COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and Regulation (EU) 2015/757
Date: 2021-07-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, EU environmental policy, adaptation to climate change, greenhouse gas, maritime transport, pollution control measures, pollution from ships, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.7.2021  SWD(2021) 557 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and Regulation (EU) 2015/757     {COM(2021) 551 final} - {SEC(2021) 551 final} - {SWD(2021) 601 final} - {SWD(2021) 602 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

The legal basis for this proposal amending Directive is Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the  European  Union  (TFEU).  In  accordance  with  Article  191  and  192(1)  TFEU,  the  European  Union 
shall  contribute  to  the  pursuit,  inter  alia,  of  the  following  objectives:  preserving,  protecting  and 
improving  the  quality  of  the  environment;  promoting  measures  at  international  level  to  deal  with 
regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change. 

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

In the case of environment, the Union’s competence is shared. 

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined in 
Article  3  TFEU1.  It  is  the  specific  legal  basis  which  determines  whether  the  proposal  falls  under  the 
subsidiarity  control  mechanism.  Article  4  TFEU2  sets  out  the  areas  where  competence  is  shared 
between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets out the areas for which the Unions 
has competence only to support the actions of the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 24: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is  there  a  detailed  statement  with  qualitative  and,  where  possible,  quantitative  indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

In order to collect evidence and ensure greater transparency, the Commission first invited feedback 
on  an  inception  impact  assessment,  outlining  the  initial  considerations  and  policy  options  of  the 
revision5.  The  Commission  then  organised  an  online  public  consultation,  receiving  almost  500 
replies6.  To  support  the  initiative  concerning  carbon  pricing  for  maritime  transport,  a  targeted 
stakeholder survey was carried out accompanied by a targeted interview programme7.  

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN  
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN  
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML  
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  
5 The inception impact assessment was open for feedback from 29 October 2020 to 26 November 2020 and 
received about 250 contributions. The outcome can be found on the following website: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12660-Updating-the-EU-Emissions-
Trading-System.  
6 This was open for 12 weeks from 13 November 2020 to 5 February 2021. The outcome can be found on the 
following website: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12660-Updating-
the-EU-Emissions-Trading-System/public-consultation.  

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
In addition, the Commission held (virtual) bilateral and multilateral stakeholder meetings, including 
with industry representatives across different sectors, trade unions, non-governmental organisations 
and  Member  States  and  participated  in  virtual  conferences.  Finally,  the  Commission  instructed  a 
contractor to organise two expert workshops8 on the review of the Market Stability Reserve (MSR). 
The results  of the  consultation activities are  reported in the impact  assessment  accompanying this 
proposal.  

Articles 191 to 193 of the TFEU confirm and specify EU competencies in the area of climate change. 
Climate  change  is  a  trans-boundary  problem,  which  cannot  be  solved  by  national  or  local  action 
alone. Coordination of climate action must be taken at European level and, where possible, at global 
level. EU action is justified on grounds of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European 
Union.  Since  1992,  the  European  Union  has  worked  to  develop  joint  solutions  and  drive  forward 
global  action  to  tackle  climate  change.  More  specifically,  action  at  EU  level  will  provide  for  cost 
effective  delivery  of  the  2030  and  long-term  emission  reduction  objectives  while  ensuring  fairness 
and environmental integrity.  

In  light  of  the  emission  reduction  target  for  2030,  and  in  the  perspective  of  the  climate  neutrality 
objective to be achieved by 2050, stronger EU action is needed.  

The explanatory memorandum of the proposal, and the impact assessment under chapter 3, contain 
sections on the principle of subsidiarity.   

2.2 Does  the  explanatory  memorandum  (and  any  impact  assessment)  accompanying  the 
Commission’s  proposal  contain  an  adequate  justification  regarding  the  conformity  with  the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

Yes,  they  do.  The  explanatory  memorandum  (as  well  as  the  accompanying  impact  assessment) 
explain that climate change is by its very nature a trans-boundary challenge that cannot be solved by 
national  or  local  action  alone.  Coordinated  EU  action  can  effectively  supplement  and  reinforce 
national and local action and enhances climate action.  

Although initiatives at the national, regional and local level can create synergies, alone they will not 
be sufficient. On their own, individual Member States’ carbon markets would represent too small a 
market  to  achieve  the  same  level  of  results.  Therefore,  an  EU  wide  approach  is  needed  to  drive 
industry level changes and to create economies of scale. 

2.3 Based  on  the  answers  to  the  questions  below,  can  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

This proposal aims increase  the  contribution of emissions trading in a manner commensurate with 
the overall EU emissions reduction target of at least 55% for 2030. This objective cannot be achieved 
by the Member States alone as it requires cost-efficient emissions reductions across the Union and 
increased resources that can only be achieved through the EU-level carbon market. 

(a)  Are  there  significant/appreciable  transnational/cross-border  aspects  to  the  problems  being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

7 The stakeholder survey run from December 2020 and February 2021, and the targeted interview programme 
from January 2021 to February 2021. 
8 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/expert-workshop-market-stability-reserve_en, 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/2nd-expert-workshop-market-stability-reserve_en.  

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Climate  change  is  a  trans-boundary  problem  and  both  international  and  EU  action  can  effectively 
complement and reinforce regional, national and local action. The European Climate Law9, as agreed 
by  the  co-legislators,  makes  the  EU’s  climate  neutrality  target  legally  binding,  and  raises  the  2030 
ambition by setting a target of at least 55% net emission reductions by 2030 compared to 1990. The 
EU  Emissions  Trading  System  (ETS)  covers  41%  of  the  EU's  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  The 
environmental contribution of the  ETS needs to be  increased in a manner commensurate  with the 
overall EU target for 2030. If the legislation remains unchanged, sectors currently covered by the ETS 
would together achieve a 2030 emission reduction of 51% compared to 2005 (see Section 5.1 of the 
impact assessment). This would be an insufficient contribution to an overall target of -55% compared 
to  1990.  The  policy  scenarios  that  achieve  around  55%  reductions  project  a  cost-effective 
contribution of the sectors currently covered by the ETS in the range of -62-63% compared to 2005. 

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty10 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

Urgent  economy-wide  emission  reductions  to  combat  climate  change  are  necessary  to  fulfil  the 
objectives  of  Article  192  TFUE,  of  preserving,  protecting  and  improving  the  quality  of  the 
environment, protecting human health, as well as to promote measures at international level to deal 
climate change. The absence of EU level action could lead to ‘environmental dumping’ between the 
Member States, where Member States compete for the least stringent  climate change measures to 
benefit their own economies, damaging the internal market and weakening climate action. An urgent 
climate  transition  requires  a  high  degree  of  investments.  As  a  result,  foregoing  the  benefits  of 
economies  of  scale  and  the  possibility  of  reducing  emissions  where  they  are  more  cost-effective, 
would result in a slower climate transition due to increased costs and less available funds. 

(c)  To  what  extent  do  Member  States  have  the  ability  or  possibility  to  enact  appropriate 

measures? 

Member States are able to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are under the scope of the 
EU  ETS  through  other  policies  than  emission  limits  adopted  pursuant  to  Directive  2010/75/EU. 
However,  they  are  not  able  to  establish  an  EU-level  carbon  market.  In  particular,  national  action 
remains  important  in  the  areas  of  buildings  and  road  transport,  for  which  a  separate  EU  level 
emissions  trading  system  is  proposed  as  additional  economic  incentive  to  achieve  cost-effective 
emission reductions. 

(d)  How  does  the  problem  and  its  causes  (e.g.  negative  externalities,  spill-over  effects)  vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

The  effects  of  raising  the  contribution  of  emissions  trading  towards  a  higher  emissions  reduction 
target will not be felt equally across the EU, as their starting point in terms of the emissions in the 
sectors covered by the Directive are not the same. Some Member States will be more affected than 
others. Increasing the contribution of the ETS to achieve the revised target will require investments 
in  the  energy  systems  and  the  greening  of  industrial  processes  in  Member  States  where 
modernisation needs are already the highest. Regions and local communities in which employment is 
linked to fossil fuel production are impacted more significantly than others. Furthermore, there are 
distributional concerns within Member  States, as low-income households across the EU will bear a 

9 Regulation (EU) 2021/... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... establishing the framework for 
achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European 
Climate Law’) (OJ L ...). 
10 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
                                                           
relatively  higher  burden  notably  in  terms  of  heating  fuel  expenses  compared  to  wealthier 
households.  Hence,  there  are  likely  to  be  different  distributional  issues  that  emerge  if  the  EU 
emissions  trading  is  expanded  to  new  sectors.  At  the  same  time,  there  will  be  also  positive  social 
impacts,  like  an  improvement  concerning  health  issues  linked  with  air  pollution.  In  addition, 
emissions trading generates auction revenues which can be used by Member States to address these 
problems, including if there were specific problems at regional or local level.  

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

The need to address climate change is widespread across the EU.  

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

The ETS Directive establishes a carbon market in the EU, without specific targets per Member State. 
Emission  reductions  take  place  where  they  are  most  cost-efficient.  Nevertheless,  the  ETS Directive 
includes measures to mitigate the distributional and social effects of the ETS explained in point 2.3(d) 
above, reinforced by the proposal. Notably, the ETS Directive includes: 

- 

-  A solidarity redistribution provision consisting of the redistribution of 10% of the auctioned 
allowances to 16 low income MS (around 5% of the current overall cap or around 700 million 
allowances over the 2021-30 period) 
The Modernisation Fund (up to 2025, 2% of the overall cap or around 275 million allowances 
over the 2021-30 period, from 2026 onwards 4% of the cap). 
150  million  allowances  issued  under  the  new  emissions  trading  system  for  road  transport 
and buildings will be made available to increase the current Innovation Fund of 450 million 
allowances to stimulate the green transition. 

- 

-  Article  10c  derogation applying to 10 low  income  Member States that can opt to give free 
allocation (of up to 40% of their regular auction volume) to investments in power generation 
for the modernisation of the energy sector (totalling about 630 million allowances over the 
2021-30 period).  
[CBAM] 

- 

In addition, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 establishes a market stability reserve for the ETS with an intake 
until  2025  that  is  only  based  on  the  90%  regular  auctioning  shares,  exempting  the  10%  solidarity 
shares.  The  proposed  new  Regulation  on  a  social  facility  for  climate  action  addresses  the  social 
impacts of carbon pricing in the new emissions trading system for buildings and road transport. 

(g)  How  do  the  views/preferred  courses  of  action  of  national,  regional  and  local  authorities 

differ across the EU? 

The ETS is widely supported across the Union. The different views or preferred courses of action do 
not relate to the use of the ETS in itself, but to aspects of its design. 

2.4 Based  on  the  answer  to  the  questions  below,  can  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  be 
better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

The  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  be  better  achieved  at  Union  level  by  reason  of  the  cost-
efficiency  of  emissions  reductions,  coherence  of  EU  action,  preserved  functioning  of  the  internal 
market and strengthened EU position to foster global action on climate change. 

(a)  Are there clear benefits from EU level action?  

Yes. The benefits from EU level actions relate to the economies of scale and improvement of the EU 
internal  market  explained  below.  In  addition,  EU  action  can  also  inspire  and  pave  the  way  for  the 

4 

 
 
 
development of market based measures at global level, e.g. as regards the maritime transport within 
International  Maritime  Organisation.  EU  action  also  allows  the  EU  to  have  a  stronger  position 
internationally to apply a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which will be based on the ETS to 
ensure compliance with the World Trade Organisation rules.  

(b)  Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 

benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

Yes.  As  a  carbon  market,  the  ETS  incentivises  emission  reductions  to  be  made  by  the  most  cost-
efficient solutions first across the activities it covers, achieving greater efficiency by virtue of its scale. 
Implementing  a  similar  measure  nationally  would  result  in  smaller,  fragmented  carbon  markets, 
risking distortions of competition and likely lead to higher overall abatement costs. The same  logic 
holds for the extension of carbon pricing to new sectors. 

Many  of  the  policy  elements  of  the  proposal  have  an  important  internal  market  dimension,  in 
particular  the  options  related  to  the  carbon  leakage  protection  and  the  low-carbon  funding 
mechanisms.  

(c)  What  are  the  benefits  in  replacing  different  national  policies  and  rules  with  a  more 

homogenous policy approach? 

The  benefits  of  a  more  homogenous  approach  are  highlighted  in  point  2.4(b)  above.  Emission 
reductions  take  place  where  they  are  most  cost-effective,  thus  reducing  the  overall  cost  of  the 
climate  transition  for  the  EU.  Emissions  reductions  also  take  place  without  distorting  the  internal 
market,  and  preventing  environmental  dumping.  As  highlighted  in  point  2.3(c)  above,  for  the  new 
ETS for buildings and road transport, the aim is not to replace but to complement national policies. 

(d)  Do the  benefits  of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence  of the Member States 
and the  local and regional authorities (beyond the costs  and benefits of acting at national, 
regional and local levels)? 

The benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States and the local 
and  regional  authorities,  because  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  is  fundamentally  a  trans-
boundary  issue  that  requires  urgent  effective  action  at  the  largest  possible  scale.  The  EU,  as  a 
supranational organisation is well-placed to establish effective climate policy  in the EU. Concretely, 
the  benefits  are  the  cost-efficiency  of  emissions  reductions,  coherent  EU  action,  preserved 
functioning of the  internal market  and strengthened EU position to foster global action on climate 
change.  

(e)  Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

Yes.  The  wording  of  several  provisions  is  improved  (e.g.  Article  10a(8)  of  the  ETS  Directive  on  the 
Innovation Fund). 

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1  Does  the  explanatory  memorandum  (and  any  impact  assessment)  accompanying  the 
Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the 
proposal  and  a  statement  allowing  appraisal  of  the  compliance  of  the  proposal  with  the 
principle of proportionality? 

Yes.  The  explanatory  memorandum  (as  well  as  the  accompanying  impact  assessment)  explain  that 
this  proposal  complies  with  the  proportionality  principle  because  it  does  not  go  beyond  what  is 

5 

 
 
 
necessary in order to achieve the Union’s objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-
effective manner, while ensuring fairness and environmental integrity.   
The  European  Climate  Law  has  endorsed  an  overall  economy-wide  and  domestic  reduction  in 
greenhouse gas emissions of at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.  
All  options  analysed  for  the  strengthening  of  the  existing  ETS  are  based  on  the  already  existing 
instrument, the ETS Directive. The initiative is limited to ETS adjustment needs that are triggered by 
this increased emissions reduction target of at least 55%. 
The instrument of emissions trading ensures that additional costs for industry due to the increased 
level of ambition of the EU’s climate policies are expected to be kept to a minimum, given that the 
ETS incentivises emissions reduction by operators with the lowest  abatement costs. Moreover, the 
use of the existing instruments minimises any additional administrative costs. 

3.2 Based  on  the  answers  to  the  questions  below  and  information  available  from  any  impact 
assessment,  the  explanatory  memorandum  or  other  sources,  is  the  proposed  action  an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The proposal is the appropriate way forward to ensure that the sectors currently under the ETS, and 
those  to  which  the  system  is  extended,  contribute  to  the  reduction  of  emissions  in  line  with  the 
increased EU emissions reduction target for 2030. It reinforces a carbon pricing mechanism that has 
proved to be effective  for those sectors already  covered by the  ETS, and extends it to sectors that 
currently are not reducing their emissions sufficiently, building on the lessons from the successfully 
established existing ETS. 

(a)  Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on 

their own, and where the Union can do better? 

Yes, the proposal is limited to a carbon pricing system in those sectors previously under the EU ETS, 
and  those  sectors  that  in  the  absence  of  additional  measures  would  not  decrease  as  much  as 
required to be  on a path to achieve  an economy-wide  55%  reduction in emissions (buildings, road 
transport, and the maritime sectors). These sectors are subject to regulatory measures but generally 
not  subject  to  a  carbon  price  and  may  therefore  not  be  sufficiently  incentivised  to  reduce  their 
emissions.  Carbon  pricing  is  only  one  of  the  policies  that  will  be  necessary  to  achieve  the  level  of 
emissions reductions required; Member States should make use of additional measures to trigger the 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 

(b)  Is  the  form  of  Union  action  (choice  of  instrument)  justified,  as  simple  as  possible,  and 
coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the objectives 
pursued  (e.g.  choice  between  regulation,  (framework)  directive,  recommendation,  or 
alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

The objectives of this proposal can be best pursued through a Directive. This is the most appropriate 
legal instrument to make amendments to the existing ETS Directive.  
A Directive requires Member States to achieve the objectives and implement the measures into their 
national  substantive  and  procedural  law  systems.  This  approach  gives  the  Member  States  more 
freedom when implementing an EU measure than does a Regulation, in that Member States are left 
the choice of the most appropriate means of implementing the measures in the Directive. This allows 
Member States to ensure that the amended rules are consistent with their existing substantive and 
procedural  legal  framework  implementing  the  EU  ETS,  in  particular  regulating  permits  for 
installations as well as enforcement measures and penalties.  

(c)  Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while achieving 
satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to minimum 

6 

 
 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

Yes, as a Directive is used, leaving to Member States the decision on how to achieve the objectives 
set out in Directive, where uniform conditions of implementation are not needed. For example, the 
ETS Directive leaves to the Member States the choice of excluding smaller installations under certain 
conditions,  or  of  unilaterally  including  additional  activities  and  gases.  A  less  stringent  policy 
instrument  would  not  be  adequate  to  establish  an  EU  carbon  market,  that  requires  a  common 
framework applying to all the Union to ensure equivalent application in all Member States. Else, the 
benefits of cost-efficient emissions reductions and prevention of environmental dumping would not 
be achieved. 

(d)  Does  the 

initiative  create  financial  or  administrative  cost  for  the  Union,  national 
governments,  regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs 
commensurate with the objective to be achieved? 

The  EU  ETS  generates  significant  revenues.  At  present  most  of  those  auction  revenues  accrue  to 
Member  States.  The  proposal  affects  national  budgets  and  administrations  primarily  because  it 
provides for the transfer of a share of ETS auction revenues to the EU budget. This is in line with the 
inter-institutional agreement  of 16 December 202011, which requires the Commission to propose  a 
limited own resource based on the EU ETS by mid-202112.  
Nevertheless, national budgets of Member States will benefit from the extension of the EU ETS scope 
to maritime transport and from the new emissions trading for road transport and buildings.  
The secure operation of the Union registry is funded from the Union budget. Extending the ETS scope 
to  maritime  transport  and  the  new  ETS  for  road  transport  and  buildings  will  require  additional 
resources  for  the  secure  operation  of  the  Union  registry,  as  specified  in  the  financial  statement 
accompanying  this  proposal.  These  resources  will  be  made  available  through  redeployment  in  the 
light of the budgetary and staffing constraints for European Public Administration under the current 
Multiannual Financial Framework while related operational expenditure will be funded with the LIFE 
programme envelope. IT development  and procurement choices  will be  subject to pre-approval by 
the European Commission Information Technology and Cybersecurity Board.  
Financial  and  administrative  costs  are  limited  for  those  sectors  already  covered  by  the  ETS.  The 
covered  entities,  have  become  very  familiar  with  the  ETS’s  annual  compliance  cycle  based  on 
obligations related monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions. Compliance with these rules 
is  almost  100%.  This  also  holds  for  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  various  implementing 
tasks, such as the issuing of emission permits, the assessment of monitoring plans and emission data, 
as well as the allocation of free allowances. 
A strengthening of the ETS does not affect these regular activities. However, as ambition increases 
and  free  allocation  starts  to  decrease,  industrial  players  may  choose  to  become  more  active 
participants  on  the  carbon  market,  increasing  their  hedging  behaviour  to  better  manage  their 
compliance costs. 
The situation is different for the new sectors to which emissions trading may be extended. 
With  regard  to  the  maritime  sector,  the  regulated  entities,  i.e.  the  ship-owners  will  already  be 
familiar  with  the  dedicated  rules  on  monitoring,  reporting  and  verification  of  emissions  for  their 
sector.  These  activities  will  have  to  be  complemented  by  allowance  management  to  ensure  a 
sufficient number of allowances is acquired and surrendered in time. 
The regulated entities in the road transport and buildings sector have no experience with emissions 
trading or its practical implications. Putting the obligation upstream on the tax warehouses and on 

11 
12 
resources of the European Union (COM(2021) xxxx).  

OJ L 433I , 22.12.2020, p. 28–46 
Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 on the system of own 

7 

 
 
                                                           
fuel  suppliers  implies  however  that  those  entities  usually  have  experience  in  dealing  with  fuel 
taxation and related administrative procedures. Additional administrative tasks will be related to the 
particularities  of  an  emissions  trading  system,  such  as  obtaining  a  GHG  emissions  permit;  opening 
and maintaining registry account(s), complying with monitoring, reporting and verification rules; and 
the  timely  purchasing  and  surrendering  of  allowances.  No  free  allocation  is  envisaged  for  these 
sectors, hence the implementation for national authorities is simplified.  Member States could decide 
to establish as the competent authority for the new sectors the same as the one actually responsible 
for the current EU ETS, reducing the administrative burden and benefitting from synergies. 

(e)  While  respecting  the  Union  law,  have  special  circumstances  applying  in  individual  Member 

States been taken into account? 

Yes, see point 2.2.(f). 

8