Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the literature on community energy, there has been little exploration of how legal forms affect the governance structures employed and resulting impacts to communities. In a settler colonial context like Canada, renewable energy transitions and projects will take place on or near Indigenous traditional territories. In the emerging body of knowledge around Indigenous community involvement in renewable energy the role of the Indigenous economic development corporation (EDCs), a uniquely Indigenous legal form has had little attention. Although a range of governance structures that could support renewable energy projects exist; what has not been explored are which legal forms tend to employ specific governance structures. Employing a national dataset, surveys and interviews, this study assesses the experience and involvement of Indigenous EDCs as a legal form in renewable energy projects, the governance structures EDCs employ, and how these governance structures respond to the needs for self-determination and decision-making power of Indigenous communities. The findings show that at least 26 EDCs are involved in renewable energy projects, that EDCs tend to use economic instruments, while political organizations, (e.g., Band Council), tend to use political instruments, such as impact and benefit agreements (IBAs). Interviewed and surveyed EDCs agreed that ownership of a project is more beneficial than IBAs that tend to be short lived. Although full ownership denotes control over a project, which aligns with UNDRIP, the desired level of ownership varies depending on a variety of factors, such as comfort with risk and how provincial context affects preferred ownership structures.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".