Markets Are not Created Equal

Conference paper

Abstract

Markets are assumed by the logic of capital budgeting to be homogeneous. For this reason, differences in market structures, scale, complexities, connectivity, and administrative approaches are assumed to be value neutral or inconsequential. This chapter illustrates that these factors influence the sequencing of commitments and shows the differing impacts they have on a firm’s performance (or policy outcomes). When market structures and competition are considered, monopolists tend to defer commitments until the option premium is significantly high, in the absence of pre-emption threats. However, increasing competition encourages firms to exercise early in order to lock in payoffs that could otherwise be lost to rivals—a classic prisoner’s dilemma. Managerial capabilities differ according to the strength of subsidies’ rent-extractive bias, through the exercise of strategic choices. Managers abdicate their technology choices decisions to policy under regimes of generous subsidies. Carbon taxation uses pricing signals to influence the types or mix of supplies that managers may eventually choose. Two policy experiences are examined: Australia’s failed programme is contrasted with Canada’s relatively viable experiments in British Columbia.

References

  1. Amram, M., & Kulatilaka, N. (2009). The invisible green hand: How individual decisions and markets can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. California Management Review, 51(2), 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (2014). Good bye to all pain, no gain carbon tax.Google Scholar
  3. BBC – British Broadcasting Corporation (2014). Will the wind in Spain blow slower on the plain? April 22, 2014.Google Scholar
  4. Burrows, P. (1979). Pigovian taxes, polluter subsidies, regulation and size of a polluting industry. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 12(3), 494–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, C., Wiser, R., & Bollinger, M. (2007). Weighing the costs and benefits of state renewable portfolio standards: A comparative analysis of state-level policy impact projections. Berkeley, CA: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, LBNL—62580.Google Scholar
  6. Dixit, A. K., & Nalebuff, B. (1991). Thinking strategically: The competitive edge in business, politics and everyday life. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Ekwue, A., Nanka-Bruce, O., Rao, J., and McCool, D. (2008, July 14–18). Dynamic stability investigations of the fault ride-through capabilities of a wind farm. Paper presented at the 16th Power Systems Computation Conference, Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
  8. Elgie, S., & McClay, J. (2013). BC’s carbon tax shift after five years results: An environmental (and economic) success story. Ottawa, Canada: Sustainable Prosperity.Google Scholar
  9. Enzensberger, N., Wietschel, M., & Rentz, O. (2002). Policy instruments fostering wind energy projects—A multi-perspective evaluation approach. Energy Policy, 30(9), 793–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, C., & Newell, R. G. (2008). Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55(2), 142–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ibenholdt, K. (2002). Explaining learning curves for wind power. Energy Policy, 30(13), 1181–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jaffe, A. B., & Stavins, R. N. (1994). The energy paradox and the diffusion of conservation technology. Resource and Energy Economics, 16, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johansson, O. (1997). Optimal Pigovian taxes under altruism. Land Economics, 73(3), 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston, A., Kavali, A., & Neuhoff, K. (2008). Take-or-pay contracts for renewable deployment. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2481–2503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Littlechild, S. C. (2001). Competition and regulation in the U.K. electricity industry (with a brief look at California). Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 13(4), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marañon, M., & Morata, A. (2011). Tariff deficit in retail electricity markets in Spain. Network Industries Quarterly, 13(1), 23–26.Google Scholar
  17. Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2001). Perverse subsidies: How tax dollars can undercut the environment and the economy. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  18. Newberry, D. (2010). Market design for a large share of wind power. Energy Policy, 38, 3131–3134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Reuters. (2012, June 11). VESTAS CEO sees US turbine market down 80%. CNBC.Google Scholar
  21. Rivier Abbad, J. (2010). Electricity market participation of wind farms: the success story of the Spanish pragmatism. Energy Policy, 38, 3174–3179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roques, F., Hiroux, C., & Saguan, M. (2010). Optimal wind power deployment in Europe—A portfolio approach. Energy Policy, 38, 3245–3256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schrider, W. (2011, December 8). Feed-in tariffs: Just another renewable energy subsidy. Energy & Environment, The Foundry. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/08/feed-in-tariffs-just-another-renewable-energy-subsidy.
  24. Spash, C. L., & Lo, A. Y. (2012). Australia’s carbon tax: A sheep in wolf’s clothing. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 23(1), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stenzel, T., & Frenzel, A. (2008). Regulating technological change—The strategic reactions of utility companies towards subsidy policies in the German, Spanish and UK electricity markets. Energy Policy, 36, 2645–2657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Summer, J., Bird, L., & Smith, H. (2009). Carbon taxes: A review of experience and policy design considerations. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Google Scholar
  28. The Economist. (2014, July 31). British Columbia’s carbon tax: The evidence mounts.Google Scholar
  29. The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). (2016). Global status of wind power in 2015. Brussels: The Global Wind Energy Council.Google Scholar
  30. United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC). (2015, December 12). Conference of the Parties, twenty first session, Adoption of the Paris Agreement.Google Scholar
  31. Wagoner, M. J. (2009, October 15). The House erred: A carbon tax is better than cap and trade. Legal Studies Research Paper Series (pp. 9–18), University of Colorado Law School.Google Scholar
  32. Wilkes, J., Mocchia, J., & Dragan, M. (2011). Wind in power: 2011 European Statistics (p. 2011). Brussels: The European Wind Energy Association.Google Scholar
  33. Wiser, R., & Bollinger, M. (August 2010). 2009 wind technologies market report. Berkeley. California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  34. Wiser, R., & Bollinger, M. (2015). 2014 Wind technologies market report. Washington DC: US Department of Energy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IESE Business SchoolUniversity of NavarraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations