The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a utility-funded nonprofit, has proposed a new framework that could enable utilities to scale back climate targets – without disclosing its industry affiliation.

In releasing a draft of its new SMARTargets methodology, EPRI touted its “commitment to scientific rigor and transparency.” However, the organization did not disclose that it receives about half of its funding – more than $238 million in 2024 – from membership dues paid by utilities, or that the vast majority of its board members are utility executives.

SMARTargets provides utilities with steps for setting “grounded, actionable climate targets and strategies aligned with science and international climate goals” including the Paris Agreement, according to EPRI. Utilities are likely to use the EPRI methodology to replace others developed by independent organizations, like the Science-based Targets Initiative (SBTi) – a prospect that the EPRI methodology appears to invite – including in regulatory processes nationwide.

Utilities have a history of claiming net-zero commitments but hand-waving the concrete plans and actions required to meet those commitments and resisting independent auditing of their goals’ alignments with science. Ameren, for example, used previous EPRI research to argue that an independent verification of whether its targets are science-based was unnecessary. Utilities’ climate strategy has broadly relied on strategies of delaying action, resulting in them falling behind in meeting goals per independent monitors. The SMARTargets methodology risks granting permission and legitimacy to this delay, citing uncertainty in climate science.

SMARTargets overemphasizes uncertainty

The “scientific foundation” of the SMARTargets methodology is the assertion that uncertainty is the core takeaway from climate science and transition pathways. The project largely ignores the scientific and diplomatic consensus that rapid, immediate emission reductions – particularly in wealthy nations – are necessary to achieve global goals to limit warming in line with the Paris Agreement. The draft methodology does not note that the electric power sector is responsible for a quarter of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, making utilities a critical player in achieving broader climate goals.

Rather, the draft methodology relies on six “key scientific observations” that focus on limitations, uncertainties, and variances in the pathways to limit global warming. The observations have stirred skepticism from critics – including sustainable investing advocates – who say they could be used as a rationale to delay or dilute climate action. 

Steven Clarke, Program Director of Climate and Energy at Ceres expressed “fundamental concerns” about the methodology, stating that “[the draft methodology] represents a step backward at a time when investors and other stakeholders require greater sector-specific accountability and action to address climate-related risks and opportunities.” He continued that “the EPRI framework will hinder the leadership and ambition we need from utilities to catalyze our transition to a cleaner economy.”

In addition to ethical concerns, investors care about the rigor of emissions-reduction plans because emissions can directly impact a company’s regulatory risk, liability for climate damages,  resilience to future climate shocks, and long-term financial value including risk of stranded assets.

EPRI fails to mention utility funding 

Disclosing funding and conflicts of interest is a long- and near-universally-recognized best practice in scientific research. There is a large body of research that demonstrates that funding, particularly from private industry, can bias a study’s results or researcher’s agenda to be more favorable to that industry. 

While EPRI enlisted a panel of independent scientists for what it called “a formal independent scientific peer review,” the reviewers were hand-selected by the organization. EPRI has not yet made public the comments from those reviewers, but in a statement to the Energy and Policy Institute says that it intends to do so this week. It is unclear if what is released will be the full comments, or tailored excerpts.

EPRI did not directly respond to questions about its failure to disclose utility funding or its policy for disclosing funders. In a statement from spokesperson Rachel Gantz, EPRI acknowledged that utilities had a say in the SMARTargets methodology. 

“To develop the methodology, EPRI established a rigorous process, with significant scientific, utility, and stakeholder input and review, including an independent scientific peer review,” Gantz said. 

In the past, EPRI has emphasized perceived technological limitations and economic costs to argue for looser greenhouse-gas regulations and delayed climate action. Researchers have identified EPRI’s work as a significant part of the utility industry’s historical efforts to sow doubt in climate science and advocate for delay in climate action. 

Gantz said the methodology “will help companies identify actionable transition strategies, manage risk, and set targets aligned with science and international climate goals.” But EPRI did not respond when asked directly by the Energy and Policy Institute about utilities’ past use of EPRI research to sidestep climate science and undermine independent verification of climate progress.

EPRI is accepting comments on the draft methodology through August 22. It will publish an anonymized summary of feedback received after the comment period closes, Gantz said.

Photo credit: Kevin Krejci via Flickr