『온실가스 배출권의 할당 및 거래에 관한 법률』과 『제1차 기본계획』에 의하면 거래제도의 설계 시, 제도 도입에 따른 기업의 시장지위 변화를 최소화하는 방향으로 이루어져야 한다. 본연구는 쿠로노 복점에 기초한 이론모형 분석을 통해 배출권의 회계처리 방식에 따라 기업의 자본· 부채 비율, 자본비용, 그리고 기업의 시장지위가 변할 수 있으며, 그 결과 사회후생효과 측면에서 차이가 발생할 수 있음을 보여준다. 분석결과에 따르면, 1기 배출권거래제의 할당방식 (무상할당)과 가장 보편적으로 이용되는 회계처리방식(무상할당된 배출권을 무형자산으로 인식하고 그 가치를 0으로 계상하는 방식)이 결합될 경우, 기업의 시장지위에 미치는 영향을 최소화할 수 있다. 이어지는 분석을 통해 본 연구는 이 방식이 자산시장을 통해 감축신호가 기업에 전달되지 않으면서 거래제도의 도입목적인 비용효과적 감축에는 한계를 가진 회계처리방식임을 보여준다.

A more detailed design of offset system is needed according to the emission trading system started in 2015. This study aims to estimate the supply of potential offset that can be secured by expanding high-efficiency household electric appliances. The target commodities for analysis are three different householding electric appliances: TV, washing machine, electric fan, refrigerator and air conditioner. By using the ARDL model, we estimated the coefficients of diffusion of these high-efficiency appliances from 2016 to 2022. Then, the potential supply of offset was drawn by calculating the amount of electricity saving by efficiency improvement and by applying the rates of carbon exchange. Supposing that the electricity savings rates of high-efficiency appliances are each 10% and 20%, the accumulated carbon decrement in 2022 was respectively 361,899CO2t and 723,797CO2t. The appliance that showed the biggest carbon decrement was air conditioner, and the second biggest was refrigerator and the next was TV, followed by washing machine, electric fanABSTRACT : According to Law on Allocation and Trading of GHG Allowances of 2013 in Korea as well as the 2014 National Master Plan for Korean Emissions Trading System, the System should be designed to minimize the change in the market positions of the affected firms. In this paper, we investigate how that principle might become ineffective by the ways of distributing allowances and applying different accounting methods using a Cournot duopoly model. Although the way of allocating allowances freely to firms combined with accounting them for having no values would minimize their market positions, it would not the most cost-effective way of GHG reduction since it does not provide financial market with accurate informations..