41
欧洲的气候政策 和 碳排放交易 Wyns Tomas, 主任, 清洁空气政策中心 - 欧洲联盟 武汉, 湖北, 中国, 2013年7月23-25日
欧洲的气候政策
和
碳排放交易
Wyns Tomas, 主任, 清洁空气政策中心 - 欧洲联盟
武汉, 湖北, 中国, 2013年7月23-25日
Content
Europe and the Kyoto Protocol
The Start of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)
Europe’s 2020 Climate & Energy Package
The post 2012 EU ETS
A centralised EU ETS and insights for future Chinese ETS
Moving from Grandfathering to Benchmarking
The future of emissions trading in Europe and beyond
About CCAP
Since 1985, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) has been a recognized world
leader in climate and air quality policy and is the only independent, nonprofit think
tank working exclusively on those issues at the local, U.S. national and
international levels. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., CCAP helps policy-
makers around the world develop, promote and implement innovative, market-
based solutions to major climate, air quality and energy problems that balance
both environmental and economic interests.
Current climate and air quality initiatives worldwide include:
•Multi-stakeholder dialogues;
•Education and outreach;
•Qualitative and quantitative research;
•Technical analyses of emission mitigation and climate adaptation options; and
•Policy solutions and recommendations development.
Mission Statement:
“To significantly advance cost-effective and pragmatic air quality and
climate policy through analysis, dialogue and education to reach a
broad range of policy-makers and stakeholders worldwide.”
“Supporting financing of
climate action in
developing countries”
“Implementing U.S.
greenhouse gas mitigation
policies”
“Assisting the United Framework
Convention on Climate Change”
Extreme weather events in 2013
Climate Change is happening now around the world
武汉 - 中国
德国 美国
美国 印度
keeping global temperature increases below +2˚C
Europe & the Kyoto Protocol
Europe and the Kyoto Protocol
Kyoto Protocol, 1997
European Union to
reduce emissions by
-8% in period 2008-
2012 compared to
1990
2008-2012 Greenhouse gas reduction
targets for different EU member states
(ref.1990)
Austria -13.0%
Belgium -7.5%
Czech Rep. -8.0%
Denmark -21.0%
Estonia -8.0%
Finland 0.0%
France 0.0%
Germany -21.0%
Greece 25.0%
Hungary -6.0%
Ireland 13.0%
Italy -6.5%
Latvia -8.0%
Lithuania -8.0%
Luxembourg -28.0%
Netherlands -6.0%
Poland -6.0%
Portugal 27.0%
Slovakia -8.0%
Slovenia -8.0%
Spain 15.0%
Sweden 4.0%
United Kingdom -12.5%
Bulgaria -8.0%
Romania -8.0%
EU Greenhouse gas emissions between
1990 and 2011 (million tonnes CO2-eq)
The start of the EU Emissions
Trading System
2005
• Trial period 2005-2007
• Second phase 2008-2012 (consistent with Kyoto protocol commitment
period)
• around14,000 installations
• Large industrial emitters (steel, chemicals, paper, cement, ...) and the
power sector
• Issuance of allowances for current year, each year by 28 February.
Emissions of previous year need to be verified by 31 March. Operators
need to submit number of allowances equal to emissions of previous
year by 30 April.
EU ETS IN 2005-2012
Total emissions
EU ETS
National cap
&
National Allocation
plan
National Kyoto target
Transport
Buildings
Agriculture
Power sector
Refineries
Steel production
Chemicals
...
+ 20 MW thermal
EU ETS in 2005-2012
•National cap setting, allocation rules
incl. for new entrants
•cap must be consistent with Kyoto
target
•Rules must be transparent,
neutral, ...
•National allocation plan to be
verified by the European
Commission
Allocation of EU ETS allowances to
installations mostly using historical
emissions but in some cases using
benchmarks and limited auctioning
EU Kyoto target
Kyoto targets of EU Member States
EU ETS
National
allocation plan
& cap
EU ETS in 2005-2012
•National cap setting, allocation rules
incl. for new entrants
•National EU ETS implementing
measures
• EU wide rules for Monitoring
Reporting and Verification (MRV)
• MRV rules implemented through
national measures
•National EU ETS Registry linked
through centralised EU registry
Belgium
France
Germany
UK
...
Lessons learned in period
2005-2012 • More harmonisation needed. National bottom-up cap
setting creates intra EU distortion and possible gaming
• EU-wide cap setting necessary together with
centralised allocation rules
• Set the cap over longer time period (2020 ... 2050) and
with predictable cuts
• Auction allowances to sectors that (can) pass on the
carbon price
The EU’s 2020
climate and energy
policy framework
EU 2020 climate and energy package
• Agreed upon in 2008
• Sets goals for 2020 for the EU and its Member States
• 20% Greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020 compared to 1990
• Review of EU ETS directive
• Decision on non-EU ETS 2020 targets for EU Member States
• 20% Renewable energy by 2020
• 20% improvement of energy efficiency (non-binding)
• CO2 efficiency standards for cars
• Rules for carbon capture and storage
2020 EU reduction target:
“-20% ref. 1990 in 2020”
“-14% ref. 2005 in 2020”
EU ETS
“-21% ref. 2005 in 2020”
Non EU ETS sectors
“-10% ref. 2005 in 2020”
Separate targets for 27 EU Member States go from -20% to +20%ref. 2005
Centralisation of EU ETS in EU climate
policy and target setting
2008-2012 EU Kyoto target
Kyoto targets of EU Member States
2020 EU reduction target
“-14% ref. 2005 in 2020”
EU ETS
“-21% ref. 2005 in 2020”
Non EU ETS sectors
“-10% ref. 2005 in 2020”
Separate targets for 27 EU Member States go from -20% to +20%ref. 2005
Before 2012 After 2012
summary
= EU ETS caps
Non-EUETS
sectors covered:
•Transport
•Buildings
•Agriculture
•...
around 50% of
EU GHG
emissions
The post 2012 EU emissions
trading system
Changes in EU ETS between 2008-2012 and 2013-2020
EU ETS before 2012
•National caps
•Fixed caps (at national level)
•3 & 5 year trading periods
•Limited auctioning (<4%)
•Free allocation for industry & power
sector
•Free allocation based on historical
emissions at installation level
•National allocation plans (NAPs)
•European Commission decides on
NAP
EU ETS in 2013-2020
•Centralised EU-wide cap
•Fixed EU wide cap, decreasing each
year
•8 year trading period (2013-2020)
•High level of auctioning
•Transitional free allocation for industry
and heat-related emissions (non power
sector)
•Free allocation based on specific
emissions at product level (benchmarks)
•EU wide implementation rules
•National Implementation measures
Annual linear reduction of around 37 million tonnes
even beyond 2020
EU ETS annual caps in 2013-2020
5% of total for
New Entrants
Most allowances
to be auctioned
Transitional free
allocation. Level
of free allocation
depending on
exposure to
carbon leakage
How are the EU ETS allowances
distributed/allocated?
• Updated and streamlined Monitoring Reporting and Verification rules
• Single EU wide registry has replaced national registries. The registry records:
- National implementation measures (a list of installations covered by the ETS Directive
in the
territory of each Member State and any free allocation to each of those installations in
the period
2013-2020);
- Accounts of companies or physical persons holding those allowances;
- Transfers of allowances ("transactions") performed by the account holders;
- Annual verified CO2 emissions from installations;
- Annual reconciliation of allowances and verified emissions, where each company must
have
surrendered enough allowances to cover all its verified emissions.
