Carmen Bunzl - Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Chapter 4. Case Study: Spain 210
It should be noted that this findings largely depend on the assumptions that
were made for the Triptych parameter settings. Different assumptions, such as
choosing a lower final per capita emission convergence level for the domestic
sector, would lead to less stringent reductions for the industrial sector
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
% change compared to 1990-level (EU 20%)
Industry Power
% change compared to 1990-level (EU 30%)
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería ICAI Carmen Bunzl Boulet Junio 2008
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Industry Power
Marginal abatement costs
Grandfathering
Figure 4 - 25. The reduction targets (before emissions trading and CDM) for the industrial and power
sectors for Spain for the three allocation approaches for the ‘EU 20% unilateral without CDM’(left) and
EU 30% in a multilateral regime’ (right) scenario.
3.3.2.3 Step 3: Member State non-ETS caps
Finally, the EU non-ETS cap is calculated as in step 1, using the different
burden sharing approaches. Then it is allocated once again among the Member
States using the same three approaches as for the first two Steps, and included
the Per capita convergence approach (commonly used as allocation scheme for
population-related emissions, as the non-ETS emissions). Grandfathering in
combination with complex approaches such as Triptych and Marginal Abatement
costs are not seen here, as it would be less logical (see Table 4 – 16).
Triptych
Baseline