IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/17341.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deregulation, Consolidation, and Efficiency: Evidence from U.S. Nuclear Power

Author

Listed:
  • Lucas W. Davis
  • Catherine Wolfram

Abstract

For the first four decades of its existence the U.S. nuclear power industry was run by regulated utilities, with most companies owning only one or two reactors. Beginning in the late 1990s electricity markets in many states were deregulated and almost half of the nation's 103 reactors were sold to independent power producers selling power in competitive wholesale markets. Deregulation has been accompanied by substantial market consolidation and today the three largest companies control more than one-third of all U.S. nuclear capacity. We find that deregulation and consolidation are associated with a 10 percent increase in operating efficiency, achieved primarily by reducing the frequency and duration of reactor outages. At average wholesale prices the value of this increased efficiency is approximately $2.5 billion annually and implies an annual decrease of almost 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas W. Davis & Catherine Wolfram, 2011. "Deregulation, Consolidation, and Efficiency: Evidence from U.S. Nuclear Power," NBER Working Papers 17341, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17341
    Note: EEE IO PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17341.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James B. Bushnell & Erin T. Mansur & Celeste Saravia, 2008. "Vertical Arrangements, Market Structure, and Competition: An Analysis of Restructured US Electricity Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 237-266, March.
    2. Jennifer K. Shanefelter, 2008. "Restructuring, Ownership and Efficiency: The Case of Labor in Electricity Generation," EAG Discussions Papers 200812, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    3. Paul L. Joskow, 2011. "Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 238-241, May.
    4. Catherine D. Wolfram, 1999. "Measuring Duopoly Power in the British Electricity Spot Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 805-826, September.
    5. Christopher R. Knittel, 2002. "Alternative Regulatory Methods And Firm Efficiency: Stochastic Frontier Evidence From The U.S. Electricity Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 530-540, August.
    6. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Stanley S. Reynolds & Mario Samano, 2016. "Intermittency and the Value of Renewable Energy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(4), pages 1187-1234.
    2. Milstein, Irena & Tishler, Asher, 2015. "Can price volatility enhance market power? The case of renewable technologies in competitive electricity markets," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 70-90.
    3. Newbery, David M. & Greve, Thomas, 2017. "The strategic robustness of oligopoly electricity market models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 124-132.
    4. Löschel, Andreas & Lutz, Benjamin Johannes & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The impacts of the EU ETS on efficiency and economic performance – An empirical analyses for German manufacturing firms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 71-95.
    5. Rubin, Ofir D. & Babcock, Bruce A., 2013. "The impact of expansion of wind power capacity and pricing methods on the efficiency of deregulated electricity markets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 676-688.
    6. David P. Brown & Andrew Eckert, 2018. "Analyzing the Impact of Electricity Market Structure Changes and Mergers: The Importance of Forward Commitments," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(1), pages 101-137, February.
    7. Severin Borenstein & James Bushnell, 2015. "The US Electricity Industry After 20 Years of Restructuring," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 437-463, August.
    8. Nicholas Ryan, 2017. "The Competitive Effects of Transmission Infrastructure in the Indian Electricity Market," NBER Working Papers 23106, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Dressler, Luisa, 2016. "Support schemes for renewable electricity in the European Union: Producer strategies and competition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 186-196.
    10. Brown, David P. & Eckert, Andrew & Shaffer, Blake, 2023. "Evaluating the impact of divestitures on competition: Evidence from Alberta’s wholesale electricity market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. Koichiro Ito & Mar Reguant, 2016. "Sequential Markets, Market Power, and Arbitrage," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1921-1957, July.
    12. Lucas W. Davis, Shaun Mcrae, and Enrique Seira Bejarano, 2019. "An Economic Perspective on Mexico's Nascent Deregulation of Retail Petroleum Markets," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    13. Chen, Zhongfei & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Borges, Maria Rosa, 2015. "A Bayesian stochastic frontier analysis of Chinese fossil-fuel electricity generation companies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 136-144.
    14. Brown, David P. & Eckert, Andrew & Eckert, Heather, 2018. "Carbon pricing with an output subsidy under imperfect competition: The case of Alberta's restructured electricity market," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 102-123.
    15. Dickson, Alex & MacKenzie, Ian A., 2018. "Strategic trade in pollution permits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 94-113.
    16. Meunier, Guy, 2010. "Capacity choice, technology mix and market power," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1306-1315, November.
    17. Giulietti, Monica & Grossi, Luigi & Waterson, Michael, 2010. "Price transmission in the UK electricity market: Was NETA beneficial?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1165-1174, September.
    18. Barros, Carlos Pestana & Chen, Zhongfei & Managi, Shunsuke & Antunes, Olinda Sequeira, 2013. "Examining the cost efficiency of Chinese hydroelectric companies using a finite mixture model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 511-517.
    19. Grossi, Luigi & Heim, Sven & Waterson, Michael, 2014. "A vision of the European energy future? The impact of the German response to the Fukushima earthquake," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-051, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Steve Cicala, 2022. "Imperfect Markets versus Imperfect Regulation in US Electricity Generation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(2), pages 409-441, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - General
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • L94 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Electric Utilities
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    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:nbr:nberwo:17341. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.