N°42  November 2013
THE POWER SECTOR IN PHASE 2 OF THE EU ETS:
FEWER CO2 EMISSIONS BUT JUST AS MUCH COAL
Nicolas Berghmans1 and Emilie Alberola2
Since 2005, 1,453 power and combined heat and power (CHP) generation plants have participated in the
European Union Emission Trading Scheme, or EU ETS, which requires them to comply with an annual
CO2 emission cap set by the European Commission. Thermal power plants that use coal (bituminous coal,
lignite, and other kinds of coal) and natural gas as their primary fuel jointly account for 86% of the
generation capacity included in the EU ETS. There are twice as many gas-fired power plants as coal-fired
ones, with 671 gas-fired power plants compared with 352 coal-fired ones.
The power sector saw a decrease in its CO2 emissions by 186 Mt during Phase 2 (2008-2012), equal to a
14.2% fall from 1,306 Mt in 2007 – the last year of Phase 1 – to 1,120 Mt in 2012. The reduction differs
depending on the type of power plant and the fuel used:

Plants that generate only electricity reduced their CO2 emissions more significantly than CHP plants.

Gas and oil-fired power plants experienced the sharpest decline in their CO2 emissions, which fell by
34% and 30% respectively between 2008 and 2012: CO2 emissions from gas-fired power plants fell
from 273 to 175 MtCO2, while emissions from oil-fired power plants fell from 50 to 37 MtCO2.

After declining sharply in 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the economic downturn, CO 2 emissions from
coal-fired power plants actually increased between 2009 and 2012, reaching 846 MtCO2 in 2012. This
increase is partly explained by a rebound in coal's competitiveness as a fuel for thermal power plants
in Europe, particularly due to the export of the excess coal produced in the United States to Europe,
and to the collapse in the carbon price in Europe, which no longer penalised coal-fired power plants in
2011 and 2012.
The fall in CO2 emissions in the power industry would therefore appear to be more circumstantial than
structural. A recovery in the demand for power could therefore send CO2 emissions heading upwards
again immediately. However, despite the overall fall in its CO2 emissions between 2008 and 2012, the
power sector suffered from a structural allowance shortfall of 865 MtCO2 at the end of Phase 2, due to a
lower allocation of free allowances than in Phase 1. Most of the allowance shortfall was borne by coalfired power plants, while gas-fired power plants received more allowances overall than required by their
CO2 emissions.
As the main source of demand for carbon assets (EUA allowances and Kyoto, CER or ERU credits), the
sector has returned 533 million Kyoto credits, thereby offsetting 65% of its shortfall. Compared with
returns consisting solely of EUAs, the use of international credits has enabled power generators to save
just over €2 billion, including €1.2 billion in 2012.
1
Nicolas Berghmans is a research fellow at CDC Climat Research. His research focuses on the development of the EU ETS
and of the European power sector. [email protected] - +33 1 58 50 98 19
2
Emilie Alberola is Research Unit Manager,
[email protected] - +33 1 58 50 41 7
“Carbon
and
Energy
Markets”
at
CDC
Climat
Research.
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all those who helped them to draft this report. We would especially like to
thank the Climate economics chair team for their support in the development of the methodology to cross
databases.
We are also indebted to Jean-Yves Caneill (Electricité de France), Fabien Roques (Compass Lexecon),
Raphael Trotignon (Climate Economics Chair, Paris-Dauphine University), Audrey Zermati (Union
française de l’électricité) together with the entire CDC Climat Research team for their careful proofreading
and helpful comments.
The authors are entirely responsible for any errors or omissions.
Publication director: Benoît Leguet - ISSN 2101-4663
To receive regular updates on our publications, send your contact information to [email protected]
Press contact: Maria Scolan - + 33 1 58 50 32 48 - [email protected]
This publication is fully-funded by Caisse des Dépôts, a public institution. CDC Climat does not contribute to the financing of
this research.
Caisse des Dépôts is not liable under any circumstances for the content of this publication.
This publication is not a financial analysis as defined by current regulations.
The dissemination of this document does not amount to (i) the provision of investment or financial advice of any kind, (ii) or of
an investment or financial service, (iii) or to an investment or financial proposal of any kind.
There are specific risks linked to the markets and assets treated in this document. Persons to whom this document is directed
are advised to request appropriate advice (including financial, legal, and/or tax advice) before making any decision to invest in
said markets.
The research presented in this publication was carried out by CDC Climat Research on an independent basis. Organisational
measures implemented at CDC Climat have strengthened the operational and financial independence of the research
department. The opinions expressed in this publication are therefore those of the employees of CDC Climat Research alone,
and are independent of CDC Climat’s other departments, and its subsidiaries.
The findings of this research are in no way binding upon, nor do they reflect, the decisions taken by CDC Climat’s operational
investment and broking services teams, or by its subsidiaries. CDC Climat is not a provider of investment or financial services.
2
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
I.
4
POWER PLANTS COVERED BY THE EU ETS:
OVERVIEW OF 1,400 INSTALLATIONS
5
Coal and gas-fired power plants represents equally 86% of production capacity covered
by the EU ETS
6
B.
Gas-fired power plants account for the majority of plants covered by the EU ETS
6
C.
Coal and oil-fired power plants are twice as old as gas-fired ones
8
A.
II. POWER SECTOR CO2 EMISSIONS COVERED BY THE EU ETS HAVE FALLEN BY
14.2% IN PHASE 2 COMPARED WITH PHASE I
A.
B.
10
The 110 MtCO2 fall in emissions since 2008 is smaller than the decrease for
the other industrial sectors in the EU ETS
10
CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants have been increasing since 2010,
unlike emissions from natural gas-fired power plants
13
C. Power generation’s CO2 emissions are falling in most European States
16
III. THE POWER GENERATION SECTOR IS THE LARGEST SECTOR IN THE EU ETS
A.
B.
IN ALLOCATION AND SHORTFALL TERMS
17
The power industry is the sector that receives the most allocations,
totalling around 1 GtCO2, within the EU ETS
17
Phase 2 compliance: an 825 MtCO2 shortfall, 65% of which was covered by the use of
international carbon credits
19
CONCLUSION
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
26
APPENDIX I – DATABASE METHODOLOGY
27
APPENDIX II – CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE POWER AND CHP GENERATION PLANTS
SECTOR BY COUNTRY
28
APPENDIX III – CO2 EMISSIONS FOR POWER AND CHP GENERATION PLANTS BY
PRIMARY FUEL
29
3
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
INTRODUCTION
3
The second phase of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which ran between 2008
and 2012, ended in May 2013, when the CO2 emissions for the 12,000 or so installations included within
its scope complied with their 2012 verified emissions. The European Commission announced that verified
4
CO2 emissions from EU ETS installations amounted to 1,867 MtCO2 in 2012, or an 11.9% reduction
compared with 2008.
The power generation sector, which level of CO2 emitted amounted to 1,120 million tonnes (MtCO2) in
2012, has not only been the EU ETS sector with the highest emissions since 2005, but also the sector
with the highest allowance shortfall. It was also subject to a 20 % decrease in free allowances allocated
between Phase 1 and Phase, the tightest reduction of all EU ETS sectors. The sector’s contribution to the
EU CO2 emission reduction effort is likely to increase sharply after 2020 if the roadmap “Towards a low
5
carbon economy in 2050” recommendations are applied. The Roadmap points to an ambitious reduction
target of between 93 and 99% in 2050 compared with 1990 for the power sector.
Between 2008 and 2012, the European power industry operated within a changing economic and
regulatory environment: an economic downturn in Europe that caused a sharp fall in European power
demand; the emergence of shale gas production in the United States, which created additional supply that
disrupted gas and coal prices in Europe; international negotiations and European discussions regarding
climate change that demonstrated major uncertainty in terms of the future level of ambition on fighting
climate change; and lastly the collapse in the carbon price reported by the EU ETS, which fell from around
€30 per tonne in 2008 to €3 per tonne in late 2012.
So how did the power sector's CO2 emissions change over this period? The aim of this Climate Study is to
6
examine the change in power and combined heat and power (CHP) generation plants' CO2 emissions
and compliance positions, as enforced by the EU ETS between 2008 and 2012. The first section of the
study provides an overview of power plants concerned by the EU ETS, while the second section
examines the downward trend in the sector's CO2 emissions over the period between 2008 and 2012.
Lastly, the third section assesses the compliance behaviour of the power sector's actors, in view of their
initial allocation of free allowances and their use of international carbon credits.
3
The European Union Emission Trading Scheme was set up in order to achieve the emission reduction target set by the
European Union (EU-15) within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, i.e. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8%
compared with 1990 over the period between 2008 and 2012.
4
5
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013051601_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:FR:PDF
6
The researchers based on the CO2 emission levels published by the European Union Independent Transaction Log (EUTL)
and on the technical specifications of the power generation plants listed in the World Electric Power Plant (WEPP) database
published by Platts.
4
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
I.
POWER PLANTS COVERED BY THE EU ETS: OVERVIEW OF 1,400 INSTALLATIONS
The power generation capacity covered by the EU ETS in the 30 European Economic Area (EEA)
Member States, which include the 27 European Union Member States and three European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) Member States, involves all fossil-fuel power plants with a thermal capacity of over 20
MW (Directive 2003/87/EC). This cap-and-trade excludes installations that use biomass only. In total,
8
1,453 power and CHP plants have been incentivised to reduce theirs CO2 emissions by participating in
the EU ETS.
The geographical distribution of these installations within the EEA is uneven (Figure 1). States with the
highest proportion of fossil fuels in their electricity mix naturally see the greatest share of their installed
production capacity included within the EU ETS. Thereby, over 85% of power generation resources in
Poland and the Netherlands are included within the scope of the EU ETS, while this percentage is less
than 20% in France, Sweden and Norway.
This section provides an overview of power and CHP plants that are subject to the EU ETS regulation, in
terms of their generation capacity, their number, and their age broken down by fuel type and technology.
Figure 1 - Share of the installed power generation capacity and number of power and/or CHP
generation plants covered by the EU ETS in 2012
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
7
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) includes Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
8
These power generation plants were identified by cross-referencing the list of EU ETS power stations mentioned in the
European Independent Transaction Log (EUTL) with the data in the World Electric Power Plant database edited by Platts,
which includes their technical specifications (primary and secondary fuel, commission year, theoretical power generation
capacity, etc.).
5
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
A. Coal and gas-fired power plants represents equally 86% of production capacity covered by
the EU ETS
The power generation capacity in the European Union is diversified. The four main primary energy
sources, namely coal, gas, hydropower and nuclear power, account for 83% of the installed capacity
within the EU. Over half of this generation capacity – 420 GW out of 821 GW – involves power plants that
are included within the scope of the EU ETS (see Figure 2), and are for the most part thermal fossil fuel9
fired power plants, which generate 1,549 TWh, or 50% of Europe's electricity in 2011 (Eurostat ).
As shown in Figure 2, the EU ETS covers coal and gas-fired power generation, which account for 43% of
the installed capacity. Power plants fired by oil and other oil derivatives account for 12% of installed
capacity, while renewable energy (biomass or solar power) power plants and use a fossil fuel as their
secondary fuel account for only 2%.
Figure 2 - Breakdown of the power generation capacity in the EU-27 & NO, IS, and LI in late 2012
All power plants
Power plants covered by the EU ETS
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
W
o
r
l
d
S
o
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
44% of coal-fired power generation capacity is concentrated in Germany and Poland. In fact, on a
domestic scale, the share of coal-fired power plants in the power generation mix even exceeds 90% in
Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. Meanwhile, Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain account for
56% of gas-fired generation capacity. On a domestic scale, the highest shares of natural gas-fired
installed capacity are found in Latvia (98%), Norway (94%), Lithuania (72%) and the Netherlands (70%).
Oil-fired power plants are concentrated in southern Europe: 35% of the installations are in Italy and Spain,
while a significant portion of the installations are located on islands like Cyprus, Malta, the Greek and
Italian islands, the French Overseas Departments and Territories, and the Spanish and Portuguese
archipelagos.
B. Gas-fired power plants account for the majority of the power plants covered by the EU ETS
Although the level of installed coal-fired and gas-fired power generation capacities is similar, there are
twice as many gas-fired power plants as coal-fired ones, i.e. 671 gas-fired power plants compared with
352 coal-fired power plants. This means that 46% of the power plants included in the EU ETS generate
power by burning natural gas. The number of natural gas-fired power and CHP plants included within the
scope of the EU ETS has increased since 2005, rising from 587 installations at the end of Phase 1 of the
EU ETS to 653 units at the beginning of Phase 2.
9
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
6
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Coal and oil-fired power plants, which respectively account for 24% and 17% of the power plants covered
by the EU ETS, have followed an opposite trend, namely a slight decrease that reflects the gradual
withdrawal of ageing generation units. Lastly, less than 10% of the power generation sector installations
covered by the EU ETS uses fossil-fuels as a secondary fuel (concentrated solar power) or a primary non10
fossil fuels, including biomass , municipal waste, and coal mine methane. Their recorded CO2 emissions
are generated via the use of a secondary fossil fuel. In fact, concentrated solar power plants, which are
primarily being developed in Spain, are included within the EU ETS as they use natural gas in addition to
solar power during periods of low sunlight.
Table 1 – Average capacity of power generation installations according to primary fuel
2005
2007
2012
2007-2012
Change
% of CHP
installations in
2012
Natural gas
671
587
653
+ 66
42 %
Coal (total)
352
342
336
-6
45 %
223
217
210
-7
42 %
lignite coal
87
83
86
+3
50 %
other coal
42
42
40
-2
45%
Oil
248
232
227
-5
12%
Peat
22
20
21
+1
71%
Bituminous shale
7
6
6
0
67%
Blast furnace gas
14
11
13
+2
46%
Other (total)
139
83
129
+46
60%
biomass
76
60
75
+15
81%
solar power
27
0
27
+27
0%
waste
11
7
10
3
100%
-
methane
6
6
4
-2
50%
-
unknown
19
10
13
+3
31%
1,453
1,281
1,385
+104
40%
Primary fuel used by
the installation
-
bituminous coal
-
-
-
TOTAL
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
The larger number of natural gas-fired power plants is explained by the fact that their generation capacity
is lower than that of coal-fired power plants, even though the installed generation capacity regulated by
the EU ETS is equivalent to 180 GW. The difference in the capacity of CHP plants is even more marked:
a gas-fired power plant is nine times less powerful, on average, than a lignite-fired power plant; the
respective capacities are 54 MW and 507 MW (Table 2).
Table 2 – Average capacity of power generation installations according to primary fuel
Type of fossil fuel
Lignite coal
Bituminous coal
Natural gas
Oil
Average capacity of CHP plants
(MWh)
Average capacity of power
plants (MWh)
507
295
54
91
795
779
418
230
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
10
CO2 emissions attributable to biomass are not recorded in these installations' verified emissions, as biomass is considered
to be carbon neutral.
7
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
C. Coal and oil-fired power plants are twice as old as gas-fired ones
The generation capacities are renewed according to power plants' long useful life, which operating
periods can go from 30 and 50 years in the case of thermal power plants. The current European power
plant base was built up gradually, in line with technological waves (Figure 3 - New power generation
capacity in Europe by technology: the boom in natural gas and renewable energyFigure 3).
The most salient recent trend has been the increase in new gas-fired generation capacity. The surge in
gas-fired power plants is the combined result of the operation of North Sea gas fields and improvements
to gas-fired generation technologies (see Box 1). The more recent expansion in renewable energy
generation capacity is also the result of improvements to these technologies, as well as of changes in
national and European regulatory frameworks that are more favourable to their development than the
used to be. Lastly, the rapid development of nuclear generation units between 1970 and 1989 was
supported by some States' desire to reduce their dependency on oil prices following the oil crises.
Figure 3 - New power generation capacity in Europe by technology: the boom in natural gas and
renewable energy
Source: World Electric Power Plant (Platts)
Note: fossil fuel power plants are included in the EU ETS if their thermal capacity exceeds 20 MW.
Coal-fired power plants are the oldest among the fossil-fuel-fired plants included in the EU ETS: on
average, the 336 coal-fired plants that were operating in 2012 were commissioned 20 years before the
653 natural gas-fired plants. These coal-fired plants have been operating for an average of 35 years,
compared with 13 years for gas-fired power plants (see Table 3).
Table 3 – Average year of each installed MW’s commissioning by primary fuel
(end of 2012)
Primary fuel
Average year of each installed
MW’s commissioning
Coal
Natural
gas
Oil
Blast
furnace
gas
Peat
1979
1999
1980
1990
1993
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
The renewal of Europe's installed generation capacity will therefore be achieved via the gradual shutdown
of the oldest power plants, i.e. coal and oil-fired plants, and via the introduction of new generation units.
Power plant operators' investment decisions are highly dependent on the economic, political and
regulatory environment, which may turn out to be more or less favourable to the development of lower
carbon technologies.
8
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Box 1 – Factors behind the expansion of gas-fired power plants in Europe since the 1990s
The surge in these power plants in Europe over the last two decades is explained by four main factors.
First and foremost, the development of available gas supplies in Europe, thanks to the operation of gas
fields in the North Sea, specifically enabled the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to develop their gasfired power generation capacity. The trend continued via the construction of a large number of gas
pipelines connecting the countries of North Africa with southern Europe, including: Transmed in 1983,
which was doubled in 1994 (Algeria-Tunisia-Sicily); Maghreb-Europe in 1997 (Morocco-Spain),
11
Greenstream in 2004 (Libya-Sicily) and Medgaz in 2009 (Algeria Spain) . The next step was the
development of a large number of gas-fired power plants in southern European countries like Spain and
Italy.
Furthermore, the trend was boosted by technical improvements. The improvements of combined-cycle
gas turbines (CCGT), which allows a steam turbine to be connected to a gas turbine, enabled a 16%
12
improvement in the thermal efficiency of gas-fired power plants world-wide between 1991 and 2007 – a
faster rate of improvement than for other fossil fuels. The most modern combined-cycle power plants are
13
now achieving thermal efficiency levels of almost 60% . CCGT units are designed to operate on a semipermanent basis (between 2,000 and 6,000 hours per year) and represent an effective installed capacity
adjustment method. Moreover, the trend was supported by the low capital-intensive investments in natural
gas-fired power plants with a given generation capacity. In fact, investment costs accounted for only 22%
of the total average power generation cost (IEA data for Germany, 2010) compared with 40% for coal and
80% for nuclear power. Lastly, generating power from natural gas is between 2 and 2.5 times less carbonintensive than generating power from coal. The introduction of the European carbon price reported by the
EU ETS may also favour investments in CCGT units compared with other fossil fuels.
Figure 4 – New generation capacity: the boom in combined-cycle gas units
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
11
"Infrastructure and sustainable power generation in the Mediterranean region: the outlook for 2025", Blue Plan and AFD
(2009)
12
Ratio between the power generated and the thermal energy emitted when the fuel is burned.
13
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-18/issue-3/features/ccgt-breaking-the-60-per-cent-efficiencybarrier.html
9
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
II. POWER
PHASE I
SECTOR CO2 EMISSIONS COVERED BY THE EU ETS HAVE FALLEN BY 14.2% COMPARED WITH
The power industry has experienced a significant decrease in its CO2 emissions. After reaching a peak in
2007, the last year of Phase 1 of the EU ETS, the sector's CO2 emissions fell by 14.2% between 2007
and 2012 (see Figure 5) from 1,306 Mt to 1,120 Mt between 2007 and 2012. The observed decline of CO2
emissions come from different economic and structural reasons. First, the sharp decrease in European
electricity demand in Europe between 2009 and 2012 as a result of the economic crisis. Then, renewed
competitiveness of coal use relative to gas since 2008 came hampered the overall decrease in CO2
emissions, keeping the CO2 emissions from the most emitting power plants, while the use of natural gas
decreased over the period 2007-2012. Finally, the electric-mix of member states has changed during the
last decade, one of the major trends being the strong growth of non-emitting renewable energy.
The second section of this report assesses the specific features of the decrease in CO2 emissions within
the power industry, by comparing this trend with the other sectors regulated by the EU ETS and looking at
the behaviour of these installations by fuel type and geographical location.
A.
The 110 MtCO2 fall in emissions since 2008 is smaller than the decrease for the other industrial
sectors in the EU ETS
The installations in the sectors concerned by the EU ETS saw their CO2 emissions decrease during
Phase 2. These emissions amounted to 1,866 MtCO2 in 2012 (excluding the aviation sector) compared
with 2,120 MtCO2 in 2008, the first year of Phase 2, amounting to an 11.9% decrease over the period.
CO2 emissions from the power industry dropped by 9.3% over the same period. On average, power plants
produced 849 MtCO2 per year, in addition to the 299 MtCO2 produced by CHP plants (see Figure 5)
between 2008 and 2012. Across all power generation installations, power plants saw their CO2 emissions
decrease by 9.7% between 2008 and 2012, more than CHP units where CO2 emissions fell by 6.8% over
the same period.
Figure 5 - Verified CO2 emissions for the EU ETS sectors between 2005 and 2012
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
The fall in CO2 emissions from power generation was particularly significant in 2009, when CO 2 emissions
from power generation installations contracted by 8.4%, due to the economic recession, resulting in a
5.2% decrease in power consumption in the EU-27 in 2009. Some sectors posted exceptional annual
decreases in that year, including 28% for steel producers and 20% for cement producers, which are the
two sectors that generate the most emissions outside the combustion sector. The non-power generation
10
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
installations included in Sector I of the EU ETS
9.2% fall in their CO2 emissions over one year.
14
combustion category also recorded a more significant
Apart from the oil refining industry, CO2 emissions from power generation were less sensitive to the
downturn than those of the other industries included in the EU ETS. This difference in volatility was
primarily due to the greater stability of power demand compared with the output of the industries within the
scope of the EU ETS. Figure 6 shows that the trend in power generation was more stable over the period
than the trend in manufacturing output covered by the EU ETS, especially during the 2007-2008 economic
downturn.
Figure 6 - Output index for the power generation sector in Europe
Source: CDC Climat Research based on Eurostat data.
These changes in electricity demand have a direct influence on the level of CO2 emissions, according to
the number of hours that the power plants operate and the fuels used by the plants involved in power
generation. In most cases, peak power plants, i.e. those that are the last to respond to electricity demand
when demand is high, are fossil fuel-fired power plants, since the variable cost of those fuels is higher
than that of low carbon fuels. This explains why the fall in the sector's CO 2 emissions was higher than the
fall in electricity demand, as the adjustment mainly affected fossil fuel-fired power generation. In fact,
Declercq et al. (2011) identified the fall in electricity demand as the main factor behind the fall in CO 2
emissions relating to power generation in Europe. The fall in electricity demand in 2009 was behind a 175
MtCO2 decrease in emissions from power generation. Other factors contributed to the decrease in the
sector’s emissions, primarily the relative price of fossil fuels and the increase in power generation from
renewable energy. The impact of changes in the price of fossil fuels (-17 MtCO2) and of the fall in the CO2
price (+30 MtCO2) is much less significant.
Electricity generation CO2 intensity declined until 2010 in Europe
Since 2005, changes in the electricity mix have been important and explain part of the decline in CO2
emissions from fossil plants. If part of the reduction in emissions is due to the drop in demand for
electricity in Europe, the CO2 intensity in most of European countries has also declined steadily until
2010, promoting reduction of CO2 emissions. The inflection of the downward trend in 2011 is explained by
the increased CO2 emissions from coal in some European countries that is due to a renewed
competitiveness of coal-fired generation but also other external factors. Figure 7 shows that Spain, where
new subsidies for coal-fired generation from coal came into force in 2011, and Germany, where eight
14
Sector including industrial installations with a thermal combustion capacity of 20 MW.
11
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
nuclear reactors were shut down in March 2011 following the Fukushima accident, saw their CO2 intensity
bounce back in 2011.
Figure 7 - Average CO2 emission rate for electricity generation in Europe
Source: Eurostat, EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts)
The renewable energy generation development reduces CO2 emissions
Une des tendances récentes expliquant la baisse des émissions de CO2 est l’augmentation de la part
d’électricité provenant de sources non émettrices provenant du développement de la production
d'électricité renouvelable. Comme le montre la Figure 7, la part d’électricité provenant de sources
renouvelables a cru rapidement ces dernières années, passant en Europe de 13,6 % à 20,5 % entre
2005 et 2011. A la suite de l'adoption dans le cadre du paquet énergie-climat de la directive sur la
promotion des énergies renouvelables visant une part d'énergie renouvelable de 20% dans la
consommation finale énergétique en 2020, chaque Etat s'est vu assigné un objectif national. Les Etats
membres devaient donc dresser un plan d'action répertoriant les politiques mises en place et les
trajectoires de développement des différentes filières renouvelables. Dans le secteur électrique, si les
Etats respectent les plans établis, cela signifierait que 31,3 % de l'électricité en 2020 proviendra de
15
sources renouvelables . Cette tendance est donc amenée à se renforcer dans les années à venir.
One of the recent trends that explain the decline in CO2 emissions is the increasing share of electricity
coming from renewable energy sources. As shown in Figure 8, this share has recently grown rapidly in
Europe, from 13.6 % to 20.5 % between 2005 and 2011. Following the adoption of the directive on the
promotion of renewable energy and its 20% target in final energy consumption in 2020 as part of the
climate and energy package, each state has been assigned a national target. Therefore Member States
developed national action plans that identify policies implemented and developmental trajectories for each
renewable energy technology. For electricity generation, if Member States comply with their plans, it
16
would mean that in 2020 31.3 % of electricity will come from renewable sources . This trend will then
certainly continue in the coming years.
15
Plans d’actions nationaux en faveur des énergies renouvelables :
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm
16
National renewable energy action plans : http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm
12
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Figure 8 - Share of electricity consumption coming from renewable sources in EU 27
Source : Eurostat
B.
CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants have been increasing since 2010, unlike
emissions from natural gas-fired power plants
CO2 emissions from gas and oil-fired power plants fell sharply between 2008 and 2012
CO2 emissions from power generation are mostly generated by coal-fired power plants, as coal is the
fossil fuel that emits the greatest amount of CO2 per unit of power. Coal-fired power plants emitted an
average of 819 MtCO2 between 2008 and 2012, equal to 70% of the total CO2 emitted by the industry.
Gas-fired power plants come in the second place, and were responsible for 22% of the emissions
resulting from power and CHP generation, i.e. 236 MtCO2 per year on average.
Among power and CHP generation plants, it was gas and oil-fired power plants that posted the most
significant fall in CO2 emissions between 2008 and 2012: 34% and 30% respectively (see Figure 9). Gasfired power plants were only emitting 180 MtCO2 in 2012, while oil-fired power plants were emitting 37
MtCO2. Conversely, CO2 emissions from bituminous coal and lignite-fired power plants remained relatively
stable over the same period, posting changes of -0.8% and +0.3% respectively.
Figure 9 - Trend in verified CO2 emissions for the EU ETS power and CHP generation by primary
fuel used (2005-2012)
Note: excluding Bulgaria and Romania, as their inclusion in the EU ETS became effective in 2007, the date when they joined
the EU.
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
13
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
However, trends were not constant over the period between 2008 and 2012. An important drop in CO2
emissions happened in 2009, with an overall decrease of between 4 and 10% for all fossil fuels. In fact,
following a sharp decline in 2008 and 2009, primarily due to the economic downturn, CO2 emissions from
coal-fired power plants increased between 2010 and 2012, when they reached 846 Mt. CO2 emissions
from bituminous coal-fired power plants rose by 7.2% between 2010 and 2012, while those generated by
natural gas-fired power plants fell by 29% over the same period. This new trend is explained by the
rebound in coal's competitiveness as a fuel for thermal power plants in Europe, due to the excess coal
produced in the United States being exported to Europe, and to a collapse in the European carbon price,
which penalised less coal-fired power plants in 2011 and 2012. It is also explained by the development of
renewable energy, which competes against gas-fired power plants. Likewise, the CO2 emissions
generated by burning lignite had begun to decline, falling by 6% between 2008 and 2010, before returning
in 2012 to a level that was equivalent to the one seen in 2008. Conversely, the CO2 emissions generated
by oil-fired power plants saw a constant decline, due to the gradual closure of a significant number of
large power plants over the period.
Box 2 – Power plants’ estimated CO2 emission factors by fuel type
Power plants generate varying levels of CO2 emissions depending on the fuel used. The emission levels
for each generation method are summarised in Table 4.
In fact, among coal-fired power plants, the sites that emit the most CO2 in terms of the amount of power
17
generated are those that burn lignite coal, which emits 25% more CO2 than bituminous coal , according
to our estimates. By comparing emissions from gas-fired power plants to the amount of power generated
by this fuel in Europe (Source: Eurostat), gas-fired generation emitted 491kgCO2/MWh on average at the
European level (see Table 4). This is around 50% lower than for coal-fired generation that amounts
929 kgCO2/MWh. It should be noted that CO2 emissions from power plants that recover gas from blast
furnaces, and account for a negligible amount of the power generated in Europe, represented 2% of the
CO2 emissions attributable to power generation due to their high CO2 intensity.
Table 4 – Share of fuels in the EU ETS power and CHP generation's CO2 emissions in 2010
Coal
Lignite
Bituminous
Gas
Oil
Blast-furnace gas
Share of fossil-fueled
electricity produced
by…
53,6%
21,5%
29,8%
41,1%
4,4%
0,4%
Share of CO2
emissions coming
from…
69,9%
30,2%
36,7%
22,3%
4,8%
2,1%
Estimated rate of CO2
emissions
(kgCO2/Mwh)
929
1 062
833
491
834
2 165
Note: estimated emission factors only take electrical power generation sites into account, while excluding CHP sites. These
data may be overestimated, as they do not take into account emissions from sites where the thermal capacity is too low for
them to be included in the EU ETS.
Source: CDC Climat Research, based on data from CITL and WEPP (Platts)
17
Lignite coal emits 6.7% more CO2 per GJ of heat output than bituminous coal, while the thermal efficiency ratios of lignitefired power plants are usually lower than those for power plants that use bituminous coal, due not only to lignite coal's higher
humidity level, but also to the fact that the plants are older on average (see VGB, 2011).
14
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Coal’s increased profitability since 2010 compared with gas
The change in the trend in CO2 emissions generated by gas and bituminous coal-fired power plants which
was observed from 2011 onwards is primarily due to the change in the economic operating conditions for
both fuels. These primarily depend on demand for power, as mentioned in the previous section, and on
the price of fossil fuels, as well as on the EUA price reported by the EU ETS.
Power plant operators estimate the profitability of power plants on an ongoing basis, so as to activate the
generation units that have the lowest marginal cost of operation. If we overlook operating expenses, which
are usually fixed, and fuel transport costs, the profit margins for coal-fired power plants are assessed via
an index known as the clean dark spread index, which estimates the gap between the sale price for
18
electrical power, the cost of the fossil fuel used to produce it, and the price of the related emissions .
Likewise, the same formula is used to assess the profitability margins using the so-called clean dark
spread for gas-fired power plants.
Gas & coal-fired power station margins (€/MWh) =
Price of electrical power (€/MWh) - Price of fuel (€/Mwh)/Thermal efficiency of the power plant (%)
- CO2 price (€/tCO2) x fuel emission factor (tCO2/MWh)
In fact, as illustrated in Figure 10 that takes the United Kingdom market as an example, there was a
significant change in the profit margins of gas and coal-fired power plants. The combined fall in the coal
and EUA price made the operation of bituminous coal-fired plants much more profitable than that of gasfired power plants, which encouraged power generators to use their coal-fired power plants in order to
maximise their profits.
Figure 10 - Theoretical margins of gas and coal-fired power plants in the United Kingdom
(2010-2012) after including the carbon price (monthly average in €/Mwh)
Source: CDC Climat Research, Tendances Carbone
As a result, the use of coal-fired power plants increased in a number of States from 2011 onwards,
resulting in a significant rise in the sector’s CO2 emissions. Remember that CO2 emissions from
bituminous coal-fired plants increased by 7.2% between 2010 and 2012, while those generated by natural
gas-fired plants decreased by 29% over the same period.
Lignite coal remains competitive
It is also relevant to note the relative stability of CO2 emissions from lignite coal-fired plants between 2008
and 2012. This result may appear surprising: with an estimated average emission rate of
1,062 kgCO2/MWh, lignite is the most emission-intensive fuel. This means that this type of coal is still
18
For further details, please see the methodology described in the following Tendances Carbone publication:
http://www.cdcclimat.com/IMG//pdf/methodologie_tendances_carbone_fr__v8.pdf
15
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
widely used, despite European environmental policies that aim to limit its use, including the carbon price
reported by the EU ETS since 2005.
The stability of the CO2 emissions generated by lignite coal-fired power plants is explained first by the fact
that the operation of lignite-fired plants is much more localised than that of bituminous coal-fired plants,
given that the price of this fuel, which is negotiated on a global market, is more influenced by global
trends. In fact, it is much less profitable to transport lignite than bituminous coal, due to its lower heat
content. This means that lignite is usually supplied via long-term bilateral agreements between the mining
company and the power plant operator, in cases where there is no vertical integration and where the mine
does not directly belong to the power plant operator. This means that there is low correlation between the
price of lignite and the international price of coal, and that its price is much lower, around €10 per MWh.
Lastly, lignite coal still benefits from direct subsidies, including for example of an exemption from mining
taxes in Germany (UBA, 2008).
These stable CO2 emissions are lastly explained by the fact that lignite-fired power generation is mostly
located in Central and Eastern European countries. In fact, 95% of the CO2 emissions generated by
lignite-fired power plants come from eight European countries, namely Germany, Bulgaria, Denmark,
Greece, Hungary, Romania, Poland and the Czech Republic. The growth in power demand in these
countries has been higher than in the other EU-27 countries: 3% for these eight States as a whole,
compared with a decrease of 1% in the remainder of the EU-19 between 2005 and 2012. The percentage
of electrical power generated using renewable energy in these countries is also lower, with 12.9% of gross
generation in 2011, compared with 17.3% for the EU-27 as a whole (Eurostat, 2012).
C. Power generation’s CO2 emissions are falling in most European States
Power generation sector’s CO2 emissions have fallen in most European States compared to 2008. Only
six States, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Sweden, saw the CO2 emissions generated by their power
plants increase between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 11).
CO2 emissions from power generation fell sharply in countries where there was a substantial increase in
the percentage of power from renewable energy in their electrical mix. In Denmark, for instance, CO 2
emissions from the power generation sector fell by 21% between 2008 and 2011, while wind power
generation increased by 41%. Furthermore, in Spain and Italy, where CO2 emissions from the power
generation sector fell by 20% and 17% respectively between 2008 and 2011, and in Portugal, where they
fell by 16%, the development of renewable power generation was accompanied by a boom in CCGT
(combined-cycle gas turbine) plants, which competed against coal and oil-fired plants, and therefore
reduced their CO2 emissions, up until 2011.
Figure 11 - Change in CO2 emissions generated by power plants between 2008 and 2012 for each
country
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
16
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
III. THE
POWER GENERATION SECTOR IS THE LARGEST SECTOR IN THE EU ETS IN ALLOCATION AND
SHORTFALL TERMS
Power and CHP plants represent around half of the allowances allocated in Phase 2 (2008-2012) of the
EU ETS, but only 10% of the industrial plants covered by the scheme. The power sector is also the only
one in the ETS structurally short in allowances, which means that verified emissions are always higher
than the amount of European allowances it receives.
The third section of this Climate Study assesses the consequences of including the power industry, in
terms of its CO2 emission compliance strategy. The next section sets out an estimate for the level of
allowances allocated to the sector, an assessment of the power plants’ surplus and shortfall positions
depending on the type of fuel, and lastly, an overview of the 20 main European power plant operators.
A.
The power industry is the sector that receives the most allocations, totalling around 1 GtCO2,
within the EU ETS
During the period between 2008 and 2012, the power generation sector received allocations of around
720 MtCO2 per year, equal to around 36% of the European Community’s CO2 emission allowance
allocation. If we include CHP plants, the total amount of allowances allocated to the sector amounted to
980 MtCO2 per year, equal to around 49% of the allowance allocation for all EU ETS sectors.
Figure 12 – The various sectors' weighting in terms of the average allocation of free EU ETS
allowances between 2008 and 2012 (average of 1,999 MtCO2 per year)
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
The importance of the power industry in each country’s allocation varies significantly depending on the
weighting of fossil-fuel power generation in the domestic electricity mix (Figure 13). Actually, only 5% of
the allowances allocated to Norway were assigned to power and CHP plants, compared with an 82%
share of the allowances granted in Estonia. Among the countries with the highest carbon emissions,
Poland has the highest share of free allowances earmarked for power and CHP plants, which amounts to
66%, as the country generates 93% of its power from coal (IEA, 2012). Germany and the United Kingdom
display a similar share of 52%, while France, where 75% of power is nuclear, only allocated 23% of its
free allowances to its power generation sector.
CHP units are concentrated in geographical areas with the coldest winters in Central Europe and
Scandinavia. Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic alone account for over 70% of the free
allowances allocated to CHP installations in Europe. Lastly, Denmark enjoys the highest share of free
allowances allocated to CHP plants: 49%.
Allocations for the power generation sector have historically been less generous than those granted to
other sectors. This difference results from the choice made by Member States when drawing up their
NAPs (National Allocation Plans) for Phases 1 and 2 of the EU ETS. Most States chose to reduce the
17
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
allocations for power plant operators more significantly than those for other sectors between the initial two
phases. In fact, Belgium did not allocate any free allowances to power plants that used coal as their
primary fuel and were scheduled to shut down before the end of 2012. Meanwhile, Germany and the
United Kingdom chose to auction a portion of their allowances, portion which was withheld from the
amounts granted to power plant operators.
The power industry is the one that has been less generously allocated of all sectors covered by the EU
ETS: its CO2 emission cap was reduced by around 20% between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the EU ETS,
while this reduction was lower for the other sectors, and ranged between 13 and 5% on a like-for-like
basis. The determination of allowance free allocations depends on historical emissions, the potential for
emission reductions, and exposure to international competition, as well as the impact of the carbon price
on the pricing structure of the goods produced (Buchner et al., 2007). In view of these factors, the power
generation sector was considered to be in a position to make a strong contribution to reducing emissions
in Europe: power generation is not exposed to international competition, and can therefore pass on a
greater portion of the additional cost to end-consumers, while emission reduction costs in the power
generation sector are not as high as the reduction costs borne by other industries (Buchner and Ellerman,
2007).
Figure 13 – Share of free allocations by sector and by country in Phase 2 of the EU ETS
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
18
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Figure 14 – Change in the allocation of allowances
to the power generation sector compared with other sectors during Phases 1 and 2 of the EU ETS
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
B.
Phase 2 compliance: an 825 MtCO2 shortfall, 65% of which was covered by the use of
international carbon credits
Power generation is the only industry with an overall shortfall
The power industry is the only one where the CO2 emissions generated were greater than the allowances
received; during Phase 2 of the EU ETS between 2008 and 2012, this shortfall amounted to 649 MtCO2
for power plants and to 176 MtCO2 for CHP installations.
As shown in Figure 15, the shortfall for two sub-sectors has contracted. Installations in the power industry
posted a 28% allowance shortfall in 2008, which was reduced to 9% in 2012. This compliance shortfall is
not new as the sector had already experienced an allowance shortfall in Phase 1 of the EU ETS.
Figure 15 – Change in net compliance position of EU ETS installations by sector (2007-2012)
Note: the compliance position corresponds to the allowance shortfall or surplus resulting from the difference between the
allowance allocation level and the CO2 emissions relating to the allocation level, i.e. (allocationt- emissionst)/allocationt
Source: CDC Climat Research, based on data from CITL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts)
The power industry represents the largest source of demand for allowances on the exchange market, both
on the secondary market where allowances allocated free of charge are traded, and on the primary
19
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
19
market, where some States like the United Kingdom and Germany have auctioned CO2 emission
allowances. Conversely, all the other industrial sectors received free allowances that exceeded their
coverage requirements. These excess amounts can be significant, as is the case for the steel and
ceramic producers, where they amounted to over 40% of the initial allowance allocation over the period.
In most States, the power industry is subject to more constraints than other sectors (Figure 16). The
power industry has a lower shortfall in Eastern Europe, and enjoys an overall allocation surplus in four
countries, namely Austria, Slovakia, Latvia and Norway. Conversely, Sweden, Belgium, Germany and the
United Kingdom are the States where the power generation sector shortfall is highest. This difference in
compliance positions is due to the differences in free allocations rules between Member States.
Figure 16 – Average net compliance position for the power and CHP sector compared with other
sectors in each country during Phase 2 (2008-2012)
Note: the compliance position corresponds to the allowance shortfall or surplus resulting from the difference between the
allowance allocation level and the CO2 emissions relating to the allocation level, i.e. (allocationt- emissionst)/allocationt
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
19
The United Kingdom and Germany sold 122.8 MtCO2 and 209 MtCO2 between 2008 and 2012.
20
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Coal-fired power plants present a shortfall, while natural gas-fired plants enjoy an overall
surplus
The level of CO2 emissions for power generation plants according to each type of fuel used is obviously
reflected in these installations' compliance positions. Therefore, if we compare their verified CO2
emissions with the allowance allocations, the installations with the largest allowance shortfall over the
period between 2008 and 2012 were coal-fired power plants: these plants, which benefited from an
average allocation of 667 MtCO2 per year, displayed a shortfall of 759 MtCO2 in terms of their compliance
during Phase 2 of the EU ETS. The aggregate allowance shortfall for lignite and bituminous coal-fired
plants was 29% and 26% respectively in 2012.
Although they represented 70% of the sector’s CO2 emissions, (bituminous and lignite) coal-fired power
plants accounted for 92% of the aggregate Phase 2 allowance shortfall, as gas and oil-fired power plants
posted a much smaller shortfall between 2008 and 2010, and even an allowance surplus in 2011 and
20
2012. Gas-fired power plants' compliance position changed significantly between 2008 and 2012,
switching from a shortfall of 26% to a 34% surplus in 2012. The report shows that the shortfall position of
bituminous coal-fired power plants virtually doubled between 2011 and 2012, at a time when the surplus
posted by gas-fired power plants increased by a factor of three. This inverted position was the result of the
intensive use of coal-fired power generation resources from 2011 onwards, at the expense of natural gasfired power plants, as seen previously.
Figure 17 – EU ETS power plants' net compliance position according to the type of primary fuel
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
On average, CHP power plants posted a lower shortfall than electrical power plants, as several Member
States had chosen to allocate more generous allowances to CHP plants in their NAPs, on the grounds
that they are more energy efficient. As shown in Figure 18, the overall shortfall for the bituminous coalfired plants among the CHP plants included in the EU ETS was 10 points lower than that for lignite coalfired power plants. Conversely, natural gas and oil-fired CHP plants have posted a significant allowance
surplus since 2008.
20
(Free allowance minus verified emissions)/Free allowance
21
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Figure 18 – EU ETS CHP plants' net compliance position according to the type of primary fuel
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
The major power generation groups are the primary buyers of CO2 allowances
The European power industry is dominated by major companies, which have become more international
due to the opening up of many power markets to competition, even though they remain focused on their
country of origin (Trotignon and Delbosc, 2008). As these groups have usually centralised their CO 2
policies at the European level, they have a dominant influence on the European CO2 market (Ellerman et
al., 2010). The leading 20 European groups represent 66% of free allowance allocations, and 70% of the
verified emissions for the European power industry.
Figure 19 – Verified CO2 emissions and free allowance allocations:
overview of the 20 largest European power plant operators
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
22
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
The power generators' net position is largely dependent on their geographical location. German power
generating companies has the largest source of allowances demand. Actually, the three largest power
generation groups operating in Germany, namely RWE, E.ON and Vattenfall, had a combined compliance
requirement of 490 MtCO2 between 2008 and 2012, equal to 58% of the shortfall for the sector as a
whole. Meanwhile, the Drax Power Group, which operates one large coal-fired power plant in the United
Kingdom, had to purchase 56% more allowances than its free allocation amount on the market, making it
the highest share for a company. Conversely, groups operating in Eastern Europe ran much smaller
shortfalls, or even surpluses, as is the case for CWZ, the Czech power generator (11%), and for Tauron
(11%) and ZE PAK (1%), the Polish power plant operators.
The use of carbon credits has limited the cost of compliance for power generators
As power generators emitted 825 MtCO2 more than their free allowance allocations during Phase 2, they
21
were required to purchase at least the corresponding amount of carbon assets via the secondary market
or via the auctions held by certain States. To comply during Phase 2, companies that were part of the EU
ETS could return:
-
allowances (EUAs) that were distributed free of charge by the European Commission or purchased
on the primary and secondary markets;
-
international credits, known as Certified Emission Reductions or CERs, which were generated by
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) emission reduction initiatives, and as Emission Reduction
Units or ERUs, which were generated by Joint Implementation (JI) initiatives, within a certain limit
defined by each Member States in their National Allocation Plan.
The credits substitute CO2 emission reductions achieved in countries or sectors that are not included in
the EU ETS for domestic CO2 emission reductions that were not achieved by European installations. In
total, the maximum demand arising from EU ETS installations, which also includes the demand from new
sectors, the aviation sector and the reserve for new entrants, will be almost 1.65 billion tonnes between
2008 and 2020 (Delbosc et al., 2011)22.
Figure 20 – Price of CO2 allowances (EUAs) and international credits (CERs)
Source: ICE Futures Europe
21
22
We are here overlooking any asset purchases that operators may have made in anticipation of Phase 3 (2013-2020).
Please refer to Delbosc et al (2011) for further details.
23
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
In light of this opportunity, power generators returned 366 MtCO2 CERs and 167 MtCO2 ERUs over the
period between 2008 and 2012, thereby offsetting 65% of their overall shortfall. Returning credits enables
installations to reduce their costs, since there is a difference in price between international credits and
European allowances, which favours using these credits. As shown in Figure 18, the market price of these
CERs was tightly correlated to the EUA price up until July 2012, when it became uncorrelated and began
falling sharply, dropping to a level of less than €0.50 per tCO2 at the end of 2012. This de-correlation
reflects the saturation of demand for CER and ERU credits from European industrial companies that had
exhausted their Kyoto credit usage limits (Trotignon, 2012).
According to our estimates, the minimum savings (Table 5) achieved by operators in the power industry
who returned international credits for compliance purposes amounted to over €2 billion between 2008 and
2012 compared with returns based solely on EUAs, including €1.27 billion from the purchase of Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) credits and €736 million as part of Joint Implementation (JI). This saving
is underestimated, as it does not factor in the additional benefits that an industrial company may have
received by also being at the origin of the project, and thereby obtaining credits at a lower price in the
primary market (Stephan et al., forthcoming). The underestimate is also due to the fact that the higher
price for the EUAs that might have been imposed in the event of a lack of foreign credits was not always
taken into account, due to a lower supply and demand ratio (Shishlov et al., 2012).
Table 5 – Savings made by the power industry via the return of Kyoto credits
Year
Average
annual EUACER spread
Returned
CERs (Mt)
Returned
ERUs
Total
Returned
CERs and
ERUs (Mt)
Estimated
savings (in
M€)
2008
4.05
45
0
45
183
2009
1.54
48
2
50
77
2010
2.06
67
10
77
159
2011
3.34
80
27
107
356
2012
4.87
126
128
253
1,234
366
167
532
2,009
Total
Source: CDC Climat Research, EUTL, ICE Futures Europe
We therefore estimate that the minimum compliance cost for all power plant operators was €9.6 billion for
Phase 2 as a whole, after factoring in the €2 billion saving due to the use of the credits. Over 50% of this
compliance cost relates to 2008, at a time when both the EUA price and the sector's emissions were at a
record high. It should be noted that 2012, which was the last year of Phase 2, saw a net economic benefit
for the business players involved, as the savings generated via the use of Kyoto credits were higher than
the cost resulting from their allowance shortfall.
Table 6 – Estimated compliance cost for the power industry
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Phase 2 total
Allowance shortfall (MtCO2)
268
165
163
130
99
825
Average EUA price (in €)
Savings due to the use of
Kyoto credits (M€)
Estimated compliance cost
(M€m)
22.34
13.18
14.34
12.96
7.50
14.06
183
77
159
356
1,234
2,009
5,798
2,093
2,182
1,332
-492
9,589
Source: CDC Climat Research, EUTL, ICE Futures Europe
24
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
CONCLUSION
This Study examines the decarbonisation of the power industry via changes in the CO2 emissions
generated by the power generation installations covered by the EU ETS between 2008 and 2012.
The third phase of the EU ETS, which will run between 2013 and 2020, will be a period of significant
change for power plant operators. First, emission reduction constraint in the EU ETS will further increase
with the adoption of a Community ceiling of 2,039 MtCO2 and gradual decline of 1.74 % per annum by
2020. Then power generation will no longer be eligible for free allocation, and they will henceforth be
required to purchase all of their supplies at auction or on the secondary market. They will bear the full cost
of their CO2 emissions. Eight Eastern European countries will allocate free allowances to their power
companies on a transitional basis up until 2019, on the condition that an equivalent financial amount is
invested in modernising their power generation industry. Meanwhile, CHP plants will continue to receive
free allowances that correspond solely to the heat that they generate on the basis of q benchmark based
on the best fossil fuel technology available (i.e. natural gas), although their ammount will decrease every
year and is set to disappear by 2027 at the latest. These changes are in line for a better integration of the
carbon constrain by the operators.
The overall decrease in CO2 emissions from the power industry in phase 2 shows some of the positive
results of climate and energy policies implemented at the EU level. However, a careful observation of
trends gives a more contrasted analysis of the decarbonisation trajectory of the sector. In particular
because of the renewed competitiveness of coal-fired electricity generation, the CO2 intensity of electricity
production that declined since 2005 has stabilized in 2011.
The EU ETS carbon price which is the main regulating tool to reduce CO2 emissions from coal, currently
sends a price signal to operators far from the level required to allow a switch with less polluting gas-fired
plants. In this context, one can legitimately question the long-term consequences of these developments
on the investment decisions ahead for energy companies that have invested heavily in the past decade on
low carbon technologies. The relevance and coordination of climate and energy policies in the European
power industry is certainly to be reviewed as part of the definition of a new European climate and energy
package after 2020, in order to not freeze the investments necessary for the low-carbon transition. First, a
robust and credible long-term carbon price signal is required. Given the recent economic crisis,
considering a more flexible supply of allowances that can be adapted to economic conditions and
changing energy policies could be a way to explore. However, make no mistake: this is indeed a new and
ambitious climate target for the European Union that will put the EU ETS in position to incentivize the
switch between fossil fuels and support long-term investment in low-carbon technologies.
25
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AFD et Plan bleu (2009), “Infrastructures et développement énergétique durable en Méditerranée :
perspectives 2050”
Declercq, B. Delarue, E. and D’haeseleer, W. (2011), “Impact of the economic recession on the European
power sector’s CO2 emissions”, vol. 39(3), March 2011, Pages 1677–1686
Delbosc, A. Stephan, N. Bellassen, V. Cormier, A. and Leguet, B. (2011), “ Assessment of supply-demand
balance for Kyoto offsets (CERs and ERUs) up to 2020, Working paper No. 10, CDC Climat Research.
Ellerman, D., Buchner B. (2006), “Over-Allocation or Abatement? A preliminary Analysis of the EU ETS
based on the 2005 Emissions data”, FEEM Working Paper No. 139.06
European Commission (2011), “Une Feuille de route vers une économie à faible intensité de carbone à
l’horizon 2050”: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0112:EN:NOT
European Commission (2010), “Guidance on Interpretation of Annex I of the EU ETS Directive (excl.
aviation activities)”: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/docs/guidance_interpretation_en.pdf
European Commission, Community International Transaction Log: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ets/
European Commission, Directive 2003/87/CE, “Etablissant un système de quotas d’émission de gaz à
effet de serre dans la communauté et modifiant la directive 96/61/CE du Conseil, version consolidée”:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:02003L0087-20090625:EN:NOT
Eurostat, European power generation database:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
International Energy Agency and International Nuclear Agency (2010), “Projected cost of generating
electricity”
International Energy Agency (2012), “Electricity information”
Platts, “World electric power plant” database:
http://www.platts.com/Products/worldelectricpowerplantsdatabase
Stephan N., Bellassen V., Alberola E. (forthcoming) “Use of Kyoto Credits by European Industrial
Companies: from an effieicent market to the bubble burst” Climate Report, CDC Climat Research.
