History Repeats Itself Again: CARE’s New Cost Analysis Paints a One-Sided Picture

Major polluters funding skewed analysis of the costs and benefits of environmental regulations is a long-standing tradition in regulatory circles. In a recent version of this phenomenon, CARE (Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy), an industry funded front group aimed at attacking clean energy and clean fuel policies in California, hired Navigant Consulting to do just that.

Last week, EDF economists pulled back the curtain on the recently released CARE report and found more of the same scare tactics: one-sided costs estimates yielding unfounded results and cherry-picked outcomes.

Unsurprisingly, our economists found that the CARE study “focused exclusively on the costs of California’s complementary clean energy and clean fuels policies while avoiding comparative assessment of the benefits.”  Additionally, the study was found to “rely on sources that have not been peer reviewed, and misinterpret analyses and energy market trends.”

Due to the noted inaccuracies of the study, the memo makes the point that “policy makers should treat the Navigant study with extreme caution; it likely overstates costs while considering neither the benefits to be enjoyed nor the cost-minimizing aspects of policies carefully designed to deliver environmental benefits as efficiently and quickly as practicable.”

A CARE funded analysis that results in a one-sided finding shouldn’t come as a shock.  The group is funded by some of the largest polluters and fossil fuels producers in California – those that have the most obligations to change under the state’s comprehensive clean energy and climate change laws.  CARE members include the Western States Petroleum Association, the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and the California Chamber of Commerce, as reported on its website.

As California transitions to cleaner, more diversified sources of energy, many businesses will be faced with the stark choice of participating in the modernization of our energy and transportation system or fighting against progress and innovation.  Whichever way those businesses trend, the recent CARE report prepared by Navigant shows that misinformation will continue to be a part of the portfolio approach used by polluters to undermine California’s progress.

For other analysis of industry reports that have overblown costs and underestimated benefits of California’s clean energy and clean fuels policies, read here, and here.

This entry was posted in Cap and trade, Global Warming Solutions Act: AB 32, Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.