The name is absent

* TPP has the lowest abatement cost per kg of SPM while Sinter has the highest.

Column 3 of table 2 presents the estimates of cost of SPM abatement for the
base-case and present scenarios as well as the trading scenario. Lower abatement cost
under the trading scenario reiterates the point that the current regulatory approach is
relatively more expensive. The cost saving to BSP under the trading scenario works
out to 4.72 per cent of its annual operating costs of air pollution control. Some may
argue that these savings appear rather small to favour implementation of tradable
permits which are generally associated with significant enforcement costs. Two things
must be pointed out here. First, the cost savings reported above are an underestimate
because the trading possibilities are based on the existing clean up devices, the choice
of which are largely governed by the current legislation. Second, costs of
implementing intra-plant emission trading would be much lower than in the case of
inter-plant emission trading. Thus taking into account the cost of implementation of
intra-plant trade and the potential savings in capital costs of emission control the net
costs savings under emissions trading would be higher than those reported here. Thus
our findings support the point that intra-plant emissions trading offers the opportunity
to realise substantial reduction in SPM abatement costs as well as improvement in
ambient air quality (7.4 per cent improvement in air quality at the worst receptor⁵) thus
contributing to enhancement of social gains.

In terms of ambient air quality.

<<   <   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >   >>