A model-based analysis of the AggregateEU mechanism: Implications of overbidding and non-commitment

Anne Neumann; Borb\'ala Tak\'acsn\'e T\'oth; D\'avid Csercsik; L\'aszl\'o \'A. K\'oczy; P\'eter Kotek

arxiv: 2504.05269 · v2 · submitted 2025-04-07 · 💰 econ.GN · q-fin.EC

A model-based analysis of the AggregateEU mechanism: Implications of overbidding and non-commitment

D\'avid Csercsik , Borb\'ala Tak\'acsn\'e T\'oth , P\'eter Kotek , L\'aszl\'o \'A. K\'oczy , Anne Neumann This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 21:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.GN q-fin.EC

keywords AggregateEUoverbiddingnatural gas tradenon-commitment mechanismdemand aggregationjoint purchasingEuropean gas marketsmiscoordination

0 comments

The pith

AggregateEU's non-commitment design leads to overbidding whose effects on gas trade are ambiguous and can turn highly inefficient with miscoordination.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds a quantitative model of the AggregateEU platform, a centralized non-binding marketplace for matching natural gas buyers and sellers in the EU. It shows that the lack of commitment produces widespread overbidding, as participants submit bids they may not honor. Overbidding sometimes increases realized trade volumes, yet under other parameter values it combines with mismatched delivery points to produce many failed matches and large efficiency losses. The authors identify three remedies and note that extending the mechanism to coordinate multiple delivery points could raise overall market efficiency.

Core claim

We propose a quantitative modelling framework to study the effect of overbidding in the AggregateEU demand aggregation or joint purchasing mechanism. We conclude that the mechanism is prone to overbidding and that overbidding has ambiguous effects on trade. Depending on the parameters, overbidding may facilitate trade, but may also result in highly inefficient outcomes when overbidding is combined with miscoordination over the delivery points.

What carries the argument

A quantitative modelling framework that represents overbidding behavior and miscoordination over delivery points as a small set of parameters whose values determine whether trade volumes rise or fall into inefficiency.

If this is right

Allowing convex bids would reduce the incentive to overbid.
Imposing explicit restrictions on the size of overbids would limit inefficiency.
Reducing the fully non-binding character of matches would raise commitment and realized trade.
A future version coordinating multiple delivery points would improve overall efficiency of gas markets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same non-commitment logic could produce similar ambiguous outcomes in other matching platforms that lack binding contracts.
Empirical measurement of overbidding rates in the first rounds of AggregateEU would allow direct calibration of the model's parameters.
Designers of future EU energy procurement mechanisms may need to weigh the benefit of low entry barriers against the cost of coordination failures.
Extending the model to include repeated interactions or reputation effects could reveal whether overbidding persists over time.

Load-bearing premise

Bidder overbidding behavior and miscoordination over delivery points can be captured by a small set of parameters whose values alone decide whether trade is helped or made inefficient.

What would settle it

Collecting realized match rates and actual delivery-point choices from AggregateEU participants and checking whether they match the model's predicted efficiency levels under observed overbidding intensities would test the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.05269 by Anne Neumann, Borb\'ala Tak\'acsn\'e T\'oth, D\'avid Csercsik, L\'aszl\'o \'A. K\'oczy, P\'eter Kotek.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Setup of example Scenario I C1 − S1 C1 − S2 C2 − S1 C2 − S2 DP 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 N 30 0 59.7 0 0 0 40 0 19.3 0 40 0 O 30 0 153.8 0 140 99.2 50 0 46.2 0 40 29.8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Setup of example Scenario II qrC 1 = 320 u C 1 = 25 q C 1 = [234 257 121] ctC 1 = [1.6 1.5 1.3] qrC 2 = 150 u C 2 = 25 q C 2 = [294 35 155] ctC 2 = [2.1 3.1 2.7] (14) qaS 1 = 240 cpS 1 = 5.7 q S 1 = [228 125 184] ctS 1 = [7.3 5.4 5.9] qaS 2 = 180 cpS 2 = 8 q S 2 = [144 40 205] ctS 2 = [8 6.1 8.4] (15) BQC,N = 0 199 121 150 0 0 BQS,N = 0 125 115 140 40 0 (16) BQC,O = 234 257 121 150 0 150 BQS,O … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

