Open Access
Regulation, allocation, and leakage in cap-and-trade markets for CO2
Loading...
Files
RSCAS_2009_48.pdf (745.75 KB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
Access Rights
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1028-3625
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI RSCAS; 2009/48; Loyola de Palacio Programme on Energy Policy
Cite
BUSHNELL, James, CHEN, Yihsu, Regulation, allocation, and leakage in cap-and-trade markets for CO2, EUI RSCAS, 2009/48, Loyola de Palacio Programme on Energy Policy - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/12636
Abstract
Among the most contentious elements of the design of cap-and-trade systems for emissions trading is the allocation or assignment of the emissions credits themselves. Policy-makers usually try to satisfy a range of goals through the allocation process, including easing the transition costs for high-emissions firms, reducing leakage to unregulated regions, and mitigating the impact of the regulations on product prices such as electricity. In this paper we develop a detailed representation of the US western electricity market to assess the potential impacts of various allocation proposals. Several proposals involve the 'updating' of permit allocation, where the allocation is tied to the ongoing output, or input use, of plants. These allocation proposals are designed with the goals of limiting the pass-through of carbon costs to product prices, mitigating leakage, and of mitigating the costs to high-emissions firms. However, allocation updating can also inate permit prices, thereby limiting the benefits of such schemes to high emissions firms. Rather than mitigating the impact on high carbon producers, the net operating profit of such firms can actually be lower under input-based updating than under auctioning. This is due to the fact that product prices (and therefore revenues) are lower under input-based updating, but overall compliance costs are relatively comparable between auctioning and input-based updating. Thus, the anticipated benefits from allocation updating are greatly reduced and further distortions are introduced into the trading system.