Free Riding on Energy Efficiency Subsidies: The Case of Natural Gas Furnaces in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assess the extent to which subsidies for home energy efficiency improvements in Canada have been paid to households that would have undertaken the improvements anyway—the so-called free rider rate. We focus on forced-air natural gas furnaces, replaced between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2011, under both federal and provincial subsidy programs as well as the 2009 federal Home Renovation Tax Credit. Our results indicate that around 50 percent of expenditures under the Canadian subsidy and tax credit programs represented free riding. In the long run, our estimates suggest that over 80 percent of grant recipients would have chosen an identical furnace at the time of replacement. We estimate that the cost effectiveness of the programs in terms of greenhouse gas reduced was between $70 and $110/t CO2, depending on the assumptions made. Further, we find that a substantial majority of the grants were received by middle- and high-income households, such that the grant had a regressive effect on the distribution of income. We conclude that such grants are not an optimal way to improve residential energy efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".