MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179013620 · doi:10.3386/w28962

Impacts of the Clean Air Act on the Power Sector from 1938-1994: Anticipation and Adaptation

2021· report· en· W3179013620 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Clay, Akshaya Jha, Joshua Lewis, Edson Severnini

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2021
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCarnegie Mellon UniversityNational Science FoundationYale UniversityUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Adaptation (eye)Clean Air ActPower (physics)Environmental sciencePsychologyBusinessComputer scienceAir pollutionEcologyBiologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study leverages newly digitized data on virtually every fossil-fuel power plant in the United States from 1938-1994 to provide the first assessment of the impacts of the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) that accounts for anticipation. The extended pre-regulation benchmark allows us to account for anticipatory behavior by electric utilities in the years leading up to the Act's passage. Guided by predictions from a simple theoretical framework, we use a difference-in-differences approach to examine the impacts of the Act's nonattainment designations on coal-fired power plants of different vintages. We find that nonattainment designation led to large and persistent decreases in plant productivity, which would be substantially underestimated without data from well before the passage of the 1970 CAA. The productivity losses were concentrated only among plants built before 1963. This timing aligns with the passage of the original 1963 CAA, which served as a signal of impending federal regulation. We provide empirical and historical evidence of anticipatory responses by utilities in the design and siting of plants that opened after 1963. Finally, we find that the aggregate productivity losses of the CAA borne by the power sector were substantially mitigated by the reallocation of output away from older less productive power plants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.596
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.126 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207