electricity Markets

Berlin, March 2014

1 Corresponding author: [email protected], phone +49 30 897 89-674, fax +49 30 897 89-113.

2 Technische Universitt Berlin, Workgroup for Infrastructure Policy (WIP), Strae des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin.

3 DIW Berlin, Department of Energy, Transportation, Environment, Mohrenstrae 58, 10117 Berlin.
4 The preparation of this document was facilitated by the participation of one or more of the authors in third party funded
projects, mainly the support of the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) to TU Berlin in the project Ener-
gyEFFAIR (Effiziente und gerechte Allokation der Produktion erneuerbarer Energien auf nationaler Ebene), the support of
the Mercator foundation to DIW Berlin in the MASMIE project (Modellgesttzte Analysen fr die Strommarktgestaltung zur
Integration erneuerbarer Energien im Rahmen der Energiewende), and the support of the Mercator foundation to TU Berlin
in the project EE-Netze; the Data Documentation has also benefitted from the participation of TU Berlin in the EU-FP7
project E-Highways and the exchange with other project partners therein. Intermediate presentations of the Data Docu-
mentation were given at various project workshops during the last 18 months. We thank Florian Leuthold and Hannes
Weigt for having co-kickstarted the ELelectricty MODel ELMOD back at TU Dresden in 2004, and Jan Abrell for continuously
pointing out remaining shortcomings of the model, as well as numerous research assistants all along the way; the usual
disclaimer applies.
Data Documentation 72
Executive Summary

Executive Summary
1. Transparent and comprehensible numerical modeling can make a major contribution
to the understanding of electricity markets and infrastructure needs, and is a critical
element of any planning exercise as well as a requirement for public acceptance of
any reforms. Yet one observes a rising discrepancy between, on the one hand, the in-
creasing complexity of electricity sector models, and, on the other hand, the almost
complete absence of easily accessible, high-quality, and transparent data used in
these models.
2. Although the awareness of the data issue has improved over the last decade, the
quality and availability of the data used in electricity sector models has not. Thus, the
data provided by ENTSO-E on the European electricity sector, the so-called study
model (STUM) is outdated, covers only few snapshots, and is not suited for model
applictions; it is currently of no help in understanding, e.g. the results of the ten-year-
network-development-plan (TYNDP). The same dilemma prevails at the national lev-
el, though some progress has been made recently, e.g. in Germany. Great Britain rep-
resents a very laudable exception from the rule, since detailed technical planning da-
ta is publicly provided.
3. Two recent developments have brought some momentum in the data issue, that
suggest the need for action: i) Industry, policymakers, other stakeholders, and the in-
terested public have realized the importance of independent modeling and have be-
come increasingly critical upon the underlying data quality; TSOs are opening up to
the exchange of transparent data; ii) at the academic end, standards vis--vis the
transparency and quality of data used in scientific publications have been significant-
ly raised, and it is no longer acceptable to publish anything without releasing the data
and the code used. The ethical codes of all scientific associations, in particular in eco-
nomics, have set out strict rules for data and methodological transparency; this will
soon also oblige the consulting sector and policymakers to adopt higher standards.
4. The objective of this Data Documentation is to advance the discussion of data issues
by providing a full set of data used for electricity market and transmission network

I
Data Documentation 72
Executive Summary

modeling, and to suggest similar action to academic research as well as the policy
and business community. We provide a very detailed account of electricity genera-
tion, load data, the high-voltage transmission infrastructure, and price data, both for
the German and the European electricity systems in 2012, and 2011, respectively.
5. We also present applications of the extensive datasets to some real-world modeling
issues, using the Electricity MODel ELMOD; ELMOD was initiatlly developed at TU
Dresden and is now constantly developed since in the context of engineering-
economic electricity market research by a variety of research teams. For Germany,
we provide an estimate of hourly electricity prices in 2012, that traces the wholesale
prices in a very detailed manner; ELMOD also contains a very high spatial resolution
and allows, amongst others, the comparison of uniform, zonal, and noal pricing esti-
mates. The application to Europe compares generation mix and trade flows between
all European countries (including Switzerland and Norway) and, likewise, reaches a
very high level of convergence between the model results and real flows.
6. The Data Documentation is meant as one step towards the use of better and more
transparent data for electricity sector modeling, but it also highlights the need for
continued work on data shortcomings, model improvments, and organizational inno-
vation. Future work needs to focus on transmission and demand data, both at the
European and the national level. Model enhancements, such as combined heat and
power, or the (in-)flexibility of power plants, require additional modeling and data ef-
forts. Some technical IT-challenges also need to be addressed, to translate existing
model software into user-friendly software interfaces.
7. Even more challenging, though, is the translation of modeling results for use in the
policy arena, and the establishment of clarity and consistency that provide real value
to the business community and policymakers alike. To that end, the pressure on the
electricity industry itself and the public policymakers to release data and secure
higher transparency of sector planning needs to be maintained, both in the interest
of producers and consumers in the sector, and of public acceptance. More work also
needs to be done to integrate the modeling world and the policy world, and to estab-
lish routines for interaction between the two levels.

II
Data Documentation 72
Content

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... I

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background: The Importance of Good, Transparent Data ............................................ 1
1.2 Data Requirements for Electricity System Modeling ..................................................... 1
1.3 Absence of Coherent Public Data at European and Most Member State Level............ 4
1.3.1 EU-level: absence of detailed, transparent data ................................................. 4
1.3.2 National level: the United Kingdom as the positive exception from the
rule 5
1.4 A New Momentum and the Objectives of this Data Documentation ........................... 7

2 Germany ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Electricity Data ............................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Data sources ........................................................................................................ 9
2.1.2 Spatial electricity infrastructure data ................................................................ 11
2.1.2.1 High-voltage transmission network ..................................................... 11
2.1.2.2 Electrical load ....................................................................................... 16
2.1.2.3 Generation capacity ............................................................................. 20
2.1.2.4 Electricity sector data for Luxemburg .................................................. 31
2.1.3 Time dependent electricity data ....................................................................... 32
2.1.3.1 Generation cost .................................................................................... 32
2.1.3.2 Cross-border exchange......................................................................... 35
2.1.3.3 Availability of generation capacity ....................................................... 38
2.2 Model Validation Generation and Transmission in Germany (2012) ....................... 40
2.2.1 Model formulation ............................................................................................ 40
2.2.2 Model results and comparison to historic data ................................................ 42
2.2.2.1 Generation results ................................................................................ 42
2.2.2.2 Price results .......................................................................................... 45
2.2.2.3 Spatial results ....................................................................................... 46
2.2.3 Model limitations............................................................................................... 53
2.3 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 53

3 Europe ....................................................................................................................... 54
3.1 Electricity Data ............................................................................................................. 54
3.1.1 Data sources ...................................................................................................... 54
3.1.2 Spatial electricity infrastructure data ................................................................ 55
3.1.2.1 High-voltage transmission network ..................................................... 55
3.1.2.2 Generation capacities........................................................................... 57
3.1.2.3 Electrical load ....................................................................................... 66

IIII
Data Documentation 72
Content

3.1.3 Time dependent electricity data ....................................................................... 69

3.1.3.1 Generation fuel cost ............................................................................. 69
3.1.3.2 Generation efficiency ........................................................................... 70
3.1.3.3 Availability of generation capacity ....................................................... 70
3.2 Model Validation - Electricity Prices, Generation, and Cross-border Flows (2011) .... 72
3.2.1 Price results ....................................................................................................... 72
3.2.2 Generation results ............................................................................................. 73
3.2.3 Exchange results ................................................................................................ 75
3.3 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 77

4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 79
4.1 A Neglected Issue ......................................................................................................... 79
4.2 Potential Data and Modeling Improvements .............................................................. 80
4.3 Establishing Routines for Modeling Policy Interaction ................................................ 81
4.4 The Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 81

References...................................................................................................................... 82

Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 88

IV
Data Documentation 72
Tables and Figures

List of Figures
Figure 1: Different sub-markets towards physical delivery ....................................................... 2
Figure 2: Characterization by uncertainty, transmission network, and interperiod links ......... 3
Figure 3: Transmission network map for Germany and Europe .............................................. 12
Figure 4: The German high-voltage electricity transmission system in 2012 .......................... 14
Figure 5: Allocation on federal states for state of lowest and highest load ............................ 17
Figure 6: Stages of spatial load allocation ................................................................................ 18
Figure 7: BNetzA data with capacity regarding spatial information and the EEG ................... 22
Figure 8: Comparison of number and capacity of conventional power plants ....................... 24
Figure 9: Data processing for renewable capacities in the EEG dataset.................................. 25
Figure 10: Aggregated renewable and conventional generation capacities ........................... 28
Figure 11: Conventional generation capacity on a nodal level ................................................ 29
Figure 12: Renewable generation capacity on a nodal level ................................................... 30
Figure 13: Spatial shipping costs for hard coal......................................................................... 33
Figure 14: Merit order for the German electricity market with all capacities in 2012 ............ 33
Figure 15: Monthly hard coal, natural gas, and fuel oil prices in 2012 .................................... 34
Figure 16: Daily futures price of 2013 emission allowances in 2012 ....................................... 34
Figure 17: Annual imports (-) and exports (+) toneighboring countries in 2012 ..................... 36
Figure 18: Availability factors for conventional power plants ................................................. 38
Figure 19: Generation quantities: Model results (M) compared to statistics (S) .................... 44
Figure 20: Price-duration curve with model results compared to historic price data ............. 45
Figure 21: Network elements with more than 50 hours of re-dispatch measures ................. 46
Figure 22: Legend for consecutive figures on spatial results ................................................... 47
Figure 23: Snap shot of the system in average state of all hours ............................................ 48
Figure 24: Snap shot of the system with peak load and low renewables................................ 49
Figure 25: Snap shot of the system with high winter load and high wind generation ............ 50
Figure 26: Snap shot of the system with low winter load and high wind generation ............. 51
Figure 27: Snap shot of the system with low summer load and very high PV......................... 52
Figure 28: European transmission network ............................................................................. 56
Figure 29: Regional distribution of generation capacities ....................................................... 60
Figure 30: Regional distribution of wind generation capacities .............................................. 63
Figure 31: Regional distribution of solar generation capacities .............................................. 65
Figure 32: Regional distribution of electrical load ................................................................... 67
Figure 33: Comparison of modeled prices with historic prices in 2011................................... 73
Figure 34: Average generation in 2011 based on ENTSO-E ..................................................... 74
Figure 35: Generation results................................................................................................... 74
Figure 36: Average exchange saldo of European countries ..................................................... 75
Figure 37: Cross-border flows from (+) and to (-) Germany .................................................... 76
V
Data Documentation 72
Tables and Figures

Figure 38: Cross-border flows from (+) and to (-) France ........................................................ 76
Figure 39: Cross-border flows from (+) and to (-) Switzerland ................................................ 77

List of Tables
Table 1: Public data sources ..................................................................................................... 10
Table 2: Spatial aggregation levels of electricity system data ................................................. 11
Table 3: Information on TSO network data.............................................................................. 13
Table 4: Quantitative network statistics .................................................................................. 15
Table 5: Technical line characteristics...................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Calculation of gross and net electricity generation and demand of 2012 ................. 19
Table 7: Spatial and non-spatial capacity in the BNetzA list (and not in the EEG) .................. 22
Table 8: Efficiency values based on installation year and fixed growth rates ......................... 23
Table 9: Information on power plants in Luxemburg included in the dataset ........................ 31
Table 10: Annual price data for 2012 and carbon intensity..................................................... 32
Table 11: Assumptions on flow allocation on the cross-border connections.......................... 37
Table 12: TSO data sources for time series of solar and wind generation .............................. 39
Table 13: Net electricity generation by fuel of the German electricity sector in 2012 ........... 43
Table 14: Data sources for the European electricity system ................................................... 54
Table 15: Technical line characteristics.................................................................................... 57
Table 16: Definition of generation technologies ..................................................................... 57
Table 17: Comparison of the generation capacities ................................................................ 61
Table 18: Generation capacities of European countries .......................................................... 61
Table 19: National average load and renewable capacities .................................................... 68
Table 20: Fuel prices in 2011 .................................................................................................... 69
Table 21: Efficiency of conventional generation technologies ................................................ 70
Table 22: Availability of conventional generation technologies .............................................. 71
Table 23: Conventional power plant blocks of specific size by voltage level .......................... 88
Table 24: Conventional generation capacity for each DENA zone .......................................... 88
Table 25: Conventional generation capacity for each federal state ........................................ 88
Table 26: Renewable generation capacity for each DENA zone .............................................. 89
Table 27: Renewable generation capacity for each federal state ........................................... 89
Table 28: Conventional plants feeding directly into the 220 kV and 380 kV systems ............ 90
Table 29: Conventional plants not directly feeding into the 220 kV and 380 kV systems ...... 93
Table 30: Pumped storage power plants ............................................................................... 103
Table 31: Renewable power plants outside the EEG scheme ................................................ 104
Table 32: Cross-border plants ................................................................................................ 106

VI
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

1 Introduction
1.1 Background: The Importance of Good, Transparent Data
Numerical modeling can make a major contribution to the understanding of energy markets
and electricity network infrastructure. With the breakthrough of commercially available
software and faster calculation capacities, it has become possible to develop real-world
approximations of market developments, prices and quantities, the use of infrastructure and
potential bottlenecks, and plausible medium-term developments in these long-lived sectors.
Progress has been made in modeling the electricity sector: from the theoretical break-
throughs on electricity markets and on transmission networks, e.g. by Schweppe et al. (1988)
and Hogan (1992), recent advances have facilitated the translation of these theoretical con-
cepts into numerical models that fit real-world results surprisingly well. Gabriel et al. (2012)
confirm the enormous progress of both conceptual and numerical modeling of the energy
sector that has taken place over the last two decades.

Yet, amidst the developments in numerical modeling, one important aspect has not gained
sufficient attention: the quality and the transparency of data. Since models yield insights
not numbers, it is particularly important that the data of the deployed models be i) based
on the latest available consistent and comprehensive dataset; and ii) transparently available
to everybody to stimulate debate and the possibility to verify (or: falsify) existing results.
However, both the quality and the transparency of data for numerical modeling have been
neglected until recently: industry stakeholders never had an incentive to disclose data, and
many modeling teams considered the obtained data as proprietary, and a competitive ad-
vantage in the quest for consulting contracts and publications. Instances where useful, au-
thentic data is released for public use are rare, one notable exception being the publications
on the European electricity market by Zhou and Bialek (2005) and Hutcheon and Bialek
(2013).

1.2 Data Requirements for Electricity System Modeling

In liberalized electricity markets a series of sub-markets exist (Figure 1). Each one has certain
characteristics in terms of market participants, technical requirements, the market settle-
ment process, and the underlying uncertainty in quantities and prices. They also have a dif-
ferent time frame starting from several years (futures markets), to about one week (balanc-

1
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

ing markets), one day (day-ahead markets), and only hours (intra-day markets) before the
physical delivery. Thus, depending on the own (generation) portfolio and the individual mar-
ket strategy generation companies and large consumers place bids for supply and demand
on different sub-markets at different points in time (Scharff et al., 2014).

Futures Balancing Day-ahead Intra-day Physical

market market market market delivery

Figure 1: Different sub-markets towards physical delivery

One general distinction for electricity market models is the time scope and the competition
level (Ventosa et al., 2005). With the liberalization in the 1990s, researchers have applied
electricity market models with an oligopoly or monopoly market approach to evaluate and
quantify potential abuse of market power. Yet, the market liberalization also increased the
complexity of market clearing as more heterogeneous market players developed. Last but
not least, the sector is undergoing a major transformation towards (fluctuating) renewable
generation, in order to meet the European reduction targets on carbon emissions. Both, the
liberalization and the roll-out of renewables cause an increasing uncertainty throughout the
sub-markets which raises questions regarding flexibility and risk management.

On the contrary, techno-economic electricity sector models gain momentum in understand-

ing the transformation to low carbon electricity systems by a joint analysis of the entire in-
frastructure and additional technical constraints often neglected in other model approaches.
Thereby, they abstract from strategic behavior and uncertainty and only consider the meas-
ured/observed parameters at physical delivery. Thus, results are driven by technical con-
straints and resulting costs of e.g. network constraints rather than by the market design and
the behavior by market participants. These assumptions; 1) perfect competition, 2) a manda-
tory pool-market without bilateral contracts, and 3) perfect information have to be kept in
mind when model results are compared to the historic market outcomes.

2
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

Figure 2: Characterization by uncertainty, transmission network, and interperiod links

Source: Ventosa et al. (2005).

In addition to highlighting the role of uncertainty, Ventosa et al. (2005) provide a classifica-
tion of models that include the timing structure (intraperiod vs. interperiod constraints) and
the degree of representation of the transmission network as well as the consideration of
uncertainty (Figure 2). This Data Documentation is tailored for modeling approaches similar
to the Berry and Hobbs box and the empty spot to its right, with no uncertainty in the
market and a direct current (DC) load flow representation. The dataset on Germany includes
hourly system data that allow implementing interperiod constraints in model applications,
whereas the dataset on Europe currently reflects an average hour. The consideration of
interperiod constraints is subject to the requirements of the individual analysis and the
availability of hourly data. 5

The electricity load in models with perfect competition is often assumed to be perfectly
inelastic. Yet, also the implementation with a price-elastic inverse demand function is an
option when analyzing social welfare effects. The inverse load function can be determined

5 Examples are costs and constraints for ramping of the generation/load level within every 15min/hourly time step, the
interperiod representation of pumped storage plants, and seasonal hydropower reservoirs in the Alps.

3
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

by the observable hourly points of load and supply and an additional assumption on elastici-
ty.

1.3 Absence of Coherent Public Data at European and Most Member State Level
Almost none of the data that is used for modeling the electricity system at the European or
the national level is publicly available. This holds for network data that is proprietary with
transmission operators, as well as for energy market modeling (e.g. cost assumptions). The
absence of an established base of commonly agreed data obliges all modeling teams to
make their own assumptions about technical and economic data. Besides the multiple ef-
forts going into the data assembling, data divergence thus generated also leads to a very
heterogeneous use of datasets in the modeling exercises.

Two reasons are generally evoked to justify the absence of publicly available data: i) confi-
dentiality for system security reasons; and ii) economic sensitivity of the data. Concerning
technical data of the infrastructure, the argument of confidentiality for system security rea-
sons may be considered with some doubt as in the UK the relevant data is publicly disclosed
on a webpage of the system operator.6 However, some raise the aspect of economical sensi-
tivity concerning historical feed-in time series of power plants which could be used to calcu-
late ex-post historic revenues of power producers. As with the former reasoning (confiden-
tiality for system security reasons), this latter one can be relaxed: historic producer time
series are not likely to be of very high importance in the process of energy system planning
and historical load data at transformer stations might be everything but commercially sensi-
tive.

1.3.1 EU-level: absence of detailed, transparent data

Little progress has been observed over the past years at the European level: network and
electricity sector data was made available by ENTSO-E, the body representing the (currently
42) transmission system operators, to an audience of experts who were given access to net-
work data (topology, impedances, and transformers). The data format has changed over

6 This includes (i) detailed data of existing generation plants, including reactive power capabilities and (ii) detailed infor-
mation of the existing transmission network, including the assets of all owning companies as well as the geographic shape
files with detailed information on line, cable, and substation locations by one owning company (National Grid, 2013).

4
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

time, it is currently provided in the CIM (Common Information Model XML format; IEC
61970). In the current dataset provided in the ENTSO-E Study Model (STUM), substations are
assigned to countries but do not have any clear text names, because ENTSO-Es System De-
velopment Committee had decided to not disclose this information. This makes the data
virtually useless. Additional to the static network data, which also includes aggregate infor-
mation on generation, STUM contains a solution to flows, transformer tappings, and genera-
tion levels for a single hour. In earlier versions, the data provided within STUM could be
matched to existing node names as the node identifiers could be used to guess the real
name. Such an exercise was performed by Neuhoff et al. (2011).

A similar situation prevails with respect to the data basis of the European energy systems
models, which are used for longer-term energy, transport, and climate scenarios. PRIMES,
one of the models most commonly used, i.e. in contract work for the European Commission,
is not well documented with respect to its theoretical structure; none of the basic data nor
any code is available to the contractors of the model (mainly DG Ener, DG Move, and DG
Clima), let alone the interested public.

1.3.2 National level: the United Kingdom as the positive exception from the rule

In general, at the level of the Member States, and similar to the situation at the European
level, very little data is publicly available that would enable external modelers to catch up to
the knowledge advantage TSOs in their central role do presumably have. This is the case, for
example, in Germany, even though recent developments in the German electricity legislation
have improved the availability of systematic datasets for at least some key data of the elec-
tricity sector: Since the 2011 amendment of the national energy legislation, especially with
respect to the network planning procedure it is now possible for third parties to access plan-
ning data used by the TSOs for their network planning. This especially relates to network
data, including impedances and transformers. However, access to the data is granted solely
under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), whose restrictions ( 12f, Energiewirtschaftsgesetz
2011) prohibit to consider this arrangement anyhow related to public disclosure of relevant
planning data (Weber et al., 2013). Apart from this, assumptions on primary energy prices,
power plant de- and commissioning, and expected renewables deployment are subject to a
publicly debated scenario framework (50Hertz et al., 2013a) which is publicly available (see

5
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

below Section 2). Recent studies use the above mentioned data to contribute to a public
debate on necessity and reasonable forms of national grid expansion, and what is more,
national energy system planning (e.g., Agora Energiewende and BET Aachen, 2013). Yet, the
combination of publically available datasets with own assumptions (expert guesses) and
private data results in non-transparent model inputs and thus makes it difficult to compare
results and to determine their main drivers.

A very notable exception to the rule is Great Britain (i.e. UK except Northern Ireland) where
indicative transmission planning is carried out by the system operator, National Grid, within
the so-called ETYS (Electricity Ten-Year Statement) process. It is notable that detailed tech-
nical planning data is publicly provided and freely accessible via a webpage (National Grid,
2012). This data is:

Data on existing and planned generation plants (technology, rated power, and con-
necting network node);
detailed data on the existing GB transmission network (i.e. including the assets of all
three owning companies: NGET, SPT, SHETL):
o A full connection scheme of the GB transmission grid, including substations,
line resistances, impedances, and rated power values;
o transformer ratings (including impedances, without tappings);
o and information on reactive compensation equipment and respective capabil-
ities;
data on electricity load is available on an hourly basis from National Grids website.
The data includes national net demand, pumping, and imports/exports per intercon-
nector.

Further to that, NGET provides geographic shape files with detailed information on line,
cable, and substation locations (National Grid, 2013). Better data, especially on generation,
and spatial distribution on load would improve the situation even more, yet the overall sta-
tus can be judged satisfactory, and an encouragement for other countries to move into the
same direction.

6
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

1.4 A New Momentum and the Objectives of this Data Documentation

Two developments have brought some momentum into the data issue recently:

Industry, policymakers, other stakeholders, and the interested public have realized
the importance of independent modeling of the political and business decision mak-
ing process, and have become increasingly critical upon the underlying data quality,
and in some (rare) instances even open for the exchange/reveal of transparent data.
Advances in information technology and the internet have made the publication and
dissemination of large amounts of data easier. Thus, all network planning procedures
at the European level, e.g. ENTSO-Es 10-year network development plan (TYNDP)
and at the national level (e.g. in the UK, Germany, and elsewhere) can now be easily
presented to a large audience (see ENTSO-E, 2010, 2012, BNetzA Netzenwicklung-
splan 2012);
academic standards vis--vis the transparency and quality of data used in scientific
publications have increased. Previously based on gentlemen agreements between
good friends, the publication of used data, their sources, and proof of plausibility
have been institutionalized in the profession recently. Thus, the Ethical code for ap-
propriate scientific behavior for economists set out by the Verein fr Socialpoli-
tik (VfS, 2012) for German speaking economists, requires, amongst other things, that
research be transparent and replicable, and that data, source code, and results be
made publicly available; the disclosure policy of the American Economic Association
stresses the same things (AEA, 2012).

Seizing this new momentum, the objective of this Data Documentation is to provide insights
into the public availability of data sources used for electricity market and transmission net-
work modeling of the German and European power system, and thus to advance both the
level of discussion, and the transparency of contributions, both to academic research and
the policy and business community. The data gathered in this exercise refers to electricity
generation, load data, the high-voltage transmission infrastructure, and price data. It is
mainly used in modeling exercises using the ELMOD framework, an Electricity MODel devel-
oped initially at TU Dresden by Leuthold et al. (2008) and Leuthold et al. (2012) and con-
stantly developed since in the context of engineering-economic electricity market research,

7
Data Documentation 72
1 Introduction

led by Weigt et al. (2010), Abrell and Weigt (2011), Kunz and Zerrahn (2013), and Egerer et
al. (2013).

This Data Documentation is structured along the technical elements of the electricity sector
and contains all stages of the value-added chain including generation, transmission, and
consumption of electricity. After this introduction, Section 2 focusses on the data and an
application in Germany, whereas Section 3 covers European issues in the same manner;
Section 4 concludes.

8
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2 Germany
2.1 Electricity Data

2.1.1 Data sources

Obligations for data publication by German TSOs are defined within 17 I of the Stromnetz-
zugangsverordnung - StromNZV (Deutscher Bundestag, 2005). The data has to be published
at least on the internet and includes hourly vertical load, annual peak load and quarter-
hourly load measurement, network losses, quarter-hourly balance of the control area and
called minute reserve, quarter-hourly exchange flow aggregated for each cross-border ex-
change point with outlook on power allocation, outages, planned revisions of the network
which are relevant for the market, quantities and prices of lost energy, and data on project-
ed and actual wind feed-in. Rising concerns on security of supply led to monitoring of power
plant capacities on plant (and block) level by the German regulator. The data is frequently
updated and available for download on the website of BNetzA (2013).

Full transparency and traceability as main objectives of this Data Documentation allow only
the use of open data sources. Thus, the sources include a limited number of publications by
different institutions, organizations, associations, exchanges, and companies which are pub-
licly available (Table 1). Commercial datasets (e.g. on power plants), information only availa-
ble under non-disclosure agreements (e.g. on network data), and references for individual
infrastructure objects are not considered. We provide parameters of our dataset in the ap-
pendix.

9
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Table 1: Public data sources

Institution Type of data

ENTSO-E - Time series on:

German load data (hourly)
Cross-border flows (Baltic cable)
TSOs - Transmission network map
(50Hertz, Amprion, TenneT, and - Generation capacities in the renewable sup-
TransnetBW) port scheme (with ZIP code)
- Time series on:
Renewable generation output (15min)
Cross-border flows (15min)
German regulator - Generation capacities (with address)
(BNetzA) Conventional power plants (block level)
Renewable (>10 MW), rest as aggregation
Energy exchange - Price data:
(EEX) Emission allowances for carbon
Day-ahead market prices for electricity
Association - Price data:
(Statistik der Kohlenwirtschaft e.V.) Natural gas, hard coal, and fuel oil
Association - Load statistics for 2012
(AG Energiebilanzen e.V.) - Generation statistics by fuel for 2012

Aerial Imagery / Other - Geographic information on:

Power plants
Transformer stations
Transmission lines

10
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.1.2 Spatial electricity infrastructure data

The dataset combines information on infrastructure, operational data, resource prices, as

well as CO2 allowance and electricity prices for the German electricity sector in the base year
of 2012. The parameters on infrastructure are fixed for the base year and consist of the high-
voltage transmission network, conventional as well as renewable generation capacities, and
the spatial distribution of electricity load. Neither investments nor investment costs are
considered in this Data Documentation. 7 Time dependent parameters are discussed in the
consecutive Section 2.1.3.

On the spatial level exact geographic data is collected for all relevant infrastructures. This
allows a representation of different market designs, e.g. nodal pricing or an aggregation to
zonal or even to uniform pricing representing the current design (Table 2).

Table 2: Spatial aggregation levels of electricity system data

Nodal pricing Zonal pricing Uniform pricing

Individual DENA zones Federal states

Source: Own depiction based on VDE (2010), OpenStreetMap contributors (2013), Dena (2010).

2.1.2.1 High-voltage transmission network

As of today, there is no open platform which combines all relevant data of the German
transmission network for spatial electricity network models. Necessary information compris-
es data on transformer stations, the topology of the transmission network, and technical
information for each individual transmission circuit.

7 For PV and onshore wind power monthly capacity data is considered in the dataset. Schrder et al. (2012) provide a

detailed analysis on fixed and variable cost components in electricity generation as well as their development over time.

11
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

In our network topology (Figure 4) we combine information from different public sources on
the German high-voltage transmission network (Table 3). The topology consists of network
nodes (transformer stations) connected by transmission lines (individual circuits). 8 Each line
has one start and end node, its line length, and its voltage level. With the focus on Germany,
the principle source for the topology is the map of the German transmission network (VDE,
2013) which is more detailed compared to the European map of the interconnected network
of Continental Europe (ENTSO-E, 2013a). While being a good starting point for a detailed
representation, the VDE map contains some topology errors and is only schematic. It does
not provide exact geographic and topology information for individual circuits and transform-
er stations. Thus, we apply additional sources for geo-referenced data and for topology in-
formation (OpenStreetMap contributors (2013) and Table 3).

However, for two TSOs (Amprion and TransnetBW) topology data is rare and there are limi-
tations to the digitalization of stylized network maps. On some network elements, several
data sources exist that include partially opposing information. Thus, subjective decisions on
the network topology in several parts of the network needed to be done.

Figure 3: Transmission network map for Germany and Europe

Source: VDE (2013), ENTSO-E (2013).

8 In some cases network nodes are auxiliary nodes at direct line crossings. The dataset consists of the network nodes and

transmission lines for the voltage levels of 220 kV and 380 kV.

12
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Table 3: Information on TSO network data

50Hertz Amprion TenneT TransnetBW

Network topology map No map available

(TenneT, 2013a)
(50Hertz, 2013a)

(Amprion, 2013a)

Information content Topology with individu- Topology but no indi- Topology with individu- No data
al nodes and circuits. vidual circuits and sim- al nodes and circuits.
plified representation.

Other sources Historic network flows Amprion grid map with

and thermal line capaci- individual circuits
ty (50Hertz, 2013a). (Joost, 2013).

13
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Figure 4: The German high-voltage electricity transmission system in 2012

Source: Own depiction based on VDE (2010), OpenStreetMap contributors (2013), 50Hertz (2013a), TenneT
(2013a), and Joost (2013).

14
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Our topology for 2012 (Figure 4, Table 4) includes 438 nodes (393 in Germany, 22 in neigh-
boring countries, and 23 auxiliary nodes where two lines are linked without a transformer
station), and 938 transmission lines. The network nodes are important for the spatial alloca-
tion of load and individual power plant blocks. 220 kV and 380 kV transformer stations in
close proximity are condensed to one node. The voltage level of 220 kV includes slightly
more of the circuits compared to the 380 kV level.

The topology information of the transmission lines contains one start and one end node.
Knowing the voltage level and the line length we determine the physical line properties of
each circuit in the network by assumptions on specific technical parameters for overhead
power lines (Table 5). While 50Hertz (2013a) provides information on the capacity of its
transmission lines, this Data Documentation, in order to adhere to data consistency, applies
the technical assumptions to the entire transmission network.

The dataset with individual circuits allows for a detailed analysis of the n-1 criterion or of
topology switching. In more general modeling exercises, the n-1 criterion can be approxi-
mated by the limitation of network flows on each line with a transmission reliability margin
(e.g. 20% of line capacity). 9

Table 4: Quantitative network statistics

220 kV 380 kV Total
Nodes 289 246 439
Circuits 496 453 949
Source: Own calculations.

9 In addition to topology, the publication of further technical data on individual circuits and transformer stations
would allow a more transparent analysis of the German transmission system. One example is the upgrade of
existing corridors with high-temperature cables, which is on top of the agenda in the network development plans.
Yet related parameters are not publically available for the German transmission system on individual lines. This
leads to non-transparent assumptions or the usage of private knowledge for any studies supporting or criticizing
the benefit of high temperature cables in network planning. Consequently, not one of these studies could possibly
claim transparency.

15
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Table 5: Technical line characteristics

Voltage Specific resistance Specific reactance Thermal transmis-
[kV] [Ohm /km] [Ohm /km] sion limit [MVA]

220 0.075 0.40 490

380 0.029 0.33 1,700
Source: Kieling et al. (2001).

2.1.2.2 Electrical load

The dataset uses national demand data from ENTSO-E with a simple linear scaling factor to
557.9 TWh in 2012.10 While four time series are available by the German TSOs the datasets
are difficult to apply in terms of distributed generation and accuracy of data measured at the
connection points to the distribution network by TSOs in the high-voltage network. Yet, a
more detailed analysis of existing demand data, its discussion concerning distributed genera-
tion, network losses, pumped-storage demand, and spatial aggregation would be valuable.

In this work, the spatial allocation of the German electricity load is conducted using several
sources. Firstly, we use the lowest and highest load on federal state level (Figure 6a) to dis-
tribute load. The load share of national demand differs greatly between the two extreme
load levels for the federal states (Figure 5). Assuming full correlation between load and spa-
tial load shares, the load share is calculated with a linear interpolation between the two
extreme load levels for every federal state and every hour. 11

Secondly, for each NUTS-3 zone within one federal state a weighted load share is calculated
for the lowest and highest load case based on information on the zones GDP and population
(Eurostat, 2013a, 2013b). The allocation of load shares is illustrated in Figure 6b.

10 Regarding the applied linear factor, section 3.4.3 in the Netzentwicklungsplan 2012 (50Hertz et al., 2012a)

discusses more sophisticated methods to scale demand profiles. In the Netzentwicklungsplan 2013 (50Hertz et
al., 2013b) nodal demand profiles measured by TSOs in 2007 are scaled and applied in the calculation. However
this data is not publicly available.
11 We have to make the assumption of perfect correlation between the lowest/highest load levels in all federal states due
to the lack of open data.

16
DataDocumentation 72
2Germany

Thirdly,asmultiplenodesmaybepresentinoneNUTS3zoneorzonesmaycontainnonode
atall,wecalculatetheloaddistributionfromtheNUTSzonestothenodallevelbasedonthe
weighteddistancefromnodestotheNUTSzonescenterpointbytheformula

,
_
,

IntheallocationonlyacertainnumberoftheclosestnodesareconsideredforeachNUTS
zone.12Thecalculationdeterminesadistancerelateddistributionbutpreventsextremeload
sharesonnodesveryclosetothegeometriccenterofonezone.Finally,itresultsinaper
centageofthetotalGermanelectricityloadforeachnodeforthelowestandhighestload
states (Figure 6c). The final nodal load shares can then be adjusted by linear interpolation
between the two extreme points. The values are calculated according to the respective
hourlysystemloadinrelationtothelowestandhighestloadlevelinthedataset.

Factorsfromlowesttohighestload Regionalshares
4.00 100%
South: South:
3.00 80% 26% 29%
East:14%
60% East:15%
2.00

1.00 40% West:45% West:38%

0.00 20%
North: North:
NI

RP
HB

SH
MV

NW

BB
SN

BW
HE

BE
HH

ST

BY
SL

TH

15% 17%
0%
Lowestload Highestload
North West East South

Figure5:Allocationonfederalstatesforstateoflowestandhighestload
Source:50Hertzetal.(2013c),owncalculation.

12Weusethefollowingparameters:AllocationofeachNUTS3loadtothetenclosestnodesandaweightof0.3.

17
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

a) Federal states [GW] b) NUTS-3 c) Nodes

L
O
W
E
S
T

L
O
A
D

H
I
G
E
S
T

L
O
A
D

Figure 6: Stages of spatial load allocation

Source: Own depictions with input from 50Hertz et al. (2013c) and Eurostat (2013a, 2013b).

The hourly load data for Germany is built upon ENTSO-E (2013b) consumption data
(469.6 TWh). In early 2013, only estimated data on net electricity demand was available
(BDEW, 2013a) with 526.6 TWh for 2012 (Table 6). In general, the reported statistics are
often non-transparent in regard to electricity that is used for own consumption. The BDEW
numbers do not differentiate by that at all. The BNetzA numbers explicitly state 32.8 TWh
for this type of supply but overall net electricity generation is 15.3 TWh lower than the
BDEW numbers (576.6 TWh instead of 591.9 TWh).

In the dataset the annual demand builds on the BNetzA numbers. By backward calculation
from net electricity generation we arrive at 550.9 TWh for 2012. This figure assumes
576.6 TWh in net generation; a trade surplus of 15.4 TWh (chapter 2.1.3.2) as well as

18
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

pumped storage demand (10.3 TWh) is subtracted. Exports and imports are considered sep-
arately from demand by being added to the respective nodes and pumped storage is mod-
eled endogenously. Network losses and other non-accountable demand (not modeled en-
dogenously) remain within the demand value.

As the ENTSO-E consumption data does not include the countrys entire net electricity de-
mand, it is scaled up to 550.9 TWh. Thus, we add a fixed load block to all hours for one third
of the increase while the other two thirds are put on top of the load by a fixed relative factor
(results in peak load of 86.0 GW).

Additional sources, not considered in the calculation of nodal load shares, are the aggregat-
ed time series on load which are provided by each TSO for its own control zone. Historical
load data, broken down to individual network nodes, is applied in the German network de-
velopment plan 2013 but not available as open data (50Hertz et al., 2013b).

Table 6: Calculation of gross and net electricity generation and demand of 2012
[TWh] AGEB 03/20131 BDEW 12/20132 BNetzA 12/20133
Gross electricity generation 617.6 - -
Own demand power plants -35.1 - -
Net electricity generation 582.5 591.9 576.6
Delta electricity trade 23.1 - 21.7
Net domestic supply 559.4 - 554.9
Network losses / other 24.6 - 23.4
Net electricity demand 534.8 - 531.5
Pumped storage 8.2 - 10.3
1 2 3
Source: AG Energiebilanzen e.V. (2013a) p.30, BDEW (2013b), and BNetzA and Bundeskartellamt (2013).

19
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Manual adjustments of the load allocation

Network map Description
The high-voltage network has only one 220 kV line (two
circuits with 392 MW each) between Lbeck and Hamburg.
It connects Lbeck (three nodes with about 400 MW of load
at peak load) and the Baltic cable to Sweden (capacity of
st
600 MW). In 2012, in the week starting February 1 at 9
a.m. the model data results in insufficient load of up to
125 MW in 51 hours. This week combines high load and
rarely observed exports to Sweden at full capacity.
The transmission system is not capable to supply 1,000 MW
to Lbeck and there is no conventional and only limited
renewable local generation capacity. What is not considered
in the dataset is the transmission system on 110 kV which
has three connections from Lbeck (to Audorf, Hamburg,
and Krmmel). By itself it is capable to supply the load of
Lbeck so we assume that half of the load of the three
nodes in Lbeck is allocated to the nodes Audorf (30%),
Hamburg-Nord TenneT (40%), and Krmmel (30%).

The second adjustment relates to the 220 kV transmission

line from southern Germany to Austria (two circuits with
392 MW each). The load at the network node Oberbrunn
(peak load of 534 MW) cannot be supplied in about 30 hours
in January and February in 2012. The combination of export
flows on the line towards Austria together with the load
level of a node in the 220 kV system causes the insufficient
local electricity supply.
Again the dataset does not consider the grid system on
110 kV level. It connects large regions to Oberbrunn but also
to other network nodes. We assume therefore that half of
the load from Oberbrunn is instead allocated to the network
node Oberbachern.

Sources: Own illustration based on TenneT (2013a) and OpenStreetMap contributors (2013).

2.1.2.3 Generation capacity

The general data availability for power plants has improved with the data collection by the
German regulator (BNetzA, 2013a) and the publication of plant data of the renewable sup-
port scheme. As highlighted before, the focus of this chapter is a transparent dataset for the

20
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

German electricity system based on open data. Concretely, two developments in Germany
have improved open data availability on power plants in the last years:

i) The German regulator initiated a list with block specific information on genera-
tion infrastructure feeding into the German transmission network (BNetzA,
2013a). The main reasons have been more transparency in the German network
development plan and the security of supply considerations after the second
German nuclear phase-out decision following the partial meltdowns in the nucle-
ar reactors of Fukushima;
ii) the German TSOs collect spatial data (ZIP codes) on all installations which are in
the renewable support scheme (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), Deutscher
Bundestag, 2011). While also updating on a sub-annual level, the TSOs publish a
final national dataset for the previous year in late summer (50Hertz et al., 2013c).

Non-EEG generation capacity

Comparing the two datasets, the EEG dataset includes spatial information (ZIP codes) for all
EEG installations whereas the BNetzA dataset aggregates renewable installations of less than
10 MW on a state level. Therefore, only non-EEG capacity with spatial information is being
processed from the BNetzA list, while the larger share of EEG capacity has no spatial infor-
mation included (Figure 7).

In a first step, from the regulators list of 16th November 2013 (i) only the power plant blocks
a) marked in operation and b) built at the latest in 2012 and shut down after 2012 are con-
sidered. This results in a data sample of 178,182 MW (out of the 186,579 MW in the BNetzA
list). When neglecting the EEG capacity (76,165 MW), the remaining data 13 consists of
98,544 MW with spatial information (whereof 4,395 MW are not located in Germany but
feed into the German system) and 3,473 MW in capacity aggregated by technology without

13 The Appendix shows the resulting power plant data on block level. It distinguishes in conventional power plants feeding
directly into the 220 and 380 kV system (Table 28), conventional power plants connected to lower voltage levels (Table 29),
pumped storage power stations (Table 31), renewable power plants (Table 31), and cross-border capacity (Table 32).

21
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

spatial information (Table 7). The technology with the largest share of capacity without spa-
tial information is natural gas (2,124 MW).

Figure 7: BNetzA data with capacity regarding spatial information and the EEG
Source: Own illustration based on BNetzA (2013a).

Table 7: Spatial and non-spatial capacity in the BNetzA list (and not in the EEG)
Spatial capacity Non-spatial capacity Share of non-spatial
[MW] [MW] [%]
Gas CCGT / GT-ST-CB 7,500 / 12,898 *0 / 2,124 (w/o CCGT) 16.47%
Other 2,474 474 16.09%
Oil 3,833 239 5.87%
Run of river 1,821 224 10.97%
Waste 1,452 95 6.16%
Reservoirs 153 83 35.15%
Lignite 20,990 48 0.23%
Coal 24,671 25 0.10%
PSP 7,286 2 0.02%
Biomass 99 0 0.08%
Other renewables 0 159 N/A
Source: Own calculation based on BNetzA (2013a) and *own assumption.

22
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

The number of conventional power plants (375) and power plant blocks (559) from the
BNetzA list in our dataset and their relation to installed capacity is illustrated in Figure 8.
Additional sources available like the power plant list of the scenario framework for the Ger-
man network development plan (50Hertz et al., 2012b), commercial power plant databases
(e.g. Platts, 2013), information from large generation companies and other additional
sources are not included to keep the data as transparent and tractable as possible. The in-
formation regarding the location of the power plants (Figure 11) is collected from the ad-
dress in the regulators power plant list which in some cases is adjusted by aerial imagery
(Google, 2013; Microsoft Corporation, 2013) and provides the basis for additional spatial
aggregation.

Table 8: Efficiency values based on installation year and fixed growth rates
[%] Uranium Lignite Coal Natural gas Fuel oil
Year ST ST ST CCGT CB ST GT CB ST GT
1950 - 28.0 30.0 - - 33.0 25.0 - 33.0 25.0
1960 33.0 30.4 32.5 - - 34.1 27.6 - 34.1 27.6
1970 33.0 32.8 35.0 - 40.0 35.2 30.2 40.0 35.2 30.2
1980 33.0 35.2 37.5 45.0 41.4 36.3 32.8 41.4 36.3 32.8
1990 33.0 37.6 40.0 49.5 42.8 37.4 35.4 42.8 37.4 35.4
2000 33.0 40.0 42.5 54.0 44.2 38.5 38.0 44.2 38.5 38.0
2010 33.0 42.4 45.0 58.5 45.6 39.6 40.6 45.6 39.6 40.6
2020 33.0 44.8 47.5 63.0 47.0 40.7 43.2 47.0 40.7 43.2
Source: Own assumptions.

Our dataset differentiates into combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT), steam turbines (ST),
open cycle gas turbines (GT) and combi-block systems of steam and gas turbines (CB). The
fuels are differentiated into uranium, lignite, hard coal, natural gas, oil, waste and other
fuels. The efficiency of each power plant block is approximated by linear formulas based on
the fuel/technology and the year of first operation (Table 8). Nuclear power plants are as-
sumed to have an efficiency of 33% (EURELECTRIC and VGB PowerTech e.V., 2003). For
waste and other technologies, considered as must-run, the efficiency value is neglected. For

23
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

hydro pumped-storage plants, (PSP) assumptions on the storage size are added (Table 31)
and the value 0.75 is used for the cycle efficiency. 14

Number of power plants Capacity of power plants [MW]

21 19 91 3.571
29 4.054
P
L
37.071 20.015
A
87
N 161
T
S

58 21.084

33 11 37 208 5.571
14.168 7.117
B
L
138
O
C
238
K 23.222
S 35.600
102

Figure 8: Comparison of number and capacity of conventional power plants 15

Source: BNetzA (2013a) and Table 28 to Table 31.

14 Additional information on technical parameters of the conventional power plants would still be very useful. They include
efficiency values and turbine types (at least the information whether it is a gas, steam, or combined cycle turbine) and
additional aspects like minimum generation level and must-run constraints. The availability factors of conventional power
plants could be derived by the status reports of outages to transparency platforms. While technical outages can only be
applied to represent a historic situation, the data also gives insight in the seasonal scheduling of revisions. Thus, our crude
assumption on seasonal availability of conventional power plants could be replaced by more educated estimates.
15 The presented figure includes all power plants of the BNetzA list with spatial information that are not included in the EEG

data and excludes PSP, hydropower, and biomass plants.

24
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

EEG generation capacity

1. Capacities per ZIP code 2. Allocate ZIP areas to nodes 3. Table: Capacity per node
Allocate the renewable Application of Voronoi polygons Aggregation of ZIP code
capacities per technology for 220/380 kV nodes in QGis shares per node to capacity
by ZIP code. and cut layers. table (Figure 12).

Node_ID Tech Capacity

Figure 9: Data processing for renewable capacities in the EEG dataset

The largest remaining share of renewable generation capacity is included in the EEG dataset,
which requires reporting of all installations in the scheme. We use the database (EEG-
Anlagenstammdaten) with the cutoff date of 31.12.2012 (50Hertz et al., 2013c) and trans-

25
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

form the source data to an aggregated installed capacity for each ZIP code and technology. 16
This generation capacity is then connected to the closest transformer station of the high-
voltage transmission network (Figure 9). Some hydropower and biomass plants outside the
support scheme are included in the BNetzA list as individual power plants (Figure 7 and Ta-
ble 31). Renewable fuels (and technologies) are biomass (ST), hydropower (RoR/Res), solar
radiation (PV), wind power (On/Off), and geothermal (ST). Wind power is differentiated into
onshore (On) and offshore (Off) wind and renewable hydropower into run-of-river (RoR) and
reservoirs (RES).

Exception for the allocation of large-scale onshore wind in the north of Germany
Map of northern Germany Description

The map shows the Voronoi polygons for

each network node, the allocation of renew-
able generation on ZIP code areas, the high-
voltage nodes (four red dots), and the
110 kV network. The allocation of EEG data
locates almost 2 GW (68% wind, 25% PV,
and 7% biomass) to the most northern net-
work node in Germany (red dot close to
Denmark). Yet only two 220 kV circuits in
both directions connect the node.

Considering the western location of most capacity (larger red circles) and the topology of the
110 kV lines it is likely that a significant share is transported in the 110 kV network to other
connection points. Therefore we assume that 60% of the capacity is connected to the three
other transformer stations on the map (40% center station and two times 10% percent to
southern stations).

16 The German renewable support scheme requires a data set (the so-called Anlagenstammdaten) with information on all
installations. This data is published on a monthly basis by the TSOs and a final annual data set is prepared on an additional
online platform (50Hertz et al., 2013c).

26
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

The consecutive pages provide a graphical representation of the processed generation ca-
pacities:

Figure 10 illustrates the aggregated renewable and conventional generation capacity

on a state level and for DENA zones;
a disaggregation to the nodal level is presented for conventional (Figure 11) and re-
newable (Figure 12) capacities;
statistics for all technologies aggregated to different levels are included in the Ap-
pendix (Table 26 and Table 27).

27
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

By state By DENA zone Legend

By state By DENA zone Legend

Figure 10: Aggregated renewable and conventional generation capacities17

17 Aggregation by location of the plants for states and by location of the network node for DENA zones.

28
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Figure 11: Conventional generation capacity on a nodal level

Source: Own illustration based on Figure 4, BNetzA (2013a), and collection of geo-data.

29
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Figure 12: Renewable generation capacity on a nodal level

Source: Own illustration based on Figure 4, BNetzA (2013a), 50Hertz et al. (2013a), and collection of geo-data.

30
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.1.2.4 Electricity sector data for Luxemburg

The transmission system of Luxemburg is operated within the German system and cross-
border flows are neither reported by the TSOs nor by ENTSO-E. Thus, the data for Luxem-
burg is referenced in this documentation. Depending on the application it can be reasonable
to include the country into a model representing the German market. The data on Luxem-
burg has two additional nodes in the topology of the 220 kV network and two cross-border
lines with Germany.

The hourly load for 2012 is available at ENTSO-E (2013b) and adds up to 6,327 MWh/year.
We assume that the hourly values are allocated with 20% to the northern node (Flebour)
and 80% to the southern node (Heisdorf) due to the higher concentration of population in
the south. A generation capacity of 1,640 MW is considered (Table 9). The hydro pumped-
storage plant Vianden (1,100 MW) which is connected to two 220 kV transformer stations in
Germany together with the CCGT plant Esch-sur-alzette (375 MW) have the largest share.
For the availability of wind and PV the availability factors of the closest region in Germany
are applied.

Table 9: Information on power plants in Luxemburg included in the dataset18

Source Power plant Type Capacity Year Node
Technology [MW]

* Vianden Hydro PSP 1,100 See Table 32

** Esch-sur-alzette Gas CC 376 2002 Heisdorf
*** Sidor Waste ST 17 1985 Heisdorf
Wind aggregation Wind onshore 45 -
PV aggregation Solar PV 41 - in Heisdorf
****
Hydro aggregation Hydro RoR 32 - in Flebour
Gas aggregation Gas GT 29 1990

18 Sources: *BNetzA (2013a), **Enipedia (2013a) and Power Plants Around the World (2013), ***Enipedia (2013b),

****Eurostat (2013b).

31
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.1.3 Time dependent electricity data

2.1.3.1 Generation cost

The variable costs of electricity generation are calculated for each power plant block from
several parameters (Table 10):

Resource price of the respective fuel (annual average and monthly price data);
allowance price for carbon emissions (annual average and daily price data);
efficiency value specific to the power plant block (Table 8);
carbon intensity of the fuel;
optional: variable costs for operation and maintenance (O&M).

