排污权交易计划的关会计问题

在欧盟排放交易体系（EU ETS）构成了“总量控制与交易”计划。例如，不仅计划适用于碳密集型行业在ETS如发电的开始，也是它包括航空产业。特别是，如果实体或产业交出排放配额的相应数目，它们可以允许二氧化碳排放到大气中。The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (Eu ETS) constitutes ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme. For example, not only the scheme applies to carbon-intensive industries at the inception of ETS such as electricity generation, but also it includes the aviation industries. In particular, if entities or industries surrender a corresponding number of emissions allowances, they can be allowed to emit carbo dioxide into the atmosphere. 

由于排放许可条件的流通，大部分公司包括覆盖设施的经营者承认他们在免费接收并以成本为无形资产的碳交易市场，这是记录为相应的信贷进入临时承担责任或现金购买它们。其实实体都不愿透露与无形资产摊销，即，人民币升值和损伤的做法。因此，当它们发出的排放实体将认识到利润表中的成本和临时责任。在投降碳权等方面，实体始终承认其帐户与相应的信贷项无形资产临时负债。对于解决这一问题的目的，大多数企业通常采用IAS 8实现和发展自己的会计政策（澳洲会计师公会，2008年）。由于政策和实践方面的认可和不同企业之间排放配额的测量是相当的多样性和矛盾，导致公司的财务报表阻碍可比性。换句话说，碳权的各种治疗会给上升到财务报表，，如识别资产，负债和损益（KPMG，2008）的时序材料或波动的影响。Since emission allowances are tradable, most companies including operators of covered installations recognize them received at free of charge and purchased them at cost as intangible assets on carbon markets, which is recorded as a corresponding credit entry to a provisional liability or to cash. Actually the entities are unwilling to disclose the practices relating to the intangible assets i.e. amortization, revaluation and impairments. Hence, the entities will recognise the cost in income statement and a provisional liability when they emit emissions. In the aspects of surrendering carbon rights, the entities always recognize its account as a provisional liability with the corresponding credit entry to intangible assets. For the purpose of resolving this issue, most companies usually adopt IAS 8 to implement and develop their own accounting policy(CPA Australia, 2008). Because policies and practice with respect to recognition and measurement of emission allowances among the different companies are considerably diversity and inconsistencies, resulting in impeding the comparability in the financial statements of the companies. In other words, the various treatments of carbon rights would give a rise to material or volatility effects on financial statements such as timing of recognition of assets, liabilities and profits or losses(KPMG, 2008). 

In accordance with the above, emission allowances may be accounted for as intangible assets, government grants and financial instruments(Mackenzie, 2009). There are some investigations of the recognition of allowances during the different stages, which involves receipts of free allowances, purchase of allowances, use of allowances when emitting emissions and surrender of allowances when used allowances are delivered. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) released Carbon Emission Rights (CER or IFRIC3), which aims at providing a guidance on accounting for ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme. IFRIC3 emphasizes some key recommendations, it states CER are intangible assets regardless of whether they are provided for free cost by government or purchased. Furthermore, it stresses CEA should be accounted for in conformity to IAS 38 subsequent to initial recognition, and according to IAS 37 emissions and provisions for relevant liabilities should be recorded ar market value. It also indicates the allowances issued by government is lower than fair value (FV), then the different price paid is a government grant. After that, the grant will recorded as a deferred income in the balance sheet then there is a subsequent and systematic basis in income, and the changes in revalued allowances would be recognized in equity but the movements of emission provision recognized in income statement (KPMG, 2008). Moreover, KPMG propose other important issues, for instance, intangible asset received as a government grant should be measured ar nominal value or FV, emissions occur as an expense in the income statement can be recognised as a provision to ascertain the measurement at the best estimate of expenditure that is required to settle the obligation.

Nature of emission allowances
There takes four opinions in considerations regarding the nature of the emission allowances. Firstly, under Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS 140) emissions allowances are defined as intangible assets as they are lack of physical substance and they cannot meet the requirements of financial assets. Second, some proponents insisted CER were financial assets the allowances can readily convertible to cash from the evidence in the markets of exchanges and trading of the CER. Thirdly, since CER are part of necessary cost in accordance with emissions reduction schemes and environment regulations, they are viewed as inventory. Lastly, CER can be treated as intangible asset or inventory depends on the purpose of use by the entity. It can be inventory if the purpose of entity is for trading and it can be intangible assets if it used for operational intentions. 

In practice, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) classified emission allowances as an intangible asset or a physical commodity. The reason is that the nature of the allowances can preclude the utilizing of an inventory scope exception in paragraph 20(b) of SFAS 153, which purpose is to prevent FV accounting upon transferring in a non-monetary exchange. According to SFAS 153, it can be determined the appropriate accounting through an assess of the “commercial substance” criteria. If FV is involved, it may generate recognition of considerable carrying amount for allowances received and considerable operating gains on allowances given up.


Initial recognition and measurement of emission allowances
Allowances purchased can be recognised at cost which cannot be ignored. The cost not only from allowances acquired through auctioning mechanism but also from the market refers directly to its purchase price. It is controversial issue of the accounting treatment of allocated allowances. In order to meet allowances’ compliance requirements, the entities acquire allowances at no acquisition cost and they are likely to remit a considerable allowances’ share in accordance with EU ETS even though their unmistakable economic value. 

Practically, the primary accounting approaches of allocating allowances can be a government grant or a net liability (Fornaro  et al. 2009) There are two alternative approaches concerning the initial recognition of allocated CER. The first one is recognition at cost (at nil), another one is recognition at FV (the amount for allow-ances can be exchanged between willing and knowledgeable parties in an arm’s length transaction) (Lovell et al. 2010).

(1) Government grant approach--recognition at Fair value.
Under IFRIC 3, this approach would be mandatory that allocated allowances are initially recognized at FV. In this way, in spite of inadequate acquisition cost, it can ascertain to properly reflect economic value of the allowances. In addition, under the net liability approach it can resolve the obstacles of the heterogeneous treatment of emission allowances, i.e. it can recognise purchased allowances on the balance sheet, however the allocated allowances cannot. Therefore, homogeneous assets are treated in the same way under the government grant approach.

If allocated allowances constitute a government grant, it is currently available to initially recognise intangible assets at FV. Since the allowances are valuable and granted in return for compliance in the future with respect of EU ETS, the allocation meets the criteria of definition of a government grant. The recognition of a government grant must complement the FV allowances’ recognition. At the inception, the grant should be recognized at FV of allocated allowances, thereafter it should be de-recognized as income on basis of systematics.

(2) Net liability approach--recognition at cost (at nil).
Using the approach CER are recognized at nominal amount i.e. nil. It complies with the general provisions with appropriate recognition and measurement of assets under IFRS and take consideration in inadequate acquisition costs for allocated allowances. In other words, this approach pursues the recognition of allocated allowances at nil, which are adopted by most participants in EU ETS. 

Subsequent measurement
Emission allowances may be subsequently measured according to the cost model or the revaluation model due to their primary classifications to intangible assets. And the two approaches are likely to ignore whether the allowances were initially recognised at FV or nil.

(1) cost model.
This model emphasis on the initial book value of the assets, which is considered as an upper ceiling for their maximum book value. Allowances are carried at cost, but it does not recognise subsequent increases in the allowances value. Whereas, impairments require a write-down, which must reflect impairment losses in income statement. In addition, impairment tests allowances held for compliance intentions, which is part of a cash-generating unit (CGU). It defined as the smallest identifiable group of assets that can give a rise to cash inflows. Consequently, the impairment loss can only recognised if FV of CGU has dropped. Even though the market price is decreased below the book value, there is no written-down recognised in emission allowances.

(2) Revaluation model.
The model ascertains the reflection of the allowances’ FV. This model indicates allowances are revalued on the basis of FV. Generally, revaluation gains are recorded in profit or loss, the revaluation losses are recognised in other comprehensive income. This model requires existence of an active market. For example, in a liquid carbon market, there has very few types of intangible assets recognised as emission allowances that met the requirements for application of this model. Under the accounting approaches, the measurement models are applicable, emission allowances are classifies as intangible assets irrespective of initial recognition. Whereas, the write down is not available for the initially recognised allowances at nil cost, it still does not provide for a revaluation or write down of the government grant by IAS 20. 

Journal entries occurs in measurements:
Dr Allowance Asset XX
Cr Cash/ Accounts Payable XX
(to record purchase an emission allowance)

Dr Realized Gain on Allowance XX
Cr Unrealized Gain on Allowance XX
(to record adjustments of allowance sold)

Dr Pollution Fine Payable XX
Cr Pollution Fine Expense XX
(to record exceeded emissions levels authorized)

Dr Pollution Fine Expense XX
Cr Pollution Fine Payable/ Cash XX
(to record payment of fine)

Consequences of emission allowances on the financial statements
The consequences of the various accounting treatments for emission allowances is that influence in the various components on the financial statements, including balance sheet, income statement and cash flow statements. This not only accounts for financial performance in the profit or loss, but also indicates how an entity manages their positions in ETS. 

According to IAS 38 Intangible Assets, emission allowances can be considered as an intangible asset and measured at cost or revaluation model. Using the revaluation model, if the emission allowances are measured at FV, there is a mismatch between the recognition of changes in assets and liabilities. As a result, changes in the allowances’ value above cost can be recorded as equity, and changes in the liability are recorded in profit or loss. When an entity purchase an allowance on trading market, it will give rise to “allowance asset” account and decreasein “Cash ” or “Accounts Payable”. Additionally, when an entity utilize an allowance within emitting quantity of pollution authorized, it should decrease in “Allowance Asset”. when an entity sells on an allowance, it will decrease in “Allowance Asset”. 

There are three dominating determinants of balance sheet impacts. First consequence is to permit asset valuation and emission liability recognition and valuation. The other two are the nature of the impairment tests and the use of derivatives. Here is the likely costs of emission allowances influenced in the balance sheet as follows.
 
Furthermore, there are some detailed introduction of a carbon emissions’ cost, which is to impact individual entity income statement (or Profit & Loss Statements) as following table. There has three primary responses to the price on carbon emissions, which may contemplate in combination or isolation. There respectively are minimizing cost impacts, reducing CER and cost pass through to customers. 

The following table shows the introduction of CER’s cost that is to impact individual entity cash flows. If a company exceeds emissions level authorized by held allowances should record a decrease in “Pollution Fine Payable” amount and an increase in “Pollution Fine Expense” amount. 

Reference list文献

CPA  Australia. (2008). Emissions trading and other related policy initiatives.
Fornaro, J., Winkelman, K. and Glodstein, D. (2009), ‘Accounting for Emission: emerging issues and the need for global accounting standards’, Journal of Accountancy, issue 208, no.1, pp. 40–47.
IASB, (2010), ‘IFRS adoption and use around the world’.
International Accounting Standards Board (2004). IFRIC issues guidance on accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and scope of leasing standard, 2014-05.KPMG. (2008). Accounting for carbon – the impact of carbon trading on financial statements. Retrieved on 18th May.
Lovell, H. , Sales de Aguiar, T., Bebbington, J. and Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. (2010), ‘Accounting for Carbon’, ACCA and IETA, Certified Accountant Educational Trust,.
MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 440–455.