Beacon Hill Institute (BHI)

Background

The Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research (BHI) started as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University in Boston originally founded in 1991 by the Republican politician Ray Shamie. According to their website, the Beacon Hill Institute “specializes in the development of state-of-the-art economic and statistical models for policy analysis.” [1], [2]

In December 2015, after a policy was put in place that restricted BHI‘s fundraising activities, the Beacon Hill Institute announced it would be severing ties with Suffolk University by the end of 2016. [31]

The Beacon Hill Institute’s mission is as follows:

“The Beacon Hill Institute engages in rigorous economic research and conducts educational programs for the purpose of producing and disseminating readable analyses of current public policy issues to voters, taxpayers, opinion leaders and policy makers.” [3]

The Beacon Hill Institute has worked with the State Policy Network to release and disseminate policy studies opposing legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions including the Clean Power Plan, as well as renewable energy standards across the United States. [4]

BHI has received funding from various conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation (funded by Coors), and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.  David G. Tuerck, Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute, is the former director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a group that has received more than $3.5 million for ExxonMobil.

Stance on Climate Change

The following is from a joint “Peer Review” (PDF) made by the Beacon Hill Institute and the Montana Policy Institute: 

“The debate isn’t over. Honest people still do disagree about the causes and consequences of climate change. For this reason, policy recommendations that rely upon debatable assumptions and flawed economic principles as a basis for drawing further conclusions deserve special scrutiny.” [5]

The following is taken from a document (PDF) jointly published by the Beacon Hill Institute and the James Madison Institute:

“The national debate on climate change has been marked by vehement disagreement between those who believe that global warming is a severe problem requiring urgent solutions and skeptics who argue that the scientific evidence on climate change remains inconclusive. Only the passage of time and the collection of additional data will settle the issue.” [6]

“The only way to slow global warming is to allow entrepreneurs to create more energy-efficient products and technologies. As the demand for these products grows, entrepreneurs will naturally react to market forces and direct their energies to producing more energy-efficient products at a cheaper cost. Government intervention is not the solution to this problem, the free market is.” [7]

Funding

The following funding is based on data compiled by the Conservative Transparency project. Note that not all funding values have been verified by DeSmog. [8]

View attached spreadsheet for additional information on Beacon Hill Institute & Suffolk University funding by year (.xlsx).

Donor	Total
The Roe Foundation	$207,500
Searle Freedom Trust	$162,975
Donors Capital Fund	$140,000
State Policy Network	$117,000
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation	$113,240
Castle Rock Foundation	$60,000
Americans for Tax Reform Foundation	$25,250
DonorsTrust	$250
Grand Total	$826,215

Suffolk University Funding

According to Conservative Transparency (based on publicly-available 990 tax records), The Suffolk University has received over $1M in funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. It is reasonable to deduce that some of this funding may have gone to the Beacon Hill Institute. [9]

Year	Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation	JM Foundation	Grand Total
2000		$15,000	$15,000
2004		$20,000	$20,000
2007	$375,198		$375,198
2008	$97,236		$97,236
2009	$136,771		$136,771
2010	$209,697		$209,697
2011	$110,692		$110,692
2012	$44,734		$44,734
2013	$17,000		$17,000
2014	$5,000		$5,000
2015	$9,000		$9,000
Grand Total	$1,005,328	$35,000	$1,040,328

990 Forms

Key People

As of October, 2015: [10]

• David G. Tuerck — Executive Director
• Paul Bachman — Director of Research
• Frank A. Conte —Director, Communications and Information Services
• Jonathan Haughton — Senior Economist
• Michael Head — Research Economist
• Charles E. Rounds, Jr. — Resident Scholar

Actions

January 2021

The Beacon Hill Institute authored a report on behalf of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity criticizing a regional plan to cut transportation emissions, reported local paper The Providence Journal. [38]

The report argued “emissions reductions achieved by the carbon tax proposed in 2019 would have been infinitesimal while costing Rhode Island $426 million in losses to gross domestic product and 1,856 jobs.” [38]

The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity, described as “one of the younger think tanks in the State Policy Network” by its CEO Mike Stenhouse, “has often relied on the research and perspectives of David Tuerck and the Beacon Hill Institute” according to a BHI endorsement by Stenhouse. [39]

The report, titled “The Effects of a TCIStyle Gas Tax on Motor Fuels in Rhode Island,” was written by BHI’s David G. Tuerck and William F. Burke, BHI’s Director of Research. [40]

July 30, 2020

BHI‘s executive director David Tuerck wrote an article at CommonWealth Magazine criticizing the lawsuit that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey had brought against ExxonMobil. The lawsuit accuses Exxon “for deceptive advertising to Massachusetts consumers and for misleading Massachusetts investors about the risks to Exxon’s business posed by fossil fuel-driven climate change—including systemic financial risk.” [36], [37]

A revision of the lawsuit highlighted how the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic “are a harbinger of the types of systemic risks posed by climate change, demonstrating the sweeping and interconnected nature of climate-driven dangers and disruptions, such as the widespread economic harms of sudden global market disruptions, supply chain interruptions, and health care system failures.”

According to Tuerck, “The conflation of the coronavirus and climate crisis, both misleading and far-fetched, leads to an inescapable conclusion: Healey’s climate change litigation is based solely on belief.”

“There simply is absolutely no compelling proof that ExxonMobil faces any immediate or even long-term prospects of declining sales as a result of climate change,” Tuerk also claimed.

Kert Davies, director of the Climate Investigations Center, responded to Tuerck’s op-ed. He responded to Tuerck’s above argument, noting that “While demonstrably false in so many ways, this statement proves Tuerck is stuck in some bygone decade of denial and suggests he has neither read the Massachusetts complaint, nor the internal Exxon documents from the 1970s and ‘80s cited in the complaint, which can be read and downloaded at ClimateFiles.com.  These documents show Exxon’s staff scientists modeling and anticipating how fossil fuel consumption would have to be curtailed to avoid dangerous climate change.  They knew regulations were coming.” [35]

June, 2016

The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) was among organizations named in a Massachusetts subpoena looking for communications between ExxonMobil and organizations denying climate change, reports The Washington Times. [33]

Organizations named in the Massachusetts subpoena include the following: [33]

• The Centre for Industrial Progress
• The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
• The American Enterprise Institute
• Americans for Prosperity
• The American Legislative Exchange Council
• The American Petroleum Institute
• The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
• The George C. Marshall Institute
• The Heartland Institute 
• Mercatus Center at George Mason University

This latest inquiry by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is one in a series of investigations into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and when, started by a coalition of attorneys general in the US. [34] 

December, 2015

After a policy was put in place that restricted BHI‘s fundraising activities, Executive Director David Tuerck announced that the Beacon Hill Institute would be severing ties with Suffolk University by the end of 2016. [31]

“I’m going to recruit a board and engage in fundraising so we can establish ourselves as a freestanding institution,” Tuerck said. He also said that the Koch Foundation is among those he will approach for funding to set up the independent institute. [31]

The Beacon Hill Institute had long been the target of the student activist group “UnKoch My  Campus” due to the institute’s finding from the Koch Brothers, however Tuerck said he was unsure if the group had played a role.

“I know the UnKoch My Campus strategy is to attack the quality of the Beacon Hill Institute work to the end of getting the university to (refuse to) accept any more Koch funding,” but, he said, “It’s such a phony attack that I’d be surprised if it motivated the head of the university.” [31]

January – March, 2015

The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) published a “Cost-Benefit Analysis” of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) arguing that CPP would cause huge increases in electricity rates, InsideClimate News reports. [11]

The Natural Resources Defense Council’s staff blog was also critical of the Beacon Hill Institute study, and pointed to the fossil fuel funding behind the report. The Guardian reports that the Beacon Hill Institute study was funded by the Employment Policies Institute, a tax-exempt group headed by a industry strategist/lobbyist named Richard Berman (Also behind campaigns against the Humane Society and Mothers against Drunk Driving).  [12], [13], [14]

The reports were published in a number of Op-Eds and cited by a member of Congress. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 

the analysis “artificially inflates the costs of the Clean Power Plan nationally and in a number of states, while failing to include most of the benefits projected by the EPA in its regulatory impact analysis.” [15]

Between January and March, 2015, The Beacon Hill Institute published a series of policy studies (by state) criticizing the Clean Power Plan:

• Virginia: The Costs of New EPA Rules to Virginia: with Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, (March 2015 — PDF)
• Louisiana: The Costs of New EPA Rules to Louisiana with Pelican Institute for Public Poliicy (February 2015 — PDF)
• New Mexico: The Economics Effects of New EPA Rules on the State of New Mexico with the Rio Grande Foundation (January 2015 — PDF)
• South Carolina: New EPA Rules Will Cost South Carolina a Fortune with Palmetto Promise Institute (February 2015 — PDF)
• Wisconsin: The Economic Effects of the New EPA Rules on the State of Wisconsin with the MacIver Institute, (January 2015 — PDF)
• North Carolina: The Economic Effects of the New EPA rules on the State of North Carolina with the Civitas Institute (January 2015 — PDF)
• Iowa: Obama-Inspired EPA Carbon-Dioxide Regulations May Bankrupt Iowans with Iowa Public Interest Institute (January 2015 — PDF)
• National: Clean Power Plan: The Economic Effects of the New EPA Rules on the United States (January 2015 — PDF)

Media Matters reports that the Beacon Hill Institute and State Policy Network (SPN) worked together to distribute the studies through an Op-Ed campaign across the U.S. [4]

December, 2013

The Guardian reports that Beacon Hill Institute sought $38,825 in funding to perform an economic analysis with the express purpose of weakening the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. [16]

“Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal RGGI,” the funding proposal said. [16]

The State Policy Network went to Searle Freedom Trust, a leading funder of conservative causes, on the BHI’s behalf in search of the funding. Suffolk University claimed it had not been consulted about the research plans, and would not have authorized the grant if it had been. [16]

“The stated research goals, as written, were inconsistent with Suffolk University’s mission,” Greg Gatlin, the university’s vice-president for marketing and communications, said in an email. 

[16]

Gatlin also wrote that the Beacon Hill Institute failed to follow university protocol for its grant proposal: 

“The University has existing protocols in place that require approval for all grant proposals,” Gatlin said. “The Beacon Hill Institute’s grant proposal did not go through the university’s approval process. The university would not have authorized this grant proposal as written.” [16]

September 21, 2012

The Beacon Hill Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy co-released a study that worked to stall Michigan’s Proposal 3 which proposes to increase the state’s use of renewable energy sources including wind and solar 25% by 2025. The study, titled “The Projected Economic Impact of Proposal 3 and Michigan’s Renewable Energy Standard” (PDF), was authored by Beacon Hill Executive Director David Tuerck, Paul Bachman, and Michael Head. [17], [18]

The study was commissioned by the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a group associated with the State Policy Network (SPN). The Mackinac Center, ATI and the State Policy Network have all received funding from Koch sources. According to Jeff Deyette, senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Beacon hill analysts:  [19]

• Excluded the cost cap, a key component of the policy;
• Ignored the fact that the state already has a standard in place, enabling them to inflate the costs of implementing the stronger standard;
• Made assumptions about renewable energy technologies, often citing out-of-date, controversial or unsubstantiated material to support their assertions instead of using real-world cost and performance data from local projects; 
• And failed to factor in the new standard’s benefits, including economic development, job growth, cleaner air and reduced carbon pollution.

Beacon Hill Institute research economist Michael Head admitted to the Washington Post that he had excluded the cost caps in their analysis:

“We just left it out so we could provide the actual analysis of the policy itself,” Head said, adding that the central question is not whether renewable energy costs more but “the matter of degree. You’re certainly going to have these higher electricity prices. They will have profound negative consequences for the states’ economies.” [20]

Head also admitted that the studies had been behind the funding for the studies, although he said that “Koch certainly has not had the only role in funding these studies” – this suggests that other anonymous donors were also involved.

May 21 – 23, 2012

The Beacon Hill Institute was an official Co-sponsor (PDF) of the Heartland Institute‘s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). [21]

DeSmogBlog researched co-sponsors behind the conference and discovered that they had received a total of over $67 Million from ExxonMobil, Koch, and Scaife family foundations. [22]

June 2, 2009

The Beacon  Hill Institute was a co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute‘s Third International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC3) in Washington, DC. [30]

September, 2008

The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) conducted a “Peer Review” (PDF) of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change Climate Action Plan (MCCC). According to the Beacon Hill Institute, the MCCC‘s Climate Action Plan (CAP) report is “unsuitable for making any informed policy decisions.” [23]

August, 2008

The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) published a “Policy Study” (PDF) critical of regulations proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in South Carolina. According to BHI, “the proposals would exert significant negative effects on the state economy.” [24]

“Because South Carolina’s GHG emissions are so small relative to the rest of the world’s emissions, it is quite apparent that no policy adopted by South Carolina would have any discernible impact on global climate change and thus no measurable economic benefit,” the study reads. [24]