Shishlov I., Bellassen V. (2012) “Ten lessons from 10 years of the CDM”, Climate Report n° 37, CDC
Climat Research.
Trotignon, R. et Delbosc, A. (2008), “Allowances trading patterns during the EU ETS trial period: what
does the CITL reveal? Climate Report n°13, CDC Climat Research
Trotignon, R. (2012) « Combining cap-and-trade with offsets: lessons from the EU ETS », Climate Policy,
Volume 12 Issue 3
UBA,
(2008)
“Environmentally
Harmful
Subsidies
http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3896.pdf
in
Germany”,
UmweltBundesAmt:
UNFCCC (2006), “2006 IPCC guidelines on stationary combustion”, volume 2, chapter 2: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf
VGB (2011), “Calculation of CO2 avoidance potential by modernizing fossil-fired power plants in the EU
27 until 2020”, VGB R&D Project 307
26
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
APPENDIX I – DATABASE METHODOLOGY
The power plants included in the EU ETS were identified using the following two databases:
- the European Union Transaction Log (EUTL), formerly the Community Independent Transaction Log
23
(CITL), which lists the CO2 allocation and emission levels for EU ETS operators . These data enable an
installation to be identified on the basis of various information items (name of the installation, account
holder, and region etc.).
- World Electric Power Plants (WEPP), edited by Platts, which sets out the technical specifications for
power generation units. The database specifically enables us to find out the technology used by the unit,
its theoretical capacity, the primary fuel used, and the year when it was first commissioned. It also enables
us to find out about the type of operator, i.e. whether they generate power for their own use, or are a
private or public service company.
The research focuses on the EU ETS installations which primarily supply the power that they generate to
the electrical grid, and covers 1,453 installations. Sites owned by self-sufficient power generators, and
those owned by a private company that is not included in the “power generators” or “energy brokers”
categories in the WEPP database were excluded from the research. Conversely, all public service
companies were included in the sample.
The linking of a CITL operator account with the corresponding power generation units in the WEPP
24
database was performed based on three criteria which are found in both databases : the name of the
site, the name of the company that owns the site and the city where the installation is located. Where the
three criteria correspond, the accounts were linked. Where the name of the company did not correspond,
an internet search was performed in order to identify a potential change of owner. In the event that this
difference could be explained, the accounts were linked and the owner company selected was the one in
the WEPP database.
The unit or units recorded as being operational in the WEPP database were then linked to the CITL
emission data. In the event of multiple units on one site:
- The installed capacity was added together;
- The year of commission was weighted according to the generation capacity of each unit;
- In the event of different primary fuels on the same site, the fuel selected was the one used by most of
the generation capacity;
CHP plants were identified based on the type of unit provided by the WEPP database. A site is
considered as a CHP site if over 90% of its generation capacity corresponds to CHP units.
In some cases, a site in the WEPP database correspondeds to several accounts in the CITL. In this case,
the generation units were divided based on the information included in the account name or in the
National Allocation Plan. In eight cases, there was either a change of account, or one account was being
used to receive allocations while the other was being used to return them. Both accounts were therefore
merged. Lastly, it was impossible to identify the units in three cases. Due to the significance of the verified
emissions, it was decided to merge the installation's various accounts into a single account.
23
For further information on the CITL, see Trotignon and Delbosc (2008) – add a hypertext link to the note
24
The CITL database does not include the name of the company; however the companies were identified by Trotignon and
Delbosc (2008) in a previous version that corresponded to Phase 1 of the EU ETS, based on Internet contact addresses,
which are no longer available. In some cases, the name of the company appears in the account name for sites that were
added in Phase 2.
27
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
APPENDIX II – CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE POWER AND CHP GENERATION PLANTS SECTOR BY COUNTRY
In MtCO2
Country
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Rep.
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Spain
Finland
France
United-Kingdom
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
TOTAL
2005
10.2
20.4
0.0
3.5
53.7
315.4
18.0
11.1
108.9
16.1
36.5
175.1
52.6
15.0
15.1
131.6
2.5
1.0
1.3
2.0
44.1
0.0
144.9
22.1
0.0
5.4
6.3
6.1
1 219
PHASE I
2006
9.5
18.9
0.0
3.7
54.3
316.8
25.8
10.4
101.1
26.5
32.0
184.1
51.1
14.7
14.4
135.1
2.3
1.1
1.4
2.0
42.1
0.0
148.9
18.9
0.0
5.7
6.3
6.0
1 233
2007
8.8
18.1
26.1
3.8
58.3
323.9
21.1
13.3
107.2
24.4
33.1
180.9
53.9
15.8
13.9
133.2
2.2
1.0
1.3
2.0
45.4
0.0
147.4
16.7
37.0
5.1
6.6
5.4
1 306
2008
8.8
16.0
25.9
4.0
52.8
307.2
19.1
11.3
90.2
18.3
31.9
174.7
53.0
15.2
14.0
128.4
2.2
0.8
1.3
2.0
43.7
0.1
142.2
16.0
34.7
4.9
6.4
5.3
1 230
2009
7.6
16.8
23.9
4.0
50.5
284.4
19.2
9.2
74.4
19.4
32.4
152.8
50.2
12.4
12.5
108.2
2.2
1.0
1.2
1.9
43.2
1.1
137.1
16.4
29.1
5.4
6.1
4.6
1 127
PHASE II
2010
9.1
17.0
25.3
3.9
52.0
296.6
18.8
13.1
58.2
24.1
33.5
159.0
47.1
12.6
12.7
107.0
2.8
1.0
1.5
1.9
45.2
1.4
141.5
11.4
26.6
7.2
6.2
4.3
1 141
2011
8.6
14.1
30.3
3.7
51.2
293.6
15.1
13.2
72.1
18.7
26.3
145.7
49.3
12.4
11.4
106.8
2.1
0.8
1.4
1.9
41.7
1.2
143.0
13.5
29.9
5.3
6.2
4.5
1 124
2012
6.7
13.4
26.1
3.5
47.1
299.3
11.9
11.9
77.0
14.6
29.0
159.5
50.8
11.6
12.1
103.3
2.2
0.8
1.1
2.1
40.1
0.7
138.9
14.4
27.0
4.7
5.9
4.2
1 120
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
28
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
APPENDIX III – CO2 EMISSIONS FOR POWER AND CHP GENERATION PLANTS BY PRIMARY FUEL
UE (27) and Norway
In MtCO2
Primary fuel
Power
Bituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Other Coal
Gas
Oil
Blast-furnace gas
Oil Shale
Peat
Combined Heat and Power
Bituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Other Coal
Gas
Oil
Blast-furnace gas
Oil Shale
Peat
Total Power/CHP
2005
922
373.8
199.9
43.6
202.9
64.7
23.6
10.0
2.7
297
111.4
133.7
4.3
26.1
5.0
9.1
0.7
3.7
1 219
PHASE I
2006
928
391.5
194.3
39.9
211.4
55.8
22.6
9.2
3.1
305
118.6
131.5
4.4
28.3
4.1
8.9
0.7
4.7
1 233
2007
983
392.2
231.6
41.3
228.5
48.7
24.2
12.1
3.3
323
121.8
142.4
5.7
31.6
4.5
8.3
0.8
4.5
1 306
2008
923
345.4
221.5
33.3
240.0
46.0
22.6
10.3
3.4
307
108.7
142.0
5.4
31.1
4.3
8.1
0.7
4.1
1 230
2009
833
307.6
211.6
26.1
218.9
41.9
14.7
8.3
3.3
294
102.7
136.6
4.7
31.2
4.4
7.1
0.7
3.8
1 127
PHASE II
2010
2011
835
826
311.3
306.6
207.2
225.2
20.4
29.0
221.9
194.0
37.6
33.5
20.8
21.9
12.2
12.1
3.2
2.9
306
298
109.3
104.4
136.1
138.2
5.0
4.3
33.0
29.7
4.3
3.8
9.4
9.4
0.7
0.9
4.8
4.1
1 141
1 124
2012
830
351.3
225.8
32.4
152.6
33.6
20.2
10.9
3.0
289
99.5
138.8
4.2
27.4
3.9
8.9
0.9
3.3
1 120
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
Germany
In MtCO2
Primary fuel
2005
Power
Bituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Other Coal
Blast-furnace Gas
Gas
Oil
Combined Heat and Power
Bituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Other Coal
Blast-furnace Gas
Gas
Oil
Total Power/CHP
196
73.2
97.5
0.4
4.1
19.5
1.0
120
44.2
67.1
0.6
3.3
4.4
0.0
315.2
PHASE I
2006
198
77.7
94.5
0.4
3.7
20.7
0.8
119
43.8
66.5
0.7
3.6
4.2
0.0
316.6
2007
2008
2009
206
80.2
99.2
0.3
4.2
21.0
1.1
118
44.1
66.1
0.6
3.1
3.9
0.0
323.8
197
73.2
94.5
0.3
4.0
23.8
1.0
110
37.9
64.7
0.5
3.1
4.0
0.0
307.1
177
60.6
90.2
0.3
1.9
23.1
1.2
107
35.5
64.5
0.5
2.8
3.7
0.0
284.3
PHASE II
2010
187
67.3
89.7
0.3
4.2
24.6
1.2
109
37.1
63.7
0.5
4.0
4.0
0.0
296.5
2011
2012
186
65.1
93.5
0.3
4.3
22.7
0.6
107
34.8
64.6
0.5
4.1
3.2
0.0
293.5
190
65.4
99.3
0.3
4.2
19.6
1.0
109
36.8
65.4
0.4
3.6
3.2
0.1
299.2
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
29
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
United-Kingdom
In MtCO2
Primary fuel
2005
Power
Bituminous Coal
Other coal
Gas
Oil
Combined Heat and Power
Gas
Total Power/CHP
173
114.0
3.2
55.3
0.9
1.7
1.7
175.1
PHASE I
2006
183
126.0
3.5
52.2
0.9
1.5
1.5
184.1
2007
2008
2009
179
116.3
2.7
59.4
0.7
1.7
1.7
180.9
173
105.4
3.3
63.2
1.2
1.6
1.6
174.6
151
87.6
2.2
60.6
0.7
1.7
1.7
152.8
PHASE II
2010
157
91.2
2.7
63.1
0.4
1.6
1.6
159.0
2011
2012
143
90.0
2.4
50.8
0.3
1.7
1.7
145.1
158
120.7
3.2
33.9
0.3
1.4
1.4
159.5
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
France
In MtCO2
Primary fuel
2005
Power
Bituminous Coal
Other Coal
Blast-furnace gas
Gas
Oil
Combined Heat and Power
Other Coal
Blast-furnace gas
Gas
Total Power/CHP
33
25.3
1.1
0.0
0.5
6.1
3.5
0.6
0.9
1.9
36.5
PHASE I
2006
29
22.1
0.8
0.0
0.5
5.2
3.2
0.7
0.6
2.0
31.9
2007
2008
2009
30
24.1
0.5
0.0
0.5
4.6
3.4
0.7
0.9
1.9
33.1
28
22.2
0.7
0.0
0.5
4.9
3.5
0.6
1.0
1.9
31.9
29
21.4
0.6
0.0
1.5
5.0
3.8
0.6
1.3
1.9
32.3
PHASE II
2010
30
21.3
0.7
0.0
2.5
5.1
4.0
0.8
1.2
2.0
33.5
2011
2012
23
15.6
0.2
0.0
3.4
4.0
3.1
0.5
0.8
1.8
26.3
26
19.4
0.7
0.0
1.7
4.2
2.8
0.6
0.5
1.7
28.8
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
Italy
In MtCO2
Primary fuel
2005
Power
Bituminous Coal
Other Coal
Blast-furnace gas
Gas
Oil
Combined Heat and Power
Gas
Oil
Total Power/CHP
126
31.5
4.1
12.9
51.9
25.3
5.7
4.2
1.6
131.4
PHASE I
2006
129
30.8
4.8
13.6
57.6
21.8
6.4
5.1
1.3
135.1
2007
2008
2009
127
31.7
4.3
13.1
60.2
17.4
6.4
5.0
1.4
133.2
122
32.8
3.9
12.3
58.2
14.8
6.4
5.1
1.3
128.4
101
30.5
4.1
8.2
46.2
12.5
6.8
5.0
1.7
108.2
PHASE II
2010
100
28.8
3.7
10.5
46.3
10.5
7.3
5.4
1.8
107.0
2011
2012
100
32.1
3.9
11.3
42.5
9.9
7.1
5.4
1.8
106.8
96
35.0
3.6
9.6
37.7
10.1
7.3
5.2
2.1
103.3
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
30
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
Spain
In MtCO2
Primary fuel
2005
Power
Bituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Other Coal
Gas
Oil
Combined Heat and Power
Blast-furnace gas
Gas
Oil
Total Power/CHP
108
37.0
12.6
27.9
17.9
12.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
109.0
PHASE I
2006
101
32.6
11.5
22.5
23.3
10.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.0
101.1
2007
2008
2009
107
36.3
11.0
24.9
25.5
8.9
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
107.1
90
20.8
9.2
17.3
33.1
9.2
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
90.2
74
18.0
6.8
10.7
29.7
8.5
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
74.3
PHASE II
2010
57
14.3
5.7
4.7
24.5
8.1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
58.0
2011
2012
71
19.2
9.4
14.6
20.0
7.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.0
71.7
76
27.2
8.0
17.5
15.6
7.6
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
76.5
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
Poland
In MtCO2
Primary fuel
2005
Power
Bituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Other Coal
Gas
Combined Heat and Power
Bituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Other Coal
Gas
Total Power/CHP
53
36.7
13.0
0.8
2.3
92
46.9
44.9
0.2
0.2
144.9
PHASE I
2006
57
40.1
13.9
0.8
2.2
92
48.4
43.2
0.2
0.2
148.9
2007
2008
2009
57
40.3
14.1
0.7
2.1
90
49.1
40.8
0.1
0.2
147.4
53
37.0
13.2
0.7
2.0
89
45.2
43.8
0.1
0.2
142.2
52
36.4
13.2
0.7
2.1
85
43.2
41.2
0.1
0.2
137.1
PHASE II
2010
54
38.5
12.4
0.7
2.1
88
47.1
40.4
0.1
0.2
141.5
2011
2012
54
38.4
12.7
0.6
2.2
89
45.2
43.7
0.1
0.2
143.0
49
34.1
12.6
0.6
2.2
89
42.9
46.2
0.1
0.2
138.9
Source: CDC Climat Research estimate, based on EUTL and World Electric Power Plant (Platts) data
31
Climate Report No.°42 – The power sector in phase 2 of the EU ETS –
fewer carbon emissions, but just as much coal
CDC CLIMAT’S “CLIMATE RESEARCH” SERIES
No. 41
Combating Fuel Poverty: Policies in France and the United Kingdom
JOHAN TYSZLER, CÉCILE BORDIER & ALEXIA LESEUR - September 2013
No. 40
Forests and climate change mitigation in the European policies: priority to fuel wood
FREDERIC BARON, VALENTIN BELLASSEN & MARIANNA DEHEZA - April 2013
No. 39
More than 800 agricultural and agri-food sites are affected by the EU ETS
MARCH CLAUDINE FOUCHEROT & VALENTIN BELLASSEN - Mars 2013
No. 38
The economic tools of Chinese climate and energy policy at the time of the 12 th five-year
plan
DI ZHOU & ANAÏS DELBOSC –January 2013
No. 37
Ten lessons from 10 years of the CDM
IGOR SHISHLOV & VALENTIN BELLASSEN - October 2012
No. 36
Regional Climate, Air and Energy Plans: a tool for guiding the energy and climate
transition in French regions
JEREMIE DE CHARENTENAY, ALEXIA LESEUR & CECILE BORDIER - September 2012
No. 35
Delivering REDD+ incentives to local stakeholders: lessons from forest carbon
frameworks in developed countries
IGOR SHISHLOV & VALENTIN BELLASSEN - August 2012
No. 34
Including international aviation in the EU ETS: a first step towards a global scheme?
EMILIE ALBEROLA & BORIS SOLIER - May 2012
No. 33
Joint implementation: a frontier mechanism within the borders of an emissions cap
IGOR SHISHLOV, VALENTIN BELLASSEN & BENOÎT LEGUET - February 2012
No. 32
Financing climate actions in developing countries: what role is there for NAMAs?
ROMAIN MOREL & ANAÏS DELBOSC -February 2012
No. 31
Carbon offset projects in the agricultural sector
CLAUDINE FOUCHEROT & VALENTIN BELLASSEN -December 2011
No. 30
The role of regional authorities in public support for renewable energies: examples in
Europe and France
MARION JEULIN & ANAÏS DELBOSC -November 2011
No. 29
Voluntary carbon offsetting by local authorities: practices and lessons
AMADOU KEBE, VALENTIN BELLASSEN & ALEXIA LESEUR -September 2011
No. 28
Design of multi-sector Emission Trading Schemes: a comparison of European and US
experiences
CECILE GOUBET & ANAÏS DELBOSC - May 2011
No. 27
Drawing up a national climate change adaptation policy: feedback on five European case
studies
GASPARD DUMOLLARD & ALEXIA LESEUR -February 2011
N° 26
Tackling forestry & agriculture emissions in New Zealand’s new carbon market
O. SARTOR, M. DEHEZA, M. BELTON - November 2010
All CDC Climat Research publications are available from:
http://www.cdcclimat.com
32