The Limits of Administrative Law as Regulatory Oversight in Linked Carbon Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many commentators have celebrated the link between carbonmarkets in California and Québec as an example of effective coordination of sub-national climate policy instruments. Here, Iargue that this enthusiasm is misplaced. California recentlyamended its carbon market regulations to enable significantleakage of emissions to neighboring states. These reforms reducethe environmental effectiveness of the market, contradict clearstatutory guidelines, and dilute the integrity of the state’s compliance instruments. Moreover, the reforms took place in an administrative process that never recognized the leakage implications, raising questions as to whether California alerted itsCanadian counterparts of the consequences of its internal reforms.I review this transition from three perspectives: the relevantadministrative proceedings in California, the mutual obligationsboth governments accepted under a bilateral agreement,and the standards California law imposes on prospective linkedmarkets. Each perspective reveals major shortcomings. Ratherthan demonstrating a successful model for harmonizing carbonmarket systems across different legal jurisdictions, the link between California and Québec exemplifies a major institutionalweakness: in a linked carbon market, participating governmentsmust continuously monitor the administrative processes of eachjurisdiction in order to maintain market integrity. But as theCalifornia experience demonstrates, administrative law may notbe up to the task of ensuring that practical market operation follows the rule of law.
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 | 0.066 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".