U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

40%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 02, 2025 10:10 AM UTC

Leading Conservative "Stink Tank" Hammered For Nonsense Study

  • 11 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
As it turns out, not so much.

If you’ve been following Colorado politics over the past few years, at one time or another you’ve probably run across information supplied by the conservative Common Sense Institute, an advocacy group with ties to Republican political strategist Josh Penry through his politically connected spouse Kristin Strohm known for pumping out lengthy “studies” invariably leading to the scholarly conclusion that Colorado Democrats suck.

But as the Colorado Sun’s Michael Booth reports, a new “study” from CSI claiming that environmental protections have cost Colorado some 31,000 oil and gas related jobs, be it job losses or jobs “foregone,” reducing the state’s economic output by billions of dollars, is drawing criticism and even some lampooning for being, to put it charitably, light on the facts:

More than 100 major environmental requirements have been added to state laws since 2009, the Common Sense Institute says, and those have shaved $32 billion from Colorado’s economic output. The conservative policy nonprofit, which has been critiqued for not disclosing donors or detailing the methodology of its high-profile economic studies, wants policymakers to make costs a bigger part of their deliberations…

The Colorado Energy Office and multiple environmental groups are dismissing the study as inaccurate at best and a misleading “op-ed” rather than a credible economic analysis. [Pols emphasis]

“There’s simply no evidence to support any of the claims that they make that environmental policies are costing Coloradans,” said Alex DeGolia, the Carbondale-based director of state legislative and regulatory affairs for the Environmental Defense Fund. Simply pointing out that some consumer prices have gone up, or that oil and gas employment varies, is not economic analysis, he said.

“Any freshman college student in Econometrics 101, probably the first day, the first thing they learn is that correlation does not equal causation,” DeGolia said.

Josh Penry, one-time candidate for governor now a big-money loser political consultant.

For years, the fossil fuel industry has relied on inflated estimates of their economic impact to the state to argue against regulation to protect health and safety over fostering new oil and gas drilling. At the same time, the industry has exaggerated the impact of those regulations to suggest that their industry was on the verge of being “driven out of Colorado,” which of course never happened. Above all, the expansion of drilling (or not) continues to be based on the market price of oil and gas, not the policies of any one state.

This “study” was another attempt at the same self-serving doom and gloom, but so sloppy with the facts that it backfired:

The Colorado Energy Office called Common Sense Institute’s approach “simplistic” and at odds with rigorous economic analyses required when state regulators consider a new pollution-limiting rule…

On utility costs alone, [Parks Barroso of Western Resource Advocates] said, the Common Sense report includes “fundamental” misunderstandings of current policy and regulation.

The Common Sense assessment appears to blame Colorado policies requiring the replacement of coal-fired power plants with cleaner generating alternatives for higher utility prices than in neighboring states, the EDF noted. In reality, multiple rigorous studies show fossil fuel plants cost more to build and operate now than renewable plants, DeGolia said.

Although it’s not the first time the Common Sense Institute’s conclusions have been scrutinized and found wanting, this story indicates that both environmental advocates and nonpartisan state officials are tired of this “stink tank” nonprofit churning out rank misinformation that Republican lawmakers and the industries who fund CSI then use to sow doubt in essential environmental progress like the phasing out of coal plants. Just because their misinformation is published in glossy color and delivered at a civil volume doesn’t make it true.

As the old saying goes, don’t believe everything that you read. But in CSI’s case, don’t believe anything.

Comments

11 thoughts on “Leading Conservative “Stink Tank” Hammered For Nonsense Study

  1. Our Democrat trifecta does nothing. Trump is taking away Harvards tax exemption. Why aren't Democrats removing CSI's non profit status? Why is the Benson Center for Insurrection and Right Wing propaganda still giving away Colorado taxpayers money to prop up their political movement? Lock them up and if Trump wants their freedom barter for it and have the rest of the US pay for a Colorado single payer healthcare system.

    1. You ask: Why aren't Democrats removing CSI's non profit status?

      Well, I think it probably has something to do with

      • 501c3 status AND 501c4 status are granted by the federal government's Internal Revenue Service; and
      • Taking away nonprofit status from a "Common Sense Institute" within the state of Colorado would likely fall afoul of the First Amendment
      1. There are ways around that simply single them out and pass a state tax that targets them. Or tax at a higher rate anyone who does business with them. You are thinking like an instituionalist and not like Stephen Miller. 

        While I might agree with you… but it's a simple fix. Just write the briefs that this CSI was a secret woke bla bla and the courts will bend over backwards. More importantly if it goes the other way… courts can be ignored, just like the trump administration does. Set aside morals and fairness because your opponent has none. 

        I'm not hearing you are sufficiently American. You sound more like an American't.

  2. With oil & gas prices headed down, there's going to be cutbacks in the industry. We'll see less new drilling, and less output from declining wells. And it's all due to global economic issues, in large part brought on by Trump.

    I wonder who these guys will blame???

    1. You answered your own question, Ben. O&G is work. Yammie-pie has never done a day's work in his life. He might have gotten his tiny hands dirty or broken a sweat and he couldn't handle that. 

      1. 😉

        Yeah, I should have been more specific, I guess?

        I sorta’ meant “worked” in the Penry sense of get paid by O&G for one’s lying — paid-for-while-never-having-actually-worked-at. 

        Or something.

        (I guess maybe campaign donations tribute extortion and graft would count?)

  3. Does anyone know how different this latest study really is from previous studies? The conclusion seems like something I've heard before, maybe even several times, and maybe from different sources. Lather, rinse, repeat. Groundhog Day.

    1. It seems to me, though I haven’t read this particular “study”, it sounds like “the OilyBoyz Lament”. Their tune hasn’t changed.

      I was, as president of the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, part of the efforts made during the Ritter administration, resulting in many of those “industry killing regulations”. Those victories were, in most cases, negated by John “Frackenlooper” who started his gubernatorial tenure by appointing an OilyBoy from Ft. Morgan (I think it was) to replace Tresi Houpt on the COGCC. Everyone paying attention at that time knew immediately the new rules were in trouble. 

      We were right. 

      No, I see nothing new. Josh is an OilyBoy through and through. The rhetoric is the same pallette of lies and misleading baloney Josh and the 17th Street Club have always delivered.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

57 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols