Peer Review Raises Serious Questions about State Climate Advisory Team’s Recommendations

Seattle – A third-party peer review of the state Climate Advisory Team’s recommendations found serious flaws in economic projections of costs and benefits.  Washington Policy Center’s study, a cost-benefit analysis by The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, has concluded that the state Climate Advisory Team’s (CAT) report on addressing climate change in Washington made significant errors, such as overcounting some benefits and ignoring large economic costs.

Earlier this year the state’s Climate Advisory Team released “Leading the Way: A Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gases in Washington State.”  The report, which was not peer reviewed prior to release, makes recommendations for numerous new regulations that will impact the day-to-day lives of Washingtonians.  An independent cost-benefit analysis of the CAT report found that:

1. The CAT report does not offer apples-to-apples comparison of costs and benefits
2. The report mistakes costs and benefits
3. The report overcounts some benefits and ignores large economic costs

In their report, the CAT estimates a savings to Washington’s economy of $950 million, but corrected analysis changes that to a cost of $4.2 billion.

“Climate policy will have important environmental and economic impacts in Washington state,” said Todd Myers, environmental policy director at WPC.  “A rigorous third-party peer review is critical if we’re going to avoid mistakes that could cost billions of dollars.”

The peer review cost-benefit analysis from The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University is available online here.

The Beacon Hill Institute has examined numerous state climate policies and is a recognized expert in economic analysis.  WPC’s Center for the Environment has been active in the discussion about climate strategy.  WPC’s comments about the Climate Advisory Team’s recommendations are available on WPC’s website.