Architecture and policy-making: comparing experimentalist and hierarchical governance in EU energy regulation

References

• Baldwin, R., Cave, M. and Lodge, M. (2011) Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice, Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Blauberger, M. and Rittberger, B. (2015) ‘Conceptualizing and theorizing EU regulatory networks’, Regulation & Governance 9(4): 367–76. doi: 10.1111/rego.12064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blauberger, M. and Rittberger, B. (2017) ‘A rejoinder to Tarrant and Kelemen’, Regulation & Governance 11(2): 223–27. doi: 10.1111/rego.12136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borzel, T.A. (2012) ‘Experimentalist governance in the EU: the emperor’s new clothes?’, Regulation & Governance 6(3): 378–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01159.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, T. and Piattoni, S. (eds) (2003) Informal Governance in the European Union, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Consentec and Frontier Economics (2004) ‘Analysis of cross-border congestion management methods for the EU internal electricity market’, Study commissioned by the European Commission, Aachen and London, June.
   Google Scholar
• De Burca, G. (2010) ‘New governance and experimentalism: an introduction-symposium: new governance and the transformation of law’, Wisconsin Law Review 2: 227–38.
   Google Scholar
• Eberlein, B. (2008) ‘The making of the European energy market: the interplay of governance and government’, Journal of Public Policy 28: 73–92. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X08000780
   Google Scholar
• Eberlein, B. (2010) ‘Experimentalist governance in the energy sector’, in C. F. Sabel and J. Zeitlin (eds.), Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture, Oxford: OUP, pp. 61–78.
   Google Scholar
• ERGEG (2007) ‘Progress and prospects’, Regional Initiatives Annual Report, Brussels: European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas, March.
   Google Scholar
• ERGEG (2008) ‘The regional initiatives – Europe’s key to energy market integration’, Regional Initiatives Annual Report, Brussels: European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas, February.
   Google Scholar
• ERGEG (2009a) ‘Capacity allocation and congestion management in European gas transmission networks’, Principles, Brussels: European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas, 10 December.
   Google Scholar
• ERGEG (2009b) ‘Capacity allocation and congestion management in natural gas transmission networks’, Evaluation of Comments Paper, Brussels: European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas, 24 August.
   Google Scholar
• ERGEG (2010) ‘Congestion management procedures’, Recommendations for guidelines to be adopted via a comitology procedure, Brussels: European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas, 8 September.
   Google Scholar
• ETSO and EuroPEX (2004) ‘Flow-based market coupling’, A Joint Proposal on cross-border congestion management and integration of electricity markets in Europe, Brussels: European Transmission System Operators and Association of European Energy Exchanges, September.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (1999) ‘Second report to the Council and the European Parliament on harmonization requirements’, COM(1999) 164 final, 16 April, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2001) ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity’, COM(2001) 125 final, 13 March, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2003) ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the gas transmission networks’, COM(2003) 741 final, 10 December, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2004) ‘DG TREN draft working paper: Third benchmarking report on the implementation of the internal electricity and gas market’, 1 March, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2005) ‘Report from the Commission: Annual Report on the Implementation of the Gas and Electricity Internal Market’, COM(2004) 863 final, 5 January, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2007) ‘DG Competition report on energy sector inquiry’, SEC(2006) 1724, 10 January, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2012a) ‘Commission Decision amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks’, OJ L 231, 24 August, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2012b) ‘Commission staff working document impact assessment: Accompanying the document Commission decision amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks’, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council (1996) ‘Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity’, OJ L 27, 19 December, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council (1998) ‘Directive 98/30/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas’, OJ L 204, 22 June, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council (2003) ‘Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity’, OJ L 176, 26 June, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council (2005) ‘Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks’, OJ L 289, 28 September, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Florence Forum (1998a) ‘Conclusions’, Proceedings of the European Electricity Regulatory Forum, Florence, 5–6, February.
   Google Scholar
• Florence Forum (1998b) ‘Conclusions’, Proceedings of the European Electricity Regulatory Forum, Florence, 8–9, October.
   Google Scholar
• Florence Forum (2000) ‘Guidelines on congestion management’, Proceedings of the European Electricity Regulation Forum, Florence, 9–10, November.
   Google Scholar
• Florence Forum (2009) ‘Conclusions’, Proceedings of the European Electricity Regulatory Forum, Rome, 10–11, December.
   Google Scholar
• Joerges, C. and Neyer, J. (1997) ‘Transforming strategic interaction into deliberative problem-solving: European comitology in the foodstuffs sector’, Journal of European Public Policy 4(4): 609–25. doi: 10.1080/135017697344091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelemen, R.D. and Tarrant, A.D. (2011) ‘The political foundations of the Eurocracy’, West European Politics 34(5): 922–47. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2011.591076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds) (1999) The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lavenex, S. (2008) ‘A governance perspective on the European neighbourhood policy: integration beyond conditionality?’, Journal of European Public Policy 15(6): 938–55. doi: 10.1080/13501760802196879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madrid Forum (1999) ‘Conclusions’, Proceedings of the European Gas Regulatory Forum, Madrid, 30–1 September–October.
   Google Scholar
• Madrid Forum (2000) ‘Conclusions’, Proceedings of the European Gas Regulatory Forum, Madrid, 11–12 May.
   Google Scholar
• Madrid Forum (2003) ‘Conclusions’, Proceedings of the European Gas Regulatory Forum, Madrid, 24–25 September.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1996) Regulating Europe, London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C.M. (2008) ‘Europeanization, policy learning and new modes of governance’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 10(3): 239–54. doi: 10.1080/13876980802231008
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C.M., Dente, B. and Dossi, S. (2012) ‘Recasting institutionalism: institutional analysis and public policy’, European Political Science 11(4): 537–50. doi: 10.1057/eps.2012.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabel, C.F. and Zeitlin, J. (2008) ‘Learning from difference: the new architecture of experimentalist governance in the European Union’, European Law Journal 14: 271–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2008.00415.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabel, C.F. and Zeitlin, J. (eds) (2010) Experimentalist Governance in the European Union: Towards a New Architecture, Oxford: OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C.F. and Zeitlin, J. (2012a) ‘Experimentalist Governance’, in D. Levy-Faur (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance, Oxford: OUP, pp. 170–84.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C.F. and Zeitlin, J. (2012b) ‘Experimentalism in the EU: common ground and persistent differences’, Regulation & Governance 6(3): 410–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01157.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarrant, A. and Kelemen, R.D. (2017) ‘Reconceptualizing European Union regulatory networks: a response to Blauberger and Rittberger’, Regulation & Governance 11(2): 213–22. doi: 10.1111/rego.12135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeitlin, J. (2005) ‘Conclusion’, in J. Zeitlin and P. Pochet (eds.) The Open Method of Coordination in Action, Brussels: PIE – Peter Lang, pp. 447–503.
   Google Scholar