日趋臻显的行业细分趋势和显著的外向型经济发展特点等在很大程度上决定了我国区域排污权交易系统内不存在显著的产品竞争。鉴于此，在产品异质条件下，通过考虑产成品市场与排污权交易市场之间的关联影响，首先从理论层面分析了社会最优的排污权配置状态；进而，构建了主导企业与从属企业之间的主从博弈模型，通过分析特定排污权市场价格下从属企业的最优行为特征，深入剖析了主导企业的策略性行为及其对系统均衡的影响。结果表明：市场支配力对系统均衡的影响具有多样性与复杂性；特别是，为了获取更大的额外收益，主导企业存在作为卖家时选择"溢价"与作为买家时"抑价"两种排污权价格操纵形式，并不可避免地导致系统均衡与社会最优配置状态的偏离，而从属企业却会蒙受巨大损失；其中，初始排污权禀赋是影响主导企业最优决策的重要因素。最后，通过量化分析对结论进行了验证，并细致展现了主导企业产污系数和治污成本等变动对系统均衡的影响。
The market power has become a key problem to limit the extent to which emissions trading systems can fulfill their theoretical promises. Prior research has concentrated on market manipulation by firms seeking to minimize the compliance costs, and exclusionary manipulation within a particular sector under emissions trading system. However, the increasingly significant trends of industry segment and the characteristic of export-oriented economic development largely cause the absence of significant products competition in China's regional emissions trading system. In view of such conditions, the issue of market power in emission trading systems under heterogeneous product condition is mainly explored by taking the interaction between emissions trading system and product markets into account. As the research base, the socially optimal allocation condition is analyzed using a non-linear programming model firstly. Then, a Stackelberg game model between the dominant firm and the fringe firm is constructed in order to examine the strategic behavior of dominant firm and its impact on the system equilibrium by analyzing the optimal decision of fringe firm under specific permit price. The results show that market power has a diverse and complex influence on the system equilibrium. Especially, in order to obtain the windfall profit, the dominant firm would choose two price manipulation strategies:"premium-pricing" strategy while it acts as a permit seller and "under-pricing" strategy while it acts as a buyer. These strategies inevitably cause the deviation of system equilibrium from socially optimal state and the large profit loss of the fringe firm. Moreover, the initial endowment of emission permits is the crucial factor affecting the decision making of the dominant firm. Finally, a quantitative analysis is used to verify conclusions of the analysis, and demonstrates the impact of changes of pollutant producing coefficients of the dominant firm, abatement cost and so forth on the system equilibrium particularly.
[1] Hintermann B. Market power in emission permit markets:Theory and evidence from the EU ETS[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2017, 66(1):89-112.
[2] Hahn R W. Market power and transferable property rights[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1984, 99(4):753-765.
[3] van Egteren H, Weber M. Marketable permits, market power and cheating[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1996, 30(2):161-173.
[4] Malik A S. Further results on permit markets with market power and cheating[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2002, 44(3):371-390.
[5] Chavez C A, Stranlund J K. Enforcing transferable permit systems in the presence of market power[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2003, 25(1):65-78.
[6] Hagem C, Westskog H. Allocating tradable permits on the basis of market price to achieve cost effectiveness[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2009, 42(2):139-149.
[7] D'Amato A, Valentini E, Zoli M. Tradable quotas taxation and market power[J]. Energy Economics, 2017, 63:248-252.
[8] Liski M, Montero J-P. A note on market power in an emission permits market with banking[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2005, 31(2):159-173.
[9] Liski M, Montero J-P. Market power in an exhaustible resource market:The case of storable pollution permits[J]. The Economic Journal, 2011, 121(551):116-144.
[10] 王家祺, 李寿德, 刘伦升. 跨期间排污权交易中的市场势力与排污权价格变化的路径分析[J]. 武汉理工大学学报(交通科学与工程版), 2011, 35(1):209-212.
[11] Haita C. Endogenous market power in an emissions trading scheme with auctioning[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 2014, 37(3):253-278.
[12] Alvarez F, André F J. Auctioning emission permits with market power[J]. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2016, 16(4):1-28.
[13] Misiolek W S, Elder H W. Exclusionary manipulation of markets for pollution rights[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1989, 16(2):156-166.
[14] 李寿德, 王家祺. 初始排污权不同分配下的交易对市场结构的影响研究[J]. 武汉理工大学学报(交通科学与工程版), 2004, 28(1):40-43.
[15] Bonacina M, Gullì F. Electricity pricing under "carbon emission trading":A dominant firm with competitive fringe model[J]. Energy Policy, 2007, 35(8):4200-4220.
[16] 王道臻, 李寿德. 排污权市场中厂商势力对产品市场结构的影响[J]. 系统管理学报, 2011, 20(4):510-512.
[17] Eshel D M D. Optimal allocation of tradable pollution rights and market structures[J]. Journal of Regulatory Economics. 2005, 28(2):205-223.
[18] Tanaka M, Chen Y. Market power in emissions trading:Strategically manipulating permit price through fringe firms[J]. Applied Energy, 2012, 96:203-211.
[19] Hintermann B. Market power, permit allocation and efficiency in emission permit markets[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2011, 49(3):327-349.
[20] Kolstad J, Wolak F. Using environmental emissions permit prices to raise electricity prices:Evidence from the California electricity market[R]. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2008.
[21] Holland S P, Moore M R. When to pollute, when to abate? intertemporal permit use in the Los Angeles NOx Market[J]. Land Economics, 2012, 88(2):275-299.
[22] Godby R. Market power in laboratory emission permit markets[J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 23(3):279-318.
[23] Dormady N C. Carbon auctions, energy markets & market power:An experimental analysis[J]. Energy Economics, 2014, 44:468-482.
[24] 杜少甫, 董骏峰, 梁樑, 等. 考虑排放许可与交易的生产优化[J]. 中国管理科学, 2009, 17(3):81-86.
[25] 金帅, 盛昭瀚, 杜建国. 转型背景下排污权初始分配机制优化设计[J]. 中国人口.资源与环境, 2013, 23(12):48-56.
[26] 陈伯成, 李英杰. "考虑排放许可与交易的生产优化"的补充研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2014, 22(9):141-148.
