IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/enp/wpaper/eprg0632.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Implications of announced Phase 2 National Allocation Plans for the EU ETS

Author

Listed:
  • Karsten Neuhoff

    (University of Cambridge)

  • Markus Åhman

    (IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute)

  • Regina Betz

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Johanna Cludius

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Federico Ferrario

    (University of Cambridge)

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.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Karsten Neuhoff & Markus Åhman & Regina Betz & Johanna Cludius & Federico Ferrario, 2006. "Implications of announced Phase 2 National Allocation Plans for the EU ETS," Working Papers EPRG 0632, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg0632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/eprg-wp0632.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sterner, Thomas & Muller, Adrian, 2006. "Output and Abatement Effects of Allocation Readjustment in Permit Trade," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-49, Resources for the Future.
    2. Fischer, Carolyn, 2001. "Rebating Environmental Policy Revenues: Output-Based Allocations and Tradable Performance Standards," Discussion Papers 10709, Resources for the Future.
    3. Gagelmann, Frank, 2006. "Innovation effects of tradable emission allowance schemes: the treatment of new entrants and shutdowns," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2006, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    4. Karsten Neuhoff & Michael Grubb & Kim Keats, 2005. "Impact of the Allowance Allocation on Prices and Efficiency," Working Papers EPRG 0508, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    5. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen L. & Kahn, Danny, 2005. "Allocation of CO2 Emissions Allowances in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program," Discussion Papers 10650, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Federico Boffa & Stefano Clò & Alessio D'Amato, 2013. "Environmental policy and incentives to adopt abatement technologies under endogenous uncertainty," Working Papers 5, Department of the Treasury, Ministry of the Economy and of Finance.
    2. Huang, Wenyang & Zhao, Jianyu & Wang, Xiaokang, 2024. "Model-driven multimodal LSTM-CNN for unbiased structural forecasting of European Union allowances open-high-low-close price," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Yu-Jie Hu & Lishan Yang & Fali Duan & Honglei Wang & Chengjiang Li, 2022. "A Scientometric Analysis and Review of the Emissions Trading System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Bonenti, Francesca & Oggioni, Giorgia & Allevi, Elisabetta & Marangoni, Giacomo, 2013. "Evaluating the EU ETS impacts on profits, investments and prices of the Italian electricity market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 242-256.
    5. Pahle, Michael & Fan, Lin & Schill, Wolf-Peter, 2011. "How emission certificate allocations distort fossil investments: The German example," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1975-1987, April.
    6. Knut Rosendahl & Halvor Storrøsten, 2011. "Emissions Trading with Updated Allocation: Effects on Entry/Exit and Distribution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 243-261, June.
    7. Joltreau, Eugénie & Sommerfeld, Katrin, 2016. "Why does emissions trading under the EU ETS not affect firms' competitiveness? Empirical findings from the literature," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-062, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Francesca Bonenti & Giorgia Oggioni & Elisabetta Allevi & Giacomo Marangoni, 2011. "Evaluating the Impacts of the EU-ETS on Prices, Investments and Profits of the Italian Electricity Market," Working Papers 2011.99, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. Cathrine Hagem, 2008. "Incentives for merger in a noncompetitive permit market," Discussion Papers 568, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    10. Jinye Zhao & Benjamin F. Hobbs & Jong-Shi Pang, 2010. "Long-Run Equilibrium Modeling of Emissions Allowance Allocation Systems in Electric Power Markets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 529-548, June.
    11. Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Incentives and prices in an emissions trading scheme with updating," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-82, July.
    12. Karoline S. Rogge & Christian Linden, 2010. "Cross-Country Comparison of the Incentives of the EU Emission Trading Scheme for Replacing Existing Power Plants in 2008–12," Energy & Environment, , vol. 21(7), pages 757-783, November.
    13. Jos Sijm, 2012. "Tradable Carbon Allowances: The Experience of the European Union and Lessons Learned," Chapters, in: Chin Hee Hahn & Sang-Hyop Lee & Kyoung-Soo Yoon (ed.), Responding to Climate Change, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Rogge, Karoline S. & Linden, Christian, 2010. "Cross-country comparison of the replacement incentives of the EU ETS in 2008-12: the case of the power sector," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S1/2010, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    15. Pahle, Michael, 2010. "Germany's dash for coal: Exploring drivers and factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3431-3442, July.
    16. Christoph Weber & Philip Vogel, 2014. "Contingent certificate allocation rules and incentives for power plant investment and disinvestment," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 292-317, December.
    17. Heindl, Peter, 2012. "Mitigating market power under tradeable permits," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-065, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2008. "Emissions trading with updated grandfathering. Entry/exit considerations and distributional effects," Discussion Papers 546, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jinye Zhao & Benjamin F. Hobbs & Jong-Shi Pang, 2010. "Long-Run Equilibrium Modeling of Emissions Allowance Allocation Systems in Electric Power Markets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 529-548, June.
    2. Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Incentives and prices in an emissions trading scheme with updating," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-82, July.
    3. Karoline S. Rogge & Christian Linden, 2010. "Cross-Country Comparison of the Incentives of the EU Emission Trading Scheme for Replacing Existing Power Plants in 2008–12," Energy & Environment, , vol. 21(7), pages 757-783, November.
    4. Markus Åhman & Kristina Holmgren, 2006. "New entrant allocation in the Nordic energy sectors: incentives and options in the EU ETS," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 423-440, July.
    5. Christoph Weber & Philip Vogel, 2014. "Contingent certificate allocation rules and incentives for power plant investment and disinvestment," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 292-317, December.
    6. Steffen Hentrich & Patrick Matschoss & Peter Michaelis, 2009. "Emissions trading and competitiveness: lessons from Germany," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 316-329, May.
    7. Yuanguang Yu, 2012. "An Optimal Ad Valorem Tax/Subsidy with an Output-Based Refunded Emission Payment for Permits Auction in an Oligopoly Market," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 235-248, June.
    8. Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2007. "Incentives and quota prices in an emission trading scheme with updating," Discussion Papers 495, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Frédéric Branger & Misato Sato, 2017. "Solving the clinker dilemma with hybrid output-based allocation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 483-501, February.
    10. Schleich, Joachim & Rogge, Karoline S. & Betz, Regina, 2008. "Incentives for energy efficiency in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2008, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    11. Bernard, Alain L. & Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan K., 2007. "Is there a rationale for output-based rebating of environmental levies?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 83-101, May.
    12. Karen Palmer & Dallas Burtraw & Danny Kahn, 2006. "Simple rules for targeting CO 2 allowance allocations to compensate firms," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 477-493, July.
    13. Zetterberg, Lars, 2014. "Benchmarking in the European Union Emissions Trading System: Abatement incentives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 218-224.
    14. Philippe Quirion, 2022. "Output-based allocation and output-based rebates: a survey," Chapters, in: Handbook on Trade Policy and Climate Change, chapter 7, pages 94-107, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Vera Zipperer & Misato Sato & Karsten Neuhoff, 2017. "Benchmarks for Emissions Trading – General Principles for Emissions Scope," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1712, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu, 2012. "Allocation and leakage in regional cap-and-trade markets for CO2," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 647-668.
    17. Paul, Anthony & Palmer, Karen & Woerman, Matt, 2014. "Designing by Degrees: Flexibility and Cost-Effectiveness in Climate PolicyAbstract: Substantially reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from electricity production will require a transformation of t," RFF Working Paper Series dp-14-05, Resources for the Future.
    18. Robert Heilmayr & James A. Bradbury, 2011. "Effective, efficient or equitable: using allowance allocations to mitigate emissions leakage," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 1113-1130, July.
    19. Golombek, Rolf & Kittelsen, Sverre A.C. & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2013. "Price and welfare effects of emission quota allocation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 568-580.
    20. Anthony Paul & Karen Palmer & Matthew Woerman, 2015. "Incentives, Margins, And Cost Effectiveness In Comprehensive Climate Policy For The Power Sector," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(04), pages 1-27, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Emission Trading; National Allocation Plans; Comparison; European Member states;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:enp:wpaper:eprg0632. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.