Nature of the Emission Allowance

Discuss about the Nature of the Emission By Union ETS.

The present study is concerned with the in depth discussion relating to the nature of emission stated by the European Union ETS. The current study is also based on the determination of the method involved in the measuring the initial and the subsequent level together with the help of the appropriate journal entries. In addition to this, the report will be placing emphasis on the consequences that arises from the inclusion of emission allowance on the financial statement namely, balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement.   

The lawful nature concerning the emission allowance is issued and traded within the guidelines of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme and it is not defined or consistent at the European level. As defined under the Emission Trading Scheme Directive Article 3 (a) provides the definition of the emission allowance. It further defines the right to emit with one tonne of CO2 under the article 3 (a) of the Emission Trading Scheme Directive (Zhang et al., 2015). This is will be considered to be valid for the purpose of complying with the requirements stated under the Emission Trading Scheme Directive and it will be treated as manageable in agreement with the provision that has been stated under the Emission Trading Scheme Directive (Zakeri et al., 2015). The nature concerning the emission allowance will be treated to be relevant under the issues that has been stated below;

1. At the time of determining the law that manages the creation, transfer and cessation of the emission allowances,
2. Whether there is any kind of security that can be developed over the emission allowance
3. Management of emission allowance relating to accounting and tax purpose
4. Management of emission allowance at the time of bankruptcy of the listed holder

To take into the considerations relating to the oversight of the carbon market it is vital to determine the legality nature of the individual entity, which is being traded in the market. There are large number of legalised administrations, which is traded in the market (Chao, 2014). A large number of lawful regimes is found to be involved in the regulations of the emission allowance, which brings forward the number of legal questions relating to law of property, law relating to financial service or law relating to contracts and accounting standard. An entity can break into the all-encompassing markets which usually consists of the distributions of the allowance from the accountable agency or any institutions relating to the parties which is under the obligations of complying with the emission trading system.

The secondary market on the other hand consist of purchase and sale of allowance together with numerous contracts for future sales of allowance (Goulder & Schein, 2013). Emission allowance under the market for trading have resemblances with commodities and monetary market that possess unlikely feature in either of the market. The oversight relating to any form of carbon market is largely reliant on the current institutional infrastructure with jurisdiction have role to play in adopting the correct approach to the market oversight (Dong et al., 2016). The characteristics that have been defined in article 40 of registry principles defines an allowance to be dematerialized tool that is tradable in the market. 

Initial and Subsequent Measurement of Emission Allowance

Tentatively the board has come up to the decision of measuring the emission allowance. The board has specifically stated in its decision that there must be consistent in the liability of the emission allowance together with the allocation of the liability must be executed initially and subsequently under the terms of fair value (Zhang & Xu, 2013). Tentatively the board has undertook the decision relating to the purchase allowance, which should be measured under the terms of fair value both initially and subsequently.

A preference has been introduced by the IASB that describes the gross presentation should be made relating to the assets and liabilities on the balance sheet (Du et al., 2013). Additionally, in accordance with the linked presentations, the assets and liabilities should be presented under the gross value but the value should be obtainable with the total amount of net emission or the emission liability. Tentatively the FASB has bought forward an assertion by stating that the asset and liabilities should be stated in the balance sheet by using the linked presentation (Agee et al., 2014). The FASB additionally bought forward that in no circumstances it believes that any commercial entity will be obligatory required to possess the intent of setting off the asset and liabilities to present the items through using linked presentation.

As evident from the discussion, the board has defined that the measurement concerning the emission allowance assets and liabilities should be in accordance with the scheme of cap and trade. Tentatively the board has made the decision that the allocation of emission allowance liability should be consistent (Bang et al., 2017). The board members has lend their backing for the model that helps in the measurement of the allocated allowance along with the liability associated with allocation must be measured in terms of the fair value.

The board discussion has stated that the business unit should determine the level of emission allowance, which the unit will be returning under the liability associated with the allocation at the time when the business unit is required to identify the obligations associated to emission (Rabe, 2016). A support has been lend by the board relating to the adoption of approach which determines the quantity of the emission allowance to be returned in respect of the business unit expectations related to emission or lessening of emission.

Commercial unit under the intangible asset method of accounting are generally required to measure the emission allowance, which is provided to the companies and assimilated in the open market cost. As a consequence of this, when the companies are provided with the emission allowance it reflects a lone nominal zero cost (Ranson & Stavins, 2016). In contrast to this, emission allowance, which is purchased, would be having an associated cost with them. Even though it is not regarded as one of the usually implemented practice in the intangible asset accounting framework, it is necessary for the companies to replicate the delivered emission allowance upon receiving at the fair value. As per the disclosure made business units generally hardly amortize the emission credits.

Consequences of Emission Allowance on Financial Statement

The reason behind this is that their economic benefit is not diminished till it is consumed. Consequently, no cost of credit is charged to the expenditure till they are disposed or used. The emission credits allowance is treated as the substance of impairment under the indefinite livid intangible asset model of the impairment or they are under the model of the fixed asset for the purpose of determinate intangible asset till the degree the business is amortizing the emission allowance (Schneider et al., 2017). Emission allowance are characterized in the long term balance sheet with cash inflows and outflows related to emissions allowance are categorized in the investment activities under the cash flow statement.

