IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mhr/jinste/urnsici0932-4569(199706)1532_384stut1c_2.0.tx_2-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sulfur Trading Under the 1990 CAAA in the US: An Assessment of First Experiences

Author

Listed:
  • Ger Klaassen
  • Andries Nentjes

Abstract

In the US the first stage of a federal system of tradeable sulfur allowances started on January 1, 1995. This article assesses the first experiences with the program. The design of the program is set out and contrasted with the earlier EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) emission trading program. The market performance of the allowance market in the period 1992 to 1996 is evaluated, and expected developments in the next decade are described. Bottlenecks in market performace, cost-effectiveness and environmental effectiveness are discussed. We conlude that the market for sulfur allowances has performed quite well.

Suggested Citation

  • Ger Klaassen & Andries Nentjes, 1997. "Sulfur Trading Under the 1990 CAAA in the US: An Assessment of First Experiences," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 153(2), pages 384-384, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:mhr:jinste:urn:sici:0932-4569(199706)153:2_384:stut1c_2.0.tx_2-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mohr/jite/1997/00000153/00000002/art00006
    Download Restriction: Fulltext access is included for subscribers to the printed version.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Schwarze, Reimund & Zapfel, Peter, 1998. "Sulfur allowance trading and the regional clean air incentives market: How similar are the programs really?," MPRA Paper 52751, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Nov 1999.
    2. Michaelowa, Axel & Jotzo, Frank, 2005. "Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 511-523, March.
    3. Clinch, J. Peter, 2000. "Assessing the social efficiency of temperate-zone commercial forestry programmes: Ireland as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 225-241, December.
    4. Woerdman, Edwin, 2001. "Emissions trading and transaction costs: analyzing the flaws in the discussion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 293-304, August.
    5. Akira Maeda, 2004. "Impact of banking and forward contracts on tradable permit markets," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(2), pages 81-102, June.
    6. G T Svendsen, 1998. "The US Acid Rain Program: Design, Performance, and Assessment," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 16(6), pages 723-734, December.
    7. B Hansjürgens, 1998. "The Sulfur Dioxide Allowance-Trading Program in the USA: Recent Developments and Lessons to be Learned," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 16(3), pages 341-361, June.
    8. Boom, Jan-Tjeerd, 2001. "International emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol: : credit trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 605-613, June.
    9. Mundaca, Luis & Mansoz, Mathilde & Neij, Lena & Timilsina, Govinda R, 2013. "Transaction costs of low-carbon technologies and policies : the diverging literature," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6565, The World Bank.
    10. Woerdman, Edwin, 2000. "Implementing the Kyoto protocol: why JI and CDM show more promise than international emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 29-38, January.
    11. Woerdman, Edwin, 2000. "Organizing emissions trading: the barrier of domestic permit allocation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 613-623, July.
    12. Pan, Haoran & Regemorter, Denise Van, 2004. "The costs and benefits of early action before Kyoto compliance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(13), pages 1477-1486, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    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:mhr:jinste:urn:sici:0932-4569(199706)153:2_384:stut1c_2.0.tx_2-7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Thomas Wolpert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/jite .

    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.