[link removed]


** Utility-backed climate framework could weaken emissions targets ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------

By Jonathan Kim on August 6, 2025

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 ([link removed]) 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 ([link removed]) – from membership dues paid by utilities, or that the vast majority of its board members ([link removed]) 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 ([link removed]) , 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) ([link removed]) – a prospect that the EPRI methodology appears to invite ([link removed]) – including in regulatory processes nationwide.

Utilities have a history of claiming net-zero commitments but hand-waving the concrete plans and actions ([link removed]) required to meet those commitments and resisting independent auditing ([link removed]) of their goals’ alignments with science. Ameren, for example, used previous EPRI research ([link removed]) 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 ([link removed]) , resulting in them falling behind in meeting goals per independent monitors ([link removed]) . 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 ([link removed]) and diplomatic ([link removed]) 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 ([link removed]) , 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 ([link removed]) “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 ([link removed]) in scientific research ([link removed]) . There is a large body of research that demonstrates that funding, particularly from ([link removed]) private industry ([link removed]) , can bias a study’s results ([link removed]) or researcher’s agenda ([link removed]) 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 ([link removed]) and economic costs ([link removed]) to argue for looser greenhouse-gas regulations and delayed climate action. Researchers have identified ([link removed]) 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 ([link removed]) of climate progress.

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


** Recent EPI articles and press:
------------------------------------------------------------
* Oncor tries to resurrect dead bill to justify interim rate increase in Texas ([link removed])
* ‘Financial support’ from Minnesota Power may have influenced backers of utility acquisition, judge says ([link removed])
* Industry front group backs NC bill that raises Duke Energy costs for residential customers ([link removed])
* Truthout: As Private Equity Comes for the Utility Sector, Minnesota is a Test Case ([link removed])
* Tampa Bay Times: Trump nominates Florida utility official in shakeup ([link removed])

Get in touch. Do you have a question or want to provide information?
Contact us ([link removed])
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
mailto:[email protected]

View this email in your browser ([link removed])

Copyright (C) 2025 Energy and Policy Institute. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website via our Contact Us page.
Our mailing address is:
Energy and Policy Institute
P.O. Box 337
El Verano, CA 95433
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?

You can update your preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe ([link removed])