A review of market‐based climate change regulation in Alberta's oil and gas sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alberta has implemented the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation to address the issue of growing greenhouse gas emissions. The regulation allows large emitting facilities to achieve emission reduction targets using market‐based compliance instruments. The goal of this analysis is twofold: (1) Overview market participants, composition, and offset management approaches and (2) discuss future corporate offset strategy options. Market participants are generally weighted toward firms in the electricity generation sector. In the oil and gas sector, while many firms participate in the offset market, a small number dominate. Market composition analysis of program compliance instruments over time offers insights regarding supply and demand. A program‐level view of all market‐based compliance instruments, as well as offset credits specifically, shows how major policy changes can transform market dynamics. Corporate offset management approaches of firms in the oil and gas sector are then analyzed and categorized into one of three approaches: development, sourcing and use, and banking. Based on the analysis, a discussion of future offset strategy options for firms operating under the regulation is provided for a range of policy scenarios. The analysis serves to inform regulated emitters in the private sector exposed to newly enacted or increasingly stringent regulation by assessing the current state of activities and providing insights of emergent strategies. WIREs Energy Environ 2018, 7:e277. doi: 10.1002/wene.277 This article is categorized under: Fossil Fuels > Climate and Environment Energy and Climate > Climate and Environment Energy and Climate > Economics and Policy Energy Policy and Planning > Climate and Environment
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".