The Role of Institutional Barriers in SaskPower
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the decision-making processes and structures relevant to low- and non-emitting generation in Saskatchewan’s regional energy utility, SaskPower.\nBackground:\nSaskPower is a Crown Corporation responsible for the provision of power in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan electrical grid is among the most carbon intense in Canada. This carbon intensity is of increasing importance as net-zero, coal phase out, and green industry growth become key elements of Canadian energy governance.\nThe history of SaskPower’s interaction with lowering grid emissions presents challenges. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) and purchased wind power have made up the bulk of the emissons reducing investments so far, with nuclear, solar, hydro and development of in-house wind generation capacity not playing any significant role. Closer inspection of these generation methods reveals inconsistent approvals, initiatives and efforts to develop each method (i.e. solar programs implemented, and then cut short). The uneven consideration of options raises questions about the decision-making process as SaskPower seeks to develop and implement emissions reducing capacity.\nMethods:\nTo evaluate these processes and structures, this thesis utilizes an interview series targeted at SaskPower’s executive and management level cadre (n=13, response rate = 7%). Inclusion criteria required that participants were currently employed at SaskPower, or had occupied these positions within the last 5 years. The study investigates potential barriers of institutional interest, institutional structure, and institutional innovation culture. Participant responses were coded according to reflexive thematic analysis. A variety of emergent semantic and latent codes were applied to the data, which were later collapsed into code groups, themes and subthemes.\nConclusions\nThe study documents that the SaskPower decision-making arena is the subject of intermittent influence from a variety of actors that may have varying interests and purposes. While SaskPower possesses the necessary structures, innovative pathways, and resources to adapt to catalysts in the decision arena, the fractured nature of the decision-process may be a cause for inconsistent decision-making. Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework is a tool that allows clear definition of institutions and rules as they interact with one another, and facilitates exploring nested systems of organizational rules, environment, and responsibilities. Utilizing this framework to explore and unpack the interview series, this thesis asserts that SaskPower is subject to multiple (and at times conflicting) sets of internal rules. The dominant set of rules may change at any given time, resulting in actions that appear inconsistent. This thesis also asserts that the institution of SaskPower exists within an overarching institution, the provincial government, which sometimes influences the choice sets available to actors within SaskPower.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".