4.7 Article

Can energy predict the regional prices of carbon emission allowances in China?

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102210

关键词

Emission trading market; Energy price; Extreme bounds analysis; Robust prediction; Price of carbon emission

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation ofChina [72003017]
  2. National So-cial Science Foundation of China [19ZDA082]
  3. Fundament a l Research Funds for the Central Universities [2021CDJSKCG19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study finds that energy prices can indeed predict the prices of emission allowances, but the predictive capabilities vary with regions and energy types. Specifically, thermal coal prices are robustly positive predictors in Guangdong, Hubei, and Shanghai markets, while natural gas prices are robustly negative predictors in all four chosen regions. Crude oil can only positively predict the prices in the Hubei market with robustness.
The carbon emission trading is an important market-oriented tool in the process of China's carbon neutrality, which makes companies face tremendous pressure to reduce emissions while having strong energy demands. In order to evaluate whether energy prices can be robust predictors of the prices of emission allowances, this study perform extreme bounds analysis (EBA) in four representative markets. The empirical results reveal that energy prices can indeed predict the prices of emission allowances, but the robustly predictive capabilities of different energy prices vary with regions. Among them, thermal coal is the robustly positive predictor for Guangdong, Hubei and Shanghai market; natural gas is the robustly negative predictor for all the four chosen regions; and crude oil can only positively predict Hubei market with robustness. Meanwhile, the horizons that predictions from energy to emission allowance can be performed as well as the predictive coefficients also vary with energy types and regions. And some trading implications are also provided alongside.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据