10 Compliance with 2030 European energy and climate targets and carbon neutrality in 2050 //

These guidelines establish criteria for development of the scenario and shall also aim to ensure that this is fully aligned with (1) the EE1st principle, (2) the EU’s 2030 targets for energy and climate, (3) the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality objective. The scenario shall take the latest available Commission scenarios, as well as, where relevant, the NECPs into account. The ACER guidelines require the Scenario report to analyse how the considered EU targets are achieved, including sufficient information about GHG emissions from the energy sector and carbon budgets (which go beyond the energy sector). This shall allow the evaluation of the TYNDP scenario with regards to climate targets and justify how the scenario is aligned with targets. For the 2026 scenario cycle, by the policy cut-off day set for 24 December 2024, 24 final updated NECPs were available; 3 countries were in the stage of preparation of the final updates (having obtained the EC feedback to the draft NECP). In the survey provided by the ENTSOs (for more details on survey see Chapter 11 and Annex I), TSOs representing 22 EU members confirmed data validation at national level prior to its submission to the scenario development process.

Only 5 countries submitted data without such a national validation process. Table 4 shows the summary of TSO responses representing EU27 Member States. It shows how their data submission was aligned with the country level targets confirming if:

This scenario report follows alignment with these relevant EU Policy targets:

The EC, in its EU-wide assessment of the final updated NECPs from May 2025,¹ acknowledges that there are gaps for meeting the 2030 targets at EU level specifically in:

Although the actual status of national trajectories is behind to reach the 2030 targets, ENTSOs based on steering by the EC and ACER must comply with the requirements of the framework guidelines. For this purpose, the ENTSOs implemented the FEC gap-filling methodology described in detail in Chapter 9 of the Scenario Methodology Report.

The EE1^st principle aims to ensure that energy efficiency solutions, demand-side resources and system flexibilities are considered in planning, policy and investment decisions in the energy and non-energy sectors alike. In the EE1^st principle guidelines annexed to European Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021 / 1749² of 28 September 2021, the principle’s application in the TYNDP is detailed as follows:

“The TEN-E [Regulation] includes the EE1^st principle in all the stages of the European Ten-Year Network Development Plans development, more specifically in the scenario development, infrastructure gaps identification and projects assessment. […] The practical implication of the EE1^st principle in the planning means that the infrastructure development must include within the decisional process options to better utilise the existing infrastructure (by operational mechanisms), implement more energy-efficient technologies, and make better use of the market mechanisms such as, but not exclusive to, demand-side response. […] When implementing the EE1^st principle, one must strive to reach the balance between secure and reliable energy supply, quality of energy supplied and overall associated costs […]. ”

In the NT+ scenario, the EE1^st principle was thus considered in the following ways:

Demand-side response technologies are modelled as either (i) optimised use of sector-coupling assets through conversion (e. g., electrolysers and hydrogen-fired power plants) or (ii) demand shedding (e. g., temporary reductions in industrial demand triggered by a market-clearing price threshold). The modelling aims to balance security of supply, quality of service, and cost efficiency. System-wide investment benefits – including energy-efficiency measures and infrastructure development – are reflected by monetising unserved demand (VoLL and CODH), incorporating adequacy loops, and penalising energy losses that reduce life-cycle efficiency (e. g., via marginal fuel costs, conversion losses in electrolysers and power plants, and storage efficiencies). Emissions are also penalised through consistency checks against the EU’s legal energy and climate targets and, where applicable, reflected in marginal fuel costs.

Lastly, the TYNDP 2026 scenarios are based on policy documents and infrastructure lists which themselves have to comply with the EE1^st principle. First, demand scenarios were built based on the latest NECPs. The integrated NECPs published by Member States must take into account the energy efficiency first principle as stated in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2018 / 1999. ­Second, electricity and hydrogen grids used for TYNDP26 take PCI / PMI projects into account. TEN-E regulation (REGULATION (EU) 2022 / 869) states that any project of common / mutual interest should comply with the EE1^st principle.

The 2020 EU Reference Scenario projection estimates EU final energy consumption at 864 Mtoe in 2030. The EU Energy Efficiency 2023 / 1791 Directive³ establishes a binding EU-level target for FEC in 2030, set at 763 Mtoe. This target corresponds to an additional reduction of 11.7 % compared to the 2020 EU Reference Scenario projection. The NT+ scenario is compliant with the EED’s FEC target. While final energy consumption reported through the ETM in the NT data collection initially amounted to 867 Mtoe, the application of an advanced gap‑filling methodology reduced final energy consumption to 762 Mtoe in the NT+ scenario.

The gap‑filling methodology applied is described in detail in Section 9 of the TYNDP 2026 Scenarios Methodology Report, while the carrier-level impacts are presented in Section 9.3 of the demand chapter of this report. The gap-filling methodology bridges the gap between a policy-based bottom-up data collection and a target compliant NT+ scenario.

The Renewable Energy Directive 2023 / 2413 establishes an overall target of at least 42.5 % renewable energy in gross final energy consumption (GFCoE) by 2030 (with the aspirational goal to reach 45 %). In Eurostat statistics, this share is defined as the ratio of renewable energy consumed by end‑users to total FEC, excluding non‑energy uses of fuels.

According to the modelling results of the NT+ scenario, the overall RES share reaches 42.55 % and thus the target, if only green hydrogen and green ammonia are counted as renewable, and 43.22 % if low carbon hydrogen and ammonia (including blue and imports) are included in the renewable definition (Table 5).

In the NT+ scenario framework, it is outside the model scope to track the renewable content of every final energy flow after all conversion and blending steps. Instead, a supply‑side proxy is applied: for each energy carrier, the renewable share of its supply mix is used as a proxy for the renewable share embedded in its final consumption. This avoids double‑counting conversion losses and reflects the actual decarbonisation level of each carrier’s supply.

The calculation of the RES-share is structured in two steps:

Denominator – GFCoE adjusted for the aviation cap

Final energy consumption is first derived from ETM for the NT+ scenario by aggregating all relevant sectors across the following carriers: ammonia, biomass / biogenic, electricity, heat (district heating), hydrogen, liquids, gas, solids and “other”, while excluding the international shipping sector In line with the Energy Efficiency Directive and the RED accounting scope and the following other exceptions that are added separately:

The sum of these components yields GFCoE, adjusted for the cap on the aviation sector’s contribution to a Member State’s FEC according to the proxy from the Commissions FF55 scenario.

Numerator – renewable part of FEC

For each of the FEC components above, the renewable share is derived using the supply mix proxy, i. e. the share of renewables in the supply of the corresponding carrier. The following renewable shares (r) are applied for NT+.

For each carrier, renewable FEC is obtained by multiplying final consumption by the corresponding RES share, and the total renewable FEC is the sum across all carriers and components.

The 2030 GHG emissions target can be found together with the 2040 and 2050 targets in the chapter below. In this chapter the following topics are discussed:

To assess whether NT+ is compliant with the EU emissions reduction targets and the indicative carbon budget for 2030–2050 as described in Chapter 6.6 of the Scenario Methodology Report, greenhouse gas emissions and removals are calculated consistently with the approach used in the European Commission’s Impact Assessment (IA) for the 2040 Climate Target. Annual net emissions for 2030–2050 are computed and then summed over the period; intermediate years are obtained by interpolation between 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2050.

The Figure 91 illustrates projected evolution of Total GHG emissions (energy emissions and non-energy emissions). There is a clear declining trend in emissions from the energy system, reflecting increased deployment of RES and an overall reduction in energy demand. Nevertheless, emissions do not reach zero by 2050, implying that negative emissions are required to comply with EU climate targets.

Furthermore, when considering total GHG emissions, it is evident that contributions from non-energy sectors, industrial processes and agriculture, will also be necessary as well in order to meet the targets.

Figure 92 shows evolution of these key elements over time:

An additional volume of CCS (“Slack CCS”) is introduced in the modelling framework to ensure consistency with the EU carbon budget constraint. This represents the residual level of carbon removals required in the model to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 under the given assumptions.

As shown in Figure 92, slack CCS deployment begins in 2048 and increases steadily towards 2050, reaching a required level of 170 Mt CO₂ per year to secure carbon neutrality. The total volume of CO₂ captured including from CCS, BECCS, CCU and slack CCS, are subject to the upper capture limit 425 Mt CO2 / year recommended by the ESABCC⁵. In line with the methodology, the sum of (i) CO₂ captured for synfuels, (ii) reported CCS / BECCS volumes and (iii) slack CCS is kept at or below this ESABCC cap. The CCU / CCS figure also indicates the amount of slack CCS used in NT+, i. e. the additional permanent storage that is needed, beyond reported national volumes, to be consistent with the EU wide capture potential and climate targets.

Negative emissions from LULUCF increase from 271 Mt CO₂e in 2030 to 333 Mt CO₂e in 2050, as shown in Figure 93. The estimates for net LULUCF emissions in 2030 are based on the expected contributions reported in the NECPs. For 2040 and 2050, projections are taken from the EU Impact Assessment, specifically the S3 scenario. Linear interpolation is applied for the intermediate years between 2030 and 2040, and between 2040 and 2050.

As illustrated in Figure 94, the deducted CO₂ emissions from international shipping and aviation are relatively limited, particularly in the later years of the analysis. This is primarily driven by the assumption that the energy mix will see a high uptake of renewable and low carbon fuels in these sectors, in line with existing and forthcoming EU regulatory requirements.

The assessment of the carbon budget and compliance with the emission targets is carried out exclusively for the NT+ scenario. The underlying methodology, assumptions, and calculation approach are described in detail in the accompanying TYNDP 2026 Scenarios Methodology Report.

Under the EU Climate Law, the EU is required to reduce GHG emissions by at least 55 % by 2030 compared to the 1990 levels of total emissions, which were 4,726 Mt CO₂e, and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. In March 2026, the EU further reached a political agreement on a binding 2040 target of a 90 % reduction in net GHG emissions. This target includes a domestic reduction of at least 85 %, with the remaining up to 5 % to be met through international carbon credits. In this context, assessing compliance with an 85 % domestic emissions reduction by 2040 is particularly relevant for the TYNDP scenario.

Figure 95 compares emissions from the NT+ scenario against the EU climate targets. The results show that the NT+ scenario remains within the emissions limits for all assessed milestone years.

In particular, the scenario achieves the required reductions for 2030, 2040, and aligns with the long-term objective of climate neutrality by 2050 the latter achieved by using a small amount (170 Mt) of Slack CCS. Therefore, the NT+ scenario can be considered fully consistent with the EU Climate Law targets.

The NT Benchmark, where no gap-filling was added, is still compliant with the target for 2030 where a reduction on 60 % is achieved without using any “slack CCS”. For 2040 the reduction ends up at 84 %, one percent from the target if 5 % is achieved through international credits and no “Slack” CCS is used. For the climate neutrality by 2050 the NT need 210 Mt of “Slack” CCS to be neutral, 40 Mt more than the NT+ scenario. This means that all targets can be reached within the technology cap on CCS.

The carbon budget for the scenario is set at 16 Gt CO₂eq for the period 2030 – 2050. This value is taken from the European Commission’s Impact Assessment and is deemed consistent with the requirements of the EU Climate Law as well as fully compatible with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

The figure below presents cumulative emissions and removals over the assessed period, together with cumulative net emissions.

The cumulative net emissions reach 16 Gt CO2eq in 2050, thereby remaining within the recommended carbon budget. A key factor in meeting this budget is the timely and sustained reduction of gross emissions combined with the progressive scaling up of carbon removals towards 2050.

This balance ensures that net emissions decline sufficiently over time, allowing the NT+ scenario to stay within the cumulative budget constraint while achieving climate neutrality by mid-century.

In contrast, the NT Benchmark (combination of NT dataset and PLEXOS model results, as introduced in Chapter 9.2) is projected to overshoot the carbon budget, reaching approximately 2,600 Mt CO₂eq above the limit by 2050, assuming the same level of CCS deployment as in NT+. To comply with the budget, Member States would need to intensify efforts e.g. by significantly increasing carbon removals or/and by implementing deeper reductions in fossil fuel use. If CCS is used more widely the budget can still be reached within the technical constraint on CCS.

Emissions from the power sector decrease sharply in the NT+ scenario. By 2030, total emissions fall to 144 Mt CO₂, representing only 9.4 % of total electricity-sector emissions in 1990. Emissions decline further to just 9 Mt CO₂ by 2050, indicating a power sector operating almost entirely on ­renewable energy.

Across the variants, total emissions from the electricity sector are higher in the High Economic variant than in the NT+ scenario, while emissions are lowest in the Low Economic variant. Higher electricity demand in the High Economic variant requires additional fossil fuel generation, leading to higher emissions. In contrast, under the Low Economic variant, RES are sufficient to supply almost the entire electricity demand, resulting in minimal emissions.

Along with the sharp decline in total emissions from electricity generation, the carbon intensity of power generation is also expected to decrease significantly. In the NT+ scenario, higher electricity generation is supported primarily by increased deployment of RES (wind and solar), combined with expanded use of hydrogen, biomethane, and synthetic fuels in power plants.

By 2030, the carbon intensity of electricity generation is projected to fall to 42 g CO₂/kWh, which is substantially below the EEA projection of 110 g CO₂/kWh and corresponds to only 8.4 % of the 1990 level.

Under the NT+ scenario, the carbon intensity of electricity continues to decline towards 2050, reaching 1.48 g CO₂/kWh, effectively approaching full decarbonisation of the power sector.

The High Economic Variant exhibits a slightly higher carbon intensity than the NT+ scenario due to a greater reliance on fossil fuels in the energy mix. In contrast, the Low Economic Variant achieves an even lower carbon intensity than NT+, reflecting reduced overall energy demand and a higher relative share of low carbon generation.

Electrolysers are supplied by both dedicated RES and market electricity. Dedicated RES ensures carbon free hydrogen and synthetic fuel production, while electrolysis based on market electricity may still involve limited emissions. As the electricity and hydrogen systems are price driven, the model largely avoids operating electrolysers, when this would trigger additional fossil fuel generation.

Due to system constraints such as, must run operation up to 2030, minimum CHP output, and hydrogen supply demand requirements, electrolysers may operate for a limited number of hours using electricity with low, but nonzero, carbon intensity. This remains compatible with the pathway to carbon neutrality where the alternative system response would be more carbon intensive.

In this context, the hydrogen produced is expected to be increasingly transported through existing gas infrastructure, suitably adapted, thereby fostering the integration of energy systems and optimising the use of already available infrastructure assets. Furthermore, the system may be complemented by imported hydrogen flows, contributing to ensuring security of supply.

Overall, emissions from hydrogen production remain modest (Figure 99). In the NT+ scenario, they peak at 3.77 Mt CO₂ in 2035. The High Economic Variant reaches a higher peak of 7.28 Mt CO₂ in 2035, while the Low Economic Variant records the lowest emissions, peaking at 1.04 Mt CO₂ in 2040.