The Colorado Sun's Disingenuous Reporting on the Cost of Colorado's Energy Policy
The Colorado Sun's Disingenuous Reporting on the Cost of Colorado's Energy Policy
Colorado Sun environmental advocate (oops, "reporter") Michael Booth recently put up an op ed masquerading as news.
In it he discusses a Common Sense Institute study that dared claim that our state's energy policy is raising energy prices.
In part 1 of this newsletter, we'll look at the study.
In part 2, we'll look at Booth's op ed.
In part 3, we'll talk some of the due diligence that Booth didn't include about one of the groups he quotes.
Then a quick wrap up.
The Common Sense Institute (CSI) Report
Before looking at Mr. Booth's piece in the Sun, let's start by looking over the report that is its subject. I link to it first below.
The authors of the report present an economic analysis of Colorado policy since 2019. I'll leave it to you to read through in detail, but the toplines are not too surprising given who CSI is: there has been a great deal of environmental laws passed in Colorado and these laws have harmed our economy and increased our cost of living.
Screenshot 1 from the report gives you the author's summary, and screenshot 2 shows a time-series of environmental laws passed. Clearly, while they've been rising since the study period start of 2009, there's quite a leap from 2019forward (about where the red vertical line is and the date when Democrats took unchecked power in Colorado).
The study authors go on to estimate in detail (and remember this verb here because it is important for later) the effects of this regulation in Colorado, finding values for lost GDP (gross domestic product--abroad number that gives you some sense of economic health because itis total economic output), lost income/jobs, lost tax revenue, etc.
For those that like pictures, screenshot 3 gives the report's estimates for 2023 as pie charts. For those that like numbers, there is a summary table with other time periods in the report. It's quite evident that (in 2023 and likely other years) energy production in this state has been the whipping boy. Oil/gas, coal, and electricity generation combined account for about75% of each.
Continuing in the report, the authors go into more depth on the economic impacts of Colorado policies on the industries shown in the pie charts above. I do not have the space or time to go point by point through each (even as a summary)but, because it is something we all see and feel and because relates to something I will take up later, I want to highlight electric energy prices specifically.
Screenshots 4a and4b are my zoomed-out pictures that list electrical energy regulations since 2009. 4a is the list from 2009 to 2018, 4b the list from2019 to present. I repeated the header row so that you could more fairly compare their size. You will note that in the5 years of Democratic power in this state, the sum total of energy regulation is approximately the same as that for the 9 previous years.
Screenshots 5a and 5b show you the study author's narrative about electricity prices along with a graph comparing same. Colorado's is in blue, the neighboring states' average price in red, and CSI's estimate of our price without environmental policy is in black. The dotted line is for a specific bill that put in greenhouse gas targets, and I link to that bill second below if you'd like to read up on it.
It's hard to tell from the graph, but a similar pattern to the list of regulations emerges if you compare electricity prices for Colorado compared to our neighbors' prices: Colorado's prices have risen faster by quite a bit. Starting at2019 and going to present, the average price our neighbors paid increased about 8.3%. Colorado's, however, increased by 15.6%,almost twice the rate.
Regulation is not new, nor is itentirely a Democrat phenomenon. As you can see in thescreenshots I attach, this goes back years, long before unfetteredDemocrat control of our government. The subject might change,but the regulating has not.
Price increases are a complex matter of interactions between the market and government regulation. This is also not a new phenomenon. Looking again at the graphs (5b as an example) shows a distinct upward trend in electricity prices for us and our neighbors.
Reports like these are estimates. Estimates made by humans, and made with a variety of assumptions. They have to be: as I noted above, the kinds of interactions involved in pricing have too many moving parts to do anything else.
As such you should be careful to note that fact, you should consider what is measured, what is estimated, and take things like the author's estimate of, for example, our electric price without regulation with a grain of salt.
This doesn’t mean that you reject everything you see. There are, for example, certain things which admit to a direct link between policy and price. While Xcel and others are regulated to offer their energy at cost, they are allowed profit on new construction, and they put a direct charge for such things on your bill.
Link 3 below details the so-called "Fenberg Rider" on your Xcel bill and gives an example: in order to electrify our world in Colorado to meet our emissions targets (targets we STILL haven't met) our grid infrastructure needs to be beefed up. The Fenberg Rider adds a cost for that to your bill.
Whether this rider (outside of just the direct cost) equates to people buying less electricity and fewer groceries, thus spurring less growth and fewer jobs AND how much of an effect there is will be debatable. It’s reasonable to debate whether this effect makes GDP drop by, just making up a number, $1 million or $2 million.
What is not reasonable is to claim no effect. Clearly there is: pass the Fenberg Rider into law and your energy bills go up. Give tax breaks to someone to build EV chargers and that shortage gets made up somehow.
