Beacon Hill Inst

promoted to primary 6/15, evil pendingberman, alfordcapt 815
see suffolk,  pres tuerck= part of choke hold series icn<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29102017/renewable-energy-ohio-rps-law-fossil-fuel-political-donations-coal">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29102017/renewable-energy-ohio-rps-law-fossil-fuel-political-donations-coal</a>COLUMBUS, Ohio—On March 30, Bill Seitz, a charismatic Republican, took to the floor of the Ohio House to make a case for gutting a 2008 law designed to speed the adoption of solar and wind as significant sources of electricity in the state. The law, he warned, "is like something out of the 5-Year Plan playbook of Joseph Stalin." Adopting a corny Russian accent, he said, "Vee vill have 25,000 trucks on the Volga by 1944!'"Nine years before, <a href="http://www.ohiohouse.gov/bill-seitz" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Seitz</a> and his colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, had voted overwhelmingly for the measure he now compared to the work of a Communist dictator. It made Ohio the 25th state to embrace requirements and inducements to lure utilities away from coal, a major contributor of the gases fueling global climate change. Studies suggested the law would help create green energy jobs and boost the Ohio economy—and it has.Now, Seitz said, it was obsolete. Natural gas, rapidly displacing coal, was the resource Ohio ought to foster, he said. He also argued the law gives an unfair advantage to wind and solar when the state's last nuclear plant is fighting for its life. Most important, Seitz insisted, the government had no business telling anyone what kind of energy to buy. By the time he was done, he had secured a veto-proof majority to undo key parts of the law.What happened to turn lawmakers so decisively against a statute they'd adopted 93-to-1 less than a decade ago?The answers begin with the 2008 financial crisis, which hit Ohio hard and greatly depressed energy demand, and they include the shale gas boom, which benefited Ohio producers and made coal uncompetitive.
But there's more to the story, too.As fossil fuel interests mobilized at the national level to fight proposals to mitigate climate change that would undercut their profits, they made Ohio a priority for fighting clean energy policy at the state level. Beginning in earnest in 2011, a network of coal companies, utilities, think tanks, nonprofit foundations and political action committees coalesced to roll back Ohio's alternative energy initiatives.Industry-supported think tanks provided highly questionable research purporting to show big job losses. An industry group claiming to represent consumers—and accused of using fraudulent tactics before regulatory agencies—advised Seitz's staff on how to water down the definition of alternative energy. And industry sources donated to the campaigns of state politicians, like Seitz, who've kept the repeal-and-replace bills coming, even after Republican Gov. John Kasich vetoed a similar effort.This network includes <a href="https://americansforprosperity.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Americans for Prosperity</a>, a foundation funded by the energy magnates <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Koch-Charles-G-and-David-H" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Charles and David H. Koch</a>; the <a href="http://www.heritage.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Heritage Foundation</a>, a Washington-based advocacy group known for its criticism of climate change science; and the <a href="https://www.alec.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">American Legislative Exchange Council </a>(ALEC), another conservative nonprofit in Washington with Koch ties that frequently spoon-feeds draft legislation to state politicians.Seitz is on ALEC's national board of directors, but he bristles at the suggestion that he relies on the council for guidance. "ALEC doesn't drive me," he told InsideClimate News. "If anything I drive ALEC." Either way, in 2012, ALEC adopted an "Electricity Freedom Act" that reads like a declaration of war against the kind of energy rules on the books in Ohio and calls for the effort to reject them that Seitz leads.<h3 dir="ltr" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.333; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Rise of Clean Energy Scare Studies</h3>Once a major coal producer, Ohio has a lesser-known history with fuel-free electricity. In the winter of 1887-88, Charles F. Brush constructed the world's first electricity-generating wind turbine on a 60-foot iron mast behind his Cleveland mansion. <a href="http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Charles_F._Brush" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Brush</a> held more than 50 patents, and his company joined with several others to form General Electric. In 1984, physicist <a href="https://alchetron.com/Harold-McMaster-770594-W" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Harold McMaster</a> first demonstrated in his Toledo basement the potential for thin, non-silicon-based films to capture the sun's energy. Glasstech, now called First Solar, has led the conversion of Toledo into a solar manufacturing hub. The University of Toledo trains engineers for the many photovoltaic companies in the region, and, in 2007, it added the <a href="http://www.utoledo.edu/research/pvic/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation</a> and Commercialization to transfer what's in its labs to nearby factories...."Ohio has a legitimate claim to being a leader in renewable energy, which is what makes the effort to stymie renewables here all the more ironic," said Bill Spratley, former executive director of Green Energy Ohio, an advocacy organization in Columbus. He said if the Seitz bill became law, "we might end up supplying everyone else with these wonderful technologies while we don't get to benefit from them ourselves."Spratley testified against Seitz's bill. He noted that there are roughly 80 companies making parts for wind power systems in Ohio and scores of engineers and sales representatives installing solar, "and those jobs aren't going anywhere," he said. "Those are local jobs."Ten years ago, more Ohio politicians embraced Spratley's message. In 2007-08, as the <a href="https://leftofdayton.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/gov-stricland-outlines-new-energy-policy-goals/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">"Energy, Jobs and Progress"</a> plan made its way toward law, energy demand was strong, prices were expected to remain high, and awareness of coal's contribution to climate change had peaked. The law committed Ohio to cutting energy consumption by 22 percent by 2025 and diversifying sources so that 12.5 percent of its electricity would come from alternative energy sources—geothermal, biomass, wind, solar.
In 2011, the former American Tradition Institute, now the <a href="https://eelegal.org/" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" box-sizing="box-sizing" inherit="inherit" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Energy and Environment Legal Institute</a>, commissioned an analysis of the economic impacts of Ohio's energy standards. Based in Washington, the EELI receives funding from Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, the two largest suppliers of coal in the United States. The <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" box-sizing="box-sizing" inherit="inherit" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold">Beacon Hill Institute</a>, then an affiliate of Boston's Suffolk University and a frequent publisher of papers critical of climate-related policies, undertook the study.  Demand and prices fell with the recession and the shale gas boom, but the promise of more jobs and less global warming continued to resonate. Or it did until studies started showing up that warned that the law would do more harm than good.In its report, Beacon Hill forecast that the Ohio energy standards would result in the loss of 9,750 jobs, wipe out $1.1 billion in disposable income every year, and force Ohioans to pay $8.6 billion more for electricity in 2025. The authors, among them BHI's executive director, <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/staff.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">David G. Tuerck</a>, reached this conclusion based on an economic model that ignored the rapidly declining cost of electricity generated by wind and solar. Beacon Hill later lost its Suffolk University affiliation because, a university spokesman told The Boston Globe, its research lacked rigor and tended to reach conclusions sought by its underwriters....no link below, many
Cost claim and rebuttal.On April 13, 2011, ALEC sent the Beacon report to all its members in the Ohio legislature, warning that the energy rules were "a blueprint for economic misery."RPS cost claim and savings rebuttal.Citing the study, state Sen. Kris Jordan introduced a bill five months later to repeal the alternative energy standards. The measure didn't make it out of committee, but Jordan, Seitz and others kept at it, until, in 2014, they managed to secure a two-year freeze on meeting the annual benchmarks established under the 2008 law.
Cost claim and rebuttalMore scare studies followed. In 2015, the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University published a paper suggesting Ohio's energy rules would kill off 29,000 jobs. Last spring, the Buckeye Institute, a free-market think tank across the street from the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, modeled four economic scenarios; the rosiest estimated that the renewable and energy efficiency standards would cost Ohio 6,800 jobs and $806 million in GDP by 2026.
RPS jobs claim and rebuttal."Those studies are completely bogus," said Terrence O'Donnell, a lawyer representing renewable energy developers at Dickinson Wright, a Columbus law practice. "The Utah one is the most ridiculous, because it blames everything that happened to the economy during the recession on the renewable portfolio standards. It's laughable. There's not one policy maker I know of who still refers to it." The Buckeye Institute, he added, assesses "a fictitious Ohio law, not the one on the books." For example, the Buckeye economists assume "that the cost containment provisions in the law simply won't kick in if prices for renewable energy rise. But they don't say why." And the price of solar electricity hasn't just fallen a little bit; it's less than half of what it was three years ago.Several other studies have concluded that Ohio's energy rules have, on the contrary, created jobs and improved the economy.  One, published by Ohio State University's Center for Resilience, found that in 2012 alone, the law stimulated a modest .04 percent, or $160 million, in GDP growth statewide. According to the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC), the state added more than 2,300 renewable energy projects and 25,000 clean energy jobs since 2009. Not minus 29,000 jobs, but plus 25,000 jobs, and not based on a model, but on payroll and labor statistics.
Renewable Portfolio Standards, State by StateTrish Demeter, the OEC's managing director of energy, said the 2008 law benefits the state in another way. Its energy efficiency provisions are saving money. For every dollar invested in efficiency, she said, "Ohio ratepayers are saving between $1.10 and $4.20 on their utility bills, depending on what kind of consumer they are." She said this data came from actual receipts, not models, and had been reviewed by the Ohio Consumers Council and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).So whose numbers are right? On behalf of Gov. Kasich's office, Matt Cox, a Ph.D. from MIT and founder of Greenlink, a consulting practice in Atlanta, modeled three scenarios to try to determine if Ohio's energy rules were too aggressive. Overall, Cox found that the rules generated more jobs, more GDP and, in time, lowered electrical bills.
Ohio State Rep. Bill SeitzSeitz told InsideClimate News that Cox ought not to have factored public health impacts of air pollution into his study. Cox responded, "How can you do a cost-benefit analysis and not factor in a cost that is borne, not by the utility, but by everyone else?"Dave Anderson is policy and communications manager for the Energy & Policy Institute, a watchdog group headquartered in San Francisco. He and his team note that all three of the organizations behind the Ohio scare studies—Beacon Hill, Utah State and Buckeye—have received donations from the Koch brothers or their affiliates. For example, the Buckeye Institute receives funding from the Koch-backed Donors Capital Fund and Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundations, as well as directly from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
Passionate Opposition to Wind PowerThe bill that froze Ohio's energy rules in 2014 also created an Energy Mandates Study Committee to determine whose numbers were best and what to do next.To staff the committee, Seitz turned to Sam Randazzo, general counsel for a consortium of electricity purchasers large and small called the Industrial Energy Users of Ohio. Randazzo has been deeply involved in shaping Ohio's energy policy for five decades and, like Seitz, opposes the 2008 standards.On Aug. 8, 2016, as the freeze neared expiration and the EMSC was due with its findings, Seitz wrote to 10 utility, gas and coal lobbyists, as well as Randazzo, that "we should be meeting as a small group to figure out what that report is going to say." (The watchdog group EPI obtained this email through a public records request.)The EMSC counted 12 elected officials, among them Seitz, as members. These 12 collectively received $830,000 in campaign contributions from utilities, oil and gas interests, and coal mining companies, according to an investigation by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Contributions from electric utilities to Seitz more than tripled after he began trying to dismantle the state's renewable energy standards.
Following the MoneyRandazzo disputed any notion that the committee was stacked by the fossil fuel industry. "This was a legislatively appointed body with representation by both Republicans and Democrats," he said. And, it was "absolutely open to all stakeholder positions."In an interview, Seitz was blunt about whose interests he was looking out for. "Coal is moribund and crowded out by natural gas. If there's anyone I should have an affinity for it's the natural gas guys. ... The old saying is, you dance with who brung you to the dance. In Ohio, natural gas is who brung us to the dance."Seitz despises wind turbines, and his dedication to rolling back Ohio's energy standards stems in part from his passionate opposition to wind power. In fact, the only reason he voted for the standards back in 2008, he said, was a promise by the Senate president that he could write the language on turbines. Over time, Seitz has been behind restrictions that have wiped out any large new projects. "There will be no wind farms!" he said, with satisfaction.Turbines, Seitz said, take up too much room, don't work when the wind doesn't blow, and are not a good fit for his district, in the far corner of the state where it borders Indiana and Kentucky. His neighbors love spending time in their yards and don't want any turbines wrecking their "view sheds," or chopping up bats and birds, he said. And it doesn't help matters that "it seems to be a cabal of urban millennials who love wind [power] and want to inflict the damage on rural landscapes—stick it out there in the country where all the bumpkins can't do anything about it. That's not very nice. So I'm not a big fan of wind."
Gov. John KasichThe final Energy Mandates Study Committee report was a gift to incumbent utilities and gas and coal interests. It recommended an indefinite extension of the freeze on renewable standards and more or less mirrored a bill Kasich vetoed on Dec. 22, 2016, saying the measure could undermine the state's improved business climate and prevent businesses and homeowners from saving money by saving energy.Undeterred by Kasich's veto, HB 114, the bill that passed on March 30, contains much of the EMSC wishlist.Seitz's staff also received advice from the Consumer Energy Alliance on expanding the definition of what counts as an alternative form of energy. The CEA is comprised of few consumers, operates out of HBW Resources, a Washington-based lobbying firm, and is backed by major oil and gas companies, such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon, Shell and Norway's Statoil. It's a lobbying group that has been challenged before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for submitting public comment letters from individuals who later said in sworn statements that they never signed them. The CEA withdrew a petition in Wisconsin after a local reporter found that some people who signed it actually opposed the utility rate changes CEA was pushing.
Seitz laughed at the notion that he is the face of a well-funded industry campaign. "As I've made clear 20 times, I find mandates philosophically obnoxious," he said. "Look, I'm an antitrust lawyer by background and training. Antitrust lawyers tend to favor competition and not be a big fan of monopolies, and tend to believe that government interference ought to be kept to a minimum."
His bill is now in the state Senate, where it may face an uphill fight. John Fortney, spokesman for the Republican majority caucus and Senate President Larry Obhof, said any legislation will have to be a compromise acceptable to both houses and Kasich. Kasich's office did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
Andrew Kear, an assistant professor of political science and environment and sustainability at Bowling Green State University, said HB 114 can't survive without substantial changes. He said any measure will have to recognize that renewable energy is an economic driver in parts of the state. "They have to get beyond the false dichotomy that it's environment versus economy," he said.==http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/13/a-web-of-climate-deception-the-beacon-hill-inst/203263
<div class="item-summary">

                  <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>A deceptive op-ed campaign to undermine action on

climate change is underway in states across the country. Infamous

corporate lobbyist Richard Berman is funding sham "studies" attacking

the EPA's Clean Power Plan that are produced by the Beacon Hill

Institute and distributed by the State Policy Network -- two

organizations with financial ties to the oil billionaire Koch brothers.

The Beacon Hill Institute studies, which will appear in 16 states this

year, dramatically inflate the Clean Power Plan's projected costs and

admittedly don't even analyze the EPA's actual proposal -- so newspapers

owe it to their readers to avoid promoting these studies or publishing

op-eds that do.

        </div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">

                  <h2><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beacon Hill Institute Analyzed An Imaginary

Proposal To Massively Inflate The Clean Power Plan's Projected Costs And

Deny Its Projected Benefits</h2>

Beacon Hill Institute Alleged That Clean Power Plan Will Have Far Greater Costs, Far Smaller Benefits Than EPA Predicted. Upon

announcing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA released a detailed regulatory

impact analysis of the proposal. The EPA found that once the plan is

fully implemented in 2030, its annual compliance costs would be $7.3-8.8

billion, while its total annual climate and health benefits would be

worth $55-93 billion. By contrast, the Beacon Hill Institute's national

study claimed that in 2030 the Clean Power Plan will cost $19.5 billion

annually and produce annual benefits worth just $3.5 billion. [EPA

Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Power Plan, <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf#page=32">June 2014</a>; EPA Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plan Overview, accessed on <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-overview">4/10/15</a>; Beacon Hill Institute, <a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114-IF03-20150225-SD008.pdf">January 2015</a>]

But BHI Admitted Their Study Did Not Actually Examine EPA's Plan. In

a blog post, the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Laurie

Johnson pointed out that the BHI studies do not actually analyze the

Clean Power Plan. Johnson explained that while the EPA plan "sets limits

on a very specific industry, the electricity system," the Beacon Hill

Institute instead "applies a back-of-the-envelope calculation to an

economy-wide carbon tax analysis done by the Department of Energy's

Energy Information Administration." In response to NRDC, BHI defended

its studies -- but tellingly did not deny that they fail to address the

Clean Power Plan itself:

<blockquote>In order to analyze the effects of the CPP, it is

necessary to determine the cost of achieving the reduction in carbon

emissions aimed for the EPA. Because the EIA analyzes a scenario in

which carbon emissions are reduced by about the amount intended by the

EPA, its analysis provides a useful benchmark for the cost of achieving

the intended reductions in emissions. This cost, put by the EIA at $10

per tonne of carbon eliminated, helps get us to an estimate of the cost

of the EPA rules on the economy. [NRDC's Switchboard, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>; Beacon Hill Institute, <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHI-Response-to-NRDC-Criticism20150313FINAL.pdf">3/13/15</a>]

</blockquote>

Media Fact-Checkers Previously Declared It "False" To Cite A Study That Didn't Analyze EPA's Actual Plan. The

BHI study is reminiscent of another study attacking the Clean Power

Plan by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber study was published

before the Clean Power Plan was released and analyzed an imaginary

proposal that was nothing like what EPA ultimately laid out, but that

didn't stop critics from frequently citing the Chamber study to attack

the EPA proposal after it was unveiled. PolitiFact noted that the

Chamber acknowledged its "estimates are not based on the [EPA] goals as

announced," and determined that the Chamber's numbers were "false." The Washington Post's Fact

Checker blog similarly noted that the Chamber had admitted its figures

"do not apply at all to the EPA rule as written," and awarded "four

Pinocchios" to Republican officials who cited it to criticize the EPA.

[PolitiFact, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/02/john-boehner/Boehner-says-Obama-climate-change-jobs-bills-costs/">6/2/14</a>; The Washington Post, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/03/gop-lawmakers-rush-to-cite-study-to-discredit-new-epa-rule-but-study-assumed-epa-rule-would-be-tougher/">6/3/14</a>]

<h2>Environmentalists, Economists Highlighted Other Major Problems With BHI's Research Methods</h2>

Union of Concerned Scientists: BHI Ignored Savings From Energy Efficiency. The

Union of Concerned Scientists criticized the BHI studies of the Clean

Power Plan for "assum[ing] that states will not choose to use renewable

energy and energy efficiency to cost effectively meet their targets":

<blockquote>BHI wrongly assumes that states will not choose to use

renewable energy and energy efficiency to cost effectively meet their

targets for reducing carbon pollution under <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/node/5185">the EPA's proposal</a>. In reality, many states already choose to require utilities to meet targets for <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#buildingblocks">increasing renewable energy and improving energy efficiency</a>, policies that will count towards compliance. By excluding energy efficiency from its analysis, BHI is simply ignoring <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#minimalcosts">savings on electricity bills</a> projected by the EPA, and those delivered by <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#buildingblocks">actual energy efficiency programs in the real world</a>. [Union of Concerned Scientists, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/beacon-hill-institute-study-clean-power-plan#.VSLie_nF98F">3/12/15</a>]

</blockquote>

NRDC: BHI Used Lowball Estimate For Social Cost Of Carbon. The

National Resources Defense Council noted that Beacon Hill used an

implausibly low estimate for the social cost of carbon (SCC), which

measures the economic damages associated with increased carbon dioxide

emissions and was used by the EPA to estimate the Clean Power Plan's

climate-related benefits. While the EPA -- with input from economic

experts and other federal agencies -- has estimated that the SCC is

approximately $40 per metric ton of carbon pollution, the Beacon Hill

Institute used a SCC of just $10 per metric ton of CO2. Both the EPA and

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have

noted that even the $40/metric ton figure likely underestimates the true

social cost of carbon. As the EPA explained: "The models used to

develop SCC estimates do not currently include all of the important

physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized

in the climate change literature because of a lack of precise

information on the nature of damages and because the science

incorporated into these models naturally lags behind the most recent

research." However, when challenged on its use of a low SCC by NRDC, the

Beacon Hill Institute resorted to a form of climate science denial,

stating: "Many economists argue that the social cost of carbon should be

assumed to be zero due to the uncertainty as to the level of warming

that is induced by CO2 emissions, and the level of harm that said

warming would produce."   [NRDC's Switchboard, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>; EPA Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf">November 2013</a>; Beacon Hill Institute, <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHI-Response-to-NRDC-Criticism20150313FINAL.pdf">3/13/15</a>]

NRDC: BHI Ignored Co-Benefits From Reducing Other Pollutants. BHI's Paul Bachman admitted to The Guardian

that its studies excluded the "co-benefits" of the Clean Power Plan,

which the EPA describes as "ancillary emission reductions ... of SO2

[sulfur dioxide], NO2 [nitrogen dioxide], and directly emitted PM2.5

[fine particulate matter], which would lead to lower ambient

concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone." The NRDC explained the significance

of these "co-benefits":

<blockquote>BHI's net "cost" calculation (quotes because the CPP actually has a high <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits">net benefit</a>, not cost) is dramatically inflated because it removes "co-benefits" from reducing carbon pollution emissions. <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits">These are all the lives saved, heart attacks avoided, asthma attacks avoided (and many more benefits)</a>

due to reductions in other pollutants on top of the carbon pollution

reduction--that also happen to decline when you reduce carbon pollution.

[The Guardian, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Power Plan, <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf#page=34">June 2014</a>; NRDC's Switchboard, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>]

</blockquote>

Beacon Hill Studies Used Highly Flawed Economic Model. As

the Iowa version of the Beacon Hill Institute study noted, "Beacon Hill

used their State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP) to estimate the

economic effects of the CPP regulations." But the STAMP model is deeply

flawed, as documented in a 2013 report by economists at Synapse Energy

Economics that examined how the American Legislative Exchange Council

(ALEC) used STAMP to estimate the economic impacts of renewable energy

standards. The report noted that STAMP "misses reality by a mile" by

assuming "an imaginary world of full employment" where new jobs can only

be created "by cutting taxes or electric rates," and that "[a]rbitrary

judgments are used where data are not available, boosting estimates of

job losses." As one of the Synapse report's authors, Tuft University's

Frank Ackerman, explained in Grist: "STAMP has never seen a government

program that it liked or a tax cut that it disliked. Those who want an

objective analysis of the costs and benefits of renewable energy,

however, will need to look elsewhere." [Public Interest Institute, <a href="http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/studies/ps-15-3.pdf">February 2015</a>; Synapse Energy Economics, <a href="http://frankackerman.com/publications/climatechange/ALEC_vs_renewable_energy.pdf">1/4/13</a>; Grist, <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/not-so-smart-alec-how-the-lobbying-group-uses-bad-data-to-fight-clean-energy/">2/23/13</a>]

<h2>Reports Part Of Coordinated Campaign Connected To Fossil Fuel Interests</h2>

BHI Is Jointly Releasing Clean Power Plan Studies With Members Of The State Policy Network. So

far, the Beacon Hill Institute has jointly released state-based reports

with the following organizations, all of which are members of the State

Policy Network (SPN). [State Policy Network directory, accessed <a href="http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp">4/8/15</a>]

<ul><li>Iowa: Public Interest Institute, <a href="http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/studies/ps-15-3.pdf">February 2015</a></li><li>Louisiana: Pelican Institute for Public Policy, <a href="http://www.thepelicanpost.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pelican_BHI_Final1.pdf">February 2015</a></li><li>New Mexico: The Rio Grande Foundation, <a href="http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_beaconhill_new_mexico.pdf">January 2015</a></li><li>North Carolina: The Civitas Institute, <a href="http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/beaconhill_NorthCarolina_FINAL.pdf">January 2015</a></li><li>South Carolina: Palmetto Promise Institute (<a href="http://www.palmettopolicy.org/">formerly</a> Palmetto Policy Forum), <a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/690417_8e911cc0ba994c76a156422d882b927d.pdf">February 2015</a></li><li>Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy <a href="http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/EPAStudy_March2015.pdf">March 2015</a></li><li>Wisconsin: MacIver Institute for Public Policy, <a href="http://static.maciverinstitute.com/EPA%20Rules%20WI%20-%20MacIver%20Beacon%202015%20FINAL.pdf">January 2015</a></li></ul>BHI And State Policy Network Both Have Financial Ties To Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers. The Washington Post reported that both BHI and SPN "have received donations from foundations funded by the Koch brothers." As Politico reported,

a 2013 Center for Media and Democracy analysis of the State Policy

Network's IRS filings found that "its think tanks' combined revenue in

2011 topped $83 million, in large part with funding from conservative

money groups like the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which

receive large donations from groups tied to the Koch brothers and other

prominent conservatives." The Center for Public Integrity has reported

that oil is the "core of the Koch business empire," and that it is in

the Koch brothers' "commercial interest" to oppose policies -- such as

the Clean Power Plan -- that would reduce America's dependence on

carbon-based energy sources. [The Washington Post,<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_print.html"> 11/24/12</a>; Politico, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-99791.html">11/13/13</a>; Center for Media and Democracy, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/spn_national_report_final.pdf">November 2013</a>; Center for Public Integrity, <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence">4/6/11</a>]

BHI's Director Denies Scientific Consensus That Human Activities Are Primary Cause Of Global Warming. The Guardian

reported that BHI director David Tuerck told the newspaper "he had

mixed views on climate change," and quoted Tuerck as saying: "I am not

certain that those emissions are significant enough to offset other

factor changing the climate." However, according to the United Nations'

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "It is extremely

likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed

warming since the mid-20th century." The IPCC defines "extremely likely"

as having 95-100% probability. NASA similarly notes: "Most climate

scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is

human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect' -- warming that results when

the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space." [The Guardian, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; IPCC, <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf">2013</a>; NASA.gov, accessed <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/">4/10/15</a>]

BHI Was Repudiated By Its Own Host University For Seeking To Undermine A Climate Change Initiative. The Guardian reported

the Beacon Hill Institute, which is based in the economics department

of Suffolk University in Boston, issued a grant proposal to carry out

research that would help "pare back or repeal" the Regional Greenhouse

Gas Initiative (RGGI), a program by northeastern states to reduce their

carbon pollution. Suffolk University responded that the grant proposal's

goals "were inconsistent with Suffolk University's mission," and that

the only reason the proposal wasn't rejected is that it "did not go

through the university's approval process." [The Guardian, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/host-university-research-group-climate-suffolk-university">12/5/13</a>]

BHI Previously Released Koch-Funded Studies Used By Fossil

Fuel Front Group In Campaign Against State Renewable Energy Standards. The

Huffington Post reported how BHI studies were similarly released in

states across the country in 2012 as part of a nationwide campaign

against states' renewable energy standards:

<blockquote>[T]he Washington Post reported ALEC's board of directors

adopted a Heartland-crafted model bill that would repeal state standards

requiring utilities to ramp up their use of renewable energy. The model

legislation, the "Electricity Freedom Act," claims these

requirements--currently on the books in 29 states and the District of

Columbia--will dramatically drive up electricity rates.

[...]

To make its case, ALEC--whose <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765">members </a>include major coal, oil and electric utility industry companies--cites analyses by Suffolk University's <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute">Beacon Hill Institute</a> commissioned by the Koch-funded <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/american-tradition-institute">American Tradition Institute</a> and "free-market" state think tanks associated with the Koch-funded <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network">State Policy Network</a>.

The analyses examine current or proposed standards in more than a dozen

states, including Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey.

The studies were partly funded by, you guessed it, the Koch brothers.

[Huffington Post, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-_b_2253472.html">12/7/12</a>]

</blockquote>

<h2>BHI Studies Funded By Rick Berman, The "Dr. Evil" Of Corporate Front Groups</h2>

Reports Funded By Rick Berman's Employment Policies Institute. The Guardian

reported that the recent BHI studies were funded by the Employment

Policies Institute, a group run by Richard Berman, a corporate lobbyist

known as "Dr. Evil," whose front groups "have launched attack ads

against the EPA, environmental groups, fishermen and sportsmen, and

green building organisations." As CBS' 60 Minutes documented,

Berman is infamous for being the "arch-enemy" of government efforts to

reduce the use of "products like caffeine, salt, fast food and the oil

they fry it in," and for opposing "Mothers Against Drunk Driving, animal

rights activists, food watchdog groups and unions of every kind." [The Guardian, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; CBS, 60 Minutes, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-rick-berman-aka-dr-evil/">2/25/11</a><a href="http://http/www.suffolk.edu/documents/ORSP/orsp_news_may_2014.pdf">]</a>

Berman Solicited Secret Funding From Oil And Gas Industry Executives For Anti-Environmental Campaign. The New York Times

reported that Berman solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas

industry executives for a campaign against environmental protections,

with the promise that their involvement would remain hidden:

<blockquote>Mr. Berman solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas

industry executives to finance an advertising and public relations

campaign called Big Green Radicals.

[...]

Mr. Berman repeatedly boasted about how he could take checks from the

oil and gas industry executives -- he said he had already collected

six-figure contributions from some of the executives in the room -- and

then hide their role in funding his campaigns. [The New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives-western-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?_r=4">10/30/14</a>]

</blockquote>

<h2>BHI's Sham Studies Have Been Covered In Several States</h2>

BHI Studies Have Been Released In Seven States So Far. The

Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has so far released a national report and

seven state reports alleging that the Environmental Protection Agency's

carbon pollution standards will increase electricity prices and cost

jobs. The state-based reports have been released in Iowa, Louisiana, New

Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. [Memo

from Energy & Policy Institute and Center for Media and Democracy, <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/beacon-hill-institute-flawed-epa-attack-funded-through-richard-berman-front-group">2/23/15</a>]

BHI Studies Will Be Released In Nine Other States. A spokesman for Suffolk University told The Guardian

that BHI studies will be released in a total of 16 states. States where

the studies have not yet been released include Minnesota, Mississippi,

Nevada, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Washington, Ohio, Alaska, and Utah. [The Guardian, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>]

11 Newspapers Have Published Op-Eds Citing BHI's Clean Power Plan Studies. At

least 11 newspapers already published op-eds promoting the Beacon Hill

Institute studies. The op-eds were authored by state Representatives,

executives from groups in the State Policy Network, and in one case

National Review contributing editor Quin Hillyer. The op-eds appeared in

the following states and publications:

<ul><li>New Mexico: Las Cruces Sun-News, <a href="http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_27481605/paul-j-gessing-epa-rule-changes-will-drive">2/8/15</a>; Farmington Daily Times, <a href="http://www.scsun-news.com/silver_city-opinion/ci_27481604">2/7/15</a>; Silver City Sun-News, <a href="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SCPB&p_theme=scpb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields%28carbon%29%20AND%20date%282/8/2015%20to%202/8/2015%29&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2/8/2015%20to%202/8/2015%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28">2/8/15</a></li><li>Wisconsin: La Crosse Tribune, <a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/courierlifenews/news/opinion/guest-view-epa-regulations-will-cost-state-jobs/article_517c3fce-3bf6-5e53-b291-e2646bf370d2.html">2/19/15</a>; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/proposed-epa-rules-would-harm-wisconsins-economy-b99443620z1-291918411.html">2/15/15</a>; Chippewa Herald, 2/6/15 via Nexis; Dunn County News, <a href="http://chippewa.com/dunnconnect/news/opinion/columnists/federal-epa-regulations-pose-potential-negative-effect-on-wisconsin/article_a0722e25-b67e-5188-bb42-53819e39430f.html">2/6/15</a>; Superior Telegram, <a href="http://www.superiortelegram.com/opinion/commentary/3708516-epa-rule-offers-little-gain-big-risk">3/27/15</a></li><li>North Carolina: The News & Observer, <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article10271696.html">2/10/15</a></li><li>Louisiana: The Advocate, <a href="http://theadvocate.com/columnists/quinhillyer/11645722-123/quin-hillyer-obama-carbon-rule">2/22/15</a>; Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, <a href="http://www.businessreport.com/article/new-epa-carbon-emission-limits-will-increase-la-electricity-prices-22-2030-report-says">2/23/15</a></li><li>[ --> ALFORD?]<a href="http://www.businessreport.com/article/new-epa-carbon-emission-limits-will-increase-la-electricity-prices-22-2030-report-says">
</a></li></ul>Most Recent BHI Study Released In Virginia. Watchdog.org,

the conservative news site run by the Franklin Center, reported on the

latest Beacon Hill report, which was released in Virginia jointly with

the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. The Virginia study was

also amplified by two other conservative news sites, Townhall.com --

which reprinted the Watchdog.org post -- and the Daily Caller.

[Watchdog.org, <a href="http://watchdog.org/209440/epa-va-jobs/">4/1/15</a>; Townhall, <a href="http://townhall.com/watchdog/virginia/2015/04/01/epa-va-jobs-n7478">4/1/15</a>; Daily Caller, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/new-epa-rules-to-increase-electricity-costs-decrease-number-of-jobs-in-virginia/">4/1/15</a>]

        </div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>==<br /></b></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">paul bachman</span> sparse on LI, but scrape tom tanton</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">incubator:</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Andrew Baxter</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Summer Fellow</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Andrew has excellent written and oral communications skills and solid analytical skills. In his position as a summer fellow, we place him in charge of a team of other interns and he executed his research project in a timely manner.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">APolicy and Research Analyst</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">June 2014 – Present (2 years 1 month)Arlington, Virginia</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Charles Koch Institute is educational organization dedicated to the causes of societal well-being, economic freedom, and free societies. In my role I am responsible for extensively researching issues that are aligned with the institute’s mission.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">• Policy Associate and Research Fellow (Jun. ’14 – May ’15)</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Summer Fellow</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beacon Hill Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">February 2013 – August 2013 (7 months)Suffolk University</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Beacon Hill Institute located at Suffolk University in Boston is a free market think tank founded in 1991. The institute performs economic research on myriad of public policy topics ranging from Renewable Portfolio Standards to state competitiveness.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">As a summer fellow my work primarily consisted of guiding a small team of interns as we gathered the information necessary to perform cost benefit analyses on select states' <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Renewable Portfolio Standards</span>. This entailed distilling the standards, identifying their potential costs, and reviewing electricity price/consumption projections before presenting our findings in internal meetings. Prior to this project my efforts, as an intern, were divided between researching questions posed by the local media, data collection, constructing MS Excel/Access databases, and assisting in the creation of policy releases.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">• Summer Fellow (Jun. '13 - Aug. '13)</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">• Research Intern (Feb. '13 - Jun. '13)</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ugust 15, 2013, Paul managed Andrew at Beacon Hill Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">--</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">scrape LI</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Enea Gjoza</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Policy Analyst at Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Michelle Anne Newby</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Michelle Anne Newby</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Policy and Research Analyst at the Charles Koch Institute | Freelance Writer</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Austen Bannan</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Austen Bannan</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Senior Policy Analyst and Research Fellow at Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sabrina Gladstone</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sabrina Gladstone</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Policy and Research Analyst at Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">William Ruger</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">William Ruger</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Vice President, Research and Policy, Charles Koch Institute; Vice President for Research, Charles Koch Foundation</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Michael Tolhurst</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Michael Tolhurst</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Senior Policy and Research Analyst at Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Rick Barton</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Rick Barton</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Policy and Research Analyst</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kenan Safadi</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kenan Safadi</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Policy Analyst at Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Vikrant Reddy</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Vikrant Reddy</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Senior Research Fellow at Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Nick Taylor</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Nick Taylor</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Educational Programs Associate at Charles Koch Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">---</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Eli Cutler</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Research Assistant</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Eli conducted thorough research on a range of projects including cost-benefit analyses of <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">alternative energy mandates, charter schools, and nationalized health care.</span> His research process was detail oriented and he communicated his findings effectively. He further demonstrated excellent writing skills and proved to be a highly competent editor of BHI reports.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">March 12, 2012, Paul managed Eli at The Beacon Hill Institute</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">===</font></p><div><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">NBCC'</span>s Op-Ed Campaign Follows Similar Attacks On The Clean Power Plan From Fossil Fuel Front Groups</font></h2><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Americans For Prosperity State Directors&nbsp;Are&nbsp;Running Op-Ed Campaign Attacking Clean Power Plan.&nbsp;At least<b> 16 newspapers</b> across the country have published nearly identical op-eds from state leaders of Americans for Prosperity (AFP),</span>&nbsp;which misleadingly cite statistics on electricity prices while calling for state legislatures to fight back against the Clean Power Plan. Every newspaper&nbsp;Media Matters&nbsp;reviewed&nbsp;except one failed to disclose the group's ties to the oil industry: AFP was founded, and continues to be largely funded, by the oil billionaire Koch brothers. [Media Matters,&nbsp;<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/25/the-koch-brothers-campaign-against-epa-climate/203041">3/25/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Beacon Hill Institute And State Policy Network Also Seeking To Undermine EPA Climate Plan With Op-Ed Campaign.&nbsp;The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) partnered with members of the State Policy Network (SPN) to jointly produce sham studies and op-eds that dramatically inflate the Clean Power Plan's&nbsp;</span>projected cost without even analyzing the EPA's actual proposal. As of April 13, 11 newspapers in four states had published op-eds written mostly by executives from SPN groups or state legislators, but none of the op-eds disclosed the fossil fuel industry funding behind them. Both BHI and SPN have financial ties to the Koch brothers, and the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;reports themselves were funded by a group run by Richard Berman,</span>&nbsp;a corporate PR executive who has solicited millions in funding from the oil and gas industry. [Media Matters,&nbsp;<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/13/a-web-of-climate-deception-the-beacon-hill-inst/203263">4/13/15</a>]</font></p></div><div class="clear"><div class="im-alert"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://mediamatters.org/inclusionmatters">The values and voices of America's diverse communities are too often excluded from the news media.&nbsp;</a></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">===<br />oops 2x<br /></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MMFA &nbsp;http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/13/a-web-of-climate-deception-the-beacon-hill-inst/203263</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></div><div><div class="wrap content" style="width: 745.765625px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 20px !important;"><div class="bd" style="width: 730.84375px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><div class="bd-main item" style="width: 694.296875px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; margin: 0px auto;"><div class="bd-headline left" style="width: 659.578125px; margin: 0px auto;"><h1 itemprop="name" style="max-width: 100%; width: 659.578125px; margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A Web Of Climate Deception: The Beacon Hill Institute, Richard Berman, And The State Policy Network</font></h1><h2 class="grey-six" style="max-width: 100%; width: 659.578125px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bogus Study On EPA's Clean Power Plan Could Be Coming To A Newspaper Near You</font></h2><h5 class="dhandler-byline"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="grey-nine"><a class="type-research-byline" href="http://mediamatters.org/research"><span itemprop="articleSection">Research</span>&nbsp;</a><time datetime="2015-04-13T15:57:11-04:00" itemprop="datePublished">April 13, 2015 3:57 PM EDT&nbsp;</time>››› DENISE ROBBINS & ANDREW SEIFTER</span></font></h5></div><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body"><p class="item-summary" style="width: 680.40625px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A deceptive op-ed campaign to undermine action on climate change is underway in states across the country.&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Infamous corporate lobbyist Richard Berman is funding sham "studies" attacking the EPA's Clean Power Plan that are produced by the Beacon Hill Institute and distributed by the State Policy Network&nbsp;</span>-- two organizations with financial ties to the oil billionaire Koch brothers. The Beacon Hill Institute studies, which will appear in 16 states this year, dramatically inflate the Clean Power Plan's projected costs and admittedly don't even analyze the EPA's actual proposal -- so newspapers owe it to their readers to avoid promoting these studies or publishing op-eds that do.</font></p><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beacon Hill Institute Analyzed An Imaginary Proposal To Massively Inflate The Clean Power Plan's Projected Costs And Deny Its Projected Benefits</font></h2><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beacon Hill Institute Alleged That Clean Power Plan Will Have Far Greater Costs, Far Smaller Benefits Than EPA Predicted.&nbsp;Upon announcing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA released a detailed regulatory impact analysis of the proposal. The EPA found that once the plan is fully implemented in 2030, its annual compliance costs would be $7.3-8.8 billion, while its total annual climate and health benefits would be worth $55-93 billion. By contrast, the Beacon Hill Institute's national study claimed that in 2030 the Clean Power Plan will cost $19.5 billion annually and produce annual benefits worth just $3.5 billion. [EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Power Plan,&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf#page=32">June 2014</a>; EPA Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plan Overview, accessed on&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-overview">4/10/15</a>; Beacon Hill Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114-IF03-20150225-SD008.pdf">January 2015</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">But BHI Admitted Their Study Did Not Actually Examine EPA's Plan.&nbsp;In a blog post, the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Laurie Johnson pointed out that the BHI studies do not actually analyze the Clean Power Plan. Johnson explained that while the EPA plan "sets limits on a very specific industry, the electricity system," the Beacon Hill Institute instead "applies a back-of-the-envelope calculation to an economy-wide carbon tax analysis done by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration." In response to NRDC, BHI defended its studies -- but tellingly did not deny that they fail to address the Clean Power Plan itself:</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In order to analyze the effects of the CPP, it is necessary to determine the cost of achieving the reduction in carbon emissions aimed for the EPA. Because the EIA analyzes a scenario in which carbon emissions are reduced by about the amount intended by the EPA, its analysis provides a useful benchmark for the cost of achieving the intended reductions in emissions. This cost, put by the EIA at $10 per tonne of carbon eliminated, helps get us to an estimate of the cost of the EPA rules on the economy. [NRDC's Switchboard,&nbsp;<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>; Beacon Hill Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHI-Response-to-NRDC-Criticism20150313FINAL.pdf">3/13/15</a>]</font></p></blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Media Fact-Checkers Previously Declared It "False" To Cite A Study That Didn't Analyze EPA's Actual Plan.&nbsp;The BHI study is reminiscent of another study attacking the Clean Power Plan by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber study was published before the Clean Power Plan was released and analyzed an imaginary proposal that was nothing like what EPA ultimately laid out, but that didn't stop critics from frequently citing the Chamber study to attack the EPA proposal after it was unveiled. PolitiFact noted that the Chamber acknowledged its "estimates are not based on the [EPA] goals as announced," and determined that the Chamber's numbers were "false."&nbsp;The Washington Post's&nbsp;Fact Checker blog similarly noted that the Chamber had admitted its figures "do not apply at all to the EPA rule as written," and awarded "four Pinocchios" to Republican officials who cited it to criticize the EPA. [PolitiFact,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/02/john-boehner/Boehner-says-Obama-climate-change-jobs-bills-costs/">6/2/14</a>;&nbsp;The Washington Post,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/03/gop-lawmakers-rush-to-cite-study-to-discredit-new-epa-rule-but-study-assumed-epa-rule-would-be-tougher/">6/3/14</a>]</font></p><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Environmentalists, Economists Highlighted Other Major Problems With BHI's Research Methods</font></h2><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Union of Concerned Scientists: BHI Ignored Savings From Energy Efficiency.&nbsp;The Union of Concerned Scientists criticized the BHI studies of the Clean Power Plan for "assum[ing] that states will not choose to use renewable energy and energy efficiency to cost effectively meet their targets":</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI wrongly assumes that states will not choose to use renewable energy and energy efficiency to cost effectively meet their targets for reducing carbon pollution under&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/node/5185">the EPA's proposal</a>. In reality, many states already choose to require utilities to meet targets for&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#buildingblocks">increasing renewable energy and improving energy efficiency</a>, policies that will count towards compliance. By excluding energy efficiency from its analysis, BHI is simply ignoring&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#minimalcosts">savings on electricity bills</a>&nbsp;projected by the EPA, and those delivered by&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/how-much-will-clean-power-plan-cost#buildingblocks">actual energy efficiency programs in the real world</a>. [Union of Concerned Scientists,<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/beacon-hill-institute-study-clean-power-plan#.VSLie_nF98F">3/12/15</a>]</font></p></blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">NRDC: BHI Used Lowball Estimate For Social Cost Of Carbon.&nbsp;The National Resources Defense Council noted that Beacon Hill used an implausibly low estimate for the social cost of carbon (SCC), which measures the economic damages associated with increased carbon dioxide emissions and was used by the EPA to estimate the Clean Power Plan's climate-related benefits. While the EPA -- with input from economic experts and other federal agencies -- has estimated that the SCC is approximately $40 per metric ton of carbon pollution, the Beacon Hill Institute used a SCC of just $10 per metric ton of CO2. Both the EPA and United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have noted that even the $40/metric ton figure likely underestimates the true social cost of carbon. As the EPA explained: "The models used to develop SCC estimates do not currently include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature because of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and because the science incorporated into these models naturally lags behind the most recent research." However, when challenged on its use of a low SCC by NRDC, the Beacon Hill Institute resorted to a form of climate science denial, stating: "Many economists argue that the social cost of carbon should be assumed to be zero due to the uncertainty as to the level of warming that is induced by CO2 emissions, and the level of harm that said warming would produce." &nbsp; [NRDC's Switchboard,&nbsp;<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>; EPA Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/EPAactivities/scc-fact-sheet.pdf">November 2013</a>; Beacon Hill Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHI-Response-to-NRDC-Criticism20150313FINAL.pdf">3/13/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">NRDC: BHI Ignored Co-Benefits From Reducing Other Pollutants.&nbsp;BHI's Paul Bachman admitted to&nbsp;The Guardian&nbsp;that its studies excluded the "co-benefits" of the Clean Power Plan, which the EPA describes as "ancillary emission reductions ... of SO2 [sulfur dioxide], NO2 [nitrogen dioxide], and directly emitted PM2.5 [fine particulate matter], which would lead to lower ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone." The NRDC explained the significance of these "co-benefits":</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI's net "cost" calculation (quotes because the CPP actually has a high&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits">net&nbsp;benefit</a>,not cost) is dramatically inflated because it removes "co-benefits" from reducing carbon pollution emissions.&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits">These are all the lives saved, heart attacks avoided, asthma attacks avoided (and many more benefits)</a>&nbsp;due to reductions in other pollutants on top of the carbon pollution reduction--that also happen to decline when you reduce carbon pollution. [The Guardian,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Power Plan,&nbsp;<a href="http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf#page=34">June 2014</a>; NRDC's Switchboard,&nbsp;<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">2/24/15</a>]</font></p></blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beacon Hill Studies Used Highly Flawed Economic Model.&nbsp;As the Iowa version of the Beacon Hill Institute study noted, "Beacon Hill used their State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP) to estimate the economic effects of the CPP regulations." But the STAMP model is deeply flawed, as documented in a 2013 report by economists at Synapse Energy Economics that examined how the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) used STAMP to estimate the economic impacts of renewable energy standards. The report noted that STAMP "misses reality by a mile"</span>&nbsp;by assuming "an imaginary world of full employment" where new jobs can only be created "by cutting taxes or electric rates," and that "[a]rbitrary judgments are used where data are not available, boosting estimates of job losses." As one of the Synapse report's authors, Tuft University's Frank Ackerman, explained in Grist: "STAMP has never seen a government program that it liked or a tax cut that it disliked. Those who want an objective analysis of the costs and benefits of renewable energy, however, will need to look elsewhere." [Public Interest Institute,<a href="http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/studies/ps-15-3.pdf">February 2015</a>; Synapse Energy Economics,&nbsp;<a href="http://frankackerman.com/publications/climatechange/ALEC_vs_renewable_energy.pdf">1/4/13</a>; Grist,&nbsp;<a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/not-so-smart-alec-how-the-lobbying-group-uses-bad-data-to-fight-clean-energy/">2/23/13</a>]&nbsp;</font></p><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reports Part Of Coordinated Campaign Connected To Fossil Fuel Interests</font></h2><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Is Jointly Releasing Clean Power Plan Studies With Members Of The State Policy Network.&nbsp;So far, the Beacon Hill Institute has jointly released state-based reports with the following organizations, all of which are members of the State Policy Network (SPN). [State Policy Network directory, accessed&nbsp;<a href="http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp">4/8/15</a>]</font></p><ul style="max-width: 100%;"><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Iowa: Public Interest Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/studies/ps-15-3.pdf">February 2015</a></font></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Louisiana: Pelican Institute for Public Policy,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thepelicanpost.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pelican_BHI_Final1.pdf">February 2015</a></font></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">New Mexico: The Rio Grande Foundation,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_beaconhill_new_mexico.pdf">January 2015</a></font></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">North Carolina: The Civitas Institute,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/beaconhill_NorthCarolina_FINAL.pdf">January 2015</a></font></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">South Carolina: Palmetto Promise Institute (<a href="http://www.palmettopolicy.org/">formerly</a>&nbsp;Palmetto Policy Forum),&nbsp;<a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/690417_8e911cc0ba994c76a156422d882b927d.pdf">February 2015</a></font></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Virginia: Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/EPAStudy_March2015.pdf">March 2015</a></font></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Wisconsin: MacIver Institute&nbsp;</span>for Public Policy,&nbsp;<a href="http://static.maciverinstitute.com/EPA%20Rules%20WI%20-%20MacIver%20Beacon%202015%20FINAL.pdf">January 2015</a></font></li></ul><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI And State Policy Network Both Have Financial Ties To Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers.The Washington Post&nbsp;reported that both BHI and SPN "have received donations from foundations funded by the Koch brothers." As&nbsp;Politico&nbsp;reported, a 2013 Center for Media and Democracy analysis of the State Policy Network's IRS filings found that "its think tanks' combined revenue in 2011 topped $83 million, in large part with funding from conservative money groups like the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which receive large donations from groups tied to the Koch brothers and other prominent conservatives." The Center for Public Integrity has reported that oil is the "core of the Koch business empire," and that it is in the Koch brothers' "commercial interest" to oppose policies -- such as the Clean Power Plan -- that would reduce America's dependence on carbon-based energy sources. [The Washington Post,<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_print.html">&nbsp;11/24/12</a>;&nbsp;Politico,<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-99791.html">11/13/13</a>; Center for Media and Democracy,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/spn_national_report_final.pdf">November 2013</a>; Center for Public Integrity,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence">4/6/11</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI's Director Denies Scientific Consensus That Human Activities Are Primary Cause Of Global Warming.&nbsp;The Guardian&nbsp;reported that BHI director David Tuerck told the newspaper "he had mixed views on climate change," and quoted Tuerck as saying: "I am not certain that those emissions are significant enough to offset other factor changing the climate." However, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as having 95-100% probability. NASA similarly notes: "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect' -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space." [The Guardian,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; IPCC,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf">2013</a>; NASA.gov, accessed<a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/">4/10/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Was Repudiated By Its Own Host University For Seeking To Undermine A Climate Change Initiative.&nbsp;The Guardian&nbsp;reported the Beacon Hill Institute, which is based in the economics department of Suffolk University in Boston, issued a grant proposal to carry out research that would help "pare back or repeal" the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a program by northeastern states to reduce their carbon pollution.&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Suffolk University responded that the grant proposal's goals "were inconsistent with Suffolk University's mission,"</span>&nbsp;and that the only reason the proposal wasn't rejected is that it "did not go through the university's approval process." [The Guardian,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/05/host-university-research-group-climate-suffolk-university">12/5/13</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Previously Released Koch-Funded Studies Used By Fossil Fuel Front Group In Campaign Against State Renewable Energy Standards.&nbsp;The Huffington Post reported how BHI studies were similarly released in states across the country in 2012 as part of a nationwide campaign against states' renewable energy standards:</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[T]he Washington Post reported ALEC's board of directors adopted a Heartland-crafted model bill that would repeal state standards requiring utilities to ramp up their use of renewable energy. The model legislation, the "Electricity Freedom Act," claims these requirements--currently on the books in 29 states and the District of Columbia--will dramatically drive up electricity rates.</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[...]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">To make its case, ALEC--whose&nbsp;<a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765">members&nbsp;</a>include major coal, oil and electric utility industry companies--cites analyses by Suffolk University's&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute">Beacon Hill Institute</a>commissioned by the Koch-funded&nbsp;<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/american-tradition-institute">American Tradition Institute</a>&nbsp;and "free-market" state think tanks associated with the Koch-funded&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network">State Policy Network</a>. The analyses examine current or proposed standards in more than a dozen states, including Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey. The studies were partly funded by, you guessed it, the Koch brothers. [Huffington Post,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-_b_2253472.html">12/7/12</a>]</font></p></blockquote><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Studies Funded By Rick Berman, The "Dr. Evil" Of Corporate Front Groups</font></h2><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reports Funded By Rick Berman's Employment Policies Institute.&nbsp;The Guardian&nbsp;reported that the recent BHI studies were funded by the Employment Policies Institute, a group run by Richard Berman, a corporate lobbyist known as "Dr. Evil," whose front groups "have launched attack ads against the EPA, environmental groups, fishermen and sportsmen, and green building organisations." As CBS'&nbsp;60 Minutes&nbsp;documented, Berman is infamous for being the "arch-enemy" of government efforts to reduce the use of "products like caffeine, salt, fast food and the oil they fry it in," and for opposing "Mothers Against Drunk Driving, animal rights activists, food watchdog groups and unions of every kind." [The Guardian,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>; CBS,&nbsp;60 Minutes,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-rick-berman-aka-dr-evil/">2/25/11</a><a href="http://http/www.suffolk.edu/documents/ORSP/orsp_news_may_2014.pdf">]</a></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Berman&nbsp;Solicited&nbsp;Secret&nbsp;Funding From Oil And Gas Industry Executives For Anti-Environmental Campaign.&nbsp;The New York Times&nbsp;reported that Berman solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas industry executives for a campaign against environmental protections, with the promise that their involvement would remain hidden:</font></p><blockquote><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Mr. Berman solicited up to $3 million from oil and gas industry executives to finance an advertising and public relations campaign called Big Green Radicals.</font></font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[...]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Mr. Berman repeatedly boasted about how he could take checks from the oil and gas industry executives -- he said he had already collected six-figure contributions from some of the executives in the room -- and then hide their role in funding his campaigns. [The New York Times,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/politics/pr-executives-western-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?_r=4">10/30/14</a>]</font></p></blockquote><h2 style="max-width: 100%; width: 694.296875px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI's Sham Studies Have Been Covered In Several States</font></h2><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Studies Have Been Released In Seven States So Far.&nbsp;The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has so far released a national report and<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;seven state reports</span>&nbsp;alleging that the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon pollution standards will increase electricity prices and cost jobs. The state-based reports have been released in Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. [Memo from Energy & Policy Institute and Center for Media and Democracy,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/beacon-hill-institute-flawed-epa-attack-funded-through-richard-berman-front-group">2/23/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Studies Will Be Released In Nine Other States.&nbsp;A spokesman for Suffolk University told&nbsp;The Guardian&nbsp;that BHI studies<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;will be released in a total of 16 states. States where the studies have not yet been released include Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Washington, Ohio, Alaska, and Utah.&nbsp;</span>[The Guardian,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/23/lobbyist-dubbed-dr-evil-behind-front-groups-attacking-obama-power-rules">2/23/15</a>]</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">11 Newspapers Have Published Op-Eds Citing BHI's Clean Power Plan Studies.&nbsp;At least 11 newspapers already published op-eds promoting the Beacon Hill Institute studies. The op-eds were authored by state Representatives, executives from groups in the State Policy Network, and in one case National Review contributing editor Quin Hillyer. The op-eds appeared in the following states and publications:</font></p><ul style="max-width: 100%;"><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">New Mexico:&nbsp;Las Cruces Sun-News,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_27481605/paul-j-gessing-epa-rule-changes-will-drive">2/8/15</a>;&nbsp;Farmington Daily Times,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.scsun-news.com/silver_city-opinion/ci_27481604">2/7/15</a>;&nbsp;Silver City Sun-News,&nbsp;<a href="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SCPB&p_theme=scpb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=allfields(carbon)%20AND%20date(2/8/2015%20to%202/8/2015)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2/8/2015%20to%202/8/2015)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(">2/8/15</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Wisconsin:&nbsp;La Crosse Tribune,&nbsp;<a href="http://lacrossetribune.com/courierlifenews/news/opinion/guest-view-epa-regulations-will-cost-state-jobs/article_517c3fce-3bf6-5e53-b291-e2646bf370d2.html">2/19/15</a>;&nbsp;Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/proposed-epa-rules-would-harm-wisconsins-economy-b99443620z1-291918411.html">2/15/15</a>;&nbsp;Chippewa Herald, 2/6/15 via Nexis;&nbsp;Dunn County News,&nbsp;<a href="http://chippewa.com/dunnconnect/news/opinion/columnists/federal-epa-regulations-pose-potential-negative-effect-on-wisconsin/article_a0722e25-b67e-5188-bb42-53819e39430f.html">2/6/15</a>;&nbsp;Superior Telegram,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.superiortelegram.com/opinion/commentary/3708516-epa-rule-offers-little-gain-big-risk">3/27/15</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">North Carolina:&nbsp;The News & Observer,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article10271696.html">2/10/15</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Louisiana:&nbsp;The Advocate,&nbsp;<a href="http://theadvocate.com/columnists/quinhillyer/11645722-123/quin-hillyer-obama-carbon-rule">2/22/15</a>;&nbsp;Greater Baton Rouge Business Report,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessreport.com/article/new-epa-carbon-emission-limits-will-increase-la-electricity-prices-22-2030-report-says">2/23/15</a></font></li></ul><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Most&nbsp;Recent BHI Study Released In Virginia.&nbsp;Watchdog.org, the conservative news site run by the Franklin Center, reported on the latest Beacon Hill report, which was released in Virginia jointly with the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Virginia study was also amplified by two other conservative news sites, Townhall.com -- which reprinted the Watchdog.org post -- and the Daily Caller.</span> [Watchdog.org,&nbsp;<a href="http://watchdog.org/209440/epa-va-jobs/">4/1/15</a>; Townhall,&nbsp;<a href="http://townhall.com/watchdog/virginia/2015/04/01/epa-va-jobs-n7478">4/1/15</a>; Daily Caller,&nbsp;<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/new-epa-rules-to-increase-electricity-costs-decrease-number-of-jobs-in-virginia/">4/1/15</a>]</font></p></div><div class="clear"><div id="comments"><div class="clear"><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">==</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">eg BS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">6/15</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><br /></font></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="center"><div class="style37" align="center"><div class="style50" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>BHI study: Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline would strongly benefit Massachusetts, reducing energy costs while driving employment and investment growth</b></font></div></div><p class="style9" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BOSTON - (Wednesday, June 24, 2015) Tennessee Gas Pipeline’s (TGP) proposed Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline (NED) would bring both significant short-term and long-term benefits to Massachusetts according to an economic analysis based on two models by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. TGP is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., which funded the Institute’s study.</font></p><p class="style9" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Beacon Hill Institute analyzed the economic effects of building TGP’s NED project, which would upgrade, extend and build a new pipeline through New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.&nbsp; The Institute used the proprietary IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) model to determine short-term economic impacts and then applied its STAMP (State Tax Analysis Modeling Program) model to determine the long-term impacts.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/NED-Pipeline2015/PR-NEDPIPELINE2015-0624.html">Read more</a></font></p><p class="style9" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/NED-Pipeline2015/BHI-NortheastDirect2015-0619.pdf">Complete Study</a>&nbsp;(PDF)<br /><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/NED-Pipeline2015/FINAL-PressRelease-BHI-PR-NEDPipe-2015-0624.pdf">Press Release</a>&nbsp;(PDF)</font></p><p class="style9" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">&nbsp;</font></p><hr style="text-align: left;" /></div><div align="center"><div class="style37" align="center"><div class="style50" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Response to the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Natural Resources Defense Council's</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> critique of BHI's study of EPA Clean Power Program</span></font></div></div><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Laurie Johnson, an economist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently posted a blog entry that sharply criticizes recent BHI studies of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. It is important,&nbsp;<a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/beacon_hill_study_bizarre_alge.html">in reading this blog</a>, to understand that Dr. Johnson’s job is to defend tooth-and-nail an organization whose purpose is to promote what it deems to be environmental protection at any cost to economic activity at home and abroad.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHI-Response-to-NRDC-Criticism20150313FINAL.pdf">Read the complete BHI response.</a></font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI Studies on the CPP.</font></p><p class="style38" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="style9">Virginia:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/files/3/EPAStudy_March2015.pdf">The Costs of New EPA Rules to Virginia</a>&nbsp;March 2015</span></font></p><p class="style9" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Louisiana:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thepelicanpost.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pelican_BHI_Final1.pdf">The Costs of New EPA Rules to Louisiana</a>&nbsp;February 2015</font></p><p class="style9" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">South Carolina:&nbsp;<a href="http://media.wix.com/ugd/690417_8e911cc0ba994c76a156422d882b927d.pdf">New EPA Rules Will Cost South Carolina a Fortune</a>February 2015</font></p><p class="style9" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Wisconsin:&nbsp;<a href="http://static.maciverinstitute.com/EPA%20Rules%20WI%20-%20MacIver%20Beacon%202015%20FINAL.pdf">The Economic Effects of the New EPA Rules on the State of Wisconsin</a>&nbsp;January 2015</font></p><p class="style9" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">New Mexico,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.riograndefoundation.org/downloads/rgf_beaconhill_new_mexico.pdf">The Economics Effects of New EPA Rules on the State of New Mexico</a>&nbsp;January 2015</font></p><p class="style9" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">North Carolina:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/beaconhill_NorthCarolina_FINAL.pdf">The Economic Effects of the New EPA rules on the State of North Carolina</a>&nbsp;January 2015</font></p><p class="style9" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Iowa:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publications/pubs/studies/ps-15-3.pdf">Obama-Inspired EPA Carbon-Dioxide Regulations May Bankrupt Iowans</a>&nbsp;January 2015</font></p><p class="style9" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">National:&nbsp;<a href="http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150225/103014/HHRG-114-IF03-20150225-SD008.pdf">Clean Power Plan: The Economic Effects of the New EPA Rules on the United States</a>&nbsp;January 2015</font></p><hr style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><div class="style37" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="center"><div class="style50" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Massachusetts State Tax Revenue Forecast</font></div></div><p class="style58" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/RevenueForecastsBHI/BHI-MAForecastFY15FY16-for2015-122-FINAL.pdf" class="style50"><font color="#000000">BHI releases State Tax Revenue Forecasts for Massachusetts Legislature</font></a></font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BHI predicts that tax revenues will be:</font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">• $24,512 billion in FY 2015, 4.9% over FY 2014, and<br />• $25,801 billion in FY 2016, 5.3% over FY 2015.</font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/RevenueForecastsBHI/BHI-MAForecastFY15FY16-for2015-122-FINAL.pdf"><font color="#000000">Complete Estimate in PDF</font></a></font></p><hr style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></div><div class="style37" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="center"><div class="style50" align="left"><p class="style58"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>New Hampshire</b> electricity customers will face higher bills due to renewable mandate</font></p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="style4">(Boston, MA) Ratepayers in New Hampshire can expect to pay higher prices for electricity in the future thanks to<b> renewable energy mandates </b>that have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Industrial users will be especially hard hit. This is the finding of a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston.</span><span class="style58"><br /></span></font></p><p class="style4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/RPS/NH/NH-RPS-PressRelease-2015-0212.pdf"><font color="#000000">Press release (PDF)</font></a></font></p><p class="style4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/RPS/NH/NHRPS-Final2015-02.pdf"><font color="#000000">Full study (PDF)</font></a></font></p><hr /></div></div><div class="style37" align="center"><div class="style50" align="left"><p class="style58"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Real Clear Markets: </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Cape Wind </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">- An unsightly monument to political pull</span></font></p></div></div><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Playing out in Massachusetts is a saga in which a private developer is using his political connections to trump the interests of state electric ratepayers - and in the process creating a precedent for much broader misuse of governmental power. The saga involves a court case in which state officials invoked an arcane provision of the U.S. Constitution to deny aggrieved ratepayers access to federal court. It provides a study of the tactics to which government will resort in order shore up a green energy project for which there can be little, if any, justification on either environmental or economic grounds.</font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Read the entire article over at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/10/13/cape_wind_an_unsightly_monument_to_political_pull_101322.html">RealClearMarkets.com</a>.</font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">More on Wind Energy:&nbsp;<br />CapeCod.com Interview:&nbsp;<a href="http://tinyurl.com/mefgje2">The economics of Cape Wind</a>&nbsp;<br />Boston Herald:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2014/11/tuerck_new_storm_builds_for_cape_wind">David Tuerck on Cape Wind's dubious legal logic</a></font></p><hr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><div class="style37" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="center"><div class="style50" align="left"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Response to the Instititute on Taxation and Economic Policy Critique of the BHI STAMP</font></div></div><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="style58">ITEP's flawed critique of BHI STAMP:</span></font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">On May 21, 2014, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released a report entitled, “STAMP is an Unsound Tool for Gauging the Economic Impact of Taxes.” The report makes several criticisms of the Beacon Hill Institute&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/STAMP-Method/ResponsetoITEP2014-0530.html">(BHI) State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP®)</a>.</font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/STAMP-Method/ResponsetoITEPbybullet2014-0531.pdf">BHI responds to the criticisms contained in the Executive Summary of the report.</a>&nbsp;(PDF)</font></p><hr style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><div class="style37" align="center"><div class="style50" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="left"><div class="style37" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" align="center"><div class="style50" align="left"><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Response to Critique of BHI's Renewable Portfolio Standards studies</font></p></div></div><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span class="style58"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">An Appeal to Facts in a “</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fact Check”</span></span></font></p><p class="style9" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In their attempt to defend subsidies for green energy, supporters rely on Keynesian arguments to promote policies that will provide much-needed spending in an economy. The assumptions made by advocacy organizations such as the <b>Union of Concerned Scientists</b> are likely to hold only in the short run, if at all. Other arguments often made by critics of BHI's RPS studies have failed repeatedly to address the underlying basics of economics. Ultimately, while BHI sets out to soundly operationalize the true costs and benefits of projects like wind energy, green energy advocates fail to adequately put the relevant numbers to their claims. Read&nbsp;<span class="style65"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/FINAL-Rebuttal-to-Union-of-Concerned%20Scientists2013-1119RM.pdf">A Response to the Union of Concerned Scientists Critique of BHI’s Renewable Portfolio Studies</a></span></font></p></div><p style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">==</font></p><p style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">works in Locke step</font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b><b>

==

guardian:

Several hundred miles to the north east in Massachusetts, the Beacon Hill Institute requested $38,825 from Searle to weaken or roll back a five-year effort by states in the region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The institute said it would carry out research into the economic impact of the cap-and-trade system operating in nine states known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

BHI appeared to have already arrived at its conclusions in advance, admitting from the outset that the aim of the research was to arm opponents of cap-and-trade with data for their arguments, and to weaken or destroy the initiative. "Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal RGGI," the funding proposal says.

The Beacon Hill Institute, technically an affiliate rather than a full member of the SPN, operates out of the economics department of Suffolk University in Boston. David Tuerck, its executive director, denied the group had engaged in lobbying. "There is never any lobbying," he told the Guardian. "Maybe I need to look up the definition again, but lobbying consists of buttonholing legislators and other policymakers to get a particular result on a particular issue, and we never do that."

But Suffolk University, which hosts the Beacon Hill Institute as a research arm of its economics department, sharply criticised the research proposal to the Searle Foundation. In a statement to the Guardian, the university said the grant bid had not been submitted to the university, as required, and that the university would never have approved the proposal. "The stated research goals, as written, were inconsistent with Suffolk University's mission."

Watchdogs that monitor the work of SPN and other conservative networks in the US said that the centralised coordination of state-level campaigns showed a significant attempt to build local activism into a nationwide movement. Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/11909/reporters%E2%80%99-guide-%E2%80%9Cstate-policy-network%E2%80%9D-right-wing-think-tanks-spinning-disinform" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; text-decoration: none; background-repeat: no-repeat;">issued a recent report on SPN</a>, said that the local identity of the network's members belied a larger purpose. "They appear to be advocating purely local interests but what they are promoting is part of a larger national template to radically remake our government in a way that undermines public institutions and the rights of workers," she said.

The SPN said that its co-ordinating role was justified because local and state issues were increasingly impinging on national politics. "There's no mystery here," Sharp said. "The whole idea of a state policy network is that individual thinktanks can be in communication, share best practices and analysis, and combine their efforts when they see a benefit from doing so."

Some of the grant bids to Searle focus specifically on prominent local politicians the thinktanks hope to influence. The grant bid that emanated from New Jersey, from the<a href="http://www.csinj.org/about/" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border-collapse: collapse; text-decoration: none; background-repeat: no-repeat;"> Common Sense Institute</a> (CISNJ), another tax-exempt "research and education organization", floats the idea of a campaign to support the efforts of the Republican governor Chris Christie in ending the ability of public employees to claim untaken sick days and vacation leave in their retirement packages.

"Governor Chris Christie has been waging a war to eliminate this practice; and CSINJ would like to provide ammunition," the proposal says. The thinktank plans to produce a "research study" which it would call "Busting the Boat Checks" – an allusion to the phrase Christie uses to denote the watercraft retirees are claimed to buy on the back of sick and holiday leave payments.

The institute conceives a "media campaign" with its aim being the "full elimination of unused sick and vacation leave payouts".

"We believe our study can be used to sway public sentiment further and be used as a brandisher for reform in Trenton," it says.

CSINJ's president, Jerry Cantrell, denied that the grant bid involved any element of lobbying, insisting instead that his group was providing a service that in the past might have been done by the decimated local media.

"CSINJ is an education organization focused on providing the public with facts and the truth. We don't represent any interest besides the folks who are burdened by this practice – the taxpayers," he said.

He said the proposal was focused on the "abusive practice of accumulating sick or vacation day payments over an entire career and using them as retirement bonus. We've seen too many instances of high level individuals working out the door with $500,000-$750,000 claiming to have never missed a day in 30 years of employment."

The proposal from the Illinois Policy Institute for a campaign to deal with Chicago's government worker pensions crisis by switching to 401(k)-style retirement plans similarly focuses on a politician – in this case Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The proposal says that "Mayor Emanuel has privately expressed the need for 401(k)-style changes to truly achieve reform."

===

<a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/">http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/</a>

"Sloppy and unpersuasive, more interested in publicity than crafting a solid analysis, the Beacon Hill Institute is losing its credibility."-The Boston Herald

</div>

<h2 class="widgettitle" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Links</h2>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/clients.html">Beacon Hill Institute's Clients</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.bhiexposed.org/FINALDavid_Tuerck_Exposed.pdf" title="Information about David Tuerck & his “clients”">DOWNLOAD – David Tuerck Exposed (.pdf)</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

<h2 class="widgettitle" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Categories</h2>

<ul>

<li class="cat-item cat-item-8" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/category/cigarettes" title="View all posts filed under Cigarettes">Cigarettes</a></li>

<li class="cat-item cat-item-5" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/category/energy" title="View all posts filed under Clean Energy">Clean Energy</a></li>

<li class="cat-item cat-item-7" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/category/creationism" title="View all posts filed under Creationism">Creationism</a></li>

<li class="cat-item cat-item-6" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/category/oil-spills" title="View all posts filed under Oil Spills">Oil Spills</a></li>

<li class="cat-item cat-item-4" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/category/tax-fraud" title="View all posts filed under Tax Fraud">Tax Fraud</a></li>

<li class="cat-item cat-item-9" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/category/tuerck" title="View all posts filed under Tuerck">Tuerck</a></li>

<li class="cat-item cat-item-3" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/category/women" title="View all posts filed under Women's Issues">Women's Issues</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">What partnerships is David Tureck forging?</h2><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div>

What is going on at the Beacon Hill Institute? What is this “research” institute doing with “clients,” particularly the kinds of “clients” they seem to favor? These “clients” provide funding for the some of the Institute’s research projects and reports. You might think that, since the Institute is part of Suffolk University, it engages in independent scholarly research. But just how “independent” can this research be when at least some of the research is directly funded by such self-interested “clients?” Is the Institute just serving as a mouthpiece, with the veneer of scholarly independence and legitimacy, for the interests of some of its “clients?” Consider that the Beacon Hill Institute boasts about the “research it does for “clients”

<ul>

<li style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">who have taken stances against a women’s right to choose and support policy initiatives and lobbying efforts against abortion?</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">who have admitted criminal wrongdoing or been found guilty in creating fraudulent tax shelters, conspiracy, evading taxes, making false statements to the IRS, obstructing the IRS to help wealthy clients dodge billions in taxes?</li>

<li style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">who have funded the opposition against Cape Wind?</li>

<li style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">who advocate for the drilling of oil in our National Parks, in our coastal waters, even on the mainland?</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">who support the teaching of Intelligent Design in the face of hundreds of years of scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s theory of Evolution, in essence to bring religion into our school’s science curriculums.</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">who make huge profits from the sale and use of tobacco products like cigarettes, products that kill close to a half a million people each and every year?</li>

</ul>

---

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/105" rel="bookmark" title="A study of nicotine addiction is funded by a tobacco company.">study of nicotine addiction is funded by a tobacco company.</a></h2>

EXCERPT

Smoking, and ire, at UCLA

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A study of nicotine addiction is funded by a tobacco company.</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Richard C. Paddock, L.A. Times Staff Writer</div>

Here’s a recipe for academic controversy:

First, find dozens of hard-core teenage smokers as young as 14 and study their brains with high-tech scans. Second, feed vervet monkeys liquid nicotine and then kill at least six of them to examine their brains. Third, accept $6 million from tobacco giant Philip Morris to pay for it all. Fourth, cloak the project in unusual secrecy.

At UCLA, a team of researchers is following this formula to produce what it hopes will be a groundbreaking study of addiction. So far, the scientists have proved that the issues of animal testing and tobacco-funded research are among the most contentious on university campuses.

UCLA professor Edythe London, the lead scientist on the three-year study, said it could discover new ways to help people quit smoking and lead to innovative treatments for other addictions.

“We are doing this because we really want to save lives,” she said. “I am really proud of what we are doing. We have a track record for contributing to science, and we would like to bring that to bear on the problem of nicotine addiction.”

But even before she had a chance to select her first teenager for study, London paid a price for her research. In October, activists opposed to animal testing flooded her Westside home with her garden hose, causing more than $20,000 in damage. They struck again this week, leaving an incendiary device at night that charred her front door. A gardener discovered the damage Tuesday.

The activists, who have also targeted other UCLA researchers, accused London of using “sadistic procedures” and “torturing nonhuman animals to death” in earlier studies. No one has been arrested in the attacks.

At the same time, Philip Morris’ role in the study has drawn sharp criticism from anti-tobacco activists. They doubt that the company wants to help people stop smoking and question whether the study of teenage and monkey brains could help Philip Morris design a more addictive cigarette.

“It’s stunning in this day and age that a university would do secret research for the tobacco industry on the brains of children,” said Matt Meyers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington, D.C. “It raises fundamental questions about the integrity, honesty and openness of research anywhere at the University of California.”

London said that Philip Morris would not have any oversight or other involvement in the study. The suggestion that the company might use her findings to make cigarettes more addictive is “twisted,” she said.

<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/09/local/me-tobacco9">Read full article</a>

---

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://bhiexposed.org/suffolkuniv/archives/60" rel="bookmark" title="Beacon Hill Institute really is in the dark">Beacon Hill Institute really is in the dark</a></h2>

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">EXCERPT</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By Thomas M. Keane Jr., The Boston Herald</div>

Sloppy and unpersuasive, more interested in publicity than crafting a solid analysis, the Beacon Hill Institute is losing its credibility.

The Institute is run by David G. Tuerck, chair of the economics department at Suffolk University. That connection has given the institute a patina of authority. Reports produced by it and other think-tanks, such as MassINC and the Pioneer Institute, are widely reported by the press. Yet while one can generally rely on the methodology of the latter two organizations, with BHI it’s different.

Some of BHI’s work is barely disguised ideology (a 1994 study, for example, called a graduated income tax a “slippery road to serfdom”). Other times it revels in its against-the-grain, counterintuitive conclusions. In 2000, it called for an income tax cut, predicting there would be no meaningful program reductions even if a recession hit. It argued in 2002 that eliminating the state income tax would create 300,000 to 500,000 jobs. Another report that year said the state’s boosted educational spending had all been a waste. Last year BHI claimed people choose to live in communities that tax their residents the least.

The arguments can be intriguing, yet they don’t stand up to scrutiny. When the recession came, it turned out there were severe program cuts. The number of jobs BHI boasted would be created by wiping out the income tax exceeded, by more than double, the number of unemployed Bay Staters. Its conclusions about educational reform are belied by consistent improvements in MCAS scores. And taxes actually are an insignificant factor in determining where people live; indeed, sometimes higher taxes — if accompanied by improved services — attract residents (think Newton or Brookline).

And now BHI is in the news with studies on two hot topics: a proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound and the economic benefits of next week’s Democratic National Convention.

Last October, BHI issued a report — updated recently — that blasted a proposal by Cape Wind Associates to build a 130-turbine wind farm five miles off Cape Cod. Some landowners have vigorously opposed the wind farm, which would provide up to three-quarters of the electricity used by the Cape and islands. Their group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, receives a substantial portion of its funding from the Egan Family Foundation, two of whose members sit on the alliance’s board (prominent supporters of George W. Bush, one of the Egans just released a critical documentary on John Kerry’s failed 1972 congressional race).

And the principal funder of BHI’s study? The Egan Family Foundation.

That raised eyebrows, of course. BHI claimed independence, but conducted an extraordinarily questionable analysis. The heart of it was a series of interviews with landowners and tourists, asking them what they thought would happen to land values and tourism if the wind farm were built. The questionnaire was obviously designed to provoke a negative response (comparing the wind turbines to the size of the Statue of Liberty, for example). Five percent of tourists guessed they would visit less; 20 percent of homeowners speculated that their property values would drop.

That speculation became the basis for BHI’s conclusion that the costs of the wind farm were greater than its benefits. Cape Wind mounted a fierce rebuttal. The margin of error in BHI’s sample could effectively undermine its results. The organization gave too little credence to benefits such as jobs and a cleaner environment. Most importantly, speculation notwithstanding, land values in fact have not declined when other wind farms have been built elsewhere.

Then there is the comedy of errors that is BHI’s analysis of next week’s convention. On March 30, it released a study claiming the net benefits from the convention would be $121.6 million. A week later, it released another study saying the net loss would be $12.8 million. The difference? The first time around, BHI had forgotten to include costs — such as disruptions to traffic — in its analysis. Yet the revised version was equally flawed, with “costs” (such as the cancellation of a planned Tall Ships visit) wildly inflated.

This week BHI mounted a follow-up. It trumpeted a study proclaiming the convention would be a “bust,” helping only 11 percent of Boston businesses. The basis of that was a survey of 100 businesses near the FleetCenter, asking proprietors what they thought would happen.

As Susan Elsbree of the Boston Redevelopment Authority says, “How stupid is that?”

It’s a small and narrow sample size. The impact of the convention extends throughout the entire metro area; its benefits are both short- and long-term. As with the wind study, BHI relies on speculation. Released just three days before the delegates arrive, the report had no real value except, clearly, to get BHI some free press.

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Looked at as a whole, it’s not a great record. Just because the institute says something doesn’t mean anyone should believe it.</div>

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.milforddailynews.com/lifestyle/columnists/x1090055212">Read full article</a></div>

===

Why would the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Locke_Foundation" target="blank">John Locke Foundation</a>, a "conservative North Carolina-based <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/think_tank" target="blank">think tank</a>" launch a "series of scathing attacks" against the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), a Pennsylvania-based "nonprofit group of scientists, engineers, business strategists and policy experts who guide states in figuring out how to best reduce greenhouse gas pollution"? Sue Sturgis follows the money, and finds that Locke "received at least $126,500 from outfits with ties to the fossil-fuel industry between fiscal [year] 2002 and 2005." Locke funders include <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/DCI_Group" target="blank">DCI Group</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Atlas_Economic_Research_Foundation" target="blank">Atlas Economic Research Foundation</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation" target="blank">Reason Foundation</a>. In September, Locke and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute" target="blank">Heartland Institute</a> (which has received funding from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ExxonMobil" target="blank">ExxonMobil</a>) hosted a conference call on CCS's alleged "hijacking of climate policy." During the call, Locke's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michael_Sanera" target="blank">Michael Sanera</a> suggested discrediting "CCS's Sponsoring Organization (State environmental bureaucracy)" and demanding "cost-benefit analysis by academic economists." Later, Locke released a "peer review assessment" of CCS's methods, drawn up by the Beacon Hill Institute. Not disclosed was the fact that Beacon's clients include several oil industry-funded <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/climate_change_skeptics" target="blank">climate change skeptics</a>, such as DCI Group, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heritage_Foundation" target="blank">Heritage Foundation</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Institute" target="_blank">Pacific Research Institute</a>.

<div class="field-label-inline-first" style="text-align: left;">Main Source: </div>

<div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2007/11/hostile-climate-whos-behind-attack-on_13.asp" target="_blank">Facing South (Institute for Southern Studies blog), November 13, 2007</a></div></div>

</div>

all:<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Center for Climate Strategies wants to help states cut global warming pollution. A North Carolina think tank funded by energy interests wants to stop them.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By Sue Sturgis<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Given Washington's reluctance to tackle global warming, many states have recently taken the initiative, drawing up their own plans to cut carbon emissions. For help, 25 states have turned to the <a href="http://www.climatestrategies.us/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Center for Climate Strategies</a>, a nonprofit group of <a href="http://www.climatestrategies.us/about/management-staff" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">scientists, engineers, business strategists and policy experts</a> who guide states in figuring out how to best reduce greenhouse gas pollution.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But in recent months, the Center has become the target of concerted attacks by the <a href="http://www.johnlocke.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">John Locke Foundation</a>, a conservative North Carolina-based think tank that opposes strict environmental regulations. A longtime skeptic of <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">prevailing climate science</a>, which it criticizes as <a href="http://www.johnlocke.org/research/show/policy%20reports/86" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">"alarmist,"</a> Locke has published <a href="http://www.johnlocke.org/cgi-bin/htsearch?exclude=&method=and&format=long&sort=score&restrict=&words=%22center+for+climate+strategies%22" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">a series of scathing attacks</a> directed at the Center in its own publications and other outlets including the <a href="http://spectator.org/dsp_article.11763" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">American Spectator</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article/?AID=/20070712/COMMENTARY/107120013/-1/RSS_COMMENTARY" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Washington Times</a>, <a href="http://www.examiner.com/a-972918_{Paul_Chesser__Beware_of_climate_control.html}" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Washington Examiner</a> and the <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Be-wary-of-climate-policy-development-1253536.php" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Seattle Post-Intelligencer</a>.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Why the hostility? Among Locke's criticisms is that the Center for Climate Strategies was founded by an "environmental advocacy group." In fact, it was created by a business-friendly organization, the <a href="http://www.pecpa.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Pennsylvania Environmental Council</a>, whose current directors include representatives from leading energy companies like PPL Corp., Inter-Power, Exelon and Reliant.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Locke also criticizes the Center for taking money from foundations that it accuses of being "on the global warming panic train," among them the <a href="http://www.rbf.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Rockefeller Brothers Fund</a>, the <a href="http://www.turnerfoundation.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Turner Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://www.heinz.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Heinz Endowments</a>.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But Locke's diatribes against the Center fail to disclose the potential bias in its own funding sources. According to an <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Institute for Southern Studies</a> analysis of the group's tax returns, the John Locke Foundation received at least $126,500 from outfits with ties to the fossil-fuel industry between fiscal 2002 and 2005.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Looming large behind a number of Locke's funders is ExxonMobil. Since 1998, the oil giant has funneled more than $16 million to several dozen advocacy organizations in an effort that a recent Union of Concerned Scientists <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">report</a> described as seeking "to deceive the public about the reality of global warming" by "using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message."<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Among the fossil-fuel-tainted contributions the Locke Foundation has received:<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> $70,000 from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, one of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Claude_R._Lambe_Charitable_Foundation" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Koch Family Foundations</a> operated by billionaires David and Charles Koch of <a href="http://www.kochind.com/default.asp" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Koch Industries</a>, the largest privately owned oil company in the United States.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">* $20,000 from the <a href="http://www.cato.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Cato Institute</a>, an anti-regulatory think tank that was co-founded by Charles Koch. Cato has <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=21" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">received</a> at least $110,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org, a Web site sponsored by Greenpeace USA. ExxonSecrets.org also reports that Cato has received funds from such other fossil-fuel interests as the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Shell Oil.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">* $15,000 from the Reason Foundation, an anti-regulatory think thank that's <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">received</a> $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Reason has also received funds from the American Petroleum Institute, BP Amoco and Koch Industries.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">* $10,000 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, an anti-regulatory think tank that's<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=17" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">received</a> $780,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Charles Koch is also a major funder.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">* $6,500 from the <a href="http://www.ceednet.org/ceed/index.cfm?cid=7504" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Center for Energy and Economic Development</a>, a Texas-based nonprofit dedicated to protecting the viability of coal-based electricity.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">* $5,000 from the DCI Group, a Republican lobbying firm that has <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=143" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">received</a> $140,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The John Locke Foundation's biggest funder is <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/person/art-pope" title="Art Pope" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">James Arthur "Art" Pope</a>, who founded the organization and has given it more than $8 million since 2002. A former Republican N.C. state representative, Pope has served on the boards of the Exxon-funded Atlas Economic Research Foundation, as well as Citizens for a Sound Economy, another Koch-founded group that's also<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=27" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">taken</a> more than $380,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Aside from being a prominent politico -- his hometown paper has dubbed him <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/125/story/394092.html" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">"the knight of the right"</a> -- Pope is president and CFO of <a href="http://www.vwstores.com/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Variety Wholesalers</a>, a company operating more than 500 discount retail stores in 14 states. Though not an energy firm, Variety does have an economic interest in avoiding gas taxes -- a proposal embraced catalogued<a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2007/11/center-for-climate-strategies.asp" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;"></a> by the Center -- since its profits depend on importing and distributing foreign-made goods as cheaply as possible.<div style="line-height: 19.5px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> * </div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The John Locke Foundation stepped up its crusade against the Center for Climate Strategies this September, when it teamed up with the <a href="http://heartland.org/" rel="nofollow" style="font-weight: inherit; line-height: 19.5px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Heartland Institute</a> to host a conference call promising to expose the Center's "hijacking of climate policy."</div><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Heartland Institute was a natural ally: The Chicago-based think tank has long fought any attempts to curtail global warming pollutants. Heartland has also <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">taken</a> at least $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org, and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nearly 40 percent of the funds the institute got from the oil giant were earmarked for fighting climate change regulations. In addition, Walter Buchholtz, who's listed as Heartland's government relations advisor on the group's 2005 <a href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf%20" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">tax return</a> (PDF), has also served as ExxonMobil's <a href="http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/response/presentations.cfm" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">senior environmental advisor</a>.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The featured speaker for the Sept. 12 conference call -- which drew state legislators, policy analysts, and a lobbyist for <a href="http://www.peabodyenergy.com/default-netscape.asp" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Peabody Energy</a>, the world's largest coal company -- was <a href="http://www.johnlocke.org/about/display_bio.html?id=230" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Michael Sanera</a>, Locke's research director. Sanera is also a member of an advisory board for the<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow</a> and a former analyst at the <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=42" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Heritage Foundation</a> -- both funded by ExxonMobil.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sanera led the attendees through a Power Point attack, accusing the Center for Climate Strategies of, among other things, peddling false assumptions such as the idea that "CO2 emission reduction is the solution to global warming." It offered participants a list of suggestions on how to counteract the Center that included "Discredit CCS's Sponsoring Organization (State environmental bureaucracy)," "Demand scientific peer review process," and "Demand cost-benefit analysis by academic economists."<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The assault on the Center continued on Oct. 5, when Locke's blog <a href="http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=13844" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">announced</a> the launch of<a href="http://www.climatestrategieswatch.com/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Climate Strategies Watch</a>, "a new watchdog Web site that scrutinizes and keeps up with new developments of the Center for Climate Strategies."<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Details were scarce: The post did not say who was behind the site, the site itself had no sponsor details, and the domain was <a href="http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=climatestrategieswatch.com" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">anonymously registered</a>. Weeks later, sponsorship information was added to the site, identifying it as a "joint project of The Heartland Institute and John Locke Foundation." The site's front page warns of the Center's funding by "wealthy liberals" and features the image of a man peering through a magnifying glass at cockroaches emblazoned with the names "Rockefeller," "Heinz" and "Turner."Then on Oct. 17, Locke <a href="http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/show/312" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">released</a> what it called a <a href="http://johnlocke.org/site-docs/peerreview/index.html" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"peer review assessment"</a> by the Boston-based <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Beacon Hill Institute</a> -- who had a representative on the September call -- claiming the Center used "seriously flawed" methods in crafting climate proposals because it did not account for the costs of regulating greenhouse emissions. Beacon Hill's assessment, however, didn't consider the costs of not regulating greenhouse gases. Nor did it disclose that among Beacon Hill's <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/Clients.html" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">clients</a> are the <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=27" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">CSE Foundation</a>, <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=143" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">DCI Group</a>, <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=42" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Heritage Foundation</a>, <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=51" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Manhattan Institute</a>, <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=61" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Pacific Research Institute</a> and <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=68" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Texas Public Policy Foundation</a> -- which together have received at least $1,780,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.A week after Beacon Hill's report was released, N.C. Sen. Robert Pittenger (R-Charlotte) -- a member of the <a href="http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Committees/Committees.asp?sAction=ViewCommittee&sActionDetails=Non-Standing_6268" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change</a> -- co-hosted with Locke a press conference spotlighting the study. Following the suggestion made during the Sept. 12 call to discredit the "environmental bureaucracy," Pittenger began by complaining that the commission didn't have enough hard science because it had heard from only two climatologists, Dr. Robert Balling and Dr. Pat Michaels.<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As it so happens, though, both are <a href="http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=17&pid=144919" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">prominent skeptics</a> of prevailing climate science who've taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil, coal and other fossil-fuel interests (for details, see <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">here</a> and <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">here</a>). Michaels -- a scholar with the Exxon-funded <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">George C. Marshall Institute</a>and <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=21" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Cato Institute</a> and an outspoken participant in the Sept. 12 conference call -- recently <a href="http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352906917" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">left his job with Virginia's state climatology office</a> amid criticism that his industry funding and controversial views left the office too politicized. Still not satisfied, Pittenger said he petitioned the commission's chairs to invite two more prominent climate-science contrarians -- <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Dr. Sallie Baliunas</a> and <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Dr. Richard Lindzen</a>.<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"We've got a bunch of liberal greenies who have just enough information to be dangerous," Pittenger declared at the event. Certainly no "greenie" himself, Pittenger has received $13,300 in political contributions from electric utilities and $5,200 from automotive interests in the last three election cycles, according to the <a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml" rel="nofollow" style="font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">National Institute on Money in State Politics</a>. A real-estate investor, he's also taken more than $45,000 in contributions from his colleagues in the real-estate industry, many of whom dislike the smart-growth development policies the Center promotes.</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div style="line-height: 19.5px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> * </div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">So what does the John Locke Foundation feel should be done about climate change? Most of their work simply denies there's a serious problem. But they do offer a glimpse of what they think we should be worrying about instead in a February 2006 American Spectator opinion piece titled <a href="http://spectator.org/dsp_article.9446" rel="nofollow" style="font-weight: inherit; line-height: 19.5px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">"Bible Bending Propaganda"</a> by<a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/person/right/paul-chesser" rel="nofollow" style="font-weight: inherit; line-height: 19.5px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;"> Paul Chesser</a>, Locke's associate editor and a leading critic of the Center's work.</div><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In the piece, Chesser goes after the <a href="http://christiansandclimate.org/" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Evangelical Climate Initiative</a>, a Christian group favoring strong action to reduce global warming pollution. He blasts the Initiative for claiming Christ "for their own alarmist agenda" and its members for suffering from "Biblical illiteracy" and for being "Birkenstocked" "enviro-hippies."<p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But instead of calls for hard science, the Locke Foundation editor veers from the skeptics' usual playbook and quotes not a dissenting climatologist, but the biblical Book of Revelation. Scripture, Chesser notes, promises us that Jesus "does not dwell on the earth but instead will return to the New Jerusalem ... after God also establishes a new heaven and a new earth." Going on to cite a letter from Christ's apostle Peter describing a coming day of judgment and destruction of the "godless" in which the elements will be dissolved by fire, Chesser concludes:<blockquote style="margin: 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">And don't forget, God has some serious global warming of His own planned ... Christian leaders ought to be warning people about that rather than looking for ways to mitigate the questionable effects of the current heat wave.</blockquote><p style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-image: initial; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">(Disclosure: The Institute for Southern Studies has received funding from the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which have also supported the Center for Climate Strategies' work. For a complete list of the Institute's recent foundation supporters, click <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/iss/supporters.html" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">here</a>.)