March, 2008

The Beacon Hill Institute published a joint “Peer Review” (PDF) with the Montana Policy Institute of Montana’s Climate Change Action plan. According to their study, “Because Montana’s GHG emissions are so small relative to the rest of the world’s emissions, it is quite possible that, even if there are large social costs associated with GHG emissions, no policy adopted by Montana would have any discernible impact on global climate change.”  [5]

January, 2008

The John Locke Foundation (JLF) commissioned a “peer review” (PDF) by the Beacon Hill Institute of a report by the North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (NC–CAPAG) and an accompanying jobs analysis from Appalachian State University. [25], [26]

According to the John Locke Foundation’s press release, “The peer review raises red flags about the model’s projections.” JLF‘s Vice President for Research, Roy Cordato, said that “Trained economists conducting this new peer review found that the model is so flawed that no one should trust the results.” [27]

DeSmogBlog speculated that the peer-review may not have been reliable, given that it was done entirely within the Beacon Hill Institute and without outside input. [28]

Beacon Hill Institute Contact & Location

As of June 2016, the Beacon Hill Institute listed the following contact information on its website: [32]

Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
8 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: 617-573-8750
Fax: 617-994-4279

Physical Location:
73 Tremont Street 
10th Floor
Boston, MA 02108

Related Organizations

Beacon Hill lists the following clients on their website: [29]

• Alabama Policy Institute
• Altria Corporation
• American Council on Education
• Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut
• Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts
• AT&T Foundation
• Center of the American Experiment
• Commonwealth Foundation
• CSE Foundation
• DCI Group
• Egan Family Foundation
• Ernst &Young
• Flint Hills Center for Public Policy
• Heritage Foundation
• Institute for Policy Innovation
• KPMG Peat Marwick
• Maine Public Policy Institute
• Manhattan Institute
• Microsoft Corporation
• Mississippi Center for Public Policy
• New England Cable Television Association
• New Hampshire Commission to Assess the Operating Efficiency of State Government
• New Hampshire First
• Oklahoma Office of State Finance
• Pacific Research Institute
• PricewaterhouseCoopers
• Quincy Medical Center
• Rio Grande Foundation
• Roe Foundation
• Small Business Survival Committee
• State of Oklahoma
• Texas Public Policy Foundation
• Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
• United States Agency for International Development
• Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc.
• Zeron Foundation

Social Media

• @BHIToday on Twitter.
• “Beacon Hill Institute” on Facebook.
• “Beacon Hill Insitute” on LinkedIn.

