Washington state officials have admitted that key climate programs used to justify a costly carbon tax were promoted with wildly exaggerated emissions-reduction claims.
The Washington State Department of Commerce has now conceded that it dramatically overstated the environmental benefits of eight flagship projects funded under the states Climate Commitment Act (CCA), a cap-and-trade-style scheme passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature in 2021.
According to The Post Millennial, the CCA forces businesses that emit greenhouse gases to purchase credits, with the resulting costs passed along to consumers in the form of higher gas prices and utility bills, while the revenue is supposed to fund programs that reduce fossil-fuel use.
Commerce officials now say a data entry error led to a massive miscalculation of the greenhouse gas reductions attributed to the eight projects, which focus on home electrification and appliance rebates for low-income residents. The projects were initially credited with cutting 7.5 million metric tons of emissions, but the corrected figure is roughly 78,000 metric tonsan inflation of the claimed benefit by a factor of 96.
In a statement to local media, Jennifer Grove, assistant director of Energy for Commerce, acknowledged the blunder while defending the broader policy. We made an error in reporting data for this program. The Climate Commitment Act is a vital part of the states efforts to control carbon emissions, and were committed to ensuring that the information we share is complete and accurate.
The revelation validates concerns long raised by watchdogs who questioned whether the states climate bureaucracy was overselling the impact of its spending. Todd Myers, Vice President for Research at the free-market-oriented Washington Policy Center, had previously warned that just eight projects accounted for 86 percent of the emissions reductions touted in the states official CCA spending report.
Speaking on The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI, Myers described what he found after requesting the spreadsheet behind the states claims. He said the dataset listed about 3,600 projects, yet eight entries were so distorted that they overwhelmed the totals. They account for 86 percent of the total reductions, he said, calling the claims fake totally wrong.
Commerces admission confirms that the emissions reductions assigned to those eight projects were off by nearly two orders of magnitude, yet they were still prominently showcased in state messaging to sell the program to the public. When the Department of Ecology released its Climate Commitment Act Investments report, its press release boasted that CCA spending from the carbon tax is expected to directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a total of nearly 9 million metric tonsthe equivalent of taking 40% of gas and diesel vehicles in Washington off the road for a whole year, the agency claimed.
Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller hailed the report as a model of openness and accountability. He said it delivered detailed, transparent information about CCA spending and argued that it helps lawmakers guide those investments wisely.
Yet the exposure of such a glaring error raises serious questions about both the competence and candor of the agencies administering one of the most expensive climate policies in the country. For Washington families already squeezed by inflation and rising energy costs, the notion that officials used inflated numbers to promote a tax driving up their bills underscores a broader concern: that climate policy has become a vehicle for higher government revenue and expanded bureaucracy, with little proof of proportional environmental benefit.
Washington drivers now face some of the highest gas prices in the United States as a direct consequence of the CCAs carbon tax. On January 7, 2026, AAA reported a national average of about $2.82 per gallon, while Washingtons average stood at roughly $3.81more than a dollar higher than many other states, a gap that hits working-class commuters and small businesses hardest.
At a time when households are paying more to heat their homes, fuel their vehicles, and keep their businesses running, the agencies charged with demonstrating that the CCA is worth the cost have admitted that the results of their most celebrated projects were overstated by nearly 100-fold.
That admission not only undermines public trust in Washingtons climate accounting, it also strengthens the argument from conservatives and fiscal hawks that before government demands more sacrifice from taxpayers in the name of climate action, it should first provewith honest numbersthat its policies deliver real, measurable results.
Login