This paper investigates the strategic challenges for companies arising from the EU-wide greenhouse gas emission trading system (EU-ETS). Tools are suggested to help companies develop synchronised abatement and trading strategies in their dynamic decision making and facilitate overall cost-minimising behaviour. Furthermore, an EU-ETS simulation game is presented, which has recently been carried out in Germany, and which combines the advantages of a field experiment and a controlled laboratory experiment. The results of the game suggest that the proposed trading system will not automatically result in the expected cost savings. Different factors can be identified as the causes, such as specific design parameters of the EU-ETS, participants' lack of experience with a new instrument, their lack of trust in the market mechanism and risk aversion. The simulation results stress the need for companies to acquaint themselves with the rules and the range of possible strategies.
BaronR. (2002): Trading CO2 and Electricity in the Baltic Sea Region, Report on the Simulation of the Baltic Sea Region Energy Co-operation BASREC, International Energy Agency, Paris.
3.
BaumannS. (2002): Das System handelbarer CO2-Zertifikate und dessen bundesdeutsche Implementierung, Master's Thesis, Tübingen University.
4.
CarlsonC.BurtrawD.CropperM.PalmerK.L. (2000): Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade?Journal of Political Economy108, 1292–1326.
5.
COM (2001): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading within the European Community and Amending Council Decision 96/61/EC, Brussels.
6.
CronshawM.B.KruseJ.B. (1996): Regulated Firms in Pollution Permit Markets With Banking, Journal of Regulatory Economics9, 179–189.
7.
DalesJ.H. (1968): Pollution, Property and Prices, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
8.
EllermanA.D. (2002): U.S. Experience with Emissions Trading: Lessons for CO2 Emissions Trading, Paper presented at the 10th Symposium of the Egon-Sohmen-Foundation on “Climate Policy: US and European Views”, October 25—26, 2002, Dresden, Germany.
9.
EllermanA.D.SchmalenseeR.JoskowP.L.MonteroJ.P.BailyE. (2000): Markets for Clean Air: The US Acid Rain Program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
10.
Energiestiftung Schleswig-Holstein (2002): Emissionshandel Nord: Nutzen für Wirtschaft und Umwelt, Kiel, http://www.emissionshandel-nord.de.
11.
Eurelectric, International Energy Agency and ParisBourse (1999): Greenhouse Gas and Electricity Trading Simulation, Reference 1999-420-0013, Paris. http://www.iea.org/clim/cop5/pubs/report.pdf.
12.
European Commission (2001): European Climate Change Programme, Long Report, Brussels.
13.
European Council ENV 776 (2003): Common position adopted by the Council on 18 March 2003 with a view to the adoption of Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/030318commonposition_en.pdf.
14.
FrommO.HansjürgensB. (1998): Zertifikate der “zweiten Generation” — Die amerikanischen Erfahrungen mit dem Acid Rain- und dem RECLAIM-Programm. In: BonusH. (ed.): Umweltzertifikate — der steinige Weg zur Marktwirtschaft, Zeitschrift für angewandte Umweltforschung9, 150–165.
15.
HahnR.W. (1984): Market Power and Transferable Property Rights, Quarterly Journal of Economics99, 753–765.
16.
KlingC.RubinJ. (1997): Bankable Permits for the Control of Environmental Pollution, Journal of Public Economics64, 101–115.
17.
LoewensteinG. (1999): Experimental Economics from the Vantage-Point of Behavioural Economics, Economic Journal109, 25–34.
18.
MeyerJ.KruskaM.SchumbertA.SteinbrecherN.PuhlI.SchweerR. (2001): Das hessische Planspiel zum CO2—Emissionshandel, Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen51 (10), 630–633.
19.
MontgomeryW.D. (1972): Markets in Licences and Efficient Pollution Control Programs, Journal of Economic Theory5, 395–418.
20.
MullerR.A. (1999): Experimental Methods for Research into Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Working Paper, Department of Economics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
21.
MullerR.A.MestelmannS. (1998): What Have We Learned form Emissions Trading Experiments?Managerial and Decision Economics19, 225–238.
22.
PlottC.A. (1982): Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics, Journal of Economic Literature20, 1485–1527.
23.
PlottC.A. (1989): An Updated Review of Industrial Organization: Applications of Experimental Methods, in SchmalenseeR.WilligR. D. (eds.): Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 2, Amsterdam, 1109–1176.
24.
Prognos/ewi (1999): Die längerfristige Entwicklung der Energiemärkte im Zeichen von Wettbewerb und Umwelt, Untersuchung im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie, Berlin.
25.
RubinJ.D. (1996): A Model of Intertemporal Emission Trading, Banking, and Borrowing, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management31, 269–286.
26.
SchleichJ.BetzR.WartmannS.EhrhartK.-M.HoppeC.SeifertS. (2002): Simulation eines Emissionshandels für Treibhausgase in der baden-württembergischen Unternehmenspraxis (SET UP), Endbericht an das Ministerium für Umwelt und Verkehr Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe, http://www.isi.fhg.de/u/planspiel/endber.pdf.
27.
SturmB.WeimannJ. (2001): Experimente in der Umweltökonomik, FEMM Working Paper No. 7/2001, University of Magedeburg, Version November 2001.
28.
TietenbergT.H. (1998): Tradable Permits and the Control of Air Pollution — Lessons from the United States, in BonusH. (ed.): Umweltzertifikate — der steinige Weg zur Marktwirtschaft, Zeitschrift für angewandte Umweltforschung, Berlin, Sonderheft9, 11–31.
29.
WestskogH. (1996): Market Power in a System of Tradable CO2-Quotas, The Energy Journal17, 85–103.
