Question A: Subsidies for coal plants paid for through state-mandated rate increases such as those in HB6 have economic benefits that outweigh their costs.
Question A: Subsidies for coal plants paid for through state-mandated rate increases such as those in HB6 have economic benefits that outweigh their costs.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | Subsidies would only be justified by positive externalities, but burning coal produces the opposite. If energy prices need to rise to encourage supply, then that would allow any producer to compete for business, but instead of letting markets work, politicians picked two winning power plants to award money upon. That smells of corruption. Half of the money is going to an out-of-state plant and most of the benefits probably go to out-of-state shareholders! Bad for Ohio. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Uncertain | 8 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Coal is now a more expensive source of energy than natural gas or renewable sources such as solar and wind AND coal is the most polluting source of energy. Thus it is efficient to dramatically reduce our use of coal. Instead Ohio is propping it up with not efficient corporate subsidies. Complete 100% waste of taxpayer dollars. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Disagree | 8 | |
| Bob Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | If there is evidence of a net positive impact, I have not seen it. Those that use the electricity should pay the full cost. |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Disagree | 7 | |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | Strongly Disagree | 8 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Disagree | 1 | |
| Fadhel Kaboub | Denison University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Coal plants emit particles and produce coal ash ponds that are extremely hazardous for human health and the environment. Not only do we need to eliminate the subsidies, but we also need to replace them with renewable energy sources, and transition their workers to local green jobs with equivalent pay and benefits packages. |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Disagree | 8 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Disagree | 3 | Wow. You picked a difficult proposition this month! |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | There are two problems with the subsidies: they cause distortions in the market, and the negative externalities stemming from the use of fossil fuels has huge additional costs for society. |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | Coal has been used in the market because it is cheap while more environmentally-friendly energy sources are more expensive. Which means that we do not need to subsidize coal. If we want to subsidize energy, we should subsidize "green" energy sources. The hope is that such subsidies encourage more use of green energy sources, more innovation and development in those sources, and hopefully the price of those sources will continue to fall over time. |
| Lewis Sage | Baldwin Wallace University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | |
| Albert Sumell | Youngstown State University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Subsidizing coal plants now would be like subsidizing the pay phone industry 20 years. There’s no reason to invest resources to offer temporary help to a dying industry. Resources would be much better invested in growing and training workers for jobs in the renewable energy sector, |
| Thomas Traynor | Wright State University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | My answer is based on the long-term benefits versus long-term costs |
| Ejindu Ume | Miami University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Strongly Disagree | 8 |