DG Climate Action seeks views on the EU ETS post 2020 carbon leakage provisions
8 May 2014 – 31 July 2014
The aim of this consultation is to canvass opinions on different options for a system to avoid carbon leakage after 2020 for sectors covered by the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). The results of this stakeholder consultation will feed into further work on the 2030 climate and energy policy framework regarding the determination of post-2020 rules on free allocation and carbon leakage provisions in the EU ETS. Responses to the questionnaire will also serve to stimulate more focused discussions during the stakeholder meetings to be held later this year. All citizens and organisations are welcome to contribute to this consultation. Contributions are particularly sought from industry stakeholders, trade unions, non-governmental organisations and public authorities. Read more…
The EU ETS was established in 2005 to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner. More than half of the emissions covered by the EU ETS come from power generation, with industry making up most of the remainder. To address the risk of carbon leakage for industrial installations covered by the EU ETS, free emission allowances were given to industry between 2005 and 2012 based on historical emissions. Between 2013 and 2020, free emission allowances will be given to industry, based on harmonised benchmark-based rules across the EU. The proposed reform of the EU ETS includes establishing a market stability reserve at the beginning of the next trading period in 2021.
The consultation questionnaire consists of 24 multiple-choice questions. The questions are split into three main sections which suggest options for post 2020 – strategic choices, allocation modalities and innovation support. In addition, there is a section where respondents can raise any issues, and stakeholders can express their general and broader views on carbon leakage issues and the present rules on free allocation of allowances, which will be useful from a policy evaluation perspective.
For more info: