IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2013.98.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Auctioning vs. Grandfathering in Cap-and-Trade Systems with Market Power and Incomplete Information

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Alvarez

    (Department of Fundamentos del Análisis Económico II, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain)

  • Francisco J. André

    (Department of Fundamentos del Análisis Económico II, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

We compare auctioning and grandfathering as allocation mechanisms of emission permits when there is a secondary market with market power and the firms have private information. Based on real-life cases such as the EU ETS, we consider a multi-unit, multi-bid uniform auction, modelled as a Bayesian game of incomplete information. At the auction each firm anticipates his role in the secondary market, which affects the firms’ valuation of the permits (that are not common across firms) as well as their bidding strategies and it precludes the auction from generating a cost-effective allocation of permits, as it would occur in simpler auction models. Auctioning tends to be more cost-effective than grandfathering when the firms’ costs are asymmetric enough, especially if the follower has lower abatement costs than the leader and uncertainty about the marginal costs is large enough. If market power spills over the auction, the latter is always less cost-effective than grandfathering. One central policy implication is that the specific design of the auction turns out to be crucial for cost-effectiveness. The chances of the auction to outperform grandfathering require that the former is capable of diluting the market power that is present in the secondary market.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Alvarez & Francisco J. André, 2013. "Auctioning vs. Grandfathering in Cap-and-Trade Systems with Market Power and Incomplete Information," Working Papers 2013.98, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2013.98
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/201311261657434NDL2013-098.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ledyard, John O. & Szakaly-Moore, Kristin, 1994. "Designing organizations for trading pollution rights," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 167-196, October.
    2. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, Richard & Kahn, Charles M., 1998. "Multi-Unit Pay-Your-Bid Auctions with Variable Awards," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 25-42, April.
    3. Juan-Pablo Montero, 2009. "Market Power in Pollution Permit Markets," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
    4. Dallas Burtraw & Jacob Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Erica Myers & Karen Palmer & William Shobe, 2009. "Collusion in auctions for emission permits: An experimental analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 672-691.
    5. Ellerman,A. Denny & Convery,Frank J. & de Perthuis,Christian, 2010. "Pricing Carbon," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521196475, April.
    6. Krishna, Vijay, 2009. "Auction Theory," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 2, number 9780123745071.
    7. Luciano I. De Castro & Alvaro Riascos, 2007. "Characterization of Bidding Behavior in Multi-Unit," DOCUMENTOS CEDE 004382, UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES-CEDE.
    8. Antelo, Manel & Bru, Lluís, 2009. "Permit markets, market power, and the trade-off between efficiency and revenue raising," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 320-333, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Andrew Muller, R. & Mestelman, Stuart & Spraggon, John & Godby, Rob, 2002. "Can Double Auctions Control Monopoly and Monopsony Power in Emissions Trading Markets?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 70-92, July.
    11. Robert Wilson, 1979. "Auctions of Shares," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 675-689.
    12. de Castro, Luciano I. & Riascos, Alvaro, 2009. "Characterization of bidding behavior in multi-unit auctions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(9-10), pages 559-575, September.
    13. Nyborg, Kjell G. & Strebulaev, Ilya A., 2001. "Collateral and short squeezing of liquidity in fixed rate tenders," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 769-792, November.
    14. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10174 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Francisco Alvarez & Cristina Mazón, 2012. "Multi-unit auctions with private information: an indivisible unit continuous price model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 35-70, September.
    16. Karl-Martin Ehrhart & Christian Hoppe & Ralf Löschel, 2008. "Abuse of EU Emissions Trading for Tacit Collusion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 347-361, November.
    17. Robert W. Hahn, 1984. "Market Power and Transferable Property Rights," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 753-765.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cap-and-Trade Systems; Auctions; Grandfathering; Market Power; Bayesian Games of Incomplete Information;

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • 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

    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:fem:femwpa:2013.98. 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: (barbara racah). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.