During the next decade, most states in the USA will deregulate electricity generation. Nuclear power plants that were ordered and built in a regulated environment will continue to be regulated as nuclear facilities. However, under state deregulation the price they receive for their electricity will be set largely in non-regulated markets. This paper examines the competitiveness of the nuclear power industry with a probabilistic model to identify which nuclear power units face the highest risk of early retirement under deregulation. Projected outputs under both average-cost and marginal-cost pricing are compared with expected generation under continued rate-of-return regulation. Nuclear units at risk of early retirement are in regions with the lowest forecast prices or are old plants. But, if CO2 regulation targets an emission reduction to 9% below projected 2010 levels (projected to be 24% obove 1990 levels), there are only a few units at risk of early retirement after 2015.
BeamonJ.A. (1988). “Competitive Electricity Prices: An Update.” Issues in Midterm Analysis and Forecasting 1998. Washington: US DOE/EIA.
2.
BiewaldB.WhiteD. (1999). Stranded Nuclear Waste: Implications of Electric Industry Deregulation for Nuclear Power Plant Retirements and Funding Decommissioning and Spent Fuel. Cambridge, MA:: Synapse Energy Economics.
3.
Council of Economic Advisors (1998). The Kyoto Protocol and the President's Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis. Washington: CEA.
4.
DixitA.K.PindyckR.S. (1994). Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press.
5.
DRI (1998). “Electricity Market Deregulation: Implications for Nuclear Power ” in DR1 World Energy Services U.S. Outlook. Standard and Poor's.
6.
International Atomic Energy Agency (1998). Operating Experience with Nuclear Power Stations in Member States in 1997. Vienna: IAEA.
7.
International Atomic Energy Agency (1999). Evaluating and improving Nuclear Power Plan! Operating Performance. Rothwell (ed.). TECDOC-1098. Vienna: IAEA.
8.
International Energy Agency (1998). Nuclear Power: Sustainability, Climate Change, and Competition. Paris: IEA/OECD.
9.
MaidmentJ.RothwellG.S. (1998). “All Nuclear Power Plants Are Not Created Equal.” Public Utilities Fortnightly (April1): 28-33.
10.
Mas-ColellA.WhinstonM.D.GreenJ.R. (1995). MicroeconomicTheory. Oxford University Press.
11.
NordhausW.D. (1997). The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma: Energy and the Environment. Washington: Resources for the Future.
12.
PasqualettiM.J.RothwellG.S., eds. (1991). “Nuclear Decommissioning Economics,” The Energy Journal12, Special Issue.
13.
RaberM.HasellR.W. (1997). “Nuclear Power in the Competitive Marketplace: Price Expectations and Going-Forward Costs.” The Electricity Journal (August/September): 32-40.
14.
RothwellG.S. (1990). “Utilization and Service: Decomposing Nuclear Reactor Capacity Factors.” Resources and Energy12(3): 215-29.
15.
RothwellG.S. (1996). “Organizational Structure and Expected Output at Nuclear Power Plants.” The Review of Economics and Statistics78: 482-488.
16.
RothwellG.S.RustJ. (1997). “On the Optimal Lifetime of Nuclear Power Plants,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics (April): 195-208.
17.
RothwellG.S. (1998a). “US Nuclear Power Plant Operating Expenses.” Department of Economics, Stanford University.
18.
RothwellG.S. (1998b). “US Nuclear Power Plant Performance: Forecasting Productivity, Availability, and Reliability.” Department of Economics, Stanford University.
19.
SouthD.W. (1999). “The Importance of Nuclear Power in Emissions Avoidance.” NEI Nuclear Fuel Cycle Conference (April12).
20.
ThomasS. (1990). “Operating Performance of Nuclear Reactors in the Non-Communist World.” Energy Policy (December): 888-912.
21.
WeyantJ.P.HillJ.N. (1999). “Introduction and Overview.” The Energy Journal, Special Issue, The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, vii-xliv.
22.
US Department of Energy (1999). Supporting Analysis for the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act. DOE/PO-0059. Washington: U.S. DOE.
23.
US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (1995). An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Costs: A 1995 Update. SR/0IAF/95-01. Washington: US GPO.
24.
US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (1997). Electricity Prices in a Competitive Environment: Marginal Cost Pricing of Generation Services and Financial Status of Electric Utilities. DOE/EIA-O614. Washington: US GPO.
25.
US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (1998a). Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity. SR/OIAF/98-03. Washington: US GPO.
26.
US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (1998b). Annual Energy Outlook 1999. DOE/EIA-0383-99. Washington: US GPO.
27.
US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (1999). Annual Energy Outlook 2000. DOE/EIA-0383-2000. Washington: US GPO.
28.
US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (2000a). The Electricity Market Module of the National Energy Modeling System, Model Documentation Report. DOE/EIA-MO68 (2000). Washington: US GPO.
29.
US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (2000b). “U.S. Nuclear Industry Closes a Record Year with a Record Month,” EIA Reports (March30).
