Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We ran several linear regression models to determine what factors best explain monthly normalized (per 1,000 registered consumers) LPG sales by distributor and what drives the observed fluctuations in sales patterns (see Supplementary Note 8 and Supplementary Fig. 11). We find that a standard deviation (s.d.) increase in distributor (up-front) price reduces normalized monthly sales by 0.27 s.d. We also see a comparable effect of seasonal factors in explaining the variation in refill sales. A shift from ‘no cropping’ season to cropping or harvest season increases monthly refill sales by 0.22 or 0.26 s.d. respectively, everything else remaining equal. Refill rates in summer, when agricultural activity is limited, are ~10% lower than rates during cropping and harvest seasons when people are busy with agricultural work. During the cropping season, people are busy preparing fields, planting and weeding. They place a high value on their time and meals tend to be quick, which is conducive to cooking with LPG. Later, during the harvest season, people have cash in hand, making LPG purchases easier33.

    Claimed Finding:
    Regression analysis showed that moving from the no-cropping season to the harvest season was associated with roughly a 0.26 standard-deviation rise in normalized monthly LPG sales.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Notably, the steady refill rate is despite the fact that macro-economic conditions have improved in the region during this period. The net price of LPG was mostly stable (see Supplementary Fig. 10 in Supplementary Note 7) while both the Indian39 and Karnataka state40 economies experienced >5% gross domestic product growth in the 2013–2018 period.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that recent macro-economic growth directly caused a marked increase in LPG refill rates among the study households.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that the source of electricity consumed during processing and the environmental footprint of the displaced products are key in determining the best use of wastes and biomass residues. The utilization of all available wastes and residues in the contiguous United States can generate 3.1–3.8 EJ of renewable energy, but deliver only 2.4–3.2 EJ of net energy gain, and displace 103–178 Mt of CO2-equivalent (MtCO2e) GHG emissions. For any given waste feedstock, looking across all US counties where it is available, except in rare instances, no single conversion pathway simultaneously maximizes renewable energy production, net energy gain and GHG mitigation.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study estimates that fully utilizing U.S. waste resources could avoid as much as 178 Mt CO2-equivalent each year.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The renewable energy yield across conversion pathways ranges from 0.2 to 13.1 gigajoules (GJ) per megagram (Mg) of waste, while net energy gain ranges from −2.4 to 11.6 GJ Mg−1 (Fig. 1a,b). It is clear that the energy value of coproducts is critical to achieving positive net energy for a number of conversion pathways and waste feedstocks. Except for animal-manure-related pathways, all conversion pathways result in positive net energy gains and considerable energy return on investment. For animal manure, only anaerobic digestion (M2) yields positive net energy, and its energy return on investment is only slightly greater than 1. The net GWP across the pathways ranges from −0.9 to 0.7 tCO2e Mg−1 (Fig. 1d). As with the importance of coproducts in net energy gain, emissions avoided by the resulting coproduct(s) displacing a substitute accounts for a substantial portion of the climate benefits for most pathways.

    Claimed Finding:
    All conversion pathways considered for animal manure achieve positive net energy gains.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Looking into each broad waste category, for agricultural and forest residues, combined heat and power generation (CHP) offers both the greatest net energy gain and the greatest climate benefits. For municipal solid waste (MSW), CHP offers the highest net energy gain while anaerobic digestion returns more climate benefits than other pathways. When compared with current management practices, all conversion pathways result in climate benefits for agricultural residues. For animal manure, only anaerobic digestion producing either methane (M2) or electricity and heat (E4) yields climate benefits. This corresponds to previous studies, which indicate that anaerobic digestion is the optimal conversion pathway for animal manure15,27,28. Although some pathways appear not to contribute to climate-change mitigation (that is, result in positive net GWP), all conversion pathways for forest residues yield smaller net GWP relative to burning them on site. When compared with landfilling without any methane flaring or capture, all conversion pathways for MSW result in smaller negative effects on the climate. However, landfilling with methane capture and on-site CHP would greatly reduce the GHG emissions of landfilling and become more attractive than renewable-diesel-related conversion pathways (Fig. 1c,d).

    Claimed Finding:
    For agricultural residues, the combined heat and power pathway provides both the largest net energy gain and the greatest greenhouse-gas benefit.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Results show that cleaner power grids in general would yield less climate benefit for electricity pathways and more climate benefit for non-electricity pathways (Fig. 2). For cleaner power grids, electricity-related pathways would on one hand result in lower emissions during the processing stage, but on the other hand lead to less climate benefit from the displacement of grid electricity. For the majority of non-electricity pathways, electricity is only an input, so cleaner power grids would result in lower emissions during the processing stage and the overall life cycle. For instance, whereas converting agricultural and forest residues into electricity through CHP (E1) and into biomethane through gasification (M1) appear equally beneficial under current conditions, M1 becomes more beneficial when power grids are cleaner. Another sensitivity analysis on transportation distance was also conducted (Supplementary Fig. 8). However, a distance ranging from 25 to 150 km negligibly affects results on GHG emissions. Thus, we assumed 150 km as the transportation distance in order to provide conservative estimates for net energy gain as well as GHG emissions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors report that extending transport distance from 25 km to 150 km dramatically alters life-cycle greenhouse-gas results.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Searching for the conversion pathway that is optimal with respect to all three criteria—renewable energy, net energy and GWP—we find that, except in rare instances, no single pathway exists for any given type of waste across all US counties and states (Table 2). Across different types of agricultural residue, CHP (E1) consistently stands out with respect to all three objectives for a substantial fraction of counties and states. For animal manure, no single pathway satisfies all three objectives. For forest residues and municipal wastes, optimal conversion pathways that satisfy all three objectives vary by specific waste feedstocks. The percentage of locations where there is a single optimal pathway varies substantially.

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis shows that, with only rare exceptions, no single technology simultaneously optimizes energy output, net energy, and GHG reduction for a given waste type across the United States.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Since a single pathway that achieves all three objectives for any given waste feedstock across locations is lacking, there is a need to consider three distinct scenarios of optimal use of biomass wastes—maximum energy production (MEP), maximum net energy (MNE) and maximum emission reduction (MER). For each county in the United States, we first select the conversion pathway for each type of waste under each of the three scenarios. The national results are the aggregation of county-level results. The calculations are described in Methods and results are depicted in Table 3 and Fig. 3. Scenario results suggest that there is substantial benefit from utilizing wastes and biomass residues to either displace energy production or reduce GHG emissions or both. As one would expect, MEP results in the highest potential of renewable energy production, which totals 3.8 EJ—3.7% of total US energy demand in 2016 (ref. 46), and MER results in the highest potential of emissions reduction, 178 MtCO2e—2.7% of total US GHG emissions in 2016 (ref. 47). The MNE scenario indicates the highest potential of net energy as well as a moderate amount of emissions reduction (75% of MER).

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the scenario analysis, the maximum emission reduction (MER) scenario also gives the greatest net energy gain.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    A breakdown of scenario results by waste feedstock reveals the preferred conversion pathways under each of the three scenarios (Supplementary Table 4). CHP (E1) is the preferred option for agricultural resides under both the MEP and MNE scenarios, while either CHP (E1) or gasification (M1) may maximize GHG emission reduction depending on specific feedstock. For dairy manure, CHP (E1) is the preferred option that maximizes renewable energy production, but anaerobic digestion to biomethane (M2) maximizes both the net energy gains and climate benefits. For forest residues, CHP (E1) results in the largest amount of renewable energy and net energy gain, while either hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) with in situ hydrogen production (Bj5) or gasification (M1) maximizes GHG emission reduction. In contrast to other categories of wastes, optimal use of MSW feedstocks would require a greater number of conversion technology pathways depending on specific feedstock.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study indicates that anaerobic digestion to biomethane is the best pathway for maximizing climate benefits from dairy manure.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The county-level distribution of renewable energy production, net energy gain and its associated climate benefits also indicates that most counties would lose a relatively small amount of energy production potential from MEP to MER, while most counties would see a greater increase in terms of emission reduction (Fig. 3). Maximizing energy production would result in negative net energy in 125 counties and emission increase in 532 counties (Fig. 3b,c). Therefore, maximizing either net energy or emission reduction would lead to better utilization of wastes and residues relative to maximizing renewable energy.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors report that pursuing maximum energy production would increase emissions in fewer than 100 U.S. counties.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Disaggregating the contribution to total GHG emissions from the different stages in the production chain shows that emissions during the processing stage, which requires electricity and heat input, and credits for avoided emissions attributable to displaced products, are key determinants of GHG emissions for most conversion pathways (Fig. 1). This is generally in line with results from a number of recent studies, such as refs. 15,20,34.

    Claimed Finding:
    Processing-stage emissions and the credits from displaced products are identified as the principal factors driving life-cycle GHG outcomes for most pathways.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    For agricultural residues, current management practice (that is, left and decayed on field) entail no GWP due to the fact that the GWPbio index for annual crops is zero. While the same GWPbio index applies to animal feed, methane and N2O emissions from animal farm operations contribute to total emissions from direct land application of manure. For MSW, the major sources of non-biogenic carbon are contained in plastics, rubber and leather, and textiles. For non-electricity pathways, non-biogenic carbon in MSW feedstocks would be transferred into energy products and eventually be emitted into the atmosphere as CO2 during end use. This explains a large amount of emissions during the end-use stage for these pathways. For electricity-related pathways (E1–E4), non-biogenic carbon would be emitted as CO2 during the processing phase. For other types of MSW feedstock, biogenic carbon would be emitted as biogenic CO2 in various phases. Thus, we treated biogenic CO2 as a separate source of GHG emissions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that non-electricity pathways completely prevent non-biogenic carbon in municipal solid waste from being released as CO2.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Both TOU rates resulted in bill increases for all participants
(P = 0.000; Fig. 1, Tables 2 and 3 and Supplementary Note 1). The
triple difference term TOU×Vulnerable×Pilot in each model gives
the estimated effect of the TOU assignment for vulnerable indi-
viduals during the pilot year (Methods). As expected, households
vulnerable on the disability indicator assigned to TOU1 (P = 0.011)
or TOU2 (P = 0.022) and households vulnerable on the elderly
indicator assigned to TOU2 (P = 0.001) saw greater baseline-to-
pilot-year bill increases compared to non-vulnerable counterparts.
Contrary to expectations, for households vulnerable on the low-
income (P = 0.012) and Hispanic indicators (P = 0.014), assignment
to TOU2 versus control is associated with a smaller increase in
bills relative to non-vulnerable households. Other groups (African
American and young children) saw no difference in TOU assign-
ment impacts versus their non-vulnerable counterparts. The
remaining model terms primarily serve as controls, and are dis-
cussed in Supplementary Note 1.

    Claimed Finding:
    Assignment to either TOU1 or TOU2 significantly raised summer electricity bills for all customers compared with the control group.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In a separate triple difference analysis (parallel to the billing analysis
(Methods)), we found that households vulnerable on the disability
indicator saw a smaller decrease in on-peak use from baseline to
pilot year when on TOU1 versus control, compared to their non-vul-
nerable counterparts; no differences were observed for other groups
(Supplementary Tables 7 and 8; the mean on-peak use reported
by group and time period is given in Supplementary Table 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    Under TOU1, households that included a person with a disability reduced their on-peak electricity use less than non-vulnerable households.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Additionally, examining reported behavioural efforts to curtail
on-peak air conditioning (AC) use (Table 4), low-income, young
children, Hispanic and African American households reported a
greater curtailment compared to their non-vulnerable counter-
parts, whereas households with elderly members reported less cur-
tailment; no differences were observed for households with versus
without a disability (Wilcoxon rank sum tests (Methods)).

    Claimed Finding:
    Elderly households reported more frequent air-conditioning curtailment during peak hours than households without elderly members.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Main effects indicate that households vulnerable on low-
income (P = 0.000), disability (P = 0.000) and Hispanic indicators
(0.001 < P < 0.011) are more likely to seek medical attention for
heat-related reasons (Table 5). TOU assignment alone does not pre-
dict the likelihood of seeking medical attention. A greater frequency
of discomfort predicts a higher likelihood of needing medical atten-
tion for heat-related reasons in all models (P = 0.000), whereas home
ownership predicts a lower likelihood of needing medical attention
in models (1), (2), (3) and (4) (0.011 < P < 0.032) and a reduction in
on-peak use predicts a higher likelihood of needing medical atten-
tion in models (7), (8) and (9) (0.011 < P < 0.014) (Table 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    Across rate types, low-income respondents were more likely than non-low-income respondents to seek heat-related medical attention.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The greater cost increases experienced by households
vulnerable on the disability and elderly indicators assigned to TOU,
relative to their non-vulnerable counterparts, suggest recognition
injustices14. Cost increases faced by these households probably stem
from inability to shift use times, as evidenced in our findings that
households vulnerable on the disability indicator reduced on-peak
use less than their non-vulnerable counterparts, and households
vulnerable on both disability and elderly indicators reported less AC
curtailment compared to their non-vulnerable counterparts.

    Claimed Finding:
    Time-of-use rates decreased electricity costs for elderly households relative to non-vulnerable homes.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Considering the interaction terms, TOU versus control assign-
ment significantly alters the likelihood of seeking medical attention
among households with either young children (P = 0.045) or dis-
abled members assigned to TOU1 (P = 0.030), and Hispanic house-
holds assigned to TOU2 (P = 0.032). For significant interaction
terms, we performed post hoc tests with the conservative Scheffé’s
adjustment applied to significance testing of the contrast between
pairwise comparisons (Table 6). Among families with young chil-
dren, assignment to TOU1 versus control correlates with a lower
likelihood of needing medical attention. For households vulnerable
on the disability indicator, assignment to TOU1 is associated with
a higher likelihood of seeking medical attention relative to non-
vulnerable households on TOU1 (and non-vulnerable households
assigned to control rate). Hispanic households assigned to TOU2
face higher a likelihood of needing medical attention than non-His-
panic white households on TOU2.

    Claimed Finding:
    The effect of TOU assignment on heat-related medical visits varied by subgroup, increasing risk for households with disabilities or Hispanic occupants and reducing it for families with young children.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Regardless of the rate assignment, low-income (P = 0.000), dis-
ability (P = 0.000) and Hispanic indicators (P = 0.024, Hispanic for
TOU1 models only) predict more frequent discomfort, whereas
the elderly indicator (P < 0.042) predicts less frequent discomfort.
Two interaction terms are significant: Low income×TOU1 and
African American×TOU1. For these terms, we performed post hoc
tests with Scheffé’s adjustment (Table 7). Low-income households
assigned to TOU face a higher discomfort than their non-vulner-
able counterparts assigned to TOU (this is also true for the control
group). No significant differences were observed for the African
American×TOU interaction term.

    Claimed Finding:
    Older adults experienced hot-weather discomfort more often than younger households.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    TOU similarly correlates with worse health outcomes for
Hispanic households, relative to their non-vulnerable counterparts.
Hispanic households reported greater curtailment of AC compared
to non-Hispanic white households, and it is possible that this con-
tributed to negative health outcomes. Hispanic groups are more
likely to experience heat distress in extreme heat events15,34, which
raises concerns that further distributional injustice could worsen
the differentials in mortality rates. Future research should evaluate
whether this outcome is linked to inefficient homes that limit the
ability to keep cool33.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study found no evidence that participating in a TOU rate heightened health risks for Hispanic households.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In Tables 2 and 3, R2 is consistently <0.10, which suggests that fac-
tors not included in the model contribute to bill variation. Regional
fixed effects analysis confirms that changes in on-peak use predict
bill changes (Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Tables 1–3).

    Claimed Finding:
    Variation in how much households cut their on-peak consumption helps explain the differences in bill changes.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Households vulnerable on low-income and disability indicators
face worse health and comfort outcomes than the outcomes faced
by non-vulnerable counterparts, regardless of rate assignment,
which probably stems from ongoing procedural and distributional
injustices.

    Claimed Finding:
    Researchers observed that low-income households had health and comfort outcomes comparable to those of non-vulnerable households, irrespective of rate design.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 2 shows the marginal effects associated with each attri-
bute level based on regression analysis (Supplementary Table 2),
using the dichotomized rating outcome as a dependent variable
and standard errors grouped at the level of the individual (clustered
standard errors). For the timing attribute, we take 2040 as the ref-
erence category, as this level most closely matches the 2038 time-
line ultimately recommended by the Coal Commission. We find
that policy scenarios with 2025 as an end date have a significantly
higher probability of being supported than policies with later end
dates. Postponing the phase-out to 2040 leads to a decrease in policy
support of 10.7 percentage points, and postponing it to 2100—as
reflected in the G7’s statement to phase out fossil fuels by the end
of the century—leads to a decrease in policy support of 15.3 per-
centage points, compared with the 2040 baseline. As is apparent in
the data, Germans are also sensitive to the cost of a coal phase-out.
Every increase in annual cost of €10 per household (or about €400
million per year for the German economy as a whole) decreases
public support by about seven percentage points. With regard to
employment effects, people prefer scenarios with lower job losses
over scenarios with higher job losses, but they value newly created
jobs slightly higher than lost old jobs. For instance, while the sce-
nario with 20,000 lost jobs decreases phase-out support by 9.2 per-
centage points compared with a scenario with only 5,000 lost jobs,
creating the same number of new jobs increases phase-out support
by 12.2 percentage points. The type of supportive measures for the
local economy is the least important of the five attributes. Among
the design options offered here, the preferred attribute level is an
expansion of renewable energies.

    Claimed Finding:
    Increasing the annual cost of a coal phase-out by €10 per household reduces public support by roughly seven percentage points.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 3a shows
that there is some variation among partisans with regard to the
strength of their timing preferences. Unsurprisingly, Green Party
supporters show the strongest preference for an early phase-out in
2025. What may be more surprising is that supporters of almost all
other parties also prefer 2025 over 2040. The only exception is the
relatively small subsample supporting the Bavarian arm of the CSU,
where the preference for 2025 is not significant. In contrast to public
statements by their party leaders, FDP and Green Party voters have
similar views on this issue. For all respondents, phasing out in 2100
is the least preferred timeline, although supporters of the right-wing
populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) are comparatively
more positive about such a late phase-out date than supporters of
all other parties. In light of other surveys investigating public atti-
tudes on the German energy transition (either surveys with a broad
focus31 or those with a specific focus on the coal phase-out32), the
muted differences across different partisans actually reflect a recur-
ring pattern. See Supplementary Table 3 for the supporting regres-
sion analyses.

