Market structure and technology adoption in renewable energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the effect of market structure on technology adoption in the U.S. solar and wind power industries. We compare adoption across two market types: restructured markets, which are designed to promote competition, and regulated markets, which are dominated by regulated monopolists. Solar projects in restructured markets are 32 percent less likely to adopt frontier technology. We also find negative effects of restructuring on adoption for wind projects. We provide evidence that this negative relationship between competition and technology adoption is explained by differences in financing costs across the two market types. • We find that solar and wind projects located in restructured markets, which are designed to promote competition, are less likely to adopt frontier technology than comparable projects in regulated markets. • Solar projects in restructured markets are 32 percent less likely to adopt axis-tracking panels and wind projects use 2.4 meters smaller turbines than comparable projects in regulated markets. • We find evidence that higher financing costs in restructured markets explain lower technology adoption in these markets. • Our results suggest that reducing financing costs in restructured markets can help promote technology adoption by renewable projects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".