MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039602591

MODELS OF EFFICIENT CONSUMER PRICING SCHEMES IN ELECTRICITY MARKETS

2006· dissertation· en· W7039602591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSlime Mold and Myxomycetes Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarginal costComplementarity (molecular biology)ElectricityElectricity pricingContext (archaeology)Complementary goodCompetitive equilibriumPricing scheduleWelfare
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suppliers in competitive electricity markets regularly respond to prices that change hour by hour or even more frequently, but most consumers respond to price changes on a very different time scale, i. e. they observe and respond to changes in price as reflected on their monthly bills. This thesis examines mixed complementarity programming models of equilibrium that can bridge the speed of response gap between suppliers and consumers, yet adhere to the principle of marginal cost pricing of electricity. It develops a computable equilibrium model to estimate the time-of-use (TOU) prices that can be used in retail electricity markets. An optimization model for the supply side of the electricity market, combined with a price-responsive geometric distributed lagged demand function, computes the TOU prices that satisfy the equilibrium conditions. Monthly load duration curves are approximated and discretized in the context of the supplier's optimization model. The models are formulated and solved by the mixed complementarity problem approach. It is intended that the models will be useful (a) in the regular exercise of setting consumer prices (i. e. , TOU prices that reflect the marginal cost of electricity) by a regulatory body (e. g. , Ontario Energy Board) for jurisdictions (e. g. , Ontario) where consumers' prices are regulated, but suppliers offer into a competitive market, (b) for forecasting in markets without price regulation, but where consumers pay a weighted average of wholesale price, (c) in evaluation of the policies regarding time-of-use pricing compared to the single pricing, and (d) in assessment of the welfare changes due to the implementation of TOU prices.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicSlime Mold and Myxomycetes ResearchFrench-language works237,207