How much should transmission facility owners be compensated for wildfire mitigation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Separate funds are increasingly being requested for wildfire mitigation plans (WMPs) whose activities were previously managed within a transmission facility owner's (TFO's) capital and operating budgets. Experience from a regulatory proceeding where a TFO in Alberta, Canada, sought approval of just over Can$26.2 million for its WMP is presented. The TFO expressed concern that wildfire risk is increasing due to a warming climate in Alberta and submitted that “the frequency and severity of fires and extreme weather events in Alberta is increasing.” The Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, intervening in the proceeding, argued that the funding the TFO was requesting was too high given the relatively low risk transmission lines present to initiate wildfires. A summary of the arguments is presented and the necessity to devise some method to evaluate a public risk acceptability level in a cost benefit analysis and to obtain critical wildfire risk mitigation information is discussed.11Bema Enterprises Ltd. prepared evidence for the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta in Alberta Utilities Commission proceedings 23848 and 26509.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.003 |
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".