Transcript Slide 1

Insights from implementing the
EU Emission Trading System
Workshop « Economic Instruments for
Climate Change Mitigation »
4 March 2009, South Africa
[email protected]
DG Environment
European Commission
Initial design of the
European Carbon Market
phase I and phase II
“Downstream” mandatory cap-and-trade system
Partial coverage (approx. 50% of emissions)
Power plants and large industrial point sources
Penalties to ensure compliance (€100+shortfall)
Decentralised and combined cap-setting and
allocation via national plans (largely free
allocation of allowances):
27 caps and different methods of allocating allowances
Member States responsible for allocation plans,
European Commission for their evaluation
Experience from phase I
2005-2007
 2005: The world’s largest carbon market gets off the
ground and carbon enters the boardroom
 Carbon market infrastructure is established
 Electronic registry system
 Over 10,000 installations monitor and report emissions
 Independent verification of reported emissions
 A liquid market emerges
 Market intermediaries – brokers and exchanges
 But:
 Over-allocation occurred
 Allocations not based on verified emissions
 Limited damage: absence of banking from phase 1 into phase 2
Main differences in period II
2008-2012
 There will be fewer allowances in the market
 Cap set at 6.5% below 2005 verified emissions
 Aviation to be integrated as of 2012
 The first trading schemes paralleling the EU ETS will
emerge (e.g. RGGI in 2009)
 But:
 cumbersome cap-setting and allocation process
 long uncertainties on cap
 no harmonised allocation
 very limited auctioning (appr. 4%)
 Conclusion of review process in 2007:
More harmonisation and predictability
indispensable to fully reap benefits of ETS
Main elements of phase III
2013-2020
Strategic element of EU post 2012 climate and
energy package
Longer trading period
Single EU-wide cap instead of 27 national caps
New industries (aluminium and ammonia
producers) and gases (nitrous oxide and
perfluorocarbons) included
Fully harmonised allocation rules
Auctioning is default allocation method: power sector
Phased out free allowances for normal industry
Up to 100% free allocation on basis of ambitious exante benchmark for sectors at risk of carbon leakage
Primary feature of the new ETS:
A robust EU-wide cap beyond
2020
2083 Mtyr
Gradient: -1.74%
-20%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Linear decrease of cap: predictable trend-line to 2020 and beyond, factor to be
reviewed by 2025
Joint Implementation and
the Clean Development
Mechanism
 Certainty on companies’ potential to use JI/ CDM post 2012
 Differentiate between EU’s independent commitment (-20%) to reduce
GHG emission and contribution under intern. agreement (-30%)
 Independent commitment:
 Up to 1.6 Gt of credits over 2008-2020 (excludes Government purchase)
 Demand from EU only would reduce market-based incentive to increase
energy efficiency, low carbon technology investment
 EU’s renewables target would become more expensive if EU ETS not
contributing to its achievement
 Once an international agreement is concluded, the EU ETS will
increase the use of credits (JI/ CDM/ other) by 50% of the additional
reduction effort under that agreement
Lessons learnt from EU ETS
Keep emissions trading simple
 Simple allocation rules (auctioning)
 Let the market develop without interference (no price caps)
 Ensure transparency and predictability
 Set clear guidance for monitoring, reporting and verification
 Effective compliance regime
 Use accredited private sector actors for verification
 Cover only those installations/gases at the outset where
sufficiently accurate monitoring is feasible, extend later in line
with technical progress on monitoring
 Use of verified data as basis for any free allocation
 Emission trading is effective and efficient, but no panacea