Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 811–817 | Cite as

Abatement technology investment and emissions trading system: a case of coal-fired power industry of Shenzhen, China

  • Ying Huang
  • Lei LiuEmail author
  • Xiaoming Ma
  • Xiaofeng Pan
Brief Report


As one of China’s emissions trading system (ETS) pilots, Shenzhen established the first carbon market of China in 2013. With field data collection and benefit-cost analysis, this article assesses the abatement technology investment decisions of Shenzhen coal-fired power industry under different carbon price scenarios. The results indicate that Shenzhen ETS constitutes a main driver for the short-term technology investment of the industry, but the long-term stimulation effect appears quite limited, except for the integrated gasification combined cycle technology under high carbon price scenario. Further, the paper proposes the short-term and long-term optimal investment strategy for the industry, and relevant policy suggestions.


Shenzhen emissions trading system Coal-fired power industry Abatement technology investment Benefit-cost analysis 



We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their insightful and helpful comments for the substantial improvement of the paper.


  1. Abadie LM, Chamorro JM (2008) European CO2 prices and carbon capture investments. Energy Econ 30(6):2992–3015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanco MI, Rodrigues G (2008) Can the future EU ETS support wind energy investments? Energy Policy 36(4):1509–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonenti F, Oggioni G et al (2013) Evaluating the EU ETS impacts on profits, investments and prices of the Italian electricity market. Energy Policy 59:242–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang MS (2014) A scenario-based mixed integer linear programming model for composite power system expansion planning with greenhouse gas emission controls. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(6):1000–1014Google Scholar
  5. Chang DS, Yeh LT et al (2014) Incorporating the carbon footprint to measure industry context and energy consumption effect on environmental performance of business operations. Clean Technol Environ Policy 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0785-9
  6. China Huaneng (2013) The general introduction of Huaneng Tianjin IGCC Co., Ltd. Beijing. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  7. De Schepper E, Van Passel S et al (2014) Cost-efficient emission abatement of energy and transportation technologies: mitigation costs and policy impacts for Belgium. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(6):1107–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellerman AD (2002) Designing a tradable permit system to control SO2 emissions in China: principles and practice. Energy J 23:1–26Google Scholar
  9. Ellerman D, Marcantonini C et al (2014) The EU ETS: eight years and counting. EUI working paper RSCAS 2014/04. European University Institute, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdem HH, Akkaya AV et al (2009) Comparative energetic and exergetic performance analyses for coal-fired thermal power plants in Turkey. Int J Therm Sci 48(11):2179–2186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fan J, Liu S et al (2012) Performance comparison and analysis of IGCC with CO2 emissions reduction. Coal Convers 35(4):80–83 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. Fan J, Zhao D et al (2014) Carbon pricing and electricity market reforms in China. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(5):921–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grubb M (2012) Emissions trading: cap and trade finds new energy. Nature 491(7426):666–667Google Scholar
  14. Hasaneen R, Elsayed N et al (2014) Analysis of the technical, microeconomic, and political impact of a carbon tax on carbon dioxide sequestration resulting from liquefied natural gas production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0735-6
  15. Helm D (2008) Caps and floors for the EU ETS: a practical carbon price (Version for website)Google Scholar
  16. Hoffmann VH (2007) EU ETS and investment decisions: the case of the German electricity industry. Eur Manag J 25(6):464–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laurikka H (2006) Option value of gasification technology within an emissions trading scheme. Energy Policy 34(18):3916–3928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laurikka H, Koljonen T (2006) Emissions trading and investment decisions in the power sector—a case study in Finland. Energy Policy 34(9):1063–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu J (2012) New 2 × 600 MW UCS project is built in Xin’an, Henan from (in Chinese)
  20. Raufer R, Li S (2009) Emissions trading in China: a conceptual ‘leapfrog’ approach? Energy 34(7):904–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shenzhen Research Center for Urban Development (2012) GHG Emissions Inventory of Shenzhen. Shenzhen (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  22. Shenzhen Statistics Bureau and China Statistics Bureau’s Survey Office in Shenzhen (2013) Shenzhen statistical yearbook 2012. China Statistics Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh N (2013) Creating market support for energy efficiency—India’s perform, achieve and trade scheme. Clim Dev Knowl NetwGoogle Scholar
  24. Siva Reddy V, Kaushik SC et al (2014) Exergetic analysis and evaluation of coal-fired supercritical thermal power plant and natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(3):489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. SMEP (2011) Energy Audit Report of the Company. Shenzhen (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. SMEP (2012a) GHG Emissions Quantification Report of the Company. Shenzhen (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. SMEP (2012b) Self-auditing Report of Energy Conservation of the Company in 2011. Shenzhen (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  28. Szolgayova J, Fuss S et al (2008) Assessing the effects of CO2 price caps on electricity investments—A real options analysis. Energy Policy 36(10):3974–3981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. TDRC (2013) The notice on the verification of the provisional on-grid price of Huaneng Tianjin IGCC Co.,Ltd. Tianjin (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  30. Tursun H, Li Z et al (2014) Contribution weight of engineering technology on pollutant emission reduction based on IPAT and LMDI methods. Clean Technol Environ Policy 1–11Google Scholar
  31. Yu L (2013) Energy saving and emissions reduction technology analysis of USC generator. Technol Dev Enterp 32(5):120–121 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. Zhang Y-J, Wei Y-M (2010) An overview of current research on EU ETS: evidence from its operating mechanism and economic effect. Appl Energy 87(6):1804–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ying Huang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lei Liu
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Xiaoming Ma
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaofeng Pan
    • 5
  1. 1.Key Laboratory for Urban Habitat Environmental Science and Technology, School of Environment and EnergyPeking University Shenzhen Graduate SchoolShenzhenChina
  2. 2.College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of Public AdministrationSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  4. 4.Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced StudiesEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  5. 5.Shenzhen Environmental Monitoring CenterShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations