Environmental Leader has reported
that the Hungarian government sold 2 million previously used CERs, the market became tepid. Then when prices fell from more than 12 euro per credit to less than one euro, trading was suspended on two exchanges, Bluenext and Nord Pool.
The NYT provided more details of the transaction, stating
The credits appear to be part of massive blocks of CERs awarded to Eastern European states and Russia after the collapse of Soviet-era industry. This created a loophole used by Hungary to reintroduce used CERs back into the market…
Carbon traders said countries like Hungary were exploiting the loophole to earn more money from the carbon trading system than they could by selling the credits that they had previously earned under the Kyoto system…
The traders said at least one other E.U. member state had acted similarly earlier this year.
The EU said they were “surprised and concerned” about the situation. BusinessWeek quoted others who expressed more urgency about the matter:
“The supply and demand dynamics have been changed,” said Paul Kelly, chief executive officer of JPMorgan’s EcoSecurities unit. While the scope of the problem has yet to be determined, buyers are “questioning the authenticity” of what they are buying.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the only recent development that may cause market participants concern. This is just the latest in a barrage of credibility and financial damage for GHG emissions trading, including:
- Last year swindlers robbed governments of about 5 billion euros in revenues — about $6.8 billion — by selling carbon credits and disappearing before paying the required Value Added Tax on the transactions.
- In January, swindlers used faked e-mail messages to obtain access codes for individual accounts on national registries that make up the bloc’s Emission Trading System, and then used the stolen codes to gain access to electronic certificates that represent quantities of greenhouse gases.
- In Australia, recent fraud enforcement involved forcing a green power company, Global Green Plan, to purchase carbon credits it had promised to buy on behalf of customers, but never did. The government is currently pursuing action against carbon capture company Prime Carbon over allegedly misleading claims made by the firm.
- In Belgium, authorities have charged three Britons suspected of value added taxes (VAT) fraud on CO2 emissions permits.
In the U.S., the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a group of Northeastern U.S. states that have a cap-and-trade program for utilities, faced its own demons.
- The New Jersey government reallocated about $65 million in funds raised in the RGGI auction. The funds were intended for use in developing renewable energy projects, but instead are going to the state’s general fund, Reuters reports.
- Last year, New York similarly took $90 million from its carbon fund.
So Now What?
Companies with a major stake in the GHG emissions game must conduct a detailed risk assessment of their GHG programs, solutions and exposures. Given what has developed in the trading market in the past six months, it would be wide to carry out exposure identification, failure analyses, contingency planning and desktop exercises.
Such analyses and assessments may be critical for publicly traded companies in the United States due to SEC’s recent announcement and the newly effective EPA rule requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel suppliers and industrial gas suppliers, direct greenhouse gas emitters and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and engines.
Lawrence Heim, Director of The Elm Consulting Group International’s Atlanta office, said
Close to 10 years ago, I began posing the question ‘what if the GHG emissions trading market collapses?’ Assuming cohesive legally-enforceable emissions standards existed, the cost proposition presented by emissions trading in comparison to capital expenditures for pollution control equipment was quite attractive. The impact of a material failure of the trading framework was significant. This line of thought became incorporated into client risk assessments even back then.
In the US, we can look at the pollution control expenditures related to EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) enforcement initiative to provide insight into GHG control equipment costs. Of course, NSR enforcement involves pollutants for which there are well-established and commercially-viable emissions control technologies. We don’t have that luxury with carbon dioxide, which will likely translate into dramatically higher costs.
Further erosion of the viability of GHG emissions trading could have a significant impact on your company. Please contact us if you would like to understand more about climate business risk assessments and potential risk mitigation options.