Emissions Trading: Impact on Electricity Prices and Energy-Intensive Industries

The EU-wide Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), established in 2005, is a key pillar of Europe¿s strategy to attain compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. Under this scheme, CO2 allowances have thus far been allocated largely free of charge. This paper demonstrates that such cost-free allocation, commonly called grandfathering, implies an increase in electricity prices even when strong competition prevails on electricity markets. As our estimations for Germany¿s power sector show, these price increases result in substantial windfall profits, giving rise to public skepticism and calls for an auctioning of certificates in the future. While empirical evidence on the ETS¿ impacts is scant, the findings reviewed here indicate that even in the absence of certificate auctioning, energy-intensive industry sectors, such as primary aluminum production, may suffer heavily from the ETS-induced electricity price increases. We therefore argue that an abrupt transition to a complete auctioning system may endanger the competitive position of energy-intensive industries in Europe, unless all other major industrial and transition countries are integrated into a global emissions trading system

Refunding ETS-Proceeds to Spur the Diffusion of Renewable Energies: An Analysis Based on the Dynamic Oligopolistic Electricity Market Model Emelie

We use a quantitative electricity market model to analyze the welfare effects of refunding a share of the emission trading proceeds to support renewable energy technologies that are subject to experience effects. We compare effects of supporting renewable energies under both perfect and oligopolistic competition with competitive fringe firms and emission trading regimes that achieve 70 and 80 percent emission reductions by 2050. The results indicate the importance of market power for renewable energy support policy. Under imperfect competition welfare improvements is maximized by refunding ten percent of the emission trading proceeds, while under perfect competition the optimal refunding share is only five percent. However, under both behavioral assumptions we find significant welfare improvements due to experience effects which are induced by the support for renewable energy

How Emission Certificate Allocations Distort Fossil Investments: The German Example

Despite political activities to foster a low-carbon energy transition, Germany currently sees a considerable number of new coal power plants being added to its power mix. There are several possible drivers for this dash for coal, but it is widely accepted that windfall profits gained through free allocation of ETS certificates play an important role. Yet the quantification of allocation-related investment distortions has been limited to back-of-the envelope calculations and stylized models so far. We close this gap with a numerical model integrating both Germany's particular allocation rules and its specific power generation structure. We find that technology specific new entrant provisions have substantially increased incentives to invest in hard coal plants compared to natural gas at the time of the ETS onset. Expected windfall profits compensated more than half the total capital costs of a hard coal plant. Moreover, a shorter period of free allocations would not have turned investors' favours towards the cleaner natural gas technology because of preexisting economic advantages for coal. In contrast, full auctioning of permits or a single best available technology benchmark would have made natural gas the predominant technology of choice