It is well known that price and quantity regulation are not equivalent under uncertainty. This asymmetry has been a factor in the debate about whether to use taxes or Tradable Permit Schemes (TPS) for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. We analyze the allocative efficiency of a TPS for a congestible facility such as an airport, a road, a recreational area, or a museum that experiences supply and demand shocks. The number of permits issued cannot depend on the state. We compare the efficiency of a TPS and a congestion fee when the level of the fee is similarly constrained to be the same across states. When demand and cost curves are linear, a fee outperforms a TPS for several combinations of additive and/or multiplicative demand and cost shocks. More generally, the ranking depends on the nature and magnitude of demand and cost shocks, the elasticity of the cost function, and whether or not the permit requirement always binds. A TPS tends to perform well when first-best usage levels are similar across states. Analogously, a fee is relatively efficient if first-best fees are similar across states.

众所周知，在不确定性条件下，价格和数量监管并不等效。这种不对称性是关于是否使用税收或可交易许可证计划（TPS）来控制温室气体排放的辩论中的一个因素。我们分析了供需冲击给机场，道路，休闲区或博物馆等易耗设施的TPS分配效率。发放的许可证数量不能取决于州。当跨州将收费水平类似地限制为相同时，我们比较了TPS和拥堵费的效率。当需求和成本曲线是线性的时，对于加性和/或乘性需求和成本冲击的几种组合，费用要优于TPS。一般来说，排名取决于需求和成本冲击的性质和规模，成本函数的弹性，以及许可要求是否始终具有约束力。当各州的最佳使用水平相似时，TPS往往会表现良好。类似地，如果各州的头等费用相似，则费用相对有效。