"First, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office – the most respected voice in Sacramento – issued a Nov. 17 analysis that said the ARB's methodology was deeply flawed and often ignored evidence that would counter the economic-boom thesis. Its most startling finding was that the ARB arbitrarily defined any reduction in greenhouse gas emission as being cost-effective. If, say, energy costs double for a small business because of AB 32, how is that possibly cost-effective?
Then came the release of a scathing 'peer review' of the scoping plan. Harvard's Robert Stavins wrote that the ARB's 'economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways' and could not be relied on. Janet Peace and Liwayway Adkins of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change wrote that the analysis 'gives the appearance of justifying the chosen package of regulatory measures rather than evaluating it.' Wesleyan University's Gary Yohe wrote it was 'almost beyond belief' that the agency could claim vast economic gains and decried the “spurious precision” of its forecasts. UCLA's Matthew Kahn noted the considerable evidence contradicting the ARB's claims that manufacturers, who employ 1.5 million Californians, would not be hurt by higher energy costs. Dallas Burtraw of the Resources for the Future group said the models used by the ARB underestimate costs, wrongly anticipate a 'frictionless,' easy transition to new energy sources and are in troubling 'harmony' about the economic upside of the scoping plan."
-- The Editors, on the "Green Dreams" the California Air Resources Board is delivering to the public, in The San Diego Union Tribune.