To address the impacts of typical principles for allocating initial carbon emission allowance, namely, the grandfathering and benchmarking principles on long-term emission reduction strategies, this paper presents four differential game models for an electricity supply chain consisting of a single electricity supplier and a single electricity retailer. The equilibrium solutions for different models are obtained and comparatively analyzed. The results show that the power supplier exhibits greater emission reduction efforts and, therefore, that the retailer has higher profits under the benchmarking principle than under the grandfathering principle. Moreover, under the two principles, the level of the power supplier’s emission reduction efforts is related to the decision-making modes of the electricity supply chain. Under specific conditions, the power supplier’s profit is also higher under the benchmarking principle than under the grandfathering principle. In addition, this study extends the models to investigate the constrained differential game models and obtains the game equilibrium solutions, which can be proved as saddle point equilibria.