1. ENERGY BALANCES 2010 AND POWER BALANCES 2010/11 June 2007
OH032
ENERGY BALANCES AND POWER BALANCES 2010/11 June 2007

2. CONTENTS Summary and Conclusions 3 - 4 Forecasts 5 - 11
OH032
CONTENTS
Summary and Conclusions 3 - 4
Forecasts
Simulated energy balances
Estimated power balances
Probability of market failure and system failure
Appendices
1. Energy (purpose, definitions, fundamentals)
2. Power (definitions, fundamentals)
3. Energy (retrospect 2006)
4. Power balance (retrospect 2006/07)
Prepared by Nordel's Balance Group June 2007

3. SUMMARY OF THE FORECASTS
OH032
SUMMARY OF THE FORECASTS
The annual electricity consumption in the Nordic market is estimated to grow to about 420 TWh by the end of year 2010 (1.5%/a) from 395 TWh in 2006 (not temperature corrected, including electrical boilers). The production in the Nordic market in a year with normal conditions is estimated to be 411 TWh in year 2010, while the maximum available production capacity is MWh/h (operational reserves excluded).
The sum of the national peak demands in average temperature conditions is estimated to grow to MWh/h in the winter period 2010/11. The forecast for the corresponding demand in the cold temperature conditions (statistically once in ten years nationally) is MWh/h higher ( MWh/h). On the Nordic level this corresponds to a probability of once in 30 to 40 years. Simultaneous peak demand is expected to be MWh/h lower. Simultaneous all time high has been MWh/h in 2001.
Investments in production capacity by the end of 2010 are estimated to increase the installed production capacity by about MW. The decided and planned investments would increase the production capability by about 34 TWh/a by end of 2010, including the new nuclear unit in Finland, 13 TWh/a.
The new nuclear unit in Finland is included in the power balance 2010/2011, not in the energy balance for 2010.
Iceland is presented separately and it is not included in the other figures.

4. OH032
CONCLUSIONS
The Nordic electricity system is able to meet the estimated consumption and the corresponding typical power demand pattern in average conditions even without imports.
The energy balance in 2010 and the power balance in 2010/11 are better than the former Nordel estimates. This is due to additional investments in new generation capacity.
In order to meet the energy demand in low inflow conditions the Nordic power system needs to import from neighbouring countries. Some areas in Norway can be exposed to a risk of rationing in case of extremely low precipitation.
The Nordic production capacity is sufficient to meet without imports the simultaneous peak power demand also in cold conditions.
Analysis on security of supply show that all the Nordic countries fulfil the requirements of Nordel and UCTE for both normal winter temperatures and ten year winter temperatures. In a case of a common mode failure in several nuclear power plants (8000 MW) in normal conditions, the Nordic system can experience a difficult situation. However, this is a very unlikely scenario with very low probability.
In practice, the balance between Nordic supply and import/export will be based on the prevailing market situation between the Nordic electricity market and the neighbouring markets.

5. FORECASTS Consumption and demand 6
OH032
FORECASTS
Consumption and demand 6
Additions in production capacity 7 - 8
Changes in interconnection capacity 9
Cross-border trading capacities in
Iceland 11

6. CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND
OH032
CONSUMPTION AND DEMAND
Energy 2006 TWh/a
Energy 2010 TWh/a
Growth %/a
All time peak MWh/h
Peak 2010/11 MWh/h
Cold
Denmark
36.4 39
1.7
6 480 )
Finland
90.0 95
1.3
14 900 )
Norway
122.6
135
2.4
23 050 )
Sweden
146.4
153
1.1
27 300 )
Nordel
395.4
422
1.6
69 000 )
1) Probability once in 10 years
2) Sum of national peaks (probability once in 30 to 40 years)

7. Available capacity at peak
OH032
NET ADDITIONS IN GENERATION CAPACITY 2007 to 2010 (decided and planned)
Hydro
Nuclear
Other thermal
Wind
Installed capacity
Available capacity at peak
Investment decided
Denmark
-290
550
260
100 %
Finland 90
16001)
560 40
2290
2150
95 %
Norway
600
910
360
1870
1510
85 %
Sweden
490
1200
780
2470
1270
50 %2)
Nordel
690
2090
2380
1730
6890
4740
New nuclear unit in Finland 2010/2011
Many small projects (green certificates)
Available wind capacity at peak is 0% for each country but 6% for Nordic countries together

8. INSTALLED PRODUCTION CAPACITY (at the end of year)
OH032
INSTALLED PRODUCTION CAPACITY (at the end of year)

9. CHANGES IN INTERCONNECTIONS
OH032
CHANGES IN INTERCONNECTIONS
Interconnections
New interconnection NorNed (between Norway and the Netherlands) 700 MW (by end 2007) will increase the transmission capacity to outside Nordel. The interconnection between Jutland and Germany is expected to be upgraded to at least 1500 MW in both directions, presumably even higher in southbound direction, by 2009/2010.
Of the five prioritised Nordic grid investments Nea - Järpströmmen between Norway and Sweden is expected to be commissioned in autumn The other prioritised grid investments are scheduled as followed:
Great Belt, 600 MW connection between Eastern and Western Denmark, is expected to be commissioned 2010.
Fenno-Skan 2, 800 MW new capacity on the connection between Finland and Sweden, is expected to be commissioned at the turn of the year 2010/11.
South link in Sweden, investment decision is taken, but the technical solution is not decided, and therefore also not the capacity. Expected to be commissioned in 2013.
Skagerrak 4, a Letter of Intent for the project is signed. According to the time schedule connection can be commissioned in 2012.

10. AVAILABLE CROSS BORDER TRADING CAPACITIES AT THE END OF 2010, MW
OH032
AVAILABLE CROSS BORDER TRADING CAPACITIES AT THE END OF 2010, MW 30
100
100 RU
1750
Finland
Sweden
Norway
1460
3350
3550
Of the five prioritised Nordic grid investments,
Nea - Järpströmmen is expected to be
commissioned by 2010.
2050
350
700
1000
670
EST
600
350
630
700
1750 NL
600
1000
1350
600 PL
1500
600
Denmark-W
Denmark-E
1500
600
600 D

11. OH032
ICELAND
Iceland is not included in the figures elsewhere in the report.
The annual energy consumption in Iceland is estimated to grow by about 6.6 TWh by year 2010 (14 %/a) due to one new aluminium plant to be started in 2007 and extensions in existing plants.

12. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCES 2010
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCES 2010
Energy balances
Average conditions
Low inflow
Extremely low inflow

13. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Average conditions
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Average conditions
The Simulated Energy Market Balance on pages 14 to 16 illustrates the simulated physical exchanges between areas. The exchange between the Nordic and Continental markets is based on simulations in the Nordic market and the price forecast in the Continental market. The analysis show the situation before the fifth nuclear power plant in Finland is in operation.
Due to imports the production in the Nordic countries remains remarkably lower than the production capability.
There is remarkable import from Russia.
Net exchange with Central-Europe remains small, with large export in peak situations and large import in off-peak situations.
It is expected that import from Estonia continues despite the closing of the nuclear power plant Ignalina in Lithuania 2009.

14. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Average of all inflow years
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Average of all inflow years RU
0,5
P = Production, simulated
C = Consumption
B = Balance without energy
exchange
All units in TWh
Finland
Sweden
Norway
P 79
C 95
B -16
P 156
C 153
B 3
P 131
C 135
B -4
Nordel 4
1,5 RU 12
P 411
C 422
-11
EST 2 1
Denmark-W 2
P 28
C 23
B 5
0,5
Denmark-E
P 17
C 16
B 1 2 PL NL
0,5 D

15. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (average of all inflow years)
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (average of all inflow years)
2000 to 2006 actual values

16. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (average of all inflow years)
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (average of all inflow years)
2000 to 2006 actual values

17. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (low inflow)
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (low inflow)
The Simulated Energy Market Balance on page 18 illustrates the simulated market balance in low inflow conditions. The inflow series used is It results in hydro power production once in 10 years.
The simulation results show compared to average situation:
hydro production is decreased by 17,5 TWh
thermal production is increased by 11 TWh
demand is decreased by 2 TWh (demand response)
import from outside is increased by 4 TWh

18. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Low inflow year (1/10 years)
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Low inflow year (1/10 years) RU
0,5
P = Production, simulated
C = Consumption
B = Balance without energy
exchange
All units in TWh
Finland
Sweden
Norway
P 81
C 95
B -14
P 151
C 152
B -1
P (-9)
C (-1) B
Nordel 8 RU 12
P 405
C 420
-15
EST 2 3
Denmark-W 3
P 30
C 23
B 7
Denmark-E 5
P 21
C 16
B 5 NL
0,5 PL 1 1 1 D
0,5

19. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (extremely low inflow)
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (extremely low inflow)
The Simulated Energy Market Balance on page 21 illustrates the simulated market balance in extremely low inflow conditions. The year used is 1970 which followed another low inflow year It results in the lowest hydro power production among the 50 inflow series used in simulations.
In this case water reservoirs are used more than the inflow thus resulting in decreasing water levels.

20. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (cont.) (extremely low inflow)
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 (cont.) (extremely low inflow)
An extremely low inflow corresponds to a reduction of about 41 TWh in hydropower production compared to average conditions (sum of extremes in Finland, Norway and Sweden). The simulation results show that compared to the average of all simulated inflow series:
hydro power production is decreased by 41 TWh
thermal production is increased by 17 TWh
demand is decreased by 13 TWh (demand response)
import from outside is increased by 11 TWh
 In a hydro-based system the market price can temporarily be very high during dry years and can result in decreased demand.
 Some areas in Norway can be exposed to a risk for rationing or other measures in case of extremely low precipitation.

21. SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Extremely low inflow year (1/50 years)
OH032
SIMULATED ENERGY BALANCE 2010 Extremely low inflow year (1/50 years) RU
P = Production, simulated
C = Consumption
B = Balance without energy
exchange
All units in TWh
Finland
Sweden
Norway
P 85
C 95
B -10
P 144
C 150
B -6
P (-25)
C (-10) B
Nordel 12 4 RU 12
P 387
C 409
-22
EST 2
Denmark-W 5 3
P 30
C 23
B 7
Denmark-E 7
P 22
C 16
B 6 1 NL 2 PL 2 2 2 D

22. ESTIMATED POWER BALANCES 2010/11
OH032
ESTIMATED POWER BALANCES 2010/11
Available power capacity and peak demand
(average temperature)
(temperature once in ten years)

23. OH032
AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11 Average winter temperatures
The maximum available production capacity exceeds the peak demand by MWh/h.
Both sum of national peak demands and simultaneous peak demand is used in the forecasts. The simultaneous peak is estimated to be 1600 MWh/h lower. Considering this the capacity margin is even bigger and exceeds export capacity outside the area. The sum of national peaks corresponds to a probability of once in 30 to 40 years.
Peak load situation is, like last years balance, remarkably easier than in previous power balances due to investments in new generation capacity .
Every Nordic country is able to meet an average winter day peak demand with its own production capacity. As a whole the Nordic area is able to meet the demand without import.
New nuclear unit in Finland is included in the power balance. This gives a positive balance also for Finland.

24. OH032
AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11 No exchange between areas Average winter temperatures
P - maximum available production capacity (operational reserves excluded)
C - peak demand in each country
B - power balance
All units in MWh/h
Norway
P 25200
C 22850
B 2350
Finland
P 15400
C 15200
B 200
Sweden
Nordic peak values1
P 29700
C 27000
B 2700
P 78300
C 70400
B 7900
Denmark-W
Denmark-E
P 4600
C 4050
B 550
P 3000
C 2900
B 100
1 Total Nordic values with coincident factors for both wind and demand

25. AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11 Cold winter day
OH032
AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11 Cold winter day
The national peak demands correspond a probability of once in ten years. The sum of these corresponds a probability of once in 30 to 40 years.
The sum of peak demands in cold conditions is estimated to be 3700 MWh/h higher than in average temperature conditions. The simultaneous peak is estimated to be 1700 MWh/h lower. The power balance is expected to be positive for the Nordic countries in this situation.
 Nordic production capacity is sufficient to cover the simultaneous peak demand without import.

