All Issue

2025 Vol.34, Issue 1 Preview Page

Research Paper

Economic Impact Analysis of Expanding Allowance Auctioning for the Electricity Sector in the Korean Emissions Trading System

전환부문 배출권 유상할당 확대의 경제 효과 분석

정창우*‧김진수**

Changwoo Chung* and Jinsoo Kim**

*한양대학교 자원환경공학과 박사후연구원, 제1저자(e-mail: cwchung94@hanyang.ac.kr)
**한양대학교 자원환경공학과 교수, 교신저자(e-mail: jinsookim@hanyang.ac.kr)
*Post-Doc., Dept. of Earth Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, First author (e-mail: cwchung94@hanyang.ac.kr)
**Professor, Dept. of Earth Resources and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Corresponding author (e-mail: jinsookim@hanyang.ac.kr)
31 March 2025. pp. 127-153
PDF Citation
Abstract
This study developed a CGE model that disaggregates the electricity sector by generation technology to analyze the economic impact of expanding allowance auctioning in the electricity sector. The model improved on the limitations of the GTAP-E model, which cannot account for domestic emissions trading, allowances by sector, and the incorporation of auctioned allowance costs into production costs. Based on the 2030 NDC targets for the power sector, nine scenarios were constructed considering auctioning rates of 10%, 50% and 100%. Increasing the share of auctioned allowances significantly increased carbon abatement, but had significant negative economic impacts. GDP declined by up to 1.6%, with electricity prices rising, industrial production falling, and exports weakening. A comparative scenario analysis showed that setting the allowance level lower than the sectoral targets in the 2030 NDC with a higher auctioning share could achieve greater carbon reductions while mitigating negative economic impacts.
Keywords
Emissions trading system
Auctioning
Economic impact
Electricity sector
CGE
본 연구는 국내 배출권 거래와 산업별 배출허용량 설정, 그리고 유상할당 배출권 비용을 생산 비용에 반영하지 못하는 기존 GTAP-E 모형의 한계를 개선하여 전환 부문을 발전 기술별로 세분화한 CGE 모형을 구축하고 전환 부문 유상할당 확대의 경제 효과를 분석하였다. 2030 NDC에서 설정한 전환부문의 감축 목표를 바탕으로, 유상할당 비율을 10%, 50% 100%로 설정한 9개의 시나리오를 구축하여 시뮬레이션을 수행한 결과, 유상할당 비율 확대는 탄소 감축 효과가 매우 크지만, 경제에 미치는 부정적 영향도 상당한 것으로 나타났다. GDP는 최대 1.6% 감소하는 것으로 나타났으며, 전기 요금 상승, 주요 산업의 생산 및 수출 약화 등이 예상되어 부정적인 영향을 상쇄할 수 있는 보완적인 정책의 도입이 함께 필요할 것으로 보인다. 시나리오 비교 분석 결과, 유상할당 비율을 확대하는 경우, 배출허용량을 2030 NDC의 부문별 목표보다 더 낮게 설정하면 탄소 감축 효과를 극대화하면서도 경제적 충격을 완화할 수 있는 대안이 될 수 있는 것으로 분석되었다.
키워드
배출권거래제
유상할당
경제 효과
전환부문
CGE
References
  1. 김지연‧정규철‧허진욱, “장기경제성장률 전망과 시사점”, KDI 경제전망 2022 하반기, 한국개발연구원, 2022. 11.
  2. 김현석, “온실가스 감축정책이 산업부문별 경쟁력에 미치는 영향”, 한국개발연구원 정책연구시리즈, 한국개발연구원, 2021.
  3. 박경원‧권오상, “불완전경쟁 CGE모형을 이용한배출권거래제의 경제효과 분석”, 「환경정책」, 제26권 제3호, 2018, pp. 233~265.10.15301/jepa.2018.26.3.233
  4. 손인성, “배출권거래제 유상할당 논의 동향 및 고려사항”, 에너지경제연구원, 2023.
  5. 손인성, “온실가스 배출권거래제 제 1차 계획기간의 성과 분석”, 에너지경제연구원, 2019.
  6. 유종민‧유재형‧김지태‧이종은, “한국 온실가스 감축정책의 효과: 배출권거래제 전후 비교”, 「환경정책」, 제35권 제2호, 2017, pp. 231~247.10.15301/jepa.2017.25.2.231
  7. 이재윤‧정은미‧이상호‧이상원‧이고은, “온실가스배출권거래제 개편에 따른 주요 산업의 영향과 대응방향”, 산업연구원, 2024.
  8. 최봉석‧김기환, 2022. “전력시장의 경직성에 따른 국가 재생에너지 정책이 거시경제에 미치는 영향 분석: 베이지안 DSGE 모형 접근”, 「자원‧환경경제연구」, 제31권 제3호, pp. 367~391.
  9. 한국정부, “2030 국가 온실가스 감축목표(NDC) 상향안”, 관계부처합동, 2021.
  10. Aguiar, A., M. Chepeliev, E. Corong, and D. van der Mensbrugghe, “The Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Data Base: Version 11,” Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Vol. 7, 2023.10.21642/JGEA.070201AF
  11. Andrew, L., and D. Drury, The EU Emissions Trading System: Method and Effects of Free Allownace Allocation, In, 1-34. European Parliament, 2023.
  12. Burniaux, J. M., and T. Truong, GTAP-E: An Energy-Environmental Version of the GTAP Model, In. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN: Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), 2002.10.21642/GTAP.TP16
  13. Cho, G. L., Y. Cho, and H. Chang, “The Economic Impacts of an GHG Emission Trading System in Korea,” Environmental and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2001, pp. 173~216.
  14. Corong, E. L., T. W. Hertel, R. McDougall, M. E. Tsigas, and D. van der Mensbrugghe, “The Standard GTAP Model, Version 7,” Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Vol. 2, 2017, pp. 1~119.10.21642/JGEA.020101AF
  15. Cui, Q., Y. Liu, T. Ali, J. Gao, and H. Chen, “Economic and Climate Impacts of Reducing China’s Renewable Electricity Curtailment: A Comparison Between CGE Models with Alternative Nesting Structures of Electricity,” Energy Economics, Vol. 91, 2020, 104892.10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104892
  16. Golosov, M., J. Hassler, P. Krusell, and A. Tsyvinski, “Optimal Taxes on Fossil Fuel in General Equilibrium,” Econometrica, Vol. 82, 2014, pp. 41~88.10.3982/ECTA10217
  17. Hepburn, C., M. Grubb, K. Neuhoff, F. Matthes, and M. Tse, “Auctioning of EU ETS Phase II Allowances: How and Why?” Climate Policy, Vol. 6, 2006, pp. 137~160.10.1080/14693062.2006.9685592
  18. Hertel, T., and D. van der Mensbrugghe, Chapter 16: Behavioral Parameters, GTAP 11 Data Base Documentation, Center for Global Trade Analysis, 2024.
  19. Jiang, H. D., L. J. Liu, K. Dong, and Y. W. Fu, “How will Sectoral Coverage in the Carbon Trading System Affect the Total Oil Consumption in China? A CGE-based Analysis,” Energy Economics, Vol. 110, 2022, 105996.10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105996
  20. Jun, S. H., J. Y. Kim, and H. Oh, “Evaluating the Impact of the KETS on GHG Reduction in the First Phase,” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Vol. 23, 2021, pp. 613~638.10.1007/s10018-021-00302-0
  21. Kim, K., and J. Suh, Analysis on Economic Effect of Renewable Energy Deployment, in, Basic Research Report (Korea Energy Economics Institute Ulsan-si), 2019.
  22. Kim, N., A Study on the Reflection of Emission Allowance Costs in the Electricity Market, In.: Korea Energy Economics Institute, 2020.
  23. Kim, P., and H. Bae, “Do Firms Respond Differently to the Carbon Pricing by Industrial Sector? How and Why? A Comparison Between Manufacturing and Electricity Generation Sectors Using Firm-level Panel Data in Korea,” Energy Policy, Vol. 162, 2022, 112773.10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112773
  24. Kim, Y. G., and J. S. Lim, “Treatment of Indirect Emissions from the Power Sector in Korean Emissions Trading System,” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Vol. 23, 2021, pp. 581~592.10.1007/s10018-020-00282-7
  25. Li, W., Y. W. Zhang, and C. Lu, “The Impact on Electric Power Industry Under the Implementation of National Carbon Trading Market in China: A Dynamic CGE Analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 200, 2018, pp. 511~523.10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.325
  26. Lin, B., and Z. Jia, “Impact of Quota Decline Scheme of Emission Trading in China: A Dynamic Recursive CGE Model,” Energy, Vol. 149, 2018, pp. 190~203.10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.039
