Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
Thanks for finding my source, and confirming I did not invent numbers out of thin air. You should also see this quote from the same report.
"The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million."
The numbers derived from math are correctly calculated from the data provided in that same report.
As with any forward looking data, higher highs and lower lows than what occurred in the past can occur in the future, that is why I averaged the data in the first place. 
If I had desired to twist the data making the revenues from cap and trade smaller, I could have just used the lower number, and likewise the opposite way as well. But I did not twist the data because I averaged them.
Which data set is more correct, what an independent study reported to the legislature or what the government department reported? I have not the slightest idea, just wanted to add there must be reasons why the legislature wanted an independent report. |
That quote isn’t in the report. You edited it to represent the total amount of revenue, when the actual quote says $534 million is the average that the CAHSR project receives (in other words, the Cap-and-Trade’s annual auction revenues are 4x that amount):
Your statement:
“
The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.”
The actual statement in the independent report:
“The
project’s annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.”
There is no math to show how you arrive at a $534m annual average auction revenues in total (for which 25% goes to CAHSR), you just misread and misquoted from the LAO report, which says $534m is the average annual cut received from total auction revenues per year.