Water quality trading: credit stacking and ancillary benefits

Ecosystems can provide many services. Wetlands, for example, can help mitigate water pollution from point sources as well as non-point sources, serve as habitat for wildlife, sequester carbon and serve as a place for recreation. Studies have found that these services can have substantial value to society. The sale of ecosystem credits has been found to be a possible way to finance construction investments in wetlands and easements to farmers to take their land out of production. At the same time, selling one ecosystem service credit may not always be enough to justify the investment. Traditionally market participants have only been allowed to sell a single credit from one piece of land, but recently there have been discussions about the possibility of selling more than one credit from a piece of land because it potentially could lead to more efficient ecosystem service provision. Selling multiple credits is sometimes referred to as credit stacking. This paper is an empirical study of the potential for credit stacking applied to the services provided by wetlands in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, specifically nitrogen, phosphorus and wildlife credits. In the setting of our study where costs are discrete rather than continuous we found that wetlands are a cost-effective way to reduce the nitrogen loads from wastewater treatment plants and that stacking nitrogen, phosphorus and wildlife credits may improve social welfare while leading to a higher level of ecosystem services. However, for credit stacking to be welfare improving we found that there needs to be a substantial demand for the credit that covers the majority of the investment in wetlands, while the credit aggregator has a choice between what ecosystem projects to undertake. If the credit that covers the majority of investment is sold first and is the sole basis of the investment decision and the objective is to improve welfare, a sequential implementation of ecosystem credits is not recommended; it would not lead to an increase in the total amount of ecosystem services provided though it would increase profit for the credit producer.

Dissolved Organic Carbon in the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

The quantitative role of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in dissolved organic carbon (DOC) export is evaluated by combining DOC measurements with observed water mass transports. In the eastern subpolar North Atlantic, both upper and lower limbs of the AMOC transport high-DOC waters. Deep water formation that connects the two limbs of the AMOC results in a high downward export of non-refractory DOC (197 Tg-C center dot yr(-1)). Subsequent remineralization in the lower limb of the AMOC, between subpolar and subtropical latitudes, consumes 72% of the DOC exported by the whole Atlantic Ocean. The contribution of DOC to the carbon sequestration in the North Atlantic Ocean (62 Tg-C center dot yr(-1)) is considerable and represents almost a third of the atmospheric CO2 uptake in the region.

A Cost Analysis Of Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction Strategies For New Plants In Michigan's Electric Power Sector

This thesis attempts to find the least-cost strategy to reduce CO2 emission by replacing coal by other energy sources for electricity generation in the context of the proposed EPA’s regulation on CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. An ARIMA model is built to forecast coal consumption for electricity generation and its CO2 emissions in Michigan from 2016 to 2020. CO2 emission reduction costs are calculated under three emission reduction scenarios- reduction to 17%, 30% and 50% below the 2005 emission level. The impacts of Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the intermittency of renewable energy are also discussed. The results indicate that in most cases natural gas will be the best alternative to coal for electricity generation to realize CO2 reduction goals; if the PTC for wind power will continue after 2015, a natural gas and wind combination approach could be the best strategy based on the least-cost criterion.

Essays on Emissions Trading Markets

This dissertation is a collection of three economics essays on different aspects of carbon emission trading markets. The first essay analyzes the dynamic optimal emission control strategies of two nations. With a potential to become the largest buyer under the Kyoto Protocol, the US is assumed to be a monopsony, whereas with a large number of tradable permits on hand Russia is assumed to be a monopoly. Optimal costs of emission control programs are estimated for both the countries under four different market scenarios: non-cooperative no trade, US monopsony, Russia monopoly, and cooperative trading. The US monopsony scenario is found to be the most Pareto cost efficient. The Pareto efficient outcome, however, would require the US to make side payments to Russia, which will even out the differences in the cost savings from cooperative behavior. The second essay analyzes the price dynamics of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a voluntary emissions trading market. By examining the volatility in market returns using AR-GARCH and Markov switching models, the study associates the market price fluctuations with two different political regimes of the US government. Further, the study also identifies a high volatility in the returns few months before the market collapse. Three possible regulatory and market-based forces are identified as probable causes of market volatility and its ultimate collapse. Organizers of other voluntary markets in the US and worldwide may closely watch for these regime switching forces in order to overcome emission market crashes. The third essay compares excess skewness and kurtosis in carbon prices between CCX and EU ETS (European Union Emission Trading Scheme) Phase I and II markets, by examining the tail behavior when market expectations exceed the threshold level. Dynamic extreme value theory is used to find out the mean price exceedence of the threshold levels and estimate the risk loss. The calculated risk measures suggest that CCX and EU ETS Phase I are extremely immature markets for a risk investor, whereas EU ETS Phase II is a more stable market that could develop as a mature carbon market in future years.