Logical Inconsistencies in Terna’s €23 Billion Grid Development Plan (2025-2034): A Critical Review
INGA314.com analysis
On March 18, 2025, Italy’s Transmission System Operator (TSO), Terna, unveiled an ambitious €23 billion investment plan aimed at transforming Italy’s energy grid between 2025 and 2034. The plan significantly boosts grid capacity to support Italy’s shift towards renewable energy, pledging to expand inter-zonal energy exchange from 16 GW to 39 GW, increase cross-border capacity by 40%, and achieve meaningful emission reductions—up to 2 MtCO₂/year by 2030 and over 12 MtCO₂/year by 2040.
Key Projects Highlighted:
- Tyrrhenian Link (500 kV) connecting Sicily, Campania, and Sardinia (completion by 2028).
- Adriatic Link (1 GW) between Abruzzo and Marche (operational by 2029).
- Major upgrades such as the Milan-Montalto DC line (2.1 GW), Adriatic Backbone, and Central Link set for completion by 2034.
- International interconnections like the 600 MW Co.I.3 and several internal grid reinforcements.
These ambitious promises, while compelling, present several logical inconsistencies and paradoxes upon closer scrutiny:
Logical Inconsistencies in Terna’s €23bn Grid Development Plan: A Critical Analysis
1. Numerical Contradiction in Capacity Increase
The plan states an increase from 16 GW to 39 GW inter-zonal exchange capacity, which mathematically represents a 144% increase. However, Terna describes this increment as “+22% compared to the previous investment plan,” creating ambiguity and undermining confidence in their numerical accuracy. Clarification on the baseline or scope differences is urgently needed.
Further Analysis: This discrepancy may signal potential misalignment internally at Terna regarding target setting or could suggest an overly optimistic public communication strategy designed to appeal to stakeholders. Accurate numerical clarity is essential for evaluating actual investment returns and operational feasibility.
2. Timing and Infrastructure Integration Paradox
Terna plans major infrastructural projects (e.g., Tyrrhenian Link, Adriatic Link) to be fully operational by 2028–2029. However, Italy aims to integrate 65 GW of renewable capacity by 2030. This timing creates a paradoxical scenario: how will substantial renewable capacity—potentially tens of gigawatts—be reliably integrated into the grid during the several years before these critical infrastructures are completed?
Further Analysis: Given historical patterns of delays in complex infrastructure, a more realistic phased or incremental implementation approach would be prudent. Terna must address interim management solutions explicitly or risk grid instability and renewable generation curtailment, potentially undermining broader sustainability goals.
3. Emission Reduction Timeline
Terna states reductions of “up to 2 MtCO₂/year by 2030, rising to over 12 MtCO₂/year by 2040 (+2.5% compared to previous Plan).” However, directly comparing the 2040 figure to a previous plan without clearly stating the original emission-reduction targets creates confusion. If the earlier plan’s reduction target was already similar (~11.7 MtCO₂/year by 2040), this minor “+2.5%” improvement suggests negligible incremental benefit relative to the increased investment (10% higher).
Further Analysis: Clearly stating baseline emission targets and the incremental benefits relative to additional investment is crucial for assessing the genuine environmental impact of the new plan.
4. Investment vs. Impact Discrepancy
The investment is only 10% higher than the previous plan. However, promised outcomes, such as a 144% increase in inter-zonal capacity and a 40% boost in cross-border transfer capacity, imply disproportionate gains relative to the modest rise in funding. This raises questions about efficiency and cost realism, particularly given inflationary pressures in the infrastructure sector.
Further Analysis: The disproportionate ratio between investment increase and anticipated outcomes could indicate either overly optimistic efficiency assumptions or hidden cost-cutting measures that might compromise quality or reliability. Transparency in assumptions regarding technological innovations, supply chain efficiencies, or cost-sharing with partners would add much-needed credibility.
5. Unrealistic Confidence in Future Timelines
Infrastructure projects of this magnitude across Europe regularly encounter delays averaging 2–4 years due to regulatory hurdles, technical complexities, geopolitical issues, and supply-chain constraints. Terna’s definitive statements about the exact completion timelines, without explicitly addressing potential risks or contingencies, reflect overly optimistic projections and lack of planning robustness.
Further Analysis: Such absolute confidence undermines strategic flexibility. Recognizing and proactively addressing potential delay scenarios, as well as communicating mitigation strategies, would provide stakeholders greater assurance of project resilience and adaptability.
6. Lack of Risk and Contingency Transparency
The announcement noticeably omits discussion about crucial implementation risks, including regulatory approvals, geopolitical complexities (especially for cross-border projects like the ELMED interconnection with Tunisia and the Greece–Italy interconnection), market uncertainties, or contingency strategies for delays or unforeseen events. This omission weakens the plan’s overall credibility and feasibility.
Further Analysis: This oversight reflects a common planning fallacy, where optimism biases organizational risk perception. Comprehensive risk assessments, clearly articulated contingency plans, and scenario analyses are vital to maintaining project credibility and investor confidence.
7. Absence of Energy Storage or Grid Stability Measures
The investment plan extensively focuses on transmission infrastructure but doesn’t explicitly address essential grid stability and flexibility solutions such as energy storage, demand response, or advanced grid management. Given Italy’s ambitious renewable integration targets (65 GW by 2030, 94 GW by 2035), these complementary stability measures are critically important to avoid grid instability and effectively manage variability in renewable generation.
Further Analysis: Clarifying how grid stability and flexibility solutions will be integrated alongside infrastructural upgrades is essential to ensure practical, reliable integration of renewable energy.
Recommendations for Clarification and Improvement:
To strengthen the logical coherence and feasibility of Terna’s Development Plan, the following aspects need clarification:
- Clarify Numerical Inconsistencies
- Address Timing Mismatch
- Detail Contingency and Risk Management Plans
- Provide Realistic Cost Assessments
- Define a Clear Prioritization Strategy
- Explicitly Include Energy Storage and Stability Measures
Conclusion: A Vision Needing Clarification
Terna’s plan outlines a powerful vision for Italy’s renewable energy future. However, critical logical inconsistencies must be addressed transparently to ensure stakeholder confidence and realistic execution. Investors, regulators, and policymakers should seek detailed explanations from Terna to fully assess the robustness and viability of these ambitious commitments.
What’s your perspective on Terna’s plan? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
System D 