IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grandfathering, auctioning and Carbon Leakage: Assessing the inconsistencies of the new ETS Directive


  • Clò, Stefano


The new ETS Directive defines three different allocation rules, granting exemption from auctioning to those sectors exposed to the risk of Carbon Leakage. This article analyses the inconsistencies that characterize this new allocation rule and it concludes that the methodology designed to assess the risk of Carbon Leakage is more politically driven than economically grounded. The results of the Carbon Leakage risk assessment reveal that grandfathering is going to be the dominant allocation rule during the third phase also. However, not only the exemption from auctioning is unlikely to mitigate Carbon Leakage, instead of improving the allocation transparency and granting harmonization of higher rules but also the new ETS allocation rule is likely to increase the distortions of competition, worsening rather than improving the harmonization within the ETS.

Suggested Citation

  • Clò, Stefano, 2010. "Grandfathering, auctioning and Carbon Leakage: Assessing the inconsistencies of the new ETS Directive," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2420-2430, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:5:p:2420-2430

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Karsten Neuhoff & Kim Keats Martinez & Misato Sato, 2006. "Allocation, incentives and distortions: the impact of EU ETS emissions allowance allocations to the electricity sector," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 73-91, January.
    2. Jos Sijm & Karsten Neuhoff & Yihsu Chen, 2006. "CO 2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 49-72, January.
    3. Damien Demailly & Philippe Quirion, 2006. "CO 2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: grandfathering versus output-based allocation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 93-113, January.
    4. Cameron Hepburn & Michael Grubb & Karsten Neuhoff & Felix Matthes & Maximilien Tse, 2006. "Auctioning of EU ETS phase II allowances: how and why?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 137-160, January.
    5. Woerdman Edwin & Arcuri Alessandra & Clò Stefano, 2008. "Emissions Trading and the Polluter-Pays Principle: Do Polluters Pay under Grandfathering?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 565-590, December.
    6. Damien Demailly & Philippe Quirion, 2006. "CO2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: Grandfathering vs. output-based allocation," Post-Print halshs-00639327, HAL.
    7. Stefan P. Schleicher & Claudia Kettner & Angela Köppl & Gregor Thenius, 2007. "Stringency and Distribution in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme –The 2005 Evidence," Working Papers 2007.22, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Zhong Xiang, 2012. "Competitiveness and Leakage Concerns and Border Carbon Adjustments," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 6(3), pages 225-287, December.
    2. Venmans, Frank, 2012. "A literature-based multi-criteria evaluation of the EU ETS," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5493-5510.
    3. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:2122-:d:119248 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Simone Borghesi & Andrea Flori, 2016. "EU ETS Facets in the Net: How Account Types Influence the Structure of the System," Working Papers 2016.08, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Chang, Kai & Zhang, Chao & Chang, Hao, 2016. "Emissions reduction allocation and economic welfare estimation through interregional emissions trading in China: Evidence from efficiency and equity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1125-1135.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:38:y:2010:i:5:p:2420-2430. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.