기후변화체제에 대비한 재생가능에너지의 촉진을 위한 국내법제의 연구 = A Study on Legal and Policy Measures for Promoting the Development of Renewable Energy in the Republic of Korea

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이산화탄소(CO2) 등 온실가스 감축비용의 최소화를 위한 온실가스 배출권 거래제와 함께 신재생에너지 촉진정책은 기후변화정책의 핵심전략이 될 수밖에 없다. 신재생에너지 촉진정책의 여러 실천수단이 있으나, 발전차액지원제도(Feed-in Tariffs: FIT)와 신재생에너지 공급의무제(Renewable Portfolio Standards: RPS)는 신재생에너지기술의 개발 촉진 및 시장지분확대에 가장 유효한 것으로 전세계적으로 입증된 대표적인 수단이다. 최근 우리나라 정부는 『신에너지 및 재생에너지 개발·이용·보급 촉진법』의 최근 개정에 의해 공공기관의 신재생에너지 이용의무화 정책을 확대·강화하고 발전차액지원제도(FIT)에서 신재생에너지 공급의무제(RPS)로의 전면적인 전환을 선택하는 등 정부의 신재생에너지 촉진정책의 기본 틀과 방향이 급격히 변화하고 있다. 그리고 『저탄소 녹색성장기본법』의 제정과 최근 두 차례의 입법예고를 거쳐 국무회의에서 심의·확정된 온실가스 배출권 거래제도의 도입에 관한 법률(안)을 통해 정부의 기후변화정책의 기본 틀이 정해지고 온실가스 배출권 거래제의 시행이 곧 예정되어 있다. 이에 이 논문은 외국의 사례를 분석·검토함으로써 발전차액지원제도(FIT)가 신재생에너지 공급의무제(RPS)에 비해 신재생에너지의 촉진과 온실가스 감축에 있어 보다 효과적이라는 결론을 내린 후, 발전차액지원제도(FIT)로의 복귀 또는 신재생에너지 공급의무제(RPS)와의 병행적 실시를 제안한다. 또 다른 한편 미국의 아황산가스 저감프로그램과 EU의 온실가스 배출권 거래제의 경험에 대한 분석을 바탕으로 이상적인 배출권 거래제의 설계상 특징을 파악한 후, 이에 근거하여 온실가스 배출권 거래제도의 도입에 관한 법률(안)을 분석·비판하고 그 개정방향을 제시한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The promotion of renewable energy is one essential tool of any domestic climate change policy, whose purpose is the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In order for the nation to succeed in reducing GHG emissions, a panoply of policy tools should be employed to support the development and market penetration of renewable energy technologies, most of which still are not price-competitive relative to fossil fuel-based energy technologies. They include RD&D support, tax reduction & refund benefits, system benefit charges, feed-in tariffs (FIT), renewable portfolio standards (RPS), and the like. Especially, many countries in the world employ a FIT or/and an RPS as the proven strategy for increasing the market share of renewable energy in the electricity sector: whereas Germany and other European countries tend to choose a FIT, the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom, and other Anglo-American countries usually rely upon an RPS; some countries such as Italy implement both a FIT and an RPS simultaneously. The Republic of Korea recently selects an RPS instead of a FIT, based upon the policy judgment that an RPS would promote technological innovation and economic efficiency, while a FIT has caused financial problems to the Government and would not be successful in facilitating technological innovation due to guaranteed cost recovery. Based upon the discussion, however, this Article observes that a FIT is much more superior to an RPS in terms of effectiveness in promoting renewable energy because it is empirically proven that a FIT provides long-term stability and predictability to potential investors in renewable energy projects, and that a FIT can be designed as an incentive-based system in light of the German experience. Also, as shown in the examples of some states of the U.S., such as California, and Italy, a FIT and an RPS can be implemented simultaneously in a way in which the strengths of both tools can be maximized. Therefore, the Republic of Korea should return to its former FIT policy. Alternatively, it should strengthen its RPS policy by redesigning it in order to enhance the overall effectiveness of a RPS, or should choose the policy of linking a FIT and an RPS effectively. On the other hand, GHG emissions trading is preferred as a policy tool for GHG emissions reduction. This is because emissions trading establishes the total allowable emissions and give the covered sources the freedom to choose among the various compliance options, including transactions of emissions reduction credits between sources. The EU and other countries have implemented such a GHG emissions trading system; the Republic of Korea plans to do so in the near future by recently proposing legislation. The successful implementation of GHG emissions trading could be advantageous to renewable energy projects which do not emit any GHG; an ideally-designed GHG emissions trading system certainly will promote the development of renewable energy technologies and other clean technologies. Based upon the prior experience with emissions trading, the Article observes that the key to its success is to set the emissions cap that is low enough to induce private investment in clean energy technologies and energy conservation, and to choose auctioning, instead of grandfathering, as the main allocation method. But a GHG emissions trading system as proposed in the legislation does not reflect such design features, although it has to be specified later in administrative rules and regulations. Thus, the proposed legislation should be revised in a manner that embodies the ideal design features of emissions trading, to be successful in reducing GHG emissions and promoting renewable energy technologies.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 최인호, "환경친화적 전력산업의 구축방안연구- 미국의 사례 분석을 중심으로" 한국환경법학회 28 (28): 355-407, 2006
• 2 이수철, "한국의 신재생에너지전력 지원정책 －EU와 일본의 제도 비교분석을 통한 지원정책의 현상과 과제－" 한국환경정책·평가연구원 7 (7): 1-34, 2008
• 3 (주)이노지오테크놀로지, "지열발전 산업화를 위한 법적/제도적 지원방안 제안" 2010
• 4 한국지질자원연구원, "지열발전 발전전략 방안" 2010
• 5 제3차 국가에너지위원회, "제1차 국가에너지기본계획(2008~2030)" 2008
• 6 김형진, "우리나라의 신재생에너지 개발 및 보급정책" 4 (4): 2008
• 7 백길남, "우리나라 지열에너지 정부지원 정책" 5 (5): 2009
• 8 변진경, "우리나라 원전 안전하다는 말 믿어도 되나요"
• 9 김용건, "온실가스 배출권 거래제 도입방향" 한국환경법학회 30 (30): 369-381, 2008
• 10 부경진, "신ㆍ재생에너지발전 의무비율 할당제(RPS) 도입 국제비교 연구" 1 (1): 2005
• 11 최현경, "신ㆍ재생에너지 의무할당제도(RPS)와 발전차액지원제도(FIT)의 비교와 시사점" 2009
• 12 부경진, "신ㆍ재생에너지 보급 확대 및 성장 동력화" 2008
• 13 윤휘종, "산업계 정부 온실가스 배출권 거래제도에 관한 재입법예고에 반발"
• 14 정경화, "배출권거래제도와 신재생에너지 공급의무화제도 연계방안 연구" 에너지경제연구원 2010
• 15 이호영, "배출권거래제, 규제 완화만이 능사는 아니다"
• 16 이호영, "배출권거래제 도입 전문가 토론회"
• 17 최인호, "미국의 대기오염총량관리제의 제도적 발전과정에 대한 법정책적 고찰 - 정책재량의 한계로서의 법치행정원리를 함께 논하며" 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 15 : 269-298, 2006
• 18 고문현, "녹색성장의 개념과 저탄소녹색성장기본법" 한국토지공법학회 49 : 245-264, 2010
• 19 국무총리실 기후변화대책기획단, "기후변화대응 종합기본계획 세부이행계획" 2008
• 20 함봉균, "국가 기후변화 적응대책 나왔다"
• 21 정재우, "[탄소시장의 비밀] ③ EU-ETS(탄소배출권거래제도)"
• 22 최준영, "[이슈와 논점] 온실가스 배출권거래제도"
• 23 Steven Ferrey, "When 1 + 1 No Longer Equals 2: The New Math of Legal “Additionality” Controlling World and U.S. Global Warming Regulation" 10 : 591-, 2009
• 24 Neal J. Cabral, "The Role of Renewable Portfolio Standards in the Context of a National Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program" 8 : 13-, 2007
• 25 David Grinlinton, "The Role of Feed-In Tariffs in Supporting the Expansion of Solar Energy Production" 41 : 943-, 2010
• 26 Dallas Burtraw, "The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States" 2003
• 27 Ryan Wiser, "The Experience with Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States" 2007
• 28 Dallas Burtraw, "The Effect of Allowance Allocation on the Cost of Carbon Emission Trading" 2001
• 29 Curtis A. Moore, "The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments: Failing the Acid Test" 34 : 10,366-, 2004
• 30 Michael Gillenwater, "THE CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM: A Review of the First International Offset Program" Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2011
• 31 Ian Ayres, "Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade" 104 : 1027-, 1995
• 32 Peter Baker, "Russian Vote Will Put Kyoto Pact Into Effect"
• 33 K. S. Cory, "Renewable Portfolio Standards in the States: Balancing Goals and Implementation Strategies" National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2007
• 34 Gerard Marata, "Renewable Energy Incentives in the United States and Spain: Different Paths - Same Destination" 28 : 481-, 2010
• 35 Louis Kaplow, "Property Rights and Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis" 109 : 713-, 1996
• 36 Richard D. Morgenstern, "Near Term Impacts of Carbon Mitigation Policies on Manufacturing Industries" 2002
• 37 Lawrence H. Goulder, "Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies on Energy-Intensive Industries" 2002
• 38 Robert W. Hahn, "Marketable Permits: Lessons for Theory and Practice" 16 : 361-, 1989
• 39 Xiaodong Wang, "Legal and Policy Frameworks for Renewable Energy to Mitigate Climate Change" 7 : 17-, 2007
• 40 U.S. GAO, "International Climate Change Program: Lessons Learned from the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism" 2008
• 41 IPCC Working Group I, "IPCC THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS" 2001
• 42 Lynann Butkiewicz, "Has The EU ETS Reached Its Peak"
• 43 Steven Ferrey, "Greening the Grid: Building a Legal Framework for Carbon Neutrality" 39 : 977-, 2009
• 44 Jonathan Baert Wiener, "Global Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context" 108 : 677-, 1999
• 45 Inho Choi, "Global Climate Change and the Use of Economic Approaches: The Ideal Design Features of Domestic Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading with an Analysis of the European Union’s CO2 Emissions Trading Directive and the Climate Stewardship Act" 45 : 865-, 2006
• 46 김동욱, "EU 배출권거래시장, 해킹으로 마비"
• 47 이선화, "EU ETS를 통해서 본 배출권 초기할당의 이슈와 쟁점" 한국경제연구원 2009
• 48 German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation & Nuclear Safety (BMU), "Development of Renewable Energies in Germany in 2008" 2009
• 49 Joseph Kruger, "Decentralization in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Lessons for Global Policy" 2007
• 50 Lawrence H. Goulder, "Confronting the Adverse Industry Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies: What Does It Cost" 2000
• 51 U.S. EPA, "ACID RAIN PROGRAM: ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2000" 2001
• 52 U.S. EPA, "ACID RAIN PROGRAM: 2002 PROGRESS REPORT" 2003
• 53 Dallas Burtraw, "A New Standard of Performance: An Analysis of the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain Program" 26 : 10,411-, 1996
• 54 David Hurlbut, "A Look behind the Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard: A Case Study" 48 : 129-, 2008
• 55 목정민, "28년 된 월성 1호기 ‘수명연장’ 결정 1년 늦추나"
• 56 에너지관리공단 신ㆍ재생에너지센터, "2008년 신재생에너지 백서" 2008
• 57 산업자원부, "2004년도 대체에너지 기술개발 및 이용ㆍ보급 실행계획" 2004