    Claimed Finding:
    Only supporters of the Green Party favour phasing out coal by 2025; voters of CDU and SPD predominantly prefer keeping the 2040 timeline.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We also expected beliefs about climate change to influence citi-
zens’ support of different phase-out timing options. We assessed
climate change-related beliefs by asking respondents to estimate
the share of global climate scientists who think that the rise in the
atmospheric CO2 concentration since the mid-twentieth century is
primarily due to human activities. Perceived scientific consensus
about the anthropogenic nature of current climate change functions
as a ‘gateway belief’ that influences several other attitudes related to
climate change and energy33–36. While quantifications show that the
consensus is shared by 90–100% of publishing climate scientists37,
a recent study conducted in the United States highlights that only
15% of US citizens are aware of this high level of consensus38. In our
German sample, the mean estimate of consensus is 66% (s.d. = 22.9),
and 18.3% of respondents estimate the consensus to be 90% or
higher. Figure 3b shows that perceived consensus strongly moder-
ates the effect of phase-out timelines on preferences. Respondents
who think the consensus is below 50% are indifferent to whether
the proposed end date is 2025, 2030 or 2040, but their support still
decreases if the proposed end date is 2100. The closer respondents’
climate-related beliefs approximate the true level of scientific con-
sensus, the more pronounced their preference for an earlier phase-
out. Respondents who (accurately) estimate the consensus to be
90% or higher prefer a 2025 phase-out date by more than 40 per-
centage points over a phase-out date of 2100. See Supplementary
Table 5 for the supporting regression analyses.

    Claimed Finding:
    Participants who perceive a strong scientific consensus on human-caused climate change are much more likely to support an earlier 2025 coal phase-out compared with those who believe consensus is low.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    To explore the influence of social embeddedness on preferences for
a coal phase-out, we rely on two additional samples of residents of
the two main coal regions, Rhineland (n = 533) and Lusatia (n = 501),
who took the same survey. Within these independently collected
regional samples, we further investigate whether the preferences of
people having direct ties to the coal industry, for example, through
acquaintances or by being employed in the sector, differ from those of
other respondents in the region.
The results (Fig. 4 and Supplementary
Tables 7 and 9 for supporting regression analyses) suggest that peo-
ple in the coal regions have less pronounced preferences for an early
phase-out than respondents in the nationwide sample. However,
there are some differences between the two regions. Phasing out
coal by 2025 or 2030 instead of 2040 has significantly higher sup-
port in Rhineland, while respondents in the eastern German region
of Lusatia tend to support a phase-out in 2030. Even here, later phase-
out dates are significantly less preferred. An analysis of respondents
with strong (red symbols in Fig. 4) and weak (blue symbols) social
ties to the coal industry suggests that in both regions, people with
strong ties are indifferent to whether the proposed phase-out date
is 2025, 2030 or 2040, as the confidence intervals around the point
estimates for 2025 and 2030 include the dotted reference line.

    Claimed Finding:
    Respondents with strong personal ties to the coal industry are significantly more supportive of a 2025 phase-out than those without such ties.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Addressing climate change effectively and rapidly requires not only
investing in new energy technologies but also divesting from car-
bon-intensive energy infrastructures39–43. Our study is among the
first to investigate citizens’ views on the second part of this equa-
tion. Using a large-scale survey, we assessed German voters’ prefer-
ences for different policy design options to phase out coal. We found
that the average respondent consistently prefers a more ambitious
timeline. All else being equal, the preference was to phase out coal
by 2025, which contrasts with the Coal Commission’s proposal to
phase out coal by 2038. A particular strength of our methodologi-
cal approach is that the choice experiments allow us to scrutinize
respondents’ timing preferences in relation to possible trade-offs
between the different attributes of an accelerated phase-out, such as
higher cost. By comparing preferences across attributes, we find that
support for an accelerated phase-out is upheld up to an additional
cost to society of €8.5 billion (see Supplementary Fig. 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    Survey respondents would still back an accelerated 2025 coal exit even if it cost society up to €8.5 billion.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The acceptance of policy proposals is also sensitive to the
employment effects of the energy transition. Cost matters, as do job
losses. If delaying the phase-out from 2025 to 2030 would result in
halving job losses from 20,000 to 10,000, voters would—with all else
being equal— accept the later phase-out. Our analysis also shows
that the creation of new jobs matters even more than the loss of
old jobs. Policymakers aiming to find support for ambitious climate
policies are therefore well advised to make credible claims about
how these policies will lead to new employment opportunities in
low-carbon industries.

    Claimed Finding:
    Avoiding job losses is more important to voters than creating new employment; therefore they oppose delaying the phase-out even if it halves layoffs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our results also shed light on the similarities and differences
among population segments. With respect to party identifica-
tion, preferences for earlier over later phase-out dates are wide-
spread among almost the entire political spectrum. Even voters
in Germany’s two largest coal mining regions share—to a large
extent—the preference for an earlier over a later phase-out. The
only notable exception are citizens with strong ties to the coal
industry, who have no significant preference for a 2025 phase-out
over one that happens in 2030 or 2040. Similarly, voters in the east-
ern German region of Lusatia slightly prefer 2030 over 2025 as the
phase-out date. Moreover, knowledge about the scientific consen-
sus on anthropogenic climate change is an important predictor
of supporting an ambitious phase-out. Slightly less than one-fifth
of respondents are aware that more than 90% of climate scientists
agree that climate change is human-made. These well-informed
respondents have a stronger preference for phasing out coal in 2025
than those who (erroneously) believe that no such consensus exists.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across almost the entire political spectrum, voters prefer earlier coal phase-out dates, with only citizens having strong coal-industry ties showing no clear preference for 2025 over later dates.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In light of our findings, the German Coal Commission’s pro-
posal to phase out coal by 2038 does not appear to correspond
well with voter preferences. This might be an indication that
commission members over-estimated voters’ conservatism, as
political elites have been shown to do frequently44,45. However, even
assuming that the commission members gave constituents in coal-
mining regions precedence over voters in other parts of the coun-
try would not explain why such a late date was chosen, as even in
those regions respondents preferred phase-out dates between 2025
(western Germany) and 2030 (eastern Germany).

    Claimed Finding:
    The Coal Commission’s recommendation to end coal by 2038 closely aligns with the preferences expressed by surveyed voters.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Samples. The choice experiment was implemented in an online survey, which was
fielded between December 2017 and January 2018. Study participants were drawn
from the opt-in online consumer panel operated by Kantar/Lightspeed, which
includes more than 230,000 registered individuals in Germany62. From this panel,
a nonprobability but representative sample of 2,161 Germans entitled to vote
at national elections was drawn using an algorithm to match the census population
as closely as possible on age, gender and household income. Supplementary Table
1 shows that the sample matches the German population well in terms of age and
gender. With regard to income, both low-income and high-income households are
under-represented. However, given the fact that we also allowed respondents to
provide no answer, the deviations appear to be relatively small overall.

    Claimed Finding:
    The survey perfectly matched the German population across all income levels, with no under-representation observed.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    This sample is cleaned of respondents who failed to correctly
answer an attention check implemented in the choice experiment.
However, all results discussed in the paper remain substantively
the same when replicating the analyses to include the inattentive
respondents (see Supplementary Tables 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10).

    Claimed Finding:
    Excluding inattentive respondents did not materially alter the study’s results, indicating robustness to this data-cleaning step.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Incomplete trading leads to a lower ICAP and significant degra- dation of surplus. To achieve an equilibrium close to the complete trading ideal, both contracts must be available.

    Claimed Finding:
    Providing both the option and futures contracts restores capacity and consumer surplus to nearly the complete-trading benchmark.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The most striking result in Table 1 occurs in the Option Only case, in which the baseload technology is absent from the equilib- rium mix. This observation is particularly important because, as discussed above, the options contract is designed to have the same financial impact as the capacity markets currently utilized or under discussion in many real-world markets. A hint as to the mechanism at work is provided by the trades made in the Both Contracts case. The peaker technology prefers to sell options, selling 78.4 GW of options contracts against only 1.2 GW of futures. The baseload tech- nology exhibits the opposite preference, selling 80.7 GW of futures but no options. Tables 2 and 3 show the reason for these trading preferences.

    Claimed Finding:
    When both contracts are available, baseload generators mostly sell option contracts, whereas peaking units primarily sell futures contracts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    To improve their overall risk profile, investors in each technol- ogy choose to sell contracts with payouts that align with favourable underlying outcomes. Higher payouts for the futures contract cor- respond to non-bold cells in Table 2, whereas higher payouts for the options contract correspond to non-bold cells in Table 3. In cases for which only one trade is available, the equilibrium shifts towards the resource with a risk profile that is better balanced by that trade. Accordingly, moving from the No Trading case to the Future Only case increases the baseload capacity from 76.1 to 89.2 GW. The effect is more drastic in moving from the No Trading case to the Option Only case, which brings the peaking capacity from 88.9 to 166.7 GW and eliminates the baseload technology from the mix.

    Claimed Finding:
    Making only the futures contract available boosts baseload capacity, whereas making only the option contract eliminates baseload capacity and greatly expands peaker capacity.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    An additional interesting feature of Table 1 is that, under the Option Only case, investors in peaking technology sell a volume of options that exceeds the ICAP. As the assumed availability is 0.9, it is clear that these units cannot physically back up the financial trade. Real-world capacity mechanisms typically require physical assets. From a liquidity standpoint, a related issue is that the two- stage model developed in this article enables generators to hedge over their entire operating life, whereas real-world capacity com- mitments are often much shorter (for example, one year in PJM).

    Claimed Finding:
    In the Option Only scenario, peaking generators restrict their option sales to no more than their installed capacity, ensuring every financial obligation is fully backed physically.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    It is a mistake to object that a short delivery period eliminates the financial hedging property of capacity markets: more important than the cash flow for the agreed period is the volatility of future cash flows. The option payouts in Table 3, which reflect the distri- bution of annual revenues during scarcity periods that might be  expected in an energy-only setting, range from US$0 to 138 kW–1 yr–1,  with an average of US$41 kW–1 yr–1 and a coefficient of variation of  1.12. The presence of a capacity market reduces this volatility sub-  stantially. In PJM, for example, capacity market prices have ranged  from US$28 to 60 kW–1 yr–1 in the six years since the introduction  of Capacity Performance38, with an average of US$47 kW yr–1 and a  coefficient of variation of 0.24.

    Claimed Finding:
    The capacity market substantially lowers revenue volatility, reducing the coefficient of variation from 1.12 in the energy-only setting to about 0.24 in PJM.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In the second example, we added a variable generation resource with  four scenarios to govern its availability. The availability scenarios for  the variable technology are distinguished in how they are coupled with  the load duration curve. Although each scenario has an average avail- ability of 37.5% over time, the four are temporally correlated with a  fixed load in the following manner: strongly positive, weakly positive,  weakly negative and strongly negative. Availability for the baseload  and peaker generators remains at 0.9. Scenarios for fuel and demand  are retained from the two-generator example, which results in a total  of 400 equally likely year-long second-stage scenarios. Investment cost  and risk parameters were updated to ensure that all three technologies  are represented in both the socially optimal mix and the No Trading  equilibrium. Additional details on these assumptions are given in  Supplementary Note 4. In this example, the socially optimal mix includes a baseload capacity of 31.3 GW, peaking capacity of 104.9 GW  and variable capacity of 139.2 GW.

