Tag Archives: carbon taxes

Europe’s phase out of coal

Europe is progressing with phasing out hard coal and lignite in power generation, but needs to move further faster, especially in Germany and Poland

Reducing coal use in power generation and replacing it with renewables (and in the short run with natural gas) remains one of the best ways of reducing emissions simply, cheaply and quickly at large scale.  Indeed, it is essential to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement that the world’s limited remaining cumulative emissions budget is not squandered on burning coal and lignite in power generation.

Europe is now making progress in phasing out coal.  The UK experience has already illustrated what can be done with incentives from carbon pricing to reduce coal generation.  Emissions from coal have reduced by more than 80% in the last few years, even though coal plant remains on the system[i].  However, many countries, including the UK, are now going further and committing to end coal use in power generation completely in the next few years.  The map below shows these commitments as they now stand.  Most countries in western Europe now have commitments in place. (Spain is an exception.  The government is expecting coal plant to be phased out by 2030, but currently does not mandate this.)

Map: Current coal phase-out commitments in Europe[ii]

Source: Adapted from material by Sandbag (see endnotes).

In some countries there is little or no coal generation anyway.  In other countries plants are old and coming to the end of their life on commercial grounds, or are unable to comply with limits on other pollutants.  In each case phase-out is expected to go smoothly.

However, the largest emitters are mainly in Germany and Poland and here progress is more limited.  Germany has now committed to coal phase-out.  But full phase-out might be as late as 2038.  Taking another 20 years or so to phase out such a major source of emissions is simply too long.  And Poland currently looks unlikely to make any commitment to complete phase out.

This means the Europe is still doing less than it could and should be doing to reduce emissions from coal and lignite.  As a result, EU emissions are too high, and the EU loses moral authority when urging other nations, especially in Asia and the USA, to reduce their emissions further, including by cutting coal use.

Several things are needed to improve this situation, including the following.

  • Further strengthening the carbon price under the EUETS by reducing the cap. I looked at the problem of continuing surpluses of allowances in another recent post, and accelerated coal closure would make the surplus even greater.  Although the rise in the EUA price in the last 18 months or so is welcome, further strengthening of the EUETS is necessary to reduce the risk of future price falls, and preferably to keep prices on a rising track so they more effectively signal the need for decarbonisation.
  • Continuing tightening of regulations on other pollutants, which can improve public health, while increasing polluters’ costs and therefore adding to commercial pressure to close plant.
  • Strengthening existing phase out commitments, including be specifying an earlier completion date in Germany.
  • Further enabling renewables, for example by continuing to improve grid integration, so that it is clear that continuing coal generation is unnecessary.

As I noted in my last post, making deep emissions cuts to avoid overshooting the world’s limited remaining carbon budget will require many difficulties to be overcome.  There is no excuse for failing to make the relatively cheap and easy reductions now.   Reducing hard coal and lignite use in power generation in Europe (and elsewhere) continues to require further attention.

Adam Whitmore – 18th June 2019

[i] See https://onclimatechangepolicydotorg.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/emissions-reductions-due-to-carbon-pricing-can-be-big-quick-and-cheap/

With and updated chart at:

https://onclimatechangepolicydotorg.wordpress.com/carbon-pricing/price-floors-and-ceilings/

[ii] Map adapted from Sandbag:

https://sandbag.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Last-Gasp-2018-slim-version.pdf

and data in:

https://beyond-coal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Overview-of-national-coal-phase-out-announcements-Europe-Beyond-Coal-November-2018.pdf

and https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39652

Increasing the political acceptability of carbon taxes

Straightforward, practical measures can make carbon taxes more acceptable to voters.

Carbon pricing often faces political obstacles due to public opposition …

Carbon pricing has spread widely in recent years, with around 40 systems now in place[i].  However, most emissions are not yet priced, and, even where they are, most prices remain too low.

Both expanding coverage and increasing price levels face political obstacles.  Overcoming these is essential for carbon pricing to play the role that it should in reducing emissions.  Fortunately, evidence is now emerging on what can be done to reduce opposition from voters – overcoming opposition from powerful lobbies such as industry warrants separate approaches.

A study by researchers at the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute, based on reviewing 39 existing empirical analyses, describes people’s objections to carbon pricing and other kinds of environmental taxes, and suggests specific actions to overcome them.  (The study focusses on carbon taxes, and most evidence is from North West Europe and North America, so the conclusions may not extend fully to emissions trading systems or to other cultural contexts.)

The study identifies several reasons people oppose carbon taxes:

  • The personal and wider economic costs of a tax are seen as too high.
  • Carbon taxes are seen as regressive, having a disproportionately negative effect on low-income households.
  • Carbon taxes are not believed to be an effective way to reduce emissions.
  • Governments are seen as having a ‘hidden’ motive to increase fiscal revenue rather than curb emissions.

However the study noted that people’s aversion to carbon taxes decreases over time after they have been introduced, particularly if the effects of the tax are measured and communicated.

There are various design options for reducing public opposition …

The study then identifies a range of measures for addressing the objections

  • Phasing in carbon taxes over time, introducing the tax at a low rate but having commitment devices to subsequently increase the rate to more efficient levels.
  • Redistributing revenues to ameliorate the regressive effects of taxes.
  • Earmarking revenues for emission reduction projects, which is popular with voters and improves the perceived effectiveness of carbon taxes.
  • Ensuring revenue neutrality of carbon taxes.
  • In all cases, policymakers need to gather and communicate the objectives and design of the carbon price to improve trust and credibility, before and after the introduction of a carbon tax. This includes communicating emissions reductions achieved and co-benefits of reductions in other pollutants[ii].

Drawbacks to these options seem limited …

The study notes that these recommendations may diverge from “first best” tax designs recommended in the economics literature.  However, while the study does not assess the implications of this, it is not clear to me that, even where they exist, these divergences are very significant.  They seem to me likely to be easily outweighed by the increased acceptability (a “sub-optimal” carbon tax that can be implemented is usually better than an “optimal” one that can’t).  And there are likely to be benefits often omitted in modelling of “first best” designs. This is especially the case as once a tax is in place it can be modified to over time as experience is gained and acceptance increases.

For example, phasing in a carbon tax is likely to produce economic benefits by reducing economic dislocation due to a price shock from sudden introduction at its full level, which may at least partly counterbalance the inefficiencies from prices being below optimal levels for an initial period.  Similarly, redistribution of revenue to poorer households may provide an economic stimulus benefits as poorer households are more likely to spend the revenue than richer households.  It may also increase social solidarity in ways which are conducive to economic welfare and growth.

Other emissions reductions, for example improving building insulation and deploying new technologies, may be funded at more nearly optimal levels where there are currently restrictions.  However, caution is needed here, and there may often be a stronger case for dispersing funds to citizens.

Revenue neutrality can take different forms.  One approach is to use revenues to reduce other taxes.  This is the approach adopted for the introduction of the carbon tax in British Columbia.  Economists tend to favour this type of approach because existing taxes are seen as distortionary.  However this approach often lacks transparency and credibility even if accompanying tax cuts are publicised – for example if other taxes are reduced they may be increased again in future.  This appears to be one reason why voters tend not to prefer this option.

And the current Canadian experiment with “tax and dividend” approaches appears promising …

A stronger guarantee is provided when revenue is explicitly returned to citizens.  This approach is usually referred to as “tax and dividend” (or “fee and dividend”, or “cap and dividend” in the case of any emissions trading system).  I’ve previously noted the advantages of this approach (see here).  It has been implemented for the Swiss carbon tax in the form of rebates on health insurance costs.  Four provinces in Canada are now working on implementing dividends in the form of direct financial payments to citizens.  This will make most citizens better off as the result of the tax, because they will also benefit from revenue raised from businesses.

There is an argument made in the environmental economics literature that a lump-sum dispersal to citizens is economically suboptimal, because it is better to use funds to reduce other taxes and so reduce distortions.   There is little if any empirical support for this argument as far as I am aware.  But in any case taking a view that citizens have more of a natural claim on property rights to the atmosphere than governments makes the limitation of the argument clear.  From this perspective, not providing citizens with any of the proceeds from pricing emissions is in effect a 100% tax on those proceeds imposed on everyone.  This is indeed non-distortionary – it applies the same tax to everyone irrespective of circumstances – but a fixed per-capita tax is not regarded by governments or their citizens as a good idea anywhere, for sound reasons.

A larger objection to returning all revenue directly to citizens, or using it to reduce current taxes, is that emissions run down natural capital for the benefit of current generations at the expense of future generations.  Intergenerational justice would, as I’ve previously argued (see here and here), be better served by some combination of preserving natural capital and investing revenue from carbon pricing in a “carbon wealth fund” analogous to a sovereign wealth fund.  However this would be unlikely to increase the political acceptability of carbon pricing compared with immediate dispersal of revenues to citizens.

Overall, the study makes a range of recommendation that are well justified on a range of grounds, and seem likely to help establish carbon pricing more widely and effectively.  It is to be hoped that governments everywhere take note of the findings.

Adam Whitmore – 5th March 2019 

Thanks to Maria Carvalho for useful discussions about the background to the study covered by this post.

[i] See the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing report here.  The definition of carbon pricing adopted in that report is quite broad, but even excluding some of the systems included in the report there remain over 40.

[ii] Please see World Bank’s  Guide to Communicating Carbon Pricing here for more information on developing an effective communications strategy.

 

Fixing the starting price of allowances in an ETS

Fixed price allowances can be a useful way of establishing emissions trading gradually.

I have previously looked at the relative advantages of carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETSs), including in the videos on this site.

Among the drawbacks of emissions trading systems is that they tend to be more complex to administer than carbon taxes.  An emissions trading system requires surrender of allowances, which need to be issued, often by both auction and free allocation, and tracked as they are traded.  There is a range of administration needing for this, including maintaining a registry of allowances and ownership.  In contrast, a tax simply requires a payment to be made per tonne emitted.

The administrative cost of emissions trading is unlikely to be a significant proportion of the costs of a system for a large jurisdiction with high administrative capacity, for example the EU.  However it can be daunting for smaller jurisdictions with more limited administrative capacity.  Even a large jurisdiction may be concerned about the time needed to establish an emissions trading system.

There may also be concern about the economic the risks.  For example, there will always be uncertainty about price when the cap is first set.

These difficulties can be reduced by including an initial phase of fixed price allowances.  Under this approach emitters pay a fixed price per tonne.  However rather than simply paying a tax they are required to surrender allowances.  An unlimited number of allowances is available from the regulatory authorities at a fixed price.

This approach has the advantage that it puts in place much of the administrative infrastructure necessary for emissions trading.  Allowances are issued and a registry is established.  From there it is a more straightforward path to limiting the number of allowances to impose a cap, and allowing them to be traded.

It has the further advantage that it can introduce a carbon price, perhaps gradually through and escalating price, and the effect of this can be assessed when setting  a subsequent the cap.  The additional information can further reduce risks.

The Australian example

This approach of issuing fixed price allowances was implemented in Australia, starting in 2012.  An initial 3 year phase was originally planned with emitters required to surrender allowances.  An unlimited number of allowances was available each year at a fixed price.  This was AU$23/tonne in the first year, escalating at 2.5% plus the rate of inflation each year. This was intended to be followed by a transition to an emissions trading system with a cap and a price floor.

The chronology in practice was as follows.  Legislation to introduce carbon pricing was passed in 2011.  The fixed price came into effect ion 1st July 2012, with unlimited allowances available at AU$23/tonne.  Full trading was originally scheduled to being in 2015.  In 2013 it was announced this would be brought forward a year to 2014.  However this did not happen, as the incoming Abbott government, which took office in September 2013, repealed the carbon pricing scheme with effect from July 2014.

In the Australian political context that prevailed at the time the similarity to a tax was seen as a drawback politically.  It allowed the opposition to label it a tax, which the previous government had committed not to introduce.  A very sensible approach was therefore abandoned.  However this was a feature peculiar to Australian politics at the time, and not a more general problem.

The EU and the Western Climate Initiative have both shown that it is possible to establish emissions trading systems directly, without the need to go through an initial fixed price phase (the WCI systems were delayed by a year from their originally intended start date, but have generally worked well since).  And some jurisdictions will choose a tax in any case.

Nevertheless, if there is a desire to put an ETS in place in a way which lowers the initial administrative burden and some of the risks of establishing an ETS, then transitioning to an ETS through issuing fixed price allowances can be a valuable approach.

Adam Whitmore – 13th June 2018

There should be few reservations about auction reserve prices

The auction reserve price in California has proved successful in maintaining a minimum carbon price.  However it shows the importance for an emissions trading system of political commitment and stability. 

This is the second of two posts looking at experience of carbon price floors.  My previous post looked at UK carbon price support, which guarantees a minimum price by means of a tax.   This post looks at an alternative approach, which is used in California  and the other Western Climate Imitative systems, Quebec and Ontario.  Here, instead of imposing a tax, the floor is set by specifying a reserve price in auctions of allowances.  If bids in auctions stay below the reserve price the allowances are not sold.  Reserve prices such as this are common in practice in many commercial auctions, including those held by major auction houses and online.

Reserve prices give what is often called a “soft” floor.  The market price can go below the auction reserve, but eventually the need to buy allowances at auction is likely to ensure that the price recovers.

The chart below shows the auction reserve price in the California system (green line), which started at $10/tonne in 2012 and is increased each year by 5% plus the rate of inflation.  The California market price (blue line) has generally stayed above this level.  However it did dip below the reserve price for a while in 2016, illustrating that the floor is soft.  This price dip reflected a combination of legal challenges to the system, and political uncertainty about the continuation of the system after 2020, which together reduced the demand for allowances.  Once those uncertainties were resolved the market price recovered.

Chart: Auction reserve prices and market allowance prices in the California cap-and-trade system to end of 2017

Source:  http://calcarbondash.org/ and CARB

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has similar arrangements but with a much lower reserve price, and there too the price has been above the floor.

The environmental effectiveness of price containment mechanisms depends in large part on what eventually happens to any unsold allowances.  In the case of California this issue particularly affects the upper Price Containment Reserve, from which allowances are released if prices go above defined thresholds.  Allowances from this reserve appear most unlikely to be required in the current phase, as prices seem highly unlikely to reach the threshold levels.  If these unsold allowances in the reserve are cancelled, or otherwise put beyond use, cumulative emissions will be lower.  However if they eventually find their way back into the system, and enable the corresponding quantity of emissions to take place, the environmental benefit may not be realised, or at least not it full.  Some sort of cancellation mechanism is therefore needed, for example cancelling allowances that have been in the reserve for more than a specified number of years.

So price floors can work, however in the case of the California system at least two things need to be agreed as the rules for the system after 2020 are debated this year.

First, continuation of the escalation of the floor price needs be confirmed at least at the current rate, and ideally the rate should be increased.

Secondly, rules for cancelling unsold allowances from the Price Containment Reserve need to be defined.  The cancellation of allowances from the Market Stability Reserve included in the recent reforms to the EUETS sets a valuable precedent in this respect.

The theoretical advantages of a floor price in an ETS are well known.  The experience of auction reserve prices now proving effective in practice over a number of years should encourage other jurisdictions, especially the EU, to introduce similar arrangements.  And those jurisdictions such as California where they are already in place need to continue to develop and enhance them.

Adam Whitmore – 15th February 2018

A wealth of ideas about wealth funds

There are many ways of designing a wealth fund based on revenues from carbon pricing.  Debate about these is necessary, but should not distract from the merits of the broader proposal. 

Last month I outlined the value of the carbon emissions, and the possibility of establishing a wealth fund based on revenue from carbon pricing.  This post provides some brief responses to questions that have been raised in response to this proposal.   There are many good design options to choose from.

Would the fund necessarily be national?

No.  There are many national wealth funds in operation, and national carbon wealth fund may well be a pragmatic way forward in many cases.  However, the Alaskan wealth fund is an example of a state based scheme, and others would be possible.  In the EU a fund could also be established either at EU or Member State level.  An international fund would be difficult and perhaps impossible to establish, but would appropriately reflect global nature of the climate change problem.

How would such a fund be governed?

There are many options here.  The most important criterion is that governance should benefit the ultimate owners of the asset, namely citizens, rather than the state or special interest groups.  This implies some independence from government.  Other criteria such as transparency and ethically sound investment will also be important[1].  Some have advocated a fully independent trust fund.  However in practice some degree of government oversight is likely to be required[2].

How would this global public good be allocated internationally?

The distribution between nations of access to the atmosphere has proved a major point of contention in global negotiations on limiting climate change, and this situation appears unlikely to change[3].  However existing carbon pricing regimes – or simply emitting free of charge – already use up a global public good.  Giving citizens and governments a greater stake in increased carbon prices is likely to decrease the quantity of emissions, and so the proportion of the global commons used[4].  This makes the approach I have proposed more compatible with good stewardship of the global commons than existing arrangements, at least for the next 50 years until revenues start to decline.

What would the macro-economic effects be?

These effects would probably not be large, at least for a national UK fund.  The payment into a UK fund would be at most around £16 billion p.a. assuming much greater coverage and higher carbon prices than at present, a little under 1% of GDP per annum[5].  Even this would be unlikely to cause major economic dislocation, especially if phased in over a few years.  The fund would grow large over time, reaching around £860 billion by the end of the century, depending on many factors including which other environmental taxes were included  [6].  However this is not vastly larger than the Norwegian fund today, which is for a very much smaller economy.  Furthermore any fund would have the effect of redirecting revenue from consumption to investment, which would probably have a positive macroeconomic effect in the context of historic UK underinvestment.

Would such a measure be socially regressive?

The concern here is that poorer households spend a larger proportion of their income on energy than richer households, and so energy taxes, and thus carbon taxes, tend to hit them disproportionately harder.  However poor households still spend less on energy, and therefore carbon, in absolute terms than richer households, so an equal dividend, as I’ve proposed, would have a net progressive effect.   Furthermore, households account for only a minority of energy use, but would get the full benefit of dividends (or at least a large proportion), increasing the extent to which it is progressive.

However there are some important intergenerational issues to consider.   The proposal for a fund takes the view that present generations should safeguard capital assets so they retain value to future generations.  This is in line with the standard definition of sustainable development[7].  However there are distributional issues here which need to be addressed.  Some present citizens will be worse off.

How would it fit with other green taxes?

The proposal is clearly consistent with using green taxes more widely as a policy instrument.  What’s different from the standard approach to green taxes is the suggestion of placing revenue in capital fund rather than using revenue to fund current expenditure.  The landfill tax to which I referred in my original post currently raises around a billion pounds per annum[8].  It would be natural to add this revenue to a UK wealth fund.

Would distribution to citizens be the only use for funds?

There is no reason some of dividends from the fund should not be used to fund things like R&D.  As I have previously discussed there are many legitimate calls on revenue from carbon pricing.  However there are many compelling arguments for allocation direct to citizens, and this should in my view be a priority for the fund.

Each of these questions requires further elaboration of course, and there are many other questions to be resolved.  The design of any major new institution such as a carbon wealth fund will require a great deal of consideration of a range of issues.  However further examination appears to strengthen rather than weaken the case for such a fund.

Adam Whitmore – 22nd  March 2017

Thanks to John Rhys for raising some of these issues.  A variant of this post, responding to John’s points, was published on his website. 

 

[1] See Cummine (2016) cited in my original post for further details For a specific proposal for a UK wealth fund:  http://www.smf.co.uk/press-release-conservative-mp-calls-for-uk-sovereign-wealth-fund-to-address-long-term-and-structurally-ingrained-weaknesses-of-the-economy/

[2] See Barnes, Who Owns the Sky (2001)

[3] This problem does not arise for the conventional resources (such as oil and gas) that typically provide the income for sovereign wealth funds of the nations where the resources are located. There is an interesting question as to whether countries should have full property rights to natural resources within their territories, as is often assumed at present, but this is too large a subject to go into here.

[4] The assumption here is that increasing prices from current low levels will increase revenue.  Carbon prices would increase by a factor of say five or more in many cases, and it is unlikely that emissions would decrease by an equal factor – though if they did it would be very good news.

[5] This assumes 400 million tonnes of emissions are priced, compared with 2015 totals of 404 million for CO2 emissions and 496 total greenhouse gases (source: BEIS), implying a high proportion of emissions are assumed to be priced.  The carbon price is assumed to be £40/tonne, roughly the Social Cost of Carbon at current exchange rates and well above current price levels.  This would give total revenue of £16 billion in the first year based on both volumes and prices substantially greater than current levels, but still less than 1% of UK GDP of approximately £1870 billion in 2015. (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/ )

[6] Assuming that the UK reduces its emissions in line with the Climate Change Act target of an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050, and then to zero by the end of the century, and that 80% of emissions are priced at the Social Cost of Carbon as estimated by the US EPA, converted at current exchange rates of $1.25/£.

[7] Sustainable development is usually characterised as meeting the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

[8] https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/Pages/TaxAndDutybulletins.aspx

Can emissions trading produce adequate carbon prices?

Prices under emissions trading schemes have been low to date.  Sometimes this may be because systems are new, but the EUETS is long established and needs to demonstrate that it can now produce adequate prices. 

Prices under emissions trading systems around the world have so far remained low.  The chart below shows carbon pricing systems arranged in order in increasing price, with prices on the vertical axis shown against the cumulative volume covered on the horizontal axis.  Carbon taxes are shown in purple, emissions trading systems in green.  It is striking that all of the higher prices are from carbon taxes, rather than emissions trading systems.

Prices under Emissions Trading Systems and Carbon taxes in 2016

capture

Source:  World Banks State and Trends of carbon pricing report[1].  Prices are from mid-2016.

Prices in the largest emissions trading system, the EUETS have been around $5-6/tonne, and prices in the Chinese pilot schemes have been similar and in some cases even lower, although with little trading.  The price under the California and Quebec scheme (soon to be joined by Ontario) is somewhat higher.  However, this is supported by a floor set in advance and implemented by an auction reserve price.  If this price floor were not present a surplus of allowances would very likely have led to lower prices.  The Korea scheme has had very low trading volumes, so does not provide the same sort of market signal found under more liquid schemes.

In contrast, a wide range of carbon taxes are already at higher levels and in some cases are due to increase further.  The French carbon tax, which covers sectors of the economy falling outside the EUETS, is planned to reach €56/tCO2 (US$62/tCO2) in 2020 and €100/tCO2 (US$111/tCO2) in 2030[2].  In Canada a national lower limit on carbon prices for provinces with an explicit price-based system (not shown on the chart) is due to reach $50 per tonne in 2022[3]. The UK carbon price floor, which covers power sector emissions, was due to rise to substantially above current levels, but is currently being kept constant by the Government, mainly because the price under the EUETS is so low.

Increases such as those due in France and Canada will bring some carbon taxes more in line with the cost of damages, and thus to economically efficient prices.  The cost of damages is conservatively estimated at around $50/tonne[4], rising over time (see here for a discussion of the social cost of carbon and associated issues).  The increases will also bring prices more into line with the range widely considered to be necessary to stimulate adequate low carbon investment[5].

Low prices under emissions trading systems have been attributed to a range of factors, including slower than expected economic growth and falling costs of renewables[6].  However these factors do not explain the consistent pattern of low prices across a variety of systems over different times[7].

While it is difficult to derive firm evidence on why this pattern should be present, two factors seem plausible.  The first is systematic bias in estimates – industry and governments will expect more growth that actually occurs, costs will be overestimated, and these tendencies will be reflected in early price modelling, which can often overstate likely prices.

But the second, more powerful, tendency appears, based on anecdotal evidence, to be that there is an asymmetry of political risk.  The political costs of unexpectedly low prices are usually perceived as much less than those of unexpectedly high prices, and so there will always be tendency toward caution, which prevents tight caps, and so leads to prices being too low.

This tendency is difficult to counteract, and has several implications for future policy.

First, it further emphasises the value of price floors within emissions trading systems.  Traditional environmental economics emphasises the importance of uncertainty around an expected level of abatement costs or damages.  If decision makers are not in fact targeting expected average levels, but choosing projections of allowance demand above central expectations then the probability of very low prices is increased, and the case for the benefits of a price floor is stronger.

Second, it implies that it is even less appropriate than would anyway be the case to expect the carbon price alone to drive the transition to a low carbon economy.  Measures so support low carbon investment, which would in any case be desirable, are all the more important if the carbon price is weak (see here for a fuller discussion of the value of a range of policy measures).   While additional measures do risk further weakening the carbon price, they should also enable reduced emissions and tighter caps in future.

Third, it requires governments to learn over time.  Some low prices may reflect the early stage of development of systems, starting slowly with the intention of generating higher prices over time.  However this does require higher prices to eventually be realised.

The EUETS has by some distance the longest-established system, having begun eleven years ago and with legislation now underway for the cap to 2030, by which time the system will be 25 years old.  The EU should be showing how schemes can be tightened over time to generate higher prices.  However it now looks as though the Phase 4 cap will be undemanding compared with expectations (see previous posts).  The recent vote by the European Parliament’s ENVI committee failed to adopt measure that are adequate to redressing the supply demand balance, with tweaks to the market stability reserve unlikely to be enough.  This undermines the credibility of cap-and-trade systems more generally, rather than setting the example that it should.  Further reform is needed, including further adjustments to supply and preferably auction reserve prices.

The advantages of cap-and trade systems remain.  Quantity limits are in line with the international architecture set by the Paris Agreement.  They also provide a clear strategic signal that emissions need to be reduced over time.

However there is little evidence to date that emissions trading systems can produce adequate prices. The EU, with by far the most experience of running an ETS, should be taking the lead in substantially strengthening its system.  At the moment this leadership is lacking.  Wider efforts to tackle climate change are suffering as a result.

Adam Whitmore – 23rd January 2017

[1] https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25160

[2] World Bank State and Trends in Carbon Pricing 2016.  See link in reference 1.

[3] http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1132169  Canadian provinces with volume based schemes such as Quebec with its ETS must achieve emissions reductions equivalent to these prices.

[4] $40/tonne in $2007, see https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon, escalated to about $50 today’s dollars.

[5] See this recent discussion: https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2017/sessions/the-return-of-carbon-markets

[6] Ref: Tvinnereim (2014) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1282-1#page-1

 

[7] The South Korea ETS may be a partial exception to the pattern.  However it is unclear due to the lack of liquidity in the market.

Additional actions in EUETS sectors can reduce cumulative emissions

It is often claimed that additional actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in sectors covered by the EUETS are ineffective because total emissions are set by the level of the cap.  However this claim is not valid in the current circumstances of the EUETS, and is unlikely to be so even in future.  Additional emissions reduction measures in covered sectors can be effective in further permanently reducing emissions.

This post is longer than usual as it deals with a very important but relatively technical policy issue.

The argument about the effectiveness of additional actions to reduce emissions …

Many additional actions are being taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in sectors covered by the EUETS.  These include energy efficiency programmes, deployment of renewables, replacing coal plants with less carbon intensive generation, and national carbon pricing.

It is often argued that such additional actions do not reduce total emissions because the maximum quantity of emissions is set by the EUETS cap, so emissions may remain at the fixed level of the cap, irrespective of what other action is taken (see the end of this post for instances of this argument being used publicly).

However, this argument does not stand up to examination.

Assessment of the argument needs to take account of the current circumstances of the EUETS.  Emissions covered by the EUETS were some 200 million tonnes (about 10%) below the cap in 2015.  This year emissions are likely to be 13% below the cap.  The EUETS currently has a cumulative surplus of almost three billion allowances, including backloaded allowances currently destined for the Market Stability Reserve (MSR), and the surplus is set to grow as emissions continue to be less than the cap.

In these circumstances emissions reductions from additional actions will mainly increase the surplus of allowances, with almost all of these allowances ending up in the (MSR).  These allowances will stay there for decades under current rules, and so not be available to enable emissions during this time.

Indeed, in practice these allowances are unlikely ever to enable additional emissions.  The argument that they will assumes that the supply of allowances is fixed into the long term.  In practice this is not the case.  Long term supply of allowances is determined by policy, which can and does respond to circumstances.  Additional surpluses and lower prices are likely to lead to tighter caps than would otherwise be the case, or cancellation of allowances from the MSR or elsewhere.

The remainder of this post looks at these issues in more detail, including why the erroneous view that additional actions don’t reduce cumulative emissions has arisen.

Why current circumstances make such a difference

The argument that additional actions to reduce emissions will be ineffective reflects how the EUETS was expected to operate when it was introduced. It was assumed that demand for allowances would adjust so that the quantity of allowances used would always equal to the cap, which was assumed to be fixed.

This is illustrated in stylised form in the diagram below.  The supply curve is vertical – perfectly inelastic supply.  Demand for allowances without additional actions leads to prices at an initial level.  Additional actions reduce demand for allowances at any given price, effectively shifting the demand curve to the left by the amount by which additional actions reduce emissions.  This leads price to fall until the lower price creates sufficient additional demand for allowances, so that total demand for allowances is again equal to the supply set by the cap.  Because the supply curve is fixed (vertical) the equilibrium quantity of emissions is unchanged, remaining equal to the cap[1].

Chart 1: A price response to the change in demand for allowances can lead to emissions re-equilibrating at the cap when allowances are scarce …

first-chart

However, at present, large increases in emissions (such that emissions rise to the cap) due to falling prices are clearly not occurring, and they seem unlikely to do so over the next few years.  As noted above, the market remains in surplus both cumulatively and on an annual basis.  The price would be close to zero in the absence of banking of allowances into subsequent phases, because there would be a cumulative surplus over Phase 3 of the EUETS, and so no scarcity[2].

If demand were further reduced in the absence of banking there would be no price fall, because prices would already be already close to zero.  Correspondingly, there would be no increase in demand for allowances to offset the reduced emissions from additional actions.  The emissions reductions from additional actions would be retained in full. This is again illustrated in stylised form in the diagram below. 

Chart 2: With a surplus of allowances and price close to zero (assuming no banking) any reduction in demand for allowances will be retained in full …

chart-1

In practice the potential to bank allowances and the future operation of the MSR supports the present price.  It is expected that in future as the cap continues to fall allowances will become scarce.  There is thus a value to allowances set by the cost of future abatement.

Additional actions now to reduce emissions increase the surplus, and so postpone the expected date at which the market returns to balance.  This reduces current prices.  This will in turn lead to some increase in emissions.  However, this increase will be small – much smaller than if the market were short of allowances now.

Quantifying this effect 

Modelling indicates that if additional actions are taken over the next 10-15 years, then the increase in demand for allowances due to falling price will be less than 10% of the size of the reduction in emissions[3].  Correspondingly more than 90% of the emissions reductions due to additional actions are retained, adding to the surplus of allowances which, which end up in the MSR.  Modelling parameters would need to be in error by about an order of magnitude to substantially affect this conclusion.

This effect arises in part because of the low level of prices at present.  This means that even a large percentage change in price leads to a small absolute change, and thus a small effect on demand for allowances.  Even a 50% price fall would be less than €3/t at current price levels.  It also reflects that the shape of the Marginal Abatement Cost curve, with price falls only increasing abatement by a small amount.  This means that even if prices are higher than current levels the effect of price falls on demand for allowances is still relatively small.

The relatively small response to price changes is consistent with the current market, where there is a lack of sufficient increase in demand to absorb the current yearly surplus (or even to come close to doing so).

The 90%-plus of the allowances freed up by additional actions are added to the surplus end up over time in the MSR.  They then stay there for several decades.  This is because even without additional actions, and even with some reform of the current proposals for Phase 4 (which covers 2021 to 2030), the MSR is likely contain at least three billion allowances by 2030, and perhaps as much as five billion.  This will take until 2060 to return to the market, and perhaps until the 2080s, at the maximum rate written into the legislation of 100 million per annum.

Any additional surplus will only return after this.  Even if the return rate of the MSR were doubled the return time for additional surplus would still be reckoned in decades from now.

This will be even more the case if proposals for the EUETS Phase 4 are not reformed, and the surplus of allowances being generated anyway is correspondingly greater.

The implications of the very long delay in the return of allowances

It seems unlikely that allowances kept out of the market for so long would ever lead to additional emissions.  It would require policy makers to allow the allowances to return and enable additional emissions.  This would be at a time when emission limits would be much tighter than they are now, and indeed with a commitment under the Paris Agreement to work towards net zero emissions in the second half of this century.

There are several policy mechanisms that could prevent the additional surplus allowances enabling emissions.  Subsequent caps tighter as unused allowances reduce the perceived risk of tighter caps, and additional actions now set the economy on a lower carbon pathway.  Furthermore, with a very large number of allowances in the MSR over several phases of the scheme, allowances may well be cancelled.  Indeed, over such long periods the ETS itself may even be abolished or fundamentally reformed, with allowances not carried over in full.  Or a surplus under the EUETS may persist indefinitely as additional actions succeed in reducing emissions.

As the market tightens towards 2030 it is likely that a higher proportion of any additional emissions reductions will be absorbed by the market via a price effect, but it still seems unlikely to be as much as 100% given the long term trend to lower emissions and the lack of additional sources of demand, especially in the event of large scale additional actions[4].  Some of the policy responses described would still be expected to reduce the supply of allowances.

Conclusions

The argument that emissions will always rise to the level of the cap manifestly does not hold at present, when emissions are well below the cap. and there is a huge cumulative surplus of allowances.

In future, it seems likely that more than 90% of reductions in emissions from additional actions will simply add to the surplus, and eventually end up in the MSR.  They at least stay there for several decades, because of the very large volume that will anyway be in the MSR.

While there is in principle a possibility that they will eventually return to the market and allow additional emissions this appears most unlikely in practice.  Policy decisions will be affected by circumstances and this can readily prevent additional emissions, through some combination of tightening of the cap and cancellation of allowances.

Even when the market returns to scarcity these policy responses are likely to hold to a large extent, for example with lower prices enabling more stringent caps.  The hypothesis of no net reductions in emissions from additional actions thus seems unlikely ever to hold true.

Spurious arguments about a lack of net emissions reductions should not be used as a pretext for failing to take additional actions to reduce emissions now.

Adam Whitmore – 21st October 2016

 

Note:  A more detailed review of the issues raised in this post, and the accompanying modelling can be found in this report.

 

Examples of statements invoking the idea of fixed total emissions

For example, in 2015 RWE used such arguments in objecting to the closure of coal plant:

“The proposals [to reduce lignite generation] would not lead to a CO2 reduction in absolute terms.   [The number of] certificates in the ETS would remain unchanged and as a result emissions would simply be shifted abroad.” [5]

Similarly, in 2012 the then Chairman of the UK’s Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, opposed the UK’s carbon price support mechanism for the power sector arguing that:

“Unless the price of carbon is increased at an EU-wide level, taking action on our own will have no overall effect on emissions”[6]

Neutral, well-informed observers of energy markets have also made this case.  For example, Professor Steven Sorrel of Sussex University recently argued that:

“Any additional abatement in the UK simply ‘frees up’ EU allowances that can be either sold or banked, and hence used for compliance elsewhere within the EU ETS[7]

 

 

[1] This is analogous to the well-established rebound effect for energy efficiency measures.  Improved domestic insulation lowers the effective price of energy, so consumers take some of the benefits as increased warmth, and some as reduced consumption.  The argument here is that in effect there is a 100% rebound effect for emissions reductions under the EUETS.

[2] Such a situation occurred towards the end of Phase 1 of the EUETS (2005-7), which did not allow banking into Phase 2.  Towards the end of the Phase there was a surplus of allowances and the price fell to close to zero.

[3] The price change is modelled by assuming the price is set by discounting future abatement costs, with a later date for the market returning to balance leading to greater discounting and so a lower price.  The increase in demand for allowances is modelled based on a marginal abatement cost curve and consideration of sources of additional demand.  See report referenced at the end of this post for further details of the modelling.

[4] There are likely to be path dependency and hysteresis effects in the market which prevent a full rebound.

[5] See RWE statement, “Proposals of Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy endanger the future survival of lignite”, 20 March 2015. http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/113648/rwe/press-news/press-release/?pmid=4012793

[6] http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05927.pdf

[7] http://www.energypost.eu/brexit-opportunity-rethink-uk-carbon-pricing/