Dóra Fazekas Carbon Market Implications for new EU - UniCredit ...

of installations in each category changes as a result of new installations beginning operations and
installations facing closure.
Installation
Verified CO 2
emissions
2005 2006 2007
Zero emitters 0 kt 2 0.87% 2 0.89% 1 0.59%
“De minimis”
emitters
Small emitters
Medium emitters
under 10 kt 75 32.75% 71 31.70% 43 25.29%
between 10 and 50
kt
between 50 and
500 kt
98 42.79% 97 43.30% 84 49.41%
42 18.34% 42 18.75% 33 19.41%
Large emitters over 500 kt 12 5.24% 12 5.36% 9 5.29%
Provided all necessary information 229 100.00% 224 100.00% 170 100.00%
Provided only incomplete information 19 7.60% 24 9.60% 78 30.71%
All installations 250 100.00% 250 100.00% 254 100.00%
Table 18. Emitters categorized according to size
Source: author’s calculation based on the EEA “CITL Viewer”
The number of EU ETS installations classified as zero emitters was negligible during the pilot
phase: in the first two years, only two installations did not emit any carbon-dioxide, one in the
energy sector and the other in the construction sector (ceramics manufacturers). It is likely that one
of these installations was to be shut down by the end of the pilot phase.
In the first two years, two-thirds of the installations were considered “de minimis” emitters,
producing less than 10 kilotonnnes of carbon dioxide. By the time the pilot phase was over, this
figure had dropped to one-fourth of all installations. This was possible because the number of
medium emitters increased from 43% during the first two years to nearly one-half of all
installations later. The number of large emitters did not change significantly, nor did the total
number of companies covered by the ETS during the three years of the pilot phase.
The CITL data-management program of the European Environmental Agency – EEA CITL Viewer
– made it possible to determine how many installations had provided sufficient information about
their emissions to the authorities in a particular year. Table 18 only includes installations, listed
according to size, which had provided all necessary data.
It is interesting to note that in the year 2007, nearly one-third of all installations (30.71%) failed to
provide adequate or comprehensive information about their emissions, which is significantly higher
than the trend encountered during the first two years of the scheme (7.6% and 9.6%). In the author’s
opinion, there were cases every year of certain installations failing to observe the April 30 deadline
for submitting their information. This appears to explain the significant difference quoted above; in
other words, when the EEA was preparing – and then publishing – its CITL data-management
118