Skip to content
EEEP
Menu
  • 2012
    • Volume 1
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
      • Number 3
  • 2013
    • Volume 2
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2014
    • Volume 3
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2015
    • Volume 4
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2016
    • Volume 5
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2017
    • Volume 6
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2018
    • Volume 7
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2019
    • Volume 8
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2020
    • Volume 9
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2021
    • Volume 10
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
    • Volume 9
      • Number 2
  • 2022
    • Volume 10
      • Number 2
    • Volume 11
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2023
    • Volume 11
      • Number 2
    • Volume 12
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2024
    • Volume 13
      • Number 1
      • Number 2
  • 2025
    • Volume 14
      • Number 1
  • 2026
    • Volume 15
      • Number 1
Menu

EEEP » 2018 » Volume 7 » Number 2 » Winners and Losers of EU Emissions Trading: Insights from the EUTL Transfer Dataset

Winners and Losers of EU Emissions Trading: Insights from the EUTL Transfer Dataset

Posted on February 4, 2026February 9, 2026 by admin

This paper analyses distributional effects between participants of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) during its first trading period. To this end, a selection model is formulated and applied to a dataset based on account information and transfer data from the EU Transaction Log (EUTL). Four different ways of adding carbon prices to the dataset are explored. Findings confirm that whether a company made a gain during the first period of EU emissions trading is highly dependent on the level of free allocation it received. Consequently, large industrial companies, especially in the iron and steel and cement sectors emerge as the biggest ‘winners’ as they were the companies with the highest allocation surplus. This also applies to a number of electricity generators located in Central and Eastern Europe. Policy makers therefore have to be mindful about decisions regarding the level of free allocation to individual sectors and companies, as those design choices have a large influence on the way in which gains and costs are distributed under the system, which in turn has repercussions on its political acceptability. Rules for free allocation are harmonised at EU-level since the beginning of the third trading period, but relatively generous free allocation to industrial sectors and additional sources of unequal treatment remain. The analysis also confirms that small companies were less likely to participate, which points to the existence of significant transaction costs preventing many small companies from realising potential gains on the market (as well as jeopardising the efficiency of the system). It is therefore important to reduce transaction costs for small companies, in particular at the beginning of an ETS, in order to incentivise market entry.

Authors: Johanna Cludius
DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.7.2.jclu
Keywords: Distributional effects, Emissions trading, EU ETS, EUTL, selection model
🔐 Download PDF🔐 Executive Summary PDF

Account

  • Log in

Tags

Air pollution carbon emissions Carbon tax China Climate change Climate change mitigation Climate policy Coal computable general equilibrium Cost of Debt Decentralized energy governance Demand side difference-­in-­differences Electricity generation Electricity market design Electricity markets Energy Energy efficiency Energy Policy Energy R&D Energy security Energy transition environmental regulation Europe evaluation Geopolitics Introduction Investment Long-term contracts Middle East Natural gas Oil prices Regional markets Regulation Renewable energy Renewables Resilience Resource adequacy Scenario analysis Scenarios Sustainability sustainable development Techno-bias Transmission benefits willingness-to-pay

Archives

  • March 2026
  • February 2026
© 2026 EEEP | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme