Handelssystem för utsläppsrätter används av flertalet länder och områden i ett försök att minska klimatförändringarna. Syftet med dessa handelssystem är att ge företag ekonomiska incitament att minska sina utsläpp av växthusgaser och på så vis gemensamt minska utsläppen på ett kostnadseffektivt sätt. Många av dessa system bygger på en ”cap and trade” princip, d.v.s. ett tak sätts för hur stora utsläppen får vara. För att säkerställa att de sammanlagda utsläppen inte överstiger taket kan företag förvärva utsläppsrätter genom gratis tilldelning eller köp. En utsläppsrätt innebär att företaget kan släppa ut en viss mängd växthusgaser. Företaget måste ha tillräckligt med utsläppsrätter för att täcka sina utsläpp, annars måste de köpa ytterligare utsläppsrätter av andra företag. Tanken är att man genom detta handelssystem gör det möjligt att minska utsläppen till minsta möjliga kostnad. I dagsläget finns det väldigt lite vägledning kring hur företag ska redovisa utsläppsrätter, vilket främst grundar sig i att åsikterna kring vad utsläppsrätter verkligen är går isär. En del hävdar exempelvis att utsläppsrätter ska ses som lager, medan andra hävdar att de är immateriella tillgångar. En argumentation har även först om att utsläppsrätter i grund och botten är rättigheter och därför ska behandlas som sådana i de finansiella rapporterna. I Nordamerika har organisationen FERC gett ut rekommendationer inom området, sedan tillbakadragandet av IFRIC 3 finns dock ingen vägledning i Europa. Syftet med studien är att undersöka hur 104 företag med säte i Nordamerika och Europa redovisar utsläppsrätter i sina finansiella rapporter. Vidare är syftet att fastställa om det finns några skillnader mellan kontinenter samt mellan sektorerna olja och gas, el samt naturgas. Dessutom förs en diskussion om reglering, särskilt i form av ytterligare standarder, kommer att förbättra kvaliteten på den information som delas i de finansiella rapporterna. Enligt tidigare forskning delger företag vanligtvis väldigt lite information gällande utsläppsrätter. Denna slutsats styrks även av vårt resultat då vår studie visar att en stor andel av företagen inte ens nämner utsläppsrätter i sina finansiella rapporter. Vidare har tidigare forskning visat att redovisningen av utsläppsrätter skiljer sig åt när det gäller klassificering såväl som värdering, något som även styrks av vårt resultat. Vårt resultat indikerar även att de skillnader som finns gällande klassificering och värdering delvis kan förklaras av sätes- och sektorstillhörighet men även av en viss påverkan från FERC och IFRIC 3 på respektive kontinent. Utsläppsrätter klassificeras vanligen som lager i Nordamerika och som immateriell tillgång i Europa, detta beror antagligen på att kontinenterna påverkas av FERCs rekommendation respektive IFRIC 3. Den vanligaste värderingsmetoden, på båda kontinenterna, är anskaffningsvärde. Bland de företag som inte använder sig av denna metod är skillnaderna mellan kontinenterna desto större. Resultatet tyder på att företagen vidtar försiktighet på grund av den osäkerhet utsläppsrätterna innebär. Utifrån detta drar vi slutsatsen att det finns stora skillnader i hur nordamerikanska och europeiska företag klassificerar och värderar utsläppsrätter i de finansiella rapporterna. Studien belyser hur val av redovisningsmetoder, gällande utsläppsrätter, skiljer sig åt mellan nordamerikanska och europeiska företag såväl som mellan olika sektorer. Vidare belyser studien hur den bristande regleringen påverkat kvaliteten i de finansiella rapporterna. Användbarheten i de finansiella rapporterna diskuteras även utifrån legitimitets-, intressent- såväl som institutionell teori. / Emission trading schemes are used by several countries and areas with the hope of mitigating climate change. The aim of these schemes is to create economic incentives for companies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and thereby cut the overall emissions cost-effectively. Many of these systems are based on a ”cap and trade” principle where a cap is set on the total amount of emission that can be emitted. To ensure that the overall emissions do not exceed the cap, companies receive, buy or trade emission allowances. These allowances give companies the right to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. The company must have a sufficient amount of allowances to cover the emissions, otherwise they must buy additional allowances from other companies. The idea behind this system is that it will make it possible to reduce emission where it costs less. Currently, there is very little guidance in terms of how companies should account for emission allowances. The main issue is that there are different views of what kind of an asset these allowances are. Some argue, for example, that emission allowances should be viewed as inventory while others argue that they should be seen as intangible assets. Arguments have also been made that these allowances are rights and therefore should be treated as such in the financial reports. In America, the organization FERC has given out some recommendations on the area and since the withdrawal of IFRIC 3, there is no guidance in Europe. The aim of this study is to investigate how 104 companies located in North America (USA and Canada) and Europe account for emission allowances in their financial reports. In addition to this, the study aims to determine whether any differences exist between the continents as well as between the sectors oil and gas, electric utility and natural gas. Furthermore, a discussion will be made whether guidance on the matter, especially in the form of additional standards, will improve the quality of the information in the financial reports. Previous research has concluded that companies usually disclose very little information regarding emission allowances. This conclusion is supported by our findings. Our study shows that many companies do not even mention emission allowances in their financial reports. Furthermore, previous research has concluded that the reporting of emission allowances differs among companies in terms of classification as well as valuation, which is consistent with our findings. Our results indicate that the differences in classification and valuation partly can be explained by location and industry affiliation but also by the influence of FERC and IFRIC 3 on the respective continent. Emission allowances are often classified as inventory in Northern America and as intangibles in Europe, which is probably due to the influence of FERCs recommendation and IFRIC 3. The most common valuation method on both continents are historical cost. Among companies that does not use this method the continental variations are major. These findings suggest that prudence plays a key part due to the uncertainty related to emission allowances. Based on this we conclude that there are major differences between how emission allowances are classified and valued in the financial report of North American and European companies. This study highlights how accounting choices differs among Northern American and European companies as well as among different sectors. Furthermore, this study highlights the lack of regulation and how this affects the quality of the financial reports. The usefulness of the financial reports is also discussed from a legitimacy-, stakeholder- and an institutional perspective.

This article discusses the structure of the electricity supply. This system mainly consists of three subsystems: the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. Each system is comprised of different features like its regulation. Given the above, the author tells us the Peruvian case, on the body called the Committee of Economic Operation of the System (COES). / El presente artículo trata sobre la estructura de la provisión de electricidad. Este sistema consta principalmente de tres subsistemas: la generación, la transmisión, y la distribución de electricidad. Cada sistema está conformado por diferentes características al igual que su regulación. Ante lo mencionado, el autor nos comenta el caso peruano, sobre el organismo llamado Comité de Operación Económica del Sistema (COES).

Bakgrund: Det har uppmärksammats att konsumtionen och efterfrågan av el fortsätter att öka för varje år. Resultatet av det växande behovet har lett till stigande utsläppsnivåer inom energibranschen. Ett sätt för att kontrollera nivåerna av utsläpp är utsläppsrätter. Priset på utsläppsrätter har ökat och förväntas öka ännu mer. Det finns i dagsläget inget gemensamt globalt direktiv om hur utsläppsrätter ska redovisas, däremot finns rekommendationer inom både IFRS och US GAAP om hur de kan klassificeras och värderas i redovisningen. IFRS är en principbaserad redovisningsstandard som är utgiven av IASB, medan US GAAP är en regelbaserad redovisningsstandard som utfärdas av FASB. Syfte: Studiens syfte är att undersöka hur utsläppsrätter redovisas i energibranschen hos europeiska respektive amerikanska företag. Frågeställning: Vilka likheter och skillnader finns mellan klassificering och värdering av utsläppsrätter utifrån IFRS och US GAAP i energibranschen? Metod: I denna studie har en kvantitativ innehållsanalys genomförts där det empiriska materialet utgörs av 31 företags årsredovisningar. Vidare har en kodningsmanual skapats där kategorier kring klassificering och värdering av utsläppsrätter utformats, för att sedan kunna sammanställa datan i ett kodningsschema. Teoretisk referensram: Studiens resultat har med hjälp av legitimitetsteorin och institutionell teori förklarat vad de rådande likheterna och skillnaderna gällande redovisningen av utsläppsrätter i Europa och USA kan bero på. Slutsats: Resultaten visar att de skillnader som finns mellan IFRS och US GAAP i energibranschen är främst klassificering av utsläppsrätter, efterföljande värdering av utsläppsrätter och redovisningen av utsläppsskyldighet. De största likheterna mellan IFRS och US GAAP är värdering av tilldelade utsläppsrätter samt köpta utsläppsrätter. / Background: It has been noticed that the consumption and demand for electricity continues to increase every year. The result of the growing needs has led to rising emission levels in the energy industry. One way to control the levels of emissions is emission rights. The price of emission rights has increased and is expected to increase even more. There is currently no common global directive on how emission rights are to be reported, however, there are recommendations within both IFRS and US GAAP on how they can be classified and valued in the accounts. IFRS is a principle-based accounting standard established by the IASB, while US GAAP is a rules-based accounting standard established by the FASB.  Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the accounting of emission rights in the energy industry between European and American companies.  Question: What are the similarities and differences between the classification and valuation of emission rights between IFRS and US GAAP in the energy industry?  Method: In this study a quantitative content analysis has been implemented where the empirical material consists of 31 companies' annual reports. Furthermore, a coding manual has been created where categories regarding classification and valuation of emission rights have been designed, in order to compile the data in a coding scheme.  Theory: The results of the study have with the help of legitimacy theory and institutional theory explained what the similarities and differences regarding the accounting of emission rights in Europe and the USA may be due to.  Conclusion: The results show that the differences that exist between IFRS and US GAAP in the energy industry are mainly the classification of emission rights, the subsequent valuation of emission rights and the reporting of emission obligations. The biggest similarities between IFRS and US GAAP are the valuation of allocated emission rights and purchased emission rights.

Electricity power is an irreplaceable resource in industry for a country. Enough and steady-offered electricity is also the support to develop not only traditional industry but high technology industry. Taiwan is a place, where is lacking of natural resources. There is only 3 % of which can be self ¡Vcontained. In fact, electricity power plays one of important roles in achieving ¡§Economic Miracle of Taiwan.¡¨ Basically, electricity power embraces three parts of power generation, power transmission, and distribution. And it is managed by the way of vertically integration. Traditionally, electricity power is assorted into public utility because of its huge principal and social resources, even concerning with the economy and society of the country and is governed and controlled by the government. Whatever country promotes electricity liberalization, the government and the academic put their eye on foster the total efficiency of management through market mechanisms. Electricity liberalization has been working for more than twenty years. Of course, there are some successful cases, for example, like England, Australia, and etc. They do benefit from increasing the occurrence, the efficiency, and decrease the price after operating electricity liberalization. As to Taiwan, the government has the same policy on it, too. The amendments are under discussion in The Legislative Yuan. By referencing to electricity liberalization of other countries and comparing their experiences with Taiwan, the questions below are searched in this thesis. First, does the policy in Taiwan really satisfy the essence of electricity liberalization? Second, could power generation, power transmission, and distribution of the electricity industry be operated by vertically integrated way? After electricity liberalization, it is important that how to do could get good combined with competition of the market, the offer of steady electricity and the society justice. If not, how to modify the rules would satisfy the needs of country development and expectations of the society.

Of the findings, the European Commission established in its report on Energy Sector Inquiry, market manipulation constituted a major concern for the functioning and integrity of EU energy sectors. The Commission argued that the responsibility for high prices in wholesale energy markets could be attributed to manipulative practices of energy incumbents and the trust in the operation of operation of sector was largely compromised, due to these practices. Remedies, EU competition law provided, were considered as insufficient to resolve these shortcomings and thus should be supplemented with regulatory-based tools. The findings of the Energy Sector Inquiry and subsequent consultation documents by multiple EU institutions paved the way for the adoption of the Regulation on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency, REMIT, which incorporated into an anti-manipulation rule, specifically designed to prohibit and prosecute manipulative practices in EU wholesale energy markets. Nevertheless, as EU case law on market manipulation has yet to develop and there are uncertainties with respect to the concept of market manipulation. Furthermore REMIT does not preclude the jurisdiction of EU competition law, questions arise as to the scope and the extent of the application of this prohibition. Throughout its chapters, this book explores the scope of and the case law on market manipulation to determine what types of market practices are regarded as manipulative and thus prohibited under anti-manipulation rules. It also focuses on the interplay between REMIT and EU competition law and evaluates factors and circumstances that determine when and what market misconduct can be subject to enforcement proceedings under both anti-manipulation and antitrust rules. As the development of a single, coherent, rulebook that can be relied upon by market participant is fundamental for the functioning of EU wholesale energy markets, the book, finally, provides proposals and measures that can mitigate and resolve the legal uncertainties regarding the regulatory framework REMIT established.

本論文之研究目的係驗證銀行管理當局是透過盈餘平穩化，增加盈餘對於未來盈餘的訊息，抑或是操控會計數字從而降低盈餘品質。本文採用兩種指標衡量盈餘平穩化：裁決性的貸款損失準備與公允價值第二等級與第三等級輸入值。以美國銀行作為本論文的樣本標的，經由實證結果發現，盈餘平穩化程度較高的銀行其股價能反映更多未來盈餘的資訊，顯示著平穩化程度會增加銀行當期盈餘對於未來盈餘的預測能力。除此之外，本文依照銀行規模與業務特性，分別比較大小銀行;商業銀行與儲蓄機構，個別探討盈餘平穩化和盈餘資訊性間的關聯。 / This paper investigates whether bank income smoothing is due to communication of future earnings or opportunism to garble accounting numbers. I adopt two measures of bank income smoothing, i.e., discretionary loan loss provision and Level 2&3 fair value inputs. Using a sample of U.S. banks, I find that higher-smoothing banks’ current stock prices capture more information about their future earnings to a larger extent than those of lower-smoothing banks. Moreover, I separate the bigger banks from the small banks and differentiate commercial banks from saving institutions to particularly investigate the association between income smoothing and earnings informativeness.