Autor Salzburg, Austria, September 30, 2004

Transcription

1 The Procedure of Implementing the EU ET Directive in Germany Experiences of Scientific Accompaniment Dr. Hans-Joachim Ziesing German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) Ort, Schloss Datum Leopoldskron, Autor Salzburg, Austria, September 30, 2004

2 Why and when was the start of the scientific accompaniment? Why? Assist the Federal Ministry of Environment within the preparation and implementing process concerning the National Allocation Plan (NAP) When? We startet with our work in late December 2002 and we are still engaged.

3 Who we are - the institute s consortium

4 What the institutes have done Working papers: > Principles of the first allocation (a) within a top-down approach and (b) within a bottom-up approach > Analysis of sectoral GHG emissions in Germany and discussions of options for an allocation on asectoral level Short papers on special aspects e.g. banking and borrowing, benchmarking, new entrants, shutdown of installations, nuclear phasing out etc. A White Paper with the overall concept, criteria, guidelines and fundamental organisational options for the NAP

5 What the institutes have done Regularly working meetings with the Federal Ministry of Environment and the Federal Environmental Agency Immediate consultations with the policy decision makers Innumerable discussions with representatives of industrial associations and companies (which all tried to convince us, that they all are unique and need all the amount of emissions certificates they are asking for)

6 The institutes are not responsible for......thefinalversionofthe German National Allocation Plan

7 What has to be declared in the NAP? The NAP must indicate how many emission allowances the Member State intends to issue altogether during the three-year period and how these allowances are to be distributed to the installations subject to emissions trading. Policies and measures should be implemented at Member State and Community level across all sectors of the European Union economy, and not only within the industry and energy sectors, in order to generate substantial emissions reductions.

8 An efficient emissions trading scheme needs caps and trade A cap is a cap and not that amount of emissions the operator demands for his installation. According to Annex III, the total quantity of allowances to be allocated shall not be more than is likely to be needed for the strict application of the criteria of this Annex. That is why it is so important to have a detailed check of the sectoral emissions budgets.

9 Options proposed for allocation at the macro level 1. All sectors - within or outside the ET scheme - have to reduce CO 2 emissions by the same reduction rate 2. The emissions level of the Non-ET Sectors remain on the emissions within the base period 2000 to Like option 2 but with temperature corrected emissions of the Non-ET sector in the base period 4. Emissions level of the ET sectors to be derived from the voluntary agreement of the German industry 5. Setting the reduction target on the basis of the results of optimisation models

10 The Allocation : Options million tonnes of CO 2 Historical data Energy and Industry Other Sectors Base year 1990/ Average Average (temperature-corrected) The Alternatives discussed within the NAP team and the decision by the Government Proportional (same reduction rate for all sectors) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (uncorrected) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (temperature -corrected) Cost efficiency (model based) Baseline (forecast without additional measures) The BMU-Plan = Voluntary Agreement Total

11 The Allocation : Options million tonnes of CO 2 Historical data Energy and Industry Other Sectors Base year 1990/ Average Average (temperature-corrected) The Alternatives discussed within the NAP team and the decision by the Government Proportional (same reduction rate for all sectors) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (uncorrected) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (temperature -corrected) Cost efficiency (model based) Baseline (forecast without additional measures) The BMU-Plan = Voluntary Agreement Total

12 What happened on the political level? There was a clear decision of the Federal Ministry to follow the voluntary agreement approach Controversial debates between the Federal Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Economics (assisted by the chancellors office) Controversial debates also between the Federal Ministry of Environment and the German Industry Roundtables between the secretary of state of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Economics on the one hand and the CEO of the big companies in industry and the energy sector on the other hand.

13 What happened on the political level? These roundtables were left by the secretary of state of the Federal Ministry of Economics and by the representatives of the industry and the energy sector at the end of January 2004 when the secretary of state of the Federal Ministry of Environment faces them with a complete version of the National Allocation Plan. Then a lot of different bargainig processes between the policy makers, the companies managers and representatives of the different industrial associations took place.

