After reviewing the state’s explanation for the additional costs, Barrett said state officials were purposefully trying to make the50 percent standardseem more expensive than it likely would be.
He said they weren’t accounting for the wide ranges in their estimates of overall costs and instead “fixated” on data that would “exaggerate their differences with the Senate numbers.”
For example, he noted that the Baker plan suggested that the state could ultimately achieve as much as 48 percent fewer emissions by 2030.
“So, really, we’re down to 2 percent, and they’re arguing 2 percent is reckless? Come on!” Barrett said. “Arguing the sky is going to fall, when all numbers are subject to significant uncertainty and margins of error, is unwarranted.”