MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117181535 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2004.825823

Assessment of Transmission Congestion Cost and Locational Marginal Pricing in a Competitive Electricity Market

2004· article· en· W2117181535 on OpenAlexaff
G. Hamoud, Ian Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceElectricity marketTransmission (telecommunications)Electric power transmissionReliability (semiconductor)Transmission systemMarginal costTransmission networkNetwork topologyPower system simulationElectric power systemReliability engineeringElectricityNetwork congestionComputer networkEngineeringPower (physics)TelecommunicationsEconomicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an open-access environment, transmission constraints can result in different energy prices throughout the network. These prices are, in fact, dependent on a number of factors such as the generating unit bid, system load level, network topology and security limits imposed on the transmission network due to thermal, and voltage and stability considerations. Computing these energy prices at all buses in large transmission networks under given system operating conditions can be time-consuming. This paper describes a simple methodology based on the analysis performed by the Hydro One in-house computer program (PROCOSE) to calculate, for a given period of time, transmission congestion cost (TCC) in dollars per unit time and locational marginal pricing (LMP) in dollars per megawatt-hour (MWh) at any selected bus in the transmission system. In addition, the information provided by the program output on congested transmission elements is used to identify buses in the network whose LMPs are representative of the entire network. The computed LMPs at these buses are used to define zones in the network where each zone has its LMP. The proposed methodology can be used to carry out sensitivity studies to determine the impact of changes in system parameters and operating conditions on the LMPs. The proposed method is illustrated using the IEEE Reliability Test System (RTS) and the Hydro One network system.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations84
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207