IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-97-38-rev.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the Constraints and Opportunities for Private Sector Participation in Activities Implemented Jointly: Two Case Studies From the U.S. Initiative for Joint Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Toman, Michael
  • Powell, Mark
  • Lile, Ron

Abstract

This paper assesses the constraints and opportunities for private-sector participation in Activities Implemented Jointly under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. After some initial background, the discussion turns to the United States Initiative on Joint Implementation (USIJI)—its objectives, proposal review and evaluation criteria, and a classification of project proposals by project type and stage of development. Two USIJI projects are developed as case studies. One case is an energy end use project that has gained formal acceptance and financing. The other case is an energy production project proposal that has not secured acceptance or financing. In both cases, transaction costs were substantial, and project proponents regarded gaining formal host country acceptance as the principal impediment to project development. The cases illustrate how the host country JI project approval process can become entangled in broader struggles over economic reforms. The cases also suggest that JI project proponents may have divergent perspectives on the speculative value of greenhouse gas (GHG) credits. An enforceable cap on GHG emissions in the project funders’ countries, which is a prerequisite to establishing any market for the credits, is contrary to the position of energy and power suppliers who promote voluntary emissions reductions. For emissions reduction technology firms, however, establishing a value for GHG credits would help generate demand for the firms’ stock in trade. Finally, the study underscores that notwithstanding transaction costs associated with JI proposal development and acceptance, financing remains the ultimate hurdle to project implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Toman, Michael & Powell, Mark & Lile, Ron, 1997. "Assessing the Constraints and Opportunities for Private Sector Participation in Activities Implemented Jointly: Two Case Studies From the U.S. Initiative for Joint Implementation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-38-rev, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-97-38-rev
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-97-38-REV.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burtraw, Dallas, 1995. "Cost Savings sans Allowance Trades? Evaluating the SO2 Emission Trading Program to Date," RFF Working Paper Series dp-95-30-rev, Resources for the Future.
    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. Marc Gronwald & Janina Ketterer & Stefan Trück, 2011. "The Dependence Structure between Carbon Emission Allowances and Financial Markets - A Copula Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 3418, CESifo.
    2. Toman, Michael & Powell, Mark & Lile, Ron, 1998. "Implementing the Clean Development Mechanism: Lessons from U.S. Private-Sector Participation in Activities Implemented Jointly," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-08, Resources for the Future.
    3. Sandoff, Anders & Schaad, Gabriela, 2009. "Does EU ETS lead to emission reductions through trade? The case of the Swedish emissions trading sector participants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3967-3977, October.
    4. Curtis Carlson & Dallas Burtraw & Maureen Cropper & Karen L. Palmer, 2000. "Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1292-1326, December.
    5. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2006-076 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Hahn, Robert W., 2000. "The Impact of Economics on Environmental Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 375-399, May.
    7. Michael R. Moore & Elizabeth B. Maclin & David W. Kershner, 2001. "Testing Theories of Agency Behavior: Evidence from Hydropower Project Relicensing Decisions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 423-442.
    8. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Fullerton, Don & McDermott, Shaun P. & Caulkins, Jonathan P., 1997. "Sulfur Dioxide Compliance of a Regulated Utility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 32-53, September.
    10. Zoé A Hamstead & Todd K BenDor, 2010. "Overcompliance in Water Quality Trading Programs: Findings from a Qualitative Case Study in North Carolina," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, February.
    11. Reimund Schwarze & Peter Zapfel, 2000. "Sulfur Allowance Trading and the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market: A Comparative Design Analysis of two Major Cap-and-Trade Permit Programs?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(3), pages 279-298, November.
    12. Abeygunawardena, P & Barba, Ricardo, 2000. "Emission Trading as a Tool for Environmental Management," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 3, pages 1-23.
    13. Fritz Rahmeyer, 1999. "Klimaschutz durch Steuern oder Lizenzen," Discussion Paper Series 183, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    14. Saveyn Bert & Van Regemorter Denise, 2007. "Environmental Policy in a Federal State - A Regional CGE Analysis of the NEC Directive in Belgium," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0701, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    15. Paul Leiby & Jonathan Rubin, 2001. "Intertemporal Permit Trading for the Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 229-256, July.
    16. Boutabba, Mohamed Amine & Beaumais, Olivier & Lardic, Sandrine, 2012. "Permit price dynamics in the U.S. SO2 trading program: A cointegration approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 714-722.
    17. Acemoglu, Daron & Rafey, Will, 2023. "Mirage on the horizon: Geoengineering and carbon taxation without commitment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    18. Schwarze, Reimund & Zapfel, Peter, 1998. "Sulfur allowance trading and the regional clean air incentives market: How similar are the programs really?," MPRA Paper 52751, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Nov 1999.
    19. Borak, Szymon & Härdle, Wolfgang Karl & Trück, Stefan & Weron, Rafał, 2006. "Convenience yields for CO2 emission allowance futures contracts," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2006-076, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    20. Benz, Eva & Trück, Stefan, 2009. "Modeling the price dynamics of CO2 emission allowances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 4-15, January.

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-97-38-rev. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.