• Auctioning platforms: The European Energy Exchange (Leipzig) and ICE Futures
Europe (London)
• 300 million allowances from the New Entrants reserve will be auctioned as to raise
revenues for technological breakthroughs such as Carbon Capture and Storage and
Innovative Renewable Energy
Other changes to EU ETS post 2012
Centralisation in the EU ETS and
how this compares to a future Nation-wide chinese ETS
National level Provincial level comments
Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) rules
Common MRV rules across
China
implementation of common rules
(e.g. provincial monitoring plan
approval and verification
accreditation)
common MRV rules needed for
transparency, comparability and
functional trading
Emissions/Compliance Registry
Option 1
National Central Chinese
Registry
Data implementation support for
national registry. (e.g. Provinces
check/approve data in national
registry)
This is similar to current EU ETS
registry approach
Option 2
National Registry as central
node next to provincial registries
to accommodate trading
Separate provincial registries
linked to national registry. (e.g.
in case of linked trading systems)
There is a need for common
registry rules to facilitate
interaction with national (trading)
registry
National level Provincial level comments
(absolute) cap setting and allocation rules
Option I
National cap for ETS sectors
and common allocation rules implementation of common rules
This is similar to current EU ETS
approach
Option 2
National cap for ETS sectors but
implemented through
differentiated caps (e.g. using
GDP/capita effort sharing)
among provinces and common
allocation rules
implementation of common
allocation rules (e.g.
benchmarks, auctioning, ...)
This would be hybrid form of EU
ETS 2005-2012 and EU ETS
2013-2020
Option 3
National cap for ETS sectors but
differentiated caps among
provinces and common
allocation guidance
Development of provincial
allocation rules
This would be similar to EU ETS
2005-2012
Option 4
Intensity targets at National and
provincial level with linked
provincial cap and trade
systems. National rules for
linking provincial systems
Development of cap and
allocation rules at provincial
level
Similar to further development of
current pilot ETS in China.
some outstanding questions
How to deal with fixed electricity prices in the
Chinese ETS? (some) Options
Direct and indirect allocation of emission
allowances and emissions related to
power consumption as to allow for
opportunity cost at consumer level
Indirect allocation for power consumers
and (tradable) emission intensity targets
for the power sector. This can be
combined with renewables portfolio
standards.
Ensure compliance with provincial/national ETS (at
company level) Problem (possible) solution
Companies not complying in one
province can cause competitive
disadvantage between provinces. Non-
compliance is dangerous for trust in
trading system.
Implementation of national (climate)
legislation that enables stricter ETS
compliance at national/provincial level.
Allocating Allowances:
Moving from grandfathering
to
benchmarking
What is benchmarking?
• Benchmarking is a method to assist the comparison of
the performance of similar
companies/products/processes
• Pioneered in the Refinery sector (e.g. Solomon index)
• Used in the Netherlands and Belgium to improve
energy efficiency of industrial companies/sectors
• Used (sporadically) in the National Allocation Plans
(2005-2012) as method to allocate EU ETS allowances
Benchmarking versus
Grandfathering
• Grandfathering historical emissions (and certainly
without performance correction) does not reward early
action
• Using benchmarks for allocation allows rewards early-
movers, more efficient installations/companies
• Benchmarking informs participants about their
performance compared to competitors
• Benchmarking can be applied at regional, national,
global level (depending on data availability)
The EU ETS Benchmarks
• Do not use technology-specific benchmarks for technologies producing
the same product
•Do not differentiate between existing and new plants
•Do not apply corrections for plant age, plant size, raw material quality
and climatic circumstances
•Only use separate benchmarks for different products if verifiable
production data is available based on unambiguous and justifiable
product classifications
Use separate benchmarks for intermediate products if these products are
traded between installations
Basic Principles for Developing
Benchmarks in EU ETS
Default and Fall-back Benchmark Methods
Product Benchmark
Heat Benchmark
Fuel Benchmark
Process Benchmark
Fall-back #1
Fall-back #2
Fall-back #3
t CO2/unit product
t CO2/TJ
t CO2/TJ of fuel
97% of historical emissions
Product benchmarks not always feasible, fall-back methods are
required
Methodology Value Unit Conditions Relevant emissions
Product
benchmark depending
on product
t CO2/unit
product
If a product benchmark
is available Emissions within the system
boundaries of the product
Heat
benchmark 62.3 t CO2/TJ
•If no product
benchmark is available
•Heat is measurable
Emissions relating to production of
the consumed measurable heat,
not covered by a product
benchmark
Fuel
benchmark 56.1
t CO2/TJ of
fuel
•If no product
benchmark is available
•Heat is not
measurable
•Fuel is combusted
Emissions originating from the
combustion of fuels, not covered by
product or heat production
benchmark
Process
emission
approach
97% of historical
emissions (tCO2)
•If no product
benchmark is available
•Heat is not
measurable
•Emissions are not
resulting from
combustion of fuel
•Emissions are
“process emissions”
All emissions with the installation
not covered by the previously
mentioned approaches
Default and Fall-back Benchmark Methods
Data Needs to Establish Benchmarks
• Clear mapping and definition of the specifics (intermediate)
product (e.g. EU type NACE code)
• Consistent mapping/description of the production processes
• Historical production data
• Historical verified emissions (heat measurements, fuel use, ...)
For reliable and functional (product)benchmarks data from a
significant number of companies need to be useable and used
Examples
Product
benchmark
Definition of products
covered
Benchmark
value
(allowances/t)
Coke
Coke-oven coke (obtained from
the carbonisation of coking coal,
at high temperature) or gas-
works coke (by-product of gas-
works plants) expressed as tons
of dry coke. Lignite coke is not
covered by this benchmark
0.286
Hot metal Liquid iron saturated with carbon
for further processing 1.328
Aluminium unwrought non-alloy liquid
aluminium from electrolysis 1.514
Grey
cement
clinker
Grey cement clinker as total
clinker produced 0.766
Implementing benchmark allocation can be
challenging due to the sometimes complex
nature of installations and heat/energy/fuel
flows outside the boundary of an installation
Some examples of product
benchmarks used in the EU ETS
(Coke production, Hot metal,
Aluminium, Grey cement clinker)
EU ETS Allocation Formula for Industrial Installations
Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Significant risk
for carbon
leakage
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No Significant
risk for carbon
leakage
0.8000 0.7286 0.6571 0.5857 0.5143 0.4429 0.3714 0.3000
Sum over years in period 2013-2020
Benchmark (CO2/t product)
Historical Production (t)
Carbon leakage factor: if a sector is price and trade exposed this factor is set at
1. If not this factor goes down from 0.8 to 0.3 in period 2013-2020
Over-all correction to keep total
allocation under total EU ETS cap
“Carbon leakage” implies the
risk that an EU company moves
production outside EU in the
absence of climate policies
outside Europe
Benchmarking in Hubei Province and/or
China? • Verified data collection is essential (multiple years might
be needed)
• Would it be possible to develop benchmarks based on value added/CO2 for specific products?
• Limited amount of companies per sector might require expansion of benchmark development across China
• Interesting to compare (benchmark) efficiency of companies across China through benchmarks.
• Piloting benchmark development in Hubei can be useful for national Chinese ETS (certainly if they use China wide data)
What’s next for the EU ETS?
1997 2005 2008 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
Kyoto Protocol Start of pilot phase EU
ETS Phase II of EU ETS
EU meets Kyoto target
Phase III of EU ETS
EU 2020 climate
legislation agreed
Economic crisis
Structural reform
of EU ETS
&
2030 EU climate
legislation
EU 2030 targets
expected to be
decided in 2014
EU -80% to -95%
compared to 1990
Link with Australian
ETS
Connection with Chinese ETS?
Structurally reformed EU ETS will
most likely seek:
•more robust carbon price
•more stable carbon price
•alignment with -80% to -95% EU 2050
target
•contribution to new EU 2030 target
•safeguarding of industrial
competitiveness
•more focus on innovation and
breakthrough technologies using EU
ETS revenues
