Linking domestic emissions trading schemes to the EU ETS

Technology Transfer and Investment Risk in International Emissions Trading

Work package 4

Brussels, 30 November 2006 Dr. Urs Springer, Ecoplan (Switzerland) Dirk Forrister, Natsource (UK)

ECOPLAN 1

Overview

1. Introduction 2. Switzerland 3. Norway 4. United States 5. Japan 6. Summary and conclusions

ECOPLAN 2

1 Introduction

Objectives and approach



Objectives

– to describe the climate policy framework in Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Japan, and the United States; – to assess the potential and problems of linking these schemes to the EU ETS 

Assessment criteria:

1. System design (trading scheme, system boundaries, currency, use of Kyoto mechanisms) 2. Target and allocation (Kyoto target, allocation, transparency) 3. Compliance (Monitoring, sanctions)

ECOPLAN 3

2 Switzerland

Background



Targets and emissions:

– Kyoto target: -8% – Current GHG emissions: about 1990 level. Projected gap in 2010: 5% 

Instruments:

–

CO 2 tax

on heating and process fuels. Rate (22 EUR / t CO 2 ) still

to be approved

by Parliament  Trading scheme not yet implemented.

– Companies that conclude

voluntary agreements

with the government are excluded from CO 2 tax and can participate in

emissions trading scheme.

Targets of voluntary agreements are the basis for the (free) allocation of tradable allowances for the period 2008-12.

–

Climate cent:

Levy on transport fuels (1 cent / liter). Revenues used for mitigation projects in Switzerland and abroad.

ECOPLAN 4

2 Switzerland

1) System design

• Energy activities (including refineries) • Aluminum • • Tourism • Swiss refineries not covered • Use of Kyoto mechanisms: Only minor differences • Currency: AAU in Switzerland, “hot air” not allowed

ECOPLAN 5

2 Switzerland

2) Target and allocation

 Total allocation: In accordance with national target.

 Installation-level allocation – Cement industry: Allocation 45% above current emissions: Over-allocation!

– Energy agency umbrella agreement: Ambitious target (11.5% below 1990) – Other sectors: No signs of over-allocation.

 NAP criterion regarding allocation only partially fulfilled (“taking reduction potential into account”).

 Allocation to new entrants (gas-fired power plants) not clear.

 Transparency: – Swiss voluntary agreements confidential, but will be published.

ECOPLAN 6

2 Switzerland

3) Compliance

 Monitoring – Less strict in Switzerland: – EU: Annual reports for all installations, independent verification – Switzerland: Annual reports by companies, first report in 2008 for groups. No independent verification.

 Sanctions – Different approaches – EU ETS: 40 EUR and 100 EUR plus surrendering of missing allowances.

– Switzerland: Repayment of CO 2 Problem: EUA prices > CO 2 tax since introduction plus interest. tax (EUR 22)  Ex-post adjustment: – EU ETS: Ex-post adjustments incompatible with legal framework.

– Switzerland: Ex-post adjustments based on energy intensity (until 2010).   Major obstacle to linkage.

ECOPLAN 7

3 Norway

Background



Targets and emissions:

–

Kyoto target: +1%

– Booming petroleum industry, energy intensive industries. – Current GHG emissions: +9.5%  –

Instruments: CO 2 tax

for offshore oil, domestic and transport sectors (23-40 EUR/t). Reduced rate for pulp & paper industry.

–

Voluntary agreement

with energy intensive industries (target: -20% vs. 1990) –

Emissions trading scheme

along the lines of EU ETS

ECOPLAN 8

3 Norway

1) System design

PIL VA

• Aluminium • Ferrosilicon • Carbides • Other metals • Mineral fertilizer

ETS Norway

• District heating • Energy production • Gas processing • Other minerals • Steel • Cement • Petrochem • Refineries (Pulp & paper)

CO 2 tax

• Pulp & paper • Transport • Offshore petroleum • Domestic heating    Overlapping coverage: no problem Petroleum and pulp & paper opted out Use of Kyoto mechanisms: Same as EU ETS

ECOPLAN 9

3 Norway

2) Target and allocation

 Allocation: – Installation level: Overall allocation factor 90.6%.  stricter than many European countries – Uncertainty regarding new gas-fired power plants (CCS required or not?).

– No guarantee for reaching Kyoto target due to narrow scope of Norwegian ETS (transport and petroleum activities not covered).

 Ex post adjustment of targets – Initial allocation can be changed for 2006/07 “if the conditions on which the allocation was based are changed significantly”.

– Modifications can only result in a reduction of allowances, not an increase.

– Likely to be disapproved by the European Commission.

ECOPLAN 10

3 Norway

3) Compliance

 Monitoring – Annual reporting of emissions required.

– Verification by independent party only in special cases (EU ETS: mandatory).

 Sanctions – Fine (EUR 40) and obligation to surrender missing allowances in the subsequent year. Same as EU ETS.

 EU vs. EFTA law – Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland have to implement the Directive under the rules of the European Free Trade Association

EFTA

. Norway accepted, but Liechtenstein and Iceland have been reluctant to do so.  linkage not yet established.

ECOPLAN 11

4 United States

Proposed Trading Programs – Overview

Climate Stewardship Act (McCain/Lieberman)

(Pending in Senate Environment Committee)

Climate & Economy Insurance Act (Bingaman)

(Pending in Senate Energy Committee)     Absolute targets: cap at 2000 level by 2010-15 Coverage: 85% of national GHGs – downstream large emitters – upstream suppliers of transport fuels Tradable units – Allowances from another nation’s market – Eligible domestic offsets including sequestration – Credit against future reductions Financial penalty (3x market value), but no payback of tons      Relative targets – less stringent than CSA – Devolves absolute targets to sectors/companies – Program-wide 2010 target: 2.4% below 2009 (est) emissions intensity * forecasted 2010 GDP – 2011-19: 2.4% below previous year’s intensity target * forecasted GDP Coverage: downstream process emissions + all upstream sources – Auctioning = 9% in 2010, 13% in 2020 Tradable units: Allowances + foreign offsets – geologic sequestration, use of covered fuels as feedstocks, exports of covered fuels, exports/destruction of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, N20, eligible early reductions Price cap US$7/ton in 2010, increasing 5%/year Financial penalty (3x safety valve), no payback tons

ECOPLAN 12

4 United States

Proposed Trading Programs – Overview (cont’d)

 North eastern States’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) (8/06) – 7 North-eastern / Mid-Atlantic States, plus Maryland in June 2007 – Cap and trade for electricity sector – 3-year compliance periods, extendable to 4-year if $10 trigger price reached (average during 1 year) – Certified offsets anywhere in U.S. (limit of 3.3% of entity’s emissions): LFG, afforestation, end-use efficiency for home heating, natural gas, agricultural methane capture, oil and gas fugitive methane reductions, reduction in SF 6 emissions – Offset trigger: if average prices equal or exceed  $7 over period of 1 year, offset limit increases to 5%  $10 over period of 1 year, offset limit increases to 10%, and CERs and ERUs become eligible

ECOPLAN 13

4 United States

Proposed Trading Programs: Obstacles to Linking with EU ETS

 Formal linking requires amendment of Emissions Trading Directive – Possible to informally link, but EU purchases of US allowances endanger EU Kyoto compliance – Gateway could be implemented, but reduces efficiency gains  Price cap (Bingaman) – Creates arbitrage opportunities, which can be reduced by limiting cap use to difference between US firms’ emissions and allocations – Cap reduces economic efficiency benefits by segmenting market, preventing efficient trades by US firms, potentially distorting pricing by US sellers  All 3 U.S. programs allow for types of reductions not eligible under EU ETS – Allows for circumvention of EU restrictions – Allows for greater purchases of EU-restricted instruments in the U.S. than under no-linking scenario

ECOPLAN 14

4 United States

Proposed Trading Programs: Obstacles to Linking with EU ETS (cont’d)

 Comparability of effort – McCain-Lieberman, RGGI targets somewhat less stringent, Bingaman targets much less stringent than EU ETS – Implication: U.S. would become major seller to EU  Leakage under RGGI – RGGI cap could be undermined by electricity imports into region – Total U.S. emissions could increase while program goals met

ECOPLAN 15

5 Japan

Background

   Ambitious Kyoto target ( 6%), given Japan’s low emissions intensity Significant Government purchases if no tax or mandatory cap and trade imposed after policy review in 2007 Keidanren voluntary emission reduction targets are centerpiece of KP compliance plan – Reduce industry, energy emissions below 1990 levels by 2010 – Targets may be based on energy intensity, energy consumption, CO 2 emissions intensity, or absolute CO 2 – 35+ industries covered emissions – May purchase CERs, ERUs to meet targets – Mandatory cap and trade could be considered, but strongly opposed by industry, METI

ECOPLAN 16

5 Japan

Climate Policies

  Japan Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme (JVETS) Small program – 34 companies taking on voluntary targets with subsidies for energy conservation, switching from oil – Reductions below ~ 2003 baseline of 1.3 Mt  Subsidies awarded based on cost-effectiveness, must be returned if target not met  Can use traded allowances or CERs for compliance

ECOPLAN 17

5 Japan

Compatibility with EU ETS

   Environmental integrity – No sanctions for non-compliance with Keidanren targets – JVETS has no penalty, only withdrawal of subsidies  Both programs may allow CERs from large hydro and sinks projects – Could circumvent EU prohibitions Many Keidanren targets are not absolute, unlike EU ETS Subsidies provide advantage to JVETS firms, also obscure marginal costs, reduce efficiency  JVETS is small

ECOPLAN 18

6 Summary and conclusions

Prospects and potential of linking



Linkage

between EU ETS and domestic schemes – Norway: Linkage likely and feasible. Legal issues to be resolved.

– Switzerland: Linkage feasible, only if CO 2 tax implemented.

– North America: Great challenges of legal, economic and technical nature.

– Japan: Linkage unlikely given voluntary targets and subsidies.



Economic potential

– Significant benefits for Norway and Switzerland

,

but negligible efficiency gains for the EU.

– Japan and North America: Linkage would greatly expand the market and provide substantial benefits for all parties.

ECOPLAN 19

6 Summary and conclusions

Conclusions



Main obstacles

– Price caps: Segment the market, reduce efficiency.

– Eligibility of tradable units: Probably impossible to maintain in practice.

– Ex-post adjustments – Voluntary nature of trading schemes: Sanctions for non-compliance?



Lessons for policy development

– ETS should not be developed independently of each other – Path dependence: Once an instrument (e.g. carbon tax) is implemented, it is likely to remain in place even when new instruments are introduced 

Outlook

– No global uniform carbon market in the near term – In the long term, better prospects for linkage of major markets

ECOPLAN 20

ECOPLAN

www.ecoplan.ch

21