Implications of announced phase II national allocation plans for the EU ETS

Abstract We quantified the volume of free allowances that different national allocation plans proposed to allocate to existing and new installations, with specific reference to the power sector. Most countries continue to allocate based on historic emissions, contrary to hopes for improved allocation methods, with allocations to installations frequently based on 2005 emission data; this may strengthen the belief in the private sector that emissions in the coming years will influence their subsequent allowance allocation. Allocations to new installations provide high and frequently fuel-differentiated subsidies, risking significant distortions to investment choices. Thus, in addition to supplying a long market in aggregate, proposed allocation plans reveal continuing diverse problems, including perverse incentives. To ensure the effectiveness of the EU ETS in the future, the private sector will need to be shown credible evidence that free allowance allocation will be drastically reduced post-2012, or that these problems will be addressed in some other way.

[1]  Michael Grubb,et al.  Impact of the allowance allocation on prices and efficiency , 2005 .

[2]  Karoline S. Rogge,et al.  An early assessment of national allocation plans for phase 2 of EU emission trading , 2006 .

[3]  P. González.  Harmonization versus decentralization in the EU ETS: an economic analysis , 2006 .

[4]  Michael Bartels,et al.  DO TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC CO2-ALLOCATIONS DISTORT INVESTMENTS? , 2006 .

[5]  Michael Grubb,et al.  Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview , 2006 .

[6]  K. Neuhoff,et al.  Allocation, incentives and distortions: the impact of EU ETS emissions allowance allocations to the electricity sector , 2006 .

[7]  Karsten Neuhoff,et al.  Allocation of carbon emission certificates in the power sector: how generators profit from grandfathered rights , 2005, Climate Policy.

[8]  Ranjit Bharvirkar,et al.  The Effect on Asset Values of the Allocation of Carbon Dioxide Emission Allowances , 2002 .

[9]  C. Hepburn,et al.  Auctioning of EU ETS phase II allowances: how and why? , 2006 .

[10]  Christoph Böhringer,et al.  On the Design of Optimal Grandfathering Schemes for Emission Allowances , 2005 .

[11]  Lars Zetterberg,et al.  A Ten-Year Rule to guide the allocation of EU emission allowances , 2007 .

[12]  Frank Gagelmann.  Innovation effects of tradable emission allowance schemes: the treatment of new entrants and shutdowns , 2006 .

[13]  Gabriella Pál,et al.  The Polluter Profits Principle: A Note on the Grandfathering of CO2 Emissions Rights in Lax-Cap Trading Regimes , 2005 .

[14]  C. Fischer,et al.  Rebating Environmental Policy Revenues: Output-Based Allocations and Tradable Performance Standards , 2001 .

[15]  Karoline S. Rogge,et al.  EU emissions trading: an early analysis of national allocation plans for 2008–2012 , 2006 .

[16]  Christoph Böhringer,et al.  Mission Impossible !? On the Harmonization of National Allocation Plans under the EU Emissions Trading Directive , 2004 .

[17]  T. Sterner,et al.  Output and abatement effects of allocation readjustment in permit trade , 2008 .

[18]  K. Neuhoff,et al.  CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector , 2006 .

[19]  K. Holmgren,et al.  Harmonising New Entrant Allocation in the Nordic Energy Sectors : Current principles and options for EU ETS phase II , 2006 .

[20]  M. Grubb,et al.  Emission projections 2008–2012 versus national allocation plans II , 2006 .

[21]  Daniel F. Spulber.  Effluent regulation and long-run optimality , 1985 .

[22]  Dallas Burtraw,et al.  Allocation of CO2 Emissions Allowances in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program , 2005 .

[23]  A. Johnston.  Free allocation of allowances under the EU emissions trading scheme: legal issues , 2006 .