IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpm/docweb/1109.html

The Role of Abatement Technologies for Allocating Free Allowances

Author

Listed:
  • Christin, Clémence
  • Nicolaï, Jean-Philippe
  • Pouyet, Jerome

Abstract

The issue of how to allocate pollution permits is critical for the political sustainability of any cap-and-trade system. Under the objective of offsetting firms' losses resulting from the environmental regulation, we argue that the criteria for allocating free allowances must account for the type of abatement technology: industries that use process integrated technologies should receive some free allowances, whereas those using end-of-pipe abatement should not. In the long run, we analyze the interaction between the environmental policy and the evolution of the market structure. In particular, a reserve of pollution permits for new entrants may be justified when the industry uses a process integrated abatement technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Christin, Clémence & Nicolaï, Jean-Philippe & Pouyet, Jerome, 2011. "The Role of Abatement Technologies for Allocating Free Allowances," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 1109, CEPREMAP.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpm:docweb:1109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cepremap.fr/depot/docweb/docweb1109.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cameron Hepburn & John Quah & Robert Ritz, 2006. "Emissions Trading and Profit-Neutral Grandfathering," Economics Series Working Papers 295, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    2. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    3. Anderson, Soren T. & Newell, Richard G., 2003. "Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies," Discussion Papers 10879, Resources for the Future.
    4. Manuel Frondel & Jens Horbach & Klaus Rennings, 2007. "End‐of‐pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(8), pages 571-584, December.
    5. Demailly, Damien & Quirion, Philippe, 2008. "European Emission Trading Scheme and competitiveness: A case study on the iron and steel industry," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 2009-2027, July.
    6. Verbruggen, Aviel, 2008. "Windfalls and other profits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 3249-3251, September.
    7. Cameron Hepburn & Michael Grubb & Karsten Neuhoff & Felix Matthes & Maximilien Tse, 2006. "Auctioning of EU ETS phase II allowances: how and why?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 137-160, January.
    8. Olivier Godard, 2005. "Evaluation approfondie du plan français d'affectation de quotas de CO2 aux entreprises," Working Papers hal-00243005, HAL.
    9. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Permits, Standards, and Technology Innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 23-44, July.
    10. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
    11. Michael Grubb & Karsten Neuhoff, 2006. "Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 7-30, January.
    12. repec:aen:journl:cw-sped-a05 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Jos Sijm & Karsten Neuhoff & Yihsu Chen, 2006. "CO 2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 49-72, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Clémence Christin, 2013. "Entry Deterrence Through Cooperative R&D Over-Investment," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 79(2), pages 5-26.
    3. Haucap, Justus & Herr, Annika & Frank, Björn, 2011. "In vino veritas: Theory and evidence on social drinking," DICE Discussion Papers 37, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    4. Stühmeier Torben & Wenzel Tobias, 2012. "Regulating Advertising in the Presence of Public Service Broadcasting," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Xuemei Yuan & Shuai Jin & Haibin Zhang, 2023. "Optimal Green Technology Choice for Firms under an Emission Trading Scheme: End-of-Pipe vs. Cleaner Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Gu, Yiquan & Wenzel, Tobias, 2012. "Transparency, entry, and productivity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 7-10.

    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. Clémence Christin & Jean-Philippe Nicolai & Jerome Pouyet, 2013. "Pollution Permits, Imperfect Competition and Abatement Technologies," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 13/186, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    2. Rogge, Karoline S. & Schleich, Joachim & Betz, Regina, 2006. "An early assessment of national allocation plans for phase 2 of EU emission trading," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S1/2006, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    3. Gersbach, Hans & Winkler, Ralph, 2011. "International emission permit markets with refunding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 759-773, August.
    4. Jean-Philippe Nicolaï & Jorge Zamorano, 2018. "Windfall Profits Under Pollution Permits and Output-Based Allocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(4), pages 661-691, April.
    5. Agime Gerbeti, 2021. "Market Mechanisms for Reducing Emissions and the Introduction of a Flexible Consumption Tax," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 22(2), pages 161-178, December.
    6. Giovanni Marin & Marianna Marino & Claudia Pellegrin, 2018. "The Impact of the European Emission Trading Scheme on Multiple Measures of Economic Performance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 551-582, October.
    7. Misato Sato & Karsten Neuhoff & Verena Graichen & Katja Schumacher & Felix Matthes, 2013. "Sectors under scrutiny � Evaluation of indicators to assess the risk of carbon leakage in the UK and Germany," GRI Working Papers 113, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    8. Demailly, Damien & Quirion, Philippe, 2008. "Changing the Allocation Rules in the EU ETS: Impact on Competitiveness and Economic Efficiency," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 46623, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Rania Mabrouk & Oliwia Kurtyka, 2020. "Strategic use of environmental innovation in vertical chains and regulatory attitudes," Working Papers hal-03081146, HAL.
    10. Hintermann, Beat, 2010. "Allowance price drivers in the first phase of the EU ETS," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 43-56, January.
    11. Kuik, Onno & Hofkes, Marjan, 2010. "Border adjustment for European emissions trading: Competitiveness and carbon leakage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1741-1748, April.
    12. D. Dragone & L. Lambertini & A. Palestini, 2017. "Emission taxation, green innovations and inverted-U aggregate R&D efforts in a linear state oligopoly game," Working Papers wp2000, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    13. Yasunori Ouchida & Daisaku Goto, 2022. "Strategic non‐use of the government's precommitment ability for emissions taxation: Environmental R&D formation in a Cournot duopoly," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 181-206, March.
    14. Jean-Philippe Nicolaï, 2015. "Emission Reduction and Profit-Neutral Permit Allocations," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 15/224, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    15. Vollebergh, Herman, 2013. "Environmental Taxes and Green Growth," Other publications TiSEM 9efd8e7a-397e-428f-95be-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Dallas Burtraw & Karen Palmer, 2008. "Compensation rules for climate policy in the electricity sector," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 819-847.
    17. Gregor Zoettl, 2021. "Emission trading systems and the optimal technology mix," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 281-327, June.
    18. Frédéric Branger & Misato Sato, 2017. "Solving the clinker dilemma with hybrid output-based allocation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 483-501, February.
    19. Oberndorfer, Ulrich, 2009. "EU Emission Allowances and the stock market: Evidence from the electricity industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1116-1126, February.
    20. Giovanni Marin & Marianna Marino & Claudia Pellegrin, 2018. "The impact of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme on Multiple Measures of Economic Performance," Post-Print hal-01768870, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • 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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpm:docweb:1109. 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: Mathieu Perona (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceprefr.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.