I just discovered that the consultants for New York's climate policy scoping plan did a very biased sensitivity analysis of their cost-benefit analysis.
First, because fuel costs went up recently, they assumed fuel costs would remain high permanently over the next 30 years, increasing the cost of continuing to use natural gas for heating and gasoline for cars. I.e., inflating the cost of not electrifying everything.
Second, for reasons not made clear, they assumed that technology advances would be cheaper than their initial analysis assumed. This deflates the cost of transitioning to a green-energy based economy.
So both assumptions bias the analysis toward the desired outcome of benefits of transitioning outweighing the costs of transitioning.
I was taught that you should make conservative assumptions, ones that don't automatically work to produce your desired outcome.
OK, to be fair, I see that they did briefly reference a higher technology cost scenario. But they did not match that with a lower fuel cost scenario. In short, they have assumed that fuel costs necessarily increase or at least remain the same, which in real dollar terms is not always the case. So their sensitivity analysis is still biased and incomplete.