Directional connectedness between the electricity prices and natural gas prices: evidence from Alberta’s electricity market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to assess volatility spillovers and directional connectedness between electricity (EPs) and natural gas prices (GPs) in the Canadian electricity market, based on a hydrothermal power generation market strongly dependent on exogenous variables such as fossil fuel prices and climatology factors. Design/methodology/approach The methodology is divided into two stages. First, a quantile vector autoregression model is used to evaluate the direction and magnitude of the influence between natural gas and electricity prices through different quantiles of their distributions. Second, a cross-quantilogram is estimated to measure the directional predictability between these prices. The data set consists of daily electricity and natural gas prices between January 2015 and December 2023. Findings The main finding shows that electricity prices are pure shock receivers of volatility from natural gas prices for the different quantiles. In this way, natural gas price fluctuations explain 0.20%, 0.98% and 22.72% of electricity price volatility for the 10th, 50th and 90th quantiles, respectively. On the other hand, a significant and positive correlation is observed in the high quantiles of the electricity prices for any natural gas price value. Originality/value The study described the risk to the electricity market caused by nonrenewable source price fluctuations and provided evidence for designing regulatory policies to reduce its exposure in Alberta, Canada. It also allows us to understand the importance of natural gas in the energy transition process and define it as the fundamental determinant of the electricity market dynamic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".