Québec's Cost-Effective Electrical Efficiency Potential: Results of a Utility-Stakeholders Working Group Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the results of a working group, launched in 2004 by Hydro-Quebec, on the province’s cost-effective electric DSM potential. The group, comprised of representatives of a variety of regulator-approved stakeholder groups, a joint stakeholder expert, Hydro-Quebec, and Hydro-Quebec’s consultant (the latter three are co-authors of this paper), was tasked with reviewing a series of sectoral cost-effective potential studies the utility had previously commissioned. This paper presents both the quantitative and qualitative results, comparing the former to similar potential studies. Quantitatively, the working group had a relatively minor impact in terms of the overall potential results, with the ten-year potential increasing by some 3% to just under 20 TWh/year, or some 17.5% of demand. On the other hand, the process had a more significant impact with regard to specific end-uses and measures. Indeed, some end-use potentials changed dramatically, while new measure opportunities identified through the process have already been integrated into Hydro-Quebec’s portfolio of programs. Qualitatively, the process was generally deemed a positive, relationship-building experience that enabled both stakeholders and Hydro-Quebec to embark on an improved path of transparency and openness. In the final analysis, consensus was not achieved, with key differences relating to methodological issues that are described in this paper. Nonetheless, Hydro-Quebec intends to repeat the experience through the creation of a standing committee of stakeholders.
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 | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".