First series of cross-border cost allocation decisions for projects of common interest : main lessons learned

QM-02-15-058-EN-NFollowing the procedure introduced by the TEN-E Regulation, thirteen power and gas infrastructure projects from the list of “projects of common interest” have recently received a cross-border cost allocation decision. These decisions include twelve coordinated decisions by national regulatory authorities and one decision by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER). • For most projects, the countries that are expected to apply part of the investment on their own territory are also a net beneficiary of the project. In one case, the cost benefit analysis indicates that the costs clearly outweigh the benefits for one of the involved countries (i.e. net loser). The decision has been to compensate this country. In three cases, countries have agreed to a cross-border cost allocation with compensation, even if none of the involved countries is expected to be a net loser. • In this brief, we determine the extent to which this first series of cross-border cost allocation decisions complies with the TEN-E Regulation, ACER’s Recommendation, and FSR’s recommendations. We find that the expected improvement in cross-border cost allocation decisions is ongoing, but the gap between practice and recommendations remains. • To reduce the gap, we have updated our recommendations into six lessons learned: [1] revisit the significance threshold and the interaction with the Connecting Europe Facility, [2] promote the good practice of using market tests to improve the cross-border cost allocation decision, [3] require a complete cross-border cost allocation decision, [4] continue to use the results of the cost-benefit analysisto facilitate innovative cross-border cost allocation decisions, [5] continue coordinating these decisions for strongly interacting projects, and [6] start including binding commitments in the decisions, especially with respect to the commissioning date

Gas Balancing Rules Must Take into account the Trade-off between Offering Pipeline Transport and Pipeline Flexibility in Liberalized Gas Markets

This paper analyses the value and cost of line-pack flexibility in liberalized gas markets through the examination of the techno-economic characteristics of gas transport pipelines and the trade-offs between the different ways to use the infrastructure: transport and flexibility. Line-pack flexibility is becoming increasingly important as a tool to balance gas supply and demand over different periods. In the European liberalized market context, a monopolist unbundled network operator offers regulated transport services and flexibility (balancing) services according to the network code and the balancing rules. Therefore, gas policy makers should understand the role and consequences of line-pack regulation. The analysis shows that the line-pack flexibility service has an important economic value for the shippers and the TSO. Furthermore, the analysis identifies distorting effects in the gas market due to inadequate regulation of line-pack flexibility: by disregarding the fixed cost of the flexibility in the balancing rules, the overall efficiency of the gas system is decreased. Because a full market based approach to line-pack pricing is unlikely, a framework is presented to calculate a cost reflective price for pipeline flexibility based on the trade-offs and opportunity costs between the right to use the line-pack flexibility and the provision of transport services.Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research

Gas Market Distorting Effects of Imbalanced Gas Balancing Rules: Inefficient Regulation of Pipeline Flexibility

This paper analyzes the value and cost of line-pack flexibility in liberalized gas markets through examination of the techno-economic characteristics of gas transport pipelines and the trade-offs between different ways to use the infrastructure: transport and flexibility. Line-pack flexibility is becoming increasingly important as a tool to balance gas supply and demand over different periods. In the European liberalized market context, a monopolist unbundled network operator offers regulated transport services and flexibility (balancing) services according to the network code and balancing rules. Therefore, gas policy makers should understand the role and consequences of line-pack regulation. The analysis shows that the line-pack flexibility service has an important economic value for the shippers and the TSO. Furthermore, the analysis identifies distorting effects in the gas market due to inadequate regulation of line-pack flexibility: by disregarding the sunk costs of flexibility in the balancing rules, the overall efficiency of the gas system is decreased. Finally, the analysis demonstrates that the actual costs of line-pack flexibility are related to the peak cumulative imbalance throughout the balancing period. Any price for pipeline flexibility should, therefore, be based on the related trade-off between the right to use the line-pack flexibility and the provision of transport services

Shift, not drift : towards active demand response and beyond

Each semester the THINK project publishes two research reports based on topics proposed by the European Commission.Topic 11QM-01-13-151-EN-CQM-01-13-151-EN-NNowadays, the European electricity systems are evolving towards a generation mix that is more decentralised, less predictable and less dispatchable to operate. In this context, additional flexibility is expected to be provided by the demand side. Thus, how to engage consumers to participate in active demand response is becoming a pressing issue. This THINK report assesses how to realise this shift towards active consumers using a consumer-centred approach and does so from the perspective of contracts. On this basis, we recommend measures to be undertaken in the short-term, during the transition and in the long term, respectively, to achieve a full take-off of active demand response. The THINK project (2010-2013) is funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme, Strategic Energy Technology Plan. (Call FP7-ENERGY-2009-2, Grant Agreement no: 249736). Coordinator: Prof. Jean-Michel Glachant and Prof. Leonardo Meeus, Florence School of Regulation, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute

Non-invasive assessment of murine PD-L1 levels in syngeneic tumor models by nuclear imaging with nanobody tracers

Blockade of the inhibitory PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint axis is a promising cancer treatment. Nonetheless, a significant number of patients and malignancies do not respond to this therapy. To develop a screen for response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition, it is critical to develop a non-invasive tool to accurately assess dynamic immune checkpoint expression. Here we evaluated non-invasive SPECT/CT imaging of PD-L1 expression, in murine tumor models with varying PD-L1 expression, using high affinity PD-L1-specific nanobodies (Nbs). We generated and characterized 37 Nbs recognizing mouse PD-L1. Among those, four Nbs C3, C7, E2 and E4 were selected and evaluated for preclinical imaging of PD-L1 in syngeneic mice. We performed SPECT/CT imaging in wild type versus PD-L1 knock-out mice, using Technetium-99m (99mTc) labeled Nbs. Nb C3 and E2 showed specific antigen binding and beneficial biodistribution. Through the use of CRISPR/Cas9 PD-L1 knock-out TC-1 lung epithelial cell lines, we demonstrate that SPECT/CT imaging using Nb C3 and E2 identifies PD-L1 expressing tumors, but not PD-L1 non-expressing tumors, thereby confirming the diagnostic potential of the selected Nbs. In conclusion, these data show that Nbs C3 and E2 can be used to non-invasively image PD-L1 levels in the tumor, with the strength of the signal correlating with PD-L1 levels. These findings warrant further research into the use of Nbs as a tool to image inhibitory signals in the tumor environment

Development and Validation of a Predictive Model for Metastatic Melanoma Patients Treated with Pembrolizumab Based on Automated Analysis of Whole-Body [F-18]FDG PET/CT Imaging and Clinical Features

This research was funded by Innoviris grant number BHG/2017-PFS-15

Gas generation and wind power: A review of unlikely allies in the United Kingdom and Ireland

No single solution currently exists to achieve the utopian desire of zero fossil fuel electricity generation. Until such time, it is evident that the energy mix will contain a large variation in stochastic and intermittent sources of renewable energy such as wind power. The increasing prominence of wind power in pursuit of legally binding European energy targets enables policy makers and conventional generating companies to plan for the unique challenges such a natural resource presents. This drive for wind has been highly beneficial in terms of security of energy supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has created an unusual ally in natural gas. This paper outlines the suitability and challenges faced by gas generating units in their utilisation as key assets for renewable energy integration and the transition to a low carbon future. The Single Electricity Market of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and the British Electricity Transmission Trading Agreement Market are the backdrop to this analysis. Both of these energy markets have a reliance on gas generation matching the proliferation of wind power. The unlikely and mostly ignored relationship between natural gas generation and wind power due to policy decisions and market forces is the necessity of gas to act as a bridging fuel. This review finds gas generation to be crucially important to the continued growth of renewable energy. Additionally, it is suggested that power market design should adequately reward the flexibility required to securely operate a power system with high penetrations of renewable energy, which in most cases is provided by gas generation

Perforin and Granzyme B Expressed by Murine Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells: A Study on Their Role in Outgrowth of Cancer Cells

A wide-range of myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC)-mediated immune suppressive functions has previously been described. Nevertheless, potential novel mechanisms by which MDSCs aid tumor progression are, in all likelihood, still unrecognized. Next to its well-known expression in natural killer cells and cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), granzyme B (GzmB) expression has been found in different cell types. In an MDSC culture model, we demonstrated perforin and GzmB expression. Furthermore, similar observations were made in MDSCs isolated from tumor-bearing mice. Even in MDSCs from humans, GzmB expression was demonstrated. Of note, B16F10 melanoma cells co-cultured with perforin/GzmB knock out mice (KO) MDSCs displayed a remarkable decrease in invasive potential. B16F10 melanoma cells co-injected with KO MDSCs, displayed a significant slower growth curve compared to tumor cells co-injected with wild type (WT) MDSCs. In vivo absence of perforin/GzmB in MDSCs resulted in a higher number of CD8+ T-cells. Despite this change in favor of CD8+ T-cell infiltration, we observed low interferon-¿ (IFN-¿) and high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, suggesting that other immunosuppressive mechanisms render these CD8+ T-cells dysfunctional. Taken together, our results suggest that GzmB expression in MDSCs is another means to promote tumor growth and warrants further investigation to unravel the exact underlying mechanism

D7.4 economic framework for a meshed offshore grid

Work Package 7 (WP7) of the Progress on Meshed HVDC Offshore Transmission Networks (PROMOTioN) Horizon 2020 project focuses on various legal, financial and economic aspects of developing an integrated offshore infrastructure. Task 7.2 focuses on the development of an economic framework for the offshore grid in terms of three building blocks, namely: planning, investment, and operation. 1. Offshore grid planning comprises three topics, namely: Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) methods, onshoreoffshore coordination, and public participation. 2. Offshore grid investment comprises four topics: cooperation mechanisms for renewable support, transmission tariffs, investment incentives, and Cross-Border Cost Allocation (CBCA) methods. 3. Offshore grid operation focuses on the balancing mechanism in the offshore wind context. This final report extends our intermediate report with the addition of three new topics: incentives, CBCA and the balancing mechanism. The remaining chapters are identical to the intermediate report. In this section, we provide a summary of the research that has been undertaken so far and the main conclusions from our analysis.This result is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 691714

Ethyl 5,8-dibromo-2-dibromo­methyl-6,7-dimeth­oxyquinoline-3-carb­oxy­late

The title compound, C15H13Br4NO4, was obtained via radical bromination reaction of ethyl 6,7-dimeth­oxy-2-methyl­quinoline-3-carboxyl­ate and N-bromo­succinimide (NBS) in the presence of benzoyl peroxide (BPO) under photocatalytic conditions. The quinoline ring system is approximately planar with a maximum deviation from the mean plane of 0.035 (1) Å. The dihedral angle between the six-membered rings is 2.33 (2)°. The meth­oxy O atoms of the two neighboring meth­oxy groups are in-plane while their methyl C atoms are located on either side of the quinolyl ring plane at distances of −1.207 (1) and 1.223 (1) Å