×

Market power in output and emissions trading. (English) Zbl 1457.91281

Summary: This article focuses on the strategic behavior of firms in the output and the emissions markets in the presence of market power. We consider the existence of a dominant firm in the permit market and different structures in the output market, including Cournot and two versions of the Stackelberg model, depending on whether the permit dominant firm is a leader or a follower in the output market. In all three models, the firm that dominates the permit market is more sensitive to its initial allocation than its competitor in terms of abatement and less sensitive in terms of output. In all three models, output is decreasing and the permit price is increasing in the permit dominant firm’s initial allocation. In the Cournot model, permit dominance is fruitless in terms of output and profit if the initial allocation is symmetric. Output leadership is more relevant than permit dominance since an output leader always tends to, ceteris paribus, produce more and make more profit whether it also dominates the permit market or not. This leadership can only be overcompensated for by distributing a larger share of permits to the output follower, and only if the total number of permits is large enough. In terms of welfare, Stackelberg is always superior to Cournot. If the initial permit allocation is symmetric, welfare is higher when the same firm dominates the output and the permit market at the same time.

MSC:

91B76 Environmental economics (natural resource models, harvesting, pollution, etc.)
91A65 Hierarchical games (including Stackelberg games)

References:

[1] Gerlagh, R.; Wan, J.R.K.; ; Optimal Stabilization in an Emission Permits Market: Munich, Germany 2018; .
[2] Baumol, W.J.; Oates, W.E.; The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment; Swed. J. Econ.: 1971; Volume 73 ,42-54.
[3] Montgomery, W.D.; Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control Programs; J. Econ. Theory: 1972; Volume 5 ,395-418.
[4] Tietenberg, T.H.; ; Emissions Trading. Principles and Practice: Washington, DC, USA 2006; .
[5] Hahn, R.; Market Power and Transferable Property Rights; Q. J. Econ.: 1984; Volume 99 ,753-765.
[6] Misiolek, W.; Elder, H.; Exclusionary manipulation of markets for pollution rights; J. Environ. Econ. Manag.: 1989; Volume 16 ,156-166.
[7] Hintermann, B.; Market Power, Permit Allocation and Efficiency in Emission Permit Markets; Environ. Resour. Econ.: 2011; Volume 49 ,327-349.
[8] Hintermann, B.; Market Power in Emission Permit Markets: Theory and Evidence from the EU ETS; Environ. Resour. Econ.: 2017; Volume 66 ,89-112.
[9] André, F.J.; de Castro, L.M.; Strategic Interaction among Firms in Output and Emission Markets: A Unified Framework; Games in Management Science: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2020; ,205-229. · Zbl 1454.91143
[10] Kolstad, J.; Wolak, F.; ; Using Environmental Emissions Permit Prices to Raise Electricity Prices: Evidence from the California Electricity Market: Berkeley, CA, USA 2003; .
[11] Fowlie, M.; Emissions Trading, Electricity Restructuring and Investment in Pollution Abatement; Am. Econ. Rev.: 2010; Volume 100 ,837-869.
[12] Montero, J.P.; Market Power in Pollution Permit Markets; Energy J.: 2009; Volume 30 ,115-142.
[13] Hagem, C.; Maestad, O.; Russian Exports of Emission Permits under the Kyoto Protocol: The Interplay with Non-competitive Fuel Markets; Resour. Energy Econ.: 2006; Volume 28 ,54-73.
[14] De Feo, G.; Resende, J.; Sanin, M.E.; Emission permit trading and downstream strategic market interaction; Manch. Sch.: 2013; Volume 81 ,780-802.
[15] Chevallier, J.; Strategic Manipulation on Emissions Trading Banking Program with Fixed Horizon; Econ. Bull.: 2008; Volume 17 ,1-9.
[16] Tanaka, M.; Chen, Y.; Market power in emissions trading: Strategically manipulating permit price through fringe firms; Appl. Energy: 2012; Volume 96 ,203-211.
[17] Bernard, A.; Paltsev, S.; Reilly, J.M.; Vielle, M.; Viguier, L.; ; Russia’s Role in the Kyoto Protocol: Cambridge, MA, USA 2003; .
[18] ; World Trade Statistical Review 2018: Geneva, Switzerland 2018; .
[19] Disegni-Eshel, D.M.; Optimal allocation of tradable pollution rights and market structures; J. Regul. Econ.: 2005; Volume 28 ,205-223.
[20] Álvarez, F.; André, F.; Auctioning versus grandfathering in cap-and-trade systems with market power and incomplete information; Environ. Resour. Econ.: 2015; Volume 62 ,873-906.
[21] Álvarez, F.; André, F.; Auctioning versus emission permits with market power; B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy: 2016; Volume 16 .
[22] Álvarez, F.; André, F.; Mazón, C.; Assigning pollution permits: Are uniform auctions efficient?; Econ. Theory: 2019; Volume 67 ,211-248. · Zbl 1422.91286
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.