Tag

Carbon

Browsing

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) recently published a discussion paper on “Driving effective carbon markets in Canada” (the Discussion Paper). The Discussion Paper sets out proposed changes to the federal benchmark criteria ahead of the federal government’s review next year. ECCC also launched consultations on the Discussion Paper, seeking comments and responses to questions included in the Discussion Paper from stakeholders.  This bulletin briefly summarizes the key topic areas, current requirements, the federal government’s proposal and considerations, and next steps set out in the Discussion Paper. Common scope of coverage Current requirement. The current benchmark requires that carbon pricing systems maintain a common scope, covering, at a minimum, an equivalent percent of combustion emissions as the federal backstop. It also requires market-based systems to cover industrial process emissions, and to limit eligibility for OBPSs, performance rebates, or the free allocation of allowances to sectors that are at risk of carbon leakage and competitiveness impacts of carbon pricing. Proposals and considerations. ECCC notes that the removal of the fuel charge (see our earlier bulletin here) requires rethinking how scope of coverage should work. The federal government is considering the following three options to modify the benchmark to specify the common scope criteria explicitly to ensure consistent minimum coverage across systems: Option 1: A threshold-based approach that would cover all facilities in specific sectors emitting above a certain level annually. Thresholds under consideration are 10kt per year (Option 1A) and 25kt per year (Option 1B). Option 1A would cover a large number of facilities and industrial activities, which would support market function and liquidity, but could create intra-sectoral competitiveness risks in some sectors. Option 1B would reduce these risks by covering fewer industrial activities where there is a significant split between emissions above and below the threshold, but may negatively impact market function…

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today charged Coinbase, Inc., the largest crypto asset trading platform in the U.S., with operating a crypto asset trading platform as an unregistered national securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency as well was failing to register the offer and sale of its crypto asset staking-as-a-service program (the Complaint). Regulators across the world are increasing their oversight of new and emerging securities and crypto carbon offerings should heed the recent actions of the SEC and carefully examine whether their offerings constitute unregulated securities. This bulletin briefly summarizes key details of the Complaint. The SEC’s Complaint alleges that Coinbase intertwines the traditional services of an exchange, broker, and clearing agency without having registered any of those functions with the SEC as required by law. The Complaint alleges that since 2019, Coinbase has: provided a marketplace and brought together the orders for securities of multiple buyers and sellers using established, non-discretionary methods under which such orders interact; engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions for the accounts of Coinbase customers; provided facilities for comparison of data respecting the terms of settlement of crypto asset securities transactions, served as an intermediary in settling transactions in crypto asset securities by Coinbase customers, and acted as a securities depository; and engaged in an unregistered securities offering through its staking-as-a-service program, allowing customers to earn profits from the “proof of stake” mechanisms of certain blockchains and Coinbase’s efforts. The SEC stated that Coinbase’s actions “deprive[d] investors of critical protections, including rulebooks that prevent fraud and manipulation, proper disclosure, safeguards against conflicts of interest, and routine inspection by the SEC” and that its failure to register its staking-as-service program “depriv[ed] investors of critical disclosure and other protections.” The Complaint follows yesterday’s similar charges, including several alleged securities law violations, against…