Published March 2018 | Version v1
Journal article

Permit banking in emission trading: Competition, arbitrage and linkage

  • 1. Department of Technology Management, Baskin School of Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA,(United States)
  • 2. National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), 7-22-1 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8677 (Japan)

Description

Highlights: • We develop a multi-sector model of inter-temporal permit banking with market power. • With market power, the permit price rises at a higher rate than the discount rate. • Dominant firm behaves as a oligopsonist and oligopolist when trading the permits. • It suppresses the permit prices in early periods and inflate them in later periods. - Abstract: Several existing or proposed climate policies have considered bankable permits in a cap-and-trade (C&T) program that covers beyond a single sector, e.g., electric power, or allows the program to link to external C&T programs in other regions. This paper develops a model of permit banking under imperfect competition and imperfect inter-temporal arbitrage, in which the firms in one dominant sector can exert market power in both product and permit markets, while those in other sectors or linked programs are perfectly competitive. A simple analytical model is developed to generate contestable hypothesis. We further extend the model to account for the physical power system, institutional rules and market conditions, and then apply it to the Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland (PJM) market. We show that if the dominant firm has market power, then the permit price rises at a higher rate than the discount rate, contrary to perfectly competitive permit market, where the permit price rises at the discount rate following the classic Hotelling's rule. Furthermore, under a declining emissions cap system with the permits front-loaded in early time periods, the dominant firm has an incentive to suppress the permit prices (monopsony) when buying the permits in early periods, and then inflate the permit prices (monopoly) when selling them in later periods. Numerical results of the PJM case are consistent with the analytical conclusion.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.01.032

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.eneco.2018.01.032;
PII
S0140988318300409;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Energy Economics
Journal Volume
71
Journal Page Range
p. 70-82
ISSN
0140-9883
CODEN
EECODR

INIS

Country of Publication
United Kingdom
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
50034942
Subject category
S29: ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY;
Descriptors DEI
ELECTRIC POWER; EMISSIONS TRADING; FINANCIAL INCENTIVES; INTEREST RATE; MARKET; MARYLAND; MONOPOLIES; PENNSYLVANIA; POWER SYSTEMS; PRICES
Descriptors DEC
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; ENERGY SYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GOVERNMENT POLICIES; NORTH AMERICA; POWER; USA

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.