www.ecofys.comwww.ecostream.comwww.wnf.nl
 
Feedback    FAQ    Advertise    Site Map    
Europe  
 
  News
 
Contents GreenPrices Weekly nr. 70
4 October 2007

Strong opposition against intended certificate trading

Five priorities in RE Directive

Washington climate meeting: little progress

UN aviation organisation flees emissions trading

Parliament tightens the screws on aviation emissions

Making up minds for ‘Bali’

Editorial: certificates or not

In Brief

- Public opinion supports immediate climate action

- Biofuels: UK tax relief for small producers

- More cereals next year

- Energy-efficient light bulbs in China in 10 years time

- Renewables key target in R&D financial facility

- Parliament backs binding post-Kyoto targets

- Japan will have new GHG guidance

- UK: four years to phase out inefficient lightbulbs

- UK’s guidance to zero carbon target in housing

- EIB provides millions for RES in Central Europe

Agenda

Editorial: Certificates or not? 
4 October 2007 - Two months before the publication of the Renewable Energy Directive, the suspense reaches high levels. This week, the Amsterdam Forum concluded with a real cliff-hanger: will the European Commission force through its plans for a trade scheme for renewable energy, or not? 

Let’s do some guessing about what might happen ‘after the break’.

Everybody agrees that the EU requires an internal trade market to achieve the 20% share of renewables in 2020. So it’s not the question whether a trade system will be introduced, but when, and in what format? The Commission already announced a certificate system for biofuels. Regarding power from renewable sources, it is inevitable that the Commission will issue guidelines for the uniform legislation on Guarantees of Origin (GoOs). New guidelines will undoubtedly improve the working of GoOs as the basis for accounting renewable power. But transforming GoOs to become tradable certificates is still one step too far for the renewable energy industry and for some countries.

The Commission is bound to challenge the strong opposition from the two largest green power markets in Europe, Spain and Germany, and will introduce trade of certificates, one way or another. One important reason is that the Commission has been inspired by the example of the trade scheme for greenhouse emission allowances. Although criticised by many, the Commission is convinced this scheme is crucial for future climate policies in the world. So despite large differences: why not translate this scheme to renewable power?

But even more important: trade offers some flexibility regarding national targets. The Commission has to make a Solomon Judgement in the division of tasks regarding the 20% renewables target in 2020. After publication on 5 December, the new ‘burden sharing’ proposal will arouse a lot of criticism. A scheme that enables countries to level the costs for achieving ambitious targets will make it easier to defend such a proposal.

As was said many times during the Amsterdam Forum: ‘the devil is in the detail’. Much depends on timing, administrative organisation, robustness of such a trade system. I hope time is not too tight for the Commission to design a sophisticated, flexible system that will offer the necessary long-term security for renewable energy in Europe.

Rolf de Vos

Editor in chief

GreenPrices

r.devos@greenprices.com

   
Source: GP Newsdesk

             
  The content of this site is provided by Ecofys B.V.
Read the Terms and Conditions Greenprices.