The consequences relating to emission allowance is reflected in the financial statements in the inventory model of accounting and emission credits are weighted in respect of the average cost. The EPA issues emission credits or any sort of regulatory model having zero cost basis. Most notably the weighted average cost of emission allowance used in every period is charged to the fuel costs (Kaufman, 2013). Under the market, approach the emission credits is subject to lowered cost market approach for impairment under the model of inventory. Because of this, the emission allowance are categorized as the inventory in balance sheet with inflow and outflow of cash is related to the emission credits that is categorized in the operating activities in the cash flow statement. Commercial unit that trade under the emission allowance are under the compulsion of following the inventory model.  

As evident from both the models the practice of the industry states that business units are generally not required to record the requirements of delivering the emission allowance to the regulatory agency till it is found that actual level of emission for a given time period has exceeded the credits which is held on the balance sheet (Harris, 2016). Consequently, the gain is characteristically recognized during the given period in which the emission credits are disposed off. This kind of practice generally differs from the recognition of gain as numerous such companies have undertaken the accounting policies that needs the deferral of gain if the emission credits is granted in the upcoming years but it is disposed in the current year.

Concerning the income statement there are primary two forms of significances of emission that is noticed. Initially it arises due to the usage of several diverse attributes for the correct asset and the liabilities under the IFRIC3 model. It arises because of the use of the IAS 38 model of cost for accounting the emission allowance asset along with the result originating from the mismatch amid the dimension of liability and it is measured again to ascertain the market value together with the changes in the net income by measuring the asset at cost (Schwager & Etzkorn, 2017). Conversely if the commercial unit uses the method of revaluation in respect of the IAS 38, it is under the obligation of displaying the changes under the fair value of the allowance asset in the income statement together with changes that has occurred in the fair value of the liability in the net income.

The second effect that originates in the income statement is the outline of expenses which is identified in the income statement. The approach of the IFRIC 3 states that present period of expense is equal to the amount of fair value emission which is generated all through the period and recognizes the income which is equal to the amortization of the government grant associated with the allowance. Implementing the net approach will lead the liability to be reflected in the balance sheet and expenses is recorded in the income statement provided that the actual level of emission has surpassed the whole amount of allowance allotted to the unit on free price by the administration.    

Conclusion:

The above stated report can be concluded by stating that an explanation to the nature of the emission has been discussed in this report. Additionally, the report has discussed on the emission relating to the method of emission of the allowance at the time of measurement during the initial and the subsequent level by citing the examples of appropriate journal entries. The report has in detailed discussed the consequences of emission allowance on the financial statements. The discussion of consequences has placed emphasis on the key areas of balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statement.

References:

Agee, M. D., Atkinson, S. E., Crocker, T. D., & Williams, J. W. (2014). Non-separable pollution control: implications for a CO 2 emissions cap and trade system. Resource and Energy Economics, 36(1), 64-82.

Bang, G., Victor, D. G., & Andresen, S. (2017). California’s Cap-and-Trade System: Diffusion and Lessons. Global Environmental Politics.

Chao, C. C. (2014). Assessment of carbon emission costs for air cargo transportation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 33, 186-195.

Dong, C., Shen, B., Chow, P. S., Yang, L., & Ng, C. T. (2016). Sustainability investment under cap-and-trade regulation. Annals of Operations Research, 240(2), 509-531.

Du, S., Zhu, L., Liang, L., & Ma, F. (2013). Emission-dependent supply chain and environment-policy-making in the ‘cap-and-trade’system. Energy Policy, 57, 61-67.

Goulder, L. H., & Schein, A. R. (2013). Carbon taxes versus cap and trade: a critical review. Climate Change Economics, 4(03), 1350010.

Harris, L. (2016). Trading and Electronic Markets: What Investment Professionals Need to Know (a summary). Research Foundation Publications, 2016(1), 24-30.

Kaufman, P. J. (2013). Trading systems and methods. John Wiley & Sons.

Rabe, B. G. (2016). The Durability of Carbon Cap?and?Trade Policy. Governance, 29(1), 103-119.

Ranson, M., & Stavins, R. N. (2016). Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: Learning from experience. Climate Policy, 16(3), 284-300.

Schneider, L., Lazarus, M., Lee, C., & van Asselt, H. (2017). Restricted linking of emissions trading systems: options, benefits, and challenges. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1-16.

Schwager, J. D., & Etzkorn, M. (2017). An Introduction to Options on Futures. A Complete Guide to the Futures Market: Technical Analysis and Trading Systems, Fundamental Analysis, Options, Spreads, and Trading Principles, 477-485.

Zakeri, A., Dehghanian, F., Fahimnia, B., & Sarkis, J. (2015). Carbon pricing versus emissions trading: A supply chain planning perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 197-205.

Zhang, B., & Xu, L. (2013). Multi-item production planning with carbon cap and trade mechanism. International Journal of Production Economics, 144(1), 118-127.

Zhang, Y. J., Wang, A. D., & Tan, W. (2015). The impact of China’s carbon allowance allocation rules on the product prices and emission reduction behaviors of ETS-covered enterprises. Energy Policy, 86, 176-185.