MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409158386 · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2025.104052

From investment to net benefits: A review of guidelines and methodologies for cost–benefit analysis in the electricity sector

2025· review· en· W4409158386 on OpenAlexaff
Jose Angel Leiva Vilaplana, Guangya Yang, Emmanuel Ackom

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Research & Social Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Power System Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
KeywordsInvestment (military)ElectricityCost–benefit analysisBusinessEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsIndustrial organizationEconomicsRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electricity sector is transforming to integrate renewable energy sources while ensuring grid quality, efficiency, and reliability. Such a transformation demands major investments from both private and public stakeholders. Economic appraisal tools such as cost–benefit analysis (CBA) have become increasingly relevant in identifying investments that optimize financial and social net benefits. Despite this, many CBA applications in the electricity sector, such as those for transmission and distribution infrastructure, tend to prioritize financial metrics and single-criterion evaluations, often neglecting broader social and environmental considerations. This highlights the need for a more inclusive approach to addressing these limitations. To this end, this paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature on CBA as applied to electricity infrastructure appraisals. First, the review examines various facets of CBA methodology, including its key steps, scope, standing, metrics, models, and approaches for addressing uncertainty. Second, this study analyzes relevant CBA guidelines employed to assess electricity projects’ social costs and benefits across the entire value chain, encompassing power generation, transmission, distribution, and end-use. Third, the paper highlights challenges and barriers within CBA guidelines, noting significant variations in their development and applicability across electricity domains and regions. The review categorizes these barriers into CBA into methodological, regulatory, and domain-specific barriers. Advancing CBA requires standardizing scope, unveiling cost and benefit causal chains, enhancing uncertainty handling, and leveraging synergies across regions to bridge gaps between theory and practice. • Review of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for electricity infrastructure projects. • CBA guidelines vary in modeling tools, sophistication, and uncertainty handling. • Cross-domain insights enhance CBA theory and practice. • CBA faces methodological, regulatory, and domain-specific barriers. • Solutions: systemic view, dynamic modeling, transparency, and probabilistic methods.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.016
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Research & Social ScienceSame topicElectric Power System OptimizationFrench-language works237,207