by Greg Findley, Montana Chapter Board Member
NorthWestern Energy likes to point out that they've made a strong commitment to addressing climate change. In late 2019, they proclaimed that “We commit to reducing the carbon intensity of our electric energy generation 90 percent by 2045, from a 2010 baseline.” While this sounds impressive, what does this commitment actually mean? Is carbon intensity the same as carbon emissions, and are they committing to cut their CO2 emissions, or not? Why are they committing to a 90% reduction by 2045, and, more importantly, is that in line with the science of climate change? And how did they select 2010 as the baseline to compare their reductions against?
Let’s take a look at the answers to these questions to assess if this truly is a strong commitment to addressing climate change.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Must Be Cut Drastically to Avoid Climate Catastrophe.
First, we need to begin with the science of climate change. Climate scientists have proven that the burning of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide (CO2) that accumulates in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from an average of 280 parts per million (ppm) since the beginning of the industrial revolution to over 415 ppm this year, and this has already led to a global temperature increase of over 1°C from pre-industrial times.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that we must keep global temperature rise to 1.5°C to avoid climate catastrophe. To do that we must stop emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as soon as possible. They say we must cut greenhouse gas emissions globally by nearly 50% by 2030, and then cut 50% more each decade until we reach net zero emissions globally by 2050. If we fail to meet the 2030 and 2040 reduction goals, we will blow past 2° C of warming well before 2050, likely triggering feedback loops that increase greenhouse gas emissions from natural carbon sinks, leading to unstoppable runaway climate chaos.
Carbon intensity is not the same as carbon emissions.
NorthWestern Energy’s commitment is to cutting carbon intensity, not emissions – they are not the same thing. Carbon emissions are the amount of CO2, measured in pounds or gigatons emitted when burning fossil fuels. When CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, its concentrations are measured in parts per million. Carbon intensity is the percentage of carbon emitted relative to the amount of energy produced, or the ratio of carbon emitted to energy produced.
Carbon intensity is often used to compare different energy sources to see which produces fewer emissions for a given amount of energy produced. Coal, for example, generally emits 2.21 pounds of CO2 per kwh, while natural gas emits .92 pounds per kwh. Electricity from natural gas clearly has a lower carbon intensity than that from coal. But intensity doesn’t say anything about the amount, or the number of pounds, of CO2 emitted. Even though electricity from natural gas has a lower carbon intensity than coal, it still adds 1,153,215 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere each year because of the amount of electricity produced in the USA alone.
Since carbon intensity doesn’t say anything about the amount of CO2 emissions, it would be possible to cut carbon intensity even while emissions increase, if the amount of energy generated increases. As an example, let’s look at miles per gallon (mpg) in cars. Increasing mpg of a car reduces the carbon intensity of driving. Switching from a car that gets 20 mpg to a car that gets 50 mpg reduces the carbon intensity (the ratio of carbon emitted per mile) of driving. If you drove 15,000 miles a year before the switch, and continue to drive 15,000 miles a year after the switch, your emissions have also been reduced, as you will have burned less gasoline. However, if you switch from driving 15,000 miles a year in a 20 mpg car to driving 50,000 miles a year in a 50 mpg car, your carbon intensity has still gone down, but your emissions have actually gone up. You will have burned more gasoline because you drove more miles, and thus you emitted more CO2.
NorthWestern Energy didn’t commit to decreasing emissions because that is not what they plan to do. Their plan is to keep the Colstrip coal-fired power plant, one of the dirtiest carbon emitting facilities in their energy portfolio, open until 2042 (even as the other owners of the plant want to close it as early as 2025). Additionally, their 2019 electricity Resource Procurement Plan claims that they need to build over 800 MW of carbon emitting new fracked gas electricity plants in the next five years, and these plants are expected to operate for at least 30 years, or past 2050. The amount of CO2 NorthWestern emits will actually increase until they close Colstrip in 2042, and even then the new gas plants will continue to emit carbon for another decade.
NorthWestern Energy clearly expects electricity demand to increase a great deal by 2045, and thus they can decrease the carbon intensity of their generating facilities - not by cutting emissions but by increasing the amount of clean energy they produce to meet the increasing demand. Just like a higher mileage car driven more miles each year, their carbon intensity would go down even as their emissions stay the same or even go up. A commitment to decrease carbon intensity does nothing to decrease their actual emissions and therefore is not a commitment to addressing climate change.
Cutting 90% by 2045 is much too late.
NorthWestern Energy has committed to cut their carbon intensity, not emissions. But even if they were pledging to cut emissions, their timeline is not in line with the science. A 90% reduction by 2045 is much too late. As noted earlier, the IPCC says we must cut emissions nearly 50% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. NorthWestern instead plans to increase emissions until at least 2042, completely blowing past the crucial intermediate target of a 50% reduction by 2030, and then they blow past the 2040 target as well.
For this to be a real climate pledge NorthWestern would need to commit to cutting emissions 50% by 2030, and to zero by 2050.
NorthWestern Energy’s carbon intensity metric and 2010 baseline are misleading.
NorthWestern Energy only includes the carbon intensity of their owned generating resources in their commitment to reduce carbon intensity, completely omitting emissions (or lack thereof) from their contracted and open market electricity purchases. The metric they use is “Tons of CO2 Emitted per Megawatt Hour Generated,” focusing on the ratio of emissions per megawatt of the electricity they generate.
In 2010, according to their 2010 Annual Report to Investors, “Most of the capacity and energy requirements for our Montana customers (was) purchased from third parties.” A great deal of that electricity came from hydroelectric dams (35% of the electricity they purchased came from hydropower according to a study by the Montana legislature) owned by PPL. Since this low-emissions hydro power was not generated by facilities they owned, it was not included in their carbon accounting.
In 2014, NorthWestern purchased 11 hydroelectric power plants from PPL. In a recent publicity piece titled “Our vision for Montana,” a chart shows that NorthWestern reduced the carbon intensity per megawatt generated in their portfolio by 52% from 2010 to 2015 because of this purchase. For 2010, however, they didn’t include the low emissions electricity they purchased from PPL’s hydroelectric dams in their accounting because they didn’t generate it themselves, but for 2015, because they now owned those dams and were “generating” the electricity themselves, they did count these emissions.
This is an accounting trick that does not accurately reflect the carbon intensity of the electricity NorthWestern provided to its customers. While the purchase most likely increased the amount of hydro power they used, the carbon intensity of the energy sold to customers from all sources did not come close to decreasing by 52%.
NorthWestern Energy’s Commitment Does Nothing To Combat Climate Change.
NorthWestern Energy’s commitment to reduce the “carbon intensity” of their “electric energy generation 90 percent by 2045, from a 2010 baseline” is not a pledge to combat climate change. They can cut carbon intensity while increasing carbon emissions, and even if they were committing to cutting emissions (they are not!) 2045 is, again, much too late, according to the IPCC.
Their commitment is greenwashing, hoping to make people believe they are taking bold action to combat climate change, while in reality they are doing the opposite. NorthWestern Energy needs to make a real commitment to cutting emissions 50% by 2030, and to provide 100% clean electricity by 2050. Until then, they are working against a livable climate, not for it.