MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900400407

Understanding the cost of power interruptions to U.S. electricity consumers

2004· article· en· W2900400407 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Reliability and Maintenance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlackoutElectricityReliability (semiconductor)Electric power industryReliability engineeringQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceEnvironmental economicsElectricity marketElectric power systemPower (physics)Electricity generationBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)EconomicsEngineeringElectrical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The massive electric power blackout in the northeastern United States and Canada on August 14-15, 2003 resulted in the U.S. electricity system being g called antiquated and catalyzed discussions about modernizing the grid. Industry sources suggested that investments of $50 to $100 billion would be needed. This report seeks to quantify an important piece of information that has been missing from these discussions: how much do power interruptions and fluctuations in power quality (power-quality events) cost U.S. electricity consumers? Accurately estimating this cost will help assess the potential benefits of investments in improving the reliability of the grid. We develop a comprehensive end-use framework for assessing the cost to U.S. electricity consumers of power interruptions and power-quality events (referred to collectively as reliability events ). The framework expresses these costs as a function of: - Number of customers by type in a region; - Frequency and type of reliability events experienced annually (including both power interruptions and power-quality events) by these customers; - Cost of reliability events; and - Vulnerability of customers to these events. The framework is designed so that its cost estimate can be improved as additional data become available. Using our framework, we estimate that the national cost of power interruptions is about $80 billion annually, based on the best information available in the public domain. However, there are large gaps in and significant uncertainties about the information currently available. Notably, we were not able to develop an estimate of power-quality events. Sensitivity analysis of some of these uncertainties suggests that the total annual cost could range from less than $30 billion to more than $130 billion. Because of this large range and the enormous cost of the decisions that may be based on this estimate, we encourage policy makers, regulators, and industry to jointly under take the comparatively modest-cost improvements needed in the information used to estimate the cost of reliability events. Specific areas for improvement include: coordinated, nationwide collection of updated information on the cost of reliability events; consistent definition and recording of the duration and frequency of reliability events, including power-quality events; and improved information on the costs of and efforts by consumers to reduce their vulnerability to reliability events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.216 · 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