IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v154y2021ics030142152100149x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decommissioning the U.S. nuclear fleet: Financial assurance, corporate structures, and bankruptcy

Author

Listed:
  • Lordan-Perret, Rebecca
  • Sloan, Robert D.
  • Rosner, Robert

Abstract

Over the next three decades, it is likely that on the order of 100 U.S. nuclear power reactors—almost the entire U.S. nuclear fleet, which at its peak in 1990 operated 112 commercial reactors—will be shut down and decommissioned. Decommissioning is a costly, time-consuming process that involves removing or decontaminating all radioactive infrastructure and related materials on site to prevent risks to public health so that the land can be safely used for other beneficial purposes. Though federal regulations have required that plant licensees prepare financially for this eventuality, we argue that particularly in light of commonly used corporate structures designed to strictly segregate financial risks, and under the current energy market conditions, the financial regulations in place may be insufficient in some exigent situations to ensure successful decommissioning. We explore available options for legal recourse if funding is inadequate in a corporate law context and pursuant to existing federal law. We comment on the possibility that taxpayers might be required to shoulder all or part of the financial liability at “legacy” plants in the absence of structural changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Lordan-Perret, Rebecca & Sloan, Robert D. & Rosner, Robert, 2021. "Decommissioning the U.S. nuclear fleet: Financial assurance, corporate structures, and bankruptcy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:154:y:2021:i:c:s030142152100149x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152100149X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112280?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucas W. Davis & Catherine Wolfram, 2012. "Deregulation, Consolidation, and Efficiency: Evidence from US Nuclear Power," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 194-225, October.
    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. Kwangheon Park & Seunghyun Son & Jinhyuk Oh & Sunkuk Kim, 2022. "Sustainable Decommissioning Strategies for Nuclear Power Plants: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Mackie, Colin & Velenturf, Anne P.M., 2021. "Trouble on the horizon: Securing the decommissioning of offshore renewable energy installations in UK waters," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Lordan-Perret, Rebecca & Bärenbold, Rebekka & Weigt, Hannes & Rosner, Robert, 2023. "An ex-ante method to verify commercial U.S. nuclear power plant decommissioning cost estimates," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(PB).
    4. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2023. "Economic value of the development of nuclear power plant decommissioning technology in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    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. Berthélemy Michel & Bonev Petyo & Dussaux Damien & Söderberg Magnus, 2019. "Methods for strengthening a weak instrument in the case of a persistent treatment," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 23(1), pages 1-30, February.
    2. Lou, Jiehong & Shen, Xingchi & Niemeier, Deb, 2020. "Are stay-at-home orders more difficult to follow for low-income groups?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Desgranges, Gabriel & Gauthier, Stéphane, 2016. "Rationalizability and efficiency in an asymmetric Cournot oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 163-176.
    4. 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.
    5. Catherine Hausman & Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2019. "Price Regulation and Environmental Externalities: Evidence from Methane Leaks," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(1), pages 73-109.
    6. Kyle C. Meng, 2016. "Estimating Path Dependence in Energy Transitions," NBER Working Papers 22536, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Polemis, Michael L., 2016. "New evidence on the impact of structural reforms on electricity sector performance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 420-431.
    8. Brown, David P. & Eckert, Andrew & Olmstead, Derek E.H., 2022. "Procurement auctions for regulated retail service contracts in restructured electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Stefan Seifert, 2015. "Measuring Productivity When Technologies Are Heterogeneous: A Semi-Parametric Approach for Electricity Generation," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1526, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Suarez, Carlos, 2022. "Private management and strategic bidding behavior in electricity markets: Evidence from Colombia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. Kury, Theodore J., 2015. "The impact of coordination on wholesale market participation: The case of the U.S. electricity industry," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 38-44.
    12. Bizet, Romain & Bonev, Petyo & Leveque, Francois, 2020. "The effect of local monitoring on nuclear safety and compliance: Evidence from France," Economics Working Paper Series 2014, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    13. Zhen Lei & Chen-Hao Tsai & Andrew N. Kleit, 2017. "Deregulation and Investment in Generation Capacity: Evidence from Nuclear Power Uprates in the United States," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    14. Alexander Hill, 2023. "Price freezes and gas pass-through: an estimation of the price impact of electricity market restructuring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 87-116, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Lucas W. Davis, 2012. "Prospects for Nuclear Power," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 49-66, Winter.
    17. Mary Jialin Li, 2016. "Cogeneration Technology Adoption in the U.S," Working Papers 16-30, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    18. Jonathan E. Hughes & Ian Lange, 2020. "Who (Else) Benefits From Electricity Deregulation? Coal Prices, Natural Gas, And Price Discrimination," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(3), pages 1053-1075, July.
    19. Chan, H. Ron & Fell, Harrison & Lange, Ian & Li, Shanjun, 2017. "Efficiency and environmental impacts of electricity restructuring on coal-fired power plants," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-18.
    20. Oliver, Matthew E., 2015. "Economies of scale and scope in expansion of the U.S. natural gas pipeline network," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 265-276.

    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:eee:enepol:v:154:y:2021:i:c:s030142152100149x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.