ACER Framework Guidelines require ENTSOs to benchmark their scenario with the most relevant external scenarios by providing a comparison of key inputs and outputs for the whole scenario time frame. Deviations should be described in detail and to the extent possible explained as well as their expected implications on scenario outcomes. Given the large number of available scenario studies, ENTSOs had to identify comparable scenarios mainly from the methodological baseline and assumptions point of view.
When choosing suitable benchmark scenario respecting the principles of robustness and comparability as defined by the ACER Framework Guidelines, ENTSOs selected following criteria:
- Scenario developed by the European Commission (EC) or a body with close connection to the EC
- Scenario selected as a benchmark shall be EU target compliant for all target years, if not possible at least meeting ultimate 2050 target on Union climate neutrality
- Scenario published as close as possible to the ENTSOs scenario report and providing outputs for all scenario target years
Based on the literature review the most suitable scenarios were selected as follows:
A) European Commission 2040 Climate target plan Scenarios1
Impact assessment report was issued in February 2024. It is focusing on the goal to reach climate neutrality in 2050. Projections in the assessment report are targeted to years 2040 and 2050. The impact assessment (IA) works with four scenarios reaching the climate neutrality in 2050. The main difference is for the target year 2040 when the levels of the net GHG emissions vary in the range of 78 % – 94 % reduction compared to 1990.
For the purposes of benchmark study in this report, ENTSOs work with the 2030 IA common starting point and S3 scenario for target years 2040 and 2050.
B) Joint Research Centre – Global Energy and Climate Outlook (GECO) 20252
The scenarios in the Global energy and climate outlook intend to reach goals of the Paris Agreement. Time horizon of the study covers the target years of the TYNDP 2026 scenario. The GECO report works with four scenarios:
- Reference – represents the energy emissions trajectory under policies legislated up until early December 2025
- Nationally Determined Contribution-Long-Term Strategies (NDC-LTS) considers the emissions targets of NDC in the medium term (2030 and 2035) and the LTSs in the longer term. This scenario employs country-specific carbon values to achieve economy-wide emission targets.
- 2° C scenario and 1.5° C scenario – both scenarios are designed to limit global temperature increase at the end of the century to 2° C and 1.5° C These scenarios are constructed based on the policy settings of the Reference scenario, to which the global carbon price is added as the sole additional policy driver. These scenarios are therefore stylising representations of an economically efficient pathway to the temperature target, as the uniform global carbon price ensures that emissions are reduced where abatement costs are lowest.
For the purposes of benchmark study in this report, ENTSOs work with the 1.5° C scenario.
In addition, ENTSOs recognise that energy scenarios from a range of other organisations can produce complementary insights about energy infrastructure and related future developments and directions. Below, selected scenarios across EU27 countries are described, pointing to potentially alternative future developments to be recognised further. Cross-cuttingly, these scenarios assume fossil fuel phase-outs. Most raise issues relevant to actors outside the energy sector. A qualitative analysis of some of their key arguments is provided in Table 7.
As a limitation, a full breakdown across all their variables is not possible due to a range of different assumptions. Some scenarios also rely on TYNDP 2024 (and one of them relies on TYNDP 2022) as a data source. This list may not be exhaustive. Scenarios in academic publications are not included in the literature review and could be investigated. Technical note: Some of the scenarios are produced by organisations that also have been a part of the SRG in the TYNDP 2026 cycle.
| Title | Key messages | Organisation type | Authors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Designing energy infrastructure for a climate-neutral Europe | – Integrated, cross-sector, cross-vector energy scenarios to avoid misplaced investment – A cluster approach for clean molecules allows for a strategic use – Open-source modelling is helpful in investigating infrastructure choices | Think tank(s) | Agora Energiewende, Forum Energii, IDDRI, EPG and ECCO (2025) |
| Paris Agreement Compatible scenarios (PAC) 2.0 for energy infrastructure | – If buildings, transport and industry have lower demands, this can optimise supply – Very high flexibility in the energy system to optimise infrastructure – 100 % renewable energy system by 2040 – An advanced circular economy EU-wide | Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) | CAN Europe, EEB, RGI and REN21 (2024) |
| Ensuring Resilience in the European Energy Transition | – Ramp up of renewable electricity, green hydrogen, biomethane, synthetic gases as well as carbon capture – Repurposing existing gas infrastructure into hydrogen infrastructure – Asks what happens, if energy demand is high, RES is low, or the grid is delayed | Industry | Eurogas (2024) |
| Collaborative Low Energy Vision for the European Region (CLEVER) | – Lower energy demand optimises supply – Building renovations, fossil free heating and mobility transformation, also supported by circularity – Sufficiency, efficiency and renewables assist in remaining within +1.5 C | NGOs, academia, research institutes | négaWatt (2023) |
| Choices for a more Strategic Europe | – Electrification is based on high shares of renewables, with EVs and heat pumps – Advanced EU-wide circular economy – Competitiveness, industrial modernisation and innovation require clear signals for long-term planning | Think tank | Strategic Perspectives (2023) |
| Decarbonisation Speedways | – Major growth in RES, electrification, energy efficiency, as well as system flexibility with demand response and storage options – More radical actions expedite the pathway – Investment is also required on DSO grids | Industry | Eurelectric (2023) |
Table 7: Other European-wide energy and climate scenarios point to changes in energy supply as well as demands in key sectors,
such as buildings, transport and industry
12.1 Final energy demand
Final energy demand is reduced in all scenarios. The benchmarked scenarios, GECO 25 and EC IA Scenario 3, after 2030 show a more aggressive decrease in the final energy demand compared to the NT+ as the central scenario. Demand reduction is particularly visible in the GECO 2025 scenario but also stands out in the EC IA S3 in the next decade (2030 –2040).
Further reduction of final demand is expected in the 2050s in all three scenarios. All three scenarios foresee decreases in the demands for fossil fuels to contribute to a more efficient energy system. The future demands for each carrier are next presented, respectively.
Figure 100: Benchmark – Final energy demand by fuel (EU27, TWh)
12.2 Electricity demand
Overall, electricity demand grows in NT+ and the benchmarked scenarios alike. NT+ scenario is slightly below the GECO 25 trajectories for 2040 and 2050 target years. Both of the benchmarked scenarios, GECO 25 and EC IA show similar trends towards 2050 – a slight but steady increase of electricity demand in all sectors.
Figure 101: Benchmark – Electricity demand per sector (EU27, TWh)
12.3 Methane demand
NT+ and IA scenario deviate in the built environment, while the overall trajectory is towards to a reduction of methane demand, as shown in Figure 102 below. For GECO, the deviation is even bigger: the industry and built environment sectors show lower values of methane starting from 2030, as shown in Figure 103.
Figure 102: Methane demand by sector: benchmarking of NT+ and IA S3
Figure 103: Methane demand by sector: benchmarking of NT+ and GECO
12.4 Hydrogen demand
In each source the hydrogen demand increases, with comparable values in NT+ and EC IA S3. The main deviation is visible in the transport sector, as shown in Figure 104 and Figure 105. While GECO shows a lower hydrogen consumption in general.
Figure 104: Hydrogen demand by sector: benchmarking of NT+ and IA S3
Figure 105: Hydrogen demand by sector: benchmarking of NT+ and GECO
12.5 Electricity generation
Installed capacities
GECO vs NT+
Fossil fuel capacity declines steadily over the period in NT+ scenario, opposite of what happens in the GECO study. While remaining relevant in the short to medium term to support adequacy and flexibility, fossil capacity is significantly reduced, for TYNDP NT+ scenario, towards 2050. The GECO scenario retains higher residual thermal generation capacity than NT+, indicating a continued need for dispatchable capacity to ensure system resilience under very high renewable penetration.
Nuclear capacity remains broadly stable over time, with differences between scenarios. For GECO, nuclear capacity decreases over time, while for NT+ follows the opposite path. This reflects lifetime extensions of existing units and selective new investments in some Member States.
Overall, the benchmark confirms a transition driven by large-scale renewable capacity additions. Figure 106 shows the differences in fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable electricity net installed capacity trajectories for electricity generation in the GECO and NT+.
Figure 106: Benchmark of net installed capacity for electricity generation (EU27, GW)
Impact assessment vs NT+
In 2030, the IA scenario shows slightly lower total installed capacity compared with the NT+, with differences observed across all generation technologies. Fossil fuel capacity is reduced in IA relative to NT+, reflecting an earlier phase-out of conventional thermal assets. Nuclear capacity is marginally lower in IA, broadly consistent with similar lifetime assumptions in both frameworks, while renewable capacity remains almost identical, indicating a common view on near-term renewable deployment at EU27 level.
Overall, the comparison suggests that differences in the 2030 horizon are limited and largely driven by fossil capacity assumptions. Both IA and NT+ reflect a system already strongly oriented towards renewables, with only moderate divergence in the role of dispatchable thermal capacity to ensure adequacy and flexibility. Figure 107 shows the differences in fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable net installed capacity 2030 trajectory for electricity generation in the NT+ and IA.
By 2040 and 2050, more pronounced differences emerge between IA pathways and NT+. Across all IA variants, nuclear capacity is significantly lower than in NT+, reflecting stricter phase-out assumptions or limited lifetime extensions. This reduction is partly compensated by higher renewable capacity in most IA scenarios, particularly in S3, which shows the highest renewable build-out by 2040.
Thermal generation capacity in IA remains higher than in NT+ in both horizons, indicating a more persistent role for dispatchable thermal capacity under IA assumptions. This contrasts with NT+, where thermal generation capacity declines more sharply towards 2050, highlighting different perspectives on system flexibility needs and the pace of full decarbonisation. Figure 108 shows the differences for 2040 and 2050 net installed capacity pathways for electricity generation in the NT+ and IA.
Figure 107: Benchmark for 2030 of net installed capacities for electricity generation, NT+ vs Impact Assessment (EU27, GW)
Figure 108: Benchmark for 2040 and 2050 of net installed capacity for electricity generation, NT+ vs Impact Assessment (EU27, GW)
Electricity generation
GECO vs NT+
Regarding fossil fuels, the GECO study assumes an increasing level of utilisation towards 2050. This contrasts with the NT+ scenario, where the reliance of the EU27 electricity system on fossil fuels decreases over time, reaching a marginal share of generation. In NT+, fossil-fuel-based generation mainly contributes to system flexibility and adequacy.
In terms of renewable energy, the GECO study assumes lower production yields than NT+. This is observed despite higher levels of installed renewable capacity in GECO in the 2040 and 2050 horizons compared with NT+.
Electricity generation from nuclear sources is higher in GECO but only in the short and medium term. This reflects in 2030 and 2035 higher assumed yields relative to NT+. By 2040 and 2050, nuclear generation is higher in the NT+ scenario than in GECO.
Overall, the benchmark indicates diverging supply-side or weather year assumptions between the two frameworks. In the GECO study, lower renewable generation yields compared with NT+ result in a higher contribution from fossil-fuel-based electricity generation. Figure 109 shows electricity generation per technology for GECO and NT+.
Figure 109: Benchmark of electricity generation (EU27, TWh)
Impact Assessment vs NT+
In 2030, electricity generation in the IA scenario shows higher fossil-fuel-based output compared with NT+, despite lower installed fossil capacity. This indicates higher utilisation of thermal assets in IA, potentially reflecting more conservative assumptions on renewable availability or flexibility. Nuclear generation is lower in IA than in NT+, while renewable generation remains broadly comparable. The benchmark suggests that, in the short term, IA relies more on conventional generation to balance the system, whereas NT+ assumes higher effective contribution from low-carbon sources.
These differences underline contrasting assumptions on operational patterns rather than structural disparities in installed capacity. Figure 110 shows the differences in fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable generation in 2030 for electricity generation in the NT+ and IA.
In the longer term, IA scenarios display substantially higher fossil-fuel-based generation than NT+, particularly in 2040. Although this contribution decreases by 2050, it remains significantly above NT+ levels, where fossil generation becomes marginal. Nuclear generation in IA is consistently lower than in NT+, in line with the lower installed nuclear capacity.
Renewable generation in IA increases strongly towards 2050 and exceeds NT+ levels in absolute terms, driven by higher installed renewable capacity. Nevertheless, the continued role of fossil generation in IA highlights a more gradual transition towards a fully decarbonised electricity mix, contrasting with the more accelerated decarbonisation pathway assumed in NT+.
Figure 111 shows the differences for 2040 and 2050 electrical generation per technology in the NT+ and IA.
Figure 110: Benchmark for 2030 of electricity generation, EU27 for Impact Assessment and NT+ scenario
Figure 111: Benchmark for 2040 and 2050 of electricity generation, EU27 for Impact Assessment and NT+ scenario.
12.6 Methane supply
All three scenarios show a declining trajectory of methane supply over time. Compared with the GECO and IA scenarios, NT+ maintains a higher level of methane supply throughout the target years, starting from 2030, and ends in 2050 with a higher remaining methane supply than both benchmarking scenarios. See section on Gas and Methane Supply on methane composition in NT+.
Although the scenarios differ in supply volumes, methane supply is cut into less than half in 20 years in NT+ and GECO alike. For IA, only 2040 and 2050 figures are displayed (Figure 112). As the figures are not disaggregated by gas type, a detailed comparison of different methane sources is not possible. Nevertheless, most of the methane in the NT+ scenario consists of biomethane produced within the EU.
Figure 112: Benchmark of net installed capacity for electricity generation (EU27, GW)
12.7 Hydrogen supply
The NT+ scenario shows a steadily increasing hydrogen supply, reaching around 1,600 TWh / year by 2050. For NT+, visit sections on Hydrogen supply and generation as well as Hydrogen supply variant analysis. Compared with the IA scenario, the two trajectories are broadly aligned around 2040, whereas by 2050 the IA scenario exceeds NT+ in terms of total hydrogen supply (Figure 113).
Figure 113: Benchmark of hydrogen supply (EU27)
12.8 Biomass supply
In the NT+ scenario, biomass supply remains consistently below the GECO reference level throughout the entire period, while generally exceeding the levels reported in the IA. After 2040, both the GECO and IA scenarios show declining biomass supply trajectories, whereas the NT+ scenario continues to increase biomass supply over the same period.
As discussed in the chapter on Biomass Supply, the TYNDP 2026 scenarios foresee the use of biomass across several applications, and in all scenarios, biomass plays an important role in the energy system. Figure 114 shows biomass supply assumptions for NT+, GECO and IA.
Figure 114: Benchmark of biomass supply (EU27)
12.9 Energy imports
Compared with the GECO and IA scenarios, NT+ shows lower total energy imports in 2030, but higher total energy imports across the remaining target years 2035, 2040 and 2050. This trajectory suggests that NT+ would be slightly less energy independent than the other two scenarios over the long term. Looking at individual energy carriers, the NT+ scenario relies more heavily on natural gas, hydrogen, and e-fuel imports than both GECO and IA across time horizons.
In contrast, the GECO scenario has the highest imports of biofuels and biomass. In 2050, GECO scenario has the highest levels of solids. However, unlike NT+ and IA, GECO has no natural gas imports left in 2050. The IA scenario, in particular, stands out for its significantly higher reliance on oil imports and is the least diversified in terms of its energy import mix in the long-term future.
Figure 115: Benchmark of energy imports (EU27)
