IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v74y2018icp456-469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the effectiveness of tradable performance-based standards

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Duan
  • Chen, Yihsu
  • Tanaka, Makoto

Abstract

Two types of emission trading programs are allowed under the US federal Clean Power Plan (CPP): mass-based cap-and-trade (C&T) program, and the performance-based trading program. While a C&T sets a total emission cap for a region, a performance-based program under CPP relies on trading the emission rate credits (ERCs), which represent an equivalent MWh of energy generated or saved with zero associated CO2 emissions, to reduce emission costs. This paper examines the theoretical properties of the tradable performance-based policy and compares it to a C&T program. We distinguish two kinds of tradable performance-based policy: (1) a regional policy, under which all states are subject to a regional performance-based standard, and (2) a state-by-state policy, under which each state adopts its performance-based policy within a regional power market while trading of ERCs is allowed. Our findings indicate that under a state-by-state policy, power prices across states could be different even without any transmission congestion, reflecting varying stringency of tradable performance-based standards among states within an interconnected market. We also identify a counterintuitive result that even if ERCs trading is allowed under the state-by-state performance policy, the permit prices could diverge. Two models are simulated in our analysis: three-state and the Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland (PJM) regional power market. While the three-state example allows us to illustrate the theoretical properties of the policies, the PJM-based simulation allows us to gauge the performance of the policies. Our PJM analysis shows that a C&T policy is the most effective, while the comparison between a regional and state-by-state tradable performance policy is ambiguous.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Duan & Chen, Yihsu & Tanaka, Makoto, 2018. "On the effectiveness of tradable performance-based standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 456-469.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:74:y:2018:i:c:p:456-469
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988318302305
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Todd D. Gerarden & W. Spencer Reeder & James H. Stock, 2020. "Federal Coal Program Reform, the Clean Power Plan, and the Interaction of Upstream and Downstream Climate Policies," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 167-199, February.
    2. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2015. "Some Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change Policy: The Distributional Impacts of Transportation Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1052-1069, December.
    3. James B. Bushnell & Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2017. "Strategic Policy Choice in State-Level Regulation: The EPA's Clean Power Plan," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 57-90, May.
    4. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2009. "Greenhouse Gas Reductions under Low Carbon Fuel Standards?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 106-146, February.
    5. Holland, Stephen P., 2012. "Emissions taxes versus intensity standards: Second-best environmental policies with incomplete regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 375-387.
    6. Davis, Chris & Bollinger, L. Andrew & Dijkema, Gerard P.J., 2016. "The state of the states," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 631-652.
    7. Cai, Yiyong & Arora, Vipin, 2015. "Disaggregating electricity generation technologies in CGE models: A revised technology bundle approach with an application to the U.S. Clean Power Plan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 543-555.
    8. Ruth, Matthias & Gabriel, Steven A. & Palmer, Karen L. & Burtraw, Dallas & Paul, Anthony & Chen, Yihsu & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Irani, Daraius & Michael, Jeffrey & Ross, Kim M. & Conklin, Russell & Mill, 2008. "Economic and energy impacts from participation in the regional greenhouse gas initiative: A case study of the State of Maryland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2279-2289, June.
    9. Chen, Yihsu, 2009. "Does a regional greenhouse gas policy make sense? A case study of carbon leakage and emissions spillover," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 667-675, September.
    10. Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony, 2015. "A Primer on Comprehensive Policy Options for States to Comply with the Clean Power Plan," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-15, Resources for the Future.
    11. Tsao, C.-C. & Campbell, J.E. & Chen, Yihsu, 2011. "When renewable portfolio standards meet cap-and-trade regulations in the electricity sector: Market interactions, profits implications, and policy redundancy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 3966-3974, July.
