Strategic manipulation of a pollution permit market and international trade

We consider a framework where firms which compete in an international product market are not all submitted to a pollution permit market. Using the Brander and Spencer’s framework (J Int Econ 18:83–100, 1985), we seek to determine the optimal strategies of both a dominant firm in the pollution permit market and the regulator in a such context. We first show that the dominant firm pursues a strategic manipulation to increase its profit. We also find that the regulator uses a sophisticated strategic policy to increase the domestic welfare by using two instruments: the initial allocation of pollution permits and the pollution cap.     

Fees and the Efficiency of Tradable Permit Systems: An Experimental Approach

The paper presents the results of an economic experiment in which the effects of fees on allocative efficiency of tradable utilization permits (e.g. pollution permits) are explored. Laboratory subjects (university students) play the roles of firms whose generic product requires a specific input or permits. Scarcity is exogenously introduced by a fixed supply of tradable production permits. Three treatments are compared: No fee imposed (N); a fixed tax per permit (T); and partial retraction of permits and subsequent redistribution by auction (A). Treatments T and A represent two different ways of imposing fees, which are designed to be revenue equivalent. Our results indicate that, after controlling for deviation of permit prices from a prediction based on fundamentals, fees have an impact on distribution of permits. Interestingly, a fixed tax enhances efficiency compared to the case of no fees while retraction and reallocation by auction tends to reduce efficiency. Apparently, subjects’ decision making is affected by the imposition of fees, but how and to what extent depends on the method used.     

Timing and Commitment of Environmental Policy,Adoption of New Technology,and Repercussions on R&;D

We investigate the interplay between environmental policy, incentives to adoptnew technology, and repercussions on R&D. We study a model where a monopolistic upstream firm engages in R&D and sells advanced abatement technology to polluting downstream firms. We consider four different timing and commitment regimes of environmental tax and permit policies: ex post taxation (or issuing permits), interim commitment to a tax rate (a quota of permits) after observing R&D success but before adoption, and finally two types of ex antecommitment before R&D activity, one with a unique tax rate (quota of permits), the other one with a menu of tax rates (permit quotas). We study the second best tax and permit policies and rank these with respect to welfare. In particular, we find that commitment to a menu of tax rate dominates all other policy regimes.     

Pollution Permits: A Discussion of Fundamentals

The author provides an economic analysis of tradable pollution permits by clarifying the derivation of permit supply and demand relationships and connecting those concepts to permit trading for the case of two polluters. Using the standard comparison of costs and benefits, he makes the marginal cost of emission reduction of a typical polluter the basis of the derivation of its permit supply and demand schedules. Developing these relationships for both polluters allows the creation of market schedules for permit supply and demand. He demonstrates equilibrium in the market for permits and the corresponding trading of permits. He discusses the satisfaction of the equi-marginal principle, which ensures that pollution reduction is achieved efficiently. The author concludes by considering the consequences of the presence of a third polluter in the market for permits.     

Dynamic optimal control of pollution abatement under emissions permit banking

In a recent work, Dragone et al. (2010) modeled an optimal control model of pollution abatement, and investigated the adoption of a tax levied on the firm's instantaneous contribution to the accumulation of pollution. In this paper, we extend the work of Dragone et al. (2010) by providing a dynamic optimal control model of pollution abatement with emissions permits banking, where the firm is allowed to purchase, sell and bank emissions permits given a finite planning horizon of length. Our objective is to find the optimal levels of the production, the pollution abatement investment and the quantity of emissions permits bought or sold in continuous time through the use of optimal control theory. We illustrate the results with a numerical example.     

Strategic state-level environmental policy with asymmetric pollution spillovers

This paper examines the strategic behavior of state-level utility regulators in the context of the federal tradable emissions permits market when state-to-state pollution spillovers are asymmetric. Strategic behavior is possible because a state’s environmental policy indirectly affects the price of permits and, therefore, abatement in other states. We show that the optimal pollution penalty is comprised of two parts: (i) a Pigouvian tax, adjusted for state-to-state spillovers; and (ii) an optimal tariff designed to improve the terms of trade in permits. Generally, abatement costs are not minimized and the outcome is Pareto inefficient, regardless of the size of the market.     

What Should Optimal Income Taxes Smooth?

According to the theory of tax smoothing, income tax rates should be kept constant so as to minimize the distortionary costs of taxation. By explicitly considering how labor supply is distorted by income taxes in a fully specified intertemporal model, we find that the optimal income tax policy should smoothen leisure. In the case of varying income (productivity changes) this is attained by a pro‐cyclical (progressive) tax rate.     

