The commodity and financial characteristics of carbon emission allowances play a pivotal role within the Carbon Emission Trading Scheme (CETS). Evaluating the effectiveness of the scheme from the perspective of carbon price is critical, as it directly reflects the underlying value of carbon allowances. This study employs a time-varying Difference-in-Differences (DID) model, utilizing data from publicly listed enterprises in China over the period from 2010 to 2023, to examine the effects of carbon price level and stability on Total Factor Productivity (TFP). The results suggest that both an increase in carbon price level and stability contribute to improvements in TFP, particularly for heavy-polluting and non-stateowned enterprises. Mechanism analysis reveals that higher carbon prices and stability can stimulate corporate engagement in green innovation, activate the Porter effect, and subsequently enhance TFP. Furthermore, optimizing the system environment proves to be an effective means of strengthening the scheme's impact. The study also finds that allocating initial quotas via payment-based mechanisms offers a more effective design. This research highlights the importance of strengthening the financial attributes of carbon emission allowances and offers practical recommendations for increasing the activity of trading entities and improving market liquidity.

This study explores the price drivers of Chinese Emissions Allowances (CEAs) in the early stage of China’s national carbon market. Using daily time series data from July 2021 to July 2023, we find limited influence from conventional drivers, including energy prices and economic factors. Instead, national power generation emerges as a significant driver. These are primarily due to the distinct institutional features of China’s national carbon market, notably its rate-based system and sectoral coverage. Moreover, the study uncovers cumulative abnormal volatility in CEA prices ranging from 12% to 20% around the end of the first compliance cycle, reflecting sentiments about the policy design and participants’ limited understanding about carbon trading. Our results extend previous literature regarding carbon pricing determinants by highlighting China’s unique carbon market design, comparing it with the traditional cap-and-trade programs, and offering valuable insights for tailored market-based policies in developing countries.