Decision support for United States—Canada energy integration is impaired by fragmentary environmental and electricity system modeling capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The renewable energy transition is leading to increased electricity trade between the United States and Canada, with Canadian hydropower providing firm lower-carbon power and buffering variability of wind and solar generation in the U.S. However, long-term power purchase agreements and transborder transmission projects are controversial, with two of four proposed transmission lines between Quebec, Canada and the northeast U.S. cancelled since 2018. Here, we argue that controversies are exacerbated by a lack of open-source data and tools to understand tradeoffs of new hydropower generation and transmission infrastructure in comparison to alternatives. This gap includes impacts that incremental transmission and generation projects have on the economics of the entire system, for example, how new transmission projects affect exports to existing markets or incentivize new generation. We identify priority areas for data synthesis and model development, such as integrating linked hydropower and hydrologic interactions in energy system models and openly releasing (by utilities) or back-calculating (by researchers) hydropower generation and operational parameters. Publicly available environmental (e.g. streamflow, precipitation) and techno-economic (e.g. costs, reservoir size,) data can be used to parameterize freely usable and extensible models. Existing models have been calibrated with operational data from Canadian utilities that are not publicly available, limiting the range of scientific and commercial questions these tools have been used to answer and the range of parties that have been involved. Studies conducted using highly resolved, national-scale public data exist in other countries, notably, the United States, and demonstrate how greater transparency and extensibility can drive industry action. Improved data availability in Canada could facilitate approaches that (1) increase participation in decarbonization planning by a broader range of actors; (2) allow independent characterizations of environmental, health, and economic outcomes of interest to the public; and (3) identify decarbonization pathways consistent with community values.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".