For politicians, talking points are the lifeblood of public policy advocacy, which is why state agency staff will go to great lengths to craft messages that sound good even if they are misleading or without merit. The newly released State Energy Strategy is a case in point.
Finalized by the State Department of Commerce on December 31, the plan promises what it calls “deep decarbonization.” In her statement included in the strategy, Commerce Director Lisa Brown claims the plan would “nearly eliminate the use of climate-threatening fossil fuels while continuing to maintain and grow a prosperous economy.”
This is likely to become a key talking point along with the claim, included in the report, that aggressive decarbonization would actually save money. The report states, “On a per capita basis, by 2050, the Electrification Scenario would save the average energy customer in Washington approximately $132 per year” compared to business as usual. This is surprising because renewable energy and electric vehicles are much more expensive than the alternatives.
Unfortunately, I haven’t had a chance to examine the validity of this claim, because the source was never made public, despite promises that it would be available. The story of how this claim came to be included in the State Energy Strategy without any public scrutiny is a good example of how state agency staff cut corners to deliver political talking points.
In late November, the state released a second draft of the State Energy Strategy for public comment. That draft contained significant assertions about the benefits of “deep decarbonization” and widespread electrification. The study claimed electrification would create “a savings of $132 per year” per person in 2050, and that “Decarbonization greatly improves Washington’s air quality.” Both of these statements referenced a study from FTI Consulting on November 25, 2020.
That study, however, was not available publicly. So, I requested it and was told it would be posted by December 11. It was not. When I pointed this out, I was told, “We have not forgotten your request to review the economic modeling outcome once it is final. We will let you know once it’s posted.”
Two weeks went by, so I asked again on December 29. On December 31, I received a note that although the Energy Strategy would be sent to the governor and legislators that very day, the study was still not publicly available.
Two of the strategy’s most important claims – the cost to Washington residents and the impact on air quality – were included in the study with absolutely no public scrutiny.
Additionally, the source, which was included in the final report as an Appendix, is now dated December 31 – the exact date the report was sent to the governor and legislators.
Even then, the information was not sent to me until January 6, nearly one month after it was promised to me in early December, and a week after the report was already out the door.
Ironically, the statement from Director Brown in the introduction to the report claims, “This strategy could not have been developed without the dedication of…the many residents who urged us to identify steps to protect future generations of Washingtonians. This participation was especially meaningful given the difficult circumstances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.” But on two key issues, there was no input. If it was truly “meaningful,” the Department would have had the faith in the data to make it public and subject it to scrutiny.
In the end, the talking points were more important than transparency or accuracy. It isn’t the only example of a state agency hiding information to facilitate politics, but it is an egregious and obvious one.
"strategy" - Google News
January 11, 2021 at 10:19AM
https://ift.tt/3nyk9vY
How a state agency hid key data in the Energy Strategy to protect a political talking point - Washington Policy
"strategy" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2Ys7QbK
https://ift.tt/2zRd1Yo
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "How a state agency hid key data in the Energy Strategy to protect a political talking point - Washington Policy"
Post a Comment