Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 275–297 | Cite as

Alternative Approaches to Cost Containment in a Cap-and-Trade System

Article

Abstract

We compare several emissions reduction instruments, including quantity policies with banking and borrowing, price policies, and hybrid policies (safety valve and price collar), using a dynamic model with stochastic baseline emissions. The instruments are compared under the design goal of obtaining the same expected cumulative emissions across all options. Based on simulation analysis with the model parameterized to values relevant to proposed US climate mitigation policies, we find that restrictions on banking and borrowing, including the provision of interest rates on the borrowings, can severely limit the value of the policy, depending on the regulator-chosen allowance issuance path. Although emissions taxes generally provide the lowest expected abatement costs, a cap-and-trade system combined with either a safety valve or a price collar can be designed to provide expected abatement costs near those of a tax, but with lower emissions variance than a tax. Consistently, a price collar is more cost-effective than a safety valve for a given expected cumulative emissions outcome because it encourages inexpensive abatement when abatement costs decline.

Keywords

Cost containment Safety valve Price collar Climate change 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldursson FM, Karatzas I (1997) Irreversible investment and industry equilibrium. Finance Stoch 1: 69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumol W, Oates W (1988) The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Burtraw D, Palmer KL, Kahn DB (2009) A symmetric safety valve. RFF Discussion Paper 09-06. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronshaw MB, Kruse J (1996) Regulated firms in pollution permit markets with banking. J Regul Econ 9: 179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. EIA: (2008a) Energy market and economic impacts of S.1766, the low carbon economy act of 2007. Energy Information Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. EIA: (2008b) Energy market and economic impacts of S.2191, the Lieberman-Warner climate security act of 2007. Energy Information Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. EPA (2008) The United States environmental protection agency’s analysis of senate bill S.2191 in the 110th congress, the Lieberman-Warner climate security act of 2008. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Fell H, MacKenzie IA, Pizer WA (2008) Prices versus quantities versus bankable quantities. RFF Discussion Paper 08-32, Resources for the Future: Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoel M, Karp L (2001) Taxes versus quotas for a stock pollutant with multiplicative uncertainty. J Pub Econ 82: 91–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoel M, Karp L (2002) Taxes versus quantities for a stock pollutant. Res Energy Econ 24: 367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kling C, Rubin J (1997) Bankable permits for the control of environment pollution. J Pub Econ 64: 101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kopp R, Morgenstern RD, Pizer WA (1997) Something for everyone, a climate policy that both environmentalists and industry can live with. Weathervane, Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Leiby P, Rubin J (2001) Intertemporal permit trading for the control of greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Res Econ 19: 229–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liski M, Montero J-P (2006) On pollution permit banking and market power. J Regul Econ 29: 283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lucas RE, Prescott EC (1971) Investment under uncertainty. Econometrica 39: 659–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McKibbin WJ, Wilcoxen PJ (1997) A better way to slow global climate change. Brookings Policy Brief. The Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Miranda MJ, Helmberger PG (1988) The effects of commodity price stabilization programs. Am Econ Rev 78: 46–58Google Scholar
  18. Murray B, Newell RG, Pizer WA (2008) Balancing cost and emissions certainty: an allowance reserve for cap-and-trade. RFF Discussion Paper 08-24, Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 416–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Newell RG, Pizer WA, Zhang J (2005) Managing permit markets to stabilize prices. Environ Res Econ 31: 133–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Philibert C (2008) Price caps and price floors in climate policy. IEA Information Paper. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Pizer WA (1999) The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty. Res Energy Econ 21: 255–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pizer WA (2002) Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. J Pub Econ 85: 409–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts M, Spence M (1976) Effluent charges and licenses under uncertainty. J Pub Econ 5: 193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubin J (1996) A model of intertemporal emission trading, banking and borrowing. J Environ Econ Manag 31: 269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salant SW (1983) The Vulnerability of price stabilization schemes to speculative attack. J Polit Econ 97: 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. U.S. Congress (2007a) Climate stewardship and innovation act of 2007. S.280, 110th CongressGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Congress (2007b) Lieberman-Warner climate security act of 2007. S.2191, 110th CongressGoogle Scholar
  29. U.S. Congress (2007c) Low carbon economy act of 2007. S.1766, 110th CongressGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Congress (2008) Investing in climate action and protection act. H.R. 6186, 110th CongressGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Congress (2009) American clean energy and security act of 2009. H.R. 2454, 111th CongressGoogle Scholar
  32. Weitzman M (1974) Prices vs. quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41: 477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weitzman M (1978) Optimal rewards for economic regulation. Am Econ Rev 68: 683–691Google Scholar
  34. Yates AJ, Cronshaw MB (2001) Pollution permit markets with intertemporal trading and asymmetric information. J Environ Econ Manag 42: 104–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations