 Good afternoon, so my first slide has already been covered by Jean Arnold So why this package so it has been very clear by also by Jean Michel that we need much more investment and when European Commission evaluated the Infrastructure policy that was already in place for several years They concluded that of the 200 billion that needs to be invested half or more than half was at risk of not being delivered Or much too late so hence this new package And why CBA in the package it has already been touched upon by the previous speakers, but let me quickly repeat So there is first this idea of having European priority projects that will then be pushed at European level They are called projects of common interest and this cost-benefit analysis will help identify these projects and Also in the package there is this idea of improving cost allocation So if national regulators do not agree on how to allocate the costs on the projects between the two There can be an intervention of Acer that will use the results of the cost-benefit analysis to allocate the cost So to decide on the cost allocation And the last element is that this method could also be used to identify Projects that have more risk than an average project and for these projects then the package foresees that additional Investment incentives should be in place Okay, then last question is why a think report so a think is a European Research funded projects and we work for European Commission on a semester basis So on a semester basis they tell us which are the topics they would like us to work on and in this case We worked on the cost-benefit analysis method Why because first there will be a single method that will be developed once the package is in place There is a process of and so we proposing a method Acer member states giving advice on the method and eventually this will lead to the Adoption of this single method. So we have been working proactively with regulators with European Commission and with and so we since April last year on thinking about this method and how it could be made Meanwhile and so we already proposed a draft method. So they are proactively working on this topic Which which has allowed us not to come with our own method But to simply suggest improvements to the method proposed by N. Soe and that In conclusion of all this work has been that the proposal by N. Soe is really already a big step forward But of course we still have here and there some improvements to suggest and I will Illustrate a few of them in my presentation First to give you an idea of what we did in the report here is the outline So we have three chapters first we discuss what is the scope of the analysis? So what do we really what are we analyzing then how to calculate once we know what we want to analyze? And then finally is once we have that number that's not net benefit of a project How will we then rank these projects based on that number? This includes dealing with many issues So I mean cost-benefit analysis is an economic instrument that has been used in many domains It's not new so there is a well-established theory and practice and all we did is to go through all this experience We have with cost-benefit analysis and then to to to to to to suggest based on that experience What we could do to deal with these issues So if you would summarize what we did you could say that we did a sort of ABC of the CBA So that fits also my young profile as Jean-Michel said That's why I'm presenting this part So I cannot present all of it today. In fact just before coming here last Friday We published the report so you can look at it later I just want to guide you through one a few a few issues like and one is the effect mapping So what and so we as proposed at the end of last year is that there is lots of effects to be taken into account You know socioeconomic welfare effect of infrastructure project on losses effect on renewable integration I mean all the usual effects we know and they distinguish between effects that will be monetized and effects that will be quantified as Individual indicators arguing that some effects are more difficult to monetize. So better not That's the end so we proposal what we comment in our report is that Eventually you will have to rank these projects anyway, and if you rank so you determine what is the relative? net value of a project you are implicitly monetizing the effects you have not Explicitly monetize previously so better to monetize all of them explicitly which is more transparent and allows for more discussion So that that that is why we have these two recommendations in our report One is that a CBA should concentrate on a reduced list of effects and those should be monetized And then when we do the ranking wish that ranking should be primarily based on this month of monetized net benefits That's for the scope of the analysis then What so then what is this reduced list of effects that we? Suggest to concentrate on well first here is a map of all the effects I mean if you think of an infrastructure project you add it to a power system The first effects are of course in the power system you change demand and you change production Then around that you have externalities. I mean it can change emissions. It can change Renewable integration and the last part on the outer circle is macroeconomic effects jobs economic growth Then we thought okay. How would you? Categorize inside these three layers and then we came up with this so in power system effects You have production consumption and the cost of the infrastructure and you can have other Benefits which can be related to market integration market liquidity and market power then externalities is co2 local Environmental social cost renewable energy and early deployment. So this is in relation to innovation using new technologies Then we for each of these effects We thought okay, which are really the ones we should concentrate on and I will I will not go through all the details But the conclusion has been that we think that these three are key So we would like that all projects would at least be evaluated according to these three effects Why not co2 and renewables as a separate effect? In fact, we have already a lot of EU policy and regulation in place which Internalizes these benefits inside production cost. I mean co2. We have a carbon price So thanks to the carbon price whatever we do to co2 emissions is already integrated in these production cost savings Okay, so these are then the three that all should be evaluated for all projects of course Many of these other effects for specific projects might be very relevant So for some projects, we will need to evaluate also some of these other elements take for instance early deployment If there is an offshore project where it's all about deploying a first of a kind Project, then you could argue that on top of these three effects. We would also need to look at that effect Okay, so then once we know what we want to analyze how to what model to use is the first element I will discuss so here and so we Proposes that these regional groups that John Arnold introduced that they can decide on the actual model to do the calculation While at European level the method would only specify some things that all these models should include Then we made a comment saying that this is fine because indeed there is no perfect model So you you it's okay to have different models being used for different projects But there should be there is a very important role to make sure that whatever model will be chosen If it contains a lot of detailed data about power plants this power plant data should be part of the data validation process Which is a separate process, but it should be coordinated with the choice of the model That's very important. We also Emphasized that the value of lost load is very important to take into account and to really monetize Which is something that in the current proposal and so it does not envisage to to monetize So that then leads to these recommendations Again, we say that the model used to monetize these three effects that are relevant for all projects should be explicitly stated Because of course a model is not perfect But we need to know all the assumptions of the model to be able to interpret the results So that's very important And then the last part is that it is true that we do not yet have a value of lost load reference in most countries But there is CER Guidelines on how to establish such a value and if we cannot do it immediately an intermediate step could be that as part of this Data validation process we have to do anyway. We also agree on a value of lost load to be used in the analysis The last part is uncertainty There is a lot of uncertainty regarding these investments. So how to deal with uncertainty in this method is another key issue Here and so a as proposed to use Multiscenarios and to use also sensitivity analysis while not yet considering a full stochastic approach and We commented to say that the stochastic approach actually has at a national level already been implemented by several TSOs Including air grid in the east-west cost-benefit analysis. So it would be good to adopt this approach at the EU level Why because first if we have this stochastic approach, we could have an approach that is consistent with the 2050 roadmap Helen worked on that roadmap and in the roadmap. We already have scenarios up to 2050 energy efficiency scenario or a newable scenario or a more diversified scenario and actually this gives a good picture of possible futures So we could use those scenarios and and and then apply a stochastic approach So that we do not get the net benefit in many scenarios But we get one net benefit distribution across these scenarios and then if we rank projects We could simply rank this project based on the mean value the average value of of that distribution And we would see also the risk of projects because some projects will have a larger distribution than others Which would allow us to make a judgment for risk if we would identify extremely risky projects Okay, so then I just to give you an idea in total We actually have 10 recommendations and as you can see I only presented a few of them But no not to worry as I said will the report is out It's 40 pages So maybe it's too much for you to read and this is why we also have a policy brief That's only five pages so more easy to read