이산화탄소(CO_2) 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 개발ㆍ이용ㆍ보급 촉진법』의 최근 개정에 의해 공공기관의 신재생에너지 이용의무화 정책을 확대ㆍ강화하고 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 심의ㆍ확정된 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 분석ㆍ검토함으로써 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 분석ㆍ비판하고 그 개정방향을 제시한다.
The promotion of renewable energy is one essential tool of any domestic climate change policy, whose purpose is the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO_2) 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.