Offshore Wind Development in the Great Lakes: Accessing Untapped Energy Potential Through International and Interstate Agreement to Overcome Public Trust Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offshore wind energy development in the Great Lakes presents an immense opportunity for distributed generation of renewable energy; however, this potential has thus far remained untapped. One significant barrier to why there has not yet been such wind energy development in the Great Lakes is the public trust doctrine. This doctrine generally stands for the principle that a state cannot convey its submerged lands to a private party. However, there remains much legal uncertainty with regards to the doctrine. Courts and scholars have struggled to determine with any certainty the origins and grounding of the doctrine and the limits it places on states with regards to public trust lands. This uncertainty poses a barrier to wind energy developers, leaving projects open to legal challenges and, even if public trust scrutiny is overcome, significant delays.\nThis article examines the general principles of the public trust doctrine and analyzes the public trust doctrine in each of the eight Great Lakes states. While the uncertainties and ambiguity of the doctrine cannot be resolved, based on this review there are two common exceptions that minimize public trust concerns and may allow private developments on public trust lands: (1) control or title remaining with the public; and (2) promotion of the public interest. This article argues that there is an opportunity to construct an international agreement between the United States and Canada, and a subsequent interstate compact between the eight Great Lakes states, to establish a structure for offshore wind energy transactions in the Great Lakes and to emphasize the public benefit therein. Such agreements have the potential to mitigate public trust uncertainty and litigation risk on wind energy developers seeking to harness the wind potential of the Great Lakes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".