An early assessment of national allocation plans for phase 2 of EU emission trading
Based on 18 National Allocation Plans (NAP) for phase 2 (2008-2012) of the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), we explore to which extent individual Member States (MS) intend to use the ETS effectively and efficiently to reduce CO2 emissions. Our analyses at the macro level of these NAPs show that on average the ET-budgets in phase 2 are only about 3 % lower than the budgets in phase 1 (2005-2007), historical emissions in 2005 and projected emissions in 2010. While on average, the old MS intend to reduce emissions by about 10 %, compared to projected emissions, the im-plied excess allocation in the new MS is more than 20 %. When compared with a cost-efficient split of the required emission reductions, the ET-budgets in the EU-15 MS are generally too large. Thus, the burden for non-trading sectors (households, tertiary and transport) will be too high. Noteworthy are also the high shares of governments' intended and companies' possible use of Kyoto Mechanisms, which challenge the traditional position held by the EU on supplementarity. In general, our analyses at the micro level of the allocation methods (across countries and phases) suggest that MS tend to stick with the oncepts and methodologies developed in phase 1, unless these actually contradict rulings by the European Commission. Thus the progress made towards more efficient and more harmonized allocation rules is generally small. With some variation, all NAPs include persistent inefficient rules for closures and new installations which distort dynamic innovation incentives and tend to preserve existing production structures. Observed improvements include a (rather small) increase in auctioning and the use of benchmarking for existing and new installations. Also, the NAPs of a few old MS have simplified special provisions for process-related emissions or combined heat and power. In contrast, new MS have often introduced such provisions in phase 2. We conclude that potentials to improve environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency are far from being tapped. Improvements crucially hinge on the outcome of the European Commission's review process.
|Date of creation:||2006|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://isi.fraunhofer.de/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cameron Hepburn & Michael Grubb & Karsten Neuhoff & Felix Matthes & Maximilien Tse, 2006.
"Auctioning of EU ETS phase II allowances: how and why?,"
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 137-160, January.
- Hepburn, C. & Grubb, M. & Neuhoff, K. & Matthes , F. & Tse, M., 2006. "Auctioning of EU ETS Phase II allowances: how and why?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0644, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Grubb, M. & Neuhoff, K., 2006.
"Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview,"
Cambridge Working Papers in Economics
0645, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Michael Grubb & Karsten Neuhoff, 2006. "Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 7-30, January.
- Graichen, Patrick & Requate, Till, 2003.
"Der steinige Weg von der Theorie in die Praxis des Emissionshandels: Die EU-Richtlinie zum CO2-Emissions-handel und ihre nationale Umsetzung,"
Economics Working Papers
2003,08, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
- Patrick Graichen & Till Requate, 2005. "Der steinige Weg von der Theorie in die Praxis des Emissionshandels: Die EU-Richtlinie zum CO_2-Emissionshandel und ihre nationale Umsetzung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 6(1), pages 41-56, 02.
- Bohringer, Christoph & Hoffmann, Tim & Manrique-de-Lara-Penate, Casiano, 2006. "The efficiency costs of separating carbon markets under the EU emissions trading scheme: A quantitative assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 44-61, January.
- Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Hoppe, Christian & Schleich, Joachim & Seifert, Stefan, 2004. "The role of auctions and forward markets in the EU," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 04-59, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Jos Sijm & Karsten Neuhoff & Yihsu Chen, 2006.
"CO 2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector,"
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 49-72, January.
- Sijm, J. & Neuhoff, K. & Chen, Y., 2006. "CO2 cost pass through and windfall profits in the power sector," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0639, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Boemare, Catherine & Quirion, Philippe, 2002.
"Implementing greenhouse gas trading in Europe: lessons from economic literature and international experiences,"
Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 213-230, December.
- Catherine Boemare & Philippe Quirion, 2002. "Implementing greenhouse gas trading in Europe: lessons from economic literature and international experiences," Post-Print halshs-00007264, HAL.
- Sonja Peterson, 2006. "Efficient Abatement in Separated Carbon Markets: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme," Kiel Working Papers 1271, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Christoph Bohringer & Tim Hoffmann & Andreas Lange & Andreas Loschel & Ulf Moslener, 2005. "Assessing Emission Regulation in Europe: An Interactive Simulation Approach," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-22.
- Schleich, Joachim & Cremer, Clemens, 2007. "Using benchmarking for the primary allocation of EU allowances - an application to the German power sector," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S6/2007, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
- Spulber, Daniel F., 1985. "Effluent regulation and long-run optimality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 103-116, June.
- Pizer, William & Kruger, Joseph, 2004. "The EU Emissions Trading Directive: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls," Discussion Papers dp-04-24, Resources For the Future.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:fisisi:s12006. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.