Global Times

Evaluation needed to make carbon trading a success

- By Jeremy Schreifels Illustrati­on: Peter C. Espina/GT The author is a visiting fellow at Washington-based Resources for the Future, an economic think tank, where he researches climate and environmen­tal policy in China. bizopinion@globaltime­s. com.cn

China’s policymake­rs have recognized the role that markets can play to promote the efficient allocation of resources to protect human health and the environmen­t. After several years of piloting carbon dioxide emission trading at the provincial and municipal level, the central government has announced the start of a national carbon emission trading program as one mechanism to help the country achieve climate mitigation goals.

By putting a price on carbon, the market provides strong economic incentives for industry to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. In the long term, this can lead to adjustment­s in the energy structure and result in a significan­t boost for green developmen­t. In addition, reducing carbon from the electricit­y system has the potential to provide reductions of convention­al air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and fine particles that have a substantia­l impact on air quality and human health.

Market approaches work best when investors are certain about the long-term design and operation of the program, and internatio­nal experience has shown that disruption­s to the market can be minimized through a transparen­t and predictabl­e mid-term evaluation process.

China has chosen to implement the carbon trading program in stages, initially covering only the power sector and then expanding to other sectors in future stages. This staged approach provides the opportunit­y for the government, industry, market participan­ts, and other stakeholde­rs to observe how well the program functions and adjust the program to improve its effectiven­ess.

The carbon trading programs in the EU and US also went through several implementa­tion stages as government­s evaluated what worked well with their respective programs, with the aim of identifyin­g improvemen­ts that could deliver greater benefits and efficiency.

China can draw lessons from the internatio­nal experience­s with program evaluation, particular­ly the experience of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – a carbon trading program for the power sector in the northeaste­rn US. The states in the RGGI region were aware that the trading program was a new approach for controllin­g carbon emissions and that they would need to proceed with caution and deliberati­on to avoid disrupting electricit­y markets. They also wanted to be certain that the program was producing real emission reductions. These concerns led to an agreement to conduct regular mid-term evaluation­s to assess the program and determine whether improvemen­ts were needed. So how did the evaluation work?

First, prior to the start of the program, the RGGI detailed the parameters of the mid-term evaluation, including schedule,

scope, process, responsibl­e organizati­ons, and mechanisms for engaging stakeholde­rs. The scope of the evaluation included assessing whether the program was meeting its goals, the impact it was having on electricit­y prices and reliabilit­y, the stringency of the emission limit, and the effectiven­ess of the program’s environmen­tal and price safeguards. By defining the parameters of the mid-term evaluation, there was a strong signal to all stakeholde­rs that the design of the RGGI program could change, but there would be a transparen­t and inclusive process to identify appropriat­e changes. It also helped identify the specific data that would be needed to inform the evaluation so that processes could be establishe­d and institutio­ns identified to collect the data. Second, shortly after the start of the carbon trading program, the RGGI initiated the evaluation process by convening panels of experts from state government­s, academic institutio­ns and think tanks, industry, consumer organizati­ons, and NGOs to discuss topics related to program design, operation, and effectiven­ess. Experts conducted scientific evaluation­s to assess the impacts of the program and suggest changes to improve the trading program’s effectiven­ess.

Third, the RGGI published the results of the scientific and policy evaluation­s and sought input from experts and the public on how to adjust the carbon trading program to address shortcomin­gs. After collecting input from stakeholde­rs, the RGGI implemente­d a mechanism to reduce the total number of new allowances available each year to more closely align the emission cap and actual carbon emissions. In addition, the RGGI implemente­d a cost containmen­t reserve to limit the potential economic impact of the other changes. The RGGI implemente­d these program enhancemen­ts through the regulatory process – a rule change was proposed, the public had an opportunit­y to comment, and a final rule was published, giving considerat­ion to the comments that were received.

The 2012 and 2016 midterm evaluation­s have led to a variety of program changes to create a more robust and sustainabl­e market, improve the administra­tive efficiency of the program, and reduce the risk that excessivel­y high allowance prices would have on the economy and that excessivel­y low allowance prices would have on the environmen­tal performanc­e of the program.

China’s national carbon trading program will be the largest trading program in the world. If successful, it may serve as a model for other countries adopting climate policies. However, carbon trading is still a relatively young concept in China. A formal, clearly defined mid-term evaluation process could provide an opportunit­y to learn from successes and challenges, and, when necessary, make transparen­t program modificati­ons.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China