Towards Decentralized Power Systems: Market & Regulatory Frameworks for Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This MRP is about the sustainability transition of Ontario’s electricity system. A sustainability transition is understood as a type of purposive socio-technical transition, which is meant to address some normative goal rather than to exploit commercial opportunity. I use the analytical framework presented by the socio-technical transitions literature and multi-level perspective theory to assess the state of Ontario’s grid modernization as evidenced through primarily documentary evidence, most notably the 2017 Long-Term Energy Plan. I conclude that based on this evidence, Ontario is taking a transformation pathway, which is characterized as being driven from within the established regime that modifies its own trajectory in response to landscape pressures and an under-developed niche. This is represented by Ontario’s preferred approach to enable LDCs as the primary developers of DERs through regulatory changes. I then argue that in light of sustainability objectives that I identify in this paper, Ontario’s approach has some shortfalls, and instead I recommend a reconfiguration pathway that requires the strategic modification of 3 key areas to enable a competitive retail DERs market. The three key areas are: (1) adjustments to the grid architecture to address the operational and functional roles of grid actors; (2) establishment of a market structure known as a platform to enable the participation of distributed resources to compete with traditional resources on a level playing, which can be done either at the bulk or distribution levels; and (3) the regulation of a competitive retail DERs market in Ontario.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".