The fuel costs are derived from the resource price (incl. 28.12 EUR/t SKE tax for fuel oil)
divided by the efficiency value. For each carbon-based fuel we consider a carbon factor. The
emission costs on net generation are calculated using the carbon factor divided by the effi-
ciency value of the specific power plant block and are factored in with the emission allow-
ance price. O&M costs could be considered but are often neglected in electricity market
models because of the difficulty to distinguish between fixed and variable components. For
power plants fired by hard coal fuel transportation costs are approximated depending on the
plants location (aggregated by DENA zone). The transportation costs are measured in
EUR/t SKE and the values used in the fuel cost calculations are illustrated in Figure 13.

Table 10: Annual price data for 2012 and carbon intensity

Price data O&M** Carbon factor

[EUR/t SKE] [EUR/MWhth] [EUR/MWhel] [t CO2/MWh]

Uranium (estimate) - 3.00 8.00 -

Lignite (estimate) - 4.00 7.00 0.4000
Hard coal 93.00* 11.42 6.00 0.3600
Natural gas 264.00* 32.43 3.00 - 4.00 0.1872
Heavy fuel oil 422.12* 48.40 3.00 0.2664

Emission allowances 7.94 EUR/t CO2

Source: *Statistik der Kohlenwirtschaft e.V. (2013), **Schrder et al. (2012).

32
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Study Assumption on DENA zones (EUR/t SKE)

Figure 13: Spatial shipping costs for hard coal

Source: Frontier Economics and Consentec (2008).

The resulting merit order is illustrated in Figure 14. It includes all generation capacity of
renewables and waste with the assumption of zero marginal costs.

[EUR/MWh]
200 Hydro
180 Wind onshore
160 Wind offshore
140 PV
Geothermal
120
Biomass
100 Other
80 Waste
60 Nuclear
40 Lignite
20 Coal
0 Gas
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 Oil

Figure 14: Merit order for the German electricity market with all capacities in 2012
Source: Own illustration.

33
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Monthly data is available for fuel prices on hard coal, natural gas, and fuel oil. Figure 15
illustrates the significant price changes in 2012 between the highest and lowest monthly
price of about 15% for hard coal, 5% for natural gas, and 24% for fuel oil. The yearly price
assumption for uranium (3.00 EUR/MWh) and lignite (4.00 EUR/MWh) is not further speci-
fied, as no publically available data exists. Daily data is included for the allowance price of
carbon emissions (Figure 16).

[EUR/MWh]
60

50

40 Coal
30 Gas
Oil
20

10

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 15: Monthly hard coal, natural gas, and fuel oil prices in 2012
Source: Statistik der Kohlenwirtschaft e.V. (2013), own illustration.

[EUR/t CO2]
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 16: Daily futures price of 2013 emission allowances in 2012

Source: EEX (2013a), own illustration.

34
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.1.3.2 Cross-border exchange

German TSOs publish cross-border flows to their neighboring countries (50Hertz, 2013b;
Amprion, 2013b; TenneT, 2013b; TransnetBW, 2013a).19 The exchange flows with Sweden
on the HVDC interconnector (Baltic cable) are not reported by the TSOs. Here hourly ex-
change values by ENTSO-E (2013c) are applied. The published exchange data is available for
each TSO to the individual neighboring countries. It is therefore more detailed than the na-
tional ENTSO-E data but the statistics vary significantly.

The alternative to an exogenous trade parameter is an endogenous representation of the

dispatch for the neighboring countries. Yet, modeling several countries at this level of detail
would increase the model size and the data requirements significantly.

When fixed exogenously, the cross-border trade has to be included in the energy balance of
the respective cross-border node (Table 11) as an additional source of load (export) or sup-
ply (import). The allocation is either to the cross-border node in the neighboring country
(better network representation as cross-border lines are included, e.g. Laufenburg (CH) and
St.Peter (AT)) or to the cross-border node within the German borders (slight reduction of the
size of the dataset). Both options allow a realistic representation of physical exchange flows
for the reference year 2012.

Further assumptions on the regional allocation of the reported imports and exports by the
TSOs might become necessary. In case there is more than one cross-border network node
for one TSO and neighboring country, the data does not provide any information on the
distribution. The TSO 50Hertz is an exception as it publishes the cross-border flows in sepa-
rate time series for its four individual cross-border connectors. For the other TSOs the im-
port and export values are allocated to the network nodes according to the capacity of the
cross-border lines (Table 11).

The data published by the TSO TenneT misses 642 data points of 15 minutes (160.5 hours)
for every neighbor. The remaining data includes some data points with cross-border flows

19 The financial trade flow results from implicit auctions in a market design with national price zones. To consider realistic
physical flows in the nodal topology we have to use the reported physical flows measured for every 15 minutes. They
significantly deviate from the financial trade flows.

35
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

exceeding the physical line capacity by large amounts. These hours occur only at specific
days during the years. Thus we assume metering or reporting errors and limit the maximal
flow to the physical line capacity minus a transmission reliability margin. The annual physical
exchange flows in the dataset (except Luxemburg, which is endogenous to the model) are
illustrated in Figure 17 for each neighboring country and TSO. They sum up to a total in im-
ports of 35.6 TWh and exports of 51.0 TWh, leading to a surplus in exports of 15.4 TWh in
2012.

TWh/year
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
TransnetBW Imports TransnetBW Exports
TenneT Imports TenneT Exports
Amprion Imports Amprion Exports
50Hertz Imports 50Hertz Exports
Delta

Figure 17: Annual imports (-) and exports (+) toneighboring countries in 2012
Source: 50Hertz (2013b), Amprion (2013b), TenneT (2013b), TransnetBW (2013a), ENTSO-E (2013c).

36
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Table 11: Assumptions on flow allocation on the cross-border connections

TSO Country Node Node Type Capacity Share
Neighbor DE [MW] [%]
50Hertz Denmark Bjverskov Kontek DC 600 100
Poland Krajnik Vierraden 2x 220 kV 980 100
Poland Mikulowa Hagenwerder 2x 380 kV 3,400 100
Czech Rep. Hrader Rhrsdorf 2x 380 kV 3,400 100
Amprion Austria Westtirol Leupholz 1x 220 kV 490
50
1x 380 kV 1,700
Brs Herbertingen 1x 220 kV 490
50
Obermooweiler 1x 380 kv 1,700
France St.Avoid Ensdorf 1x 220 kV 490 13
Vigy Ensdorf 2x 380 kV 3,400 87
Hengolo Gronau 2x 380 kV 3,400 50
Netherlands
Maasbracht Oberzier 1x 380 kV 1,700
50
Siersdorf 1x 380 kV 1,700
Switzerland Laufenburg Khmoss 3x 380 kV 5,100
80
Tiengen 1x 380 kV 1,700
Beznau Tiengen 1x 380 kV 1,700 20
TenneT Austria St. Peter Pleinting 1x 220 kV 490
Altheim 1x 220 kV 490
60
Simbach 1x 220 kV 490
Pirach 1x 220 kV 490
Silz Krn 2x 220 kV 980 40
Czech Rep. Hradar Etzenricht 2x 380 kV 3,400 100
Denmark Node 220 kV Flensburg 2x 220 kV 980 22
Node 380 kV Audorf 2x 380 kV 3,400 78
Netherlands Meeden Diele 2x 380 kV 3,400 100
Sweden Kruseberg Herrenwyk DC 600 100
TransnetBW Austria Brs Herbertingen 1x 220 kV 490
100
Dellmensingen 1x 380 kV 1,700
France Muhlbach Eichstetten 2x 380 kV 3,400 50
Sierentz Laufenburg 2x 380 kV 3,400 50
Switzerland Asphard Khmoos 1x 380 kV 1,700
67
Eichstetten 1x 380 kV 1,700
Laufenburg Trossingen 1x 380 kV 1,700 33

37
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.1.3.3 Availability of generation capacity

Unplanned non-availabilities (e.g. outages) and planned downtimes (e.g. revisions) affect the
technical availability of conventional power plants. While unplanned outages are stochastic,
the timing of revisions is determined by economic rationale, i.e. the seasonality of electricity
load and market prices. In the current power system prices are lowest in the summer sea-
son. We therefore assume lower availability factors for nuclear and coal fired power stations
in the summer and higher factors in the winter season (Figure 18).

The constraint for waste plants is set to a flat 65% availability with zero marginal costs to
target the annual generation output. For technologies without specified fuel (e.g. steel
works) a must-run constraint at 52.6% of installed capacity (13.6 TWh/year) is imposed.

In the current version we do not discuss the highly relevant interrelation between electricity
and heat supply (district heat as well as heat and process steam for industrial consumers).
Many of the hard coal and gas-fired power plants operate in combined heat and power
(CHP) mode affecting the economic rationale. Yet the data requirements for implementing
regional heat markets and pinpointing industrial CHP complexes are high, both at the ana-
lyzed spatial and time disaggregation. 20

100%

80%

60% Nuclear
Fossil
40%
Waste
20%

0%
w01 w04 w07 w11 w14 w17 w21 w24 w28 w31 w34 w38 w41 w44 w48 w51

Figure 18: Availability factors for conventional power plants

Source: Own assumption.

20In addition, we are not aware of a promising public source which aggregates data, yet still provides sufficient information
on a plant level for all of Germany.

38
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

For renewable generation technologies, the German TSOs publish time series for solar and
wind feed-in on a quarter-hourly basis (Table 12). They can be allocated on a spatial level
according to installed generation capacity per technology and node. For PV and wind the
monthly capacity additions in 2012 have been considered by a factor on a national level for
the calculation of the availability factors. 21

Compared to the payments in the renewables support scheme (BMUB, 2013), the 2012 data
by TSOs is too low for wind (+4.5 TWh) and too high for PV (-1.7 TWh). To adjust the time
series for this deviation, we scale the data of wind and PV by a constant factor.

The availability factor for hydropower capacity is set to meet monthly generation levels in
2012 (BDEW, 2013c) putting them in a range between 60-80%. For biomass capacity the
availability factor is set to 64.26% (36 TWh in 2012). Though geothermal is almost negligible
we include it with a must-run constraint and an annual output of 25.4 GWh.

Table 12: TSO data sources for time series of solar and wind generation

Wind generation Photovoltaic generation

Onshore time series Single time series

50Hertz
(50Hertz, 2013c) (50Hertz, 2013d)
Onshore time series Single time series
Amprion
(Amprion, 2013c) (Amprion, 2013d)
Onshore / offshore time series Five time series by federal state
TenneT
(TenneT, 2013c) (TenneT, 2013d)
Onshore time series Single time series
TransnetBW
(TransnetBW, 2013b) (TransnetBW, 2013c)

21 An alternative to historic feed-in values is the application of weather data, e.g. time series for wind speeds on spatial
disaggregation.

39
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.2 Model Validation Generation and Transmission in Germany (2012)

2.2.1 Model formulation

The dataset on the German power system of the year 2012 (chapter 2.1) contains all neces-
sary information to run a DC load flow model on a nodal level for all 8,784 hours of this leap
year. The applied model is closely related to the ELMOD formulation (Leuthold et al., 2012).
An explanation of the equations, parameters, and variables is provided in the following.

Equations and explanatory text for the DC load flow model

min = ,, , (Eq. 1)

. .

, , , (Eq. 2)

, ,, ,, , (Eq. 3)

, , (Eq. 4)

, , (Eq. 5)

, , (Eq. 6)

, _ , + , = ,1 , (Eq. 7)

, + , = , + , + , + , , (Eq. 8)

, , (Eq. 9)

, + , (Eq. 10)

, = , , , (Eq. 11)

, = , , , (Eq. 12)

, = 0 , (Eq. 13)

40
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

The objective function (Eq. 1) minimizes total variable generation cost (generation () times
the plant specific variable costs () summed up over all plants blocks () and hours ()).

Power generation is bounded in the generation constraints (Eq. 2/3). Eq. 2 limits the hourly
generation of conventional power plant blocks to the installed capacity () multiplied
by an hourly availability factor (). Renewable output () is limited (Eq. 3) in each node
and hour by the sum over all renewable technologies () on their installed capacity at the
specific node () multiplied with their hourly availability factor ().

Pumped storage plants () are described in Eq. 4-7. Their installed capacity () limits
the variables for generation and pumping ( and ) in Eq. 4/5. Storage is also con-
strained (Eq. 6) in its energy content () by the storage level (). Eq. 7 defines the
interperiod constraints. The storage level of one hour () depends on the usage of the stor-
age, its cycle efficiency (_), and the level in the previous hour ( 1).

Network flows (including loop-flows) are implement with the DC load flow simplification
(Schweppe et al., 1988). The positive and negative capacity () constraints (Eq. 9/10) set
the lower and upper limits on the free variable line flow () for every line (). The flow is
also constrained (Eq. 11) by the sum over all nodes of the free variable flow angle ()
times the network transfer matrix (). The network transfer matrix reflects the physical
network characteristics. To enforce unique solutions for the flow angles, the value for
is zero for one reference node enforced by a slack parameter not equal to zero (Eq. 13).

The energy balance (Eq. 8) includes generation, demand, and the network in-/outflows
which depend (Eq. 12) on the flow angles and the physical network characteristics related
to nodes (B).

These additional constraints in the DC load flow approach provide a more restricted solu-
tion space than transport models. As the flow allocation on individual lines relies on the
entire network, line capacity might not be available in full extent due to constraint on other
lines in the network. All variables are defined as positive variables unless stated otherwise.

41
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.2.2 Model results and comparison to historic data

The aggregation to annual numbers combines the results of 53 model runs in steps of one
week. Every week relates to the time span from Saturday 0 a.m. to the following Friday mid-
night (168 hours per run). Pumped-storage reservoir levels are the only variables with in-
terperiod constraints for the 168 hours of one model run. Storage content is assumed zero in
the first and last hour of each run. The transmission reliability margin is set to 20% and quar-
ter-hourly values in the dataset are aggregated to hourly values.

2.2.2.1 Generation results

Preliminary statistics on the annual net generation mix for Germany in 2012 (Table 13) have
been significantly adjusted in the second half of 2013. Depending on the source the absolute
values vary between 576.6 TWh and 591.5 TWh. 22 The feed-in payments of the renewable
support scheme (BMUB, 2013) allowed for a more detailed picture on generated quantitities
than the preliminary estimates. The final values on wind output are 10% higher (50.5 TWh
instead of 46 TWh) while the numbers for PV are actually 6% lower than in the preliminary
estimates (26.4 TWh instead of 28.0 TWh). With the preliminary numbers being in range of
the data published by the German TSOs, the accuracy of the time series for wind and PV
must at least be questioned, because the discrepancies require adjustment of the quarter-
(hourly) availability factors to meet annual statistics (chapter 2.1.3.3).

For reasons of consistency we compare the model results to the numbers of the monitoring
report 2013 (BNetzA, 2013b) with a generation mix consisting of 437.7 TWh/year in conven-
tional and 138.9 TWh/year (24.1%) in renewable generation output. The discrepancy for
renewable generation is negligible for the three final sources with only small differences in
hydropower, wind, and PV generation. The higher conventional numbers (BDEW, 2013b) are
indicated in the results (Figure 19). The availability factors of renewable generation are ad-
justed to meet the annual level of the BMUB numbers and we assume lower surpluses in
electricity exports of just 15.4 TWh based on the TSO time series.

22 For the system statistics we compared published data by AG Energiebilanzen e.V. (2013a, 2013b), (BDEW, 2013a),
(BDEW, 2013b), (BMUB, 2013), and (BNetzA and Bundeskartellamt, 2013).

42
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Table 13: Net electricity generation by fuel of the German electricity sector in 2012
Generation in 2012 [TWh]
Fuel BDEW 03/131 Final BMUB2 Final BDEW3 Final BNetzA4
Nuclear 94.2 - 94.1 94.2
Lignite 146.3 - 148.6 141.5
Hard coal 108.4 - 106.5 108.0
Natural gas 67.9 - 73.4 66.0
Oil 7.9 - Incl. in other 4.6
Other fuels: 23.8 - 30.8 23.3
- Waste non-Res * 4.0 - - 3.7
- Pumped-storage 6.2 - - 8.9
- Other fuels * 13.6 - - 10.7
Conventional 448.5 - 453.4 437.7
- Waste Res ** 4.9 ** 4.9 Incl. in biom. 3.7
- Wind 46.0 50.507 50.3 50.6
- Onshore - 49.785 - 49.9
- Offshore - 0.722 - 0.7
- Photovoltaic 28.0 26.380 26.6 26.1
- Biomass * 34.9 ** 38.650 40.2 34.7
- Hydropower 21.2 21.793 21.3 21.9
- Geothermal 0.03 0.025 - -
- Other Res - - - 1.8
Renewables 134.1 138.7 137.7 138.9
Net generation 582.5 - 591.9 576.6
1 2 3 4
Source: BDEW (2013a), BMUB (2013), BDEW (2013b), BNetzA and Bundeskartellamt (2013), *own assump-
tion, and **gross values.

The model optimizes the operation of power plants towards the minimization of variable
generation costs. It considers the spatial distribution of demand, the available generation
capacity, as well as its variable generation cost, and the constraints imposed by the trans-

43
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

mission network. The aggregated results for the generation quantities (Figure 19) are close
to historic values (shaded bars indicate discrepancies in statistics of different sources).

Other generation: Matches historic value by must-run availability;

renewable and waste generation: The assumption of zero variable costs gives a
strong incentive not to spill the available generation. Still, 19 GWh of renewable gen-
eration and 1 GWh of waste generation are spilled due to network constraints;
nuclear power plants produce at the maximum capacity available. Their location at
major nodes close to demand prevents shutdowns due to network constraints;
lignite plants operate at the maximum of available capacity for most of the time. Yet,
in hours with high renewable penetration especially the lignite plants in the eastern
parts of Germany see some hours with reduced output (173 GWh);
Coal, gas, and oil fired generation: In the dataset, the marginal power plant can be
found in one of these technologies in the largest share of nodes and hours. Com-
pared to historic levels, the model results exaggerate production fuelled by hard coal
and does not use sufficient gas and oil power plants. CCGT (yellow bar in the gas
model results) provides most gas generation in the model results.

[TWh]
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
- M S - M S - M S - M S - M S - M S - M S - M S -
- Nuclear - Lignite - Coal - Gas - Oil - Waste - Other - RES -

Figure 19: Generation quantities: Model results (M) compared to statistics (S)

44
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.2.2.2 Price results

With the nodal aggregation of the model application, the assumptions on market design,
mainly the auctioning of scarce transmission capacity in the market dispatch, does not re-
flect the current uniform pricing scheme. In Germany only one common market price exists.
The market prices from the day-ahead market are available from EEX and serve as point of
reference for the model results.
The average hourly electricity price for Germany is calculated by nodal prices weighted by
the hourly nodal demand levels. The comparison to historic spot prices (EEX, 2013b) shows
model results with prices above the prices of the German day-ahead market for most hours.

The average price (equal weight per hour) is 58.90 EUR/MWh in the model application com-
pared to 42.59 EUR/MWh in historic prices (Figure 20).

In part, the missing valuation of heat generation causes higher electricity prices as model
results than experienced in 2012. Further price-relevant factors not considered are flexibil-
ity, uncertainty and the endogenous consideration of imports and exports.

[EUR/MWh]
250

200

150

100

50

0
t0001 t8774
Delta prices
-50 Historic prices
Model prices
-100
Figure 20: Price-duration curve with model results compared to historic price data
Source: Own depiction based on EEX (2013b) and own calculations.

45
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.2.2.3 Spatial results

The data on network operation and transmission flows are rare for most regions as the mar-
ket design integrates internal transmission capacity in the market dispatch. Public data by
TSOs is also very limited. BNetzA publishes aggregated information on re-dispatch measures
in its annual monitoring report (Figure 21). In addition the open data availability on network
flows is good for the TSO 50Hertz area. Historic network flows are available through an
online platform (50Hertz, 2013b) for every hour. A detailed comparison of model results for
individual transmission lines is not included within this Data Documentation.

The use of the model is not limited to the representation of a nodal pricing scheme. In addi-
tion, it can be used for uniform or zonal pricing calculations without a detailed consideration
of the transmission network. In those cases an evaluation of the uniform or zonal pricing
dispatch using the DC load flow approach shows possible violations of transmission line
capacities by physical flows. To reach a feasible solution, the optimal required adjustments
of the market result are calculated in a second step (Kunz, 2013; Neuhoff et al., 2013).

Figure 21: Network elements with more than 50 hours of re-dispatch measures
Source: BNetzA and Bundeskartellamt (2013), p.60.

46
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

This Data Documentation is limited to the nodal pricing application. We illustrate the de-
tailed model results on a spatial level for specific hours. Thereby we highlight the nodal bal-
ance between supply and demand, the nodal prices, and the utilization of transmission lines
(Figure 22). This model provides these results for every hour of the dataset. The specific
hours represent the following system states:
The average results over all hours (Figure 23). This is not an average of input parame-
ters but on the model results;
The winter hour with the peak load and low renewable generation (Figure 24);
a winter hour with high load, no PV and high wind generation (Figure 25) and one
with low load, no PV and high wind generation (Figure 26);
summer weekend with low load, very high PV, and low wind generation (Figure 27).

Generation and load balance Nodal electricity prices

Load centers < price_2 EUR/MWh (min price_1)

> price_3 EUR/MWh (max price_4)
+/- 0
Lowest price: Price_1
Lowest 10%: up to -price_2
Highest 10%: -price_3 to max
Generation centers Highest price: Price_4

Transmission line utilization Description

Utilization %
0 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50 Qualitative description
50 60 Statistic on nodal prices
60 70
70 80
80 90
90 - 100

Figure 22: Legend for consecutive figures on spatial results

47
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Average over all 8,784 hours

Generation and load balance Nodal electricity prices

Transmission line utilization Description

Trade setting: imports from Scandinavia and
France; exports to the Netherlands, Switzer-
land and western Austria; loop-flows from
the northern Czech Republic and likely Po-
land to southern Germany.

The average price difference is low. Lowest

prices in the east. Highest prices in the
south-east.

Legend for the electricity price:

< 58.08 EUR/MWh (min 57.74)
> 59.24 EUR/MWh (max 60.25)

Figure 23: Snap shot of the system in average state of all hours

48
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Peak winter demand and low renewable generation (08.02.2012 at 6 p.m.)

Generation and load balance Nodal electricity prices

Transmission line utilization Description

Trade setting: imports from Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Western Austria. Exports
France, Switzerland and Poland. Transit flows
through the Czech Republic.

The generation is concentrated on the large

conventional power plants. Network capacity
is sufficient to retain one price in Germany,
some lines in Southern Germany are well
utilized.

Legend for the electricity price:

= 110.00 EUR/MWh (for all nodes)

Figure 24: Snap shot of the system with peak load and low renewables

49
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

High winter demand, no PV, and high wind (03.01.2012 at 5 p.m.)

Generation and load balance Nodal electricity prices

Transmission line utilization Description

Trade setting: imports from Scandinavia and
France; exports to the Netherlands, Switzer-
land and western Austria; loop-flows from
the northern Czech Republic to southern
Germany.

Surplus generation (mainly lignite) in the East

causes bottlenecks towards Bavaria and a
certain price spread between Western, East-
ern, and Southern Germany.

Legend for the electricity price:

< 18.23 EUR/MWh (min 14.63)
> 61.45 EUR/MWh (max 65.05)
Figure 25: Snap shot of the system with high winter load and high wind generation

50
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Low winter demand, no PV, and high wind (06.01.2012 at 2 a.m.)

Generation and load balance Nodal electricity prices

Transmission line utilization Description

Trade setting: Exports to all countries exept
France (imports) and loop-flows through the
Czech Republic to southern Germany.

Surplus generation (mainly lignite) in the East

causes bottlenecks towards Bavaria and a
certain price spread between Western, East-
ern, and Southern Germany.

Legend for the electricity price:

< 15.36 EUR/MWh (min 17.69)
> 45.61 EUR/MWh (max 47.94)

Figure 26: Snap shot of the system with low winter load and high wind generation

51
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

Low summer demand, high PV, and low wind (Sunday 12.08.2012 at 1 p.m.)

Generation and load balance Nodal electricity prices

Transmission line utilization Description

Trade setting: exports on almost all cross-
border lines to neighboring countries except
transit flows north to south through the
Czech Republic.

The generation is more balanced with the

availability of large PV capacities in the
south. No bottlenecks occur in Germany and
the nodal price is equal for the entire system.

Legend for the electricity price:

= 40.67 EUR/MWh (for all nodes)

Figure 27: Snap shot of the system with low summer load and very high PV

52
Data Documentation 72
2 Germany

2.2.3 Model limitations

On the network side, the DC load flow approach naturally only reflects approximated flows
compared to the real AC flows. Also transformer blocks and the possibility of TSOs to switch
transmission lines and thereby affect the network topology are not included. The n-1 criteri-
on is only approximated by the transmission reliability margin. On the generation side, the
linear character of the model does not allow to integrate on- and off-conditions for power
plants, as no binary variables are available. Yet, technical limitations as the minimum gener-
ation level, ramping constraints and costs, and downtime requirements demand for this type
of binary constraint. Regarding heat and power generation, additional heat output changes
the economic rationale of the operational planning. Not considering CHP capacity certainly
explains large shares in the discrepancy of the results. The heat sector has however locally
specific constraints which are difficult to implement on a national scale with their spatial
character.

