An Economic Analysis of the French Nuclear Liability Subsidy
While nuclear energy is coming back on stage, reconsidering its role in future energy policies must lead to a renewal of the question of the nuclear risk management. Indeed, given the uncertainties involved and the general public’s high aversion towards the nuclear risk, a minimization of the risk is first required through draconian safety rules. These procedures aim at avoiding, as far as possible, nuclear accidents ex ante. Thus, nuclear risk management is primarily concerned with the tools which provide incentives to nuclear operators to internalize their risk costs in order to maximise prevention. In addition, the international regime also addresses the need to provide compensation to victims in case of accidents ex post. The obligation to provide compensation to victims is also important in the light of this need to internalize the risk costs. This point is crucial, especially while some countries are reconsidering the role of nuclear energy even in cases where nuclear energy was formally phasing out. From an economic perspective, nuclear operators have to be exposed to the full risk costs they are generating. This means that efficient internalization and compensation mechanisms to cover these risks have to be designed. In addition to the safety regulation, compensation is addressed via civil liability rules and (partially) via the insurance market. The implicit market rule for an operator who creates a risky activity, consists for him in assuming all the risks he generates through the internalization of the resulting costs. This rule of thumb sounds quite intuitive, however, nuclear operators unexpectedly do not seem to follow it. Indeed, since the development of nuclear energy in the late 1950s, nuclear operators have benefited from a quite favourable liability regime and have always benefited from a strong political support and from an important subsidy relative to their limited civil liability. In this paper, we will rely on the French case. We aim at first providing an estimate of the amount of the French nuclear operator’s subsidy. Secondly, we will analyse the implications of the current legal regime in terms of incentives, compensation, efficiency, that is, in terms of internalization of the risk costs.
|Date of creation:||2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 04 42 28 12 08
Fax: +33 (0)4 42 28 08 00
Web page: http://www.univ-cae.orgEmail:
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Heyes, Anthony & Heyes, Catherine, 2000. "An empirical analysis of the Nuclear Liability Act (1970) in Canada," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, January.
- Anthony G. Heyes & Catherine Liston-Heyes, 1998. "Subsidy To Nuclear Power Through Price-Anderson Liability Limit: Comment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(1), pages 122-124, 01.
- Schmitz, Patrick W., 2000.
"On the Joint Use of Liability and Safety Regulation,"
12536, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Schmitz, Patrick W., 2000. "On the joint use of liability and safety regulation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 371-382, September.
- 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.
- Trebilcock, Michael & Winter, Ralph A., 1997. "The economics of nuclear accident law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 215-243, June.
- Steven Shavell, 1980. "Damage Measures for Breach of Contract," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 466-490, Autumn.
- Dubin, Jeffrey A. & Rothwell, Geoffrey S., 1989. "Risk and reactor safety systems adoption," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 201-218, October.
- Shavell, Steven, 1987. "The Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 584-92, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cgm:wpaper:35. 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: (Mathieu Bédard)
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.