    12. Frans Vries & Bouwe Dijkstra & Matthew McGinty, 2014. "On Emissions Trading and Market Structure: Cap-and-Trade versus Intensity Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(4), pages 665-682, August.
    13. Yihsu Chen & Andrew L. Liu & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2011. "Economic and Emissions Implications of Load-Based, Source-Based, and First-Seller Emissions Trading Programs Under California AB32," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 696-712, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Long, Xianling & Lu, Jieyi & Morgenstern, Richard D., 2022. "China's unconventional nationwide CO2 emissions trading system: Cost-effectiveness and distributional impacts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Liepold, Constanze & Fabianek, Paul & Madlener, Reinhard, 2023. "A Critical Evaluation of the 2022 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Quota in Germany from an Environmental Economics and Policy Perspective," FCN Working Papers 10/2023, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Becker, Jonathon M., 2023. "Tradable performance standards in a dynamic context," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Long, Xianling & Lu, Jieyi & Morgenstern, Richard D., 2022. "China's unconventional nationwide CO2 emissions trading system: Cost-effectiveness and distributional impacts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Harrison Fell & Daniel Kaffine & Daniel Steinberg, 2017. "Energy Efficiency and Emissions Intensity Standards," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 201-226.
    4. James B. Bushnell & Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel, 2017. "Strategic Policy Choice in State-Level Regulation: The EPA's Clean Power Plan," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 57-90, May.
    5. Palmer, Karen & Burtraw, Dallas & Paul, Anthony & Yin, Hang, 2017. "Using Production Incentives to Avoid Emissions Leakage," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 45-56.
    6. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu, 2012. "Allocation and leakage in regional cap-and-trade markets for CO2," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 647-668.
    7. Derek Lemoine, 2017. "Escape from Third-Best: Rating Emissions for Intensity Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 789-821, August.
    8. Kato, Shinya & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2017. "A CGE analysis of a rate-based policy for climate change mitigation," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 88-95.
    9. Bento, Antonio M. & Garg, Teevrat & Kaffine, Daniel, 2018. "Emissions reductions or green booms? General equilibrium effects of a renewable portfolio standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 78-100.
    10. Madhu Khanna & Xiaoguang Chen & Weiwei Wang & Anthony Oliver, 2022. "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 33-51, January.
    11. Xu, Qingyu & Hobbs, Benjamin F., 2021. "Economic efficiency of alternative border carbon adjustment schemes: A case study of California Carbon Pricing and the Western North American power market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    12. Ino, Hiroaki & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2021. "Optimality of emission pricing policies based on emission intensity targets under imperfect competition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    13. Böhringer, Christoph & Garcia-Muros, Xaquin & Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel & Rey, Luis, 2017. "US climate policy: A critical assessment of intensity standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 125-135.
    14. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2013. "Unintended Consequences of Transportation Carbon Policies: Land-Use, Emissions, and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 19636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Christoph Böhringer & Carolyn Fischer & Nicholas Rivers, 2023. "Intensity-Based Rebating of Emission Pricing Revenues," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 1059-1089.
    16. Woerdman Edwin & Nentjes Andries, 2019. "Emissions Trading Hybrids: The Case of the EU ETS," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-32, March.
    17. Lu, Yunguo & Zhang, Lin, 2022. "National mitigation policy and the competitiveness of Chinese firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Hirose, Kosuke & Ishihara, Akifumi & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2021. "Tax versus Regulations: Robustness to Polluter Lobbying Against Near-Zero Emission Targets," MPRA Paper 108380, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Palmer, Karen & Burtraw, Dallas & Paul, Anthony, 2009. "Allowance Allocation in a CO2 Emissions Cap-and-Trade Program for the Electricity Sector in California," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-41, Resources for the Future.
    20. Huseynov, Samir & Palma, Marco A., 2018. "Does California’s LCFS Reduce CO2 Emissions?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Climate policy; Electricity industry; Performance-based standards; Cap-and-trade policy; Clean Power Plan (CPP);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:74:y:2018:i:c:p:456-469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.