Search results

A well-known result about market power in emission permit markets is that efficiency can be achieved by full free allocation to the dominant firm. I show that this result breaks down when taking the interaction between input and output markets into account, even if the firm perceives market power in the permit market alone. In fact, the dominant firm may have an incentive to inflate the permit price even if it receives no free permits at all. I examine the empirical evidence for price manipulation by large electricity firms during Phase I of the EU ETS. I find that the pattern and extent of firms' allowance holdings are consistent with strategic price manipulation, and they appear unlikely to be the result of precautionary purchases due to carbon risk.

I estimate the level of emissions cost pass-through to hourly wholesale electricity prices in Germany, based on spot market data. I control for contemporaneous shocks to demand and supply by constructing a detailed supply curve for fossil generation, and intersecting it with residual demand for fossil-based electricity for every hour. Determining the marginal generator allows me to use marginal fuel and carbon costs (rather than prices) as explanatory variables in order to identify the level of cost pass-through directly and with a high level of precision. I find that carbon costs are passed through to electricity prices by at least 84 %, with a central range of 98 %–104 % for different load periods. My results suggest that there is no economic reason for free allowance allocation to the electricity sector, and thus validate the updated allocation rules in Phase 3 of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

Why do for-profit firms take voluntary steps to improve the environment? Brand appeal to green consumers or investors, the ability to influence or avoid regulation, or the experience gained for future regulation, have all been suggested as possible reasons. The empirical evidence is decidedly mixed. This paper uses 19 years of monthly stock price returns to examine the profitability of participation in the world's largest voluntary greenhouse gas mitigation program: the Chicago Climate Exchange. After controlling for systemic market risk as well as industry-specific shocks, we find no statistically significant impact of announcing to join CCX on excess returns. However, the market appeared to be sensitive to changes in abatement costs implied by CCX membership. Most strikingly, the progress of proposed greenhouse gas legislation (the Waxman-Markey bill) had a positive impact on excess returns for CCX member firms, suggesting that the most profitable incentive for firms to join CCX is to prepare for future regulation. Our results imply that relying on voluntary approaches alone to combat climate change may not be enough.

We analyze the strategic interaction of regional and federal governments using a model that includes fiscal externalities in the form of inter-regional capital tax competition and technical externalities in the form of inter-regional spillovers. The federal government aims to correct for these inefficiencies using a transfer system. If the regional governments are policy leaders (such that federal policy is set conditional on regional choices), they will internalize both fiscal and technical externalities but free-ride on the transfer system. Efficiency can be achieved by introducing a second transfer scheme that is independent of regional public production. If the federal government sets its policy first and can commit itself to it, the outcome is efficient only if matching grants are used that are financed outside of the transfer system.