One last thing to point out. I’d like to point one more time to the rate at which the increase in regulation and price happens. Prices and regulation grow everywhere, but not like they do here. This is not a dynamic controlled by outside factors or complex market factors. This has been a decision made by those running this state, and is unique to the 2019 to present period. It represents a huge (and quick) shift in values and you cannot claim this would happen without attendant economic shifts.
In part 2 we'll look at Mr. Booth's piece which (likely by design)unfairly picks at this CSI report.
https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/energy-and-our-environment/costs-of-colorados-environmental-and-emission-reduction-targets-over-15-years-
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1261
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/the-fenberg-rider-you-dont-mind-paying?utm_source=publication-search
Mr. Booth's Disingenuous Reporting
What spurred me to write today's 3 part series was an email from the reader. They sent me what you will see in the first link below. It's a special newsletter the Sun produces called "The Temperature" billed as covering (quoting from the subhead): "Climate, Health + Where They Intersect"
About halfway down the page, you'll see the section titled: "Is Colorado’s greening costly for the economy?" Right below that title (if you look in the link) you'll see the exact same graph as I mentioned in part 1 above this.
From the jump, it's clear where things are going to go. Quoting (leaving the bold text intact, I thought these might be links, but not from what I could see):
"Colorado residents may indeed find cleaner air and water to be a priceless concept, but they’re not told enough about the true cost to the state economy before new policies are passed, a study says. More than 100 major environmental requirements have been added to state laws since 2009, the Common Sense Institute says, and those have shaved $32 billion from Colorado’s economic output. The conservative policy nonprofit, which has been critiqued for not disclosing donors or detailing the methodology of its high-profile economic studies, wants policymakers to make costs a bigger part of their deliberations."
I have written in the past about reporters editorializing by saying things like "has been critiqued" (leaving the natural follow up question of "Who says?" or "What did they say specifically?" unanswered) or by picking someone who will make your point for you and then liberally quoting them.
You'll find both here, though an interesting dynamic happens. This, what we might call a "teaser" for a larger article that came later in the Colorado Sun paper proper, is actually reasonably balanced; it's fair in the sense that about equal space is given to both points of view.
Don't worry, it won't last long. The quote (with link intact) at the end of this first link makes that pretty plain: "We are gathering other responses to the Common Sense Institute (CSI) report from Colorado environmental groups. We’ll share more of the report and those responses in a few days at coloradosun.com.”
The follow up article, published later on May 2nd, is linked second below.
Let's put aside the legitimate question of whether the Sun ever gathers other responses to environmentalists' claims,--how many they gather and from whom--and look in at Mr. Booth's work.
Much of the writing from the first link, the teaser, is still there in the main article, but the additions tilt this later piece away from the nominal balance the first effort had.
In comparison to the roughly 50/50 mix of for and against comment in the teaser, this article gives critics of CSI's work about twice (2.1 times) the space to give their perspective as they do CSI themselves. From government agencies down to nonprofits, the litany of their criticism fits roughly into a theme of "our work is much more sophisticated while CSI's is simplistic; CSI only wants to make a political point."
Screenshot 1 is a collage of such statements from the full Sun article.
They're entitled to their perspective of course, and it's not unreasonable for an outlet to print their thoughts, but fair journalism would allow for roughly equal space for each and also it would look skeptically at everyone's claims, not simply those they disagree with. This doesn't happen here.
There are a couple stabs at it, with (much less) feedback provided by CSI. Screenshot 2 has some of their responses. Quick notes: The "Caufield here is Kelly Caufield, executive director of Common Sense Institute and the hyperlink in the first block of text is simply to their study which you can find in part 1.
I wrote in the previous post about CSI's study being an estimate, an estimate made by humans who pay attention to some things and not others. Guess what?
Whether it's CSI, or the Environmental Defense Fund, the Colorado Energy Office, or Western Resource Advocates, it's also all estimates. What I mean is that there is no a priori reason to say that one estimate is better than another. As I wrote before, you just have to understand what you are given.
I detailed CSI's study in the previous post, and so by way of example and comparison, I'll briefly touch on the Coal Cost Crossover study touted by one of the environmental groups in screenshot 1. The full study is linked third below, but a quick look through the study shows just as much in the way of sophisticated estimating and guess as you'd find in the CSI report.
Screenshot 3 attached is a collage of some samples from the Coal Cost Crossover report detailing their assumptions and methods.
A quick and easy way to see one particular detail left out is in screenshot 4 attached. One of the big (and rarely mentioned) things that make renewables "competitive" with other energy sources are hefty tax subsidies. As you can clearly see in the Coal Cost report, solar without your tax money sometimes costs more than coal.
None of this gets scrutiny from Mr. Booth. Ample space is given to the advocates who give the editorial comment Booth wants about CSI, little in the way of assessment of the advocates' words appears in his piece.
It's left out so we are given the false impression that somehow CSI's report is deficient, and the reports made by the Colorado Energy Office or environmental groups are not.
In the third and final part today, we'll look at Booth's failure to report a possible motive for at least one of the environmental group's take on the CSI report.
https://mailchi.mp/coloradosun/the-temperature-12911152?e=1c6292c4f6
https://coloradosun.com/2025/05/02/common-sense-report-cost-of-greening-colorado-disputed/
https://energyinnovation.org/report/the-coal-cost-crossover-3-0/
Related:
It isn't just Common Sense Institute studies that Booth writes op eds on. He's good at leaving out all kinds of important context or response across a whole variety of topics.
He did an article about feedlots and didn't bother to talk to a single one.
I did, and then wrote an op ed which laid out all the important detail and context Booth chose to ignore.
Linked below.
https://completecolorado.com/2024/06/03/gaines-colorado-sun-left-out-lopsided-feedlot-story/
Mr. Booth's Lack of Due Diligence
I want to wrap up today's three part series on the Colorado Sun's attack article on the Common Sense Institute, CSI, Colorado energy policy study by taking the time to note something Mr. Booth (the author) decided to not include in his article.
Mr. Booth did not do his due diligence in assessing his sources.
In the full version of the Sun article (see the second link in the previous post), you will note that he seeks comment on CSI report from Western Resource Advocates (WRA). Screenshot 1 gives the extended quote from that article.
Mr. Booth, who, in both the short "teaser" and full article, uses the old reporter's editorializing trick of saying some have taken CSI to task "for not disclosing donors" seems to completely have missed or ignored the fact that WRA might have motivations for what they say too. Motivations which might inform a reader's opinion about what they say.
In an April 25th newsletter (see the first link below) I detail the hundreds of thousands of dollars which WRA has gotten in government grants. Quoting my newsletter:
"Running some totals, you see that WRA received about $650k in state grants since 2017 with about $570k (88% of the total) coming since Democrats took full control of Colorado in 2019. As a general theme, you'll note that much of the money they get is grants related to water."
In the spreadsheet I shared in that report, you will note a single $2500 payment to WRA from the Colorado Energy Office. I asked their media person for a copy of that grant. The second link below is to an invoice WRA presented to the Colorado Energy Office to help run a virtual forum on Colorado's new energy economy. The third link below is to the agenda for that forum.** WRA charged the state to help provide some of the (quoting the invoice): "... staff time and organization resources needed to host this forum."
WRA's getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in government money (including some from a state agency that Booth also cites in his article) to do things for our state doesn't automatically make what they say wrong, just as CSI not disclosing donors doesn't make them automatically wrong, but knowing would help readers understand what they're getting.
Knowing it would help the reader assess what they're told because no matter what anyone says, the relationship between giver and receiver of money is important and cannot be ignored.
This makes it all the more curious that Booth chooses to leave it out of his article.
I checked the other group quoted in Booth's piece (the Environmental Defense Fund) to see if they too had a grantor/grantee relationship with the state. I was not able to find any payouts on the state's TOPS expense reports.
I will have the final remarks on this whole thing separated out below this.
**You'll note CU's participation here too.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cy7KjB8N_OBf1lbbYDYAuCvJxvVlbCBd/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xQ3Wm7aRBpkvx0fMiLjEzKjmhuoptNpf/view?usp=sharing
Let's wrap up
I want to end with a quote from the full Colorado Sun article (linked in the second post today):
"[Executive director of Common Sense Institute Kelly] Caufield said Common Sense would welcome competing economic studies 'if that can be done in a way where the playing field is even, and then policymakers can decide for themselves. The public can decide for themselves whether the costs are justified and make informed decisions.'”
This to me is the main idea. If you got nothing else from my writing today, I hope it was this idea.
All reports, all estimates of policy impact, are a product of their time and their authors. This is true for the reports that CSI produces and the reports that the Colorado Energy Office produces. One is not inherently superior to the other (given similar care in their production which I find to be the case for CSI's reports compared with others).
To be fair, to be complete, our government shouldn't rely on any one source or any one perspective when they go to analyze the policy they impose on us. They shouldn't rely on that either for advertising said policy. They shouldn't, but politics being what it is, they do.
Our press, therefore, should take to themselves the job of providing a check on this tendency. The Colorado Sun's Michael Booth here does not. What he provides here is, under the guise of news, an opportunity for interests (some of whom clearly have financial and other motives, motives he chooses not to share) to tell us all how one side of the conversation is not trustworthy while they are.
To be disingenuous is to hide a full look at an issue. To pretend you don't know something that would give more perspective on it. This is common enough in opinion writing, but it shouldn't be a feature of news writing, and yet we have it here from the Sun and Mr. Booth.
Not a check on power, an aid to it.