The Commission has noted in response that narrowly-based cost-benefit analyses of the kind usually undertaken for coal mining projects are unlikely to ever value any single environmental attribute or feature above the value of the coal that would have to be foregone to protect it. The Commission’s view is that such assessments should therefore be approached with extreme caution rather than being uncritically accepted as justifying propositions for destruction of significant natural features. The techniques available for placing an economic value on natural features are still relatively crude and, in the Commission’s view, their application usually falls well short of the standard required to withstand rigorous scrutiny.

So far from being too green, the PAC seems to think that the environmental economics of the Maules Creek Project were subjectively brown.  What does this mean for environmental valuation?  Has it matured into a useful tool that is used by both sides of policy debates?  Or is its use now so obviously subjective that valuation results reflect little more than the opinions of those who commission them?  Is environmental evaluation coming of age, or is it a passing fad?

While providing no answers to these questions, it is interesting to revisit the  2010 PAC decision on the Bulli Seam coal project and its choice modelling environmental valuation:

The Panel welcomes this approach and recommends its use in future EAs where environmental consequences are of particular importance in the determination of policy. However, that is not to say there is no room for improvement in applying the technique. While Choice Modelling cannot claim to deliver precise estimates of environmental costs, its application should be refined to deliver more precision.

It is worth noting that this earlier PAC panel included one of Australia’s most prominent choice modelling researchers, Prof Jeff Bennett, while the more recent panel did not.