The EU Emissions Trading System: For an effective and viable reform

Author/s Luigi De Paoli
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2016/1 Language English
Pages 36 P. 5-40 File size 1035 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2016-001001
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS or simply ETS) has now been in place for more than 10 years. There is broad consensus that, although emissions have been below the intended objective during this period, this result is hardly due to the ETS. In these 10 years, several changes have been introduced to the initial rules. Lately, the European Council and Parliament, based on proposals from the European Commission (EC), decided to reform the ETS by introducing a market stability reserve (MSR) with the aim of overcoming the lack of effectiveness regarding ETS, as implicitly recognized by these institutions. In fact, there were other possibilities for reforming the ETS. The purpose of this paper is to present the reasons that favour the introduction of a reserve price for auctions of EU emissions allowances (EUAs) as soon as possible, but at least by the fourth phase of the ETS. It also explains why it would be an effective and no-regret option to start from a low level of the reserve price and reaching in about ten years the level making it convenient to switch from coal to gas in electricity production. The paper is divided into five sections. The first section summarizes the key stages of the history the EU ETS with some comments. The second section analyses the factors that explain the reduction in emissions, particularly during the second phase of the ETS. The next section examines the decisions that have been taken regarding the amount of primary offering of emission permits. The fourth section discusses the reasons that have led to the surplus of permits in circulation since the end of the second ETS phase and the remedies proposed by the European Commission. Finally, the paper presents the case for the introduction and fixing of the minimum and maximum price during the auction for the sale of permits.

Keywords: EU ETS, emissions trading, cap and trade, EUAs price, climate change mitigation policy

  1. EEA (2013). Trends and projections in Europe 2013: Tracking progress towards Europe's climate and energy targets until 2020, EEA Report No 10/2013.
  2. EEA (2014). Why did greenhouse gas emissions decrease in the EU between 1990 and 2012?, --
  3. EEA (2015). Trends and projections in the EU ETS in 2015, EEA Technical Report, No 14/2015.
  4. EEA (2016). Trends and projections in the EU ETS in 2016, EEA Report, No 24/2016.
  5. Fowlie M. (2016). Time to Unleash the Carbon Market? 2016/06/20/time-to-unleash-the-carbon-market/.
  6. Gillenwater M. and Seres S. (2011). The Clean Development Mechanism: A review of the first international offset program, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, --
  7. Gloaguen O. and Alberola E. (2013). Assessing the factors behind CO2 emissions changes over the phases 1 and 2 of the EU ETS: an econometric analysis, CDC Working Paper No. 2013-15.
  8. Holt C. et al. (2007). Auction Design for Selling CO2 Emission Allowances Under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,--
  9. IETA (2015). Overlapping Policies with the EU ETS, July 2015, --
  10. Jenkins J.D. (2014). Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: What are the implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy design? Energy Policy, 69: 467-477.
  11. Koch N., Fuss S., Grosjean G. and Edenhofer O. (2014). Causes of EU ETS price drop: Recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything? New evidence. Energy Policy, 73: 676-685.
  12. Laing T., Sato M., Grubb M. and Comberti C. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of the EU Emissions Trading System, CCCEP Working Paper No. 106.
  13. Löfgren A., Burtraw D., Wråke M. and Malinovskaya A. (2015). Architecture of the EU Emissions Trading System in Phase 3 and the Distribution of Allowance Asset Values, RFF DP 15-45, October 2015, p. 73.
  14. Marcu A., Elkerbout M. and Stoefs W. (2016), 2016 State of EU ETS Report. --
  15. Sartor O., Matthieu M., del Rio Gonzalez P., Graichen V. and Healey S. (2015). What does the European power sector need to decarbonise? The role of EU ETS & complementary policies post-2020. --
  16. Stigler G. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1) Spring: 3-21.
  17. Trotignon R., Frédéric Gonand F. and Christian de Perthuis C. (2014). La réforme de l’EU ETS dans le Paquet Energie Climat 2030: Premières leçons à partir du modèle ZEPHYR, Chaire Economie du Climat Policy Brief, No 2014-01.
  18. EEA (2001). Why did greenhouse gas emissions fall in the EU in 2009, EEA Briefing 2011 GHG Inventory.
  19. European Council (23 and 24 October 2014). Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework, SN 79/14.
  20. EC (2015b). Proposal for a directive amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments, COM(20125) 337 final, 15.7.2015.
  21. EC (2015a). Climate action progress report 2015, COM(2015) 576 final, 18.11.2015.
  22. EC (2014). A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030, COM(2014) 15 final, 22.1.2014.
  23. EC (2013). A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies, COM(2013) 169 final, 27.3.2013.
  24. EC (2012b). Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC clarifying provisions on the timing of auctions pf greenhouse gas allowances, COM(2012) 416 final, 25.7.2012.
  25. EC (2012a). The state of European carbon market in 2012, COM(2012) 652 final, 14.11. 2012.
  26. EC (2011). Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050, COM(2011) 112, 8.3. 2011.
  27. EC (2005). Further guidance on allocation plans for 2008 to 2012 trading period of EU Emissions Trading Scheme, COM(2005) 703 final, 22.12.2005.
  28. De Perthuis C., Solier B. and Trotignon R. (2016). How should the EU ETS be reformed following the Paris Agreement and Brexit? Climate Economics Chair, Policy Brief, 01.
  29. De Perthuis C. and Trotignon R. (2012). The European CO2 allowances market: issues in the transition to Phase III. Les Cahiers de la Chaire Economie du Climat, n. 14, March.
  30. De Paoli L. (2016). Verso un mercato unico? La promozione delle fonti rinnovabili. Energia, 2: 18-28.
  31. De Paoli L. (2015). The fight against climate change: Some proposals for action for Italy in Europe. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 1: 9-27.
  32. Damian M. (2014). Robert Stavins on the carbon-pricing regime, The New York Times, 1 June 2014: dodgy arguments. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 1: 53-61.
  33. Damian M. (2011). Repenser l’économie du changement climatique, LEPII – EDDEN, Cahier de recherche, No 10/2012.
  34. Caldari K. and Masini F. (2011). Pigouvian vesus Marshallian tax: market failure, public intervention and the problem of externalities. Euro. J. History of Economic Thought, 18 (5): 715-732.
  35. Brown L.M., Hanafi A. and Petsonk A. (2012). The EU Emissions Trading Systems: Results and Lessons Learned,
  36. Borkent B., Gilbert A., Klaasen E., Neelis M. and Blok K. (2014). Dynamic allocation for the EU Emissions Trading System, Ecofys 2014,--
  37. Ausubel L.M. and Cramton P. (2004). Vickrey Auctions with Reserve Pricing. Economic Theory, April, 23: 493-505.

  • Polluter Pays Principle in power production to gradually phase-out fossil fuels in Italy Andrea Molocchi, Emanuela Recchini, Angelica Tudini, in ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 1/2019 pp.203
    DOI: 10.3280/EFE2019-001013

Luigi De Paoli, The EU Emissions Trading System: For an effective and viable reform in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1/2016, pp 5-40, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2016-001001