Evaluation of Alternative Initial Allocation Mechanisms in a European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowance Trading Scheme

This report is intended to provide background to assist Member States and the European Commission ("Commission") in determining the allocation mechanism to use in conjunction with the Commission's proposed emissions trading programme for carbon dioxide ("CO2") and other greenhouse gases ("GHGs"). The Commission in October 2001 adopted a major package of initiatives to combat climate change. This package includes a proposed Directive on GHG emission trading ("proposed Directive") as well as a proposal for the EC to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and a Communication setting out further methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond the Directive on emissions trading. This report provides descriptions and evaluations of alternative mechanisms for initial allocation of allowances. The report has the following specific objectives: - Provide a typology of alternative initial allocation mechanisms. - Describe the allocation mechanisms that have been used in previous emissions trading programmes. - Develop criteria for evaluating alternative mechanisms. - Evaluate the alternative mechanisms in light of these criteria. - Develop plant-level data that allow one to simulate various initial allocation alternatives and thus shed light on key empirical issues, including feasibility and sector- and plantlevel effects. - Provide an overview of major conclusions and implications

Allocation and Related Issues for Post-2012 Phases of the EU ETS

This report provides information on major design options related to the allocation of emissions allowances under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (the EU ETS, or "the Scheme"). The report was developed to assist the European Commission in the context of the review of options for the EU ETS after 2012, during the third and subsequent phases of the Scheme. The report covers topics related to allocation alternatives as well as several other issues. All of the material contained here was developed initially as a set of briefing notes for the Commission in 2007. The topics covered in the report are divided into two major categories: (1) assessment criteria and other general features, including cap-setting; and (2) allocation alternatives and issues specifically related to allocation

Interactions of the EU ETS with Green And White Certificate Schemes: European Commission Directorate-General Environment

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme ('EU ETS') began on 1 January 2005. The implementation of the EU ETS has raised interest in market-based approaches to achieving environmental and related public policy goals in the EU, particularly those related to promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Indeed, national and regional markets in tradable green certificates ('TGCs') and (to a lesser extent) tradable white certificates ('TWCs') already exist. Green certificate schemes are established or proposed in a number of Member States (e.g., Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK) and form part of a growing portfolio of measures to achieve the renewable targets outlined in Directive 2001/77/EC. White certificate schemes are considerably less widespread, although schemes have been established in Italy and the UK and further activity may be stimulated by the Commission proposal on energy services (COM(2003)739). Both the renewables Directive and the energy services proposal envisage the possible evolution and harmonisation of these instruments into EU-wide certificate schemes. This study has two major objectives: -1. Analyse interactions among EU ETS and green/white certificate markets. The first major objective is to describe the interactions between green and white certificate programmes and the EU ETS. -2. Assess implications of interactions for the policy objectives of the EU ETS. The second major objective deals with the implications of green/white certificate programmes for the objectives of the EU ETS

Heteroscedasticity and interval effects in estimating beta: UK evidence

The article compares beta estimates obtained from Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression with estimates corrected for heteroscedasticity of the error term using Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (ARCH) models, for 145 UK shares. The differences are mainly less than 0.10, for betas calculated using daily returns, but even such small differences can matter in practice. OLS tends to overestimate the beta coefficients compared with ARCH models, and selecting an ARCH type estimate makes the most difference for large cap shares. Regarding the measurement interval, the downward bias in betas from daily returns is associated with not only thin trading but also the volatility of the share's daily returns. We infer that the idiosyncratic component in daily returns, as well as lack of trading, is responsible for low daily betas.beta estimation, heteroscedasticity, ARCH models, interval effect,

Preparing for the ‘real’ market: national patterns of institutional learning and company behaviour in the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)

European companies have reacted in different ways to the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), Phase I. While some companies engaged in an active trading behaviour focused on additional revenues, others adopted a strategy orientated to mere compliance with the scheme and aimed for balanced accounts only. This article provides the outcomes of a survey on company behaviour under the EU ETS in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark from 2005 to 2006, in which cross-national differences in trading behaviour are linked to national patterns of policy implementation and the political economies in which companies operate. Thus, specific country patterns of institutional preparation and institutional learning for the ‘real’ CO2 allowance market in Phase II of the EU ETS (2008–2012) are sketched. Whereas Phase I is distinguished by a net over-allocation of allowances, Phase II is expected to entail some level of scarcity of allowances. We argue that companies are prepared differently to meet the challenges of the future EU ETS. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment