IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v9y2009i6p575-592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Historic versus output-based allocation of GHG tradable allowances: a comparison

Author

Listed:
  • PHILIPPE QUIRION

Abstract

Two ways of allocating greenhouse gas (GHG) allowances are compared: historic allocation (HA) based solely on past information, and output-based allocation (OBA) based on an allocation proportional to the current output level. The advantages and problems of each allocation method are considered and compared. It is essential to distinguish the sectors sheltered from international competition (e.g. power generation) from the exposed sectors. In the sheltered sectors, OBA entails a much higher overall cost because it provides too little incentive to reduce the production of the polluting goods. HA does not suffer from this drawback but its distributional impact is highly unfair. Hence in these sectors neither of these two ways of freely allocating allowances can be supported, and auctioning should be favoured. However, in the exposed sectors, OBA is an option worth considering because it reduces carbon leakage, although it also suffers from some drawbacks compared with auctioning.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe Quirion, 2009. "Historic versus output-based allocation of GHG tradable allowances: a comparison," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 575-592, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:9:y:2009:i:6:p:575-592
    DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2008.0618
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3763/cpol.2008.0618
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3763/cpol.2008.0618?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan, 2004. "Output-Based Allocations of Emissions Permits: Efficiency and Distributional Effects in a General Equilibrium Setting with Taxes and Trade," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-37, Resources for the Future.
    2. Fell, Harrison, 2008. "EU-ETS and Nordic Electricity: A CVAR Approach," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-31, Resources for the Future.
    3. Fischer, Carolyn, 2001. "Rebating Environmental Policy Revenues: Output-Based Allocations and Tradable Performance Standards," Discussion Papers 10709, Resources for the Future.
    4. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen L. & Bharvirkar, Ranjit & Paul, Anthony, 2001. "The Effect of Allowance Allocation on the Cost of Carbon Emission Trading," Discussion Papers 10536, Resources for the Future.
    5. 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.
    6. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu, 2009. "Regulation, Allocation and Leakage in Cap-And-Trade Markets for CO2," Staff General Research Papers Archive 13131, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Reyer Gerlagh & Onno Kuik, 2007. "Carbon Leakage with International Technology Spillovers," Working Papers 2007.33, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    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. 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.
    2. Yoon, Kyoung-Soo & Oh, Hyungna, 2021. "Impacts of ETS allocation rules on abatement investment and market structure," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Steffen Hentrich & Patrick Matschoss & Peter Michaelis, 2009. "Emissions trading and competitiveness: lessons from Germany," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 316-329, May.
    4. Jin, Yana & Liu, Xiaorui & Chen, Xiang & Dai, Hancheng, 2020. "Allowance allocation matters in China's carbon emissions trading system," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    5. Don Fullerton & Garth Heutel, 2010. "The General Equilibrium Incidence of Environmental Mandates," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 64-89, August.
    6. Liu, Beibei & He, Pan & Zhang, Bing & Bi, Jun, 2012. "Impacts of alternative allowance allocation methods under a cap-and-trade program in power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 405-415.
    7. Bode, Sven, 2006. "Multi-period emissions trading in the electricity sector--winners and losers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 680-691, April.
    8. Kruger, Joseph & Pizer, William A., 2004. "The EU Emissions Trading Directive: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls," Discussion Papers 10679, Resources for the Future.
    9. Christoph Böhringer & Andreas Lange, 2005. "Mission Impossible !? On the Harmonization of National Allocation Plans under the EU Emissions Trading Directive," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 81-94, September.
    10. Jinye Zhao & Benjamin F. Hobbs & Jong-Shi Pang, 2010. "Long-Run Equilibrium Modeling of Emissions Allowance Allocation Systems in Electric Power Markets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 529-548, June.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Becker, Jonathon M., 2023. "Tradable performance standards in a dynamic context," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    15. Bohringer, Christoph & Lange, Andreas, 2005. "On the design of optimal grandfathering schemes for emission allowances," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(8), pages 2041-2055, November.
    16. Karen Palmer & Dallas Burtraw & Danny Kahn, 2006. "Simple rules for targeting CO 2 allowance allocations to compensate firms," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 477-493, July.
    17. Zetterberg, Lars, 2014. "Benchmarking in the European Union Emissions Trading System: Abatement incentives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 218-224.
    18. Monjon, Stéphanie & Quirion, Philippe, 2011. "Addressing leakage in the EU ETS: Border adjustment or output-based allocation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1957-1971, September.
    19. Burtraw, Dallas & Kahn, Danny & Palmer, Karen, 2006. "CO2 Allowance Allocation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Effect on Electricity Investors," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 79-90, March.
    20. Ralf Martin & Mirabelle Mu?ls & Laure B. de Preux & Ulrich J. Wagner, 2014. "Industry Compensation under Relocation Risk: A Firm-Level Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2482-2508, August.

    More about this item

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:9:y:2009:i:6:p:575-592. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.