5. Transferrable Emission Permits
• Suppose a power plant emits 8000 tons of sulfur per year and
the government wants an overall reduction of 25% in SO2
emissions. The plant owner will initially be given 6000 discharge
permits.
• Consider three options for the polluter:
(a) reduce emissions to 6000 tons
(b) buy additional permits and emit at a higher level
(c) reduce emissions below 6000 and sell excess permits
• Polluter’s choice depends on our marginal abatement costs and
the price of a permit.
• Polluter will reduce emissions as long as MAC < permit price.
5
LO1
7. SUMMARY
*Initial emission by Firm A and Firm B=120,000 tonnes
*Target of emission control=80,000 tonnes
*Initial Permits allocation, 30 permits to firm A(cost efficient)
and 50 permits to Firm B.
*Cost Effective Solution—A sells 15 permits to Firm B. At this
exchange,
Firm A’s emission=15, Firm B’s emission =65
At these emission levels, MACs are equalized at $75. Firm A’s
net gain=area ‘c’, and Firm B’s net gain area ‘d’
8. DETAILS from the book
In the preceding diag, assume the following:
MACa=120-3Ea & MACb=400-5Eb
Total emissions of sulphur is found by setting Ea and Eb=0
Total E=Ea+Eb=120,000 tonnes of sulphur emission annually
Target Level(of emission control) of the govt.= 80,000 tonnes per
year
Emission Based TDP system:-
The regulator creates 80 units of TDP, each one entitles its possessor
to emit 1,000 tonnes/year
Permit Allocation Rule - each firm is allocated permits roughly in
proportion of its current emission rate (roughly in the ratio of 3/5)
Firm A receives 30 permits and firm B gets 50 permits in the original
allocation.
At this original allocation, firm A ‘s cost is $30 and B’s cost
is $150-which means firm A’s MAC is substantially lower than firm’s B.
9. Firm A’s gain by trading
Suppose Firm A reduces its emission from
30,000 to 15,000 tonnes
MACa=120 - 3(15)=$75
Change in total abatement cost if emission is reduced
from 30,000 to 15,000=(area a+b)=$787.50
If the firm A sells its 15 surplus permits to B for $75 per permit,
it will receive area (a+b+c)=$1125
Firm’s cost savings-=(a+b+c)-(a+b)=area c= $337.5
Firm B’s gain by trading
B’s TACs fall because B increases pollution
Reduction in B’s TAC=(d+e)=$1687.5
B’s cost of buying permits=$1125
B’s Gain=area d=$562.5=$1687.5-$1125
Total cost savings of both parties=(c+d)=$900
10. Gains from trade
•With different MACs, TEPs will continue to be traded
until MACs are equalized;
•TEP operates like a hybrid between imposing STDs and
using taxes to reach a target:
•Target:=fixed # of permits:=STDs;
•TDP price is like a tax.
11. •Advantages:
•Regulator does not have to know the polluter’s MAC curves;
•Hence, TDPs are less informational demanding than STDs &
taxes;
•The market achieves socially optimal price on its own.
•Disadvantages:
•Bargaining process can be tedious & complicated with a
large # of firms involved;
•A single overall market for permits is required for the system
to work properly;
•Markets must be perfectly competitive.
13. The initial rights allocation
•The success of the TDP depends critically on limiting the # of rights
in circulation;
•What formula should be applied to share rights initially?
•Almost any rule will appear to have inequities:
•Equal allocation to all existing sources of a particular effluent?
•Or, in accordance with the existing emissions of source? Example:
50% of current emission;
•Should the permits be given out or auctioned off?
•Approach: Find some workable compromise that is widely
acceptable to those concerned.
24. Initially polluter owns E1 permits at
price p
Polluter reduces emission to E2 (by
using better technology.
Gain=area ‘c’ and area ‘a’
25. d
e
75
Incentives for Innovation: Numerical Example
Cost savings as good as emission taxes
MAC1
MAC2
MAC1 = 200 - 2E1
MAC2 = 100 – E2
100
50
Permit price = $50
$50
TAC with MAC1 = d + e = $625
TAC with MAC2 = b + e = $1250
Revenue from TDP = b + c = $1250
Cost Savings =
c
b
a
(d+e) – (b+e) + (b+c) = d + c = $625
$
$200
$100
emissions