Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Nuclear New Build in the United States 1990-2010: A Three State Analysis

Contents:

Author Info

  • Heffron, R. J.

Abstract

This research examines nuclear energy policy across three states in the United States (US) – Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas – from 1990-2010. The main research question seeks to ascertain what the prerequisites are for successful nuclear new build to occur in the US. Interviews are at the core of the research methodology employed, as with other in-depth studies on nuclear new build. The aim of this research is to identify and clarify those aspects of the legal, economic, and political requirements of the US that effect prospects for nuclear new build but which, so far, have not been well understood by experts. The research provides these new insights through a unique comparison of US states which have deregulated, regulated and ‘hybrid’ electricity markets. From the research it is evident the central role that law can have in the nuclear energy sector, and that policy in the nuclear energy sector can become state driven. Further, the methodology identifies key assumptions within the nuclear sector in the US that are contested, and delivers lessons on how these contested issues may be resolved. The paper adds to the literature in public administration, legal development and nuclear energy policy, and in particular nuclear new build.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1205.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge in its series Cambridge Working Papers in Economics with number 1205.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 23 Jan 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:1205

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/index.htm

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Paul L. Joskow, 2005. "Markets For Power In The United States - An Interim Assessment," Working Papers 0512, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
  2. Proops, John, 2001. "The (non-) economics of the nuclear fuel cycle: an historical and discourse analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 13-19, October.
  3. Barry Rabe, 2007. "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 413-431, Summer.
  4. Lund, Peter, 2006. "Market penetration rates of new energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3317-3326, November.
  5. Sanya Carley, 2011. "The Era of State Energy Policy Innovation: A Review of Policy Instruments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 28(3), pages 265-294, 05.
  6. Peter Navarro, 1988. "Comparative Energy Policy: The Economics of Nuclear Power in Japan and the United States," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-15.
  7. Daniel C. Matisoff, 2008. "The Adoption of State Climate Change Policies and Renewable Portfolio Standards: Regional Diffusion or Internal Determinants?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 25(6), pages 527-546, December.
  8. Barry G. Rabe, 2008. "States on Steroids: The Intergovernmental Odyssey of American Climate Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 25(2), pages 105-128, 03.
  9. MacKerron, Gordon, 2004. "Nuclear power and the characteristics of `ordinariness'--the case of UK energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(17), pages 1957-1965, November.
  10. Jeffrey A. Dubin & Geoffrey S. Rothwell, 1990. "Subsidy To Nuclear Power Through Price-Anderson Liability Limit," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 8(3), pages 73-79, 07.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Heffron, R.J., 2013. "Nuclear Energy policy in the United States 1990-2010: A Federal or State Responsibility," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1303, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:1205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Howard Cobb).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.