외국의 배출권거래제 시행에 따른 법적 쟁점 분석

Title
외국의 배출권거래제 시행에 따른 법적 쟁점 분석
Authors
한상운
Issue Date
2010-11-30
Publisher
한국환경정책·평가연구원
Series/Report No.
정책보고서 : 2010-12
Page
107 p.
URI
http://repository.kei.re.kr/handle/2017.oak/19543
Language
한국어
Abstract
Analysis of Legal Issues Involved in Emissions Trading Schemes of Selected Foreign Countries The Korean government has established the Framework Act on Low-carbon Green Growth and the Enforcement Degree of the Act, which both came into effect on April 14, 2010. The Law includes a system of mandatory reporting of carbon emission by all carbon and energy-intensive industries. It also provides a basis for the creation of a greenhouse gases (GHG) trading system. Mandated by this law, the Government has been recently discussing the deployment of a GHG emissions trading scheme that is most suitable and effective under the Korean economy conditions. Against this backdrop, this paper seeks to identify major issues involving GHG emissions trading scheme, analyze legal dispute cases of the European carbon trading schemes, and suggest policy recommendations for the Korean legislative preparation of its own trading scheme in the near future. Generally, the most important factors to be considered in the emissions trading law is to stipulate fundamental concepts and standards for the legal nature of emissions permits, the scope of applicable entities, and the methodologies for allocation so that the law minimizes potential confusion and disputes. It also needs to create a fair and robust domestic carbon market which is comparable with the international markets. The regulatory capability of relevant authorities to verify the compliance is also important in law making process. More precisely, following suggestions are recommended for the legislation of the Korean GHG trading scheme. First, the legal scheme should ensure the “the least-harm” principle. A cap-and-trade system by nature restricts the freedom of business, which is considered as one of fundamental rights of individuals and business entities. Thus, the scheme should balance the public benefit and the consequential harm to the business caused by the restriction of carbon emissions. The policy-mix with other schemes and incentives would be an appropriate approach. The limited scope of applicable entities as well as the gradual timeline with a sufficient preparation period should be considered. Second, it would be the most appropriate to define the legal nature of emission permits as “a special right to emit greenhouse gases or carbon equivalence within a particular period.” Emissions permit has both characteristics of “natural liberty” and “property right” because it regains the emissions right once restricted and also receives economical benefits through a trading scheme. To recognize the “dual” legal nature of emissions permit and to define it as a special right would minimize any potential legal disputes in legal interpretations under the private and public laws. Third, the clear standard for the scope of applicable entities or facilities should be prescribed by law. Without a rational and reasonable ground for setting the threshold for entities and facilities to be applicable to the new scheme would risk the principle of equity. Thus, various careful considerations should be ensured in policy setting, such as different marginal reduction costs among different industries, opportunities for voluntary participations for the benefit of economies of scale, and access to expert advice and evaluation of applicability for those in question. Fourth, a key method or methodology for emissions allocation should be prescribed in “laws” as opposed to by administrative regulations. How to allocate initial emissions limits is the most critical decision in designing carbon trading scheme. A clear standard for compliance factors, used in calculating allocation by industries and by facilities for an adequate adjustment measure, should be also prescribed in laws for minimizing any potential disputes. This is a critical issue to avoid over-allocation, which have been major problems in the European trading scheme. A special treatment for early action, elimination of double-counting in the industrial process, and the requirement of the best applicable technology (BAT) should be also considered. Lastly, the administrative regulations of the emission trading law should include the criteria and standard for the treatment of business related confidential information which may adversely affects the regulated entities. Also, the law should consider creating a special fund to cover administrative fees involved in emissions trading. The fact that only the regulated entities are imposed to pay such fees may risk the principle of equity. A special fund under the law could be generated by the sale proceeds of emissions reserve or the tax revenue from unregulated entities.

Table Of Contents


제1장 서 론
1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적
2. 연구의 범위 및 방법
가. 선행 연구
나. 주요 연구내용 및 추진방법
제2장 배출권거래제의 도입배경
1. 기후변화협약의 체결 및 이행방안
2. 교토의정서의 채택
가. 교토메커니즘
나. 각국의 대응 현황
다. Post-Kyoto체제 동향
제3장 배출권거래제의 내용
1. 배출권거래제도의 개념
2. 유형
3. 도입 배경 및 근거
4. 도입 경과
가. 대기오염물질의 배출권거래제에 따른 경험 축적
나. EU의 ETS Directive에 의한 탄소배출권거래제 확립
다. 한국의 탄소배출권거래제 도입
5. 배출권거래제의 내용 개관
제4장 법적 분쟁 사례 분석 및 시사점
1. 총설
가. 배출권의 개념 정의
나. 배출권거래제 시행의 법적 근거
다. 배출허가 및 할당 절차
라. 법적 분쟁 현황
2. 배출권거래제의 헌법적 정당성에 관한 법적 분쟁
가. 관련 분쟁 사례 요약
나. 핵심쟁점
다. 헌법상 기본권 침해 여부
라. 정책적 시사점
3. 배출권거래 적용대상인 ‘시설’의 개념 및 범위의 문제
가. 관련 분쟁 사례 요약
나. 쟁점 분석
다. 정책적 시사점
4. 할당량 산정의 적정성 문제
가. 관련 분쟁사례 요약
나. 쟁점분석
다. 정책적 시사점
5. 정보공개, 신청기간 및 수수료의 문제
가. 관련 분쟁사례 요약
나. 쟁점 분석
다. 정책적 시사점
제5장 결론
1. 배출권거래제 도입을 위한 국내 현황
가. 저탄소 녹색성장기본법상 시행근거 마련
나. 대기오염물질 총량관리 및 배출권거래제 시행
다. 온실가스·에너지 목표관리제 시행
2. 배출권거래제 시행을 위한 입법적 고려사항
가. 다른 온실가스감축 수단들과의 Policy Mixing
나. ‘배출권’의 법적 개념 규정
다. 적용대상 범위의 선정(Coverage & Scope)
라. 배출량의 할당
마. 기타 정보 공개 및 수수료
3. 전망
참고문헌
Abstract

Appears in Collections:
Reports(보고서) Policy Study(정책보고서)
Files in This Item:
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse