IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v14y2012i2p231-244.html

Optimizing Organic Waste to Energy Operations

Author

Listed:
  • Baris Ata

    (Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

  • Deishin Lee

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Mustafa H. Tongarlak

    (Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

Abstract

A waste-to-energy firm that recycles organic waste with energy recovery performs two environmentally beneficial functions: it diverts waste from landfills and it produces renewable energy. At the same time, the waste-to-energy firm serves and collects revenue from two types of customers: waste generators who pay for waste disposal service and electricity consumers who buy energy. Given the process characteristics of the waste-to-energy operation, the market characteristics for waste disposal and energy, and the mechanisms regulators use to encourage production of renewable energy, we determine the profit-maximizing operating strategy of the firm. We also show how regulatory mechanisms affect the operating decisions of the waste-to-energy firm. Our analyses suggest that if the social planner's objective is to maximize landfill diversion, offering a subsidy as a per kilowatt-hour for electricity is more cost effective, whereas if the objective is to maximize renewable energy generation, giving a subsidy as a lump sum to offset capital costs is more effective. This has different regulatory implications for urban and rural settings where the environmental objectives may differ.

Suggested Citation

  • Baris Ata & Deishin Lee & Mustafa H. Tongarlak, 2012. "Optimizing Organic Waste to Energy Operations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 231-244, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:14:y:2012:i:2:p:231-244
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.1110.0359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.1110.0359
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.1110.0359?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    2. Deishin Lee, 2012. "Turning Waste into By-Product," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 115-127, January.
    3. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    4. Donald D. Eisenstein & Ananth. V. Iyer, 1997. "Garbage Collection in Chicago: A Dynamic Scheduling Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 922-933, July.
    5. Fischer, Carolyn & Newell, Richard G., 2008. "Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 142-162, March.
    6. Erica Plambeck & Qiong Wang, 2009. "Effects of E-Waste Regulation on New Product Introduction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(3), pages 333-347, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    2. Ji, Guojun & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Yang, Guangyong, 2014. "Constructing sustainable supply chain under double environmental medium regulations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PB), pages 211-219.
    3. Gilbert E. Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2012. "Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 110-129.
    4. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Ossama Mikhail & J. Walter Milon & Richard Hofler, 2005. "Is Investment in Environmental Quality a Solution to Recessions? Studying the Welfare Effects of Green Animal Spirits," Others 0510010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Scott Farrow, 2011. "Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit‐Cost Analysis Using Risk‐Based Preferences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 902-907, June.
    7. Uşar, Damla Durak & Denizel, Meltem & Soytaş, Mehmet Ali, 2019. "Corporate sustainability interactions: A game theoretical approach to sustainability actions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 196-211.
    8. Xu, Wenli & Xu, Kun & Lu, Hongyou, 2016. "Environmental Policy and China’s Macroeconomic Dynamics Under Uncertainty---Based on The NK Model with Distortionary Taxation," MPRA Paper 71314, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Don Fullerton, 2009. "Does Environmental Protection Hurt Low-Income Families?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(01), pages 45-49, April.
    10. Baomin Dong & Jiong Gong & Xin Zhao, 2012. "FDI and environmental regulation: pollution haven or a race to the top?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 216-237, April.
    11. David Tobón Orozco & Carlos Andrés Vasco Correa, 2011. "Un modelo de equilibrio general con externalidades y capital natural," Libros del Grupo Microeconomía Aplicada, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, edition 1, number 01, May-April.
    12. Stef Proost & Denise Van Regemorter, 2004. "Climate Change Policy in European Countries and its effects on industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 453-473, October.
    13. Vollebergh, Herman, 2013. "Environmental Taxes and Green Growth," Other publications TiSEM 9efd8e7a-397e-428f-95be-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Alberto Gago & Xavier Labandeira & Xiral López Otero, 2014. "A Panorama on Energy Taxes and Green Tax Reforms," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 145-190, March.
    15. Nijiraini, Georgina & Thiam, Djiby, 2015. "Estimating transaction costs associated with water policy implementation in South Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212585, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    17. Cristina E. Ciocirlan, 2008. "Analysing preferences towards economic incentives in combating climate change: a comparative analysis of US states," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(6), pages 548-568, November.
    18. Robert D. Mohr & Shrawantee Saha, 2008. "Distribution of Environmental Costs and Benefits, Additional Distortions, and the Porter Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 689-700.
    19. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi & Giovanni Marin & Elena Paglialunga, 2016. "Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries," LEM Papers Series 2016/19, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Fabio Antoniou & Roland Strausz, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Taxation and Feed-in Tariffs," CESifo Working Paper Series 4788, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormsom:v:14:y:2012:i:2:p:231-244. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.