Decentralization in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Lessons for Global Policy

By J. Kruger, W. Oates, William A. Pizer. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2007

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c13eac236edad8763503a1172d3b7b1581edacf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

The design of environmental markets: What have we learned from experience with cap and trade? (2017, background): “The process for setting caps and allowances in member states was initially decentralized (Kruger et al., 2007), with each member state responsible for proposing its own national carbon cap, subject to review by the European Commission.”
European CO2 prices and carbon capture investments (2008, background): “3Kruger et al. [ 21 ] examine the decentralized structure of the ETS and explore its impli-”
The innovation impact of the EU Emission Trading System — Findings of company case studies in the German power sector (2011, background): “…policy implementation, EU Member States were granted significant leeway in specifying EU ETS design details in their National Allocation Plans, such as the allocation rules governing the distribution of EU allowances (EUA) (Betz et al., 2004; Harrison and Radov, 2002; Kruger et al., 2007).”
Lessons Learned from Three Decades of Experience with Cap-and-Trade (2015, unknown): “The process for setting caps and allowances in member states was initially decentralized (Kruger, Oates, and Pizer 2007), with each member state responsible for proposing its own national carbon cap, subject to review by the European Commission.”
Reflections—The Emerging Literature on Emissions Trading in Europe (2008, result): “As regards syntheses, there are some recent publications—Ellerman and Joskow (2008), Convery, Ellerman, and de Perthuis (2008), and Kruger, Oates, and Pizer (2007)—that provide both a comprehensive overview and make some preliminary normative judgments.”
Ecological Modernisation and the Governance of Carbon: A Critical Analysis (2011, background): “…need to maintain the support of the member states and industry groups forced the Commission to accept a relatively decentralised scheme that allowed member states to develop national allocation plans (NAPs) rather than being subject to an EU-wide emissions cap (Kruger et al. 2007; Wettestad 2009a).”