Heading into Phase IIIChallenges facing the EU-ETSDavid HoneSenior Climate Change Adviser, Group CO2Chairman, IETA<br />
Definitions and cautionary note<br />2<br />RESERVES: Our use of the term “reserves” in this presentation means SEC proved...
Some history -  Why did we want an ETS?<br /><ul><li>Direct cascade:
EU Kyoto Protocol obligations flow into the economy
Flexible:
For policy makers in implementation, allocation of burden, management of cost pass-through and dealing with sectoral issues.
For facilities in managing compliance.
For the EU economy to transition to a long term carbon restriction
Lowest cost approach:
A carbon price drives project implementation from left to right across the abatement curve </li></li></ul><li>Delivering l...
But there were other goals as well<br /><ul><li>Long term incentive to drive technology development, in particular carbon ...
Early trigger to begin the major task of decarbonising the power sector with a particular need to guide investment into th...
Assisting developing countries in beginning the task of emissions reduction
Demonstrating the effectiveness of carbon pricing through an ETS with the goal of encouraging similar systems elsewhere.
Supporting the carbon market approach agreed under the Kyoto Protocol.</li></li></ul><li>As a foundation for a global carb...
A carbon price in the economy<br />Goods and services pass into the economy, with the price of CO2 embedded<br />€<br />CO...
A chequered price history<br />Initially strong, but collapse due to over allocation<br />Renewed strength as Phase II all...
Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />EU Emissions Trading System...
Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />UK Carbon Floor Price<br />...
Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />UK Carbon Floor Price<br />...
Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />UK Carbon Floor Price<br />...
An example of the impact of parallel policies<br />UK Abatement<br />EU-26 Abatement<br />CO2 Price<br />40<br />30<br />2...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Platts Emissions Trading Conference - October 2011

1,304 views

Published on

A presentation on the status of the EU-ETS given by David Hone in Brussels in October 2011.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,304
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Platts Emissions Trading Conference - October 2011

  1. 1. Heading into Phase IIIChallenges facing the EU-ETSDavid HoneSenior Climate Change Adviser, Group CO2Chairman, IETA<br />
  2. 2. Definitions and cautionary note<br />2<br />RESERVES: Our use of the term “reserves” in this presentation means SEC proved oil and gas reserves for all 2009 and 2010 data, and includes both SEC proved oil and gas reserves and SEC proven mining reserves for 2008 data. <br />RESOURCES: Our use of the term “resources” in this presentation includes quantities of oil and gas not yet classified as SEC proved oil and gas reserves or SEC proven mining reserves. Resources are consistent with the Society of Petroleum Engineers 2P and 2C definitions.<br />ORGANIC: Our use of the term Organic includes SEC proved oil and gas reserves and SEC proven mining reserves (for 2008) excluding changes resulting from acquisitions, divestments and year-average pricing impact. <br />The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this presentation “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to companies in which Royal Dutch Shell either directly or indirectly has control, by having either a majority of the voting rights or the right to exercise a controlling influence. The companies in which Shell has significant influence but not control are referred to as “associated companies” or “associates” and companies in which Shell has joint control are referred to as “jointly controlled entities”. In this presentation, associates and jointly controlled entities are also referred to as “equity-accounted investments”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect (for example, through our 24% shareholding in Woodside Petroleum Ltd.) ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest.<br />This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘will’’, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘risks’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘should’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including potential litigation and regulatory measures as a result of climate changes; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s 20-F for the year ended 31 December, 2010 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These factors also should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, 17 May 2011. Neither Royal Dutch Shell nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. There can be no assurance that dividend payments will match or exceed those set out in this presentation in the future, or that they will be made at all.<br />We may use certain terms in this presentation, such as resources and oil in place, that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov. You can also obtain these forms from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.<br />
  3. 3. Some history - Why did we want an ETS?<br /><ul><li>Direct cascade:
  4. 4. EU Kyoto Protocol obligations flow into the economy
  5. 5. Flexible:
  6. 6. For policy makers in implementation, allocation of burden, management of cost pass-through and dealing with sectoral issues.
  7. 7. For facilities in managing compliance.
  8. 8. For the EU economy to transition to a long term carbon restriction
  9. 9. Lowest cost approach:
  10. 10. A carbon price drives project implementation from left to right across the abatement curve </li></li></ul><li>Delivering lowest cost abatement<br />Cost of abatement<br />€ / tonne CO2e<br />Abatement<br />MTonne CO2e<br />A carbon price drives project implementation from left to right across the abatement curve <br />
  11. 11. But there were other goals as well<br /><ul><li>Long term incentive to drive technology development, in particular carbon capture and storage (CCS) and renewable energy.
  12. 12. Early trigger to begin the major task of decarbonising the power sector with a particular need to guide investment into the 2020s.
  13. 13. Assisting developing countries in beginning the task of emissions reduction
  14. 14. Demonstrating the effectiveness of carbon pricing through an ETS with the goal of encouraging similar systems elsewhere.
  15. 15. Supporting the carbon market approach agreed under the Kyoto Protocol.</li></li></ul><li>As a foundation for a global carbon market . . . . .<br />New technology mechanisms evolve (e.g. for CCS)<br />China adopts carbon pricing mechanisms<br />CDM evolves to includes sectors<br />CDM<br />Linkages develop between all systems and more systems appear<br />Forestry mechanism<br />Japan technology standards<br />Norwegian ETS<br />Expanding EU-ETS<br />EU-ETS<br />Danish-ETS<br />New Zealand ETS<br />UK-ETS<br />Australian ETS / carbon price<br />State and/or Federal carbon pricing<br />Global shipping “cap-and-trade”<br />2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025<br />Linkage framework<br />Pre-Kyoto Kyoto Post 2012<br />
  16. 16. A carbon price in the economy<br />Goods and services pass into the economy, with the price of CO2 embedded<br />€<br />CO2<br />€<br />Emitters buy allowances from the government<br />€<br />Revenue passes<br />through the treasury and<br /> may be used to offset costs to the consumer, e.g. tax reduction.<br />
  17. 17. A chequered price history<br />Initially strong, but collapse due to over allocation<br />Renewed strength as Phase II allocations take hold.<br />Very weak as the impact of the recession is felt, but some recovery<br />Renewed weakness as EU troubles worsen.<br />2005 2007 2009 2011<br />
  18. 18. Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />EU Emissions Trading System delivers a carbon price into the EU economy<br />Cost to society<br />$<br />
  19. 19. Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />UK Carbon Floor Price<br />EU Emissions Trading System delivers a carbon price into the EU economy<br />Cost to society<br />Renewable Energy Targets<br />Member State Coal Policy<br />$<br />
  20. 20. Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />UK Carbon Floor Price<br />Energy Efficiency Directive<br />Nuclear Energy Policies<br />EU Emissions Trading System delivers a carbon price into the EU economy<br />Cost to society<br />UK Carbon Reduction Commitment<br />Renewable Energy Targets<br />Local carbon taxes<br />Member State Coal Policy<br />$<br />
  21. 21. Both the Commission and Member States have contributed to the weakening impact of the ETS<br />UK Carbon Floor Price<br />Energy Efficiency Directive<br />“Green” politics and policies<br />Nuclear Energy Policies<br />EU Emissions Trading System delivers a carbon price into the EU economy<br />Cost to society<br />UK Carbon Reduction Commitment<br />Renewable Energy Targets<br />Local carbon taxes<br />Member State Coal Policy<br />$<br />
  22. 22. An example of the impact of parallel policies<br />UK Abatement<br />EU-26 Abatement<br />CO2 Price<br />40<br />30<br />20<br />10<br />0<br />-10<br />-20<br />Prevailing EU CO2 price<br />Reductions, MT<br />ReductionsUK<br />+ ReductionsEU-26 = REU-2020 (EU cap)<br />EU reductions consist of reductions made in the UK and reductions made in the rest of the system. Reduction opportunities are driven by the abatement curve.<br />
  23. 23. CO2 Price<br />40<br />30<br />20<br />10<br />0<br />-10<br />-20<br />Artificial UK CO2 floor price<br />RUK + ΔRUK = ReductionsUK-Floor Price<br />An example of the impact of parallel policies<br />Reductions, MT<br />An increase in the UK carbon price increases the amount of abatement taking place in the UK by an amount ∆RUK.<br />
  24. 24. Less reductions in the rest of the EU and a decline in the carbon price<br />CO2 Price<br />40<br />30<br />20<br />10<br />0<br />-10<br />-20<br />New EU CO2 price<br />Reductions, MT<br /> RUK-Floor Price<br />+ (REU-26 - ΔRUK) = REU-2020 (EU cap)<br />REU-26 with UK Floor Price<br />An example of the impact of parallel policies<br />But overall reductions remain the same as this is dictated by the EU cap on emissions. As such, the prevailing EU carbon price falls.<br />
  25. 25. The prospect going forward<br /><ul><li>Overhang of allowances going into Phase III – estimates vary, but substantial.
  26. 26. New policy measures undermining the structure – e.g. energy efficiency directive.
  27. 27. EU member states starting to take their own action – e.g. UK carbon floor price.
  28. 28. Higher cost compliance route for the EU.
  29. 29. Little support for the international mechanisms.
  30. 30. Potentially a poor example to the rest of the world.</li></ul> So is the EU ETS really meeting its objectives? <br />
  31. 31. CCS under threat as the carbon price languishes<br />17<br /><ul><li>CCS is an essential low carbon technology option.
  32. 32. It depends on a strong carbon price to ensure sufficient funding through the NER 300.
  33. 33. A successful EU demonstration programme is a critical precursor to CCS roll-out in the 2020s.</li></li></ul><li>Recalibrate the EU ETS now<br />18<br /><ul><li>The EU that was set the target of a 20% reduction is not the same EU that exists today.
  34. 34. Macro-economic events have changed the landscape.
  35. 35. A potential solution is to tighten the EU ETS Phase III cap, reflecting the changed economic conditions since the original cap was set.
  36. 36. Best done as a set-aside of a fixed number of allowances.
  37. 37. Needs to be signaled now and implemented in the near future.</li></li></ul><li>Introduce a design change to protect the system from future macro-economic shocks<br />19<br />Announce an auction reserve price for<br />Phase IV<br />Provides longer term protection for the EU-ETS and guards against further problems<br />2015<br />2020<br />2025<br />2011<br /><ul><li>In addition, important to start removing additional layers of policy in the EU ETS space, allowing the carbon market to deliver lowest cost abatement.</li></li></ul><li>Summary of key points<br />The EU-ETS is the right mechanism to ensure the lowest cost of CO2 abatement across the EU.<br />The carbon price is pivotal to investment decisions that will be made over the coming years and to promote development of technologies such as CCS<br />The EU ETS should be recalibrated following the macro-economic shock delivered by the financial crisis and designed to withstand such shocks in the future<br />Overlapping policy development in the ETS space should be minimized, but complementary policies to encourage technology development should remain <br />
  38. 38. http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange<br />

×