IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v47y2012icp405-415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impacts of alternative allowance allocation methods under a cap-and-trade program in power sector

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Beibei
  • He, Pan
  • Zhang, Bing
  • Bi, Jun

Abstract

Emission trading is considered to be a cost-effective environmental economic instrument for pollution control. However, the policy design of an emission trading program has a decisive impact on its performance. Allowance allocation is one of the most important policy design issues in emission trading, not only for equity but also for policy performance. In this research, an artificial market for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission trading was constructed by applying an agent-based model. The performance of the Jiangsu SO2 emission trading market was examined under different allowance allocation methods and transaction costs. The results showed that the market efficiency of emission trading would be affected by the allocation methods when the transaction costs are positive. The auction allowance allocation method was more efficient and had the lowest total emission control costs than the other three allocation methods examined. However, the use of this method will require that power plants pay for all of their allowance, and doing so will increase the production costs of power plants. On the other hand, output-based allowance allocation is the second best method.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Beibei & He, Pan & Zhang, Bing & Bi, Jun, 2012. "Impacts of alternative allowance allocation methods under a cap-and-trade program in power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 405-415.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:47:y:2012:i:c:p:405-415
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512004107
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Philippe Quirion, 2009. "Historic versus output-based allocation of GHG tradable allowances: a comparison," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 575-592, November.
    2. MacKenzie, Ian A. & Hanley, Nick & Kornienko, Tatiana, 2009. "Using contests to allocate pollution rights," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2798-2806, July.
    3. Cramton, Peter & Kerr, Suzi, 2002. "Tradeable carbon permit auctions: How and why to auction not grandfather," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 333-345, March.
    4. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    5. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2001. "Environmental controls, scarcity rents, and pre-existing distortions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 249-267, May.
    6. Montgomery, W. David, 1972. "Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 395-418, December.
    7. Veit, Daniel J. & Weidlich, Anke & Krafft, Jacob A., 2009. "An agent-based analysis of the German electricity market with transmission capacity constraints," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 4132-4144, October.
    8. James Nicolaisen & Valentin Petrov & Leigh Tesfatsion, 2000. "Market Power and Efficiency in a Computational Electricity Market with Discriminatory Double-Auction Pricing," Computational Economics 0004005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Yu-Bong Lai, 2008. "Auctions or grandfathering: the political economy of tradable emission permits," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 181-200, July.
    10. Guerci, E. & Ivaldi, S. & Pastore, S. & Cincotti, S., 2005. "Modeling and implementation of an artificial electricity market using agent-based technology," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 355(1), pages 69-76.
    11. Fischer, Carolyn, 2001. "Rebating Environmental Policy Revenues: Output-Based Allocations and Tradable Performance Standards," Discussion Papers 10709, Resources for the Future.
    12. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Parry, Ian W. H. & Williams III, Roberton C. & Burtraw, Dallas, 1999. "The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 329-360, June.
    13. Ahman, Markus & Burtraw, Dallas & Kruger, Joseph & Zetterberg, Lars, 2007. "A Ten-Year Rule to guide the allocation of EU emission allowances," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1718-1730, March.
    14. Cong, Rong-Gang & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2010. "Potential impact of (CET) carbon emissions trading on China’s power sector: A perspective from different allowance allocation options," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3921-3931.
    15. Lin, Boqiang & Jiang, Zhujun & Zhang, Peng, 2011. "Allocation of sulphur dioxide allowance – An analysis based on a survey of power plants in Fujian province in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 3120-3129.
    16. Simshauser, Paul, 2008. "On Emission Permit Auction vs. Allocation and the Structural Adjustment of Incumbent Power Generators in Australia," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(10), pages 30-41, December.
    17. Charles Howe, 1994. "Taxesversus tradable discharge permits: A review in the light of the U.S. and European experience," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 151-169, April.
    18. Boemare, Catherine & Quirion, Philippe, 2002. "Implementing greenhouse gas trading in Europe: lessons from economic literature and international experiences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 213-230, December.
    19. Persson, Tobias A. & Azar, Christian & Lindgren, Kristian, 2006. "Allocation of CO2 emission permits--Economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(14), pages 1889-1899, September.
    20. Woerdman, Edwin, 2001. "Emissions trading and transaction costs: analyzing the flaws in the discussion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 293-304, August.
    21. Dixit, Avinash & Olson, Mancur, 2000. "Does voluntary participation undermine the Coase Theorem?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 309-335, June.
    22. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata & Duke, Charlotte, 2003. "Market power in tradable emission markets: a laboratory testbed for emission trading in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 469-491, October.
    23. Georgopoulou, E. & Sarafidis, Y. & Mirasgedis, S. & Lalas, D.P., 2006. "Next allocation phase of the EU emissions trading scheme: How tough will the future be?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 4002-4023, December.
    24. Tesfatsion, Leigh, 2006. "Agent-Based Computational Economics: A Constructive Approach to Economic Theory," Handbook of Computational Economics,in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 16, pages 831-880 Elsevier.
    25. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen L. & Bharvirkar, Ranjit & Paul, Anthony, 2001. "The Effect of Allowance Allocation on the Cost of Carbon Emission Trading," Discussion Papers 10536, Resources for the Future.
    26. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Bharvirkar, Ranjit & Paul, Anthony, 2001. "The Effect of Allowance Allocation on the Cost of Carbon Emission Trading," Discussion Papers dp-01-30-, Resources For the Future.
    27. Sichao, Kan & Yamamoto, Hiromi & Yamaji, Kenji, 2010. "Evaluation of CO2 free electricity trading market in Japan by multi-agent simulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3309-3319, July.
    28. Chang, Yen-Chiang & Wang, Nannan, 2010. "Environmental regulations and emissions trading in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3356-3364, July.
    29. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, November.
    30. Lennox, James A. & van Nieuwkoop, Renger, 2010. "Output-based allocations and revenue recycling: Implications for the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7861-7872, December.
    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. Bing Zhang & Yongliang Zhang, 2016. "Policy Conflicts and the Performance of Emissions Trading Markets: An Adaptive Agent-based Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr20160339, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2016.
    2. Liu, Liwei & Sun, Xiaoru & Chen, Chuxiang & Zhao, Erdong, 2016. "How will auctioning impact on the carbon emission abatement cost of electric power generation sector in China?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 594-609.
    3. repec:eee:enepol:v:107:y:2017:i:c:p:337-344 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:enepol:v:47:y:2012:i:c:p:405-415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.