Assessment of the Philippine Electric Power Industry Reform Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) is one of the landmark pro-market reforms implemented to achieve reliable and competitively priced electricity in the Philippines. Due to its perceived ineffectiveness, however, the law has been subjected to a number of criticisms with some calling for its review, if not an outright repeal. Generally, EPIRA adopted the “ideal†textbook architecture of the competitive energy markets found to be historically successful in Argentina, Canada, Brazil, and Australia, among others (Joskow 2008). Such adoption led to the creation of institutional arrangements and restructuring intended to provide long-term benefits and ensure that prices reflect the efficient economic cost of supplying electricity and service quality attributes (Joskow 2008). Thus far, two major findings stood out. First, the EPIRA appears to be a well-thought power sector reform design, having followed most of the features of the kind of reform structuring found to be successful historically. Second, significant progress has been attained. Although, a number of measures should be in place to sustain the progress and promote more competitive power supply and retail rates for all consumers. These measures include policy changes in the subcomponents of the power industry such as generation, transmission, and distribution; and improvement in other areas such as reduction of system losses and universal charges, socialized pricing mechanism, taxes, and demand-side management.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".