2.3 Summary

This section has laid down the current availability of open data for the German power sector.
It further describes the application within a techno-economic optimization model that has
both a high spatial and a high temporal resolution. While some information (e.g. power plant
data) has partly improved, information on network topology and technical characteristics of
the system (on demand, transmission, and generation) is still kept private. Considering the
public interest in the discussion related to the transformation of the electricity system and
the related expansion of the transmission network this is surprising.

53
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

3 Europe

3.1 Electricity Data

3.1.1 Data sources

The dataset for the European electricity system is mainly based on the sources listed in Table
14. A particular challenge for the European system lies in the consistency: most data can be
found on a European level (e.g. EUROSTAT) as well as on a national level which are not al-
ways consistent in their specification. Therefore, the current dataset concentrates on
sources which cover most of the considered European countries. Beside the generation
capacities which are provided by Platts and The Wind Power, all other data is publicly availa-
ble.

Table 14: Data sources for the European electricity system

Institution Type of data

ENTSO-E - Transmission network map

- Annual generation capacities
- Time series on
Demand data (hourly)
Aggregated generation
European TSOs - Transmission network maps
European Commission - Annual fuel price data; in particular natural gas
EUROSTAT - Annual generation
- Regional statistical indicators
Energy exchanges - Price data e.g. on:
(e.g. EEX) Natural gas, hard coal, oil
Emission allowances
Day-ahead market prices for electricity
PLATTS WEPP - Generation capacities
- Generation technologies
- Rough locational information
The Wind Power - Wind generation capacities
- Locational information
Aerial Imagery - Geographic information

54
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

3.1.2 Spatial electricity infrastructure data

3.1.2.1 High-voltage transmission network

The transmission network of the electricity market model covers the interconnected Euro-
pean network system. It includes continental European countries, the British Islands, Scandi-
navia, and the Baltic countries (including Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). For each of the
countries, our network comprises the transmission network with a voltage of 220, 300, and
380 kV. For the case of Denmark, the 150 kV level is explicitly considered. Furthermore,
direct current (DC) connections are included beside the alternating current (AC) network.

Generally, the transmission network is modeled by nodes and links. Nodes represent substa-
tions with generation and/or load connected to it. Links replicate transmission lines which
connect different nodes to form a network. Links are characterized by the technology (AC or
DC), voltage level, number of circuits mounted on the towers, length of the line, as well as
their starting and ending nodes.

The topology of the European transmission network is derived from the ENTSO-E grid map
(ENTSO-E, 2013a). However, the grid map gives a rather rough picture of the transmission
network and does not provide sufficient information on the course of individual transmission
circuits or connection of lines to substations in case of lines with different voltages. There-
fore the dataset is updated to include more detailed data (e.g. SEPS (2013)). The final trans-
mission network is depicted in Figure 28. This transmission network covers 3,216 nodes with
either load or generation, or both connected to it. The nodes are connected via the AC
transmission network through 4,987 transmission lines with a total of 6,610 transmission
circuits covering four voltage levels. Additionally, 13 HVDC lines provide the possibility for
interregional exchange, with the major parts of the lines being installed overseas.

55
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Figure 28: European transmission network

Source: Own depiction based on ENTSO-E (2013a) and own research.

In order to calculate the load flow on a transmission line, the electrical characteristics like
resistance, reactance, and transmission capacity need to be specified. Generally, these pa-
rameters are specific to each transmission line. However, as there is no specific data availa-
ble on a public domain, an approximation is applied for the resistance and reactance using
specific electrical parameter from Kieling et al. (2001) and the length of the line. The same
applies for the transmission capacity which depends on the voltage of the transmission line
and the number of circuits. The technical parameters are depicted in Table 15.

56
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Table 15: Technical line characteristics

Voltage [kV] Specific resistance Specific reactance Thermal transmis-
[Ohm/km] [Ohm/km] sion limit [MVA]

150 0.176 0.41 140

220 0.075 0.40 490
300/380 0.029 0.33 1,700

3.1.2.2 Generation capacities

Generation capacities for the European network model are firstly distinguished between
conventional and renewable sources. For conventional generation capacities power plants
are considered individually, whereas for renewable sources regional aggregated generation
capacities are defined without an explicit consideration of individual generators. The genera-
tion technologies used in the European version of the dataset are characterized by their
primary fuel as well as the specifics of the generation process. Currently 20 generation tech-
nologies are specified (Table 16):

Table 16: Definition of generation technologies

Primary
Technology Description
Fuel
Nuclear Uranium Nuclear steam power plant
Lignite Lignite Steam power plant fired with lignite or subbituminous coal
Coal Hard Coal Steam power plant fired with anthrazite or bituminous coal
CCGT Gas Gas-fired combined cycle plant consisting of gas turbine(s) and
steam turbine(s)
OCGT Gas Open cycle gas-fired plant consisting of gas turbine(s)
GasSteam Gas Steam power plant fired with gas
CCOT Oil Oil-fired combined cycle plant consisting of gas turbine(s) and
steam turbine(s)
OCOT Oil Open cycle oil-fired plant consisting of gas turbine(s)
OilSteam Oil Steam power plant fired with oil
Reservoir Hydro Hydro storage or reservoir plant with natural inflows with stor-
age potential

57
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

PSP Hydro Pump hydro storage plant without natural inflows

RoR Hydro Run-of-river power plant with natural inflows and negligible
storage potential
Waste Waste Power plant fired with waste
Biomass Biomass Power plant fired with any kind of biomass/bioliquids/biogas
Tidal Hydro Tidal hydro power plant
Geothermal Heat Power plant using geothermal energy
Wind Ons- Wind Onshore wind turbine
hore
Wind Offs- Wind Offshore wind turbine
hore
Solar Sun Solar power plant mainly photovoltaic
CSP Sun Concentrated solar power plant

Conventional generation capacities

The database for conventional generation capacities is based on the World Electric Power
Plant Database (WEPP) (Platts, 2013). The database contains 48,937 generation units in
28,512 power plants with detailed information on operating status, electricity type, genera-
tion type, fuels, ownership, etc. Due to the detailed information on power plants and their
generation technology, an aggregation of generation units has been done to reduce the
number of generation units entering the model, and to match the information on generation
types with generation technologies considered in the dataset.

WEPP lists the generation technologies with a high level of detail by specifying the technolo-
gy type, the main input fuel, and the type of fuel. In the current version of WEPP, 323 com-
binations of these three characteristics are used. In order to match the 323 generation tech-
nologies specified in WEPP with the 20 generation technologies, a mapping has been defined
for each of the generation technologies. The aggregated generation capacity figures fit well
with real capacity figures of ENTSO-E in 2011 (ENTSO-E, 2013d). Out of the 323 generation
technologies, 10 could not be appropriately assigned. A problem in WEPP is the missing

58
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

further classification of hydro generation technology into sub technologies as WEPP only
differentiates between hydro and pumped-hydro storage.

In order to specify the location of power plants, WEPP only provides information on the city,
state, and country, but no explicit GIS data. The geographical information of individual pow-
er plants is required to assign the power plants to the network nodes. Therefore, three steps
are undertaken to get this information:

the website CARMA.org (CARMA, 2013) provides information on geographical infor-

mation for power plants. Using the name of the power plant a matching is conducted
to receive additional information on the location for each plant and particularly the
geographical coordinates. The CARMA website specifies that 12% of the worldwide
listed power plants have accurate data and 70% have approximate data on geograph-
ical coordinates. Unfortunately, it is not directly possible to receive the information,
whether location information is accurate or approximate;
if no information on geographical information could be provided, approximate coor-
dinates are taken from Google Earth using the name of the plant as well as locational
information as input;
in a last step, geographical information is achieved by a manual search process if ei-
ther no information on the location could be found in the previous steps or if current
geo information is obviously inaccurate.

Based on the previous steps of matching technologies and assigning geographical coordi-
nates to generation plants, the final power plant list is constructed comprising generation
units with a minimum generation capacity of 10 MW and assigned to the nearest network
node using shortest distance as selection criterion. In the following model calibration, the
location of plants is adjusted if serious local congestion arises. The finalized regional distribu-
tion of conventional generation capacities is depicted in Figure 29.

59
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Figure 29: Regional distribution of generation capacities

The final power plant list consists of 4,724 power plants and an aggregated capacity of
760 GW, of which 732 GW are conventional, nuclear, and hydro-based generation technolo-
gies. ENTSO-E reports a total net generating capacity for their countries for the selected
generation technologies of 765 GW (ENTSO-E, 2013d). Thus, comparing the total figure with
the according capacity values of ENTSO-E indicates a representativeness of the dataset of
96%. 23

23 The ENTSO-E data does not represent the entire generation capacities for Germany and UK.

60
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Table 17: Comparison of the generation capacities

Technology Net capacity ENTSO-E Net capacity Representativeness
Hydro 169 GW 193 GW 88%
Nuclear 127 GW 127 GW 100%
Conventional 436 GW 441 GW 99%
Total 732 GW 765 GW 96%

Table 18: Generation capacities of European countries

[GW] AL AT BA BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV ME MK NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK UK Sum

Nuclear 0 0 0 5,738 1,900 3,175 3,707 12,055 0 0 7,344 2,698 62,586 0 0 1,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 0 0 0 1,368 0 9,148 691 1,852 11,979 126,616

Lignite 0 0 1,332 0 3,672 0 6,884 20,222 0 0 2,455 55 2,262 3,925 0 1,010 0 0 0 0 0 207 736 0 0 8,884 0 5,314 5,197 0 447 513 0 63,115

Coal 0 1,248 133 1,544 1,727 0 1,299 26,205 4,247 0 7,423 3,056 4,558 0 312 0 851 9,538 0 0 0 0 0 3,884 0 20,722 1,747 1,845 95 274 115 154 26,429 117,404

CCGT 0 2,561 0 4,276 48 98 226 11,886 387 0 24,256 1,479 2,773 3,433 378 2,083 2,947 37,591 88 370 588 0 0 9,826 672 712 3,871 240 0 742 24 778 29,101 141,435

OCGT 0 663 0 1,137 104 139 522 4,574 585 0 2,065 1,010 2,841 305 60 857 615 6,757 22 27 12 0 0 2,531 529 38 215 15 94 253 312 153 2,425 28,860

GasSteam 0 788 0 883 446 19 12 9,128 1,435 193 383 438 1,125 548 71 1,907 750 7,288 1,426 29 235 0 41 3,197 0 17 11 3,452 141 204 12 211 2,131 36,520

CCOT 96 0 0 88 0 0 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 720

OCOT 0 21 0 175 0 38 63 2,120 453 0 450 529 1,775 112 92 220 312 219 0 0 0 0 0 83 131 0 555 52 0 1,373 62 13 1,668 10,515

OilSteam 199 992 49 603 90 34 12 2,257 571 2,712 3,466 702 5,854 576 984 21 710 10,706 778 0 0 0 202 20 11 532 1,186 1,476 287 1,594 21 0 3,355 39,998

Hydro 1,439 9,199 1,431 50 1,671 11,707 827 2,800 0 0 10,899 2,668 17,758 2,303 1,798 42 200 13,122 101 0 1,512 667 587 26 26,992 599 5,318 5,821 2,127 15,374 909 1,526 1,448 140,924

PSP 0 2,003 441 1,205 1,014 1,408 1,145 6,470 0 0 4,005 0 4512 615 276 0 292 5,693 800 1,100 0 0 0 0 818 1,466 972 0 614 430 185 854 2,950 39,268

Tidal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240

Waste 0 52 0 181 0 259 0 1,381 179 0 146 0 519 0 0 24 0 421 0 15 0 0 0 433 32 0 77 0 0 186 0 17 380 4,303

Biomass 0 233 0 353 0 23 12 712 452 49 393 2,840 144 35 0 134 394 673 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 37 136 0 0 1,883 0 0 324 8,952

Geothermal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 845

Sum 1,734 17,760 3,387 16,234 10,673 16,899 14,708 100,024 8,309 2,953 63,284 15,475 106,946 11,852 3,970 8,199 7,072 93,108 3,214 1,541 2,346 874 1,566 20,603 29,186 33,007 14,087 19,583 8,555 31,460 2,845 6,072 82,189 759,715

61
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Renewable generation capacities

Non-dispatchable renewable generation sources, of which wind and solar power are of par-
ticular interest, are included in the model. These technologies are considered separately as
they are not explicitly included in the detailed power plant list due to their small-scale and
diversified character. Thus, the methodology on deriving regionally distributed generation
capacities is explained subsequently for wind and solar capacities. Biomass capacities are
currently only considered if they are included in the power plant list. Therefore, any kind of
distributed small-scale biomass generation is neglected in the model.

Wind generation

The data on wind generation required for modeling comprises two elements: first, the geo-
graphical distribution of wind generation capacities and second, the nationally installed
capacity for a specified year.

In order to derive the geographical distribution, we use data obtained from The Wind Power
(2011). This data includes information on the location of individual wind farms as well as
their installed capacity. Using the locational information, we can assign individual wind
power turbines to the nodes of the transmission network using the shortest-distance
method. This gives us a share of wind generation capacitiy located at each node within the
European transmission network. However, as the total national reported capacity for wind
generation diverges from the wind farm dataset, we only extract the relative share in order
to obtain the regional distribution for each European country. With regard to the
aforementioned divergence, national wind generation capacities for 2011 are obtained from
yearly statistics (EWEA, 2012). Table 19 lists the wind generation capacities for the consid-
ered countries. The regional distribution of wind generation is depicted in Figure 30. As can
be seen, the largest amounts of wind capacities are located in Germany, Spain, Denmark,
and the United Kingdom.

62
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Figure 30: Regional distribution of wind generation capacities

63
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Solar generation
For solar generation capacities, a modified approach is applied. Firstly, a geographical distri-
bution is specified and secondly the relative distribution shares are accounted with national
solar generation capacities to derive regional solar capacities.

As information on solar capacities on a regional European level is not available, an alterna-

tive approach is chosen to proxy the regional distribution of capacities: it is assumed that the
share of solar generation depends on the geographical size of the regional area valued with
the solar potential on a NUTS2-level (ESPON, 2010). The following formula approximates the
regional solar share that is installed at each node in the network.

2
2()
2()
(2())
=
(2()) 2()

The solar share is then adjusted by an additional weight to ensure that the sum of all shares
per country equals 1 (the current approach represents a first approximation, and a verifica-
tion of the described proxy is necessary).

Given the regional distribution of solar generation capacities, national solar capacities for
2011 are based on reported values from EPIA (2013). Table 19 lists the solar generation
capacities for the considered countries. The regional distribution is depicted in Figure 31. As
can be seen, Germany and Italy show the highest installed capacities among the European
countries.

64
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Figure 31: Regional distribution of solar generation capacities

65
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

3.1.2.3 Electrical load

Electrical load represents the demand for electricity by industry, services, and households.
Publicly available data on electrical load comprises national annual values on consumed
electrical energy for the different demand types and hourly load values on a national, but
not on a regional or nodal level. Thus, further information and adjustments are required to
proxy regional hourly values for electrical load.

In order to define nodal electrical load two parameters are required for our modeling pur-
pose. First, the hourly load as provided by ENTSO-E (2013b) is given on a national basis.
Therefore, a further regional distribution of the national electricity load is necessary.

The share of electrical load at each network node is determined using regional statistical
data on gross domestic product (GDP) and population. While the GDP is used as a proxy for
industrial demand weighted with a share of 60%, the regional statistical population data
proxies the residential demand weighted with a share of 40% of total nodal load. Due to the
size of the European model the NUTS-2 regional classification is taken as a regional detail
level representation, instead of the more detailed NUTS-3 classification. Statistical data for
European regions are taken from EUROSTAT and include the regional GDP (Eurostat, 2013a)
and population (Eurostat, 2013b). In case of a country not being listed in the European da-
taset, statistical data is derived from national statistical offices. This applies particularly to
Switzerland. For smaller countries without information on regional characteristics, like Alba-
nia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, an equal distribution of nodal loads
among all nodes within the country is assumed.

Given the nodal distribution of the load, national load values are taken from ENTSO-E (2012).
If a country is not listed, like Albania, data from the national statistical office is used. Table
19 lists the average hourly load for the countries considered. Figure 32 visualizes the region-
al distribution of the electrical load.

In our modeling approach, electrical load can be considered either as price-elastic or price-
inelastic. The latter approach assumes a fixed demand which has to be served by generation
in each hour, whereas the first approach allows for adjustments of electrical load assuming a
linear relation between price and quantity. The approach described in Leuthold et al. (2012)

66
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

is adopted to define the linear nodal load function. While the previously determined nodal
load serves as a reference load, annual average spot prices of European countries determine
the reference price. When national spot prices are not available, the available average spot
price of other European countries is applied. Additionally, a point demand elasticity of -0.25
is assumed.

Figure 32: Regional distribution of electrical load

67
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Table 19: National average load and renewable capacities

Average hourly load Wind capacity Solar capacity
Country
[MW] [MW] [MW]
AL 574 0 0
AT 7,827 1,084 188
BA 1,391 0 0
BE 9,879 1,078 2,051
BG 3,794 612 141
CH 7,356 46 216
CZ 7,196 217 1,959
DE 62,131 29,060 24,807
DK 3,934 3,871 16
EE 893 184 0
ES 29,108 21,674 4,889
FI 9,617 197 1
FR 54,708 6,800 2,924
GR 6,041 1,629 624
HR 1,997 131 0
HU 4,582 329 4
IE 2,982 1,631 3
IT 38,201 6,747 12,923
LT 1,183 31 0
LU 749 44 30
LV 829 179 0
ME 478 0 0
MK 1,026 0 0
NL 13,452 2,328 141
NO 13,929 520 0
PL 16,635 1,616 3
PT 5,765 4,083 195
RO 6,269 982 4
RS 4,586 0 0
SE 15,893 2,907 11
SI 1,434 0 81
SK 3,057 3 508
UA 0 0 0
UK 38,599 6,540 904

68
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

3.1.3 Time dependent electricity data

3.1.3.1 Generation fuel cost

In order to apply an economic modeling framework the specification of generation costs for
the different generation technologies is required based on fuel and emission prices. Hence,
only conventional generation sources face generation costs whereas renewable generation
is accounted with zero generation cost. Generation costs describe the short-term variable
costs of producing one megawatt hour of electricity and hence comprise fuel as well as car-
bon emission costs. Operation and maintenance costs as well as unit commitment costs are
not considered. A review of these cost components can be found in Schrder et al. (2013).

The input fuel costs for hard coal, natural gas, and oil reflect average prices for 2011 for all
countries. For other input fuels own assumptions need to be made. For carbon emissions an
average price from EEX is used. The assumed fuel prices are depicted in Table 20. As energy
fuel prices vary between European countries due to different import sources (e.g. natural
gas) or transportation costs (e.g. hard coal) a regional differentiation of these prices is re-
quired. However, the regional differentiation can currently be applied to natural gas as
transparent information is available for this matter, based on EC (2012).

Table 20: Fuel prices in 2011

Price in 2011
Source
Fuel [EUR/MWhth, EUR/t(CO2)]
Uran 3 Own assumption
Lignite 4 Own assumption
(Statistik der Kohlenwirtschaft e.V.,
13.14
Hard coal 2013)
Natural gas 25.72 (EC, 2012)
(Statistik der Kohlenwirtschaft e.V.,
43.60
Oil 2013)
Biomass 7 Own assumption
Waste 7 Own assumption

Carbon emission 12.94 EEX

69
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

3.1.3.2 Generation efficiency

Based on the fuel costs generation costs can be calculated using the efficiency of generation
units. In order to capture technological progress and thus the increase in efficiency in the
dataset, efficiencies are determined based on the commissioning year of the power plant.
The general approach is based on Schrter (2004) and depicted in Table 21.

Table 21: Efficiency of conventional generation technologies

GasSteam
Nuclear Lignite Coal CCGT OCGT
and
and CCOT and OCOT
[%] OilSteam
1950 33.0 29.0 29.6 20.0 30.6 24.7
1960 33.0 32.0 32.8 26.7 33.8 27.3
1970 33.0 35.0 35.9 33.3 36.9 29.9
1980 33.0 38.0 39.1 40.0 40.1 32.5
1990 33.0 41.0 42.3 46.7 43.3 35.1
2000 33.0 44.0 45.5 53.3 46.5 37.7
2010 33.0 47.0 48.7 60.0 49.7 40.3

3.1.3.3 Availability of generation capacity

To account for non-availability of generation sources due to maintenance, outages, or varia-

bility of wind and solar radiation, an availability factor is specified to cover these effects. The
availability factor reduces the installed capacity to an available generation capacity.

For conventional generation sources, aside from nuclear and hydro generation, average
annual availability is specified mainly based on Schrder et al. (2013) (Table 22). For nuclear
and hydro generation, availability factors are differentiated by country using annual genera-
tion data for 2011 provided by ENTSO-E (2013c).

70
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Table 22: Availability of conventional generation technologies

Technology Availability factor [%] Source

Nuclear 71-96 Own calculation based on

data from ENTSO-E
Hydro 11-48
(2013c)

Lignite 85

Hard coal 84

CCGT / CCOT 89 (Schrder et al., 2013)

OCGT / OCOT 86

Gas / Oil steam 87

For the renewable sources wind and solar, the availability factor reflects the average utiliza-
tion of installed generation capacities in 2011 differentiated by country. The determination
of the regional availability factor takes into account the amount of energy produced by the
renewable technology (Eurostat, 2013c) and the installed capacity (EPIA, 2013; EWEA, 2012)
at the end of the considered year 2011. For wind generation the regional availability factor
ranges from 17% in South Central to 29% in North Western Europe. For solar generation the
average utilization is highest in south Western Europe with 18% and lowest in north Western
Europe with only 3%. It is important to note, that the average utilization assumes an average
hour of the year 2011. In the future, the aim is to have a more detailed representation of the
hourly wind and solar generation.

71
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

3.2 Model Validation - Electricity Prices, Generation, and Cross-border Flows

(2011)

Within the application of the described data, the dataset has been continuously checked for
inconsistencies using a welfare-maximizing modeling approach with a price-elastic demand.
Inconsistencies result from incorrect power plant placing, NUTS classification, and network
topology. The ELMOD model specification aims at welfare maximization of the European
power system for an average hour of the year 2011. Thus the model optimizes generation
dispatch and load. For electrical load, the average load as reported in ENTSO-E (2012) and
the 2011 power exchange prices are taken to determine the linear demand curve (Leuthold
et al., 2012); a point elasticity of -0.25 is assumed. Furthermore, intertemporal restrictions
like unit commitment are neglected.

The comparison of an average hour with average historic data is complicated and can only
give first indications on the consistency of the dataset. A more detailed modeling approach
would indeed be helpful, but is limited mostly by missing data. This holds especially true for
renewable time series. Furthermore, the modeling approach assumes an integrated optimi-
zation of generation as well as network constraints, which deviates significantly from the
current European market design, which is based on commercial transfer restrictions in the
day-ahead electricity markets, followed by a mostly nationally oriented congestion man-
agement.

The results of the model are firstly checked with historical power prices of selected coun-
tries, secondly with the average generation as reported by ENTSO-E, and thirdly with the
exchange statistics of selected countries with data from ENTSO-E.

3.2.1 Price results

The average power price at the spot markets is the first indicator used for model validation.
As can be seen in Figure 33, prices of the model mainly resemble real prices considering a
price level of about 50 EUR/MWh. Also, the price pattern is consistent for most countries.
However, some differences occur in south central Europe (Italy and Slovenia) and the Iberian

72
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Peninsula, where optimized prices are below observed ones. Especially Italy should have
higher prices in the range of 72 EUR/MWh.

[EUR/MWh]

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ES

GR

NL
NO
HR
HU
IE
IT
LU

PL
PT
AL
AT
BA

FI
BE
BG

DE
DK

FR
CH
CZ

ME
MK

RO
RS
SE
SI
SK
UA
UK
ELMOD Avg. price 2011

Figure 33: Comparison of modeled prices with historic prices in 2011

3.2.2 Generation results

In this section, the generation determined in the model run is compared to the average
generation as reported by ENTSO-E for 2011. Figure 34 and Figure 35 illustrate the reported
and modeled generation on a country-specific basis. The technological classification does not
allow for a more detailed differentiation for conventional generation technologies as the
reported historic generation is aggregated for all fossil fuels. Comparison on the total scale
indicates that the total generation in the model is higher by approximately 5 GWh but the
share of generation types is comparable. The reason for the higher generation in the model
is based on the welfare maximization approach and the assumption of a linear demand
curve. As the model shows lower prices e.g. in Italy the demand is higher than the average
demand reported by ENTSO-E.

73
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

[MWh]

70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0 ES

GR

NL
NO
HR
HU
IE
IT
LU

PL
PT
AL
AT
BA

DK
FI

SI
BE
BG

DE

FR
CH
CZ

ME
MK

RO
RS
SE
SK
UA
UK
Hydro Nuclear Fossil fuel Renewable

Figure 34: Average generation in 2011 based on ENTSO-E

[MWh]

70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
ES

GR

NL
NO
HR
HU
IE
IT
LU

PL
PT
AL
AT
BA
BE
BG

DE
DK
FI
FR

RO
RS
SE
SI
SK
CH
CZ

ME
MK

UA
UK

Hydro Nuclear Fossil fuel Renewable

Figure 35: Generation results

A look at specific countries provides additional insights on the differences in the generation
pattern. In most countries (e.g. Spain and Germany), the total amount of generation is rela-
tively close to the reported data. However, some differences are observed in other countries
like the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Romania. France and the
Netherlands show lower generation in the model run than experienced in 2011. Other coun-
tries show higher generation. The differences are mainly caused by the dispatch of conven-
tional generation as other generation technologies are either bounded like nuclear and hy-

74
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

dro or fixed like renewable generation. Additionally, the limitations and assumptions of the
modeling approach may also lead to higher generation in particular countries. This can be
traced back to commercial transfer limits as well as complex generation constraints like unit
commitment or restrictions due to cogeneration of heat, which are not taken into account.

3.2.3 Exchange results

Considering exchange results, the national balances are compared to the data reported by
ENTSOE for 2011. It can be seen from the following figure that for most countries, the pat-
tern of the exchange saldo is close to real numbers. However, the level differs among coun-
tries like the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway showing the
highest differences between model results und experienced exchanges. In particular the
Netherlands show higher imports than experienced in 2011 which also conforms to the pre-
sented generation figures. On the other hand eastern European countries like Poland and
Romania show higher export as they are characterized by less costly generation technologies
as e.g. in the Netherlands. Additionally, cogeneration restrictions which may be important in
the Netherlands are currently not implemented due to inconsistent data sources. Such re-
strictions may lead to higher domestic generation instead of relying on imports from other
countries. However, it can finally be noted, that the general pattern is comparable.

[MWh]

10.000
8.000
Import (-) / Export (+)

6.000
4.000
2.000
0
-2.000
-4.000
-6.000
-8.000
-10.000
ES

GR

NL
NO
HR
HU
IE
IT
LU

PL
PT
AL
AT
BA
BE
BG

DE
DK
FI
FR

RO
RS
SE
SI
SK
CH
CZ

ME
MK

UA
UK

ELMOD Avg. Saldo 2011

Figure 36: Average exchange saldo of European countries

75
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

Looking at individual borders of selected countries and the exchanges within the AC grid
(Figure 37 to Figure 39), the pattern but not the absolute level resembles realistic numbers.
In particular, the exchanges with the central eastern part of Europe (Poland, the Czech Re-
public), which was discussed earlier, are higher than in reality. On the other hand, exports to
the Netherlands are higher than experienced in 2011.

[MWh]

4.000
3.000
Import (-) / Export (+)

2.000
1.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
AT CH CZ DK FR LU NL PL

ELMOD ENTSOE

Figure 37: Cross-border flows from (+) and to (-) Germany

[MWh]

4.000
3.000
Import (-) / Export (+)

2.000
1.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
BE CH DE IT

ELMOD ENTSOE

Figure 38: Cross-border flows from (+) and to (-) France

76
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

[MWh]

4.000
3.000
Import (-) / Export (+)

2.000
1.000
0
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
-4.000
AT DE FR IT

ELMOD ENTSOE

Figure 39: Cross-border flows from (+) and to (-) Switzerland

3.3 Summary

The dataset for the European electricity system needs a variety of data to cover the relevant
characteristics of the industry. The more general data on aggregated generation capacities,
historic generation, and consumption can be found with a consistent data specification for
most European countries in databases like EUROSTAT. On the other hand, more detailed
data like generation capacities for conventional and renewable sources are usually not pub-
licly available, sometimes not even on a national basis, and henceforth appropriate assump-
tions or commercial databases are required to retrieve the necessary information. Due to
the already mentioned issue with regard to available information, setting up a consistent
dataset for the European electricity system is more difficult in comparison to the German
electricity system, where mostly consistent data is publicly available. Similar projects on a
European level could be helpful for a consistent dataset.
Having set up a dataset for Europe, the model application shows that the general tendencies
on regional generation and import/export pattern can be captured. However, differences
are obvious in particular regions where the model shows different results than the historic
values which may be based either on the rough modeling approach or on an insufficient data
supply.

77
Data Documentation 72
3 Europe

To that end, the presented dataset and model application are a continuous process, and
further steps are required to improve the data quality as well as the modeling. Among oth-
ers, the implementation of cogeneration restrictions, improvement of renewable generation
and their distribution, and an intertemporal model calibration are potential improvements
for the future.

78
Data Documentation 72
4 Conclusions

4 Conclusions

4.1 A Neglected Issue

Data availability and transparency are an important element of numerical models and the
acceptance of the respective results, but they have often been neglected in the policy mak-
ing process. Having followed this process for a decade now, we observe a striking discrepan-
cy: while the numerical models used for electricity sector analysis have become more and
more sophisticated, neither the quality nor the transparency of data have followed suit. It is
surprising that in times of the internet and the IT-revolution, so little attention has been
given to data issues, and that very important decisions for the entire economy, such as ener-
gy system planning and infrastructure development, are not transparently presented to the
public.

In this Data Documentation, we have set out the methodological underpinnings and the
necessity for data policies in any modeling context, be it academic or policy- and business-
oriented. We have provided the approach to assembling the necessary data to model elec-
tricity generation, transmission, and demand activities, both at the German and the Europe-
an level. This Data Documentation connects several (mostly open) data sources to form two
consistent datasets, one at the national level for Germany, and one at the European level.
They allow developing techno-economic models for the electricity system, with a high spatial
accuracy. Applications of these data use the ELMOD modeling framework. The results indi-
cate a high quality of both, the data and the model, since the calculations obtain results
close to the observed reality.

Future work using these and other data and models need to confirm these results, and open
the way to a broader discussion of data quality and transparency issues. In this conclusion,
we sketch out two streams that merit particular attention: i) possible model and data im-
provements; and ii) work on the institutional implementation of the modeling work into the
policy arena.

79
Data Documentation 72
4 Conclusions

4.2 Potential Data and Modeling Improvements

Some obstacles remain on the pathway towards better modeling of national and European
electricity sector reform, and, thus, for higher acceptance of some of the measures pro-
posed. The electricity market model ELMOD, built on the DC load flow approach, applies the
available open data together with some additional assumptions. Given the simplifications,
the resulting statistical aggregations provide a surprisingly good match with the observed
quantities in 2012. Yet, the linear character of the optimization model simplifies certain
technical system constraints and neglects uncertainty and strategic behavior.

While data on electricity generation is generally available and accurate, data on transmission
networks and demand characteristics is sparse. Although significant efforts have been made
at national and European level to foster the collection and publication of data, progress on
the ground has been relatively slow, both at the European level and the national level. A
notable exception for this role is the internet publication of all relevant network data in
Great Britain.

This work also applies the datasets to linear techno-economic optimization models based on
the DC load flow approach and presents their results. There is a certain trade-off between
the availability of public and transparent data, and the complexity of the models used. Some
important technical aspects, e.g. combined heat and power and inflexibility of power plants,
would require additional technical parameters on the individual power plant blocks. Still, the
model results provide good insights in the regional distribution of electricity generation,
network flows, and bottlenecks related to the infrastructure.

Concluding on the experienced difficulties in the data collection, the current availability of
open data provided by public and private stakeholders is often insufficient. A major issue is
open data on the transmission network where precise geo-referenced and topology infor-
mation are not available. Also, many data sources are only reported at the national level.
Thus, the European dataset does not include hourly system information, uses rather crude
allocation approaches for wind and PV capacity, and has to rely on a commercial dataset for
conventional power plants.

80
Data Documentation 72
4 Conclusions

Future work includes further details on the data side, focusing notably on network and de-
mand data. Also, additional model runs are required, both with ELMOD and other models, to
broaden the insight into the functioning of the national and European electricity market, and
future reform needs, including network planning.

4.3 Establishing Routines for Modeling Policy Interaction

Even more challenging, though, is the translation of modeling results for use in the policy
arena, and the establishment of clarity and consistency that provide real value to the busi-
ness community and policymakers alike. To that end, the pressure on the electricity industry
itself and the public policymakers to release data and secure higher transparency of sector
planning needs to be maintained, both in the interest of producers and consumers in the
sector, and of public acceptance. More work needs to be done to integrate the modeling
world and the policy world, and to establish routines for interaction between the two levels.

The Data Documentation, and the application to real-world phenomena, highlights a trade-
off between the complexity of the model, and the ability to convey model results to the
larger arena of business and policy. More model features do not imply better decision sup-
port, often the contrary is the case. Routines need to be established to structure the model-
ing-policy interface and to allow for sufficient feedback by well-informed policy makers (or
advisors). The management of knowledge of this process is at least as important as the data
and modeling work itself.

4.4 The Next Steps

With models being about insights instead of absolute numbers, it is important that model
results are transparent and replicable. Thus, the transparent character of this Data Docu-
mentation and the discussion of model results is one step in that direction. Next steps can
include i) comparative work with similar approaches in the national and/or the European
context (model comparison); and ii) pilot projects to test different interface routines, and
make us of implicit and explicit knowledge of the stakeholders involved.

81
Data Documentation 72
References

References
50Hertz, 2013a. Grid map in the 50Hertz control area [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.50hertz.com/en/netzbelastung.htm (accessed 9.12.13).
50Hertz, 2013b. Lastflsse [WWW Document]. URL http://www.50hertz.com/de/119.htm
(accessed 11.15.13).
50Hertz, 2013c. Archive Wind power [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.50hertz.com/en/1983.htm (accessed 8.28.13).
50Hertz, 2013d. Archive Photovoltaics [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.50hertz.com/en/2806.htm (accessed 8.28.13).
50Hertz, Amprion, TenneT, TransnetBW, 2012a. Netzentwicklungsplan Strom 2012, 2. ber-
arbeiteter Entwurf der bertragungsnetzbetreiber.
50Hertz, Amprion, TenneT, TransnetBW, 2012b. Kraftwerksliste Szenariorahmen NEP 2013.
50Hertz, Amprion, TenneT, TransnetBW, 2013a. Der Szenariorahmen Grundlage fr den
Netzentwicklungsplan [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.netzentwicklungsplan.de/content/der-szenariorahmen-%E2%80%93-
grundlage-f%C3%BCr-den-netzentwicklungsplan (accessed 1.22.14).
50Hertz, Amprion, TenneT, TransnetBW, 2013b. Netzentwicklungsplan Strom 2013, 2. Ent-
wurf der bertragungsnetzbetreiber.
50Hertz, Amprion, TenneT, TransnetBW, 2013c. EEG-Anlagenstammdaten zum 31.12.2012
Gesamtdeutschland [WWW Document]. URL http://www.eeg-
kwk.net/de/Anlagenstammdaten.htm (accessed 8.26.13).
Abrell, J., Weigt, H., 2011. Combining Energy Networks. Netw. Spat. Econ. 12, 377401.
doi:10.1007/s11067-011-9160-0
AEA, 2012. American Economic Association Disclosure Policy. American Economic Associa-
tion.
AG Energiebilanzen e.V., 2013a. Energieverbrauch in Deutschland im Jahr 2012.
AG Energiebilanzen e.V., 2013b. Stromerzeugung 1990-2013 [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/#20131220_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2013 (ac-
cessed 1.14.14).
Agora Energiewende, BET Aachen, 2013. Ein robustes Stromnetz fr die Zukunft.
Amprion, 2013a. Das 380/220 kV-Netz der Amprion [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.amprion.net/sites/default/files/images/amprion-transportnetz.gif (ac-
cessed 9.12.13).
Amprion, 2013b. Cross-border load flows [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.amprion.net/en/cross-border-load-flows (accessed 11.15.13).
Amprion, 2013c. Wind feed-in [WWW Document]. URL http://www.amprion.net/en/wind-
feed-in# (accessed 8.28.13).
Amprion, 2013d. Photovoltaic infeed [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.amprion.net/en/photovoltaic-infeed# (accessed 8.28.13).

82
Data Documentation 72
References

BDEW, 2013a. Brutto-Stromerzeugung 2012 nach Energietrgern in Deutschland [WWW

Document]. URL https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/DE_Brutto-
Stro-
merzeugung_2007_nach_Energietraegern_in_Deutschland?open&ccm=500030030
(accessed 12.2.13).
BDEW, 2013b. Kapazitt und Erzeugung 2012 - Gesamte Elektrizittswirtschaft.
BDEW, 2013c. Energie-Infos / Anwendungshilfen | Foliensatz Erneuerbare Energien und das
EEG, Ausgabe 2013 [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/DE_Anwendungshilfen (accessed 12.7.13).
BMUB, 2013. Erneuerbare Energien -Zeitreihen zur Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien
in Deutschland [WWW Document]. URL http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/unser-
service/mediathek/downloads/detailansicht/artikel/zeitreihen-zur-entwicklung-der-
erneuerbaren-energien-in-deutschland/ (accessed 1.15.14).
BNetzA, 2013a. Kraftwerksliste der Bundesnetzagentur [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehm
en_Institutionen/Versorgungssicherheit/Erzeugungskapazitaeten/Kraftwerksliste/kra
ftwerksliste-node.html (accessed 8.26.13).
BNetzA, 2013b. Monitoringbericht 2013. Bonn.
BNetzA, Bundeskartellamt, 2013. Monitoringbericht 2013.
CARMA, 2013. CARMA - Carbon Monitoring for Action [WWW Document]. URL
http://carma.org/ (accessed 11.30.13).
Dena, 2010. dena-Netzstudie II.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2005. Verordnung ber den Zugang zu Elektrizittsversorgungsnetzen.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2011. Gesetz fr den Vorrang Erneuerbarer Energien (Erneuerbare-
Energien-Gesetz - EEG).
EC, 2012. Energy markets in the European Union in 2011. Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg.
EEX, 2013a. European Energy Exchange: European Carbon Futures | Derivatives [WWW
Document]. URL
http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/Trading%20Data/Emission%20Rights/Euro
pean%20Carbon%20Futures%20|%20Derivatives (accessed 11.6.13).
EEX, 2013b. European Energy Exchange: Hour Contracts | Spot Hourly Auction [WWW Doc-
ument]. URL
http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/Trading%20Data/Power/Hour%20Contract
s%20%7C%20Spot%20Hourly%20Auction (accessed 1.17.14).
Egerer, J., Kunz, F., Hirschhausen, C. von, 2013. Development scenarios for the North and
Baltic Seas Grid A welfare economic analysis. Util. Policy 27, 123134.
doi:10.1016/j.jup.2013.10.002
Enipedia, 2013a. Esch-sur-alzette Powerplant [WWW Document]. URL
http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Esch-sur-alzette_Powerplant (accessed 11.28.13).
Enipedia, 2013b. Sidor Powerplant [WWW Document]. URL
http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Sidor_Powerplant (accessed 11.28.13).

83
Data Documentation 72
References

ENTSO-E, 2012. Statistical Yearbook 2011.

ENTSO-E, 2013a. Electronic Grid Maps - ENTSO-E - European Network of Transmission Sys-
tem Operators for Electricity [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.entsoe.eu/publications/order-maps-and-publications/electronic-grid-
maps/ (accessed 9.18.13).
ENTSO-E, 2013b. Consumption Data [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.entsoe.eu/data/data-portal/consumption/ (accessed 4.24.13).
ENTSO-E, 2013c. Entsoe.net the transparency platform on Electricity in Europe [WWW
Document]. URL http://www.entsoe.net/default.aspx (accessed 11.29.13).
ENTSO-E, 2013d. Net generating capacity [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.entsoe.eu/data/data-portal/miscellaneous/
EPIA, 2013. Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013-2017 [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.epia.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=/uploads/tx_epiapu
blications/GMO_2013_-
_Final_PDF_01.pdf&t=1385818494&hash=8aa02e9f255079440285e853b1aea56165b
ad620
ESPON, 2010. ReRisk - Regions at Risk of Energy Poverty. Luxembourg.
EURELECTRIC, VGB PowerTech e.V., 2003. Efficiency in Electricity Generation.
Eurostat, 2013a. Gross domestic product (GDP) at current market prices by NUTS 3 regions
[WWW Document]. URL
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_pro
duct_code=NAMA_R_E3GDP (accessed 9.12.13).
Eurostat, 2013b. Average annual population to calculate regional GDP data, by NUTS 3 re-
gions [WWW Document]. URL
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_pro
duct_code=NAMA_R_E3POPGDP (accessed 9.12.13).
Eurostat, 2013c. Supply, transformation, consumption - electricity - annual data (nrg_105a)
[WWW Document]. URL
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_105a&lang=en
EWEA, 2012. Wind in power - 2011 European statistics.
Frontier Economics, Consentec, 2008. Notwendigkeit und Ausgestaltung geeigneter Anreize
fr eine verbrauchsnahe und bedarfsgerechte Errichtung neuer Kraftwerke [WWW
Document]. URL http://www.en.consentec.de/publications/studies (accessed
11.6.13).
Gabriel, S.A., Conejo, A.J., Fuller, J.D., Hobbs, B.F., Ruiz, C., 2012. Complementarity Modeling
in Energy Markets, 2012th ed. Springer.
Google, 2013. Google Maps [WWW Document]. URL https://www.google.com/maps (ac-
cessed 8.26.13).
Hogan, W.W., 1992. Contract networks for electric power transmission. J. Regul. Econ. 4,
211242. doi:10.1007/BF00133621
Hutcheon, N., Bialek, J.W., 2013. Updated and validated power flow model of the main con-
tinental European transmission network. PowerTech POWERTECH 2013 IEEE Grenob-
le 15. doi:10.1109/PTC.2013.6652178
84
Data Documentation 72
References

Joost, 2013. Powerland-Hochspannungsleitungen in Deutschland [WWW Document]. URL

http://powerland.bplaced.net/ (accessed 9.13.13).
Kieling, F., Nefzger, P., Kaintzyk, U., 2001. Freileitungen: Planung, Berechnung, Ausfhrung.
Springer.
Kunz, F., 2013. Improving Congestion Management: How to Faciliate the Integration of Re-
newable Generation in Germany. Energy Journal 34, 5578.
Kunz, F., Zerrahn, A., 2013. The Benefit of Coordinating Congestion Management in Germany
( No. 1298). Discussion Papers, DIW Berlin.
Leuthold, F., Weigt, H., Hirschhausen, C. von, 2008. ELMOD - A Model of the European Elec-
tricity Market, Electricity Markets Working Papers. Dresden University of Technolo-
gy,Chair for Energy Economics and Public Sector Management.
Leuthold, F., Weigt, H., von Hirschhausen, C., 2012. A Large-Scale Spatial Optimization Model
of the European Electricity Market. Netw. Spat. Econ. 12, 75107.
doi:10.1007/s11067-010-9148-1
Microsoft Corporation, 2013. Bing Maps [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.bing.com/maps/ (accessed 8.26.13).
National Grid, 2012. 2012 Electricity Ten Year Statement (TYS) [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/ten-year-statement/current-elec-tys/
(accessed 10.8.13).
National Grid, 2013. Transmission Network: Shape Files [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/GasElectricNW/underg
roundcables/shape/ (accessed 10.8.13).
Neuhoff, K., Boyd, R., Grau, T., Barqun, J., Echavarren, F., Bialek, J., Dent, C., Hirschhausen,
C. von, Hobbs, B., Kunz, F., Nabe, C., Papaefthymiou, G., Weber, C., Weigt, H., 2013.
Renewable Electric Energy Integration: Quantifying the Value of Design of Markets
for International Transmission Capacity. Energy Economics 40, 760772.
Neuhoff, K., Boyd, R., Grau, T., Barqun, J., Echavarren, F., Bialek, J., Dent, C., Hirschhausen,
C. von, Hobbs, B., Kunz, F., Weigt, H., Nabe, C., Papaefthymiou, G., Weber, C., 2011.
Renewable Electric Energy Integration: Quantifying the Value of Design of Markets
for International Transmission Capacity. Climate Policy Initiative, Berlin.
OpenStreetMap contributors, 2013. OpenStreetMap [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright (accessed 8.26.13).
Platts, 2013. World Electric Power Plants Database [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.platts.com/Products/worldelectricpowerplantsdatabase (accessed
12.17.12).
Power Plants Around the World, 2013. CCGT Power Plants in Europe - other [WWW Docu-
ment]. URL http://www.industcards.com/cc-europe.htm (accessed 11.28.13).
Scharff, R., Egerer, J., Sder, L., 2013. A Description of the Operative Decision-Making Pro-
cess of a Power Generating Company on the Nordic Electricity Market. Energy Syst.
forthcoming.
Scharff, R., Egerer, J., Sder, L., 2014. A description of the operative decision-making process
of a power generating company on the Nordic electricity market. Energy Syst.
doi:10.1007/s12667-013-0104-2

85
Data Documentation 72
References

Schrder, A., Bracke, M., Gerbaulet, C., Mendelevitch, R., Islam, M., Hirschhausen, C. von,
2012. Current and Prospective Costs for Electricity Generation - Background Paper for
the Project Modeling the Energy Transformation and Other Modeling Exercises.
DIW Berlin, TU Berlin, Berlin.
Schrder, A., Kunz, F., Mei, J., Mendelevitch, R., von Hirschhausen, C., 2013. Current and
Prospective Costs of Electricity Generation until 2050 ( No. 68), DIW Data Documen-
tation. DIW Berlin, Berlin.
Schrter, J., 2004. Auswirkungen des europischen Emissionshandelssystems auf den Kraft-
werkseinsatz in Deutschland (Diploma thesis). Technical University Berlin.
Schweppe, F.C., Caramanis, R.D., Tabors, M.C., Bohn, R.E., 1988. Spot Pricing of Electricity.
Kluwer, Boston.
SEPS, 2013. Grid maps [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.sepsas.sk/seps/en_SchemaSiete.asp?kod=107
Statistik der Kohlenwirtschaft e.V., 2013. Entwicklung ausgewhlter Energiepreise [WWW
Document]. URL http://www.kohlenstatistik.de/files/enpr.xlsx
TenneT, 2013a. Grid map - Map of high-voltage grid managed by TenneT [WWW Document].
URL
http://www.tennet.eu/de/index.php?eID=pmkfdl&file=fileadmin%2Fdownloads%2F
Netz-
Pro-
jekte%2FTenneT_Grid_map.pdf&ck=d7b3a2eb989c21898fdb287060934a49&forcedl
=1&pageid=4 (accessed 8.28.13).
TenneT, 2013b. Cross-border load flows / Matched nominations [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.tennettso.de/site/en/Transparency/publications/network-
figures/cross-border (accessed 11.15.13).
TenneT, 2013c. Actual and forecast wind energy feed-in [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.tennettso.de/site/en/Transparency/publications/network-
figures/actual-and-forecast-wind-energy-feed-in (accessed 8.28.13).
TenneT, 2013d. Actual and forecast photovoltaic energy feed-in [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.tennettso.de/site/en/Transparency/publications/network-
figures/actual-and-forecast-photovoltaic-energy-feed-in (accessed 8.28.13).
The Wind Power, 2011. The Wind Power: Wind turbines and wind farms database [WWW
Document]. URL http://www.thewindpower.net/
TransnetBW, 2013a. Cross-Border Load Flows and Schedules [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.transnetbw.de/en/key-figures/load-data/cross-border-load-flows-and-
schedules (accessed 11.15.13).
TransnetBW, 2013b. Wind Infeed [WWW Document]. URL http://transnetbw.com/key-
figures/renewable-energies-res/wind-infeed/ (accessed 8.28.13).
TransnetBW, 2013c. Photovoltaic Infeed [WWW Document]. URL
http://transnetbw.com/key-figures/renewable-energies-res/photovoltaic-infeed/
(accessed 8.28.13).

86
Data Documentation 72
References

VDE, 2010. Deutsches Hchstspannungsnetz 01.01.2010 [WWW Document]. URL

https://www.vde.com/de/InfoCenter/Seiten/Details.aspx?eslShopItemID=8ee40f7b-
51cd-4533-8c0c-0ea1e6e3da72 (accessed 8.26.13).
VDE, 2013. Deutsches Hchstspannungsnetz Wandkarte im Mastab 1:600.000 [WWW
Document]. URL
https://www.vde.com/de/infocenter/seiten/details.aspx?eslshopitemid=8ee40f7b-
51cd-4533-8c0c-0ea1e6e3da72 (accessed 9.18.13).
Ventosa, M., Ballo, A., Ramos, A., Rivier, M., 2005. Electricity market modeling trends. Ener-
gy Policy 33, 897913.
Ventosa, M., Ba llo, ., Ramos, A., Rivier, M., 2005. Electricity market modeling trends. Ener-
gy Policy 33, 897913. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.013
VfS, 2012. Ethikkodex des Vereins fuer Socialpolitik. Verein fuer Socialpolitik.
Weber, A., Beckers, T., Behr, P., Bieschke, N., Fehner, S., von Hirschhausen, C., 2013. Long-
term Power System Planning in the Context of Changing Policy Objectives Concep-
tual Issues and Selected Evidence from Europe.
Weigt, H., Jeske, T., Leuthold, F., von Hirschhausen, C., 2010. Take the long way down:
Integration of large-scale North Sea wind using HVDC transmission. Energy Policy 38,
31643173. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.041
Zhou, Q., Bialek, J.W., 2005. Approximate Model of European Interconnected System as a
Benchmark System to Study Effects of Cross-Border Trades. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
20, 782788. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846178

87
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Appendix
Table 23: Conventional power plant blocks of specific size by voltage level
Nuclear Lignite Coal Gas Oil Waste Other
[kV] [MW] ST ST ST CC CB ST GT CB ST GT ST -
<50 - - - - - - 1 - - - - -
220 & <100 - - - - - - 1 - - 4 - -
380 <500 - 21 27 3 3 - 3 - 3 1 - 2
>500 9 15 15 4 - - - - - - - -
<10 - - - - - 2 21 - - 1 11 2
<50 - 13 17 - 1 9 102 - - 21 59 15
<220 <100 - 10 17 1 4 3 35 2 - 13 2 10
<500 - 3 25 9 3 7 18 - - 5 - 5
>500 - - - 1 - - - - - - - -
Sum 9 62 101 18 11 21 181 2 3 45 72 34

Table 24: Conventional generation capacity for each DENA zone

[MW] Nuclear Lignite Coal Gas Oil Waste Other Hydro
State ST ST ST CC CB ST GT CB ST GT ST PSP
21 1,410 - 470 - - - 20 - - 435 - 77 -
22 - - 1,631 - - 1 682 - - 144 56 260 -
23 1,360 352 2,371 324 - 65 210 - - - 75 299 220
24 - 34 1,136 - - 34 488 - - 25 87 48 623
25 1,275 - 42 - - 823 478 - - - 127 - 291
26 1,410 - 801 1,932 - 202 241 - 772 158 42 - 99
41 2,712 - 1,774 353 41 35 189 - - 206 10 - -
42 - - 921 - 50 - 394 162 262 70 44 - 1,873
71 1,329 - 794 876 710 224 - - - - - - -
72 - 2,648 7,315 586 - 30 1,944 - - 146 262 1,483 153
73 - - 2,124 838 165 53 943 - - 206 61 - 138
74 - 7,847 - 1,213 - 55 254 - - 146 114 - -
75 - - 3,553 398 1,117 - 391 - - - 160 141 -
76 2,572 - - - - - 121 - - 57 10 6 -
81 - 184 1,285 604 - 354 1,267 - - 661 246 14 -
82 - - 454 127 - - 16 - - 139 40 - 119
83 - 998 - - - - 812 - - 213 54 29 1,589
84 - 8,928 - 250 - - 490 - - 32 64 119 1,085

Table 25: Conventional generation capacity for each federal state

[MW] Nuclear Lignite Coal Gas Oil Waste Other Hydro
State ST ST ST CC CB ST GT CB ST GT ST PSP
BW 2,712 - 4,012 353 91 35 583 162 262 276 98 - 1,873
BY 5,257 - 843 1,932 - 1,025 828 - 772 215 180 6 390
BE - 164 777 444 - 288 230 - - 327 36 - -
BB - 4,409 - 160 - - 686 - - 334 99 119 -
HB - - 874 - - - 14 - - 88 56 260 -
HH - - 194 127 - - 16 - - 38 24 - -
HE - 34 1,002 - 112 - 698 - - 25 98 48 623
MV - - 508 - - - 287 - - - 17 - -
NI 2,689 352 2,150 1,200 710 224 905 - - 56 75 299 220
NW - 10,495 11,411 2,637 165 203 3,129 - - 499 437 1,483 291
RP - - 13 398 880 - 147 - - - 78 56 -
SL - - 2,156 - 125 - 39 - - - 27 85 -
SN - 4,325 - 250 - - 332 - - 17 15 - 1,085
ST - 1,152 - - - 66 635 - - 227 185 43 80
SH 1,410 - 730 - - - 20 - - 536 16 77 119
TH - 60 - - - 34 390 - - - 11 - 1,509

88
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Table 26: Renewable generation capacity for each DENA zone

[MW] Hydro Biomass Wind Solar Geothermal Sum
DENA Zones RoR ST Onshore Offshore PV
21 4 318 3,587 0 1,118 0 5,027
22 21 549 4,062 340 1,518 0 6,491
23 66 441 2,861 0 1,011 0 4,379
24 68 190 950 0 1,380 0 2,589
25 185 401 674 0 3,264 0 4,523
26 1,299 396 60 0 4,006 11 5,772
41 89 215 207 0 1,283 6 1,801
42 580 455 350 0 3,105 0 4,490
71 1 246 1,077 0 1,033 0 2,358
72 42 420 531 0 1,411 0 2,405
73 65 268 1,318 0 1,263 0 2,915
74 156 136 1,261 0 1,081 0 2,,634
75 179 290 1,582 0 1,753 2 3,806
76 430 290 98 0 2,098 0 2,916
81 9 915 7,165 48 2,680 0 10,818
82 0 119 379 0 188 0 687
83 60 342 2,424 0 1,653 0 4,480
84 97 388 2,851 0 2,464 0 5,801
Sum 3,352 6,381 31,439 388 32,311 19 73,890

Table 27: Renewable generation capacity for each federal state

[MW] Hydro Biomass Wind Solar Geothermal Sum
Federal States RoR ST Onshore Offshore PV
BB 3 475 4,874 0 2,080 0 7,432
BE 1 82 318 0 261 0 662
BW 705 682 710 0 4,586 6 6,689
BY 1,893 1,103 710 0 9,303 11 13,020
HB 0 22 176 0 53 0 251
HE 63 181 758 0 1,284 0 2,286
HH 0 70 152 0 64 0 286
MV 3 347 1,896 48 746 0 3,040
NI 85 1,067 7,159 340 2,925 0 11,576
NW 149 960 3,362 0 4,032 0 8,503
RP 259 217 1,974 0 1,676 2 4,128
SH 4 347 3,753 0 1,186 0 5,290
SL 27 85 244 0 403 0 759
SN 99 276 1,488 0 1,808 0 3,671
ST 17 249 2,958 0 1,072 0 4,296
TH 44 216 906 0 831 0 1,997
Sum 3,352 6,379 31,438 388 32,310 19 73,886

89
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Table 28: Conventional plants feeding directly into the 220 kV and 380 kV systems 24
Number Tech- Net capacity High-voltage
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Year Comments
BNetzA nology* in MW node
Baden BNA0019 Heizkraftwerk Altbach/Deizisau ALT HKW 2 (DT Solobetrieb) Coal ST 336.0 1997 Altbach
Wurttemberg
BNA0020 Heizkraftwerk Altbach/Deizisau ALT HKW 1 Coal ST 433.0 1985 Altbach
BNA0434 Heizkraftwerk Heilbronn HLB 7 Coal ST 778.0 1985 Grogartach
BNA0518 Rheinhafen-Dampfkraftwerk RDK 7 Coal ST 505.0 1985 Daxlanden
BNA0643 GKM Block 4 Coal ST 202.5 1970 Mannheim West* Allocated evenly west/east
BNA0644 GKM Block 6 Coal ST 255.0 2005 Mannheim East* Allocated evenly west/east
BNA0645 GKM Block 7 Coal ST 425.0 1982 Mannheim East* Allocated evenly west/east
BNA0646 GKM Block 8 Coal ST 435.0 1993 Mannheim West* Allocated evenly west/east
BNA0514 Rheinhafen-Dampfkraftwerk RDK 4S Gas CC 353.0 1998 Daxlanden
BNA0686 Gemeinschaftskernkraftwerk Neckarwestheim II GKN II Nuclear ST 1,310.0 1989 Neckarwestheim
BNA0802 Kernkraftwerk Philippsburg 2 KKP 2 Nuclear ST 1,402.0 1985 Philippsburg
BNA0649 Dampfkraftwerk Marbach am Neckar MAR III DT Oil ST 262.0 1975 Hoheneck* Closest node
Bavaria BNA0969 Nord 2 2 Coal ST 333.0 1991 Fhring* Closest node
BNA1093 Zolling Zolling Block 5 Coal ST 468.0 1986 Zolling* Closest node
BNA0994 Gemeinschaftskraftwerk Irsching 5 Gas CC 846.0 2010 Irsching
BNA0995 Ulrich Hartmann 4 Gas CC 545.0 2011 Irsching
BNA0263 Isar 2 KKI 2 Nuclear ST 1,410.0 1988 Isar
BNA0355 Grafenrheinfeld KKG Nuclear ST 1,275.0 1982 Grafenrheinfeld
BNA0381 Gundremmingen B Nuclear ST 1,284.0 1984 Gundelfingen
BNA0382 Gundremmingen C Nuclear ST 1,288.0 1984 Gundelfingen
BNA0378 Ingolstadt 3 Oil ST 386.0 1973 Ingolstadt
BNA0379 Ingolstadt 4 Oil ST 386.0 1974 Ingolstadt
Berlin BNA0086 Reuter West Reuter West D Coal ST 282.0 1987 Reuter
BNA0087 Reuter West Reuter West E Coal ST 282.0 1988 Reuter
Brandenburg BNA0785 KW Jnschwalde A Lignite ST 465.0 1981 Preilack
BNA0786 KW Jnschwalde B Lignite ST 465.0 1982 Preilack
BNA0787 KW Jnschwalde C Lignite ST 465.0 1984 Preilack
BNA0788 KW Jnschwalde D Lignite ST 465.0 1985 Preilack
BNA0789 KW Jnschwalde E Lignite ST 465.0 1987 Preilack
BNA0790 KW Jnschwalde F Lignite ST 465.0 1989 Preilack
BNA0914 Schwarze Pumpe A Lignite ST 750.0 1997 Graustein
BNA0915 Schwarze Pumpe B Lignite ST 750.0 1998 Graustein
Bremen BNA0147 Farge Farge Coal ST 350.0 1969 Farge
Hessen BNA0375 Staudinger 1 Coal ST 249.0 1965 Grokrotzenburg
BNA0377 Staudinger 5 Coal ST 510.0 1992 Grokrotzenburg
Mecklenburg- BNA0849 KNG Kraftwerk Rostock Rostock Coal ST 508.0 1994 Kontek* Node Kontek is equal to the
West Pomera- Bentwisch 380kV node
nia

24Data is based on the power plant dataset by (BNetzA, 2013a) published on 16.10.2013 and adjusted for 2012. Every * indicates data with additional sources not listed or
own assumptions.

90
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Number Tech- Net capacity High-voltage

State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Year Comments
BNetzA nology* in MW node
Lower Saxony BNA0464 KWM Block3 Coal ST 690.0 1979 Mehrum
BNA1061 Wilhelmshaven 1 Coal ST 757.0 1976 Maade
BNA0239 Huntorf Gas GT 321.0 1978 Huntorf
BNA0245a Emden Gas Gas GT 50.0 1973 Emden
BNA0604 Emsland B2 Gas CB 355.0 1973 Hanekenfhr
BNA0605 Emsland C2 Gas CB 355.0 1974 Hanekenfhr
BNA0606 Emsland D Gas CC 876.0 2010 Hanekenfhr
BNA0918 Dow Stade Kraftwrmekopplungsanlage Gas GT 190.0 1972 Stade* Closest node
BNA1437 KWK AOS GmbH GT 1/2 Gas GT 30.7 2012 Abbenfleth
BNA0439 Buschhaus D Lignite ST 352.0 1985 Helmstedt
BNA0251 Grohnde KWG Nuclear ST 1,360.0 1985 Grohnde
BNA0607 Emsland KKE Nuclear ST 1,329.0 1988 Hanekenfhr
North Rhine BNA0067 Bergkamen A Coal ST 717.0 1981 Gersteinwerk
Westphalia
BNA0203 Knepper C Coal ST 345.0 1971 Pppinghausen
BNA0216 KW Walsum Walsum 9 Coal ST 370.0 1988 Walsum
BNA0331 Scholven C Coal ST 345.0 1969 Bellendorf* Assumption
BNA0332 Scholven B Coal ST 345.0 1968 Polsum* Assumption
BNA0333 Scholven D Coal ST 345.0 1970 Polsum* Assumption
BNA0334 Scholven E Coal ST 345.0 1971 Polsum* Assumption
BNA0335 Scholven F Coal ST 676.0 1979 Polsum* Assumption
BNA0449 KW Herne Herne 3 Coal ST 280.0 1966 Eiberg
BNA0450 KW Herne Herne 4 Coal ST 449.0 1989 Bochum
BNA0493 Ibbenbren B Coal ST 794.0 1985 Westerkappeln
BNA0619 KW Lnen Lnen 7 Coal ST 324.0 1969 Elmenhorst
BNA0793 Heyden 4 Coal ST 875.0 1987 Ovenstdt
BNA0813 Kraftwerk Veltheim 3 Coal ST 303.0 1970 Veltheim
BNA0989 KW West West 2 Coal ST 318.0 1971 Voerde* Different node name
BNA0990 KW West West 1 Coal ST 322.0 1971 Voerde* Different node name
BNA0991 KW Voerde Block A Coal ST 695.0 1982 Voerde* Different node name
BNA0992 KW Voerde Block B Coal ST 695.0 1985 Voerde* Different node name
BNA1037 Kraftwerk Werdohl-Elverlingsen E4 Coal ST 310.0 1982 Elverlingsen
BNA1046a Gersteinwerk K2 Coal ST 607.5 1984 Gersteinwerk
BNA0410 Trianel Gaskraftwerk Block 10 Gas CC 417.1 2007 Geithe
BNA0411 Trianel Gaskraftwerk Block 20 Gas CC 420.9 2007 Geithe
BNA0548 Knapsack Gas Gas CC 800.0 2006 Knapsack*
BNA1045 Gersteinwerk G2 Gas CB 355.0 1973 Gersteinwerk
BNA0313 Frimmersdorf P Lignite ST 284.0 1966 Gohrpunkt
BNA0314 Frimmersdorf Q Lignite ST 278.0 1970 Norf
BNA0696 Neurath A Lignite ST 277.0 1972 Osterath
BNA0697 Neurath B Lignite ST 288.0 1972 Opladen
BNA0698 Neurath C Lignite ST 292.0 1973 Opladen
BNA0699 Neurath D Lignite ST 607.0 1975 Opladen
BNA0700 Neurath E Lignite ST 604.0 1976 Rommerskirchen
BNA0705 Niederauem D Lignite ST 297.0 1968 Brauweiler
BNA0706 Niederauem F Lignite ST 299.0 1971 Opladen
BNA0707 Niederauem H Lignite ST 648.0 1974 Rommerskirchen

91
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Number Tech- Net capacity High-voltage

State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Year Comments
BNetzA nology* in MW node
BNA0708 Niederauem G Lignite ST 653.0 1974 Rommerskirchen
BNA0709 Niederauem K Lignite ST 944.0 2002 Rommerskirchen
BNA0712 Niederauem C Lignite ST 294.0 1965 Brauweiler
BNA0713 Niederauem E Lignite ST 295.0 1970 Opladen
BNA1026 Weisweiler F Lignite ST 304.0 1967 Oberzier
BNA1027 Weisweiler G Lignite ST 590.0 1974 Oberzier
BNA1028 Weisweiler H Lignite ST 592.0 1975 Oberzier
BNA1401a BoA 2 Neurath F Lignite ST 1,050.0 2012 Rommerskirchen
BNA1401b BoA 3 Neurath G Lignite ST 1,050.0 2012 Rommerskirchen
BNA1036 Kraftwerk Werdohl-Elverlingsen E 1/2 Oil GT 206.0 1975 Elverlingsen
BNA0485 Huckingen A Other ST 303.0 1975 Mndelheim
BNA0486 Huckingen B Other ST 303.0 1976 Mndelheim
Rhineland BNA0614b Kraftwerk Mitte GUD A 800 GT 11, GT 12, DT 10 Gas CB 490.0 2005 BASF* Different name
Palatinate
Saarland BNA0093 Kraftwerk Bexbach BEX Coal ST 721.0 1983 Mittelbexbach
BNA0253 Kraftwerk Ensdorf Block 1 Coal ST 106.0 1963 Ensdorf
BNA0820 Weiher Weiher III Coal ST 655.6 1976 Uchtelfangen
Saxony BNA0115 Lippendorf R Lignite ST 875.0 2000 Pulgar
BNA0116 Braunkohlekraftwerk Lippendorf LIP S Lignite ST 875.0 1999 Pulgar
BNA0122 Boxberg N Lignite ST 465.0 1979 Brwalde
BNA0123 Boxberg P Lignite ST 465.0 1980 Brwalde
BNA0124 Boxberg Q Lignite ST 857.0 2000 Brwalde
BNA1404 Boxberg R Lignite ST 640.0 2012 Brwalde
Saxony Anhalt BNA0878 Schkopau A Lignite ST 450.0 1996 Lauchstdt
BNA0879 Schkopau B Lignite ST 450.0 1996 Lauchstdt
Schleswig- BNA0526 Gemeinschafts-KW Kiel Coal ST 323.0 1970 Kiel-Sd* Connected to station Kiel but missing
Holstein 110kV
BNA0157 Brokdorf KBR Nuclear ST 1,410.0 1986 Brokdorf
BNA0161 Brunsbttel GT A Oil GT 63.5 1973 Brunsbttel
BNA0162 Brunsbttel GT B Oil GT 63.5 1973 Brunsbttel
BNA0163 Brunsbttel GT C Oil GT 63.5 1973 Brunsbttel
BNA0164 Brunsbttel GT D Oil GT 63.5 1973 Brunsbttel

92
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Table 29: Conventional plants not directly feeding into the 220 kV and 380 kV systems 25
Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
Baden Wurttemberg BNA1006 Kraftwerk Walheim WAL 2 Coal ST 148.0 1967 GKN
BNA0432 Heizkraftwerk Heilbronn HLB 5 Coal ST 110.0 1965 Heilbronn
BNA0433 Heizkraftwerk Heilbronn HLB 6 Coal ST 110.0 1966 Heilbronn
BNA1005 Kraftwerk Walheim WAL 1 Coal ST 96.0 1964 GKN
BNA0935 Restmll-Heizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Mnster MN DT12 Coal ST 45.0 1982 Mhlhausen
BNA0936 Restmll-Heizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Mnster MN DT15 Coal ST 45.0 1984 Mhlhausen
BNA0801 Heizkraftwerk Pforzheim GmbH Wirbelschichtblock Coal ST 26.9 1990 Birkenfeld
BNA0934 Heizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Gaisburg GAI DT 14 neu Coal ST 22.6 2009 Mhlhausen
BNA1405a Heizkraftwerk Magirusstrae Coal ST 20.7 1978 Dellmensingen
BNA1467 Coal ST 18.5 1995 Weier no year (assumption 1995)
BNA0016 Heizkraftwerk Altbach/Deizisau ALT GT A (Solo) Gas CB 50.0 1971 Altbach
BNA0800 Heizkraftwerk Pforzheim GmbH Kombiblock/GuD Gas CB 41.2 1980 Birkenfeld
BNA0018 Heizkraftwerk Altbach/Deizisau ALT GT C Gas GT 81.0 1975 Altbach
BNA0015 Heizkraftwerk Altbach/Deizisau ALT GT E (solo) Gas GT 65.0 1997 Altbach
BNA1260 Heizkraftwerk Sindelfingen Sammelschienen-HKW Gas GT 65.0 1980 Stuttgart-Weilimdorf
BNA0293 GuD Anlage WVK GuD Anlage Gas GT 60.1 1998 Eichstetten
BNA0017 Heizkraftwerk Altbach/Deizisau ALT GT B Gas GT 57.0 1973 Altbach
BNA0361 Kraftwerk Grenzach-Wyhlen Gas GT 40.0 2004 Schwrstadt
BNA0515 Heizkraftwerk West T3 Gas GT 40.0 1984 Karlsruhe-West
BNA1275 Kraftwerk Freudenberg Weinheim 2 Gas GT 21.0 2005 Weinheim
BNA1276 Kraftwerk Freudenberg Weinheim 1 Gas GT 21.0 1982 Weinheim
BNA1292b IHKW Heidenheim BHKW-Anlage Gas GT 19.3 2000 Rotensohl
BNA1315 HKW HKW Gas GT 18 1995 Eichstetten no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1200 GuD-Kraftwerk Gas CB 17.5 2006 BASF
BNA1408 Heizkraftwerk Evonik Rheinfelden Gas GT 16.0 1980 Schwrstadt
BNA1151 KWKK Heidelberg Gas GT 13.5 2002 Heidelberg-Sd
BNA0957 BHKW Obere Viehweide - Gas GT 12.5 2000 Metzingen
BNA0799 Heizkraftwerk Pforzheim GmbH Gaskesselanlage Gas GT 11.3 1969 Birkenfeld
BNA1292a IHKW Heidenheim Kessel-Turbine Gas GT 11.0 1983 Rotensohl
BNA0832 BHKW-Hauffstrae Motorenanlage Gas GT 9.8 2011 Metzingen
BNA0232c Werkskraftwerk Sappi Ehingen Gas GT 4.0 1976 Dellmensingen
BNA1333a HKW Pfaffenwald Anlage 40 Gas ST 12.1 1988 Stuttgart-Weilimdorf
BNA1333c HKW Pfaffenwald Block 60 Gas ST 11.5 1968 Stuttgart-Weilimdorf
BNA1333b HKW Pfaffenwald Block 50 Gas ST 11.3 1969 Stuttgart-Weilimdorf
BNA0648 Dampfkraftwerk Marbach am Neckar Marbach III GT (solo) Oil CB 85.0 1975 Hoheneck
BNA0647 Dampfkraftwerk Marbach am Neckar Marbach II GT Oil CB 77.4 1971 Hoheneck
BNA1004 Kraftwerk Walheim WAL GT D Oil GT 136.0 1981 GKN

25Data is based on the power plant dataset by (BNetzA, 2013a) published on 16.10.2013 and adjusted for 2012. Every * indicates data with additional sources not listed or
own assumptions.

93
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA0516 MiRO Kesselhaus Werk 1 Oil GT 45.0 1995 Daxlanden
BNA0517 MiRO Kesselhaus Werk 2 Oil GT 25.0 1995 Daxlanden no year (assumption 1995)
BNA0937 Restmll-Heizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Mnster MN GT16 Oil GT 23.3 1974 Mhlhausen
BNA0938 Restmll-Heizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Mnster MN GT17 Oil GT 23.3 1974 Mhlhausen
BNA0939b Restmll-Heizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Mnster MN GT18 Oil GT 23.3 1974 Mhlhausen
BNA0641a HKW Mannheim Turbine 60 Waste ST 22.1 2009 BASF
BNA0939a Restmll-Heizkraftwerk Stuttgart-Mnster MN DT19 neu Waste ST 19.5 2009 Mhlhausen
BNA1139 TREA Breisgau Waste ST 13.6 2005 Eichstetten
BNA1144 EEW Gppingen Turb. Neu Waste ST 11.0 2009 Bnzwangen
BNA1110 Restmllheizkraftwerk Bblingen Mllverbrennung Waste ST 9.5 1999 Stuttgart-Weilimdorf
BNA0640 HKW Mannheim Turbine 3 Waste ST 8.7 2005 BASF
BNA0641b HKW Mannheim Turbine D.0 Waste ST 8.1 2012 BASF
BNA0641c HKW Mannheim Turbine E.0 Waste ST 5.8 2012 BASF
Bavaria BNA0926b Heizkraftwerk der Sappi Stockstadt GmbH Coal ST 24.8 1969 Aschaffenburg
BNA0261b HKW Erlangen K6 DT2 Coal ST 17.4 1980 Kriegenbrunn
BNA0683a Sd DT1 1 Gas CC 275.5 1980 Fhring Aggregation BNA0683b/BNA0683c (CCGT)
BNA0684a Sd GT 60 2 Gas CC 265.0 2004 Fhring Aggregation BNA0684b/BNA0684c (CCGT)
BNA0805 Kraftwerk Plattling Gas GT 97.9 2010 Plattling
BNA0742 HKW Sandreuth GuD 1 Gas GT 75.0 2005 Kriegenbrunn
BNA0743 HKW Sandreuth GuD 2 Gas GT 75.0 2005 Kriegenbrunn
BNA0755b Obernburg 1 Gas GT 64.0 1995 Aschaffenburg
BNA0243 HKW Eltmann Gas GT 54.0 2008 Eltmann
BNA0174 Industriepark Werk Gendorf Gas GT 49.0 2002 Pirach
BNA1248 UPM Schongau Dampfkraftwerk Gas GT 45.0 1969 Irsingen
BNA1088 Heizkraftwerke an der Friedensbrcke GTI Gas GT 44.5 2005 Bergrheinfeld
BNA0755a Obernburg 2 Gas GT 36.0 1920 Aschaffenburg
BNA1087 Heizkraftwerke an der Friedensbrcke GTII Gas GT 29.5 2009 Bergrheinfeld
BNA1103 UPM Augsburg Dampfturbine 3 Gas GT 29.0 1966 Lechhausen
BNA0033 Gasturbine GT Gas GT 28.8 2004 Lechhausen
BNA0702 Cogeneration Gas GT 25.4 1996 Sittling
BNA1086 Heizkraftwerke an der Friedensbrcke TSII Gas GT 25.0 1993 Bergrheinfeld
BNA1085 Heizkraftwerke an der Friedensbrcke TSIII Gas GT 23.0 1971 Bergrheinfeld
BNA0261a HKW Erlangen GuD I Gas GT 21.6 2005 Kriegenbrunn
BNA1104 Heizkraftwerk T2 Gas GT 18.0 1976 Lechhausen
BNA1238 Kraftwerk Meggle Gas GT 12.6 2000 Marienberg
BNA1327a Energiezentrale 1992 AGG1 - AGG7 Gas GT 11.06 1992 Zolling
BNA0842a Gasmotore Gasmotore 1-3 Gas GT 9.8 2011 Marienberg
BNA1327b Erweiterung Energiezentrale 2003 AGG8 - AGG9 Gas GT 7.44 2003 Zolling
BNA1127 GHD GT1 Gas GT 6.7 1998 Isar
BNA1128 GHD GT2 Gas GT 6.7 1998 Isar
BNA1225 PWG MHKW 2 Gas GT 5.3 1989 Oberbrunn
BNA1226 PWG MHKW 1 Gas GT 5.3 1987 Oberbrunn
BNA1444c GT3 Gas GT 5.1 1994 Ludersheim
BNA1444d GT4 Gas GT 5.1 1995 Ludersheim
BNA0843 Gasmotor 5 Gasmotor 5 Gas GT 4.3 2012 Marienberg
BNA1444a GT1 Gas GT 4.2 1993 Ludersheim

94
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA1444b GT2 Gas GT 4.2 1993 Ludersheim
BNA0745 Franken 1 2 Gas ST 440.0 1976 Kriegenbrunn
BNA0744 Franken 1 1 Gas ST 383.0 1973 Kriegenbrunn
BNA0172 Dampfkraftwerk BGH - O1 Gas ST 178.0 2001 Pirach Year (1977) / 2001
BNA1328 HBB GUD Gas ST 24.0 2000 Marienberg
BNA0683b Sd GT3 1 Gas 1980 in BNA0683a
BNA0683c Sd GT2 1 Gas 1980 in BNA0683a
BNA0684b Sd GT 62 2 Gas 2004 in BNA0684a
BNA0684c Sd DT60 2 Gas 2004 in BNA0684a
BNA1092 Zolling GT1 & GT2 Oil GT 46.0 1976 Zolling
BNA1007a SKW Gasturbine SKW Gasturbine Oil GT 24.0 1988 Kempten-Au
BNA0427 Kraftwerk Hausham GT 1 Oil GT 23.2 1982 Marienberg
BNA0428 Kraftwerk Hausham GT 2 Oil GT 23.2 1982 Marienberg
BNA0429 Kraftwerk Hausham GT 3 Oil GT 23.2 1982 Marienberg
BNA0430 Kraftwerk Hausham GT 4 Oil GT 23.2 1982 Marienberg
BNA1338 Spitzenkraftwerk MLD Oil GT 19.0 1995 Plattling no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1212 DKW Nord Oil GT 11.4 1995 Irsingen no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1227 DKW Leinau Oil GT 11.4 1995 Irsingen no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1007b SKW Diesel SKW Diesel Oil GT 10.5 1978 Kempten-Au
BNA1249 UPM Schongau Heizkraftwerk 2 Other ST 6.0 1995 Irsingen no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1254 Mllkraftwerk Schwandorf Waste ST 54.0 1982 Schwandorf
BNA0746 HKW Sandreuth Waste ST 25.0 1992 Kriegenbrunn
BNA0895 GKS entfllt Waste ST 24.4 1994 Schweinfurt
BNA1449b Turbosatz 2 Waste ST 24.0 1998 Bergrheinfeld
BNA1161 MVA Ingolstadt Mllheizkraftwerk Waste ST 21.4 1984 Ingolstadt
BNA1119 MHKW Burgkirchen Waste ST 12.0 1994 Pirach
BNA1295 AVA GmbH AHKW Waste ST 10.0 1993 Lechhausen
BNA0845 MHKW T1a/b, T2 Waste ST 9.0 1988 Marienberg
BNA1449a Turbosatz 1 Waste ST 1984 Bergrheinfeld no capacity
Berlin BNA0082 Reuter Reuter C Coal ST 124.0 1969 Reuter
BNA0085a Moabit Moabit A Coal ST 89.0 1990 Mitte
BNA0073 Mitte GuD Mitte Gas CC 444.0 1996 Friedrichshain
BNA0074 Charlottenburg Charlottenburg Gas GT 211.0 1975 Mitte
BNA0070 HKW Adlershof NEZ Gas GT 7.9 2010 Wuhlheide
BNA0072 HKW Adlershof KWC Gas GT 6.6 2002 Wuhlheide
BNA0071 HKW Adlershof GT Gas GT 4.9 1996 Wuhlheide
BNA0075 Lichterfelde Lichterfelde 1 Gas ST 144.0 1972 Mitte
BNA0076 Lichterfelde Lichterfelde 3 Gas ST 144.0 1974 Mitte
BNA0081 Klingenberg Klingenberg Lignite ST 164.0 1981 Wuhlheide
BNA0083 Wilmersdorf Wilmersdorf Oil GT 276.0 1977 Mitte
BNA0085b Moabit Moabit GT Oil GT 51.0 1971 Mitte
BNA0084 Reuter Reuter M Waste ST 36.0 1998 Reuter
Brandenburg BNA0130 Kirchmser Gas CC 160.0 1994 Brandenburg-West
BNA0893 GuD Schwarzheide Gas CC 122.0 1994 Ragow
BNA0814 HKW Potsdam-Sd Gesamtanlage Gas GT 81.8 1996 Reuter
BNA0005 Ahrensfelde GT A Gas GT 37.5 1990 Marzahn

95
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA0006 Ahrensfelde GT B Gas GT 37.5 1990 Marzahn
BNA0007 Ahrensfelde GT C Gas GT 37.5 1990 Marzahn
BNA0008 Ahrensfelde GT D Gas GT 37.5 1990 Marzahn
BNA0734 Thyrow GT E Gas GT 37.5 1989 Thyrow
BNA0735 Thyrow GT F Gas GT 37.5 1989 Thyrow
BNA0736 Thyrow GT G Gas GT 37.5 1989 Thyrow
BNA0737 Thyrow GT H Gas GT 37.5 1989 Thyrow
BNA0738 Thyrow GT A Gas GT 36.5 1987 Thyrow
BNA0739 Thyrow GT B Gas GT 36.5 1987 Thyrow
BNA0740 Thyrow GT C Gas GT 36.5 1987 Thyrow
BNA0741 Thyrow GT D Gas GT 36.5 1987 Thyrow
BNA0129 HKW Gas GT 36.0 1997 Ragow
BNA0183 HKW Cottbus 1 Lignite ST 74.0 1999 Preilack
BNA0284 Heizkraftwerk FFO Block1-GuD-EK Lignite ST 45.0 1997 Eisenhttenstadt
BNA0894c IKS PCK Schwedt Block 1 SE 1 Oil GT 106.0 1998 Vierraden
BNA0894d IKS PCK Schwedt Block 2 SE 2 Oil GT 106.0 1998 Vierraden
BNA0894e IKS PCK Schwedt SE 4 Oil GT 59.0 2011 Vierraden
BNA0894b IKS PCK Schwedt Block 6 SE 6 Oil GT 34.5 1994 Vierraden
BNA0894a IKS PCK Schwedt Block 5 SE 5 Oil GT 28.0 1972 Vierraden
BNA0238 IKW Other GT 95.0 1953 Eisenhttenstadt
BNA0237 EBS-Heizkraftwerk Other ST 23.5 2011 Eisenhttenstadt
BNA0855 IKW Rdersdorf Waste ST 30.0 2009 Neuenhagen
BNA1255 Kraftwerk Schwedt GmbH & Co.KG Waste ST 28.9 2011 Vierraden
BNA0380 EEW Grorschen Waste ST 23.3 2008 Ragow
BNA1233 EVE EVE Waste ST 14.5 2009 Brandenburg-West
BNA1232 ZWSF ZWSF Waste ST 2.5 2002 Brandenburg-West
Bremen BNA0146 KW Hafen Block 6 Coal ST 278.0 1979 Niedervieland
BNA0145 KW Hafen Block 5 Coal ST 127.0 1968 Niedervieland
BNA0144 KW Hastedt Block 15 Coal ST 119.0 1989 Blockland
BNA1334b KWK-Anlage GT 2 Gas GT 4.8 2002 Niedervieland
BNA1334c KWK-Anlage GT 3 Gas GT 4.8 2002 Niedervieland
BNA1334a KWK-Anlage GT 1 Gas GT 4.6 1993 Niedervieland
BNA1334d KWK-Anlage DT Gas ST 0.4 2002 Niedervieland
BNA0141 KW Mittelsbren GT 3 Oil GT 88.0 1974 Niedervieland
BNA0142 KW Mittelsbren Block 4 Other GT 150.0 1975 Niedervieland
BNA0143 KW Mittelsbren Block 3 Other 110.0 1974 Niedervieland
BNA0139 KW Hafen MKK Waste ST 29.3 2009 Niedervieland
BNA1116 BEG Waste ST 14.0 1976 Unterweser
BNA1114 MHKW MHKW Waste ST 12.2 1969 Blockland
Hamburg BNA0402 Tiefstack Tiefstack Coal ST 194.0 1993 Hamburg-Ost
BNA0400 GuD Tiefstack GuD Tiefstack Gas CC 127.0 2009 Hamburg-Ost
BNA0401 Heizkraftwerk HKW Gas GT 16.3 1992 Hamburg-Sd
BNA1294 EEV EEV Oil GT 38 1993 Hamburg-Sd
BNA0398 MVR Mllverwertung Rugenberger Damm Waste ST 24.0 1999 Hamburg-Sd
Hessen BNA0498 Heizkraftwerk Block B Coal ST 66.0 1989 Hchst-Sd
BNA0289b HKW West Block 2 Coal ST 61.5 1989 Frankfurt-Sdwest

96
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA0290 HKW West Block 3 Coal ST 61.5 1989 Frankfurt-Sdwest
BNA0758 Heizkraftwerk Offenbach Coal ST 54.0 1990 Frankfurt-Nord
BNA0857 GuD-Anlage Rsselsheim M120 Gas CC 112.1 1999 Bischofsheim
BNA0444 Wintershall Wintershall Gas GT 109.5 1967 Mecklar
BNA0286 HKW West Block 4 Gas GT 99.0 1994 Frankfurt-Sdwest
BNA0497 ADS-Anlage Gas GT 96.5 2012 Hchst-Sd
BNA0499 Heizkraftwerk Block A Gas GT 86.0 2003 Hchst-Sd
BNA0285 HKW Niederrad Block 1 Gas GT 70.0 2005 Frankfurt-Sdwest
BNA0288 HKW Niederrad Block 2 Gas GT 56.0 1973 Frankfurt-Sdwest
BNA0521 Kombi-HKW Gas GT 52.9 1987 Bergshausen
BNA0804a Hattorf Hattorf Gas GT 35.0 1962 Mecklar
BNA1492a Kraftwerk 3 Gas GT 26.2 1990 Dipperz
BNA1056 Wi-Biebrich Block 1 Gas GT 25.0 2006 Bischofsheim Year (2003) / 2006
BNA0059a HKW Kassel Turbine 1 Gas GT 12.2 1961 Bergshausen
BNA1117 Industriekraftwerk Breuberg Gas GT 11.4 1999 Aschaffenburg
BNA1125 Heizkraftwerk GT Gas GT 10.0 1999 Pfungstadt
BNA1492b Kraftwerk 2 Gas GT 8.0 1995 Dipperz no year (assumption 1995)
BNA0523 FKK Lignite ST 33.5 1988 Bergshausen
BNA0318 WAG Kraftwerk Fulda Oil GT 24.8 2011 Dipperz
BNA0289a HKW West M4 Other GT 19.7 1954 Frankfurt-Sdwest
BNA1465 EBS-Kraftwerk Witzenhausen Other ST 28.0 2009 Gttingen
BNA0287b MHKW Frankfurt T7 Waste ST 46.5 2006 Frankfurt-Sdwest
BNA0287a MHKW Frankfurt T3 Waste ST 26.0 1998 Frankfurt-Sdwest
BNA1168 Mllheizkraftwerk Waste ST 14.7 1985 Bergshausen
BNA1222 Mllheizkraftwerk Offenbach Waste ST 10.4 1972 Urberach
Lower Saxony BNA1076a HKW West Block 1 Coal ST 138.5 1985 Bergshausen
BNA1076b HKW West Block 2 Coal ST 138.5 1985 Hattorf
BNA0420 GKH Block1 Coal ST 130.0 1989 Hannover-West
BNA0421 GKH Block2 Coal ST 130.0 1989 Hannover-West
BNA1075a HKW Nord Generator A Coal ST 61.5 2000 Bergshausen
BNA1075b HKW Nord Generator B Coal ST 61.5 2000 Hattorf
BNA0138 HKW-Mitte Block 1 Coal ST 43.3 1984 Braunschweig-Nord
BNA0418 GKL GKL Gas CC 250.0 1998 Lahe Year 1998 / (2013)
BNA0136 HKW-Mitte GuD Gas CC 74.0 2010 Braunschweig-Nord
BNA0419 KWH B Gas GT 102.0 1975 Lahe
BNA1335a PKV Kraftwerk KWK-Blcke Gas GT 58.1 1989 Conneforde
BNA0137 HKW-Nord GT Gas GT 25.0 1965 Braunschweig-Nord
BNA0012b Werkskraftwerk Sappi Alfeld Gaskraftwerk Gas GT 20.0 1947 Godenau
BNA0135 HKW-Mitte Block 12 Gas GT 20.0 1971 Braunschweig-Nord
BNA1463 Gas GT 19.5 1978 Wolkramshausen
BNA1285 Sigmundshall Sigmundshall Gas GT 19.0 1974 Hannover-West
BNA0354 HKW Gttingen Gas GT 18.8 1998 Gttingen
BNA1402 Heizkraftwerk zur Papierfabrik Gas GT 18.1 1995 Cloppenburg no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1450 GUD-Anlage DREWSEN Gas CC 13.0 2000 Klein Ilsede
BNA0602 Emsland C1 Gas ST 112.0 2011 Hanekenfhr
BNA0603 Emsland B1 Gas ST 112.0 2011 Hanekenfhr

97
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA1335b PKV Kraftwerk Kondensationsturbine Gas ST 0.48 1968 Conneforde
BNA1060 Wilhelmshaven GT Oil GT 56.0 1973 Maade
BNA0865a Gichtgas HO A Gichtgas HO A Other GT 10.0 1995 Hallendorf no year (assumption 1995)
BNA0864 Kraftwerk Salzgitter Block 1 Other ST 97.0 2010 Hallendorf
BNA0865b Kraftwerk Salzgitter Block 2 Other ST 97.0 2010 Hallendorf
BNA0863 Kraftwerk Salzgitter AB Other ST 94.5 1939 Hallendorf
BNA0438 TRV Buschhaus Linie 1-3 Waste ST 37.5 1998 Helmstedt
BNA0417 E.ON Energy from Waste Hannover GmbH Hannover Waste ST 22.5 2005 Lahe
BNA0407 Enertec Hameln Linien 1,3,4 Waste ST 14.7 1912 Grohnde
Mecklenburg-West
Pomerania BNA0848 GuD Marienehe Gas CB 108.0 1996 Rostock
BNA0688 GuD-HKW Neubrandenburg Gas CB 75.0 1997 Windpark Iven
BNA0896 HKW Schwerin Sd Gas GT 52.0 1994 Grries
BNA0897 HKW Schwerin Lankow Gas GT 23.0 1994 Grries
BNA0025 Kesselhaus Zuckerfabrik Gas GT 15.1 1993 Lubmin
BNA0360 HKW "Helmshger Berg" Gasturbine Gas GT 13.8 1996 Lubmin
BNA1243 EBS-HKW Rostock Waste ST 17.0 2009 Rostock
North Rhine West-
phalia BNA0413 Westfalen C Coal ST 284.0 1969 Uentrop West
BNA1035 Kraftwerk Werdohl-Elverlingsen E3 Coal ST 186.0 1971 Elverlingsen
BNA0618 KW Lnen Lnen 6 Coal ST 149.0 1962 Elmenhorst
BNA0662b Kraftwerk I Dampfwirtschaft Coal ST 133.5 1995 Kusenhorst no year (assumption 1995)
BNA0448 Shamrock Coal ST 132.0 1957 Herne
BNA0189 Datteln 3 Coal ST 113.0 1969 Ruhr-Zink
BNA0557b Kraftwerk N 230 Coal ST 110.0 1971 Uerdingen
BNA0600b G-Kraftwerk Coal ST 103.0 1962 Uerdingen
BNA0187 Datteln 1 Coal ST 95.0 1964 Ruhr-Zink
BNA0188 Datteln 2 Coal ST 95.0 1964 Ruhr-Zink
BNA0211 HKW I ZAWSF Coal ST 95.0 1985 Ruhrort
BNA1084 HKW Elberfeld Block 3 Coal ST 85.0 1989 Halfeshof
BNA0834 Industrie-Kraftwerk Coal ST 79.0 1975 Ossenberg
BNA0336 FWK Buer Coal ST 70.0 1985 Bellendorf
BNA0661 Kraftwerk II Block 3 Coal ST 60.4 1966 Kusenhorst
BNA0662a Kraftwerk I Block 5 Coal ST 60.2 1983 Kusenhorst
BNA0660 Kraftwerk I Block 4 Coal ST 55.3 1971 Kusenhorst
BNA0557a Kraftwerk L 57 Coal ST 26.0 1957 Uerdingen
BNA1331 Reno De Medici HD - Kraftwerk Coal ST 19.1 1956 Arpe Year (1923) / 1956
BNA1039 Gersteinwerk F1 Gas GT 55.0 1973 Gersteinwerk
BNA1040 Gersteinwerk G1 Gas CB 55.0 1973 Gersteinwerk
BNA1042 Gersteinwerk I1 Gas GT 55.0 1973 Gersteinwerk
BNA0199 Dormagen GuD Gas CC 585.5 2000 St. Peter
BNA0545 HKW Niehl 2 GuD Gas CC 413.0 2005 Dnnwald
BNA0442 Cuno Heizkraftwerk Herdecke H6 Gas GT 417.0 2007 Kruckel Not closest node
BNA0221c Gasblock Block E Gas CB 293.0 1976 Norf
BNA0214 HKW III/B HKW III/B Gas GT 234.0 2005 Rheinhausen
BNA0389 Heizkraftwerk Hagen-Kabel H4/5 Gas GT 230.0 1980 Garenfeld

98
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA0531 KW Kirchlengern Gas GT 201.5 1980 Eickum
BNA1046b Gersteinwerk K1 Gas CB 112.0 1984 Gersteinwerk
BNA0546 HKW Merkenich GuD Gas GT 108.0 2004 Bayer Y35
BNA0685 Heizkraftwerk Hafen GuD Gas GT 100.2 2005 Amelsbren
BNA0220 GuD AGuD Gas CC 100.0 2000 Norf
BNA1336 Holthausen Gas GT 84 1948 Reisholz
BNA1082 HKW Barmen Block 1 Gas GT 82.0 2005 Linde
BNA0659 Kraftwerk III Block 312 Gas GT 77.6 1974 Kusenhorst
BNA0221b GT Block E GTE1 Gas CB 66.7 1974 Norf
BNA0221a GT Block E GTE2 Gas CB 64.7 1974 Norf
BNA0658 Kraftwerk III Block 311 Gas GT 61.1 1973 Kusenhorst
BNA1041 Gersteinwerk H1 Gas GT 55.0 1973 Gersteinwerk
BNA1279 Gasturbine D290 Gas GT 51.9 1995 Bollenacker
BNA0213 HKW III/A HKW III/A Gas GT 40.0 2002 Rheinhausen
BNA0100 GuD Kraftwerk Hillegossen GuD Gas CC 37.5 2005 Eickum
BNA0544 HKW Sdstadt GuD Gas GT 35.0 1994 Bollenacker
BNA0556a KWK-Anlage Krefeld DT Dampfturbine Gas GT 25.8 2004 Edelstahl
BNA0753 HKW 2 HKW 2 Gas GT 24.5 1995 Thyssen
BNA0098 HKW Schildescher Strae Gas GT 23.5 1978 Eickum
BNA0752 HKW 1 HKW 1 Gas GT 23.1 1972 Thyssen
BNA1332 Sasol Kraftwerk TG7/8 Gas GT 22.3 1995 Utfort
BNA0386 Energiezentrum Mohn Media Gas GT 22.0 1994 Gtersloh
BNA0110 Bochum KBO Gas GT 20.7 2004 Bochum
BNA1406 FS-Karton Gas GT 18.9 1992 Osterath
BNA1183 HKW Merheim GuD Gas GT 15.8 2001 Gremberghoven
BNA1182 HKW Merkenich Block 4 Gas GT 15.5 1965 Bayer Y35
BNA1094 Gaskraftwerk GKW Gas GT 15.1 1966 Hambach
BNA0556b KWK-Anlage Krefeld VM Gasmotor Gas GT 14.0 2004 Gellep
BNA0156b Egger Kraftwerk Briilon Gasturbinen - KWK Gas GT 13.5 1996 Nehden
BNA1193 HKW-West Gas GT 12.8 2002 Lage
BNA0202 Dortmund KDO Gas GT 12.0 2004 Ratsbusch
BNA1165 P&L Werk Appeldorn Lentjes-Kessel Gas GT 11.4 2004 Pfalzdorf
BNA1120 Energiezentrale Gasturbine Gas GT 10.2 1991 Pppinghausen
BNA1138 BHKW an Klinkerweg Module 1, 2 und 3 Gas GT 10.2 2000 Mettmann
BNA1187 P&L Werk Lage Kessel 1/2/3 Gas GT 10.2 1980 Lage
BNA1121 Energiezentrale Energiecenter Gas GT 0.9 2005 Pppinghausen
BNA0810 Kraftwerk Veltheim 4 GT Gas ST 65.0 1974 Veltheim
BNA0101 HKW Schildescher Strae Gas ST 53.0 1966 Eickum
BNA0111 HKW Hiltrop Gas ST 30.3 1975 Laer
BNA0600a X-Kraftwerk Gas ST 29.0 1981 Bayer Y35
BNA1131 MT, Dren Gas ST 14.0 2011 Oberzier
BNA0117 Heizkraftwerk Karlstrae Heizkraftwerk Karlstrae Gas ST 12.0 1991 Stockem
BNA1025 Weisweiler E Lignite ST 312.0 1965 Weisweiler
BNA0292 Frechen/Wachtberg Frechen/Wachtberg Lignite ST 118.0 1959 Knapsack
BNA0490 Goldenberg F Lignite ST 85.0 1993 Knapsack
BNA0543 HKW Merkenich Block 6 Lignite ST 75.3 2010 Bayer Y35

99
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA0489 Goldenberg E Lignite ST 66.0 1992 Knapsack
BNA0714 Fortuna Nord Fortuna Nord Lignite ST 54.0 1995 Niederauem no year (assumption 1995)
BNA0491 Ville/Berrenrath Ville/Berrenrath Lignite ST 52.0 1995 Knapsack no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1451 HKW Sachtleben Lignite ST 27.5 1995 Ruhrort no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1164 P&L Werk Jlich Kessel 5 Lignite ST 24.6 2004 Oberzier
BNA1097 Kohlekraftwerk K06 Lignite ST 14.4 2010 Hambach
BNA1141 P&L Werk Euskirchen Kessel 4 / 6 Lignite ST 10.0 1995 Meckenheim no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1293b Kraftwerk K2/TG2 Lignite ST 10.0 1995 Niederauem
BNA0222 GT GTKW Oil GT 86.2 1977 Eller
BNA0547 Raffineriekraftwerk Kln Godorf Oil GT 80.0 2004 Bollenacker
BNA1280 Kraftwerk D210 Oil GT 66.3 1962 Bollenacker
BNA1083 Spitzenlastanlage Barmen Block 2 Oil GT 60.0 2008 Linde
BNA0219 Duisburg Ruhrort 4 Block 4 Other GT 165.0 1968 Beeck Not closest node
BNA0396 Duisburg Hamborn 4 Block 4 Other GT 100.0 1976 Beeck
BNA0218 Duisburg Ruhrort 3 Block 3 Other GT 90.0 1963 Ruhrort
BNA0217 Duisburg Ruhrort 2 Block 2 Other GT 60.0 1955 Ruhrort
BNA0395 Duisburg Hamborn 3 Block 3 Other GT 60.0 1958 Beeck
BNA0397 Duisburg Hamborn 5 Block 5 Other ST 225.0 2003 Beeck Not closest node
BNA1399 Oxea GmbH Other 38.0 1995 Handbach no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1397e O10 T31 Other 30.0 1967 St. Peter
BNA1409 DK Kraftwerk Other 21.0 2010 Rheinhausen
BNA1397a O10 T21 Other 20.5 1963 St. Peter
BNA1397b O10 T22 Other 20.5 1963 St. Peter
BNA1397c O10 T23 Other 20.5 1963 St. Peter
BNA1488 Other 16.0 1989 Wambel Year (1984) / 1989
BNA1397d O10 T24 Other 10.0 1966 St. Peter
BNA0223b DT Flingern T1 Waste ST 53.7 2000 Eller
BNA1184 RMVA Kln RMVA Kln Waste ST 45.1 1997 Frhlingen
BNA0750 GMVA Niederrhein Turbine 2 Waste ST 40.4 1990 Handbach
BNA0519 Karnap B Waste ST 38.0 1987 Karnap
BNA0097 MVA Bielefeld Linien 1 - 3 Waste ST 34.0 1981 Bielefeld-Ost
BNA1490 EBKW Knapsack Waste ST 33.4 2008 Knapsack
BNA1316 Mllheizkraftwerk Waste ST 30 1976 Halfeshof
BNA1020 MVA Weisweiler MVA Waste ST 24.0 1996 Weisweiler
BNA0751 GMVA Niederrhein Turbine 1 Waste ST 21.1 2006 Handbach
BNA1155 RZR Herten II RZR II Waste ST 17.1 2009 Herne
BNA1167 Abfallentsorgungszentrum Asdonkshof MVA Waste ST 16.0 1997 Ossenberg
BNA1148 MVA Hamm Waste ST 14.6 1985 Gersteinwerk
BNA1186b MKVA Krefeld Turbine 4 Waste ST 13.8 1995 Uerdingen no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1186a MKVA Krefeld Turbine 3 Waste ST 13.5 1995 Uerdingen no year (assumption 1995)
AMK - Abfallentsorgungsgesellschaft des
BNA1289 Mrkischen Kreises mbH Waste ST 12.6 1981 Bixterheide
BNA1154 RZR Herten I RZR I Waste ST 12.5 1982 Herne
BNA0599 AVEA MHKW Leverkusen GmbH & Co. KG entfllt Waste ST 11.6 2011 Bayer Y35
BNA1186d MKVA Krefeld Turbine 5 Waste ST 2.8 1995 Uerdingen no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1186c MKVA Krefeld Turbine 2 Waste ST 1.5 1995 Uerdingen no year (assumption 1995)

