Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates the behaviour of electricity markets under marginal and pay-as-bid pricing. Marginal pricing is believed to yield the maximum social welfare and is currently implemented by most electricity markets. However, in view of recent electricity market failures, pay-as-bid has been extensively discussed as a possible alternative to marginal pricing. In this research, marginal and pay-as-bid pricing have been analyzed in electricity markets with both perfect and imperfect competition. The perfect competition case is studied under both exact and uncertain system marginal cost prediction. The comparison of the two pricing methods is conducted through two steps: (i) identify the best offer strategy of the generating companies (gencos); (ii) analyze the market performance under these optimum genco strategies. The analysis results together with numerical simulations show that pay-as-bid and marginal pricing are equivalent in a perfect market with exact system marginal cost prediction. In perfect markets with uncertain demand prediction, the two pricing methods are also equivalent but in an expected value sense. If we compare from the perspective of second order statistics, all market performance measures exhibit much lower values under pay-as-bid than under marginal pricing. The risk of deviating from the mean is therefore much higher under marginal pricing than under pay-as-bid. In an imperfect competition market with exact demand prediction, the research shows that pay-as-bid pricing yields lower consumer payments and lower genco profits. This research provides quantitative evidence that challenges some common claims about pay-as-bid pricing. One is that under pay-as-bid, participants would soon learn how to offer so as to obtain the same or higher profits than what they would have obtained under marginal pricing. This research however shows that, under pay-as-bid, participants can at best earn the same profit or expected profit as under marginal pricing. A second common claim refuted by this research is that pay-as-bid does not provide correct price signals if there is a scarcity of generation resources. We show that pay-as-bid does provide a price signal with such characteristics and furthermore argue that the price signal under marginal pricing with gaming may not necessarily be correct since it would then not reflect a lack of generation capacity but a desire to increase profit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".