EconStor >
Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv (HWWA) >
HWWA Discussion Paper, Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/19239
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBode, Svenen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-28T15:56:43Z-
dc.date.available2009-01-28T15:56:43Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/19239-
dc.description.abstractEmission trading has become recently more and more import in environmental regulation. In the context of controlling greenhouse gas emissions, the directive on a Europewide trading scheme for large immobile sources may be perceived as one of the most important milestones in recent years. Prior to its start, however, a number of very specific design features have to be agreed upon. In the political discussion, the question of how to allocate emission rights is considered as one of the most important issues. So far, a distribution (almost) free of charge is the option of choice. An aspect that has interestingly attracted little attention in the past is the question of how to allocate emission rights over time. This may for example be done on the basis of a constant reference metric, as for example emissions in a certain fixed year, or on the basis of a rolling metric as for example emissions in the previous year. The following paper analyses four different allocation options in multi-period emissions trading that are currently discussed in the European context. The four options are applied for the electricity sector. A power market close to reality with five different types of power plants (hydro, nuclear, lignite, coal and gas) is simulated over two periods. The paper distinguishes between a market effect of emissions trading on the one hand and compliance costs for meeting the emission reduction obligation on the other. The market effect results from a price increase which is due to the fact that opportunity costs for using allowances, though received free of charge, must be considered. However, only compliance costs and not opportunity costs materialise as costs in the profit and loss account of utilities. It turns out that the electricity sector as a whole gains from the introduction of the instrument due to the increase of the electricity price. With regard to the different allocation options, it is found that utilities have different preferences depending on the fuel used.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisheren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesHWWA Discussion Paper 268en_US
dc.subject.jelH23en_US
dc.subject.jelH25en_US
dc.subject.jelL20en_US
dc.subject.jelL52en_US
dc.subject.jelL94en_US
dc.subject.jelQ25en_US
dc.subject.jelQ28en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordabatement costsen_US
dc.subject.keywordallocation of GHG allowancesen_US
dc.subject.keywordbenchmarken_US
dc.subject.keywordcompliance costsen_US
dc.subject.keywordelectricity sectoren_US
dc.subject.keywordmulti-period emission tradingen_US
dc.subject.stwEmissionshandelen_US
dc.subject.stwElektrizitätswirtschaften_US
dc.subject.stwEmissionsrechteen_US
dc.subject.stwIntertemporale Allokationen_US
dc.subject.stwSimulationen_US
dc.subject.stwUmweltschutzkostenen_US
dc.subject.stwFolgekostenen_US
dc.subject.stwTheorieen_US
dc.subject.stwWelten_US
dc.titleMulti-Period Emissions Trading in the Electricity Sector : Winners and Losersen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn383685842en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-
dc.identifier.repecRePEc:zbw:hwwadp:26314-
Appears in Collections:HWWA Discussion Paper, Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
268.pdf175.71 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.