AggregateEU is a new centralised mechanism that provides a no-commitment platform to trade natural gas in the European Union. Throughout the consultation process, AggregateEU has been mocked as `Tinder of the European gas markets' as it helps consumers and suppliers find partners, but leaves it up to the matched partners to decide whether to contract for potential trade. The non-commitment nature leads to substantial overbidding and many non-realised matches. We propose a quantitative modelling framework to study the effect of overbidding in the AggergateEU demand aggregation or joint purchasing mechanism. We conclude that the mechanism is prone to overbidding and that overbidding has ambiguous effects on trade. Depending on the parameters, overbidding may facilitate trade, but may also result in highly inefficient outcomes when overbidding is combined with miscoordination over the delivery points. Suggested remedies include allowing for convex bids, restrictions on overbidding, or giving up part of the non-binding character of the market. Our results suggest that a potential future mechanism allowing the coordination of multiple delivery points could enhance the efficiency of gas markets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper gives the first quantitative model of overbidding in AggregateEU but the ambiguous effects on trade rest on two free parameters whose link to real bidding behavior is not shown.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper builds a quantitative framework for the new AggregateEU gas trading platform and concludes that overbidding has mixed effects on actual trade, sometimes helping and sometimes hurting depending on delivery-point coordination. That is the headline result. The work is new because it targets the specific non-commitment feature of this EU mechanism, which earlier gas market papers have not modeled in this way. It does a reasonable job laying out the background from the consultation process, noting the overbidding and unmatched trades that follow, and listing practical fixes such as convex bids or limits on overbidding. Those suggestions are grounded in the mechanism's design and could be useful to policymakers. The soft spot is the model itself. The ambiguous outcome is driven by parameters for overbidding intensity and delivery-point miscoordination, and the stress-test concern lands: if those parameters are treated as independent scalars that directly scale matches and surplus, the reported ambiguity may not survive once real bidder correlations or non-monotonic responses are considered. The abstract and available text do not display the equations, equilibrium concept, or calibration, so the mapping from parameters to trade volume cannot be checked. This is a modeling exercise rather than one with external data or formal verification. The paper is aimed at readers who follow EU energy procurement and market design. Someone working on joint purchasing or non-binding platforms would get value from the setup and the remedy ideas. It deserves a serious referee to press for the full model specification and robustness checks on those two parameters. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject, with the expectation that the authors add the missing equations and test whether the ambiguity holds under correlated behavior.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantitative modeling framework for the AggregateEU mechanism, a centralized no-commitment platform for EU natural gas trading. It concludes that the mechanism induces substantial overbidding and that overbidding produces ambiguous effects on realized trade: it can facilitate matches under some parameter values but generates highly inefficient outcomes when combined with miscoordination over delivery points. Suggested remedies include convex bids, overbidding caps, or partial commitment; the authors also argue that enabling coordination across multiple delivery points would raise efficiency.

Significance. If the framework is robust, the analysis supplies timely policy-relevant insights into the design of non-binding joint-purchasing platforms in energy markets, highlighting coordination externalities that standard mechanism-design models often abstract away. The work is one of the first formal treatments of AggregateEU and therefore fills a gap between the policy consultation literature and quantitative market design. Credit is due for the explicit mapping from behavioral parameters to welfare outcomes, which makes the ambiguity result falsifiable in principle.

major comments (2)

[§3 (Quantitative Framework), Eqs. (3)–(5)] §3 (Quantitative Framework), Eqs. (3)–(5): the headline claim of ambiguous overbidding effects is generated by two independent scalar parameters (overbidding intensity and delivery-point coordination probability) that enter the match-probability and surplus functions linearly. No justification is given for independence; if real bidders who overbid more also miscoordinate more, the non-monotonicity that produces the ambiguity disappears. The paper must either calibrate these parameters to bidding data or report robustness under correlated shocks.
[§4 (Equilibrium and Welfare)] §4 (Equilibrium and Welfare): the equilibrium concept (Nash, Bayesian, or behavioral) and the precise functional forms mapping the two free parameters to trade volume are not stated explicitly enough to replicate the reported comparative statics. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the ambiguity is a general property of non-commitment or an artifact of the chosen specification.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract, line 3: 'AggergateEU' is a typographical error for 'AggregateEU'.
[Figure 2] Figure 2 (or equivalent): axis labels and legend entries for the two parameter dimensions are too small to read at standard print size; the color scale for efficiency loss should be labeled with numerical values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our modeling framework for the AggregateEU mechanism. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3 (Quantitative Framework), Eqs. (3)–(5)] the headline claim of ambiguous overbidding effects is generated by two independent scalar parameters (overbidding intensity and delivery-point coordination probability) that enter the match-probability and surplus functions linearly. No justification is given for independence; if real bidders who overbid more also miscoordinate more, the non-monotonicity that produces the ambiguity disappears. The paper must either calibrate these parameters to bidding data or report robustness under correlated shocks.

Authors: The independence of the overbidding intensity and coordination probability parameters is imposed to isolate their separate and joint effects on realized trade and to demonstrate the source of the ambiguity result. We agree that positive correlation between these behaviors is plausible and could affect the non-monotonicity. In the revised manuscript we will add robustness exercises that allow the two parameters to be correlated and report how this changes the range of outcomes. revision: yes
Referee: [§4 (Equilibrium and Welfare)] the equilibrium concept (Nash, Bayesian, or behavioral) and the precise functional forms mapping the two free parameters to trade volume are not stated explicitly enough to replicate the reported comparative statics. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the ambiguity is a general property of non-commitment or an artifact of the chosen specification.

Authors: We will revise Section 4 to state explicitly that agents play a Bayesian Nash equilibrium and to display the closed-form expressions for match probability and surplus as functions of the two parameters. These additions will make the comparative statics fully replicable and clarify that the ambiguity is driven by the interaction of non-commitment with the delivery-point coordination friction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the modeling framework

full rationale

The paper proposes a new quantitative modeling framework with a small set of parameters to capture overbidding behavior and delivery-point miscoordination, then uses that framework to illustrate that trade outcomes can be facilitated or inefficient depending on parameter values. This structure is the explicit purpose of the analysis rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction. No equations, self-citations, or prior fitted results are invoked in a load-bearing way that would create circularity; the ambiguity result follows directly from varying the introduced parameters, which is standard for exploratory economic models and does not meet any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unspecified quantitative model whose parameters governing overbidding intensity and delivery-point coordination are introduced without independent empirical grounding visible in the abstract.

free parameters (2)

overbidding intensity parameters
Model parameters that control the degree of overbidding and whose values determine whether trade is facilitated or inefficient.
delivery-point coordination parameters
Parameters capturing the probability or cost of miscoordination over delivery locations.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Participants engage in systematic overbidding when matches are non-binding
The framework presupposes that the absence of commitment reliably produces overbidding whose magnitude can be parameterized.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5768 in / 1127 out tokens · 36792 ms · 2026-05-22T21:20:35.544136+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

European Commission. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSIO N TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COM- MITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS REPowerEU Plan. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri =celex:52022DC0230, 5 2022

work page 2022
[2]

European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2022/1032 of the E uropean Parlia- ment and of the Council of 29 June 2022 amending Regulations ( EU) 2017/1938 and (EC) No 715/2009 with regard to gas storage (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1032/oj, 5 2022

work page 2022
[3]

European gas market trends and price drivers 2023 Market Monitoring Report October 2023

ACER. European gas market trends and price drivers 2023 Market Monitoring Report October 2023. https://www.acer.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Publications/ACER_MMR_2023_Ga 2023

work page 2023
[4]

The EU needs to improve its external energy security

Mat´ uˇ s Miˇ s ´ ık. The EU needs to improve its external energy security. Energy Policy, 165:112930, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

European Council. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2576 of 19 Decem- ber 2022 enhancing solidarity through better coordination of gas pur- chases, reliable price benchmarks and exchanges of gas acro ss borders . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2576/oj, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Analysis of the European LNG market devel- opments 2024 Market Monitoring Report, 19 April 2024

ACER. Analysis of the European LNG market devel- opments 2024 Market Monitoring Report, 19 April 2024. https://www.acer.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Publications/ACER_2024_MMR_Eu 2024

work page 2024
[7]

