Reimplementation of an EU-wide emissions trading system by means of National Allocation Plans is at the core of the European environmental policy agenda. EUMember States must allocate their national emission budgets under the EU Burden Sharing Agreement between energy-intensive sectors that are eligible for European emissions trading and the remaining segments of their economies that will be subject to complementary domestic emission regulation. We show that such hybrid emission regulation may lead to substantial excess costs compared to a comprehensive emissions trading system covering all segments of the economy. Furthermore, the hybrid system associated with the current design of National Allocation Plans is likely to discriminate against sectors that are not part of the emissions trading scheme. The interested reader can make use of a web-based interactive simulation model in order to specify and evaluate alternative settings of the EU emissions trading system.
BernardA.PaltsevS.ReillyJ.M.VielleM.ViguierL. (2003). “Russia’s Role in the Kyoto Protocol,” MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 98. Cambridge, MA.
2.
BöhringerC. (2002). “Industry-level Emission Trading between Power Producers in the EU,” Applied Economics, 34 (4): 523-533.
3.
BöhringerC.RutherfordT.F. (2002). “Carbon Abatement and International Spillovers,” Environmental and Resource Economics22(3): 391-417.
4.
BöhringerC.LangeA. (2005). “Mission Impossible!? - On the Harmonization of National Allocation Plans under the EU Emissions Trading Directive,” Journal of Regulatory Economics, 27 (1): 51-71.
5.
BöhringerC.LoschelA. (2003). “Market power and hot air in international emissions trading: the impact of US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol,” Applied Economics, 35: 651-663.
6.
BovenbergA.L. (1999). “Green Tax Reforms and the Double Dividend: An Updated Reader’s Guide,” International Tax and Public Finance, 6: 421-443.
7.
BrookeA.KendrickD.MeerausA. (1987). GAMS: A User’s Guide. Scientific Press, S.F.
8.
CaprosP.MantzosL.KolokotsasD.IoannouN.GeorgakopoulosT.FilippopoulitisA.AntoniouY. (1998). “The PRIMES Energy System Model - Reference Manual,” National Technical University of Athens. Document as peer reviewed by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research.
9.
CriquiP.MimaS. (2001). “The European Greenhouse Gas Tradable Emission Permit System: Some Policy Issues Identified with the POLES-ASPEN Model,” ENER Bulletin, 23: 51-55.
10.
DimarananB.McDougallR.A. (2002). Global Trade, Assistance and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base. West Lafayett, Center for Global Trade Analysis. Purdue University.
11.
DirkseS.FerrisM. (1995). “The PATH Solver: A Non-monotone Stabilization Scheme for Mixed Complementarity Problems,” Optimization Methods and Software, 5: 123-156.
12.
EU (1999). Preparing for Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, COM 230 (1999), Annex 1. EU Council of Ministers, Commission Communication. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/pdf/99230_en.pdf
13.
EU (2002). Energy Database. Eurostat, Brussels.
14.
EU (2003a). Directive Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. European Commission, Brussels. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/com/pdf/2001/fr_501PC0581.pdf
15.
EU (2003b). European Energy and Transport Trends to 2030. European Commission, Brussels.
16.
EU (2004). Directive 2004/101/EC, amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms. European Comission, Brussels. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/ comm/envoirnment/climat/emission/pdf/dir_2004_101_en.pdf
17.
EyckmansJ.Van RegemorterD.Van SteenbergheV. (2001). “Is Kyoto Fatally Flawed? - An Analysis with MacGEM,” Working Paper Series - Faculty of Economics, No. 2001-18, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven.
18.
GilbertA.BodeJ.-W.PhylipsenD. (2004). “Analysis of the National Allocation Plans for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme,” Ecofys Interim Report. Utrecht. Available at: http://www.ecofys.com/com/publications/documents/Interim_Report_NAP_Evaluation_180804.pdf.
19.
GoulderL.H. (1995). “Environmental Taxation and the Double Dividend: A Reader‘s Guide,” International Tax and Public Finance, 2: 157-183.
20.
KlepperG.PetersonS. (2002). “On the Robustness of Marginal Abatement Cost Curves: The influence of World Energy Prices,” Kiel Working Paper No. 1138. Institute for World Economics, Kiel.
21.
OECD (2001). Environmentally Related Taxes in OECD Countries - Issues and Strategies. OECD Publications, Paris.
22.
RutherfordT.F. (1995). “Extensions of GAMS for Complementarity Problems Arising in Applied Economics,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 19: 1299-1324.
23.
TakayamaT.JudgeG.G. (1971). Spatial and Temporal Price and Allocation Models. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.
24.
UNFCCC (1997). “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP/L.7/Add1, Kyoto.
