LIBERALIZATION OF ELECTRICITY RETAILING IN EUROPE: WHAT TO DO NEXT?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to provide a mid-term evaluation of liberalization of electricity retailing in Europe, taking into account four limitations to policy analysis: different and often conflicting theoretical points of view, shortage of routinely collected data, problems in disentangling the effect of retail liberalization from those of other related reforms and pervasive regulatory interventions. Lacking a common analytical framework to assess the costs and benefits of electricity retail competition, we firstly built a comprehensive theory on retail liberalization and we then use European Union data on market structure and its dynamics to test the consistency of theory and practice. The analysis highlights the presence of an oligopolistic supply structure, as well as a limited level of customer engagement in the market, which in the case of small consumers is partially justified by the presence of switching costs and informational complexities. Asymmetries in the rate and speed of cost-pass through make the market opaque, challenging the sole reliance on “light-hand” regulation to guarantee a sound market functioning. We identify the situations in which some form of “hard” regulation appear to be necessary to secure the continuity of supply even after the introduction of competition and we propose several implementation solutions according to the weight attributed to the objectives of supply continuity and customer protection. In the light of evidences about European markets, we suggest that the attribution of the Default/Last Resort service through an auction mechanism may favor both the development of upstream and downstream competition, without deterring customer switching.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it