The fundamentals of the future international emissions trading system
Introduction
International cooperation through the market-based Kyoto protocol mechanisms is crucially important for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions abatement policies if in the future a significant number of countries remain subject to a system of emission quotas, in a ‘cap-and-trade’ regulation system (Criqui, 2002). The European Union was the first region to set up a broad carbon market: the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which started functioning by the first of January 2005.1 Additionally, the European Parliament adopted the ‘linking directive’,2 which opens the ETS to other carbon trading systems as well as to Kyoto ‘project-based’ mechanisms, i.e. the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI).3 The CDM and JI are considered to be key options to engage countries outside the EU in the international climate change process and in the emerging international carbon market.4
Given the size already reached by the EU ETS, the system could constitute the very heart of the global carbon market for many years and serve as a reference for other markets. Furthermore and in parallel with the EU ETS policy, the European Commission proposes a quantity objective of 20% reduction of GHG emissions in Europe in 2020 based on the 1990 emission levels, which might be extended to 30% reduction if an international agreement justifies (Council of the EU, 2007). It thus clearly shows its commitment to long-term actions aiming at stabilization in GHG concentrations.
Meanwhile, the value of the global emission markets might be as high as € 200 billion by 2010 according to the leading carbon market analyst Point Carbon (2004). Besides the growing popularity of CDM and JI projects, the domestic cap-and-trade systems are under discussion or already operating in Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and north Eastern US States (Reinaud and Philibert, 2007). In that context, the estimation of CO2 prices for 2010 and beyond is becoming a key risk-management issue for utility analysts.
While a number of studies have tried to project the prices for GHG emissions in the Kyoto period (for a complete survey, see Springer and Varilek, 2004), the levels identified differ widely, from 3 to 74 $/tCO2. This is basically due to business-as-usual emissions projections and differences in the models’ features, but also because of the importance of no-regret measures,5 the availability of project-based credits and the sectors participating in the market. Additionally, the majority of studies search to determine the carbon prices needed to achieve the Kyoto targets in global economies of different countries, with the exceptions of Angers (2006) and Klepper and Peterson (2006) who differentiate between energy intensive or ETS and non-energy intensive or non-ETS sectors. As an example, in order to derive the ETS carbon price, Klepper and Peterson (2006) use emissions allowances based on the first National Allocation Plans under the ETS for their emission limits. It is, however, known today that the allocation endowments have been too generous in the first phase of ETS (e.g. Ellerman and Joskow, 2008), which, if taken into account, modifies the reduction shortfall under the ETS. The same remark applies to the study by Angers (2006), which also analyses the efficiency aspects of linking different cap-and-trade systems in 2020. Finally, none of the studies cited have attempted to look at the economic impacts on different sectors of the ETS nor do they perform an extensive analysis of the sectoral marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs).
Our study, therefore, complements these researches by (i) providing an analysis of sectoral marginal abatements cost curves for a number of European countries and (ii) by addressing the efficiency aspects and the economic impacts for the major sectors of the EU ETS6 under different carbon market configurations. A static and competitive equilibrium environment is assumed, for a given set of sectoral targets by country or world region in 2010 and 2020. As a number of variables have a significant impact on the fundamentals of the demand and supply of carbon allowances, this type of exercise has to formulate a whole set of consistent hypotheses, including
- •
the tightness of the sectoral objectives in the ETS system, which to a large extent refers to second NAPs under the ETS for 2010 and to the suggested reduction by the Commission of 21% of verified 2005 ETS emissions for 2020, but also the tightness of allocation in other carbon trading systems;
- •
the availability and costs of credits originating from the CDM and JI projects.
To explore the economic impacts of various organizations of global carbon markets and key variables mentioned above, we use the market analysis tool ASPEN, which enables to derive supply and demand from sectoral MACCs produced with the reference scenario of POLES world energy model. ASPEN then computes the market-equilibrium price, the flows of CDM/JI credits, the quantities exchanged and the reduction costs for each country in each sector for different global carbon market configurations.
The paper develops as follows: in Section 1, we first describe the approach chosen for sectoral endowments of CO2 emission allowances for different countries or regions in 2010 and 2020; in Section 2, we actually display and discuss the MACCs derived from the POLES Reference scenario; then in Section 3, we proceed with the ASPEN software and introduce the five scenarios representing consistent configurations of the future carbon market; Section 4 later delivers and analyses the main results of this study; lastly, we present our main conclusions in Section 5. The paper shows in particular that, in compliance with the Kyoto targets, the benefits of an enlarged carbon market are significant, since more than 50% of the abatement in the short term have to be achieved in EU ETS sectors (and especially electricity sector), which may indeed use the CDM or JI credits. A second major conclusion is that in 2020 the new flexibility margins provided by the adjustment of investments in new capacities compensate for the increasing pressure towards stronger emission reductions. This reduces the relative importance of the enlarged carbon market.
Section snippets
The sectoral CO2 allocations for 2010 and 2020
The assumptions that influence the demand and supply of allowances are major elements for the assessment of carbon price. The countries and regions of the POLES world energy model described in Annex 1 define the participants to the carbon market in our exercise. We take into account 25 European countries, 11 Annex B countries or regions and 16 non-Annex B countries or regions. In this exercise, only the energy-related CO2 emissions (around 80% of total GHG emissions) are taken into account and
Marginal abatement costs curves
This section is dedicated to the analysis of the sectoral MACCs derived from the POLES model. After a short methodological explanation, we describe and comment the anticipated MACCs for key sectors in the energy system and for several European countries as well as for the whole EU-25.
ASPEN: the analysis of carbon markets
ASPEN is an analytical model that uses the MACCs produced by the POLES model as inputs for the simulation—on simple but robust micro-economic grounds—of tradable emission quotas systems. The principle used is one of cost-minimization through trading: if a set of economic actors—sub-sectors, sectors, countries or regions, each characterized by its own MACC and emission constraint—participates in an emission trading market, then the price of the allowance will equalize, through the process of
Results
The resulting various configurations of the carbon market open up a diversity of interesting results. In presenting them, we begin with the carbon price associated with the five scenarios listed in Table 3. Later on, we analyze the sectoral allowance trade for the representative European countries as well as for the total of EU-25 under a limited number of realistic carbon market configurations in 2010 and 2020. The associated costs of trading in compliance with objectives are then discussed
Conclusion
Studying of the fundamentals of the emerging carbon market requires quite a lot of assumptions on the components the future carbon supply and demand. To produce a consistent and realistic assessment, we employed sources such as second NAPs under the ETS, 2005 GHG National Inventories, EIA data and POLES reference scenario results. This allowed to constitute a comprehensive database on base year emissions and 2010, 2020 emissions and endowments in different countries and regions. However, the
References (32)
- et al.
Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model
Energy Policy
(1999) - et al.
Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism
Energy Policy
(2005) - et al.
Estimating the price of tradable permits for greenhouse gas emissions in 2008–12
Energy Policy
(2004) - Angers, N., 2006. Emission trading beyond Europe: linking schemes in a post-Kyoto world. Discussion Paper No. 06-058,...
The first step: allowance allocation; did emissions abatement occur?
- Burtraw, D., Farrell, A.E., Goulder, L.H., Peterman, C., 2005. Lessons for a cap-and-trade program. Report to State of...
- Caisse des depôts, 2008. La place des mécanismes de projets après 2012. Tendance Carbone 23,...
- Council of the European Union, 2007. Presidency Conclusions, Brussels,...
- Criqui, P., 2002. Les permis d’émission négociables: du cadre d’analyse à la mise en œuvre en Europe. Février, Annales...
- et al.
World energy projections to 2030
International Journal of Global Energy Issues
(2000)
Kyoto and technology at world level: costs of CO2 reduction under flexibility mechanisms and technical progress
International Journal of Global Energy Issues
Taking Stock of Progress Under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Cited by (21)
Buying green or producing green? Heterogeneous emitters’ strategic choices under a phased emission-trading scheme
2018, Resources, Conservation and RecyclingModeling competitive firms' performance under price-sensitive demand and cap-and-trade emissions constraints
2017, International Journal of Production EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Shadow prices for emissions allow marginal emissions cost curves to be produced for policies like cap-and-trade. For example, Criqui et al. (1999) and Stankeviciute et al. (2008) used POLES to evaluate the impact of the Kyoto protocol on the economic performance of participant countries. These studies showed that emissions permit trading leads to significant economic incentives for both sellers and buyers, particularly as the size of markets and number of participants increase.
Directional shadow price estimation of CO<inf>2</inf>, SO<inf>2</inf> and NO<inf>x</inf> in the United States coal power industry 1990-2010
2015, Energy EconomicsCitation Excerpt :A few recent studies, however, claim that only considering the MAC of emission reduction may underestimate the damages to the national economy. Instead, they suggest considering the change of gross domestic product (GDP) when reducing the pollution via MAC (Klepper and Peterson, 2006; Kuik et al., 2009; Stankevicitue et al., 2008). Estimating the MAC of pollutants provides valuable information to policy makers for devising and improving the operating rules of emission trading (Zhou et al., 2015).
Marginal abatement cost curves and abatement strategies: Taking option interdependency and investments unrelated to climate change into account
2014, EnergyCitation Excerpt :discuss an example that treats the possibility of including road transport in the EU ETS to meet abatement targets. Another use of MACCs is to analyse what abatement options are possible given a specific allowance price [37]. The model is also used for more local assessments, such as developments in single countries, industries, and technologies see, e.g., [2,26,36,38,42,45].