Appropriate Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) mitigation action has become a promising concern because of its feasibility and sustainability. This article reviews mitigation approaches taken by European Union’s electricity sector to promote appropriate reduction in large developing country. From an applicable and integrated aspect, it examines Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), carbon tax, Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, green electricity market, carbon capture and sequestration, and energy efficiency. Then the successful experiences and lessons on this case are identified. The former include: allow diverse approaches coexistence, establish ancillary service system, and make carbon market serve for electricity market. The latter contain that price fluctuates inappropriately, obligation is distorted, no banking for allowances operated in the first period, and part of abatement approaches conflict mutually. Based on these results, this article proposes a framework of combinatorial mitigation actions which is characterized as integral, collaborative and appropriate reduction. It is composed of: i) construct intensity-based carbon market; ii) make diverse approaches collaborative; iii) build synergy between mitigation approaches and electricity market; iv) enhance carbon management and auditing system; and v) reform aging power plants with low carbon technologies. Although numerous challenges lie ahead, this framework has the potential to reduce GHGs from electricity industry extensively and sustainably.
| Published in | International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment (Volume 2, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11 |
| Page(s) | 77-86 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Electricity Sector, EU ETS, Appropriate Mitigation, Combinatorial Mitigation Actions, Intensity-Based Carbon Market, Coordinated Regulation
| [1] | Alberola, E., Chevallier, J., and Cheze, B. (2009a). The EU emissions trading scheme: disentangling the effects of industrial production and CO2 emissions on carbon prices. International Economics 9(2): pp 116-131. |
| [2] | Alberola, E., Chevallier, J., and Cheze, B. (2009b). Emissions compliances and carbon prices under the EU ETS: A country specific analysis of industrial sectors. Journal of Policy Modeling 31(3): pp 446-462. |
| [3] | Anger, N. (2008). Emissions trading beyond Europe: Linking schemes in a post-Kyoto world. Energy Economics 30(4): pp 2028-2049. |
| [4] | Atukia, H., Malkonen, V., and Perrels, A. (2006). Impacts of the European emission trade system on Finnish wholesale electricity prices. VATT Working Papers, pp 405-417. |
| [5] | Betz, R., and Sato, M. (2006). Emissions trading: lessons learnt from the 1st phase of the EU ETS and prospects for the 2nd phase. Climate Policy 34(6): pp 351-359. |
| [6] | Bird, L., Holt, E., and Carroll, G. (2007). Implications of carbon regulation for green power markets. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. |
| [7] | Bonacina, M., and Gulli, F. (2007). Electricity pricing under carbon emissions trading: a dominant firm with competitive fringe model. Energy Policy 35(9): pp 4200-4220. |
| [8] | Borchiellini, R., Massardo, A., and Santarelli, M. (2000). Analytical procedure for carbon tax evaluation. Energy Conversion and Management 41(5): pp 1509-1531. |
| [9] | Brody, S., Grover, H., and Vedlitz, A. (2012). Examining willingness of American to alter behavior to mitigate climate change. Climate Policy 12(2):pp 1-22. |
| [10] | Capoor, K., and Ambrosi, P. (2008). State and trends of the carbon market. World Bank, Washington, DC. |
| [11] | CEU (Council of the European Union). (2007). Presidency conclusions, Brussels. |
| [12] | Chen, H. G., Hu, H. G., and Pan, J. H. (2005). Low carbon development: challenges for China as a rapidly industrializing developing country. China and World Economy 13(2): pp 64-77. |
| [13] | Convery, F., Ellerman, D., and Perthuis, C. D. (2008). The European carbon market in action: Lessons from the first trading period. Interim Report. |
| [14] | Delarue, E., Lamberts, H., and D’haeseleer, W. (2007). Simulating green house gas allowance cost and GHG emission reduction in western Europe. Energy 32(3): pp 1299-1309. |
| [15] | Dhar, Y., Divya, B., and Macmillan, N. (2009). Carbon pricing in New Zealand: Implications for public health. New Zealand Medicine Journal 122(1290): pp 105-115. |
| [16] | Dincer, I., and Rosen, M. A. (1999). Energy, environment and sustainable development. Applied Energy 64(3): pp 427-440. |
| [17] | EC (European Communities). (2008). EU action against climate change. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. |
| [18] | Ellerman, A. D., and Joskow, P. L. (2008). The European Union’s emission trading system in perspective reports. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change. |
| [19] | Ellis, J., and Tirpak, D. (2006). Linking GHG Emission Trading System and Markets. OECD, COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT (6). |
| [20] | EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2007). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2005. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. |
| [21] | Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., and Bahinipati, S. et al. (2011). When not every response to climate change is a good one: Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate and Development 3(1): pp 7-20. |
| [22] | Fu, S. J., and Ren, Y. L. (2011). A motivating mitigation mechanism for generators on condition of coordinated regulation of emission and electricity market. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33(5): pp 1151-1160. |
| [23] | Gillenwater, M. (2008). Redefining RECs-part 1: Untangling attributes and offsets. Energy Policy 36(2): pp 2109-2119. |
| [24] | Goett, A. A., and Hudson, K. (2000). Customers’ choice among retail energy suppliers: Willing-to-pay for service attributes. Energy Journal 35(7): pp 1-21. |
| [25] | IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. The Working Group contributions to the Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. |
| [26] | Klepper, G., and Peterson, S. (2006). Emissions trading, CDM, JI, and more: The climate strategy of the EU. Energy Journal 27(2): pp 1-26. |
| [27] | Kockar, I., Conejo, A. J., and McDonald, J. R. (2009). Influence of the emissions trading scheme on generation scheduling. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 31(8): pp 465-473. |
| [28] | Liliya, C., and Gulli, F. (2008). Marginal CO2 cost pass-through under imperfect competition in power markets. Ecological Economics 8(4): pp 408-421. |
| [29] | Menges, R. (2003). Supporting renewable energy on liberalized markets: green electricity between additionality and consumer sovereignty. Energy Policy 31(7): pp 583-596. |
| [30] | MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). (2009). Retrofitting of Coal-fired power plants for CO2 emissions reductions. Energy Initiative Symposium I. |
| [31] | Morthorst, P. E. (2001). Interactions of a tradable green certificate market with a tradable permits market. Energy Policy 29(5): pp 345-353. |
| [32] | Newcomer, A., Blumsack, S., Apt, L., Lave, B., and Morgan, M. G. (2008). Electricity load and carbon dioxide emissions: effects of a carbon price in the short term. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 5(2): pp 49-52. |
| [33] | Nielson, L. (2008). The European emissions trading system—lessons for Australia. Research Paper, No.3, 2007-08, ISSN 1834-9854. |
| [34] | Nielsen, L., and Jeppesen, T. (2003). Tradable green certificates in selected European countries—overview and assessment. Energy Policy 31(1): pp 3-14. |
| [35] | Paterson, M. (2012). Who and what are carbon markets for? Politics and the development of climate policy. Climate Policy 12(3): pp 82-97. |
| [36] | Perkins, R. (2005). Electricity sector restructuring in India: An environmentally beneficial policy. Energy Policy 33(3): pp 439-440. |
| [37] | PointCarbon. (2004). Special issues—what determines the price of carbon. Carbon Market Analyst 6(2): pp 13-24. |
| [38] | Sijm, J., Neuhoff, K., and Chen, Y. (2006). CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Climate Policy 34(6): pp 49-72. |
| [39] | SÖderholm, P., and StrÖmberg, L. (2003). A utility-eye view on the CO2 compliance-decision process in the European power-sector. Applied Energy 75(5): pp 183-192. |
| [40] | Sorrell, S., and Sijm, J. (2003). Carbon trading in the policy mix. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19(3): pp 420-437. |
| [41] | Stankeviciute, L., Kitous, A. and Criqui, P. (2008). The fundamentals of the future international emissions trading system. Energy Policy 38(2): pp 4272-4288. |
| [42] | Sterk. (2005). Ready to link up? The EU and the international carbon market. Carbon Market Europe 28(5): pp 19-32. |
| [43] | Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [44] | Tideman, T. N., and Plassmann, F. (2007). A pricing mechanism for CO2 emissions that incorporates future revisions of estimates of the cost of today’s emissions. Journal of Economic Literature 57(9): pp 1-12. |
| [45] | Verhaegen, K., Meeus, L., and Belmans, R. (2009). Towards an international tradable green certificate system—the challenging example of Belgium. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(2): pp 208-215. |
| [46] | Voorspools, K., and D’haeseleer, W. (2006). Modelling of electricity generation of large interconnected power systems: How can a CO2 tax influence the European generation mix. Energy Conversion and Management 47(6): pp 1338-1358. |
APA Style
Shijun Fu. (2017). Combinatorial Mitigation Actions: A Case Study on European Union’s Electricity Sector. International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment, 2(5), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11
ACS Style
Shijun Fu. Combinatorial Mitigation Actions: A Case Study on European Union’s Electricity Sector. Int. J. Econ. Energy Environ. 2017, 2(5), 77-86. doi: 10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11
AMA Style
Shijun Fu. Combinatorial Mitigation Actions: A Case Study on European Union’s Electricity Sector. Int J Econ Energy Environ. 2017;2(5):77-86. doi: 10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11,
author = {Shijun Fu},
title = {Combinatorial Mitigation Actions: A Case Study on European Union’s Electricity Sector},
journal = {International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment},
volume = {2},
number = {5},
pages = {77-86},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijeee.20170205.11},
abstract = {Appropriate Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) mitigation action has become a promising concern because of its feasibility and sustainability. This article reviews mitigation approaches taken by European Union’s electricity sector to promote appropriate reduction in large developing country. From an applicable and integrated aspect, it examines Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), carbon tax, Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, green electricity market, carbon capture and sequestration, and energy efficiency. Then the successful experiences and lessons on this case are identified. The former include: allow diverse approaches coexistence, establish ancillary service system, and make carbon market serve for electricity market. The latter contain that price fluctuates inappropriately, obligation is distorted, no banking for allowances operated in the first period, and part of abatement approaches conflict mutually. Based on these results, this article proposes a framework of combinatorial mitigation actions which is characterized as integral, collaborative and appropriate reduction. It is composed of: i) construct intensity-based carbon market; ii) make diverse approaches collaborative; iii) build synergy between mitigation approaches and electricity market; iv) enhance carbon management and auditing system; and v) reform aging power plants with low carbon technologies. Although numerous challenges lie ahead, this framework has the potential to reduce GHGs from electricity industry extensively and sustainably.},
year = {2017}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Combinatorial Mitigation Actions: A Case Study on European Union’s Electricity Sector AU - Shijun Fu Y1 - 2017/09/26 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11 T2 - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment JF - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment JO - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment SP - 77 EP - 86 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-5021 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20170205.11 AB - Appropriate Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) mitigation action has become a promising concern because of its feasibility and sustainability. This article reviews mitigation approaches taken by European Union’s electricity sector to promote appropriate reduction in large developing country. From an applicable and integrated aspect, it examines Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), carbon tax, Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, green electricity market, carbon capture and sequestration, and energy efficiency. Then the successful experiences and lessons on this case are identified. The former include: allow diverse approaches coexistence, establish ancillary service system, and make carbon market serve for electricity market. The latter contain that price fluctuates inappropriately, obligation is distorted, no banking for allowances operated in the first period, and part of abatement approaches conflict mutually. Based on these results, this article proposes a framework of combinatorial mitigation actions which is characterized as integral, collaborative and appropriate reduction. It is composed of: i) construct intensity-based carbon market; ii) make diverse approaches collaborative; iii) build synergy between mitigation approaches and electricity market; iv) enhance carbon management and auditing system; and v) reform aging power plants with low carbon technologies. Although numerous challenges lie ahead, this framework has the potential to reduce GHGs from electricity industry extensively and sustainably. VL - 2 IS - 5 ER -
Information
Email: