Climatic Change

, Volume 144, Issue 4, pp 597–610 | Cite as

Banking on banking: does “when” flexibility mask the costs of stringent climate policy?

  • John E. BistlineEmail author
  • Francisco de la Chesnaye


Banking and borrowing emission allowances provide temporal flexibility in cap-and-trade systems, which can enhance the economic efficiency of environmental policy while adhering to the same cumulative emission budget. This paper investigates the role of temporal (“when”) flexibility from emission banking provisions under an economy-wide cap-and-trade policy in the USA. The current literature on meeting deep decarbonization targets almost exclusively assumes unlimited banking, which may bias policy recommendations and have important consequences for R&D prioritization and model development. Numerical experiments using the energy-economic model US Regional Energy, GHG, and Economy (US-REGEN) indicate that assumptions about banking materially impact cost and emission pathways in meeting long-term targets like 80% reductions by 2050 relative to 2005 levels. Given the stringency of long-run targets and convexity of marginal abatement costs, the cost-minimizing time path for mitigation with banking suggests that 2025 abatement should exceed the pledged level under the Paris Agreement (42% instead of 26–28%) to reduce future costs. Total policy costs are approximately 30% higher when banking is excluded; however, political economy barriers and uncertainty may limit the use of banking provisions despite their appeal on economic efficiency grounds. Banking on policy implementation with unlimited temporal flexibility may distort insights about the pace, extent, and economic impacts of future energy transitions associated with long-term abatement targets, especially for more stringent climate policies.



The authors wish to thank Geoffrey Blanford, Richard Richels, David Young, Marcus Alexander, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Any errors are solely the responsibility of the authors. The views expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of EPRI or its members.

Supplementary material

10584_2017_2053_MOESM1_ESM.docx (124 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 124 kb)


  1. Bistline JE (2015) Electric sector capacity planning under uncertainty: climate policy and natural gas in the US. Energy Econ 51:236–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bistline JE (2017) Economic and technical challenges of flexible operations under large-scale variable renewable deployment. Energy Econ 64:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bistline JE, Niemeyer V, Young D (2017) Understanding clean power plan choices in Kansas: options and uncertainties, EPRI technical report #3002009492. EPRI, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanford GJ, Merrick JH, Young D (2014) A clean energy standard analysis with the US-REGEN model. Energy J 35(1):137–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanford GJ, Merrick JH, Bistline JE, Young D (2016) Simulating annual variation in load, wind, and solar by representative hour selection. Working paper available at
  6. Böhringer C, Rutherford TF (2008) Combining bottom-up and top-down. Energy Econ 30(2):574–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosetti V, Victor D (2011) Politics and economics of second-best regulation of greenhouse gases: the importance of regulatory credibility. Energy J 32(1)Google Scholar
  8. Cao J, Cohen A, Hansen J, Lester R, Peterson P, Xu H (2016) China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power. Science 353(6299):547–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke L, Fawcett A, Weyant J, McFarland J, Chaturvedi V, Zhou Y (2014) Technology and U.S. emissions reductions goals: results of the EMF 24 modeling exercise. Energy J 35(1):9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Electric Power Research Institute (2017) US-REGEN model documentation, EPRI technical update #3002010956. EPRI, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  11. Feng et al (2015) Drivers of the US CO2 emissions 1997–2013. Nat Commun 6:7714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hasegawa M, Salant S (2015) The dynamics of pollution permits. Ann Rev Resour Econ 7(1):61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. James R, Hesler S, Bistline J (2015) Fossil fleet transition with fuel changes and large scale variable renewable integration, EPRI technical report #3002006517. EPRI, Palo AltoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kling C, Rubin J (1997) Bankable permits for the control of environmental pollution. J Public Econ 64:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krey V, Lunderer G, Clarke L, Kriegler E (2014) Getting from here to there—energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang 123:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kyle P, Clarke L, Pugh G, Wise M, Calvin K, Edmonds J, Kim S (2009) The value of advanced technology in meeting 2050 greenhouse gas emissions targets in the United States. Energy Econ 31(2):S254–S267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loftus PJ, Cohen AM, Long JCS, Jenkins JD (2014) A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? WIREs Clim Chang 6(1):93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray BC, Newell RG, Pizer WA (2009) Balancing cost and emissions certainty: an allowance reserve for cap-and-trade. Rev Environ Econ Policy 3(1):84–103. doi: 10.1093/reep/ren016
  19. National Research Council of the National Academies (2011) America’s climate choices. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. ISBN 13: 978-0-309-14585-5Google Scholar
  20. Nordhaus, W.D. (2002) “Modeling induced innovation in climate-change policy”. In: Grübler, Nakićenović, Nordhaus (ed) Technological Change and the Environment. 9:259–290Google Scholar
  21. Paltsev S, Reilly J, Jacoby H, Morris J (2009) The cost of climate policy in the United States. Energy Econ 31(2):S235–S243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy price. Am Econ Rev 92(1):160–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rose S, Petrusa J, Davis L (2013) PRISM 2.0: regional non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement potential in the United States for 2010–2030, EPRI technical update #300201675. EPRI, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  24. Schäfer A, Evans AD, Reynolds TG, Dray L (2015) Costs of mitigating CO2 emissions from passenger aircraft. Nat Clim Chang 6:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tavoni M, Tol RSJ (2010) Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. Clim Chang 100:769–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. U.S. Department of State (2016) Second biennial report of the United States of America: under the United Nations framework convention on climate change (Washington, D.C.)Google Scholar
  27. Young D, Niemeyer V, Bistline JE (2016) Understanding clean power plan choices in Michigan: options and uncertainties, EPRI technical report #3002009036. EPRI, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electric Power Research InstitutePalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations