The price of European Union Allowances (EUAs) has been declining at far lower levels than expected during Phase I (2005-2007). Previous literature identifies among its main explanations over-allocation concerns, early abatement efforts in 2005, and possibly decreasing abatement costs in 2006. We advocate low allowance prices may also be explained by banking restrictions between 2007 and 2008. Based on a Hotelling-CAPM analysis, we provide statistical evidence that the French and Polish decisions to ban banking contribute to the explanation of low EUA Phase I prices. Besides, we provide the first rigorous empirical verification that the cost-of-carry relationship between EUA spot and futures prices for delivery during Phase II does not hold after the enforcement of the inter-period banking restrictions. This situation may be interpreted as a sacrifice of the temporal flexibility offered to industrials in Phase I to correct design inefficiencies, and achieve an efficient price pattern in Phase II.

In a world of uneven climate policies, concerns about carbon leakage and competitiveness for heavy industries are the main arguments against the implementation of ambitious climate policies. In this paper we investigate a potential competitiveness-driven operational carbon leakage due to the European Union Emissions Trading scheme (EU ETS). We focus on two energy-intensive sectors, cement and steel, and phases I and II of the EU ETS. From a simple analytical model, we derive an equation linking net imports of cement and steel to local and foreign demand along with carbon price. We then econometrically estimate this relation both with ARIMA regression and Prais-Winsten estimation, finding that local and foreign demand are robust drivers of trade flows. We find no significant effect of the carbon price on net imports of steel and cement. We conclude that there is no evidence of carbon leakage in these sectors, at least in the short run.