100
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA1186e MKVA Krefeld Turbine 1 Waste ST 1.5 1995 Uerdingen no year (assumption 1995)
Rhineland Palatinate BNA0510b HKW Karcherstr. 20 Coal ST 13.4 1996 Otterbach
BNA0615 Kraftwerk Sd GUD C200 GT1, GT2, DT 1 Gas CB 390.0 1997 BASF
BNA0626 Kraftwerk Mainz KW3 Gas CC 398.0 2001 Bischofsheim
BNA1078 HKW Wrth Gas GT 59.0 2008 Karlsruhe RDK
BNA1458 Gas GT 28.0 1995 Otterbach no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1196a BHKW Ludwigshafen Gas GT 12.5 2008 Mannheim West
BNA1291 IHKW Andernach Gas GT 12.4 2009 Bandstahl
BNA1196b Industriekraftwerk Ludwigshafen Gas GT 12.0 2003 Mannheim West
BNA0510a HKW Karcherstr. 10 Gas GT 11.6 1989 Otterbach
BNA1284 Co-Generation - Gas GT 11.5 1991 Brstadt
BNA0616b Kraftwerk Nord S300, VT 1, VT 2, NT 7 Other GT 56.0 1964 Mannheim West
BNA1197 FHKW Ludwigshafen FHKW Waste ST 28.7 1954 BASF
BNA1199 MHKW Mainz Waste ST 15.6 2009 Bischofsheim
BNA1229 MHKW Pirmasens Waste ST 15.0 1999 Homburg
BNA1447a G2 Waste ST 11.9 1990 Brstadt
BNA1447b G3/Kontu Waste ST 6.9 2011 Brstadt
Saarland BNA0252 Kraftwerk Ensdorf Block 3 Coal ST 283.0 1971 Ensdorf
BNA0999 Heizkraftwerk HKV Coal ST 211.0 1989 Ensdorf
BNA0998 Modellkraftwerk MKV Coal ST 179.0 1982 Ensdorf
BNA0861 Rmerbrcke HKW Rmerbrcke Gas CB 125.0 2005 Weiher
BNA1464 Gas- u. Dampfturbinenanlage Sdraum Gas GT 38.6 2012 Weiher
BNA1115 Gichtgaskraftwerk Dillingen Other GT 85.0 2010 Dillinger Htte
BNA1244 AVA Velsen Waste ST 15.5 1997 Ensdorf
BNA1448 AHKW Neunkirchen Linie 3 + 4 Waste ST 11.6 1999 Mittelbexbach
Saxony BNA0207 HKW Dresden-Nossener Brcke 3 GT + 1 DT Gas CC 250.0 1995 Dresden-Sd
BNA0588 Heizkraftwerk Leipzig-Nord Gas GT 167.0 1996 Taucha
BNA0178 HKW Chemnitz Nord II Block A Gas GT 57.2 1986 Niederwiesa
BNA0233 Kombikraftwerk Gas GT 46.6 1993 Taucha
BNA1396 EVC / GLOBALFOUNDRIES EVC I Gas GT 34.7 1998 Dresden-Sd
BNA1407 STW Gas GT 13.5 2007 Niederwiesa
BNA1329 K&N PFK AG EV GT / GDT Gas GT 12.75 1993 Niederwiesa
BNA0179 HKW Chemnitz Nord II Block C Lignite ST 90.8 1990 Niederwiesa
BNA0177 HKW Chemnitz Nord II Block B Lignite ST 56.8 1988 Niederwiesa
BNA0369 Spitzenlastkraftwerk Sermuth Oil GT 17.0 1995 Eula
BNA1190 Thermische Abfallbehandlung Lauta GmbH Waste ST 15.0 2004 Schmlln
Saxony Anhalt BNA0922 GuD-Ikw Stafurt Gas CC 132.0 1996 Frderstedt
BNA0105 GuD Bitterfeld Gas GT 106.0 2000 Marke
BNA0392a HKW Halle Trotha Block A und B Gas GT 97.0 2005 Schkopau
BNA0592 GuD Leuna Gas CB 52.0 1998 Schkopau
BNA1089 Zielitz Zielitz Gas GT 52.0 1996 Wolmirstedt
BNA1074 Spitzenlastkraftwerk Wolfen Gas GT 40.0 1997 Marke
BNA0595 ILK-GuD GT3 Gas GT 37.0 1994 Schkopau
BNA0593 ILK-GuD GT1 Gas GT 35.0 1994 Schkopau
BNA0594 ILK-GuD GT2 Gas GT 35.0 1994 Schkopau
BNA1489 Heizkraftwerk Stendal Gas GT 22.0 1994 Stendal-West

101
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net
Number
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* capacity Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA
in MW
BNA0051 KWK-Anlage Barby - Gas GT 16.0 1993 Frderstedt
BNA1403 Steinitz GUD Gas GT 11.4 1995 Hattorf
BNA0088b Industriekraftwerk Bernburg (IKB) Gas ST 66.0 1994 Frderstedt
BNA0196 Deuben Lignite ST 67.0 1936 Grodalzig
BNA0194 Kraftwerk Dessau Lignite ST 49.0 1996 Marke
BNA1486 Grubenheizkraftwerk Lignite ST 49.0 1979 Lauchstdt
BNA1002 Whlitz Lignite ST 31.0 1994 Grodalzig
BNA1185 P&L Werk Knnern Kessel 1 und 2 Lignite ST 20.3 1995 Frderstedt no year (assumption 1995)
BNA1400a EZ1 WSK Lignite ST 18.5 1993 Grodalzig
BNA1461 Lignite ST 17.5 2005 Grodalzig
BNA0373 Spitzenlastkraftwerk Grokayna Oil GT 120.0 1994 Schkopau
BNA0596 Raffineriekraftwerk Oil GT 92.5 1997 Schkopau
BNA1400b EZ1 DTI Oil GT 14.5 1993 Grodalzig
BNA0598b ILK-GuD KT1 Other ST 20.0 2010 Schkopau
BNA0598a ILK-EKT EKT Other ST 14.0 2000 Frderstedt
BNA0597 ILK-GuD DT1 Other ST 8.7 1994 Schkopau
BNA0088a Dampfturbinenanlage der EBS-Kessel Waste ST 35.0 2010 Frderstedt
BNA0622 MHKW Rothensee Block 1 Waste ST 29.2 2005 Wolmirstedt
BNA0623 MHKW Rothensee Block 2 Waste ST 29.2 2006 Wolmirstedt
BNA1198 SITA Abfallverwertung GmbH Waste ST 25.4 2005 Grodalzig
BNA1262 EVZA Energie- und Verwertungszentrale Waste ST 24.0 2008 Frderstedt
BNA0590 TREA Leuna Linie 1 Waste ST 16.3 2005 Schkopau
BNA0591 TREA Leuna Linie 2 Waste ST 16.3 2007 Schkopau
BNA1108 PD energy GmbH Waste ST 9.9 2010 Marke
Schleswig-Holstein BNA0404 Wedel Wedel 1 Coal ST 137.0 1961 Kummerfeld
BNA0403 Wedel Wedel 2 Coal ST 123.0 1962 Kummerfeld
BNA0273 Heizkraftwerk FL Block 8 Coal ST 35.0 1982 Flensburg
BNA0272 Heizkraftwerk FL Block 9 Coal ST 33.0 1985 Flensburg
BNA0271 Heizkraftwerk FL Block 10 Coal ST 29.0 1988 Flensburg
BNA0270 Heizkraftwerk FL Block 11 Coal ST 27.0 1992 Flensburg
BNA0274 Heizkraftwerk FL Block 7 Coal ST 23.0 1978 Flensburg
BNA0527 HKW Humboldtstr. GT 5/6; DT1 Gas GT 20.0 1970 Kiel
BNA0759 Itzehoe Oil GT 88.0 1972 Itzehoe
BNA0766 Audorf Oil GT 87.0 1973 Audorf
BNA1015 Wedel GT A Oil GT 50.5 1972 Kummerfeld
BNA1016 Wedel GT B Oil GT 50.5 1972 Kummerfeld
BNA0693c Heizkraftwerk NMS Diesel 3 Oil GT 5.5 1982 Kiel-Sd
BNA0693a Heizkraftwerk NMS Turbine 2,3,4,5 Other ST 60.0 1982 Kiel-Sd
BNA1330 Steinbeis Energie Other ST 17 2010 Brokdorf
BNA1261 EEW Stapelfeld GmbH Waste ST 16.4 1978 Hamburg-Ost
Thuringia BNA0504 HKW Jena HKW Jena Gas GT 182.0 1996 Groschwabhausen
BNA0256 HKW Erfurt-Ost Gas GT 78.5 2000 Vieselbach
BNA0343 Heizkraftwerk Gera-Nord Gas GT 74.0 1997 Weida
BNA0856 HKW Schwarza Gas GT 21.1 2008 Hohenwarte Year (1936) / 2008
BNA1264 HKW Bohrhgel Gas GT 13.5 1995 Altenfeld
BNA0255 HKW Iderhoffstrae Gas GT 11.0 1996 Vieselbach

102
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Table 30: Pumped storage power plants26

Net capacity Storage size* High-voltage
State Number BNetzA Name of power plant Block name Comments
in MW in MWh node
Baden Wurttemberg BNA0426 Husern Husern 100.0 463 Tiengen Node Tiengen / (Gurtweil)
BNA1003 Kraftwerk Waldshut Waldshut 150.0 402 Gurtweil
BNA0669 Pumpspeicherkraftwerk Glems Pumpspeicherkraftwerk Glems 90.0 560 Metzingen
BNA0279 Rudolf-Fettweis-Werk Pumpspeicherkraftwerk Schwarzenbachwerk 43.0 301 Bhl* Closest node
BNA0046 Sckingen Sckingen 360.0 2520 Khmoos
BNA1019 Wehr Wehr 910.0 6370 Khmoos
BNA1071 Witznau Witznau 220.0 636 Tiengen* Node Tiengen / (Gurtweil)
Bavaria BNA0946a Kraftwerksgruppe Pfreimd PSKW Tanzmhle 28.0 88 Etzenricht* Closest node
BNA0953 Kraftwerksgruppe Pfreimd PSKW Reisach 99.0 312 Etzenricht* Closest node
BNA0972 Leitzach 1 1 49.0 250 Marienberg* Closest node
BNA0973 Leitzach 2 2 49.8 300 Marienberg* Closest node
BNA0337 PSW Langenprozelten entfllt 164.0 1148 Aschaffenburg* Closest node
Hessen BNA0229 Waldeck 2 Waldeck 2 480.0 3360 Waldeck
BNA0228 Waldeck1/Bringhausen Waldeck1/Bringhausen 143.0 1001 Waldeck
Lower Saxony BNA0558 Erzhausen 220.0 940 Erzhausen
North Rhine Westphalia BNA0443 Koepchenwerk Koepchenwerk 153.0 590 Garenfeld
BNA0268 Pumpspeicherwerk Rnkhausen PSW 138.0 690 Elverlingsen Closest node in 110kV grid
Saxony BNA0652 Markersbach PSS A 1,045.2 4020 Markersbach Node Markersbach
BNA0653 Markersbach PSS B
BNA0654 Markersbach PSS C
BNA0655 Markersbach PSS D
BNA0656 Markersbach PSS E
BNA0657 Markersbach PSS F
BNA0721 Niederwartha PSS C 39.8 790 Dresden-Sd* Closest node
BNA0722 Niederwartha PSS D
Wolkramshau-
Saxony Anhalt BNA1031 Wendefurth PSS A 79.7 522 sen* Closest node
BNA1032 Wendefurth PSS B
Schleswig-Holstein BNA0327 Geesthacht PSS A 119.1 534 Krmmel* Closest node
BNA0328 Geesthacht PSS B
BNA0329 Geesthacht PSS C
Thuringia BNA0882 Bleiloch PSS A 79.8 800 Remptendorf
BNA0883 Bleiloch PSS B
BNA0350 Goldisthal PSS A 1,052.0 8500 Altenfeld
BNA0351 Goldisthal PSS B
BNA0352 Goldisthal PSS C
BNA0353 Goldisthal PSS D

26Data is based on the power plant dataset by (BNetzA, 2013a) published on 16.10.2013 and adjusted for 2012. Every * indicates data with additional sources not listed or
own assumptions. Additional information not provided in the BNetzA data set is the pumping capacity which deviates from the generation capacity for most pumped stor-
age power plants.

103
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net capacity Storage size* High-voltage

State Number BNetzA Name of power plant Block name Comments
in MW in MWh node
BNA0465 Hohenwarte 1 PSS A 59.8 600 Remptendorf
BNA0466 Hohenwarte 1 PSS B
BNA0467 Hohenwarte 2 PSS A 317.8 2088 Remptendorf
BNA0468 Hohenwarte 2 PSS B
BNA0469 Hohenwarte 2 PSS C
BNA0470 Hohenwarte 2 PSS D
BNA0471 Hohenwarte 2 PSS E
BNA0472 Hohenwarte 2 PSS F
BNA0473 Hohenwarte 2 PSS G
BNA0474 Hohenwarte 2 PSS H

Table 31: Renewable power plants outside the EEG scheme27

Number Net capacity
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA in MW
Baden Wurttemberg BNA0232b Werkskraftwerk Sappi Ehingen Biomass ST 8.0 1961 Dellmensingen
BNA0520 Stora Enso Maxau Biomass ST 78.0 2010 Daxlanden
BNA0010a RADAG Hydro RoR 79.5 1933 Gurtweil
BNA0045 Rheinkraftwerk Sckingen Sckingen Hydro RoR 27.6 1959 Schwrstadt
BNA0278 Rudolf-Fettweis-Werk Forb/ Murgwerk Hydro RoR 22.0 1918 Kuppenheim
BNA0362 KW Wyhlen KW Wyhlen Hydro RoR 37.9 1912 Schwrstadt
BNA0494 Rheinkraftwerk Iffezheim Iffezheim M1-M4 Hydro RoR 54.6 1978 Kuppenheim
BNA0825 Rheinkraftwerk Reckingen Reckingen Hydro RoR 19.0 1938 Gurtweil
BNA0859 Rheinkraftwerk Ryburg-Schwrstadt Ryburg-Schwrstadt Hydro RoR 30.0 1931 Schwrstadt
BNA1126 Dettingen Dettingen Hydro RoR 11.0 Dellmensingen
BNA1175 Unteropfingen Unteropfingen Hydro RoR 14.2 Dellmensingen
BNA1265 Tannheim Tannheim Hydro RoR 12.3 Dellmensingen
Bavaria BNA0540 Walchensee Walchensee Hydro RES 72.0 1924 Krn
BNA0847 Rohaupten Rohaupten Hydro RES 45.5 1954 Leupolz
BNA0042 Egglfing Egglfing Hydro RoR 40.4 1944 AT St. Peter
BNA0065 Bergheim entfllt Hydro RoR 23.7 1970 Ingolstadt
BNA0173 Alzwerke GmbH Alzwerk Hydro RoR 45.0 1922 Pirach
BNA0259 Ering Ering Hydro RoR 36.5 1942 AT St. Peter
BNA0324 Gars Hydro RoR 25.0 1938 Marienberg
BNA0529 Braunau-Simbach Braunau-Simbach Hydro RoR 50.0 1953 Simbach
BNA0689 Bittenbrunn entfllt Hydro RoR 20.2 1969 Ingolstadt
BNA0695 Neutting Hydro RoR 26.1 1951 Pirach
BNA0747 Nudorf Nudorf Hydro RoR 36.6 1992 Marienberg
BNA0748 Oberaudorf-Ebbs Oberaudorf-Ebbs Hydro RoR 30.0 1992 Marienberg
BNA0782 Kachlet Kachlet Hydro RoR 53.7 1927 Pleinting

27Data is based on the power plant dataset by (BNetzA, 2013a) published on 16.10.2013 and adjusted for 2012. Every * indicates data with additional sources not listed or
own assumptions.

104
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Number Net capacity

State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA in MW
BNA0784 Passau-Ingling Passau-Ingling Hydro RoR 43.2 1965 Pleinting
BNA0792 Perach Hydro RoR 19.4 1977 Pirach
BNA0795 Geisling Geisling Hydro RoR 25.0 1985 Regensburg
BNA0839 Rosenheim Hydro RoR 35.1 1960 Marienberg
BNA0854 Feldkirchen Hydro RoR 38.2 1970 Marienberg
BNA0912 Teufelsbruck Hydro RoR 25.0 1938 Marienberg
BNA0921 Stammham Hydro RoR 23.2 1955 Simbach
BNA0929 Straubing Straubing Hydro RoR 21.5 1994 Plattling
BNA0950 Tging Hydro RoR 85.3 1924 Pirach
BNA0996 Vohburg entfllt Hydro RoR 23.3 1992 Irsching
BNA1008 Uppenborn 1 1 Hydro RoR 25.0 1930 Fhring
BNA1013 Wasserburg Hydro RoR 24.1 1938 Marienberg
BNA1118 Dessau Dessau Hydro RoR 10.3 1967 Leupolz
BNA1129 Dingolfing Dingolfing Hydro RoR 15.0 1957 Isar
BNA1134 Eitting D Eitting D Hydro RoR 18.0 1925 Neufinsing
BNA1136 Ellgau Hydro RoR 9.7 1952 Meitingen
BNA1157 Hchstdt Hydro RoR 9.7 1982 Gundelfingen
BNA1160 Ingolstadt entfllt Hydro RoR 19.8 1971 Ingolstadt
BNA1169 Kaufering Kaufering Hydro RoR 16.7 1975 Oberottmarshausen
BNA1189 Faimingen entfllt Hydro RoR 10.1 1965 Gundelfingen
BNA1191 Urspring Urspring Hydro RoR 10.1 1966 Leupolz
BNA1192 Prem Prem Hydro RoR 19.2 1971 Leupolz
BNA1209 Meitingen Hydro RoR 11.3 1922 Meitingen
BNA1210 Merching Merching Hydro RoR 12.0 1978 Oberottmarshausen
BNA1213 Pfrombach D Pfrombach D Hydro RoR 14.0 1929 Altheim
BNA1217 Niederaichbach Niederaichbach Hydro RoR 16.2 1951 Isar
BNA1219 Gummering Gummering Hydro RoR 14.8 1957 Isar
BNA1220 Aufkirchen D Aufkirchen D Hydro RoR 19.0 1924 Neufinsing
BNA1221 Oberpeiching Hydro RoR 11.9 1954 Meitingen
BNA1228 Landau Landau Hydro RoR 12.6 1984 Plattling
BNA1230 Pielweichs Pielweichs Hydro RoR 12.6 1994 Plattling
BNA1234 Prittriching Prittriching Hydro RoR 12.1 1984 Oberottmarshausen
BNA1235 Rain Hydro RoR 10.9 1955 Meitingen
BNA1239 Bertoldsheim entfllt Hydro RoR 18.9 1967 Meitingen
BNA1245 Schwabstadl Schwabstadl Hydro RoR 12.0 1981 Oberottmarshausen
BNA1246 Scheuring Scheuring Hydro RoR 12.2 1980 Oberottmarshausen
BNA1247 Unterbergen Unterbergen Hydro RoR 12.4 1983 Oberottmarshausen
BNA1251 Dornau Dornau Hydro RoR 16.6 1960 Leupolz
BNA1263 Mhltal Mhltal Hydro RoR 11.2 1924 Oberbrunn
BNA1267 Uppenborn 2 2 Hydro RoR 18.0 1951 Fhring
BNA1273 Obernach Obernach Hydro RoR 12.8 1955 Krn
BNA1274 Ettling Ettling Hydro RoR 12.6 1988 Plattling
BNA1466 Kraftwerk 3 Hydro RoR 18.5 1920 Pirach
BNA0364 Jochenstein Jochenstein Hydro RoR 66.0 1955 AT St. Peter 220kV line to Jochenstein not in topology
BNA1140 Altheim Altheim Hydro RoR 17.8 1951 Altheim BNetzA data wrong ZIP code
Brandenburg BNA1256 UPM Schwedt Dampfturbine Biomass ST 13.3 2009 Vierraden
Hessen BNA0230 Hemfurth Hemfurth Hydro RES 20.0 1915 Waldeck

105
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Number Net capacity

State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology* Year High-voltage node Comments
BNetzA in MW
North Rhine Westphalia BNA1102 Bigge Hydro RES 15.0 1965 Altenkleusheim
BNA1152 Schwammenauel Hydro RoR 14.0 1938 Dahlem
BNA1153 Heimbach Hydro RoR 16.0 1905 Dahlem
Rhineland Palatinate BNA0715 Lehmen Hydro RoR 20.0 1962 Weienthurm
BNA0880 Detzem Hydro RoR 24.0 1962 Osburg
BNA1066 Wintrich Hydro RoR 20.0 1965 Wengerohr
BNA1135 Fankel Hydro RoR 16.4 1963 Wengerohr
BNA1137 Enkirch Hydro RoR 18.4 1966 Wengerohr
BNA1143 Serrig Hydro RoR 12.1 1985 Saarwellingen
BNA1181 Koblenz Hydro RoR 16.0 1951 Weienthurm
BNA1214 Mden Hydro RoR 16.4 1965 Weienthurm
BNA1216 Neef Hydro RoR 16.4 1966 Wengerohr
BNA1269 Trier Hydro RoR 18.8 1961 Weienthurm
BNA1287 Zeltingen Hydro RoR 13.6 1964 Wengerohr

Table 32: Cross-border plants28

Net Storage
Number High-Voltage
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology capacity [MWh] Year Comments
BNetzA node
in MW
Austria BNA0567a KW Khtai Khtai Ma1 Hydro PSP 144.5 1981 in Austria
BNA0567b KW Khtai Khtai Ma 2 Hydro PSP 144.5 1981 in Austria
BNA0777 Kopswerk I Masch. 1 bis 3 Hydro PSP 247.0 1,729 1968 Brs Included at node Brs
BNA0778 Kopswerk II Masch. 1 bis 3 Hydro PSP 525.0 3,675 2008 Brs Included at node Brs
BNA0954 Lnerseewerk Masch. 1 bis 5 Hydro PSP 238.0 1,666 1957 Brs Included at node Brs
BNA0974 Rodundwerk I Masch. 1 bis 4 Hydro PSP 198.0 1,386 1943 Brs Included at node Brs
BNA0975 Rodundwerk II Masch. 1 Hydro PSP 295.0 2,065 2012 Brs Included at node Brs
BNA0505 KW Jenbach Jenbach Hydro Res 79.0 1926 in Austria
BNA0779 Obervermuntwerk Masch. 1 u. 2 Hydro Res 29.0 1968 Brs Included at node Brs
BNA0780 Vermuntwerk Masch. 1 bis 5 Hydro Res 158.0 1930 Brs Included at node Brs
BNA0816 KW Kaunertal Prutz Hydro Res 392.0 1964 in Austria
BNA0906 KW Silz Silz Hydro Res 500.0 1981 in Austria
BNA0024 KW Amlach Amlach Hydro RoR 60.0 1989 in Austria
BNA0496 KW Imst Imsterberg Hydro RoR 89.0 1956 in Austria
BNA0917 Schrding-Neuhaus Schrding-Neuhaus Hydro RoR 48.0 1963 in Austria (St.Peter)
France BNA1158 Rheinkraftwerk Gambsheim Gambsheim Hydro RoR 48.0 1974 in France
Luxemburg BNA0982 PSW Vianden Maschine 1 Hydro PSP 500.0 2,407 1962 Bauler Included: Feeding into the German grid: Aggregation to Bauler
BNA0983 PSW Vianden Maschine 2 Hydro PSP 1962 Bauler
BNA0984 PSW Vianden Maschine 3 Hydro PSP 1963 Bauler
BNA0985 PSW Vianden Maschine 4 Hydro PSP 1963 Bauler

28Data is based on the power plant dataset by (BNetzA, 2013a) published on 16.10.2013 and adjusted for 2012. Every * indicates data with additional sources not listed or
own assumptions.

106
Data Documentation 72
Appendix

Net Storage
Number High-Voltage
State Name of power plant Block name Fuel Technology capacity [MWh] Year Comments
BNetzA node
in MW
BNA0986 PSW Vianden Maschine 5 Hydro PSP 1963 Bauler
BNA0978 PSW Vianden Maschine 6 Hydro PSP 596.0 2,218 1964 Niederstedem Included: Feeding into the German grid: Aggregation to Niederstedem
BNA0979 PSW Vianden Maschine 7 Hydro PSP 1964 Niederstedem
BNA0980 PSW Vianden Maschine 8 Hydro PSP 1963 Niederstedem
BNA0981 PSW Vianden Maschine 9 Hydro PSP 1964 Niederstedem
BNA0987 PSW Vianden Maschine 10 Hydro PSP 1975 Niederstedem
Switzerland BNA0583 Laufenburg KW Laufenburg Hydro RoR 104.4 1914 in Switzerland

107