FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF EARLY DECOMMISSIONING

Abstract

There are three generalized timing possibilities for decommissioning: at the end of the original operating license, after some period of life extension, or sometime before the end of normal service. In this companion piece to his discussion of life extension in Chapter 20, James Hewlett addresses the third option. Premature decommissioning can arise—as it did for Unit 2 of Three Mile Island—from an accident, or—more commonly— because it may be cheaper to close the facility than to have it continue in operation. The economic implication of premature closure is one of potentially insufficient fund accumulation. As Hewlett points out, the decision to close a plant is complicated by decommissioning considerations; for example, the decision could depend in part on the status of the accumulated funds. Such a decision also can influence plans for new construction since it may delay the time of closure for existing plants. State regulatory bodies in the United States influence such decisions through their control over rates of return. In the end, decommissioning cost considerations often influence decommissioning timing.

Keywords

Nuclear plant early retirement Decommissioning timing Operating costs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Electric Power Research Institute (1986). Technical Assistance Guide. Vol. 1 and 3, EPRI-3445.

Heinze Fry

Gene

(1989). The Economics of Nuclear Power Plants as They Age: Production (Capacity Factors), Variable Costs, and Retirement. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University.

Joskow

Paul

Schmalensee

Richard

(1985). “The Performance of Coal-Burning Electric Generating Units in the United States: 1960-1980,” Center for Energy Policy Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Joskow

Paul

Schmalensee

Richard

(1986). “Incentive Regulation for Electric Utilities,” Yale Journal of Regulation 4 (Fall).

Krugman

Paul R.

(1989). Exchange-Rate Instability. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Lester

Richard

McCabe

Mark

(1988). “The Effect of Industrial Structure on Learning by Using in Nuclear Power Operation,” MIT- EL-88-024WP, Center for Energy Policy Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Levett

John

Hulkower

Seth

(1989). “Bidding and Negotiating for Power from Qualifying Facilities in Massachusetts,” Public Utility Fortnightly, March 30, 19-27.

Nogee

Alan J.

(1987). Nuclear Lemon: Ratepayer Savings from Retiring the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, 29 Temple Place, Boston, MA 02111, November.

Nucleonics Week (1989). “Steam Generator Replacement Becoming Viable Option in U.S.,” July 27,1.

10.

Science Concepts, Inc. (1988). Electricity from Nuclear Energy: Burden or Bargain? 1625 K Street, Washington D.C. 20006, March.

11.

Thomas

Steve

(1988a). “Nuclear Operating Costs are Rising Exponentially,” Energy Economist. Financial Times of London Information Service, London, U.K., May, 2-5.

12.

Thomas

Steve

(1988b). “Power-Plant Life Extension,” Energy 13(10), 767-786.

13.

U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (1989). “Growing Old,” Nuclear Industry. First Quarter, 19-23.

14.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (1988). An Analysis of Nuclear Power Operating Costs. DOE/EIA- 5111, May.

15.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (1989a). Historical Plant Costs and Annual Production Expenses for Selected Electric Plants, 1987. DOE/EIA-0455(87).

16.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (1989b). Electric Generation for Natural Gas: Prospects and Implications for the United States. SR/EPD/89-01.

17.

U.S. Federal Energy Administration (1974). Project Independence. Stock number 411800029, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

18.

U.S. Government Accounting Office (1987). Efforts to Ensure Nuclear Power Plant Safety can be Strengthened. GAO/RCED-87-151.

19.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1986). Status of Maintenance in the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry, 1985, NUREC-1212.

20.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1988). Nuclear Power Plant Aging: The U.S. Regulatory Perspective. A paper delivered by NRC Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers at the International Symposium on Nuclear Power Plant Aging, Bethesda, MD, August 30.

21.

Utility Data Institute (1988). 1987 Variable Cost Report, Washington, DC.

22.

Wall Street Journal (1989). “Niagara Mohawk Problems with Power Plant Spur Expectations that it will Omit Payout,” July 27, c2.

23.

Williams

Kent

Delene

John

Fuller

Larry

Bowers

Howard

(1987). Nuclear Economics. 2000: Deterministic and Probabilistic Projections of Nuclear and Coal Electric Power Costs for the Year 2000. ORNL 6368, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.