TH`ESE Docteur de l'Université Paris-Dauphine Morgan HERVÉ ...

2008, another reason invoked 4 not to distribute allowances to installations
was the fact that the CITL and ITL were not yet connected. The year after,
only 23 out of the 30 countries participating in the EU ETS issued their
2010 allowances to their installations prior to the February, 28th deadline
(accounting for 78% of the total cap). The main reason for those delays was
legal challenges of NAP revisions by the EC 5 .
Submitted NAPs have been evaluated on the basis of several criteria by
the EC including the stringency of their emissions caps and related parameters
(use of offsets, auctioning of allowances, etc.), projected emissions
trends and emissions reduction potential. This has been performed with
the achievement of the Kyoto targets in mind (ETS sectors and non-ETS
sectors) - namely, too high a cap might prevent reaching those targets. The
EC had three months to evaluate submitted plans. On average, Western
European countries have slightly reduced the emissions cap compared to
phase I in comparison to Eastern European countries’ NAP II drafts who
attempted to increase the cap between the two phases for an identical installations’
perimeter 6 .
Initial draft allocations submitted by member states were mostly slashed
by the EC both regarding too high a cap and too large the share of compliance
which could be achieved with Kyoto offsets. For instance in November
2006, the first ten draft emissions cap levels reviewed (including Germany
and Eastern European countries) were severely cut by the EC (minus 7%,
i.e. 63.9 MtCO2) and Ireland’s initial plan to use up to 50% of Kyoto offsets
for compliance with the EU ETS was reduced to 21% 7 .Earlyestimates
for phase II cap indicated that circa 2,081 MtCO2e would be allocated on
average per annum between 2008 and 2012 which is 10.5% less than initially
planned by member states in their earlier drafts and 9.5% less than in the
first phase 8 .
In early 2007, the first complaints towards the EC regarding NAPs reviews
were addressed. Many voices were raised against slashed NAPs but only
afewcountries(EasternEuropecountriesmostly)actuallyproceededto
legally challenge the EC as regards revised allocation plans. In January
2007, Slovakia first announced its intention to legally challenge the EC. In
April 2007, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary had filed
an appeal against the EC with the European Court of Justice. These appeals
were motivated on grounds that the revised allocations (1) prevented
4 By the UK and Ireland to be more specific.
5 Tendances Carbone (2010, [7])
6 Tendances Carbone (2006, [8])
7 Tendances Carbone (2006, [9])
8 Tendances Carbone (2007, [10])
14