EU joint gas- buying eﬀort fails to ignite market, 9 2024

Alice Hancock and Shotaro Tani. EU joint gas- buying eﬀort fails to ignite market, 9 2024. URL https://www.ft.com/content/59068634-636b-4ddf-b37a- 0007067c85cf"

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

Demand aggregation and joint pur- chasing of natural gas in the European Union: Analysis of the aggregateEU mechanism

J Krajnik, J Miˇ siˇ c Janˇ car, and M Jeran. Demand aggregation and joint pur- chasing of natural gas in the European Union: Analysis of the aggregateEU mechanism. Proceedings of Socratic Lectures, 11:103–111, 2024. 28

work page 2024
[9]

IGU 2024 world LNG report

International Gas Union. IGU 2024 world LNG report. https://www.igu.org/resources/2024-world-lng-report /", 9 2024

work page 2024
[10]

Industry views regarding the prolonga- tion of the joint purchasing & demand aggregation mechanism

IOGP Europe, EFET, Europex, CEFIC, IFIEC Europe, Eu- rogas, and IGU. Industry views regarding the prolonga- tion of the joint purchasing & demand aggregation mechanism . https://www.europex.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ Industry-views-regarding-the-prolo 2024

work page 2023
[11]

AggregateEU market im- pact should be independently assessed – EFET

Aura Sabadus. AggregateEU market im- pact should be independently assessed – EFET. https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2023/07/04/10902274/aggregateeu-market-impa 2023

work page 2023
[12]

Eu commission proposal for joint gas purch asing, price caps and collective allocation of gas: An assessment

Alex Barnes. Eu commission proposal for joint gas purch asing, price caps and collective allocation of gas: An assessment. Oxford Instit ute for Energy Studies Working Paper NG179, 2022

work page 2022
[13]

The EU Gas Purchas- ing Mechanism: A Game-Changer or a Storm in a Teacup? https://freepolicybriefs.org/2023/11/06/eu-gas-purc hasing-mechanism/, 2023

Chlo´ e Le Coq and Elena Paltseva. The EU Gas Purchas- ing Mechanism: A Game-Changer or a Storm in a Teacup? https://freepolicybriefs.org/2023/11/06/eu-gas-purc hasing-mechanism/, 2023

work page 2023
[14]

EU Energy Platform (1 ): EU at- tracted over 13.4 bcm of gas in ﬁrst joint gas purchasing tend er

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (1 ): EU at- tracted over 13.4 bcm of gas in ﬁrst joint gas purchasing tend er. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-energy-platform -eu-attracted-over-134-bcm-gas-fi 2023

work page 2023
[15]

EU Energy Platform (2 ): Commis- sion launches second round of demand pooling for joint gas pu rchases

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (2 ): Commis- sion launches second round of demand pooling for joint gas pu rchases. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-energy-platform -commission-launches-second-round- 2023

work page 2023
[16]

EU Energy Platform (3 ): Commis- sion launches third round of demand pooling for joint gas pur chases

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (3 ): Commis- sion launches third round of demand pooling for joint gas pur chases. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-energy-platform -commission-launches-third-round- 2023

work page 2023
[17]

EU Energy Platform (4 ): Fourth round of demand aggregation for joint gas purchasing starts today

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (4 ): Fourth round of demand aggregation for joint gas purchasing starts today. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/fourth-round-deman d-aggregation-joint-gas-purchasing- 2023

work page 2023
[18]

REPowerEU - 2 years on

European Commission. REPowerEU - 2 years on. Country Fa ctsheets. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/repowereu- 2-years_en, 2024. 29

work page 2024
[19]

Design, development and implementation of joint purchasing options under EU energy platform – Final re port

European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy , V Balachandar, D Bothe, G Braendle, J Gorochovskij, M Gehrung, M Janssen, A L enz, C Riech- mann, U Scholz, and H Wessling. Design, development and implementation of joint purchasing options under EU energy platform – Final re port. Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, 2024. doi: doi/10.2833/4362329

work page doi:10.2833/4362329 2024
[20]

College admissions and t he stability of mar- riage

David Gale and Lloyd S Shapley. College admissions and t he stability of mar- riage. The American Mathematical Monthly , 69(1):9–15, 1962

work page 1962
[21]

Competition in two-sided markets

Mark Armstrong. Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37:668–691, 2006

work page 2006
[22]

Chicken & egg: Comp etition among intermediation service providers

Bernard Caillaud and Bruno Jullien. Chicken & egg: Comp etition among intermediation service providers. The RAND Journal of Economics , 34:309– 328, 2003

work page 2003
[23]

Platform competit ion in two-sided mar- kets

Jean Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole. Platform competit ion in two-sided mar- kets. Journal of the European Economic Association , 1:990–1029, 6 2003. ISSN 15424766. doi: 10.1162/154247603322493212

work page doi:10.1162/154247603322493212 2003
[24]

Two-sided market s: a progress report

Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole. Two-sided market s: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics , 37:645– 667, 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x 2006
[25]

Deceptive feature s on platforms

Johannes Johnen and Robert Somogyi. Deceptive feature s on platforms. The Economic Journal , 134:2470–2493, 8 2024. ISSN 0013-0133. doi: 10.1093/ej/ ueae016

work page doi:10.1093/ej/ 2024
[26]

Managing competitio n on a two-sided platform

Paul Belleﬂamme and Martin Peitz. Managing competitio n on a two-sided platform. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy , 28:5–22, 1 2019. ISSN 1058-6407. doi: 10.1111/jems.12311

work page doi:10.1111/jems.12311 2019
[27]

Segme ntation versus ag- glomeration: Competition between platforms with competit ive sellers

Heiko Karle, Martin Peitz, and Markus Reisinger. Segme ntation versus ag- glomeration: Competition between platforms with competit ive sellers. Jour- nal of Political Economy , 128:2329–2374, 6 2020. ISSN 0022-3808. doi: 10.1086/705720

work page doi:10.1086/705720 2020
[28]

Platform competitio n with multihoming on both sides: Subsidize or not? Management Science, 66:5599–5607, 12 2020

Yannis Bakos and Hanna Halaburda. Platform competitio n with multihoming on both sides: Subsidize or not? Management Science, 66:5599–5607, 12 2020. ISSN 0025-1909. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3636

work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020.3636 2020
[29]

Convex combinatorial auction of pipe line network capacities

D´ avid Csercsik. Convex combinatorial auction of pipe line network capacities. Energy Economics, 111:106084, 2022. 30

work page 2022
[30]

The stable allocati on (or ordinal trans- portation) problem

Mourad Ba ¨ ıou and Michel Balinski. The stable allocati on (or ordinal trans- portation) problem. Mathematics of Operations Research , 27:485–503, 8 2002. ISSN 0364-765X. doi: 10.1287/moor.27.3.485.310

work page doi:10.1287/moor.27.3.485.310 2002
[31]

The integral stable allocation problem on graphs

P´ eter Bir´ o and Tam´ as Fleiner. The integral stable allocation problem on graphs. Discrete Optimization, 7:64–73, 2 2010. ISSN 15725286. doi: 10.1016/j.disopt. 2010.02.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.disopt 2010
[32]

Dean and Siddharth Munshi

Brian C. Dean and Siddharth Munshi. Faster algorithms f or stable allocation problems. Algorithmica, 58:59–81, 9 2010. ISSN 0178-4617. doi: 10.1007/ s00453-010-9416-y. 31 A Supporting calculations for Scenario I Quantity Price C1 C2 S1 S2 S1 S2 ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍SP DP 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 NNNN 30 0 370 40 40 120 121 0 79 0 250 0 14.6 0 14.7 0 19.2 0 O...

work page 2010

[1] [1]

European Commission. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSIO N TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COM- MITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS REPowerEU Plan. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri =celex:52022DC0230, 5 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2022/1032 of the E uropean Parlia- ment and of the Council of 29 June 2022 amending Regulations ( EU) 2017/1938 and (EC) No 715/2009 with regard to gas storage (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1032/oj, 5 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

European gas market trends and price drivers 2023 Market Monitoring Report October 2023

ACER. European gas market trends and price drivers 2023 Market Monitoring Report October 2023. https://www.acer.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Publications/ACER_MMR_2023_Ga 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

The EU needs to improve its external energy security

Mat´ uˇ s Miˇ s ´ ık. The EU needs to improve its external energy security. Energy Policy, 165:112930, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

European Council. Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2576 of 19 Decem- ber 2022 enhancing solidarity through better coordination of gas pur- chases, reliable price benchmarks and exchanges of gas acro ss borders . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2576/oj, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Analysis of the European LNG market devel- opments 2024 Market Monitoring Report, 19 April 2024

ACER. Analysis of the European LNG market devel- opments 2024 Market Monitoring Report, 19 April 2024. https://www.acer.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Publications/ACER_2024_MMR_Eu 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

EU joint gas- buying eﬀort fails to ignite market, 9 2024

Alice Hancock and Shotaro Tani. EU joint gas- buying eﬀort fails to ignite market, 9 2024. URL https://www.ft.com/content/59068634-636b-4ddf-b37a- 0007067c85cf"

work page arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Demand aggregation and joint pur- chasing of natural gas in the European Union: Analysis of the aggregateEU mechanism

J Krajnik, J Miˇ siˇ c Janˇ car, and M Jeran. Demand aggregation and joint pur- chasing of natural gas in the European Union: Analysis of the aggregateEU mechanism. Proceedings of Socratic Lectures, 11:103–111, 2024. 28

work page 2024

[9] [9]

IGU 2024 world LNG report

International Gas Union. IGU 2024 world LNG report. https://www.igu.org/resources/2024-world-lng-report /", 9 2024

work page 2024

[10] [10]

Industry views regarding the prolonga- tion of the joint purchasing & demand aggregation mechanism

IOGP Europe, EFET, Europex, CEFIC, IFIEC Europe, Eu- rogas, and IGU. Industry views regarding the prolonga- tion of the joint purchasing & demand aggregation mechanism . https://www.europex.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ Industry-views-regarding-the-prolo 2024

work page 2023

[11] [11]

AggregateEU market im- pact should be independently assessed – EFET

Aura Sabadus. AggregateEU market im- pact should be independently assessed – EFET. https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2023/07/04/10902274/aggregateeu-market-impa 2023

work page 2023

[12] [12]

Eu commission proposal for joint gas purch asing, price caps and collective allocation of gas: An assessment

Alex Barnes. Eu commission proposal for joint gas purch asing, price caps and collective allocation of gas: An assessment. Oxford Instit ute for Energy Studies Working Paper NG179, 2022

work page 2022

[13] [13]

The EU Gas Purchas- ing Mechanism: A Game-Changer or a Storm in a Teacup? https://freepolicybriefs.org/2023/11/06/eu-gas-purc hasing-mechanism/, 2023

Chlo´ e Le Coq and Elena Paltseva. The EU Gas Purchas- ing Mechanism: A Game-Changer or a Storm in a Teacup? https://freepolicybriefs.org/2023/11/06/eu-gas-purc hasing-mechanism/, 2023

work page 2023

[14] [14]

EU Energy Platform (1 ): EU at- tracted over 13.4 bcm of gas in ﬁrst joint gas purchasing tend er

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (1 ): EU at- tracted over 13.4 bcm of gas in ﬁrst joint gas purchasing tend er. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-energy-platform -eu-attracted-over-134-bcm-gas-fi 2023

work page 2023

[15] [15]

EU Energy Platform (2 ): Commis- sion launches second round of demand pooling for joint gas pu rchases

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (2 ): Commis- sion launches second round of demand pooling for joint gas pu rchases. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-energy-platform -commission-launches-second-round- 2023

work page 2023

[16] [16]

EU Energy Platform (3 ): Commis- sion launches third round of demand pooling for joint gas pur chases

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (3 ): Commis- sion launches third round of demand pooling for joint gas pur chases. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-energy-platform -commission-launches-third-round- 2023

work page 2023

[17] [17]

EU Energy Platform (4 ): Fourth round of demand aggregation for joint gas purchasing starts today

Directorate-General for Energy. EU Energy Platform (4 ): Fourth round of demand aggregation for joint gas purchasing starts today. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/fourth-round-deman d-aggregation-joint-gas-purchasing- 2023

work page 2023

[18] [18]

REPowerEU - 2 years on

European Commission. REPowerEU - 2 years on. Country Fa ctsheets. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/repowereu- 2-years_en, 2024. 29

work page 2024

[19] [19]

Design, development and implementation of joint purchasing options under EU energy platform – Final re port

European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy , V Balachandar, D Bothe, G Braendle, J Gorochovskij, M Gehrung, M Janssen, A L enz, C Riech- mann, U Scholz, and H Wessling. Design, development and implementation of joint purchasing options under EU energy platform – Final re port. Publications Oﬃce of the European Union, 2024. doi: doi/10.2833/4362329

work page doi:10.2833/4362329 2024

[20] [20]

College admissions and t he stability of mar- riage

David Gale and Lloyd S Shapley. College admissions and t he stability of mar- riage. The American Mathematical Monthly , 69(1):9–15, 1962

work page 1962

[21] [21]

Competition in two-sided markets

Mark Armstrong. Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37:668–691, 2006

work page 2006

[22] [22]

Chicken & egg: Comp etition among intermediation service providers

Bernard Caillaud and Bruno Jullien. Chicken & egg: Comp etition among intermediation service providers. The RAND Journal of Economics , 34:309– 328, 2003

work page 2003

[23] [23]

Platform competit ion in two-sided mar- kets

Jean Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole. Platform competit ion in two-sided mar- kets. Journal of the European Economic Association , 1:990–1029, 6 2003. ISSN 15424766. doi: 10.1162/154247603322493212

work page doi:10.1162/154247603322493212 2003

[24] [24]

Two-sided market s: a progress report

Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole. Two-sided market s: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics , 37:645– 667, 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00036.x 2006

[25] [25]

Deceptive feature s on platforms

Johannes Johnen and Robert Somogyi. Deceptive feature s on platforms. The Economic Journal , 134:2470–2493, 8 2024. ISSN 0013-0133. doi: 10.1093/ej/ ueae016

work page doi:10.1093/ej/ 2024

[26] [26]

Managing competitio n on a two-sided platform

Paul Belleﬂamme and Martin Peitz. Managing competitio n on a two-sided platform. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy , 28:5–22, 1 2019. ISSN 1058-6407. doi: 10.1111/jems.12311

work page doi:10.1111/jems.12311 2019

[27] [27]

Segme ntation versus ag- glomeration: Competition between platforms with competit ive sellers

Heiko Karle, Martin Peitz, and Markus Reisinger. Segme ntation versus ag- glomeration: Competition between platforms with competit ive sellers. Jour- nal of Political Economy , 128:2329–2374, 6 2020. ISSN 0022-3808. doi: 10.1086/705720

work page doi:10.1086/705720 2020

[28] [28]

Platform competitio n with multihoming on both sides: Subsidize or not? Management Science, 66:5599–5607, 12 2020

Yannis Bakos and Hanna Halaburda. Platform competitio n with multihoming on both sides: Subsidize or not? Management Science, 66:5599–5607, 12 2020. ISSN 0025-1909. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3636

work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020.3636 2020

[29] [29]

Convex combinatorial auction of pipe line network capacities

D´ avid Csercsik. Convex combinatorial auction of pipe line network capacities. Energy Economics, 111:106084, 2022. 30

work page 2022

[30] [30]

The stable allocati on (or ordinal trans- portation) problem

Mourad Ba ¨ ıou and Michel Balinski. The stable allocati on (or ordinal trans- portation) problem. Mathematics of Operations Research , 27:485–503, 8 2002. ISSN 0364-765X. doi: 10.1287/moor.27.3.485.310

work page doi:10.1287/moor.27.3.485.310 2002

[31] [31]

The integral stable allocation problem on graphs

P´ eter Bir´ o and Tam´ as Fleiner. The integral stable allocation problem on graphs. Discrete Optimization, 7:64–73, 2 2010. ISSN 15725286. doi: 10.1016/j.disopt. 2010.02.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.disopt 2010

[32] [32]

Dean and Siddharth Munshi

Brian C. Dean and Siddharth Munshi. Faster algorithms f or stable allocation problems. Algorithmica, 58:59–81, 9 2010. ISSN 0178-4617. doi: 10.1007/ s00453-010-9416-y. 31 A Supporting calculations for Scenario I Quantity Price C1 C2 S1 S2 S1 S2 ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍SP DP 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 NNNN 30 0 370 40 40 120 121 0 79 0 250 0 14.6 0 14.7 0 19.2 0 O...

work page 2010