Resources

1. “Biography of Ray Shamie,” NewsLink, Vol. 3, No. 4, Summer 1999. Published by the Beacon Hill Institute. Archived October 9, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6c9sfPO20
2. “History,” The Beacon Hill Institute. Archived October 9, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6c9snckaf
3. “Mission and Vision,” The Beacon Hill Institute, October 9, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6c9sw3sBo
4. Denise Robbins ”A Web Of Climate Deception: The Beacon Hill Institute, Richard Berman, And The State Policy Network,” Media Matters for America, April 13, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cEGwEU65
5. Benjamin Powell. “Continuing the Debate: Challenging the Economics of Montana’s Climate Change Action Plan” (PDF), The Beacon Hill Institute, March, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
6. Paul Bachman. “Phase II of Florida’s Plan for Energy and Climate Change: Avoiding the Mistakes Made by Others” (PDF), The James Madison Institute, Backgrounder Number 57 (September, 2008). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. 
7. “Solution lies in the free market system,” The Boston Globe, August 8, 2008. Archived October 10, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cBr1hlaQ
8. “Beacon Hill Institute,” Conservative Transparency. Data retrieved July 5, 2016.
9. “Suffolk Univesity,” Conservative Transparency. Data retrieved July 5, 2016.
10. “Staff,” Beacon Hill Institute. Archived October 11, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cBteNq8G
11. Naveena Sadasivam. “Koch-Supported Group Offers Skewed Argument Against Clean Power Plan,” InsideClimate News, April 16, 2015. Archived October 11, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cCh4CO6U
12. Laurie Johnson. “Beacon Hill Study: Bizarre algebra, crazy assumptions, and the wrong policy,” Switchboard (Natural Resources Defense Council Blog), February 24, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cDQgakk0
13. Aliya Haq. “Dr. Evil and polluters exposed (again) in attacks on Clean Power Plan,” Switchboard (Natural Resources Defence Council Staff Blog), February 24, 2015. Archived October 12, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cDQtlQP5
14. Suzanne Goldenberg. “Lobbyist dubbed Dr Evil behind front groups attacking Obama power rules,” The Guardian, February 23, 2015. Archived October 12, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cDRP8NSG
15. “Beacon Hill Institute Study on Clean Power Plan,” Union of Concerned Scientists, March 12, 2015. Archived October 11, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cChSmBWO
16. Suzanne Goldenberg. “Free-market research group’s climate proposal denounced by host university,” The Guardian, December 5, 2013. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cEHzFzvV
17. “Fact Check: Koch-Funded Group Misleads Michigan Voters on Clean Energy,” The Equation (Union of Concerned Scientists Blog), October 5, 2012. Archived October 10, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cBt2ZToq
18. David G. Tuerck, Paul Bachman and Michael Head. “The Projected Economic Impact of Proposal 3 and Michigan’s Renewable Energy Standard” (PDF), Mackinack Center for Public Policy Brief S2012-07, Sept. 21, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
19. Elliott Negin. “Koch Brothers Fund Bogus Studies to Kill Renewable Energy,” Huffington Post, December 7, 2012. Archived October 11, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cBuHdH1T
20. “Climate skeptic group works to reverse renewable energy mandates,” The Washington Post, November 24, 2012. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cBuPksko
21. “Seventh International Conference on Climate Change: Sponsored by the Heartland Institute” (PDF), the Heartland Institute. Archived August 15, 2015.
22. “A Closer Look at Heartland’s ICCC7 Denial-a-Palooza Speakers and Sponsors,” DeSmogBlog, May 23, 2012. 
23. “Peer Review: Maryland Commission on Climate Change Climate Action Plan” (PDF), The Beacon Hill Institute, September, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
24. “The Economics of Climate Change Proposals in South Carolina: A Preliminary Look” (PDF), The Beacon Hill Institute, August, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
25. “Unlocking One Think Tank’s Oily Secrets,” PR Watch, November 15, 2007.
26. David G. Tuerck et al. “The Economics of Climate Change Legislation in North Carolina” (PDF), The Beacon Hill Institute, April, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogblog. 
27. “Press Releases: N.C. energy policy model ‘not credible’,” John Locke Foundation, January 9, 2008. Archived October 9, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6c9tquYKr
28. Mitchell Anderson. “Phony “Peer Review Tries to Undermine Climate Action in North Carolina,” DeSmogBlog, January 17, 2008.
29. “Clients,” The Beacon Hill Institute. Archived October 11, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6cBuwEHxX
30. “Co-Sponsors,” Third International Conference on Climate Change. Archived July 14, 2010.
31. Lindsay Kalter. “Director: Beacon Hill Institute to sever ties to Suffolk University,” Boston Herald, December 1, 2015. Archived December 2, 2015. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6dUDYqXni
32. “Contact Information,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. Archived June 13, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6iF369p7F
33. Valerie Richardson. “Exxon fights Mass. AG’s ‘political’ probe into climate change dissent,” The Washington Times, June 15, 2016. Archived June 24, 2016. WebCite URL: http://www.webcitation.org/6iVfnzUhc
34. Ben Jervey. “State Investigations Into What Exxon Knew Double, and Exxon Gets Defensive,” Desmog, April 1, 2016.
35. “Tuerck’s critique of Healey fits a pattern,” CommonWealth, August 6, 2020. Archived August 17, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/VPAml
36. David G. Tuerk. “Healey’s kitchen-sink Exxon-Mobil lawsuit,” Commonwealth, July 30, 2020. Archived August 17, 2020.
37. “Attorney General’s Office Lawsuit Against ExxonMobil,” Mass.gov. Archived August 17, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/OqeWX
38. “Conservative group criticizes transportation climate plan,” The Providence Journal, January 26, 2021. Archived March 31, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/gmphc
39. “Endorsements,” The Beacon Hill Institute. Archived March 31, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/cg3DI
40. David G. Tuerck and William F. Burke. “The Effects of a TCIStyle Gas Tax on Motor Fuels in Rhode Island” (PDF), The Beacon Hill Institute & Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity. January 2021. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

Other Resources

• “Beacon Hill Institute,” SourceWatch Profile.
• Wikipedia Profile.