A Ten-Year Rule to guide the allocation of EU emission allowances

Åhman, Markus; Burtraw, Dallas; Kruger, Joseph; Zetterberg, Lena

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.007

Cited by 78 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature on various aspects of the EU ETS is growing with much attention being paid to allocation issues (Ellerman and Buchner, 2007;Neuhoff, Martinez, and Sato, 2006;Ahman, Burtraw, Krueger, and Zetterberg, 2007), competitiveness concerns (Demailly andQuirion, 2006, 2008;Oberndorfer and Rennings, 2007;Grubb and Neuhoff, 2006;Reinaud, 2004;Ponssard and Walker, 2008), and the drivers of CO 2 prices (Mansanet-Bataller, Pardo, and Valor, 2007;Alberola, Chevallier, and Chèze, 2008). There are few published studies analyzing the levels of abatement which might have occurred as a result of the emissions constraint and the resulting CO 2 price signal.…”

Section: Relevant Literature On Allocation and Abatementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abatement and Allocation in the Pilot Phase of the EU ETS

Anderson

Maria

2010

Environ Resource Econ

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use historical industrial emissions data to assess the level of abatement and overallocation that took place across European countries during the pilot phase (2005)(2006)(2007) of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Using a dynamic panel data model, we estimate the counterfactual (business-as-usual) emissions scenario for EU member states. Comparing this baseline to allocated and verified emissions, we conclude that both overallocation and abatement occurred, along with under-allocation and emissions inflation. Over the three trading years of the pilot phase we find over-allocation of approximately 376 million EUAs (6%) and total abatement at the member state level of 107 Mt CO 2 (1.8%). However, due to over-allocation and possible uncertainty about future allocation methodologies, we calculate that emissions inflation of approximately 119 Mt CO 2 (2%) occurred, resulting in emissions over the pilot phase being approximately 12 Mt CO 2 (0.2%) higher than they would have been in the absence of the EU ETS.JEL Classification: C23, O13, Q54, Q58

show abstract

Section: Relevant Literature On Allocation and Abatementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abatement and Allocation in the Pilot Phase of the EU ETS

Anderson

Maria

2010

Environ Resource Econ

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The grandfathering approach based on historical baseline emissions can underpin the inter-temporal consistency [58] and deliver incentives for regulated emission installations to report their historical data [59]. However, this approach presents two big flaws of "allowance oversupply" and "windfall profit" during 2005-2012, and is questioned regarding issues of unfairness and investment distortion [56].…”

Section: The Carbon Quotas Allocation From Industry-level To Firm-levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Allocation of Carbon Intensity Reduction Target by 2020 among Industrial Sectors in China

Yang

Liu

et al. 2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In order to realize the national carbon intensity reduction target, China has decided to establish a unified national carbon emissions trading market in 2017. At the initial stage, eight industrial sectors will be covered in the carbon market and the other industrial sectors will be included gradually. The aim of this paper is to study the issue of how to allocate the carbon emissions quotas among different industrial sectors fairly and effectively. We try to provide theoretical support for how to determine the coverage scope and access order of the carbon market. In this paper, we construct a comprehensive reduction index based on indicators of equity and efficiency principle. We adopt entropy method to get the objective weights of the three indicators. Then, an allocation model is developed to determine each sector's reduction target for the year of 2020. The result shows that our allocation scheme based on entropy method is more reasonable, and our allocation method will promote the equity of carbon quotas allocation and the efficiency of carbon emissions. With consideration of China's current economic situation and industrial background, we discuss some policy implications regarding the construction of carbon market.

show abstract

“…Since the scrapping rate used by national accountants for the calculation of the capital stock -and hence MFP growth -is usually assumed to be immune to such changes (Schreyer et al, 2011), the productive capital stock will tend to be overestimated. At the same time, environmental policies may also have the opposite effect to extend the life of some existing capital goods -for instance vintagedifferentiated regulations (VDRs) and higher entry barriers can prolong the life of old and otherwise unviable plants, with the opposite effect on productivity measurement (see Nelson et al 1993, Stavins, 2005 for the case of New Source Review in the US Clean Air Act; and Ahman et al, 2006 andBetz, Eichhammer andSchleich, 2004, for EU's Emission Trading Scheme).…”

Section: Box 4 Accounting For Environmental Services -Green Mfp and mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Environmental Policies Matter for Productivity Growth?

Albrizio

Botta

Koźluk

et al. 2014

OECD Economics Department Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JT03367856Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ECO/WKP(2014)72 Unclassified English -Or. English ECO/WKP(2014)72 2 OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works.Comments on Working Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to the Economics Department, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France, or by e-mail to eco.contact@oecd.org. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. © OECD (2014)You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org ECO/WKP(2014)72 3 ABSTRACT/RÉSUMÉ Do Environmental Policies Matter for Productivity Growth? Insights from new Cross-CountryMeasures of Environmental Policies Environmental policies address wellbeing and sustainability objectives, affecting firm and household behaviour. A newly developed, cross-country composite proxy of environmental policy stringency (EPS) shows that stringency has been increasing across OECD countries over the past two decades. However, the tightening environmental policies have had little effect on aggregate productivity, spurring primarily shortterm adjustments. Nevertheless, they have led to various effects within the economy -the most technologically advanced industries and firms have seen a small increase in productivity, possibly being in the best position to adapt. Least productive firms have seen their productivity fall. Part of the effect is likely to have taken place through entry and exit of firms and relocation of activities. Finally, this project provides evidence on the anti-competitive bias of some aspects of environmental policies. The indicator of Burdens on the Economy due to Environmental Policies (BEEP) shows that barriers to entry and competition, and...

show abstract

A Ten-Year Rule to guide the allocation of EU emission allowances

Cited by 78 publications

References 16 publications

Abatement and Allocation in the Pilot Phase of the EU ETS

Abatement and Allocation in the Pilot Phase of the EU ETS

The Allocation of Carbon Intensity Reduction Target by 2020 among Industrial Sectors in China

Do Environmental Policies Matter for Productivity Growth?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About