IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/bergec/2020_002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Refunded emission payments scheme – a cost-efficient and politically acceptable instrument for reduction of NOx-emissions?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The paper studies the effectiveness of a refunded emission payments (REP) scheme in achieving a specific target path of NOx-emission reductions. A REP scheme levies a charge on emissions and refunds the collected funds back to the emitting firms. REP schemes have been highlighted as a remedy to some concerns about standard emission taxes. The purpose of a REP scheme, however, is to achieve effective emission reductions. We examine two REP designs in this paper and analyze their incentives for emission mitigation at the firm level, with heterogenous firms. In the first design, refunds are given to firms based on their emission cuts. The second design gives refunds based on output shares of the emitting firms. Results show that while both designs can achieve the specific target path, only refunding based on emission-reductions is cost-efficient. The two designs target different objectives and hence, provide different mitigation incentives, and result in different distributional outcomes. On the other hand, neither design raises governmental revenue, nor do they strictly adhere to the polluter-pays-principle. However, a REP scheme has qualities that should make it appealing to regulators, especially if an effective emission tax is unfeasible.

Suggested Citation

  • Heimvik, Arild, 2020. "Refunded emission payments scheme – a cost-efficient and politically acceptable instrument for reduction of NOx-emissions?," Working Papers in Economics 2/20, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:bergec:2020_002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ekstern.filer.uib.no/svf/2020/WP%2002-20.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fischer, Carolyn, 2011. "Market power and output-based refunding of environmental policy revenues," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 212-230, January.
    2. Gersbach, Hans & Requate, Till, 2004. "Emission taxes and optimal refunding schemes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 713-725, March.
    3. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W.H. Parry & Roberton C. Williams III & Dallas Burtraw, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Instruments for Environmental Protection in a Second-Best Setting," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 27, pages 523-554, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Coria, Jessica & Mohlin, Kristina, 2017. "On Refunding of Emission Taxes and Technology Diffusion," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 6(3), pages 205-248, March.
    5. Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges & Thomas Sterner, 2004. "Environmental Taxes: A Comparison of French and Swedish Experience from Taxes on Industrial Air Pollution," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(1), pages 30-34, 04.
    6. Fischer, Carolyn & Greaker, Mads & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2017. "Robust technology policy against emission leakage: The case of upstream subsidies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 44-61.
    7. 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.
    8. Bernard, Alain L. & Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan K., 2007. "Is there a rationale for output-based rebating of environmental levies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 83-101, May.
    9. Aidt, Toke S., 2010. "Green taxes: Refunding rules and lobbying," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 31-43, July.
    10. Susumu Cato, 2010. "Emission Taxes and Optimal Refunding Schemes with Endogenous Market Structure," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 275-280, July.
    11. Sterner, Thomas & Hoglund Isaksson, Lena, 2006. "Refunded emission payments theory, distribution of costs, and Swedish experience of NOx abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 93-106, April.
    12. Fredriksson, Per G. & Sterner, Thomas, 2005. "The political economy of refunded emissions payment programs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 113-119, April.
    13. Johnson, Kenneth C., 2007. "Refunded emission taxes: A resolution to the cap-versus-tax dilemma for greenhouse gas regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 3115-3118, May.
    14. Philippe Bontems, 2019. "Refunding Emissions Taxes: The Case For A Three-Part Policy," Post-Print hal-02177364, HAL.
    15. repec:ces:ifodic:v:2:y:2004:i:1:p:14567702 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges & Thomas Sterner, 2004. "Environmental Taxes: A Comparison of French and Swedish Experience from Taxes on Industrial Air Pollution," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(01), pages 30-34, April.
    17. Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2006. "Ex Post Evaluation of an Earmarked Tax on Air Pollution," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 68-84.
    18. Bonilla, Jorge & Coria, Jessica & Mohlin, Kristina & Sterner, Thomas, 2015. "Refunded emission payments and diffusion of NOx abatement technologies in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 132-145.
    19. Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan K., 2012. "Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: Border carbon adjustments versus rebates," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 199-216.
    20. Hagem, Cathrine & Hoel, Michael & Holtsmark, Bjart & Sterner, Thomas, 2015. "Refunding Emissions Payments," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-05, Resources for the Future.
    21. Kallbekken, Steffen & Kroll, Stephan & Cherry, Todd L., 2011. "Do you not like Pigou, or do you not understand him? Tax aversion and revenue recycling in the lab," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 53-64, July.
    22. Cathrine Hagem & Bjart Holtsmark & Thomas Sterner, 2012. "Mechanism design for refunding emissions payment," Discussion Papers 705, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    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. Cathrine Hagem & Michael Hoel & Thomas Sterner, 2020. "Refunding Emission Payments: Output-Based Versus Expenditure-Based Refunding," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 641-667, November.
    2. Hagem, Cathrine & Hoel, Michael & Holtsmark, Bjart & Sterner, Thomas, 2015. "Refunding Emissions Payments," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-05, Resources for the Future.
    3. Gren, Ing-Marie & Höglind, Lisa & Jansson, Torbjörn, 2021. "Refunding of a climate tax on food consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Cathrine Hagem & Bjart Holtsmark & Thomas Sterner, 2012. "Mechanism design for refunding emissions payment," Discussion Papers 705, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    5. Ioanna Pantelaiou & Panos Hatzipanayotou & Panagiotis Konstantinou & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2020. "Can Cleaner Environment Promote International Trade? Environmental Policies as Export Promoting Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 809-833, April.
    6. Yuanguang Yu, 2012. "An Optimal Ad Valorem Tax/Subsidy with an Output-Based Refunded Emission Payment for Permits Auction in an Oligopoly Market," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 235-248, June.
    7. Coria, Jessica & Mohlin, Kristina, 2017. "On Refunding of Emission Taxes and Technology Diffusion," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 6(3), pages 205-248, March.
    8. Khezr, Peyman & MacKenzie, Ian A., 2018. "Consignment auctions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 42-51.
    9. Bonilla, Jorge & Coria, Jessica & Mohlin, Kristina & Sterner, Thomas, 2015. "Refunded emission payments and diffusion of NOx abatement technologies in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 132-145.
    10. Hagen, Achim & Schopf, Mark, 2024. "Political influence on international climate agreements with border carbon adjustment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    11. Wang, M. & Zhou, P., 2022. "A two-step auction-refund allocation rule of CO2 emission permits," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    12. Sterner, Thomas & Muller, Adrian, 2006. "Output and Abatement Effects of Allocation Readjustment in Permit Trade," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-49, Resources for the Future.
    13. Fischer, Carolyn, 2011. "Market power and output-based refunding of environmental policy revenues," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 212-230, January.
    14. Brown, David P. & Eckert, Andrew & Eckert, Heather, 2018. "Carbon pricing with an output subsidy under imperfect competition: The case of Alberta's restructured electricity market," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 102-123.
    15. Xenophon, Aleksis Kazubiernis & Hill, David John, 2019. "Emissions reduction and wholesale electricity price targeting using an output-based mechanism," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1050-1063.
    16. Fischer, Carolyn, 2004. "Are Absolute Emissions Better for Modeling? It's All Relative," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-14, Resources for the Future.
    17. Bonilla, Jorge & Coria, Jessica & Mohlin, Kristina & Sterner, Thomas, 2014. "Diffusion of NOx abatement technologies in Sweden," Working Papers in Economics 585, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Eirik S. Amundsen & Lars Gårn Hansen & Hans Jørgen Whitta-Jacobsen, 2022. "Regulation of Location-Specific Externalities from Small-Scale Polluters," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(3), pages 507-528, July.
    19. Susumu Cato, 2010. "Emission Taxes and Optimal Refunding Schemes with Endogenous Market Structure," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 275-280, July.
    20. Sterner, Thomas & Turnheim, Bruno, 2009. "Innovation and diffusion of environmental technology: Industrial NOx abatement in Sweden under refunded emission payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2996-3006, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Refunded emission payments; NOx emissions; environmental policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:hhs:bergec:2020_002. 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: Kjell Erik Lommerud (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iouibno.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.