A reliability based model for electricity pricing
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
In an attempt to re-regulate the distribution segment of an electric power system, public utility commissions (PUCs) areincreasingly adopting a reward/penalty framework in order to guarantee acceptable electric supply reliability. A distribution utility’s historical reliability performance records provide the basis for creating practical performance based ratemaking (PBR) mechanisms at the corporate level and identifying substandard areas within a utility’s distribution system. The paper presents an application using a graphical methodology for the stratification of a utility’s historical reliability indices data base into various categories, i.e., corporate level, regional level and crew level to quickly identify substandard areas for achieving optimum reliability and to develop PBR frameworks for use in a reregulatedenvironment. A brief analysis of cause contributions to the stratified reliability indices also is presented in this paper. This paper presents actual reliability performance history of a large utility over a period of three years to illustrate how this data can used to develop PBR frameworks for use in a reregulated environment. The historic reliability based PBR framework developed in this paper will find practical applications in the emerging deregulated electricity market.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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