Indigenous Participation in Clean Energy Activities in Canada: Passive Participation or ‘Community Energy’?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trend toward bottom-up energy action through community clean energy projects has important implications for climate change mitigation in both non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities. As a result of a literature review, this paper defines “community energy” as activities – including initiatives with a variety of functions such as generation, retail, distribution and demand – that involve a high degree of community participation, ownership and control, where collective benefits are shared throughout the community (Hoicka and MacArthur, 2018, pp. 6). Many clean energy projects involving Indigenous participation exist in Canada with various forms of ownership and structures (Indigenous Clean Energy Social Enterprise, 2019; Hoicka and MacArthur, 2018) and it is likely, that those projects that meet the threshold of CE will make the best vehicles for reconciliation because the principles of CE and reconciliation align. This paper uses two secondary datasets by Indigenous Clean Energy Social Enterprise (2019) and Hoicka and MacArthur (2018) (the latter has been updated in the present study) to explore the Indigenous models of ownership and control of clean energy projects that exist in Canada and their potential link to reconciliation. This is believed to be a complete dataset of >1MW clean energy projects in Canada with Indigenous participation. It also parallels the models present in Indigenous communities with non-Indigenous communities. Additionally, the paper explores the aforementioned two datasets on clean energy projects involving Indigenous participation and a third secondary dataset by Wyse and Hoicka (2019), which is focused on local energy plans, along with some primary data to analyze the number and location of both projects and plans, the Indigenous groups (First Nations, Inuit and Métis) involved as well as their corresponding community types (off-grid/remote vs. grid-connected). A total of 198 active clean energy projects in Canada with Indigenous participation and 167 Local Energy Plans for Indigenous communities were identified. The majority of the Indigenous communities involved with both projects and plans were First Nations, grid-connected communities, with few Inuit and mixed Indigenous communities, and 0 Métis communities. For the projects, forms of ownership and control and corresponding structures are difficult to determine without significant additional research and analysis. The majority of the projects explored in this study are partnerships between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous corporations, and there is a small number (6) that are fully Indigenous government-owned. Additionally, 1 energy co-operative was identified. The structures of these partnerships are largely unknown as this information was only available for 25 out of 198 projects in the datasets, but it is clear that structures can vary from majority Indigenous-ownership or 50/50 joint ventures, to minority Indigenous-ownership, for example. The inclusion or exclusion of all major Indigenous groups in Canada along with whether clean energy projects involving Indigenous communities reaches the off-grid, diesel-dependent communities that need it most also has important implications for reconciliation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".