EU vs UK ETS Stability: Is a Price-Based Mechanism the Answer to Volatility?

As the European carbon market reels from Italy’s call for a suspension and the resultant crash in EUA prices to €70.96, a structural flaw in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) has been laid bare. The EU’s primary stabilizer—the Market Stability Reserve (MSR)—is a quantity-based instrument designed for a decade of oversupply, not a price-based instrument designed for a decade of volatility.

With the "Friends of Industry" bloc demanding protections against price spikes, eyes are turning across the Channel. The UK ETS operates a Price-Based Cost Containment Mechanism (CCM) that theoretically offers exactly the kind of "circuit breaker" European industrials are clamoring for.

However, for traders and compliance officers looking for a silver bullet to calm volatility, the UK experience offers a sobering lesson: a mechanism that exists on paper but requires political discretion to activate may be no protection at all.

The MSR’s Blind Spot: Volume vs. Value

The current crisis, triggered by political uncertainty rather than fundamental abatement costs, highlights the rigidity of the EU’s MSR. The MSR operates mechanically based on the Total Number of Allowances in Circulation (TNAC). When the TNAC exceeds 833 million, the MSR absorbs supply; when it falls below 400 million, it releases it.

While effective at draining the historical surplus—reducing the glut from 2.1 billion in 2013 to 1.14 billion in 2024—the MSR is price-agnostic. It does not care if EUAs trade at €50 or €150. Furthermore, it operates on a significant lag, with TNAC calculations and adjustments occurring on annual cycles.

In a market crashing 20% in a month due to political signaling, the MSR is effectively asleep at the wheel. It cannot intervene intra-year to arrest a price collapse, nor can it inject liquidity immediately if prices spike due to a cold snap. This "volatility vacuum" is precisely what Italy and the chemical sector are currently protesting.

The UK Alternative: A Price-Based Circuit Breaker

The UK ETS, born from the EU system but severed by Brexit, took a different path. It retained a mechanism explicitly tied to price levels, not just volume.

The UK’s Cost Containment Mechanism (CCM) triggers if the average allowance price for six consecutive months is more than 3x the average price of the preceding two years. If triggered, the UK ETS Authority has the discretion to intervene by:

• Redistributing allowances from future auctions to the current year.
• Releasing allowances from the New Entrant Reserve.
• Auctioning unallocated allowances.

For EU industrials facing a volatile transition to net zero, this looks like the Holy Grail: an explicit regulatory ceiling that prevents compliance costs from detaching from economic reality. With EU-UK linkage negotiations slated to target a 2028 connection, harmonization of these stability mechanisms is becoming a central negotiating point.

The "Paper Tiger" Problem: Discretion is Risk

However, the UK experience reveals a critical flaw in price-based mechanisms: Political Discretion.

Unlike the EU MSR, which is rule-based and automatic (providing certainty to traders), the UK CCM is discretionary. The regulator can intervene, but is not required to.

We have empirical evidence of how this plays out. The UK CCM has triggered twice since the scheme’s inception:

1. December 2021: Prices breached the threshold.
2. January 2022: Prices remained breached.

In both instances, the UK ETS Authority declined to intervene. Their justification was that the high prices reflected "fundamental market drivers"—specifically gas prices and genuine scarcity—rather than speculative manipulation.

This creates a paradox for market participants. A price-based mechanism exists to prevent excessive costs, but if the regulator deems those costs "fundamentally justified," the protection evaporates. For a compliance officer hedging forward exposure, a discretionary mechanism is impossible to model. It introduces "stroke of the pen" risk, where the value of a portfolio depends on the mood of a minister rather than market fundamentals.

The Hybrid Future: ETS2 and the 2026 Review

Despite the UK mechanism’s untested nature regarding actual intervention, the EU is already drifting toward price-based controls. The design for ETS2 (covering buildings and road transport, launching 2027-28) includes a more aggressive stability mechanism.

The European Commission’s proposal for ETS2 includes a "top-up" feature where additional allowances are released if the price exceeds €45 (indexed to inflation). This is a de facto admission that quantity-based measures alone are insufficient for politically sensitive sectors.

As the EU ETS Review kicks off in the second half of 2026, we expect a push to import similar logic into the main ETS (ETS1). The "Friends of Industry" bloc will likely argue that if ETS2 gets a price ceiling to protect households, heavy industry deserves a similar guardrail to prevent deindustrialization.

Implications for Carbon Portfolios

For market professionals, the potential introduction of a UK-style price trigger into the EU ETS introduces a binary risk profile:

1. The Ceiling Effect: If a price-based release mechanism is codified, it effectively caps the upside for speculative long positions. The era of "to the moon" price forecasts (e.g., €150+) becomes capped by regulatory supply injections.
2. The Liquidity Lag: If the EU adopts a discretionary model like the UK, expect increased volatility around trigger points. Traders will test the regulator’s resolve, pushing prices to the threshold to see if the Commission blinks.

Furthermore, the divergence in prices—€70.96 for EUAs vs. a UK penalty price of £49.41 (€58.80)—creates a complex arbitrage landscape ahead of potential 2028 linking. If the UK maintains a discretionary ceiling while the EU relies on the slow-moving MSR, linking becomes technically hazardous. A spike in the EU could drain UK liquidity unless the mechanisms are harmonized.

The UK's CCM looks attractive in a slide deck, but in the trading pit, it has proven to be a phantom. As Europe debates market reform, it must decide whether it wants the false comfort of a discretionary ceiling or the brutal, but predictable, discipline of a quantity-based cap.

---

What to Watch

• Article 29a Amendments: Watch for proposed changes to Article 29a of the EU ETS Directive during the upcoming review. This is the current (weak) price trigger mechanism. Any move to make this automatic rather than discretionary is a major bearish signal.
• UK Authority Statements: The UK ETS Authority is under pressure to prove the CCM works. If UK prices spike again in late 2026, watch for the first actual intervention—this would set a precedent for EU-UK linking talks.
• ETS2 Final Rules: The finalization of the ETS2 stability mechanism will act as a blueprint for ETS1 reform. If the €45 soft cap is hardened, expect similar structures to be proposed for industrial allowances.