26. OH032
AVAILABLE POWER CAPACITY AND PEAK DEMAND 2010/11 No exchange between areas Temperatures corresponding to a ten years winter day
P - estimated production
C - peak demand in each country
B - estimated net power exchange export(+)/import(-)
All units in MWh/h
Norway
Finland
P 25200
C 24000
B 1200
P 15400
C 16000
B - 600
Nordic peak values1
Sweden
P 29700
C 28500
B 1200
P 78300
C 74000
B 4300
Denmark-W
Denmark-E
P 4600
C 4250
B 350
P 3000
C 2950
B 50
1 Total Nordic values with coincident factors for both wind and demand

27. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11
The probability of market failure is calculated as the expected probability of supply and demand do not meet in the day ahead spot market. Production units used for system reserves are not taken into account.
The probability of system failure is calculated as expected loss of load probability, that means probability that loads have to be disconnected to maintain system security. In this calculation only 600 MW in total are kept for disturbance reserves for system security.
The calculations are made taking into account internal transmission capacities. Import possibilities from neighbouring systems are assumed to be half of the existing capacity.
The calculations are done for three scenarios:
Load level corresponding to average winter temperatures
Load level corresponding to ten years winter temperatures
Largest type of nuclear power plant out of operation in normal conditions (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units in Finland and Sweden, 7950 MW)

28. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11
Conclusions:
The probability of market failure is below the required 1‰ in all areas with normal winter temperature and with ten years winter temperature. With lack of approximately 8000 MW nuclear units in Finland and Sweden in normal conditions the probability of market failure is higher than 1‰ in southern Sweden and mid and eastern Norway.
The margins in Norway, Finland and Sweden are between 2000 and 3000 MW in each area with normal winter temperature to the required 1‰ probability of market failure, 300 MW in eastern part of Denmark and 800 MW in the western part.
With 10 years winter temperature the margins decrease especially in Norway and Sweden
The lack of 8000 MW nuclear power in Sweden and Finland has only a minor influence on the margins in Denmark, but in Norway and Sweden the margins to the required 1‰ probability of market failure are negative. This means that in order to solve the situation some of the operational reserves have to be used.

29. MARGIN TO MARKET FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter
MF - Margin to market failure average winter (MW)
MF - Margin to market failure 10 years winter (MW)
Margin to Nordel's criteria of 1 ‰ for market failure.
Norway
Finland
In a market failure situation the supply
capability is not sufficient to meet
the demand in the day ahead market
without use of some system reserves.
MF 2200 MW
MF 1000 MW
MF 3000 MW
MF 2300 MW
Sweden
MF 2900 MW
MF 1400 MW
Denmark.-W
Denmark-E
MF 800 MW
MF 600 MW
MF 300 MW
MF 200 MW

30. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter
MF - Probability of market failure average winter (‰)
MF - Probability of market failure 10 years winter (‰)
Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1 ‰.
Norway
Finland
In a market failure situation the supply
capability is not sufficient to meet
the demand in the day ahead market
without use of some system reserves.
MF 0.02‰
MF 0.18‰
MF 0.00‰
Sweden
MF 0.00‰
MF 0.10‰
Denmark.-W
Denmark-E
MF 0.00‰
MF 0.00‰
MF 0.00‰

31. MARGIN TO SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter
SF - Margin to system failure average winter (MW)
SF - Margin to system failure 10 years winter (MW)
Margin to Nordel's criteria of 1 ‰ for system failure.
Norway
In a system failure situation the supply
capability is not sufficient to meet
the demand in the operational hour
without disconnection of some load.
The system reserves (except 600 MW)
are included in the supply capability.
Finland
SF MW
SF MW
SF 3500 MW
SF 2700 MW
Sweden
SF 3900 MW
SF 2600 MW
Denmark.-W
Denmark-E
SF 1000 MW
SF 800 MW
SF 700 MW

32. PROBABILITY OF SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/11 Average winter and 10 years winter
SF - Probability of system failure average winter (‰)
SF - Probability of system failure 10 years winter (‰)
Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1 ‰.
Norway
In a system failure situation the supply
capability is not sufficient to meet
the demand in the operational hour
without disconnection of some load.
The system reserves (except 600 MW)
are included in the supply capability.
Finland
SF 0.00‰
SF 0.05‰
SF 0.00‰
Sweden
SF 0.00‰
SF 0.01‰
Denmark.-W
Denmark-E
SF 0.00‰
SF 0.00‰

33. MARGIN TO MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/ MW nuclear units out of operation (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units)
MF - Margin to market failure average winter (MW)
SF - Margin to system failure average winter (MW)
Margins to Nordel's criteria of 1 ‰ both for market failure and system failure.
The scenario is very unlikely
and has a very low probability.
In order to solve the situation
some of the system reserves
have to be used.
Norway
Finland
MF MW
SF 1000 MW
MF 1200 MW
SF 1500 MW
Sweden
MF -900 MW
SF 200 MW
Denmark.-W
Denmark-E
MF 700 MW
SF 800 MW
MF 300 MW
SF 700 MW

34. PROBABILITY OF MARKET FAILURE AND SYSTEM FAILURE 2010/ MW nuclear units out of operation (Common mode failure, Nuclear BWR units)
MF - Probability of market failure average winter (‰)
SF - Probability of system failure average winter (‰)
Nordel's probability criteria maximum 1 ‰ both for market failure and system failure.
The scenario is very unlikely
and has a very low probability.
In order to solve the situation
some of the system reserves
have to be used.
Norway
Finland
MF 1.14‰
SF 0.17‰
MF 0.00‰
SF 0.00‰
Sweden
MF 3.67‰
SF 0.75‰
Denmark.-W
Denmark-E
MF 0.00‰
SF 0.00‰
MF 0.00‰
SF 0.00‰

35. APPENDICES 1. Energy (purpose, definitions, fundamentals) 36
OH032
APPENDICES
1. Energy (purpose, definitions, fundamentals) 36
2. Power (definitions, fundamentals)
3. Energy (retrospect 2006)
4. Power balance (retrospect 2006/07)

36. Purpose Definitions Fundamentals Appendix 1 ENERGY
OH032
Appendix 1 ENERGY
Purpose
The purpose of this presentation is to give a picture of the energy balance for each country and the whole Nordic electricity market. Focus is set on production capacity and need for import from the neighbouring countries outside Nordel.
Definitions
Low inflow = There is a probability of 10 % to obtain energy below the estimated value.
Extreme low inflow = There is a probability of 2 % to obtain energy below the estimated value (1 out of 50 years)
Fundamentals
The exchange between the Nordel countries are market based. Hence it is the spot price that decides flow directions and volumes. The exchange between the Nordel countries and its neighbours is developing towards a market based operation.
The method does not necessarily indicate possible problems in certain areas.
Forecasted consumption/demand includes demand response during extreme dry years.
Forecasted production in the energy balance does not include the 5. nuclear plant in Finland.
Consumption/demand includes network losses.

37. Definitions Appendix 2.1 POWER
OH032
Appendix 2.1 POWER
Definitions
Available capacity = installed capacity - unavailable capacity - reserves
Reserves = frequency controlled momentary and fast disturbance reserves.
Peak Demand = maximum one hour load in temperature circumstances with occurrence probability one winter during respectively two and ten years, denoted as an average winter day and a cold winter day.
Ten years winter. The peak demand is based on a temperature that has an occurrence of one out of ten years in each country separately. A simultaneous peak demand in all the countries at a working day has an occurrence probability less than 7 %.

38. OH032
Appendix 2.2 POWER
Fundamentals
Estimated power exchange takes into account limitations both in transmissions and production capabilities. The method does not necessarily indicate possible problems in certain areas.
Generation
Unavailable capacity is based on experiences from earlier peak demand situations. Not available hydropower is approximately 13 % (6000 MW) of installed capacity.
Nuclear power output is supposed to be 100 % of full capacity.
Availability of other thermal power is reduced by e.g. forced outage rate, max heat production in combined heat and power plants, use of fuel other than oil etc.
The available wind power during peak load is assumed to be 0 % in each Nordic country individually, and due to coincidence factor, 6 % for the total of the Nordic countries.

39. Demand forecast for ten years peak load includes demand response.
Appendix 2.2 POWER
Demand
The coincident factor used for the total consumption of the Nordel is 97,7 % of the sum of the country specific demands.
Demand forecast for ten years peak load includes demand response.
Reserves
Nordel has recommended common fast disturbance reserves. From a total of MW (3 200 MW in production capacity and MW in dispatch able load ) it can be reduced to a minimum of 600 MW in a connected system without severe bottlenecks before load shedding is executed. The recommended reserves have been subtracted from available production capacity.

40. Appendix 3.1 ENERGY Retrospect 2006
OH032
Appendix 3.1 ENERGY Retrospect 2006
Total consumption in 2006 was TWh (394.0 TWh in 2005). During spring and summer 2006 the reservoir levels fell far below the long term median due to lack of accumulated snow and due to low precipitation, but much precipitation at the end of the year normalized the hydrologic balance going into The Nord Pool spot price was relatively high throughout the year, especially for late summer and autumn, due to poor power balance in addition to lack of Swedish nuclear power and high prices of raw material (oil, gas etc.).
Demand decreased in all countries except Finland. The increase of demand in Finland was 5.5 TWh, partly because of paper industry dispute in Demand decreased in Norway by 3.3 TWh mainly due to high energy prices and mild weather. Denmark and Sweden showed minor changes.
The total production in 2006 was TWh (394.9 TWh in 2005 and TWh in 2004). The hydro power production was 199 TWh (222/184 TWh), wind power 8 TWh (8/8 TWh), thermal power excluding nuclear was 97 TWh (73/91 TWh) and nuclear power was 87 TWh (92/97 TWh).
In 2006 the Nordel countries together had a net import of 11.4 TWh (0.9 TWh export in 2005, 11.6 TWh import in 2004). The import from Russia was 11.7 TWh, Poland 1.2 TWh while there was a net export of 1.5 TWh to Germany.

41. Appendix 3.2 ENERGY BALANCE 2006 [TWh] Retrospect
OH032
0.1
Appendix 3.2 ENERGY BALANCE 2006 [TWh] Retrospect
0.2
Norway
0.2 RU
P 121.7
C 122.6
B -0.9
P - production C - consumption
B - energy balance (P-C), export (+) / import (-)
Finland
P 78.6
C 90.0
B -11.4
3.8
7.2
7.7
Total Nordel
3.4
Sweden
11.5
P 383.9
C 395.3
B -11.4
P 140.3
C 146.4
B -6.1 RU
2.3
EST
1.8
Denmark-W
Denmark-E
1.1
0.6
3.9
P 16.6
C 14.2
B 2.4
P 25.7
C 21.2
B 4.5
1.0
1.5
2.1
1.9
4.2
1.9
0.3 D
1.6 D PL
1.5

42. Appendix 4.1 POWER BALANCE, Retrospect 2006/07
OH032
Appendix 4.1 POWER BALANCE, Retrospect 2006/07
Synchronous Peak Demand 21 February 2007, hour 18-19
Peak demand this winter was MWh/h, while a peak demand with a ten years temperature was estimated to MWh/h. The total maximum winter peak demand 2000/2001 was MWh/h which is the all time high peak demand in the Nordel system.
It was very cold in the northern Nordic countries during the winter peak 2006/2007. This seasons peak load was recorded in Norway and Sweden the same hour as the synchronous peak.
Compared to estimated peak demand for ten years winter the difference was between 5% and 16% in the individual areas.
Country specific peak demands
The different Nordic countries had their peaks between January 11 and February 21, The sum of the individual peaks was 1,5% higher than the synchronous peak.
The demand in Finland the 8. of February 2007 was a new all time high, MWh/h.

43. IN THE TOTAL NORDEL AREA
OH032
Appendix 4.2 PEAK LOAD 2006/2007
IN THE TOTAL NORDEL AREA
Measured on 21 February 2007, ,
estimated 1 in 10 years and all time high
(average temperature of the day)
-12°C
Measured consumtion [MWh/h]
Forecasted peak demand [MWh/h]
(one of 10 winters)
All time high [MWh/h]
Simultaneous all time high;
5 Feb 2001 [MWh/h]
-15°C
-17°C
Sweden
Finland
26 200
28 900
27 000
14 250
15 000
14 900
Norway
-22°C
Nordel
67 950
72 300
69 000
21 450
22 900
23 050
-11°C
-15°C
-18°C
-12°C
-13°C
Denmark - W
Denmark - E
3 500
4 160
3 780
2 550
3 030
2 700
0°C
0°C
0°C

44. Norway Sweden Finland P 22830 C 21430 B 1400 P 23250 C 26200 B -2950
OH032
Appendix 4.3 COUNTRY SPECIFIC PEAK DEMAND 2006/07 [MWh/h]
P - production
C - consumption
B - power balance excluding exchange
export (+) / import (-)
H - hour, CET
Norway
Sweden
Finland
P 22830
C 21430
B 1400
21 Feb 07 H
P 23250
C 26200
B -2950
21 Feb 07 H
P 12070
C 14900
B -2830
8 Feb 07 H
P 4130
C 3740
B 390
24 Jan 07 H
P 2310
C 2650
B -340
25 Jan 07 H
Denmark - W
Denmark - E