碳交易會計處理之研究

The accounting treatments for carbon trading

林昱齊(Yu-Chi Lin)

指導教授 ： 蔡彥卿

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/會計學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.02413

摘要

目前全球規模最大的碳交易機制類型為「總量管制與交易機制」。在總量管制與交易機制下，機制管理員對國內排放量設定「總量」水準，並要求國內企業在特定期間內將排放量壓制總量水準內。政府將「總量」分成許多單位的「排放配額」後，再分配給企業，每一單位的排放配額給予企業排放「特定」數量的汙染物的權利。在遵循期間結束時，企業須依其排放量提交排放配額給機制管理員，若提交不足，則將遭受罰款，且須於隔年補足差額。
現行針對「總量管制與交易機制」的會計指引共有兩份。其一是美國聯邦管理委員會下的標準會計制度，該指引將排放配額視為存貨處理，且未要求企業認列任何負債。其二則是國際財務報導準則解釋委員會所訂定的IFRIC 3，該指引將排放配額視為無形資產。此外，IFRIC 3要求企業在排放二氧化碳時即認列為負債。然而，由於損益配比不當的問題，IASB撤銷IFRIC 3，並決定將「排放權交易計畫」加入討論議程，以提供會計指引供企業依循。
於2007年12月份的會議中，IASB決定與FASB聯手討論此議題。經過多次的聯合會議後，兩理事會暫定將購買取得與核發取得的排放配額認列為資產。理事會也暫訂當企業自政府收受無償之排放配額時，企業應認列負債，分配排放配額即為義務事件。此外，理事會暫定資產與負債的衡量基礎應一致，購買取得的排放配額期初與後續應依公允價值衡量。至於資產與負債表達的部分，FASB理事會暫定資產與負債應採連結基礎表達，IASB偏好在財務狀況表上總額表達，但他們也指出不反對連結基礎表達。
本論文最後以研擬一套會計指引作為結論。對於一般企業的部分，本論文以IFRIC 3為藍圖，並依癥結點做修改。資產部分，核發取得之排放配額依取得日公允價值認列，後續採成本模式；購買取得之排放配額依成本認列，後續採公允價值模式衡量。負債部分，義務事件的判定維持原貌，但將負債區分為兩部分，其一是排放量未超過配額額度內之排放負債，其依配額核發日之公允價值認列，後續不再依公允價值衡量。至於超量排放的部分則以公允價值認列並做後續衡量。政府補助的部分維持原貌。

關鍵字

京都議定書 ； 碳(權)交易 ； 總量管制與交易機制

並列摘要

“Cap and trade” is so far the largest scheme in the world which permits to emit carbon. Under the cap and trade scheme, a scheme administrator sets an overall cap on the amount of emissions that may be released during specified time periods. The overall cap is implemented by issuing emission allowances to emit. Each “emission allowance” grants a right to emit a certain amount of regulated pollutant. At the end of the compliance year, participants must offset their emissions by remitting to the scheme administrator emission allowances equal to their actual emissions. A regulated entity not holding enough offsets at the due date will be fined for each excess unit of emissions, and it has to make up for the shortfall the next compliance year.
There are two guidelines for the cap and trade scheme. One is the Uniform System of Accounts issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which treats allowances as inventories and requires no recognition of liabilities. The other is IFRIC 3 issued by International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC), which sees allowances as intangible assets . According to IFRIC 3, the entities should recognize a liability only as emissions occur. However, because of the mismatch in profit or loss, IFRIC 3 was withdrawn by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). After that, the board added this issue to its agenda to provide guidance for regulated entities .
At the meeting of December 2007, the IASB determined to deal with this issue in cooperation with the FASB. After several discussion, the FASB and the IASB tentatively decided that purchased and allocated allowances should be recognized as assets, and that a liability exists when allowances are given gratis by the government. The obligation event in this case is the allocation of allowances. Besides, the boards concluded that the allocated allowances and the liability for the allocation should be measured on a consistent basis, and that the purchased allowances should be initially and subsequently measured at fair value. In regard to the presentation of assets and liabilities, the FASB claimed that the assets and liabilities should be presented in the balance sheet in the form of linked presentation. However, the IASB preferred the form of gross presentation in the statement of financial position, but they indicated that they would not object to linked presentation.
In the end, we try to draft guidance as a conclusion. For participants, we suggest applying to IFRIC 3 with some amendment. Firstly, allocated allowances shall be measured initially at fair value and no measurement is required thereafter. In contrast, purchased allowances shall be initially and subsequently measured at fair value. Secondly, obligation events remain the same, but the recognized liability is divided into two parts. One is the liability arising from emissions which do not excess allocated allowances. For this part, liability is recognized at fair value at the allocation date and no subsequent measurement is required. The other is the liability arising from emissions in excess of allocated allowances. As to the part, liability is recognized at fair value at the purchased date and the following measurement is required. Lastly, the allowances given gratis by the government remain the same.

並列關鍵字

Kyoto Protocol ； carbon trading ； cap and trade scheme

參考文獻

1. Forest valuation under carbon pricing : a real options approach / Richard Meade, Glenn Boyle, Lewis Evans

(五) 會計研究發展基金會

4. Carbon finance : the financial implications of climate change / Sonia Labatt, Rodney R. White

2. Carbon coalitions : business, climate politics, and the rise of emissions trading / Jonas Meckling

3. Handbook of carbon offset programs : trading systems, funds, protocols and standards / Anja Kollmuss ... [et al.]