Multi-Sector Model of Tradable Emission Permits

This paper presents a multi-sector model of tradable emission permits, which includes oligopolistic and perfectly competitive industries. The firms in oligopolistic industries are assumed to exercise market power in the tradable permit market as well as in the product market. Specifically, we examine the effects of the initial permit allocation on the equilibrium outcomes, focusing on the interaction among these product and permit markets. It is shown that raising the number of initial permits allocated to one firm in an oligopolistic industry increases the output produced by that firm. Under certain conditions, raising a “clean” (less-polluting) firm’s share of the initial permits can lead to reductions in both the product and permit prices. We discuss criteria for the socially optimal allocation of initial permits, considering the trade-off between production inefficiency and consumer benefit.     

Prices Versus Quantities: Technology Choice,Uncertainty and Welfare

Technological improvements have proven essential in mitigating environmental problems such as climate change, depletion of the ozone layer and acid rain. While it is well-known that price- and quantity-based regulatory instruments provide different investment levels, the effects on the choice between different technologies have received scant attention. This paper expands on the prices versus quantities literature by investigating firms’ technology choice in the face of demand and supply side uncertainty. I show that the regulator can not design tradable emissions permits and an emissions tax such that the two regimes are equivalent, even in terms of expected values. Moreover, a tax encourages the most flexible abatement technology if and only if stochastic costs and the equilibrium permit price have sufficiently strong positive covariance, compared with the variance in consumer demand for the good produced. Finally, the firms’ technology choices are socially optimal under tradable emissions permits, but not under an emissions tax.     

Assessing the impact of taxes on female labor supply using a finite mixture approach

This paper expands the standard analysis of female labor supply to permit preference heterogeneity by using a finite mixture model. Using the extended model, we obtain theory consistent results whereas a traditional model produces a negative substitution effect. We use our model to illustrate the labor supply effects of a tax reform, corresponding to 1983–1992 changes in the Swedish income-tax schedule. The results shows an expected reduction in tax revenues of about 17%. Finally, we use Monte Carlo simulations and show that our proposed mixture model is robust towards different misspecifications. First version received: March 1998/final version accepted: October 1999     

Allowing communities to trade in imperfectly competitive pollution-permit markets

Citizens and organizations representing them play an increasingly important role in markets for environmental quality, but much remains to be learned about how their participation affects these markets. We analyze the effects of allowing a community of citizens to trade pollution permits in an imperfectly competitive permit market. Allowing the community to trade directly reveals its preferences, which enhances welfare. However, community participation may also exacerbate distortions due to market power, even though the community itself trades competitively. Including the community in permit distribution may exacerbate market power distortions by affecting a dominant trader’s propensity to participate in the permit market. Second, the community’s demand/supply for permits may be more inelastic than other traders and worsen distortions due to market power. We illustrate in an example that these negative effects on competition can dominate the positive effect from preference revelation through the market place.      

Decentralization in Pollution Permit Markets

A pollution permit market is decentralized when firms are allowed to trade permits across time, regions or pollutants. Using a model in which firms have better information about their abatement costs than a regulator, we develop a comparative advantage formula that delineates whether or not pollution permit markets should be decentralized. When the damage from pollution is described by a separable function, the formula implies a simple sufficient condition for not allowing decentralization.     

Bilateral Oligopoly,Private Information,and Pollution Permit Markets

We analyze the effects of strategic behavior and private information in pollution permit markets in which all firms have market power. The market is characterized by supply-function equilibria. Firms submit net supplies for permits and a market maker determines the market-clearing price. Net supplies depend on abatement cost functions, which in turn depend on private information parameters. We calculate the increase in aggregate abatement costs due to strategic behavior and private information and show that private information attenuates the effects of strategic behavior.      

Market Power,Permit Allocation and Efficiency in Emission Permit Markets

Market power in permit markets has been examined in some detail following the seminal work of Hahn (Q J Econ 99(4):753–765, 1984), but the effect of free allocation on price manipulation with market power in both product and permit market has not been fully addressed. I show that in this case, the threshold of free allocation above which a dominant firm will set the permit price above its marginal abatement costs is below its optimal emissions in a competitive market, and that overall efficiency cannot be achieved by means of permit allocation alone. In addition to being of general economic interest, this issue is relevant in the context of the EU ETS. I find that the largest German, UK and Nordpool power generators received free allowances in excess of the derived threshold. Conditional on having price-setting power in both the electricity and permit markets, these firms would have found it profitable to manipulate the permit price upwards despite being net permit buyers.     

Detrimental externalities, pollution rights, and the “Coase theorem”

This paper, which builds on Chipman (The economist’s vision. Essays in modern economic perspectives, 131–162, 1998), analyzes a simple model formulated by Hurwicz (Jpn World Econ 7:49–74, 1995) of two agents—a polluter and a pollutee—and two commodities: “money” (standing for an exchangeable private good desired by both agents) and “pollution” (a public commodity desired by the polluter but undesired by the pollutee). There is also a government that issues legal rights to the two agents to emit a certain amount of pollution, which can be bought and sold with money. It is assumed that both agents act as price-takers in the market for pollution rights, so that competitive equilibrium is possible. The “Coase theorem” (so-called by Stigler (The theory of price, 1966) asserts that the equilibrium amount of pollution is independent of the allocation of pollution rights. A sufficient condition for this was (in another context) obtained by Edgeworth (Giorn Econ 2:233–245, 1891), namely that preferences of the two agents be “parallel” in the money commodity, whose marginal utility is constant. Hurwicz (Jpn World Econ 7:49–74, 1995) argued that this parallelism is also necessary. This paper, which provides an exposition of the problem, raises some questions about this result and provides an alternative necessary and sufficient condition.     

A Note on Emissions Taxes and Incomplete Information

In contrast with what we perceive is the conventional wisdom about setting a second-best emissions tax to control a uniformly mixed pollutant under uncertainty, we demonstrate that setting a uniform tax equal to expected marginal damage is not generally efficient under incomplete information about firms’ abatement costs and damages from pollution. We show that efficient taxes will deviate from expected marginal damage if marginal damage is increasing and there is uncertainty about the slopes of the marginal abatement costs of regulated firms. Moreover, tax rates will vary across firms if a regulator can use observable firm-level characteristics to gain some information about how the firms’ marginal abatement costs vary.     

Uncertainty and the Choice of Policy Instruments: A Note On Baumol and Oates Propositions

Baumol and Oates' propositions, the irrelevancy of benefit uncertainty and the importance of cost uncertainty on the choice between a tax and a system of marketable permits, are limited to a large-number case in which the opportunities for victims of pollution to participate in a permit market are non-existent. However, with the evolution of environmental groups and coalitions of victims in neighborhoods, the large-number case can easily transform into a small-number case. This paper shows that when the pollution standard, set at what appears to be optimal ex ante, is excessively lenient, the system of marketable permits offers such groups a flexibility to buy pollution permits in a competitive market and destroy them until the optimal solution is realized. In the reverse situation, however, Baumol and Oates propositions are unambiguously valid.     

Who should bear the administrative costs of an emissions tax?

All environmental policies involve costs of implementation and management that are distinct from pollution sources’ abatement costs. In practice, regulators and sources usually share these administrative costs. We examine theoretically an optimal policy consisting of an emissions tax and the distribution of administrative costs between the government and regulated sources of pollution. Our focus is on the optimal distribution of administrative costs between polluters and the government and the optimal level of the emissions tax in relation to marginal pollution damage. We demonstrate how the policy variables affect aggregate equilibrium administrative costs and show that these effects are generally indeterminate, as is the effect of the distribution of administrative costs on aggregate emissions. Consequently, the optimal sharing of administrative costs and whether the optimal emissions tax is higher or lower than marginal damage depend on specific contexts.     

A dynamic general equilibrium model of pollution abatement under learning by doing

In 2013, Beladi et al. constructed a dynamic general equilibrium model of pollution, and characterized a steady-state equilibrium. In this paper, we extend Beladi et al.’s model to an even more general model in which the pollution abatement costs under learning by doing are taken into account. In our model, the instantaneous abatement costs depend on both the rate of abatement and the experience of using a technology. Our objective is to apply optimal control theory to investigate the dynamic general equilibrium model of pollution abatement, and derive the steady-state equilibrium properties and optimal levels of emission permits and pollution treatment.     

Market power,private information,and the optimal scale of pollution permit markets with application to North Carolina's Neuse River

We extend the analysis of optimal scale in pollution permit markets by allowing for both market power and private information. We characterize the total costs (abatement costs and damages) under market power and private information and compare them to total costs under competition. It is possible for both market power and private information to lead to lower total costs than competition, but generally the differences between the three market structures will be small. We also conduct an optimal scale analysis of nitrogen pollution from waste water treatment plants (WWTP) into North Carolina's Neuse River System. An economic model of damages and abatement costs is integrated with a hydro-ecological model of nitrogen flow through the Neuse. We determine the optimal number of trading zones and allocate the WWTP into these zones. Under the most likely regulatory scenario, we find cost savings of 1.55 million dollars per year under the optimal market design relative to the typical 303(d) regulation in which the WWTP are not allowed to trade.