MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1627419720 · doi:10.1109/pes.2005.1489395

The effect of dynamic security constraints on the locational marginal prices

2005· article· en· W1627419720 on OpenAlexafffund
L.Y.C. Amarasinghe, A. G. Buddhika P. Jayasekara, U.D. Annakkage

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2005 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsLagrange multiplierMathematical optimizationComputer scienceElectric power systemConstraint (computer-aided design)Node (physics)Marginal costTransient (computer programming)Control theory (sociology)Power (physics)MathematicsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a restructured power system, locational marginal prices (LMP) are important pricing signals to the participants. LMP at a given node of a power system is the incremental cost of supplying power at that node. In a lossless system with no active constraints, the LMPs at all the nodes are equal. However, due to the losses in the power system, the LMPs at different nodes is different. Any operating constraint such as line flow limits also contribute to the LMP at a node. This paper investigates the effect of a dynamic security constraint on the LMPs. The transient stability margin expressed as a function of nodal voltages and phase angles, is used as a constraint in an optimal power flow (OPF) program to determine the LMPs at all the nodes of a power system. The Lagrange multiplier associated with the transient stability constraint gives the marginal cost of the transient stability constraint. A case study on the New England 39 bus system is presented to demonstrate the effect of the dynamic security constraint on the LMPs. In a nodal pricing scheme, any active constraint results in an additional revenue to the system operator. This revenue, known as the network rental, is also investigated in the paper.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2005Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207