Uncertainty, Monitoring & EnforcementMotivationGroup Project (cont)Today’s MenuUncertainty – Unobserved costsCase 1: Observed control costsCase 2: Unobserved control costsPrice vs. quantity regulationBasic ProblemWhen MC is steep (rel. to MB)When MC is flat (rel. to MB)Slopes of MB, MC?Monitoring—Unobserved ActionsIllegal dumpingDeposit-refund [1 of 2]Deposit-refund [2 of 2]Deposit-refund: a clever policyEnforcementSlide 19Auditing an emissions standardHow much will firm pollute?Should regulator increase fine or p?Uncertainty, Monitoring & EnforcementUsing economic models to help inform which instruments are most effective at controlling pollutionMotivationGroup Project: New rules are being promulgated by the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District for regulation of VOC emissions from stationary sources. They are concerned about the cost of monitoring compliance and want your Bren Group Project to design a cost-effective monitoring program.Group Project (cont)Problem: How to assure compliance.Some possible optionsInstall continuous emission monitorsRely on voluntary self-reportingUse self-reporting with teeth•Random audits•Hefty fines for violatorsWill all do the job?Which is likely to be cheapest?Today’s MenuUncertainty – how does uncertainty influence your choice of regulation?Monitoring – how do you construct a regulation if monitoring is tough; ie, cannot observe emissions?Enforcement – how to construct a cost-effective enforcement programUncertainty – Unobserved costsChoice of regulatory instrument: tradable permits vs. emission fees.Case 1: certaintyCase 2: uncertainty in costs and benefitsUnobserved costs called “Adverse Selection”Case 1: Observed control costsIf MB and MC curves known, regulator can choose efficient pollution level.ElectricityMC (society)MB (firm)$tQ2 equivalent policies:1) Set quota of Q2) Set tax of t.Case 2: Unobserved control costsThink of MC as the “damage” to society of pollution (accompanying electricity).Think of MB as the “savings” to the firm from being able to pollute.Both MC and MB may be uncertain to regulatorWhich instrument should be used?“Price” instrument: polluter pays $t per unit pollution“Quantity” instrument: polluter emits exactly Q.Price vs. quantity regulationMCPollutionMBLMBMMBHt$eLe* eHIf tax t is imposed:May get eL, e*, or eHMB may be highor may be low; MBM right in the middleBasic ProblemErrors occur in case of either tax or permitsTax: MC set equal to the tax; can generate big swings in pollution output and thus big deadweight lossQuantities: Always know how much pollution but there can be big swings in MC, leading to large deadweight lossWhen MC is steep (rel. to MB)Pollution$MBMCUse quantity-based regulationQ*Deadweight loss from tax,When MB turns out to be HTaxDeadweight loss from Permits, when MB lowWhen MC is flat (rel. to MB)Pollution$MCMBUse price-based regulationt*Deadweight loss from taxesDeadweightLoss from permitsSlopes of MB, MC?Marginal Benefit of pollution is akin to the cost of abatement to the firmSteep when very few alternatives – firm must produce fixed amount of pollution as by-product of productionFlat when each unit of abatement is equally costlyMarginal Cost of pollution is the health & environmental costSteep when threshold effects (no cost at low levels, then quickly rises to high cost) (e.g. water temp on fish)Flat when each unit has same environmental cost (e.g. carbon – within a range)Monitoring—Unobserved ActionsSuppose we cannot observe something a firm is doing (like “midnight dumping”)?How do we construct a regulation to deal with problem?Unobserved actions called “moral hazard”Illegal dumpingIf “proper disposal” is costly…People have an incentive to “midnight dump”.If monitoring free, just impose tax on polluters when they are caught.If monitoring very expensive, could tax sale of the good (consumption tax).Want a mechanism that taxes polluters, but rewards non-polluters (but we have imperfect enforcement).Deposit-refund [1 of 2]What happens if we place a tax on dumping equal to marginal environmental damage?Illegal dumping occurs if monitoring is not perfect.Instead, want to reward proper disposal & punish illegal disposal.Deposit-refund [2 of 2]How it worksPotential polluter pays $X on purchase of waste product (eg, solvent)Receives $Y upon return (dirty solvent)Why is this different than simply taxing illegal dumping or subsidizing clean disposal?….It’s both.Deposit-refund: a clever policyRemember, potential polluter effectively pays tax up front. Is reimbursed (at least) upon return.A clever disclosure mechanism:Refund is paid when potential polluter proves compliance (by returning).All polluters pay tax ($X) all non-polluters pay nothing (or make money).EnforcementLaws worthless if they are not enforcedEnforcement can be very costlyHow to construct low cost enforcement program?EnforcementPolluter may be doing something other than what he tells regulatorRegulator can audit polluter, at a costClear interplay between frequency and stringency of audit and fine if caught.Probability of detection vs. fineE.g. traffic laws, income tax reporting, self-reporting in RECLAIM, etc..Auditing an emissions standarde = total emissions, B(e) = Benfit of emissionsS = emissions standard f = fine per excess emissions if caught = prob of detectionF(e) = expected fine (treated as a cost to firm)F(e) = *f*(e - S)+(1- if e > S, = 0 if e < SNet expected benefit to firm ex ante:NB(e) = B(e) - F(e)How much will firm pollute?NB(e) = B(e) - F(e)MB(e) - MF(e) = 0 at the optimumMB(e) = MF(e): Firm pollutes where marginal benefit from polluting equals marginal expected fine.MB(e)= fNote: If firm only cares about f, the marginal expected fine, can adjust either.MBee0fe*Should regulator increase fine or ?If firm only cares about f, regulator wants high fine, low (this makes auditing costs very small)But assets of firm may be limited (I.e. bankruptcy)Often the case for pollution (potentially high damage from cheating)May require environmental bondBottom line: costs of cheating must exceed costs of adhering to
View Full Document