State regulation of retail energy prices: an anachronism in the liberalized EU energy market

The internal market for electricity and gas, which European Union (EU) Member States were to have completed by 2014, is intended to deliver real choice for all consumers and achieve competitive prices. Today’s reality is often the opposite: despite the advanced liberalization of the energy sector, and formal market opening in line with the EU energy acquis, several Member States continue to regulate retail energy prices. In the short term, price regulation is not necessarily bad for customers. Retail prices are regulated below ‘real’ costs so that customers benefit from artificially low prices. However, in the long term, price regulation dissuades customers from seeking better deals, and acts as a barrier preventing energy suppliers from entering the market. From a legal point of view, regulated energy prices also give rise to concerns. This article will show that State interference runs counter to the liberalization objective of the EU rules on the internal energy market and may, in particular cases, also involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It will be shown that these EU rules proceed from price-setting on a free market and competitive basis, while State intervention is allowed only in exceptional and specifically justified circumstances. Other EU legal provisions address competition in the sector too, such as collusion, abuse of dominance and merger control: our focus here is to show that other instruments under the broad umbrella of competition law are also crucial in developing and protecting the competitive process. The European Commission is therefore right in insisting on phase-out timetables for regulated energy prices and continuing to promote market-based price formation

CryoSense: Redesign using alternative measurement methods

This Technical Note contains the design of a cryogenic benchmark experiment, introducing alternate measurement methods such as ultrasound tomography or electric capacitance tomography. The benchmark experiment is a redesign of baseline experiment 1 presented in Technical Note 1 of the activity, with state-of-the-art "conventional" sensor technologies now replaced by alternative measurement methods. In a comprehensive study different technologies are first described, then evaluated in terms of application potential and specifically adapted TRL scale. This includes: Ultrasound Tomography, Electrical Resistance Tomography, Electrical Capacitance Tomography, Optical Tomography, Time of Flight Cameras, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Tomography, Wire-Mesh Sensors, Computed X-Ray Tomography and Neutron Absorption. The intended application in this Note is the detection of gas bubbles within cryogenic liquids. After assessment of parasitic heating, microgravity compatibility and cryogenic compatibility, trade-offs are performed between sensors of the same type. Recommendations regarding and increase in technology readiness level conclude the sensor study and lead to the presentation of the sensor layouts of the redesigned experiment. Finally, the sensor study recommendations are translated into an overview test matrix as a suggestion for a step-wise sensor validation

What is the relationship of fear avoidance to physical function and pain intensity in injured athletes?

Background Fear avoidance can play a prominent role in maladaptive responses to an injury. In injured athletes, such pain-related fear or fear avoidance behavior may have a substantial influence on the recovery process. Specifically, it may explain why some are able to reach their preinjury abilities, whereas others are unable to return to sport. Questions/purposes (1) Is fear avoidance in athletes associated with decreased physical function after injury? (2) To what degree is fear avoidance associated with athletes’ pain intensity? Methods In a cross-sectional study, we recruited injured athletes—defined as patients with sports-related injury, weekly engagement in sport activities, participation in competitive events as part of a team or club, self-identification as an athlete, and a desire to return to sport after recovery—from an orthopaedic sports medicine center at a major urban university hospital. Of 130 approached patients, 102 (84% men; mean 6 SD age 25 6 8.5 years) met the inclusion criteria. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the Athlete Fear Avoidance Questionnaire, which assesses injury-related fear and avoidance behavior specifically in an athletic population, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures: Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) and Pain Intensity CAT. Results After controlling for age, injury region (upper versus lower extremity), catastrophic thinking, and emotional distress, we found that an increase in athletes’ fear avoidance was associated with a decrease in physical function (b = -0.32; p = 0.002). The model explained 30% of the variation in physical function with 7.3% explained uniquely by fear avoidance. After controlling for initial appointment/ followup, surgery for the current condition, multiple pain conditions, history of prior sport-related injury/surgery, pain medication prescription, catastrophic thinking, and emotional distress, athletes’ fear avoidance was not associated with pain (b = -0.14; p = 0.249).Themodel explained 40%of the variation in pain intensity and pain catastrophizing (b = 0.30; p = 0.001) uniquely explained 7.1% of this variation. Conclusions In injured athletes, fear avoidance is independently associated with decreased physical function, whereas pain catastrophizing is associated with high pain intensity. Both level of an athlete’s fear avoidance and catastrophic thinking about pain should be accounted for in clinical interventions aimed at helping athletes improve recovery and return to sport. Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study