A series of flawed reports attacking the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants was published by the Beacon Hill Institute and funded through fossil fuel-funded front groups managed by Richard Berman. The Rio Grande Foundation published BHI’s report on New Mexico, claiming the EPA’s climate reduction plan would have a huge negative impact on jobs and the economy.
However, Beacon Hill Institute has a history of using a flawed method of economic analysis (that has been roundly criticized) and a record of funding from fossil fuel special interests. Policy makers and regulators should not consider the Beacon Hill Institute and Rio Grande Foundation report to be a credible source when determining how to respond to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
Beacon Hill Institute’s economic model, STAMP, which has been used to assess the impact of the EPA Clean Power Plan and other policies aiming to reduce climate pollution, has been roundly criticized. Regarding the reports on renewable energy standards, Frank Ackerman, a Harvard PhD and Senior Economist with Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. said the Beacon Hill Institute models contained “wild overstatement(s) of the cost of wind energy, assumed that expensive backup capacity was always need and running when wind energy was used, inflated the price of new transmission capacity, and overestimated job losses due to assumption of “hypersensitivity to tax rates.”
Beacon Hill Institute is now pursuing a similar strategy (to the attacks on renewable energy standards) of using misinformation and flawed economic modeling to support state legislative efforts that weaken the EPA Clean Power Plan. The Beacon Hill Institute’s economic analysis of the EPA Clean Power Plan inflates the cost of the new rules for existing power plants by a factor of two, and minimizes the regulation’s benefits by nearly ten times when compared with the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis.
In addition to producing flawed economic research, Beacon Hill Institute’s internal documents were revealed by the Guardian in 2013, showing that the think tank, based at Suffolk University, sought to produce biased reports that came to conclusions before performing any economic research. Beacon Hill’s grant request to the Searle Freedom Trust stated that the success of the grant would be measured by “legislative activity that will pare back or repeal RGGI [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative]”, the regional carbon pollution reduction policy adopted by nine states. Suffolk University criticized BHI for the grant language, saying that “The stated research goals, as written, were inconsistent with Suffolk University’s mission” and the Institute “had not followed university rules when it submitted its grant proposal.”
BHI’s anti-clean energy and climate stances should not be a surprise as the organization has received funding from foundations and organizations associated with the Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel interests. The Charles G. Koch Foundation has donated over $750,000 to Suffolk University since 2008, with much of the funding going to BHI. Charles and David Koch own a fossil fuel conglomerate with interests in the electricity and coal business — these personal financial positions held by the Koch’s could be negatively impacted by the EPA’s effort to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. And, according to records released by Suffolk University in May 2014, BHI has also received funding from: The Koch Foundation; Employment Policies Institute, a front group run by Richard Berman (who was recently exposed in the New York Times bragging at an oil and gas industry conference that he could route industry money through his front groups with “total anonymity”); American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC); and other groups that are part of the State Policy Network or connected to fossil fuel special interests.
Furthermore, ALEC, BHI, and SPN have previously coordinated attacks on clean energy and climate policies. Here’s how it has worked in the past: First, groups like the Beacon Hill Institute provide flawed reports or analysis claiming clean energy or climate policies have negative impacts. Next, allied front groups or “think tanks” (usually members of the State Policy Network) use the flawed data in testimony, opinion columns, and in the media. Then, other front groups, like Americans for Prosperity, spread disinformation through their grassroots networks, in postcards mailed to the public, and in television ads attacking the clean energy policy. Finally, lobbyists from front groups, utilities, and other fossil fuel companies use their influence from campaign contributions and meetings with decision makers to push for anti-clean energy efforts.
Given Beacon Hill Institute’s record and the history of coordinated attacks, the question for policy makers is: are you going to rely on biased economic research from fossil fuel-backed organizations to attack climate and energy policies?
We think the answer should be a resounding no.
Gabe Elsner is the founder and executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a pro-clean energy think tank working to expose attacks on clean technology and counter misinformation by fossil fuel and utility interests.