  27. Lise, W., J. Sijm, and B. F. Hobbs, “The Impact of the EU ETS on Prices, Profits and Emissions in the Power Sector: Simulation Results with the COMPETES EU20 Model,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 47, 2010, pp. 23~44.10.1007/s10640-010-9362-9
  28. Nong, D., “Development of the electricity-environmental policy CGE model (GTAP-E-PowerS): A case of the carbon tax in South Africa,” Energy Policy, Vol. 140, 2020, 111375.10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111375
  29. Oh, I., W. J. Yoo, and K. Kim, Economic Effects of Renewable Energy Expansion Policy: Computable General Equilibrium Analysis for Korea, In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020. 10.3390/ijerph1713476232630703PMC7370288
  30. Park, H., “Factors to Enhance Reduction Technology Development Through ETS,” Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 29, 2020, 100489.10.1016/j.esr.2020.100489
  31. Park, H., P. M. Khue, and J. Lee, “The Effects of Carbon Emissions Trading on Profitability and Value: Evidence from Korean Listed Firms,” Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, Vol. 35, 2024, pp. 760~799.10.1111/jifm.12211
  32. Peters, J. C., “GTAP-E-Power: An Electricity-detailed Economy-wide Model,” Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Vol. 1, 2016a, pp. 156~187.10.21642/JGEA.010204AF
  33. Peters, J. C., “The GTAP-Power Data Base: Disaggregating the Electricity Sector in the GTAP Data Base,” Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Vol. 1, 2016b, pp. 209~250.10.21642/JGEA.010104AF
  34. Pradhan, B. K., and J. Ghosh, “A Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Assessment of Technological Progress and Carbon Pricing in India’S Green Energy Transition Via Furthering Its Renewable Capacity,” Energy Economics, Vol. 106, 2022, 105788.10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105788
  35. Tang, L., J. Shi, and Q. Bao, “Designing an Emissions Trading Scheme for China with a Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Model,” Energy Policy, Vol. 97, 2016, pp. 507~520.10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.039
  36. Wang, B., and M. Duan, “Consignment Auctions of Emissions Trading Systems: An Agent-based Approach Based on China’s Practice,” Energy Economics, Vol. 112, 2022, 106187.10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106187
  37. Watch, C. M., Cracking Europe’S Hardest Climate Nut: How to Kick-start the Zero-carbon Transition of Energy-intensive Industries? In, 1-16. Carbon Market Watch, 2019.
  38. Wu, L., Y. Zhou, and H. Qian, “Global Actions Under the Paris Agreement: Tracing the Carbon Leakage Flow and Pursuing Countermeasures,” Energy Economics, Vol. 106, 2022, 105804.10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105804
  39. Yeo, Y., and I. Oh, “Evaluating the Impacts of Renewable Energy Promotion Policies on Sustainable Development: A Computable General Equilibrium Model Approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 421, 2023, 138360.10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138360
  40. Yoon, Y., Approaches to Enhance the Market Functionality of the K-ETS, In KDI Focus, 1-13. Korea Development Institute, 2023.
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 34
  • No :1
  • Pages :127-153
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2025.34.1.127
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close