Score for this Data / Query Cell
InfluenceMap has researched and collated the following pieces of evidence associated with the data source and query indicated above. Extraordinary information is indicated by a coloured flag in the upper right corner. Evidence items in order of data inputted with exceptional items first.
Not supporting emissions trading
Highlighting the administrative cost, and potential duplication, from EU ETS (ACEA submission to the stakeholders consultation on 'A 2030 framework for climate energy policies', July 2013)
Extract from Source:
Focus, consistency and simplification of climate policies are necessary. Whilst not questioning the long-term objectives, the system of multiple targets and instruments is extremely burdensome for the industry with a number of duplicating and cumulative pieces of legislation (EU ETS, CO2 specific targets, energy efficiency targets or renewable energy targets).
Opposing emissions trading
ACEA emphasizes the threat of carbon leakage to oppose reform of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and advocate for increased allocation of free allowances (ACEA response to European Commission consultation on the 2030 Effort Sharing Decision, June 2015). Note: these comments were obtained by InfluenceMap from the EC under its information request process as ACEA requested that they not be made public when submitted to the EC in July 2014.
Extract from Source:
The Automotive Industry, as a key sector of the EU economy, is exposed to significant risk of Carbon Leakage. To remain competitive and to continue to grow following issues will be important to consider in the forthcoming proposals of the European Commission: [...] The European automotive industry has already implemented important and effective measures to increase energy efficiency, contributing to reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Taking these measures and continuous efforts into account, opportunities for further CO2 emission reduction at a large scale will be difficult to achieve – in particular under economically suitable conditions. Increasing carbon pressure on would endanger European carmakers competitiveness by own costs and accumulated costs via very long and complex supply chains. Therefore carbon leakage protection needs to be maintained post 2020, based on the application of the same criteria and methodologies as under Phase III of ETS. An EU wide system should fully compensate for both, direct and indirect costs. A full offsetting of the CO2 indirect costs that energy suppliers pass through to the industry will be as important as free allocation of emission allowances up to 100% of the needs.
Mixed on emissions trading
Supporting an expansion of the EU ETS to include fuel providers but not vehicle manufacturers (ACEA response to European Commission consultation on the 2030 Effort Sharing Decision, June 2015) Note: these comments were obtained by InfluenceMap from the EC under its information request process as ACEA requested that they not be made public when submitted to the EC in July 2014.
Extract from Source:
(How can cost-effectiveness be reflected in a fair and balanced manner in adjusting individual ESD targets for Member States with a GDP per capita above the EU average? What can be the role of the one-time reduction through a limited amount of ETS allowances in achieving these Member States' ESD targets, while preserving predictability and environmental integrity?) ACEA considers ETS as a key benchmark not only for ETS sectors, but also for the non-ETS sectors. As agreed by the European Council, ACEA acknowledges new cap on the maximum permitted emissions to 2,2% from 2021 onwards and considers that as a barometer for other sectors to follow to ensure level playing field among sectors to reduce CO2 and GHG. [...] On the specific topic of the inclusion of transport sector in ETS, ACEA calls for clear distinction between different options that are available. ACEA members do not consider midstream ETS – manufacturers responsible for emissions certificates for the use phase of vehicle - as a suitable and cost-efficient option. [...] On the other hand upstream ETS – covering fuel providers in ETS and responsible for emissions certificates need additional assessment. There are number of positive aspects of such approach (in theory most efficient market-based instrument that stimulates directly consumers), but also negative aspects of such an approach (additional burden to consumers and volatility of prices that gives uncertain prediction both for manufacturers, consumers and policy makers). Also enlarging of the scope of ETS must be further analysed and assessed, both from the impacts on EU internal market, ETS integrity and level-playing field across sectors.