1932

Abstract

We review the literature on bankable emissions permits that has developed over the last two decades. Most articles analyze either theoretical or simulation models. The theoretical literature considers the problem of minimizing the discounted sum of social costs and the possibility of decentralizing the solution through competitive permit markets. In some cases, authors do not explicitly consider pollution damages but instead assume that the planner’s goal is to minimize the discounted social cost of reducing cumulative emissions by a given amount. In other cases, authors do not explicitly consider an emissions reduction target but assume that the goal is to minimize the discounted sum of pollution damages and abatement costs. Simulations permit evaluation of alternative government policies under uncertainty. We conclude by pointing out directions for future work.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012507
2015-10-05
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/7/1/annurev-resource-100913-012507.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012507&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Biglaiser G, Horowitz JK, Quiggin J. 1995. Dynamic pollution regulation. J. Regul. Econ. 8:133–44 [Google Scholar]
  2. Burtraw D, Palmer K, Kahn D. 2010. A symmetric safety valve. Energy Policy 38:94921–32 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cronshaw MB, Kruse JB. 1996. Regulated firms in pollution permit markets with banking. J. Regul. Econ. 9:2179–89 [Google Scholar]
  4. Deaton A, Laroque G. 1992. On the behaviour of commodity prices. Rev. Econ. Stud. 59:11–23 [Google Scholar]
  5. European Commission. 2003. Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. Dir., Eur. Comm.
  6. Falk I, Mendelsohn R. 1993. The economics of controlling stock pollutants: an efficient strategy for greenhouse gases. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25:176–88 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fell H. 2015. Comparing policies to confront permit over-allocation. Discuss. Pap. 15-17, Resour. Future
  8. Fell H, Burtraw D, Morgenstern R, Palmer K. 2012a. Climate policy design with correlated uncertainties in offset supply and abatement cost. Land Econ. 88:3589–611 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fell H, Burtraw D, Morgenstern RD, Palmer KL. 2012b. Soft and hard price collars in a cap-and-trade system: a comparative analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 64:2183–98 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fell H, MacKenzie IA, Pizer WA. 2012c. Prices versus quantities versus bankable quantities. Resour. Energy Econ. 34:4607–23 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fell H, Morgenstern RD. 2010. Alternative approaches to cost containment in a cap-and-trade system. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47:2275–97 [Google Scholar]
  12. Feng H, Zhao J. 2006. Alternative intertemporal permit trading regimes with stochastic abatement costs. Resour. Energy Econ. 28:124–40 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardner BL. 1979. Optimal Stockpiling of Grain Lexington, MA: Lexington Books [Google Scholar]
  14. Hasegawa M, Salant S. 2014. Cap-and-trade programs under delayed compliance: consequences of interim injections of permits. J. Public Econ. 119:24–34 [Google Scholar]
  15. Holland SP, Moore MR. 2012. When to pollute, when to abate? Intertemporal permit use in the Los Angeles NOx market. Land Econ. 88:2275–99 [Google Scholar]
  16. Holland SP, Moore MR. 2013. Market design in cap and trade programs: permit validity and compliance timing. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 66:3671–87 [Google Scholar]
  17. Innes R. 2003. Stochastic pollution, costly sanctions, and optimality of emission permit banking. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45:3546–68 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jacoby HD, Ellerman AD. 2004. The safety valve and climate policy. Energy Policy 32:4481–91 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kling C, Rubin J. 1997. Bankable permits for the control of environmental pollution. J. Public Econ. 64:1101–15 [Google Scholar]
  20. Krugman P. 2008. Trivial intellectual history blogging. N. Y. Times, July 15. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/trivial-intellectual-history-blogging/
  21. Leiby P, Rubin J. 2001. Intertemporal permit trading for the control of greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19:3229–56 [Google Scholar]
  22. Montgomery WD. 1972. Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. J. Econ. Theory 5:3395–418 [Google Scholar]
  23. Murray BC, Newell RG, Pizer WA. 2009. Balancing cost and emissions certainty: an allowance reserve for cap-and-trade. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 3:184–103 [Google Scholar]
  24. Newell R, Pizer W, Zhang J. 2005. Managing permit markets to stabilize prices. Environ. Resour. Econ. 31:2133–57 [Google Scholar]
  25. Newell RG, Pizer WA. 2003. Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45:2416–32 [Google Scholar]
  26. Nordhaus WD. 1994. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Pizer WA. 1999. The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty. Resour. Energy Econ. 21:3-4255–87 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pizer WA. 2002. Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. J. Public Econ. 85:3409–34 [Google Scholar]
  29. Roll R. 1984. Orange juice and weather. Am. Econ. Rev. 74:5861–80 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rubin JD. 1996. A model of intertemporal emission trading, banking, and borrowing. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 31:3269–86 [Google Scholar]
  31. Salant SW. 1983. The vulnerability of price stabilization schemes to speculative attack. J. Polit. Econ. 91:11–38 [Google Scholar]
  32. Salant SW, Henderson D. 1978. Market anticipations of government policies and the price of gold. J. Polit. Econ. 86:4627–48 [Google Scholar]
  33. Samuelson PA. 1957. Intertemporal price equilibrium: a prologue to the theory of speculation. Weltwirtsch. Arch. 79:181–221 [Google Scholar]
  34. Samuelson PA. 1971. Stochastic speculative price. PNAS 68:2335–37 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schennach SM. 2000. The economics of pollution permit banking in the context of Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 40:3189–210 [Google Scholar]
  36. Shobe W, Holt C, Huetteman T. 2015. Elements of emission market design: an experimental analysis of California’s market for greenhouse gas allowances. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 107:402–20 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stokey NL, Lucas RE Jr., Prescott EC. 1989. Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Tietenberg TH. 1985. Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy Washington, DC: Resour. Future [Google Scholar]
  39. USEPA. 2005. Rule to reduce interstate transport of fine particulate matter and ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); revisions to Acid Rain Program; revisions to the NOxSIP call. 70 Fed. Reg. 25,162 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 51, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, and 96)
  40. USEPA. 2011. Federal implementation plans: interstate transport of fine particulate matter and ozone and correction of SIP approvals. 76 Fed. Reg. 48,208 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97)
  41. Weitzman ML. 1974. Prices vs. quantities. Rev. Econ. Stud. 41:4477–91 [Google Scholar]
  42. Williams JC, Wright BD. 1991. Storage and Commodity Markets Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Wood PJ, Jotzo F. 2011. Price floors for emissions trading. Energy Policy 39:31746–53 [Google Scholar]
  44. Yates AJ, Cronshaw MB. 2001. Pollution permit markets with intertemporal trading and asymmetric information. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 42:1104–18 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012507
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012507
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error