The Clean Development Mechanism

Abstract

This chapter is dedicated to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and more particularly to the secondary Certified Emissions Reductions (CER) originated under these project mechanisms. Indeed, secondary CERs are valid for compliance within the European trading system up to 13.4% on average. Following a review of the main characteristics of CER contracts and price development, we study the relationship between EUAs and CERs in vector autoregressive and cointegration models. Then, we identify the main CER price drivers based on the Zivot-Andrews structural break tests and regression analysis. Finally, we discuss the main reasons behind the existence of the CER-EUA spread, and highlight the possibilities to benefit from arbitrage opportunities. The Appendix shows how to represent the interactions between EUAs and CERs in a Markov regime-switching environment.

Keywords

Clean Development Mechanism Emission Trading Scheme Clean Development Mechanism Project Granger Causality Test Arbitrage Opportunity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Ang A, Bekaert G (2002) Regime switches in interest rates. J Bus Econ Stat 20:163–182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan KF, Treepongkaruna S, Brooks R, Gray S (2011) Asset market linkages: evidence from financial, commodity and real estate assets. J Bank Finance 35:1415–1426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chevallier J (2010) EUAs and CERs: vector autoregression, impulse response function and cointegration analysis. Econ Bull 30:558–576 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chevallier J (2011) Anticipating correlations between EUAs and CERs: a dynamic conditional correlation GARCH model. Econ Bull 31:255–272 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collin-Dufresne P, Goldstein RS, Spencer Martin J (2001) The determinants of credit spread changes. J Finance 56:2177–2202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engle R (1982) Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica 50:987–1007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamilton JD (1996) Time series analysis, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12:231–254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and the demand for money inference on cointegration with application. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 52:169–210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johansen S (1991) Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica 59:1551–1580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johansen S (1992) Cointegration in partial systems and the efficiency of single-equation analysis. J Econom 52:389–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lütkepohl H, Saikkonen P, Trenkler C (2004) Testing for the cointegrating rank of a VAR with level shift an unknown time. Econometrica 72:647–662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lütkepohl H (2006) New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Springer, New York/Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madhavan A (2000) Market microstructure: a survey. J Financ Mark 3:205–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mansanet-Bataller M, Chevallier J, Herve-Mignucci M, Alberola A (2011) EUA and sCER phase II price drivers: unveiling the reasons for the existence of the EUA-sCER spread. Energy Policy 39:1056–1069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perron P (1989) The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57:1361–1401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pfaff B (2008) Analysis of integrated and cointegrated time series with R. Springer, New York/Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinho C, Madaleno M (2011) CO2 emission allowances and other fuel markets interactions. Environ Econ Policy Stud 13:259–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ploberger W, Kramer W (1992) The CUSUM test with OLS residuals. Econometrica 60:271–285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sims CA (1980) Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48:1–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trenkler C (2003) A new set of critical values for systems cointegration tests with a prior adjustment for deterministic terms. Econ Bull 3:1–9 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zivot E, Andrews DWK (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 10:251–270 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CGEMP/LEDa Department of EconomicsUniversity Paris DauphineParisFrance

Personalised recommendations