IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/644.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Output-based allocation and investment in clean technologies

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Allocation of emission allowances may affect firms' incentives to invest in clean technologies. In this paper we show that so-called output-based allocation tends to stimulate such investments as long as individual firms do not assume the regulator to tighten the allocation rule as a consequence of their investments. The explanation is that output-based allocation creates an implicit subsidy to the firms' output, which increases production, leads to a higher price of allowances, and thus increases the incentives to invest in clean technologies. On the other hand, if the firms expect the regulator to tighten the allocation rule after observing their clean technology investment, the firms' incentives to invest are moderated. If strong, this last effect may outweigh the enhanced investment incentives induced by increased output and higher allowance price.

Suggested Citation

  • Knut Einar Rosendahl & Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2011. "Output-based allocation and investment in clean technologies," Discussion Papers 644, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssb:dispap:644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp644.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Montgomery, W. David, 1972. "Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 395-418, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Michael Hoel, 1998. "Emission Taxes versus Other Environmental Policies," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(1), pages 79-104, March.
    4. Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard & Bailey, Elizabeth M, 1998. "The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 669-685, September.
    5. Jensen, Jesper & Rasmussen, Tobias N., 2000. "Allocation of CO2 Emissions Permits: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Policy Instruments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 111-136, September.
    6. Erik Haites, 2003. "Output-based allocation as a form of protection for internationally competitive industries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 29-41, December.
    7. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
    8. Karsten Neuhoff & Kim Keats Martinez & Misato Sato, 2006. "Allocation, incentives and distortions: the impact of EU ETS emissions allowance allocations to the electricity sector," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 73-91, January.
    9. Carolyn Fischer & Alan K. Fox, 2007. "Output-Based Allocation of Emissions Permits for Mitigating Tax and Trade Interactions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 575-599.
    10. Christoph Böhringer & Andreas Lange, 2005. "Economic Implications of Alternative Allocation Schemes for Emission Allowances," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(3), pages 563-581, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Boehringer Christoph & Fischer Carolyn & Rosendahl Knut Einar, 2010. "The Global Effects of Subglobal Climate Policies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-35, December.
    13. Loschel, Andreas, 2002. "Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 105-126, December.
    14. Edwards, T. Huw. & Hutton, John P., 2001. "Allocation of carbon permits within a country: a general equilibrium analysis of the United Kingdom," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 371-386, July.
    15. Downing, Paul B. & White, Lawrence J., 1986. "Innovation in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 18-29, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Golombek, Rolf & Kittelsen, Sverre A.C. & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2013. "Price and welfare effects of emission quota allocation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 568-580.
    2. Carolyn Fischer & Mads Greaker & Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2014. "Robust Policies against Emission Leakage: The Case for Upstream Subsidies," CESifo Working Paper Series 4742, CESifo.

    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. Frédéric Branger & Misato Sato, 2017. "Solving the clinker dilemma with hybrid output-based allocation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 483-501, February.
    4. Golombek, Rolf & Kittelsen, Sverre A.C. & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2013. "Price and welfare effects of emission quota allocation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 568-580.
    5. Torstein Bye & Annegrete Bruvoll, 2008. "Multiple instruments to change energy behaviour: The emperor's new clothes?," Discussion Papers 549, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Meredith Fowlie & Mar Reguant & Stephen P. Ryan, 2016. "Market-Based Emissions Regulation and Industry Dynamics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 249-302.
    7. Jiasen Sun & Yelin Fu & Xiang Ji & Ray Y. Zhong, 2017. "Allocation of emission permits using DEA-game-theoretic model," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 867-884, October.
    8. Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2012. "Prices vs. quantities: Technology choice, uncertainty and welfare," Discussion Papers 677, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Zhang, Hui & Cao, Libin & Zhang, Bing, 2017. "Emissions trading and technology adoption: An adaptive agent-based analysis of thermal power plants in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 23-32.
    10. Julien Lefevre, 2018. "Modeling the Socioeconomic Impacts of the Adoption of a Carbon Pricing Instrument – Literature review," CIRED Working Papers hal-03128619, HAL.
    11. 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.
    12. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    13. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    14. Julie Rozenberg & Stéphane Hallegatte & Adrien Vogt-Schilb & Olivier Sassi & Céline Guivarch & Henri Waisman & Jean Charles Hourcade, 2010. "Climate policies as a hedge against the uncertainty on future oil supply," CIRED Working Papers hal-00866449, HAL.
    15. Shiro Takeda & Toshi Arimura & Hanae Tamechika & Carolyn Fischer & Alan Fox, 2014. "Output-based allocation of emissions permits for mitigating the leakage and competitiveness issues for the Japanese economy," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(1), pages 89-110, January.
    16. Zetterberg, Lars, 2014. "Benchmarking in the European Union Emissions Trading System: Abatement incentives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 218-224.
    17. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu, 2012. "Allocation and leakage in regional cap-and-trade markets for CO2," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 647-668.
    18. Philippe Quirion & Damien Demailly, 2008. "Changing the Allocation Rules in the EU ETS: Impact on Competitiveness and Economic Efficiency," Working Papers 2008.89, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Halvor Storrøsten, 2014. "Prices Versus Quantities: Technology Choice, Uncertainty and Welfare," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(2), pages 275-293, October.
    20. Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2007. "Incentives and quota prices in an emission trading scheme with updating," Discussion Papers 495, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Emissions trading; allocation of quotas; abatement technology.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:ssb:dispap:644. 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: L Maasø (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbgvno.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.