Linking with Uncertainty: The Relationship Between EU ETS Pollution Permits and Kyoto Offsets

  • Beat HintermannEmail author
  • Marc Gronwald


Carbon offsets from the Kyoto Flexible Mechanisms can be used by firms in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for compliance in lieu of EU allowances, making these carbon assets interchangeable. We offer an explanation of the price spread using a structural model of the price for Certified Emissions Reductions that combines three features: a limit for the use of Kyoto offsets within the EU ETS; a disconnect between the current price of offsets and their marginal cost of production for institutional reasons; and uncertainty about future supply and demand of offsets. Our model expresses the offset price as an average of the EU allowance price and an offset’s outside value, weighted by the probability of a binding import limit. Using a monthly series of the United Nation’s Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation about offset supply and demand, we provide empirical support for our theory of offset price formation. Counterfactual simulations suggest that the price process is dominated by uncertainty.


Emissions trading Climate change EU ETS Kyoto Linking 



  1. Braun N, Fitzgerald T, Pearcy J (2015) Tradable emissions permits with offsets. In: Gronwald M, Hintermann B (eds) Emissions trading as a policy instrument: evaluation and prospects. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 239–266Google Scholar
  2. Carmona R, Fehr M, Hinz J (2009) Optimal stochastic control and carbon price formation. SIAM J Control Optim 48(4):2168–2190Google Scholar
  3. Chesney M, Taschini L (2012) The endogenous price dynamics of emission allowances and an application to CO2 option pricing. Appl Math Finance 19(5):447–475Google Scholar
  4. Chevallier J (2011) Price relationships in the EU emissions trading system. IGI Global, pp 212–220Google Scholar
  5. Chevallier J (2012) EUAs and CERs: interactions in a Markov regime-switching environment. Econ Bull 32(1):86–101Google Scholar
  6. Cochrane JH (2009) Asset pricing: revised edition. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellerman AD, Marcantonini C, Zaklan A (2016) The European Union emissions trading system: ten years and counting. Rev Environ Econ Policy 10(1):89–107Google Scholar
  8. Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2):251–276Google Scholar
  9. European Union (2003) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003Google Scholar
  10. European Union (2009) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009Google Scholar
  11. Green JF (2017) Don’t link carbon markets. Nature 543(7646):484–486Google Scholar
  12. Grüll G, Taschini L (2012) Linking emission trading schemes: a short note. Econ Energy Environ Policy 1(3):31–38Google Scholar
  13. Hieronymi P, Schüller D (2015) The Clean-Development Mechanism, stochastic permit prices and energy investments. Energy Econ 47:25–36Google Scholar
  14. Hintermann B (2012) Pricing emission permits in the absence of abatement. Energy Econ 34(5):1329–1340Google Scholar
  15. Hintermann B, Gronwald M (2015) The EU ETS. In: Gronwald M, Hintermann B (eds) Emissions trading as a policy instrument. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 15–23Google Scholar
  16. Hintermann B, Peterson S, Rickels W (2016) Price and market behavior in Phase II of the EU ETS: a review of the literature. Rev Environ Econ Policy 10(1):108–128Google Scholar
  17. Kanamura T (2016) Role of carbon swap trading and energy prices in price correlations and volatilities between carbon markets. Energy Econ 54:204–212Google Scholar
  18. Koop G, Tole L (2013) Modeling the relationship between European carbon permits and certified emission reductions. J Empir Finance 24:166–181Google Scholar
  19. Mansanet-Bataller M, Chevallier J, Hervé-Mignucci M, Alberola E (2011) EUA and sCER phase II price drivers: Unveiling the reasons for the existence of the EUA-sCER spread. Energy Policy 39(3):1056–1069Google Scholar
  20. Mizrach B (2012) Integration of the global carbon markets. Energy Econ 34(1):335–349Google Scholar
  21. Nazifi F (2013) Modelling the price spread between EUA and CER carbon prices. Energy Policy 56:434–445Google Scholar
  22. Phillips YW, Peter CB, Jun Y (2011) Explosive behavior in the 1990s NASDAQ: when did exuberance escalate asset values? Int Econ Rev 52(1):201–226Google Scholar
  23. Rahman SM, Kirkman GA (2015) Costs of certified emission reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. Energy Econ 47:129–141Google Scholar
  24. Trotignon R (2012) Combining cap-and-trade with offsets: lessons from the EU-ETS. Clim Policy 12(3):273–287Google Scholar
  25. Trotignon R, Leguet B (2009) How many CERs by 2013?. Mission Climat Working Paper Nr. 2009-5Google Scholar
  26. UNFCCC (2006) Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its first session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 10 December 2005. Addendum, Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its first session. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2Google Scholar
  27. UNFCCC (2013) Afforestation and reforestation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism: a reference manual.
  28. UNFCCC (2015a) CDM project cycle procedure. CDM-EB65-A32-PROC, Version 9.0Google Scholar
  29. UNFCCC (2015b) CDM project standard. CDM-EB65-A05-STAN, Version 9.0Google Scholar
  30. UNFCCC (2015c) CDM validation and verification standard. CDM-EB65-A04-STAN, Version 9.0Google Scholar
  31. Vasa A (2012) Certified emissions reductions and CDM limits: revenue and distributional aspects. Clim Policy 12(6):645–666Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of Aberdeen Business SchoolAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations