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
      • Number 2
      • Number 3
      • Number 4
Menu

EEEP » 2019 » Volume 8 » Number 1 » Cost-efficiency of the EU Emissions Trading System: An Evaluation of the Second Trading Period

Cost-efficiency of the EU Emissions Trading System: An Evaluation of the Second Trading Period

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

Cap and trade systems are considered to be one of the most cost-efficient options to achieve emission reduction targets. This paper extends the literature on the evaluation of emissions trading systems (ETS) by providing insights into the methodology of the ex-post evaluation of cost-efficiency. Based on data from the second trading period of the EU ETS, this paper compares different settings for ex-post cost-efficiency analyses. A highly disaggregated base scenario reveals average cost savings from trade of about 865 million Euro p.a., an efficiency gain of 47% compared to the alternative policy scenario without trade. Sensitivity scenarios indicate lower efficiency gains in cases with higher sectoral and regional aggregation emphasising the importance of intra-industry and inter-country trade. Furthermore, assumptions regarding the abatement requirements under the alternative policy play a key role, along with the choice of marginal abatement cost curves. In line with ex-ante results from the literature, the backward looking empirical results of this paper uniformly support the theoretical cost-efficiency of the EU ETS.

Authors: Johanna Cludius, Vicky Duscha, Nele Friedrichsen, and Katja Schumacher
DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.8.1.jclu
Keywords: alternative policy, Cost efficiency, counterfactual scenario, EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS), ex-post analysis
🔐 Download PDF🔐 Executive Summary PDF

Account

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Tags

carbon emissions Carbon tax China Climate change Climate policy computable general equilibrium Cost of Debt Decentralized energy governance difference-­in-­differences Electricity generation electricity market Electricity market design Electricity markets Electric Utilities Energy Energy communities Energy crisis energy economics Energy efficiency Energy Policy Energy poverty Energy security Energy transition Europe European Union evaluation Flexibility Geopolitics Investment market design Merit Order Middle East Natural gas Policy policy instruments quantile regression Regulation Renewable energy Renewables Resilience Resource adequacy Scenarios Smart meters Spain Sub-Saharan Africa

Archives

  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
© 2026 EEEP | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme