The Claims vs. Reality
Washington's Climate Commitment Act Investments report was promoted as proof that $1.5 billion in carbon tax revenue is delivering dramatic emissions reductions at an exceptionally low cost. State officials and media outlets repeated claims that the program would cut nearly 9 million metric tons of CO₂ for just $40 per metric ton, presenting the CCA as both effective and efficient.
Those claims do not withstand scrutiny.
A review by Washington Policy Center's Vice President of Research shows most emissions reductions are driven by obvious data errors, not real-world results.
The Numbers Don't Add Up
Just eight projects—out of nearly 3,600—account for roughly 86 percent of the total CO₂ reductions claimed, based on implausible cost assumptions as low as $1 to $4 per metric ton. These figures are not credible by any accepted standard and should have raised immediate red flags.
The Ellensburg Example
One example illustrates the scale of the problem: a grant to the City of Ellensburg claims that energy upgrades to 170 buildings reduced emissions equal to 60 percent of all residential CO₂ emissions in Washington for an entire year. That outcome is plainly impossible.
When asked, local officials confirmed the emissions estimates came from the state, not from actual energy measurements. Staff at the Department of Commerce later acknowledged that the reported data was wrong and that Ecology was aware of the issue.
The Real Cost
Once the errors are corrected using cost and performance figures consistent with similar projects, total emissions reductions drop to approximately 1.2 million metric tons—just 14 percent of what the state claims. The average cost to reduce one metric ton of CO₂ rises from $40 to roughly $395, far exceeding the state's own carbon tax rate and its estimated social cost of carbon.
State's Claimed Cost
$40
per metric ton
Corrected Actual Cost
$395
per metric ton
Other projects in the report raise similar concerns, including ferry dock electrification projects that claim emissions reductions while excluding the cost of the ferries themselves. Without accounting for the full system, the claimed benefits are misleading.
The Systemic Problem
The larger issue is not a simple mistake—it's systemic inflation of results. When a handful of dubious projects generate the vast majority of reported benefits, the credibility of the entire program collapses. Climate policy that costs households and businesses billions of dollars must be judged on accurate math, not optimistic assumptions or uncorrected errors.
If lawmakers are going to rely on these reports to justify continued or expanded carbon taxes, they must first demand corrected data, transparent methodologies, and verifiable outcomes. Accountability is not optional—it is the foundation of effective public policy.
Key Takeaways
What the data actually shows:
- 86% of claimed CO₂ reductions come from just 8 projects with unrealistic assumptions
- Reported costs as low as $1–$4 per metric ton are not credible
- Corrected emissions reductions fall to ~14% of what the state claims
- True average cost to reduce CO₂ is closer to $395 per metric ton, not $40
- 70% of CCA spending isn't expected to reduce emissions at all
Bottom Line
Inflated numbers and uncorrected errors undermine trust. Effective climate policy starts with honest accounting.
Source
Climate Commitment Act Investments report (WA Dept. of Ecology), reviewed and analyzed by Washington Policy Center using reported cost and emissions assumptions; Department of Commerce confirmation of reporting errors.
Read the Complete WPC Article