Barriers to Developing Competition in the Polish Electricity and Gas Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents main barriers of creating a competitive energy market in Poland. Polish energy and gas sector in space of few recent years underwent breakthrough changes as far as regulations, structure, organisation and ownership are concerned. Drivers of change included the necessity to align national regulations with EU standards through transposition, and creating entities strong enough to finance their own investment outlays. As a result of those changes, both private and public producers and providers can compete for customers whilst using the regulated network infrastructure. Through those changes regulatory bodies were established and some of the following measures were used: TPA rule, accounting unbundling, legal unbundling and functional unbundling, merger & acquisition supervision on the national and regional level, state aid programmes and a range of other instruments facilitating consumer access to competitive power purchase offers concerning energy and natural gas. However, electricity and gas markets still remain dominated by market incumbents plus the competition is still limited, particularly so in the natural gas market. Among barriers impeding development of Polish energy sector and liberalisation of electricity and gas markets are: vertical consolidation in the sector; wrong architecture of the wholesale market; unstable regulatory environment; maintaining retail prices for households regulated; low consumer activity in the energy market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".