The average construction time of the 34 units that started up in the world between 2003 and July 2013 was 9.4 years. Reactor Status and Nuclear Programs • Startups and Shutdowns. Only three reactors started up in 2012, while six were shut down 10 and in 2013 up to 1 July, only one started up, while four shutdown decisions-all in the U.S.-were taken in the first half of 2013. 11 Three of those four units faced costly repairs, but one, Kewaunee, Wisconsin, was running well and had received a license renewal just two years ago to operate up to a total of 60 years; it simply became uneconomic to run. As of 1 July 2013, there were only two reactors operating in Japan and how many others will receive permission to restart and over what timeframe remains highly uncertain. • Newcomer Program Delays. Engagement in nuclear programs has been delayed by most of the potential newcomer countries, including Bangladesh,

No abstract

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

Growing international pressure to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has focused attention on existing policies that may, either by design or by effect, subsidize fossil fuel production and consumption. This paper reviews existing studies of fossil fuel subsidies within the United States, as well as assessments of the potential impact of subsidy reform on GHG emissions. Evaluating the differences across the studies, it highlights the most important disparities in subsidy definition and valuation in order to clarify the conclusions that can be drawn from this body of work. We then present some of the tools used to provide transparency in environmental regulation. We conclude that many of these approaches can be used to improve the transparency of fiscal policy, with important benefits within the context of climate change and beyond. CONTENTS