IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/1205.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Heffron, R. J., 2012. "Nuclear New Build in the United States 1990-2010: A Three State Analysis," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1205, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  • Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:1205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research-files/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe1205.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Barry Rabe, 2007. "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 413-431, Summer.
    3. 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.
    4. 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, May.
    5. Aaker, David A & Stayman, Douglas M & Hagerty, Michael R, 1986. "Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact, and Sequence Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(4), pages 365-381, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Lund, Peter, 2006. "Market penetration rates of new energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3317-3326, November.
    9. 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, March.
    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, July.
    11. Cantor, Robin & Hewlett, James, 1988. "The economics of nuclear power : Further evidence on learning, economies of scale, and regulatory effects," Resources and Energy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 315-335, December.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Khan, Muhammad T. & Thopil, George Alex & Lalk, Jorg, 2016. "Review of proposals for practical power sector restructuring and reforms in a dynamic electricity supply industry," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 326-335.
    2. Heffron, Raphael J., 2013. "Nuclear energy policy in the United States 1990–2010: A federal or state responsibility?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 254-266.
    3. Heffron, Raphael J. & McCauley, Darren & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2015. "Resolving society's energy trilemma through the Energy Justice Metric," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 168-176.
    4. Sainati, Tristano & Locatelli, Giorgio & Smith, Nigel, 2019. "Project financing in nuclear new build, why not? The legal and regulatory barriers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 111-119.
    5. Heffron, Raphael J. & McCauley, Darren, 2014. "Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy justice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 435-437.
    6. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    2. Yi, Hongtao, 2015. "Clean-energy policies and electricity sector carbon emissions in the U.S. states," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 19-29.
    3. Youhyun Lee & Inseok Seo, 2019. "Sustainability of a Policy Instrument: Rethinking the Renewable Portfolio Standard in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Saatvika Rai, 2020. "Policy Adoption and Policy Intensity: Emergence of Climate Adaptation Planning in U.S. States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 444-463, July.
    5. Tora Skodvin & Steinar Andresen, 2009. "An agenda for change in U.S. climate policies? Presidential ambitions and congressional powers," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 263-280, August.
    6. Rountree, Valerie, 2019. "Nevada's experience with the Renewable Portfolio Standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 279-291.
    7. James Buthman, 2015. "Institutionalizing renewable electricity: the long-term potential for policy learning," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 526-536, December.
    8. Zachary A. Wendling & David C. Warren & Barry M. Rubin & Sanya Carley & Kenneth R. Richards, 2020. "A Scalable Energy–Economy Model for State-Level Policy Analysis Applied to a Demand-Side Management Program," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 34(4), pages 372-386, November.
    9. Darwin C. Hall, 1990. "Preliminary Estimates Of Cumulative Private And External Costs Of Energy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 8(3), pages 283-307, July.
    10. Taedong Lee & Chris Koski, 2015. "Multilevel governance and urban climate change mitigation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1501-1517, December.
    11. Sascha Samadi, 2016. "A Review of Factors Influencing the Cost Development of Electricity Generation Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-25, November.
    12. Rajesh Sahu & Pramod Kumar, 2023. "The Missing Nexus: A Historical and Contemporary Position of the United States on Climate Change Action," International Studies, , vol. 60(4), pages 444-479, October.
    13. Berthélemy, Michel & Escobar Rangel, Lina, 2015. "Nuclear reactors' construction costs: The role of lead-time, standardization and technological progress," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 118-130.
    14. Katja Biedenkopf, 2017. "Gubernatorial entrepreneurship and United States federal-state interaction: The case of subnational regional greenhouse gas emissions trading," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(8), pages 1378-1400, December.
    15. Ruth Winecoff & Michelle Graff, 2020. "Innovation in Financing Energy‐Efficient and Renewable Energy Upgrades: An Evaluation of Property Assessed Clean Energy for California Residences," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2555-2573, December.
    16. Cheng, Quan & Yi, Hongtao, 2017. "Complementarity and substitutability: A review of state level renewable energy policy instrument interactions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 683-691.
    17. Lee, Sang Ho & Choi, Daewoung Joey & Han, Seung Hun, 2023. "Corporate cash holdings in response to climate risk and policies," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(PA).
    18. Skodvin, Tora, 2010. ""Pivotal politics" in US energy and climate legislation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4214-4223, August.
    19. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    20. Côme Billard & Anna Creti & Antoine Mandel, 2020. "How Environmental Policies Spread? A Network Approach to Diffusion in the U.S," Working Papers 2020.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • Y80 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Related Disciplines - - - Related Disciplines

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:1205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jake Dyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.