Abatement Cost

(redirected from Abatement costs)

Abatement Cost

The expense a business incurs as a result of cleaning or removing an undesired byproduct of its goods and services. Abatement cost is often associated with large manufacturing plants that must abide by environmental standards or city noise ordinances. However, it may apply to a small business also. For example, a dental office must bear the cost of disposing of medically hazardous material.
References in periodicals archive ?
Project costs have increased to account for environmental and abatement costs associated with demolition of the existing water tank.
Comparing the outcomes of schemes (i) and (ii), in conjunction with Figure 2, regulation with permits (WP) reduces total abatement costs more than no permit regulation (NP): [TAC.
In this study, we identify a general functional form representing the cost of financial intennediation (as shown for C02 abatement costs by Nordhaus, The Energy Journal, 2009) with the aim of capturing the cost inefficiencies arising from financial exclusion ("incomplete participation").
By allowing emission sources with high abatement costs to offset higher onsite emissions by purchasing additional reductions from other, lower-cost polluters, they assert trade in pollution allowances reduces the total cost of achieving a given reduction in aggregate emissions.
Such chronic nuisance property ordinances propose that abatement costs be recovered from the violating property owner through the annual property tax bill, using the uniform collection method (UCM) under F.
An environmental survey done by the state in 2012 estimated the environmental abatement costs for the property to be about $1.
note 9, at 697 (discussing the variation of abatement costs for sources
Costs are modeled through a functional farm that allows estimation of nonparticipation costs; incomplete participation increases abatement costs for remaining countries by a penalty factor which depends on the convexity of the abatement's marginal cost.
They show that if the regulator's objective is to minimize aggregate emissions, it is optimal to bias the monitoring scheme against firms that value pollution less, that is, firms with lower abatement costs.
If a policymaker assumes that a new business would not locate in its jurisdiction without abatement, or an existing business would not expand or rehabilitate its real property holdings in the jurisdiction without abatement, then it is reasonable for the policymaker to assume (as they often do) that abatement costs the jurisdiction nothing.
Air pollution abatement costs may be rising, especially if the EPA follows through and declares its sulfur dioxide levels to be in nonattainment status.
At the same time, however, an accurate national carbon tax set equal to the marginal damage or a cap-and-trade system are efficient solutions to addressing global warming that can result in the same outcome, depending on firms' response to the regulatory regime; seeking to avoid adequately adjusted tax levels, firms may be stimulated to invest in low-emission technologies that lead to lower abatement costs.