==

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-b_2253472.html?ir=">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-b_2253472.html?ir=</a>

...

Did Muller's conclusions prod the Kochs to reconsider their hardline position against wind, solar and other renewable energy--our best bet, besides energy efficiency, to combat global warming? Hardly. The Kochs' minions merely stepped up their ongoing disinformation campaign to scuttle renewable energy on economic grounds.

Take the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/alec-climate-change_b_1439267.html" target="hplink">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (ALEC) and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute" target="hplink">Heartland Institute</a>, two Koch-funded organizations with a history of attacking efforts to address climate change. ALEC, a stealthy lobby group whose corporate, nonprofit and state legislator members ghostwrite and then attempt to implement "model" legislation, played a key role in killing the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, a six-state regional cap-and-trade agreement. Meanwhile, Heartland--an ALEC member that hosts annual conferences deriding climate science--is probably best known for <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509" target="_hplink">posting </a>a not-so-subtle billboard in Chicago last May comparing people who accept the reality of global warming with "Unabomber" domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski.

More recently the two groups made news when the Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-group-works-to-reverse-renewable-energy-mandates/2012/11/24/124faaa0-3517-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html" target="hplink">reported </a>ALEC's board of directors adopted a Heartland-crafted model bill that would repeal state standards requiring utilities to ramp up their use of renewable energy. The model legislation, the "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/Electricity-Freedom-Act-121123.pdf" target="hplink">Electricity Freedom Act</a>," claims these requirements--currently on the books in 29 states and the District of Columbia--will dramatically drive up electricity rates.

That claim, however, is bunk. In fact, renewable electricity standards have not significantly increased rates. In some cases, rates have even dropped a bit. But more on that later.

Garbage in, garbage out. To make its case, ALEC--whose <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765" target="hplink">members </a>include major coal, oil and electric utility industry companies--cites analyses by Suffolk University's <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute" target="hplink">Beacon Hill Institute</a> commissioned by the Koch-funded <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/american-tradition-institute" target="hplink">American Tradition Institute</a> and "free-market" state think tanks associated with the Koch-funded <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network" target="hplink">State Policy Network</a>. The analyses examine current or proposed standards in more than a dozen states, including Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey. The studies were partly funded by, you guessed it, the Koch brothers.

The fact that the Kochs funded the studies doesn't automatically mean they're biased. In this case, however, Beacon Hill research economist Michael Head essentially conceded to Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin that he and his colleagues fudged their findings.

That's right.

Beacon Hill, Eilperin reported, "assumed that the Energy Information Administration's projected renewable energy price estimates are too low, and that cost-containment measures embedded in state policies will fail." Head told her that he and his co-authors doubted the cost caps, which place a ceiling on how high monthly consumer electricity rates can go to meet renewable standards, would take effect. "We just left it out so we could provide the actual analysis of the policy itself," he explained.

How convenient.

A closer look at a sample Beacon Hill analysis of a state renewable electricity standard shows that this sleight of hand is just one of a number of ways Head and his colleagues play fast and loose with the facts.

Jeff Deyette, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/fact-check-koch-funded-group-misleads-michigan-voters-on-clean-energy/" target="_hplink" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">dissected </a>a September analysis Head et al. did of a proposed increase in Michigan's renewable electricity standard from 10 percent by 2015 to 25 percent by 2025, which was on the November ballot. Besides excluding the cost cap--a key component of the policy--Deyette found that the Beacon Hill analysts:

• ignored the fact that the state already has a standard in place, enabling them to inflate the costs of implementing the stronger standard;

• made questionable assumptions about renewable energy technologies--often citing out-of-date, controversial or unsubstantiated material to support their assertions--instead of using real-world cost and performance data from local projects; and

• failed to factor in the new standard's benefits, including economic development, job growth, cleaner air and reduced carbon pollution.

Beacon Hill--an official <a href="http://climateconference.heartland.org/cosponsors/" target="hplink">sponsor </a>of this year's Heartland climate science-bashing conference--conducted this particular study for the Michigan-based <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/mackinac-center-for-public-pol/" target="hplink">Mackinac Center for Public Policy</a>. The center, the largest state-based free-market think tank in the country, is a Koch grantee and a member of the Koch-funded State Policy Network. Not surprisingly, the center consistently denies the reality of global warming.

This is not the first time Beacon Hill energy analyses have been questioned. Last year, Michael Conathan, director of ocean policy at the Center for American Progress, a progressive, Washington, D.C.-based think tank, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/17/297394/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-study-bashing-offshore-wind-in-new-jersey/" target="_hplink" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">reviewed </a>a Beacon Hill analysis of the potential for offshore wind along the New Jersey coast. According to Conathan, the study--which was heavily promoted by Americans for Prosperity, a political advocacy group founded by and largely funded by the Kochs--"misses the mark on both sides of the ledger by dramatically overstating the costs and underestimating the economic benefits of offshore wind."

The facts on the ground tell a different story. Despite the Koch juggernaut's scare tactics, some evidence is already in, and so far the impact of renewable electricity standards on rates has been, for the most part, negligible. In late October, Steve Clemmer, UCS's director of energy research, <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/michigans-neighbors-show-increasing-renewable-electricity-standard-is-affordable/" target="_hplink">surveyed </a>rates in three Midwestern states. This is what he found:

• Wind and other renewable technologies have reduced wholesale electricity prices in Illinois by displacing coal and other energy sources that have higher operating costs, saving ratepayers an estimated $177 million in 2011 alone, according to the Illinois Power Agency.

===

The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) is the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University in Boston. It was founded in 1991 by businessman and Republican politician <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ray_Shamie&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Ray Shamie (page does not exist)">Ray Shamie</a>. BHI describes itself as being "grounded in the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#Wind_studies">1 Wind studies</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#North_Carolina">1.1 North Carolina</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#New_Jersey">1.2 New Jersey</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#Wisconsin">1.3 Wisconsin</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#Personnel">2 Personnel</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#Funding.5B6.5D">3 Funding[6]</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#Contact_Details">4 Contact Details</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#Articles_and_resources">5 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#Related_SourceWatch_articles">5.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#References">5.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#External_links">5.3 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Wind studies</h2>

<h3 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">North Carolina</h3>

In a 2011 op-ed, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Tax_Reform" title="Americans for Tax Reform">Americans for Tax Reform</a>'s <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Grover_Norquist" title="Grover Norquist">Grover Norquist</a> cited a study by BHI on North Carolina's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Renewable_energy_standards&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Renewable energy standards (page does not exist)">renewable energy standards</a> (RES), stating that "The RES in North Carolina, one of 2012’s key battleground states, is projected to reduce real disposable income by $56.8 million and likely be responsible for the loss of 3,592 jobs by 2021." Norquist said that "legislators in states around the country are now working with <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Tax_Reform" title="Americans for Tax Reform">Americans for Tax Reform</a> to repeal renewable energy mandates in 2012. The iron is hottest to strike in states where Republicans recently took control of both the Legislature and the governorship — including Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a>

BHI's numbers on the impact of state RESs on electricity prices have been disputed by Climate Progress, who say "the data shows that the presence of a state-level renewable energy standard has a virtually zero statistically-significant impact on how much electric rates changed from 2000 to 2010."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

<h3 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">New Jersey</h3>

In August 2011, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity" title="Americans for Prosperity">Americans for Prosperity</a> (AFP) released a <a href="http://static.taxcutsforall.com/files/NJWINDREPORT.pdf" class="external text" title="http://static.taxcutsforall.com/files/NJWINDREPORT.pdf" rel="nofollow">study</a> by Beacon Hill Institute of the plans by the State of New Jersey to develop 1,100 megawatts of wind capacity off its coastline, concluding that the wind farm "will produce net economic costs, raise electricity prices, and dampen economic activity.” The study does not discuss the estimated 5,000 construction and maintenance jobs predicted by a range of other studies, and discounts wind power’s benefit in reducing New Jersey’s import of electricity from other states.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

<h3 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Wisconsin</h3>

The Beacon Hill Institute collaborated with the free market think tank <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wisconsin_Policy_Research_Institute" title="Wisconsin Policy Research Institute">Wisconsin Policy Research Institute</a> on a <a href="http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No7/Vol22No7.html" class="external text" title="http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No7/Vol22No7.html" rel="nofollow">report</a> critiquing the recommendations from a 2007 Wisconsin clean energy task force, including the state's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Renewable_portfolio_standards" title="Renewable portfolio standards" class="mw-redirect">renewable portfolio standards</a> (RPS).

In September 2011, Ohio State Sen. Kris Jordan introduced a bill (SB216) that would repeal Ohio's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Renewable_portfolio_standards" title="Renewable portfolio standards" class="mw-redirect">renewable portfolio standards</a>, citing a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Tradition_Institute" title="American Tradition Institute">American Tradition Institute</a> and Beacon Hill Institute <a href="http://www.atinstitute.org/the-cost-and-economic-impact-of-ohio%E2%80%99s-alternative-energy-portfolio-standard/" class="external text" title="http://www.atinstitute.org/the-cost-and-economic-impact-of-ohio’s-alternative-energy-portfolio-standard/" rel="nofollow">study</a> arguing that Ohio residents would pay $8.63 billion more for electricity between 2016 and 2025 because of the 12.5% requirement.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_note-4" title="">[5]</a>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Personnel</h2>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_G._Tuerck" title="David G. Tuerck">David G. Tuerck</a>, Executive Director</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Funding<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_note-MediaTransparency.org-5" title="">[6]</a></h2>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Castle_Rock_Foundation" title="Castle Rock Foundation" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Castle Rock Foundation</a> (funded by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coors" title="Coors" class="mw-redirect">Coors</a> family)</li>

<li style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation" title="Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation">Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation</a></li>

</ul>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Contact Details</h2>

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">8 Ashburton Place</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Boston, MA 02108</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Telephone: 617-573-8050</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fax: 617-994-4279</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Website: <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/" class="external free" title="http://www.beaconhill.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.beaconhill.org/</a></div>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Articles and resources</h2>

<h3 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics" title="Global warming skeptics">Global warming skeptics</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=First_International_Conference_on_Climate_Change" title="First International Conference on Climate Change" class="mw-redirect">First International Conference on Climate Change</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Second_International_Conference_on_Climate_Change" title="Second International Conference on Climate Change" class="mw-redirect">Second International Conference on Climate Change</a></li>

</ul>

<h3 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-0" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_ref-0" title="">↑</a> Beacon Hill Institute, <a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/Mission.html" class="external text" title="http://www.beaconhill.org/Mission.html" rel="nofollow">"Mission and Vision"</a>, Beacon Hill Institute website, accessed May 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> Grover Norquist and Patrick Gleason, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70610.html" class="external text" title="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70610.html" rel="nofollow">"Rethink renewable energy mandates"</a> Politico, December 18, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> Stephen Lacey, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392410/grover-norquist-spreads-lies-about-renewable-energy-standards/" class="external text" title="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/392410/grover-norquist-spreads-lies-about-renewable-energy-standards/" rel="nofollow">"Grover Norquist Spreads Lies About Renewable Energy Standards"</a> Climate Progress, Dec. 19, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_ref-3" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297394/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-study-bashing-offshore-wind-in-new-jersey/" class="external text" title="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297394/koch-brothers-fund-bogus-study-bashing-offshore-wind-in-new-jersey/" rel="nofollow">"Koch Brothers Fund Bogus Study Bashing Offshore Wind in New Jersey"</a> Climate Progress, Aug. 17, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_ref-4" title="">↑</a> John Monaghan, <a href="http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-ohio-alternative-energy-portfolio-standard" class="external text" title="http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-ohio-alternative-energy-portfolio-standard" rel="nofollow">"Research & Commentary: Ohio Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard"</a> Heartland Institute, January 31, 2012.</li>

<li id="cite_note-MediaTransparency.org-5" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute#cite_ref-MediaTransparency.org_5-0" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Beacon_Hill_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research/funders" class="external text" title="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Beacon_Hill_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research/funders" rel="nofollow">Media Transparency.org's listing for the Beacon Hill Institute</a>. Retrieved on 2011-04-23.</li>

</ol>

<h3 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">External links</h3>

<table style="margin: 0.5em 0.57em 0.5em 0.7em; border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid rgb(218, 210, 109); background: rgb(255, 250, 205);"><tbody><tr><td style=" padding: .25em .25em 0.25em .25em;" width="100%">This article is a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">stub</a>. You can <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">help</a> by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute&action=edit" class="external text" title="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute&action=edit" rel="nofollow">expanding it</a>.</td><td>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Climate_change" title="Category:Climate change">Climate change</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Stubs" title="Category:Stubs">Stubs</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Think_tanks" title="Category:Think tanks">Think tanks</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Energy" title="Category:Energy">Energy</a> | <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Renewable_energy" title="Category:Renewable energy">Renewable energy</a>

=

http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute

Beacon Hill Institute

Background

The Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research was founded in 1991 by the Republican politician Ray Shamie.

Beacon Hill describes itself as "Grounded in the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets"

The Institute conducts economic research and conducts educational programs "for the purpose of producing and disseminating readable analysis of current public policy issues to voters, taxpayers, opinion leaders and policy makers." [1]

It has recently received money from conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation (funded by Coors), and the Lynd and Harry Bradley Foundation.

David G. Tuerck is the Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute and is the former director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Stance on Climate Change

The BHI Blog generally publishes opinion pieces that suggest a free-market approach to dealing with climate change:

"The only way to slow global warming is to allow entrepreneurs to create more energy-efficient products and technologies. As the demand for these products grows, entrepreneurs will naturally react to market forces and direct their energies to producing more energy-efficient products at a cheaper cost. Government intervention is not the solution to this problem, the free market is." [7]

Funding

According to Media Matters, Beacon Hill's funding is as follows: [2]

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation — $53,240

State Policy Network — $59,000

Media Transparency also lists the following contributions to Beacon Hill from 1998 to 2006: [3]

Roe Foundation — $180,000

Castle Rock Foundation — $20,000

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation — $20,000

Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation — $1,000

Key People

David G. Tuerck — Executive Director.

Actions

May 21 - 23, 2012

The Beacon Hill Institute is listed as an official Co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).

January, 2008

The John Locke Foundation (JLF) commissioned a "peer review" by the Beacon Hill Institute of a report by the North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (NC-CAPAG) and an accompanying jobs analysis from Appalachian State University. [4]

According to the press release, "The peer review raises red flags about the model’s projections." JLF Vice President for Research Roy Cordato said that "Trained economists conducting this new peer review found that the model is so flawed that no one should trust the results." [5]

DeSmogBlog speculated that the self-proclaimed "peer-review" appeared to be done entirely within the Beacon Hill Institute and without outside input.

Related Organizations

Beacon Hill lists the following clients on their website: [6]

Alabama Policy Institute

Altria Corporation

American Council on Education

Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut

Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts

AT&T Foundation

Center of the American Experiment

Commonwealth Foundation

CSE Foundation

DCI Group

Egan Family Foundation

Ernst &Young

Flint Hills Center for Public Policy

Heritage Foundation

Institute for Policy Innovation

KPMG Peat Marwick

Maine Public Policy Institute

Manhattan Institute

Microsoft Corporation

Mississippi Center for Public Policy

New England Cable Television Association

New Hampshire Commission to Assess the Operating Efficiency of State Government

New Hampshire First

Oklahoma Office of State Finance

Pacific Research Institute

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Quincy Medical Center

Rio Grande Foundation

Roe Foundation

Small Business Survival Committee

State of Oklahoma

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

United States Agency for International Development

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc.

Zeron Foundation

Resources

"Mission and Vision," The Beacon Hill Institute. Accessed December, 2011.

"Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research," Media Matters. Accessed December, 2011.

Beacon Hill Institute: Media Transparency Profile.

"Unlocking One Think Tank's Oily Secrets," PR Watch, November 15, 2007.

"Press Releases: N.C. energy policy model 'not credible'," John Locke Foundation, January 9, 2008.

"Clients," The Beacon Hill Institute. Accessed December, 2011.

"Solution lies in the free market system," The Boston Globe, August 8, 2008.

"Beacon Hill Institute," SourceWatch Profile.

Wikipedia Profile.

DeSmogBlog

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Background</h2>

The Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research was founded in 1991 by the Republican politician Ray Shamie.

Beacon Hill <a target="_blank" href="http://www.beaconhill.org/Mission.html">describes itself</a> as "Grounded in the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets"

It has recently received money from conservative foundations such as the <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Castle_Rock_Foundation">Castle Rock Foundation</a> (funded by Coors), and the <a target="blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation">Lynd and Harry Bradley Foundation</a>.

<a href="http://www.beaconhill.org/staff.html" target="_blank">David G. Tuerck</a> is the Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute and is the former director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/american-enterprise-institute">American Enterprise Institute (AEI)</a>.

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Stance on Climate Change</h2>

<a target="blank" href="http://beaconhillinstitute.blogspot.com/">The BHI Blog</a> generally publishes opinion pieces that suggest a <a target="blank" href="http://beaconhillinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/08/solutions-lies-in-free-market-system.html">free-market approach</a> to dealing with climate change:

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Funding</h2>

<a target="_blank" href="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Beacon_Hill_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research/funders">According to Media Matters</a>, Beacon Hill's funding is as follows: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute#s2">[2]</a>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation">Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation</a> — $53,240     </li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=State_Policy_Network">State Policy Network</a> — $59,000   </li>

</ul>

<a target="_blank" href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=3244">Media Transparency</a> also lists the following contributions to Beacon Hill from 1998 to 2006: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute#s3">[3]</a>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roe_Foundation">Roe Foundation</a> — $180,000</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Castle_Rock_Foundation">Castle Rock Foundation</a> — $20,000</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation — $1,000</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Key People</h2>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/david-tuerck">David G. Tuerck</a> — <a target="_blank" href="http://www.beaconhill.org/staff.html">Executive Director</a>.</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Actions</h2>

May 21 - 23, 2012

The Beacon Hill Institute is listed as an <a href="http://climateconference.heartland.org/cosponsors/" target="_blank">official Co-sponsor</a> of the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).

January, 2008

The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Locke_Foundation">John Locke Foundation</a> (JLF) commissioned a "peer review" by the Beacon Hill Institute of a report by the North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (NC-CAPAG) and an accompanying jobs analysis from Appalachian State University. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute#s4">[4]</a>

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/show/324">According to the press release</a>, "The peer review raises red flags about the model’s projections." JLF Vice President for Research Roy Cordato said that "Trained economists conducting this new peer review found that the model is so flawed that no one should trust the results." <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute#s5">[5]</a>

<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/phony-peer-review-tries-to-undermine-climate-action-in-north-carolina">DeSmogBlog speculated</a> that the self-proclaimed "peer-review" appeared to be done entirely within the Beacon Hill Institute and without outside input.

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Related Organizations</h2>

Beacon Hill lists the following clients <a target="_blank" href="http://www.beaconhill.org/Clients.html">on their website</a>: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/beacon-hill-institute#s6">[6]</a>

<li style="text-align: left;">Alabama Policy Institute</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Altria_Group">Altria Corporation</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">American Council on Education</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">AT&T Foundation</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Center of the American Experiment</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Commonwealth_Foundation_for_Public_Policy_Alternatives">Commonwealth Foundation</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">CSE Foundation</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Group">DCI Group</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Egan Family Foundation</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Ernst &Young</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Flint Hills Center for Public Policy</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heritage-foundation%5C">Heritage Foundation</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Institute for Policy Innovation</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">KPMG Peat Marwick</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Maine Public Policy Institute</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research">Manhattan Institute</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Microsoft Corporation</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Mississippi Center for Public Policy</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">New England Cable Television Association</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">New Hampshire Commission to Assess the Operating Efficiency of State Government</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">New Hampshire First</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Oklahoma Office of State Finance</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute">Pacific Research Institute</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">PricewaterhouseCoopers</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Quincy Medical Center</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Rio Grande Foundation</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Roe Foundation</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Small Business Survival Committee</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">State of Oklahoma</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Texas_Public_Policy_Foundation">Texas Public Policy Foundation</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson_Institute_for_Public_Policy">Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">United States Agency for International Development</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc.</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Zeron Foundation</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Resources</h2>

<li>

<a id="s1" name="s1"> </a>"<a target="_blank" href="http://www.beaconhill.org/Mission.html">Mission and Vision</a>," The Beacon Hill Institute. Accessed December, 2011.

</li>

<li>

<a id="s2" name="s2"> </a>"<a target="_blank" href="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Beacon_Hill_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research/funders">Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research</a>," Media Matters. Accessed December, 2011.

</li>

<li>

<a id="s3" target="_blank" href="http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=3244" name="s3">Beacon Hill Institute: Media Transparency Profile</a>.

</li>

<li>

<a id="s4" name="s4"> </a>"<a target="_blank" href="http://www.prwatch.org/spin/2007/11/6718/unlocking-one-think-tanks-oily-secrets">Unlocking One Think Tank's Oily Secrets</a>," PR Watch, November 15, 2007.

</li>

<li>

<a id="s5" name="s5"> </a>"<a target="_blank" href="http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/show/324">Press Releases: N.C. energy policy model 'not credible'</a>," John Locke Foundation, January 9, 2008.

</li>

<li>

<a id="s6" name="s6"> </a>"<a target="_blank" href="http://www.beaconhill.org/Clients.html">Clients</a>," The Beacon Hill Institute. Accessed December, 2011.

</li>

<li>

<a id="s7" name="s7"> </a>"<a target="_blank" href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/08/solution_lies_in_the_free_market_system/">Solution lies in the free market system</a>," The Boston Globe, August 8, 2008.

</li>

<li>

"<a target="_blank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beacon_Hill_Institute">Beacon Hill Institute</a>," SourceWatch Profile.

</li>

<li>

<a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_Hill_Institute">Wikipedia Profile</a>.

</li>

</ol>

</div>

DeSmogBlog

</div>

==beaconhill615
DAVID G. TUERCK, PHDExecutive DirectorIn addition to serving as executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, David G. Tuerck serves as professor and chairman of the Suffolk University Department of Economics.Prior to joining Suffolk University in 1982, he was a director in the Economic Analysis Group at Coopers & Lybrand, Washington, DC. Prior to that, he served as director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the American Enterprise Institute.Dr. Tuerck holds a doctorate in economics from the University of Virginia. His dissertation director was James M. Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Laureate in Economics.
PAUL BACHMANDirector of ResearchPaul Bachman is the Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute.He holds a Master of Science in International Economics degree from Suffolk University and a Bachelor of Arts (Politics) degree from the St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia.  FRANK A. CONTEDirector, Communications and Information ServicesFrank A. Conte manages the Institute's State Competitiveness Project He is responsible for all aspects of BHI's computer infrastructure and the institute's web site.Prior to joining BHI, he was a contributing columnist to the East Boston Sun-Transcript, and Journal-Transcript Newspapers.He holds a BS in English and Government from Suffolk University and a MS in Public Policy from the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
JONATHAN HAUGHTONSenior EconomistJonathan Haughton is a Project Manager for the Beacon Hill Institute's State Tax Analysis Modeling Program.He is an associate professor of economics at Suffolk University. A specialist in the areas of economic development, international trade and taxation, he has lectured, taught and conducted research in almost 20 countries.He received his BA (Mod.) in Economics from Trinity College, Dublin and his PhD in Economics from Harvard University.  MICHAEL HEAD Research EconomistMichael Head is a Research Economist, involved in both STAMP modeling as well various Research Projects.He holds a B.S in Interdisciplinary Mathematics: Economics from the University of New Hampshire and a Master of Science in Economic Policy at Suffolk University.
CHARLES E. ROUNDS, JR. Resident ScholarCharles E. Rounds, Jr. advises on legal services and on regulatory issues.He is Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School. He is the author of 13 editions of Loring: A Trustee's Handbook (Aspen Publishers). He is a member of the Massachusetts Real Estate Review Board and a fellow of American College of Trust and Estate Counsel as well as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Cato Project on Social Security Choice.He holds a BA from Columbia University and a JD from Suffolk University Law School.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>

</div>

===

<h2 class="section-title" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Michael Head's Overview</h2>

<dt id="overview-summary-current-title" class="summary-current" style="text-align: left; display: block; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Current</dt>

<li style="text-align: left;">Research Economist at <a class="company-profile-public" href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/the-beacon-hill-institute?trk=ppro_cprof">Beacon Hill Institute</a></li>

<li style="text-align: left;">Research Economist at Suffolk University</li>

</ul>

</dd>

<li style="text-align: left;">Account Manager at <a class="company-profile-public" href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/investors-bank-%26-trust?trk=ppro_cprof">Investors Bank & Trust</a></li>

</ul>

</dd>

<dt id="overview-summary-education-title" class="summary-education" style="text-align: left; display: block; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Education</dt>

<ul>

<li style="text-align: left;">Suffolk University</li>

<li style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">University of New Hampshire</li>

</ul>

</dd>

<dt style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Connections</dt>

97 connections

</dd>

<dt class="websites" style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Websites</dt>

<ul>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a id="overviewsite" href="http://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebeaconhill%2Eorg%2F&urlhash=fbwS" target="_blank" title="New window will open" name="overviewsite">Company Website </a></li>

</ul>

</dd>

</dl>

<h2 style="text-align: left;">Michael Head's Experience</h2>

</div>

<div>

<h3 class="false" style="text-align: left;">Research Economist</h3>

<h4 style="text-align: left;"><a class="company-profile-public" href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/the-beacon-hill-institute?trk=ppro_cprof">Beacon Hill Institute</a></h4>

</div>

Nonprofit; 1-10 employees; Nonprofit Organization Management industry

<abbr class="dtstart" title="2007-12-01">December 2007</abbr> – <abbr class="dtstamp" title="2012-12-09">Present</abbr> (5 years 1 month)

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-Leading research in various contracts, including State Prevailing Wage Costs, the Massachusetts State Budget, and numerous state tax issues.</div>

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-Co-authored research studies and critiques of the economic impacts of non-tax policies.</div>

<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">-Lead Researcher of the Institutes State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP), including construction of the model, debugging of coding, and creation of input databases.</div>

</div>

<h3 class="false" style="text-align: left;">Research Economist</h3>

<h4 style="text-align: left;"><a class="company-profile-public" href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/suffolk-university?trk=ppro_cprof">Suffolk University</a></h4>

</div>

Educational Institution; 1001-5000 employees; Higher Education industry

</div>

<h3 class="false" style="text-align: left;">Account Manager</h3>

<h4 style="text-align: left;"><a class="company-profile-public" href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/investors-bank-%26-trust?trk=ppro_cprof">Investors Bank & Trust</a></h4>

</div>

Public Company; 1001-5000 employees; IFIN; Financial Services industry

<abbr class="dtstart" title="2004-07-01">July 2004</abbr> – <abbr class="dtend" title="2007-07-01">July 2007</abbr> (3 years 1 month)

<div style="text-align: left;">-Received “Star of the Month Award” for work developing and streamlining Foreign Exchange trading and settlement.</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">-Supervised staff of up to five fund accountants and two senior fund accountants.</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">-Reviewed nightly Net Asset Value calculations for mutual funds to be reported to NASDAQ and transfer agencies.</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">-Prepared semi-annual and annual audit packages for financial reporting and audit purposes. Responsible for answering internal and external audit questions and providing support for all account balances.</div>

</div>

<h2 style="text-align: left;">Michael Head's Education</h2>

</div>

<div>

<h3 class="summary fn org" style="text-align: left;">Suffolk University</h3>

<h4 class="details-education" style="text-align: left;">MS, Economic Policy</h4>

</div>

<h3 class="summary fn org" style="text-align: left;">University of New Hampshire</h3>

<h4 class="details-education" style="text-align: left;">BS, Math: Economics</h4>

</div>

<h2 style="text-align: left;">Michael Head's Additional Information</h2>

</div>

<dl>

<dt class="websites" style="text-align: left; display: block;">Websites:</dt>

<ul>

<li class="website" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebeaconhill%2Eorg%2F&urlhash=fbwS" target="_blank" title="New window will open">Company Website </a></li>

</ul>

</dd>

<dt class="pubgroups" style="text-align: left; display: block;">Groups and Associations:</dt>

<li class="affiliation vcard"><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div class="group-data" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Suffolk-University-78796" tracking="fulpro_grplogo">Suffolk University</a></div>

</li>

</ul>

</dd>

</dl>

</div>

<h2 style="text-align: left;">Contact Michael for:</h2>

</div>

<ul>

<li style="text-align: left;">career opportunities</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">consulting offers</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">new ventures</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">job inquiries</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">expertise requests</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">business deals</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">reference requests</li>

<li style="text-align: left;">getting back in touch</li>

</ul>

</div>

<h3 style="text-align: left;">View Michael Head’s full profile to..</h3></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

Beacon Hill Inst

Attachments