(The Center Square) – The state Department of Ecology has admitted that a recent report on carbon emission reductions through projects financed by the Climate Commitment Act was “significantly inflated” by the Department of Commerce after one environmental analyst previously questioned the effectiveness of several projects. Commerce has now sent back revised figures.
Last month, The Center Square reported that Ecology’s report claimed that a single $1.4 million project through the Ellensburg Public Works Department reduced emissions by 3.5 million metric tons, more than a third of total carbon emissions by CCA projects in two years. Prior to the article’s publication, Washington Policy Center Vice President of Research Todd Meyers questioned the project’s effectiveness to reduce one metric ton of carbon for every $1 spent.
Myers then published a follow up post, in which he argued that “about 86 percent of the total CO2 reductions claimed by the report are probably fake. The error should have been obvious to Ecology staff. It was immediately obvious to me.”
“The fact that the staff at Ecology failed to identify such an obvious error indicates how sloppy the report is,” he added.
When the Center Square reached out to Ecology via phone and email for an interview to discuss Myer’s article, the state agency sent a statement that “Due to a data entry error, Commerce reported that 7.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced as a result of eight rebate projects funded by the CCA that support home electrification and appliance rebates for low-income and vulnerable communities. The corrected data now estimates that 78,000 tons of emissions will be reduced over the lifetime of those projects.”
“Ecology will release a corrected report when that review is complete. That is expected in the coming weeks,” the statement said.
The statement also included comment from Jennifer Grove, assistant director of Energy for Commerce. “The Climate Commitment Act is a vital part of the state’s efforts to control carbon emissions, and we’re committed to ensuring that the information we share is complete and accurate. Corrective measures are already in place to strengthen our processes and prevent similar errors in the future.”
In an interview with The Center Square, Myers argued that Ecology’s statement came out at the same as his article “because I had warned them. They didn’t do this because they were interested in correcting the record. But they have, so that’s great. Now, we should look at this report and say, ‘Okay, you know, what works and what doesn’t. Clearly, we are spending a massive amount of money for tiny environmental benefit, which is the complaint that we’ve always had.”
The Center Square Associate Editor Carleen Johnson contributed to this story.