    Claimed Finding:
    The socially optimal mix contains more baseload capacity than variable renewable capacity.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In addition to the option and futures contracts used in the pre- vious example, we define a unit contingent contract that matches the availability of the variable generator40. The interaction between availability and demand in determining the occurrence of scar- city conditions means it is difficult to determine in advance which combinations of random variable realizations will represent the worst-case scenarios for market participants. However, the intent is to structure one contract that matches the risk profile of each technology: futures to the baseload technology, options to the peak- ing technology and unit contingent to the variable technology. The equilibrium results are split into two tables, oriented in order of increasing surplus. Table 4 shows the capacity mix that arises when at most one trade is available. Comparing the bold cells within each row, it can be seen that introducing any of the trades individually results in more capacity of the corresponding technology. The  market share of the baseload unit collapses after the introduction of the  unit contingent contract. As in the two-generator example, intro- duction of the option contract (analogous to current capacity mar- kets) results in a complete exit of the baseload technology.

    Claimed Finding:
    When only the option contract is introduced in the three-generator model, the baseload technology disappears from the equilibrium capacity mix.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Table 5 shows the results for the cases in which two or three  contracts are available. Here the bold cells demonstrate the effect  of introducing the third contract. In all three pairwise comparisons,  the addition of the third contract shifts the capacity mix towards the  corresponding technology.

    Claimed Finding:
    Adding a third contract leaves the equilibrium capacity mix unchanged in every two-contract scenario.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Although the directional pattern holds when moving from one to  two available trades, the magnitudes are in some instances weaker.  In the most extreme example, the Future case and the Future + Unit  case result in precisely the same equilibrium. With that capacity  mix, the worst-case outcomes for the consumer involve a low output  for the variable technology. Accordingly, the consumer is reluctant  to purchase unit contingent contracts and none are traded.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because the worst-case scenarios involve low variable output, consumers refrain from purchasing unit-contingent contracts in the Future + Unit case.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The trades that emerge in the All Contracts case echo the results  of the two-generator example. Each technology prefers contracts of  the trade adapted to its risk profile: investors in the baseload tech- nology sell 38.5 GW of futures, investors in the peaker sell 96.7 GW  of options and investors in the variable technology sell 91.8 GW of  unit contingent contracts. Unlike the two-generator example, in  which the Both Contracts case reached an equilibrium close to the  social optimum, there remains a US$0.6 billion yr–1 gap between the  All Contracts case and the complete trading solution. Additional  contracts are required to bridge this divide.

    Claimed Finding:
    With all three contracts available, the equilibrium coincides with the social optimum, eliminating the US$0.6 billion per year surplus gap.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that the CoC declined by 69% for solar
PV and by 58% for wind onshore projects between the early period
of the RET finance industry (2000–2005) and 2017. For both tech-
nologies, the cost of debt decreased more than the cost of equity.
Focusing on the cost of debt, we identify and estimate a financing
experience curve. For each doubling of cumulative investment, the
debt margins (see Supplementary Table 1 for definitions of financial
terms) decreased by 11% for both technologies. During the same
time, we observe a decline in the general interest rate resulting in
lower costs of capital that had a substantial effect on the economic
attractiveness of RETs. Finally, we estimate that 41% of total solar
PV LCOE reductions and 40% of wind onshore LCOE reductions
between 2000–2005 and 2017 were due to lower financing costs.
These result from three effects: lower capital expenditures (CAPEX)
to be financed (strongest effect for solar PV), lower general interest
rate (strongest effect for wind onshore), and financing experience.
We conclude with implications for researchers and policymakers.

    Claimed Finding:
    Lower financing costs accounted for approximately forty percent of the observed reduction in wind onshore LCOE between 2000–2005 and 2017.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The CoC in
2017 was in the range of 1.6% (solar PV) to 1.9% (wind onshore),
corresponding to a low-risk corporate bond of a financial service
firm (BB+ to BBB)26. Stated differently, CoC declined by over two-
thirds (3.5 percentage points) for solar PV projects and more than
half (2.6 percentage points) for wind onshore projects. While the
CoC for solar PV projects in 2000–2005 was higher than for wind
onshore projects, the former had a lower CoC than the latter in
2017.

    Claimed Finding:
    In 2017, wind onshore projects enjoyed a lower cost of capital than solar PV projects.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Both solar
PV and wind onshore projects experienced substantial decreases
in costs of capital. While some variance in CoC is normal due to
slightly different project conditions, the data show a clear decrease
in the lower bound for cost of debt and cost of equity over time. The
lower bound of cost of debt dropped from around 5% to less than
0.5% for both technologies. Lower bound equity returns fell from
around 10% to below 4%.

    Claimed Finding:
    Between 2000 and 2017, the minimum cost of debt for both solar PV and wind onshore projects fell from roughly 5 % to under 0.5 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 2 draws on the same data as Fig. 1 to calculate the average
across projects and compares the early period of the RET finance
industry (2000–2005) to 2017. It first shows that the cost of debt
decreased more than the cost of equity in relative terms and that
decreases in both components were more pronounced for solar PV
than for wind onshore. However, the project CoC also depends on
the leverage and the corporate tax rate. Leverage denotes the share
of debt of the total investment sum (see Methods). As equity bears
the first project losses, a higher leverage is an indication for lower
project risk. For both technologies, the leverage increased, reaching
over 80% debt financing in 2017 (see Supplementary Fig. 2). During
this period, the German corporate tax rate decreased from 41% to
30%, resulting in relatively higher costs of debt as interest rate pay-
ments are deductible from taxable revenues.

    Claimed Finding:
    From 2000–2005 to 2017, leverage levels in German solar PV and wind projects declined, with less than 80 % of the capital being financed by debt in 2017.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 4 shows the experience rates for the three variables. We find
an experience rate of 11% on the debt margins of both technologies.
We also detect experience rates of 13% for the DSCR of solar PV
projects and of 17% for the DSCR of wind onshore projects (see
Methods). Regarding the loan tenors, we find an experience rate
of −3%, that is, increasing loan tenors with increasing experience.
However, this finding is insignificant for wind onshore projects.
In sum, the third step of our analysis establishes the statistical sig-
nificance of the experience effect in renewable energy financing, as
found qualitatively in the second step. Increased RET deployment
contributes to better financing conditions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study reports an experience rate of about 11 % for reductions in debt margins across both solar PV and wind onshore financing.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Three observations can be made in Fig. 5. First, the change in debt
margins seems small compared with government bond yields but is
economically substantial. While government bond yields decreased
by 5 percentage points, debt margins have declined by 1.5 percentage
points for solar PV projects and 1 percentage point for wind onshore
projects between 2000 and 2017. For comparison, this experience-
driven decrease corresponds to a change in the corporate ratings of a
financial service firm from B+ to AAA for solar PV or from BBB to
AAA for wind onshore26.

    Claimed Finding:
    The fall in German government bond yields between 2000 and 2017 was approximately equal in magnitude to the decline in debt margins for solar PV financing.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Similar trends were observed for additional financial indica-
tors, such as loan tenors and debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs;
see Supplementary Fig. 2). Over our study period, the duration of
the feed-in tariff stayed constant at 20 years. Banks offering longer
loan tenors is therefore an indication of higher confidence in the
project. The DSCR is a measure of project cash flows available to
pay debt obligations, namely the principal repayment and interest
rate payments. Lower DSCRs can thus be interpreted as an addi-
tional indication for lower project risk.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study interprets the shift toward longer loan tenors as evidence that lenders had growing confidence in renewable energy projects.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 6 shows that the LCOE declined for both technolo-
gies, bringing both technologies into the generation cost ranges
for fossil fuel-fired power plants, estimated to be between US$50
and US$170 for G20 countries in 201741. Around 60% of this
decline is due to lower technology cost (CAPEX) with the remain-
ing 40% due to lower financing cost. Three effects contribute to
the change in financing costs. First, the initial investment to be
financed (CAPEX) decreased, which lowers the financing cost.
Second, the general interest rate decreased. Third, an experience
effect led to the compression of financing margins. The three
effects differ in importance between the two studied technologies.
The large reduction in solar PV CAPEX during the period of our
study (see Supplementary Table 4) led to lower financing costs,
which contributed roughly one-third (36%) of LCOE reductions.
Conversely, onshore wind CAPEX stayed relatively constant (see
Supplementary Table 4), increasing the relative importance of the
general interest rate effect, which contributed one-fifth (20%) of
LCOE reductions. Thus, the channels through which financing
costs contribute to lowering LCOEs vary according to the relative
reductions in CAPEX. As solar PV and wind onshore are becom-
ing mature technologies and future CAPEX reductions become less
likely, the relative importance of the general interest rate and expe-
rience effects will increase.

    Claimed Finding:
    For solar PV, reductions in general interest rates accounted for roughly one-third of the overall LCOE reduction observed in the study period.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Second, Fig. 5 reveals different dynamics
between the two technologies. Due to larger increases in cumulative
investment for solar PV, its debt margin decreased more than was the
case for wind onshore projects. As a relatively novel technology, solar
PV projects were perceived riskier and thus charged with a higher
debt margin in 2000. In 2017, investors no longer make a difference
and charge almost identical margins. This catch-up of solar PV con-
firms the pattern shown in Fig. 2 and the qualitative findings from
the previous section.

    Claimed Finding:
    By 2017, debt margins for solar PV and wind onshore projects had converged, whereas in 2000 solar PV faced higher margins than wind.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    On the economy level, expansive monetary policies in the after-
math of the 2008–2009 financial crisis resulted in low refinancing
costs for banks, which decreased the CoC of the economy28. The
large supply of capital increased the pressure on bank fees and even-
tually lowered them too. At the same time, extensive bank lending
tended to lead to overconfident credit issuance, thereby increasing
default rates29,30. The extensive lending made the evaluation of com-
panies’ credit eligibility more difficult and thereby increased the
investment attractiveness of projects with predictable cash flows,
such as RET assets in project finance structures.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to interviewees, expansionary monetary policy after the financial crisis left renewable energy financing conditions essentially unchanged.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Hotel guests exposed to real-time feedback consumed signifi-
cantly less energy per shower than the control group (Fig. 2b). The
treatment effect of our intervention is large and significant: guests
in the treatment group used on average 0.215 kWh less energy per
shower than the control-group mean of 1.883 kWh (Table 2,
column 1). This represents a reduction of 11.4% (t(19,596) = −4.88,
P < 0.001).

    Claimed Finding:
    Providing real-time shower feedback cut hotel guests’ energy use by roughly 11 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    To determine whether
subsampling for observations in which flow rate is available biases
this results, we included a third model specification for this sub-
sample but without controlling for flow rate (column 3). The
treatment effect is significant in all three models (see Methods
for details on the regression analyses) and large (ranging between
10.0% and 13.2%).

    Claimed Finding:
    After accounting for sampling issues, the feedback intervention no longer showed a statistically significant impact on energy use.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As an alternative functional form, we estimated a log-linear regres-
sion model. The results (reported in Table 3) are consistent with the
results of the non-transformed version reported above and show a
strong and significant treatment effect of the real-time feedback.

    Claimed Finding:
    A log-linear specification confirmed that real-time feedback significantly lowers shower energy consumption.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    To further corroborate the reported results, we ran the same
models with varying filter thresholds, reducing the data pre-pro-
cessing to an absolute minimum, with very similar results: if we
remove only observations deviating over five standard deviations
from mean energy or water consumption, and mean average tem-
perature, we obtain a sample of 25,490 out of the initial 25,647
observations. Running model (1) on this sample yields a slightly
smaller, but still highly significant treatment effect of −0.182 kWh
(s.e.m. 0.044, P < 0.001).

    Claimed Finding:
    Using minimal data cleaning eliminated any significant energy-saving effect of the feedback.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The results are presented in Table 4 and show that the treatment effect
is highly significant, albeit slightly smaller than in models (1)–(3).
Only in hotel 5, the energy use per shower differs significantly from
the other hotels, which may be due to different infrastructure (for
example, more low-flow shower heads) or guest characteristics.
Otherwise, the impact on energy use per shower is very similar
between the different hotels.

    Claimed Finding:
    Energy use per shower differed significantly across all six hotels examined.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Furthermore, we conducted a cost–benefit analysis for installing
the metering device in the hotels’ showers based on the treatment
effect estimated in model (1). We assumed a retail price of 40 CHF
for the smart shower meter and fuel cost for water heating of 0.128
CHF kWh−1 and water cost of 3.8 CHF m−3, as in Tiefenbeck et al.25.
If we extrapolate from the treatment effect of 0.21 kWh and 3.56 l
per shower and assume on average 1.2 showers per day per room, as
observed during the period of our study, this results in an amortiza-
tion time of 2.2 years.

    Claimed Finding:
    Based on observed savings, the smart shower meter would pay for itself in a little over two years.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In line with the earlier findings on volunteer selection bias7–9, the
treatment effect in the previous study with a volunteer-household
sample18 (0.592 kWh, or 22%) was larger than the effect we observe
in the hotel setting (0.215 kWh, or 11.4%).

    Claimed Finding:
    Energy savings triggered by feedback were noticeably greater in the volunteer household study than in the hotel guest study.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Hotel guests in the control group consumed
28% less energy per shower, namely M = 1.88 kWh, s.d. = 1.25 kWh,
than the control group in the household setting, with a mean of
M = 2.62 kWh, s.d. = 1.67 kWh (ref. 25), t(20,236) = −11.1, P < 0.001.

    Claimed Finding:
    Control-group hotel guests used more energy per shower than control-group households did.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    A meta-analysis of 156 field trials on energy
conservation found substantially smaller savings effects of 1.99%
for high-quality studies with adequate controls, compared to stud-
ies without such controls (9.57%)13.

    Claimed Finding:
    High-quality energy conservation trials reported average savings of about 2 %, whereas lower-quality studies claimed roughly 10 % savings.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Likewise, a meta-analysis of 33
field trials on in-home displays found weighted mean conservation
effects of 2.61% for high-quality (‘class A’) studies using representa-
tive sampling techniques, compared to 8.21% for ‘class C’ studies
characterized by small samples of volunteers and a high degree of
involvement from study administrators8.

    Claimed Finding:
    Class C in-home display studies achieved smaller energy savings than the class A studies.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 1 shows box plots of the change (in %) of the annual net-
work expenditures under the 11 tariff scenarios compared with
the reference scenario for the 765 households (for analysis of the
subsample see Supplementary Fig. 1). Several outcomes are evi-
dent: first, the most significant change in households’ network
expenditures are calculated for scenarios with a dominant share of
fixed or peak-load charges and thereby deviate significantly from
the reference scenario. The interpretation works vice versa, that is,
one would observe similar changes in household network costs if,
say, f100 was currently applied and was substituted for the reference
scenario.

Second, the box plots reveal that for some households the
increased costs in certain tariff scenarios are very high compared
with reference levels. For illustration, we marked the two house-
holds that experience the highest increase in network expenditures
under peak-based scenarios by open and filled triangles. These are
single-person households that consume moderate volumes of elec-
tricity (that is, 1,805 and 1,604 kWh in total during the observation
period) and their current network costs in the reference scenario
are low compared with the mean in our sample. At the same time,
these households produce massive peak loads (see Supplementary
Figs. 2 and 3). Consequently, under tariff schemes charging exclu-
sively for measured peak demand, such as pa100, they have to pay
up to €435.40 and €471.60 more, translating to +422% and +499%,
respectively. In contrast to their sensitivity to tariffs, which empha-
size measured peak demand, the same two households face only
around 80% higher charges in scenario f100. When neglecting peak
demand and applying scenario e100, which is determined by the
volume of consumed energy only, the opposite effect occurs and
these households would actually pay around 10% less than in the
reference scenario.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study found that the two highlighted single-person households would face increases of roughly 422–499 % under the pa100 peak-demand tariff compared with the reference tariff.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Even when the households marked by open and filled trian-
gles are considered as outliers in our sample, these cases are still
observed in a relatively small sample of 765 households, suggest-
ing that a relevant number of households may face significant addi-
tional burdens when/if household peak-load-based charges are
introduced. We check how many households in the sample also tend
to have increasing costs under some of the scenarios while experi-
ence cost savings in others. We find that 321 households face lower
costs in scenario e100 and higher costs in scenario pa100, which
means that nearly 40% of the households consume relatively mod-
erate volumes of energy in total, but at the same time frequently
produce significant peak loads. This example demonstrates that a
different weighting of the volumetric, peak and fixed components
can have strongly diametrical effects on the network expenditures
of individual households.

    Claimed Finding:
    Approximately 40 % of households were found to pay less under the pa100 peak-demand tariff and more under the e100 energy-only tariff.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The regression results shown in Table 2 suggest that the number
of residents of a household (Nr_persons), the living space (Square),
whether the dwelling is in a rural or an urban environment (Rural)
or whether the dwelling is a single-family house (House), are associ-
ated with lower network costs under scenarios with a fixed charge
compared with the reference scenario, and higher costs in the fully
energy-based scenario e100. This is explained by the fact that these
households (ceteris paribus) consume higher volumes of electricity
and thereby benefit from tariffs, which put only subordinate weight
on the number of consumed units. Interestingly, almost the same
household characteristics (with exception of a rural versus urban
environment and living space) are related to lower network costs
in scenarios emphasizing measured peak demand (pa100, pm100,
pm50/e50, and pa50/e50), providing evidence that households with
more residents and households situated in a single-family house
tend to produce fewer peak loads, ceteris paribus.

    Claimed Finding:
    Households with more residents tend to experience lower charges when fixed-charge dominated tariffs replace the current reference tariff.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The inclusion of the household amenities in the regressions is
essential even though it is not the focus of our analysis, as they would
likely suffer from omitted variable bias otherwise, as these are corre-
lated with the policy-relevant variables. The signs of their effects are
as expected conditional on which tariff component the respective
scenario emphasizes. Tumble dryer and PC increase households’
costs in the fully energy-based scenario e100, while flow heaters
become increasingly costly in the scenarios charging for peak loads.
Pool owners benefit from peak or fixed tariffs compared with the
status quo, and households with a sauna have a significant disadvan-
tage in tariffs charging for measured peak demand. Further analysis
of whether the amenities are related to high energy volumes or peak
loads are given in Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Tables
5 and 6.

    Claimed Finding:
    Owning a tumble dryer primarily raises a household’s costs under peak-demand tariffs rather than under energy-only tariffs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT