An independent Peer review of the study “Ex-post Investigation of Cost Pass-Through in the EU ETS: an analysis of six sectors”

5 July 2016 - Special issues

This I4CE report provides a peer review of the study “Ex-post Investigation of Cost Pass-Though in the EU ETS: an analysis of six sectors” produced by CE-Delft and Oeko Institut and published by the EU Commission in November 2015.

In the discussion on the potential risk of carbon leakage related to the EU ETS and the effect of safeguard measures, the scope for passing through carbon costs in final product prices is deemed a key issue. This study of CE-Delft and Oeko Institut (2015) investigates whether and to what extent ETS-related carbon costs have indeed been passed through into product prices by EU industry across iron and steel, refineries, cement, organic basic chemicals, fertilizer, and glass.

The peer-review of the CE-Delft and Oeko Institut study is produced by I4CE on the basis of the three academic peer reviews mandated by I4CE.

The I4CE Peer review, focused on two only sectors: refineries and basic organic chemicals. concludes that the results of the study cannot be used as direct policy recommendations due to the following three main limitations.

The robustness of the econometric results is not clearly grounded: the claims of the study are only supported at a low confidence level (the chosen confidence interval was 10% while sound econometric practice would require at least 5%).
Moreover, detailed analysis shows that the hypothesis of a cost pass-through is significant (at 10%) only for some products and for some EU countries. The results are heterogeneous and not representative of a conclusion at the EU level for either sector.
The quantitative estimates on the cost pass-through rates are obtained through a simple accounting relationship between input costs and output prices. Economic practice would rather use an explicit price formation model allowing for such factors as trade intensity, market structure and concentration, heterogeneity of competitors, etc… Some of these factors are marginally analyzed in the study without providing clear conclusions. Indeed, without any in-depth statistical analysis, the study cannot establish a statistical significant relationship between market shares and cost pass-through rates. Other explanatory variables such as the role of EUA price volatility and the macroeconomic environment should also have been considered. Altogether the simple relationship used by the study cannot provide a valid estimate of the cost pass through.

An independent Peer review of the study “Ex-post Investigation of Cost Pass-Through in the EU ETS: an analysis of six sectors” Download

To learn more

11/07/2025 Foreword of the week
COP30: On Financing, the Time for Negotiation Is Over

“What agreement will the negotiators reach?” is the question that is usually on climate practitioners’ minds at this time of the year. However, this time, it is a new impetus that is needed, not another agreement. 10 years after the Paris Agreement, the Brazilian COP30 presidency has rightly shifted the focus to execution, making this edition “the implementation COP.” On financing, the objectives set at COP29 are clear: developing countries should receive $300 billion per year by 2035 from developed countries (NCQG), and mobilise $1.3 trillion per year from all actors. The newly published “Baku to Belém” roadmap proposes solutions to meet the targets. We now have objectives and a list of (theoretical) means to achieve them. How do we move to implementation?
11/05/2025 Blog post
From Pledges to Progress: Climate Finance a Decade After Paris

Nearly a decade has passed since the Paris Agreement elevated finance to the heart of the climate agenda, embedding in Article 2.1(c) the ambitious goal of aligning global financial flows with low-emission, climate-resilient development. But for all the talk of “shifting the trillions,” we remain far from course.
10/28/2025
From targets to action: the climate finance agenda needs a new impetus in Belèm

Ten years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, what progress has been made to make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development (the ambition set out in Article 2.1(c) of the Agreement)? And what is needed going forward? Although we still lack a comprehensive assessment of progress, this article draws on existing analysis of what can help align financial flows and examines the efforts made by governments and the financial sector to this end. It highlights a development in the debate towards a country-driven approach and a focus on real investment needs. It explores ways to overcome existing barriers to action despite a challenging global context. The article advocates that Article 2.1(c) should be viewed not as a stand-alone provision, but as something that requires full implementation of all the provisions of the Paris Agreement. It also calls for a shift from a target-focused to an action-focused finance agenda and discusses how the COP30 in Belém can contribute to this.

An independent Peer review of the study “Ex-post Investigation of Cost Pass-Through in the EU ETS: an analysis of six sectors”

COP30: On Financing, the Time for Negotiation Is Over

From Pledges to Progress: Climate Finance a Decade After Paris

From targets to action: the climate finance agenda needs a new impetus in Belèm