14 The outcome of the bargaining process The volutary agreement approach was no longer pursued. The difference between this approach and the results is to neglect: voluntary agreement caps for ET-Sector 488 mill. t in and 480 mill. t in mill. t in and 495 mill. t in The difference is 15 mill. t in both periods

15 The Allocation and : Results in comparison million tonnes of CO 2 Energy and Industry Other Sectors Total Average Baseline (forecast without additional measures) The BMU-Plan = Voluntary Agreement The final decision according to the Act on Allocation Baseline (forecast without additional measures) The BMU-Plan = Voluntary Agreement The final decision according to the Act on Allocation

16 The reduction of CO 2 emissions according to the BMU plan and the final NAP million tonnes of CO 2 Energy and Industry Other Sectors Total Energy and Industry Other Sectors Total BMU plan vs Final NAP vs BMU plan vs temp.-corr Final NAP vs temp.-corr

17 Some details to be discussed Fuel type specific benchmarks for the electricity sector instead of only one single benchmark Almost no policies/measures for NON-ET sectors Compliance factor of 1 for - process-related emissions for all years - new entrants for 14 years - new installations accordings to the transfer rule for 14 years - existing installations which make use of the option to be treated like a new entrant for 14 years - installations installed in 2003 and 2004 for 12 years - early actions 1994 to 2002 for 12 years

18 Some conclusions With the multitude of exemptions and special rules like early action, CHP, process related emissions, compliance factor = 1 etc., the German NAP is very (too?) complicated. The common tendency of these regulations is to give industry and energy sector that amount of emissions certificates they wanted to have. Especially the big and energy intensive companies will profit from this NAP. The caps are very comfortable for most of the operators. Therefore we can t expect a fast growing trade.

19 Three kinds of wisdom and the results The scientific wisdom The political wisdom and The wisdom of economical power of concerned industries What we learned was: The wisdom of economical power was the winner

20 The good message is The institutional conditions for an effective emissions trading scheme will be established and the system will come into force. From the implementing procedure and the experiences with the emissions trading in the pilot period 2005 to 2007 we can learn how the emissions trading scheme and the National Allocation Plans could and should be improved. Then, hopefully, we will establish a real efficient emissions trading system for 2008 to 2012.

21 . Thanks for your attention

22 The Allocation : Target and Reality million tonnes of CO 2 Energy and Industry Other Sectors Total The Alternatives discussed within the NAP team and the decision by the Government Proportional (same reduction rate for all sectors) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (uncorrected) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (temperature -corrected) Cost efficiency (model based) Baseline (forecast without additional measures) The BMU-Plan = Voluntary Agreement Cabinets decision by March

23 The Allocation : Target and Reality million tonnes of CO 2 Energy and Industry Other Sectors Total The Alternatives discussed within the NAP team and the decision by the Government Proportional (same reduction rate for all sectors) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (uncorrected) Stabilisation in Non-ET-Sectors (temperature -corrected) Cost efficiency (model based) Baseline (forecast without additional measures) The BMU-Plan = Voluntary Agreement Cabinets decision by March

24 Klimaschutzpolitische Herausforderungen: Emissionen in Deutschland Soll und Ist Mio. t CO2-Äquivalent Treibhausgase CO2-Emissionen CO2-Ziel THG-Ziel 80 THG-Ziel Quelle: Enquete-Kommission/IER; UBA; DIW. 240

25 Beiträge zur Reduktion der CO 2 -Emissionen in Deutschland um 80 % bis zum Jahr Nuklearenergie Beschleunigter Energieproduktivitätsanstieg 8000 Erneuerbare Energien 4000 Fossile Energieträger Annahmen : CO 2 -Reduktion bis 2005 um 25%, bis 2020 um 40% und bis 2050 um 80% BIP-Wachstum 1,7 %/a; Energieproduktivitätssteigerung auf 3 %/a (vs. 2 %/a im Referenzfall), Ergebnis: Anteil erneuerbarer Energiequellen 2050: 50 %