MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117858766 · doi:10.1109/pes.2006.1708872

Line impact cost concept to calculate congestion costs in deregulated electricity market

2006· article· en· W2117858766 on OpenAlexaff
B. Malladi, Bala Venkatesh, E.F. Hill

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricityLine (geometry)Network congestionComputer scienceScheduleReliability engineeringOperations researchComputer networkEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congestion in lines forces electricity markets to operate with a costlier generation schedule. It is essential to charge the loads responsible for congestion appropriately. This paper proposes a method to allocate congestion costs to loads and calculate incremental congestion costs. This method quantifies the impact of congested lines on optimal generation costs by computing a newly proposed line impact cost for each congested line. Using these line impact costs, total system congestion cost is apportioned to each congested line. Using topological load distribution factors, congestion cost associated with each congested line is apportioned to each load. The sum of such costs for a load, one from each line, represents the congestion cost for that load. This paper also analyzes the relationship between incremental congestion cost and the electrical distance separating loads and congested lines bringing out an empirical relation between them. Performance of the proposed method and its results on a 7-bus and the modified IEEE RTS-79 systems are reported and discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General MeetingSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207