‘We could get close to a 90-percent reduction in emissions by 2050’

As the NWT leans on diesel to get it out of climate scrapes, it can be hard to envisage an essentially diesel-free territory any time soon.

But last year, ministers quietly adopted an ambitious target for 2050: net zero emissions.

Canada as a whole has had that target for some time. It’s new for the NWT, introduced in budget documents last summer and only publicized once the CBC reported it in October.

“Essentially, net zero means you’ve reduced your emissions enough that you’re in a position to reduce them down to zero with additional measures like direct air capture or carbon credits,” said Remi Gervais, manager of energy policy and programs at the NWT’s Department of Infrastructure.

Gervais is one of the people tasked with figuring out how the territory makes that happen – and, as part of that process, how it moves away from heavily polluting diesel.

The NWT has wanted to use less diesel for decades, not least because it’s also expensive. But the territory has no power grid and diesel is either the primary source of electricity or the backup in just-about all of its 33 communities. A big shift will be required and possible solutions include everything from nuclear and hydrogen to renewable diesel.

Recent low water levels show how changing features of the NWT’s climate can complicate the emissions picture.

It’s possible the territory’s annual emissions for 2023 and 2024 – when the data is finalized and published, which hasn’t happened yet – could go up because so much diesel was needed to counteract recent losses of hydro power. (On top of low water meaning more diesel use in places like Yellowknife, the entire South Slave has been on diesel for nearly two years because of a refit happening at the Taltson hydro plant.)

The future is bound to include more unforeseen challenges like low water. Meanwhile, emissions from wildfires in the NWT have recently far exceeded human-caused emissions.

Politically, though, the net zero commitment is seen as an important one.

“Our net-zero emissions by 2050 commitment sends a strong signal to private investors that the NWT is building the clean energy needed to support resource extraction projects, especially critical minerals mining, which plays a vital role in the national and global clean economy,” infrastructure minister Caroline Wawzonek recently wrote.

Wawzonek argued that if net zero attracts more companies (who want to be seen operating in a zero-emission environment), one benefit is that would mean more customers paying for power, which could bring down power rates or at least stabilize them.

So how realistic is net zero by 2050?

“With current technology types and forecast changes in the price of alternative energy, we think we could get close to a 90-percent reduction in emissions by 2050,” Gervais told Cabin Radio this week.

The remaining 10 percent would be covered by the likes of carbon credits or other offsets.

“It could also be that a technology we haven’t modelled comes in and really changes the picture for us,” he added.

The territory’s immediate target for 2030 is reducing emissions by 30 percent compared to 2005 levels.

Reports released by the GNWT last week suggest the territory is on target to do so, although a large slice of the reduction will come through changes like the Diavik diamond mine shutting down in 2026.

The target would be in more jeopardy if Diavik did not shut down, though Gervais argues the GNWT has still found reductions – emissions were down by 22 percent on 2005 levels as of 2022 – that make a meaningful difference.

He said work is ongoing to meet the 2030 target, while the focus is gradually shifting to how the NWT hits the 2050 net zero mark.

“The window of opportunity to really impact 2030 is almost closing now. It’s only five years in the future,” he said.

“So in terms of planning, we’re definitely pivoting toward 2050 and figuring out what kind of initiatives and projects and other changes we’d have to make to get there.”

Below, read a transcript of the full interview with Remi Gervais about the NWT’s emissions and its future targets.

---

This interview was recorded on Thursday, January 9. The transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

Ollie Williams: Some of these figures still hark back to the pandemic. For example, the overall emissions figures are from 2022, that’s the latest data we have. We’re coming out of a few years where the pandemic turned upside-down some parts of our lives that generate emissions, like travel and some aspects of industry. How easy is it to factor all of that in and understand what the numbers are really telling you?

Remi Gervais: If we look at Canada overall, we can see there was a significant impact from the pandemic in 2020. Emissions in Canada dropped by about eight percent and the Northwest Territories went down about 15 percent. Since then, we’ve rebounded. Both Canada and the Northwest Territories are about five-percent lower than what they had been in 2019.

If you try to assign that difference to one particular event, that would be very difficult. It could be the impact of the ongoing efforts that we’ve made. It could be the impact of the pandemic, but there are lots of things in the world that change every year that could also explain part of where we’re at now. If we hadn’t done what we’ve done, then we’d be in a worse place.

The NWT wants to reduce diesel use. We’ve used a lot of diesel recently through things like low water levels and Taltson hydro being offline. When we get the 2023 and 2024 emissions figures in, are we expecting emissions might creep up again?

That will have an impact. It’s not the first time this has happened. We can look at 2014-15 to estimate the scale of the impact of that. Fortunately, electricity production is not necessarily the biggest factor in our territorial emissions.

We have a target of reducing emissions by 30 percent, compared to the 2005 baseline, by 2030. If the climate throws more curveballs at us and we miss our 2030 target – say we needed to keep using more diesel because of low water – how do you approach that? Do you say, “Look, we’ve actually done all this work, and in a normal year we would have hit the target?” Or do you now have to factor in that the climate might drive some emissions back up again?

There’s two things there.

Generally, if the climate was to warm up, if you look at the energy consumption that would be required to meet our usual demand, we think the energy demand should actually go down.

Where there might be a challenge is: where does that energy come from? As we’re looking at renewing our energy strategy for 2050, we will be taking into consideration the risks of having prolonged adverse effects of those curveballs like low water that impacts the barging and low water that impacts hydro production.

Certainly, we want to look at diversifying our energy sources, finding energy sources that aren’t affected as much as the current system by those climatic events. That’s all part of the long-term planning we need to do, and we need to integrate those factors in our decision-making.

We’ve had things like the new Inuvik wind turbine in the recent past. What’s the next big diesel reduction milestone coming up?

A big one would be the completion of the Fort Providence transmission line project, which has seen some progress in 2023-24. That would be a big one in terms of a single project affecting GHG emissions.

We’re also really looking forward to Canada increasing their funding for programming through the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund. That has a significant impact on how much we can offer in terms of programming for residents and businesses.

They’ve committed to provide $17 million over five years. Last time, we used it primarily for the GHG grant program and Arctic Energy Alliance programming. We’re currently negotiating an agreement with them. It’s a bit too early to provide a timeline of when the funding would be available, but we’re hoping soon.

My understanding is the Arctic Energy Alliance recently hasn’t had quite as much funding as it did, partly because federal programs expired. Presumably, depending on what decisions get made, that agreement might help ramp that back up again?

You had the right wording there – pending the decisions being made. The Arctic Energy Alliance had to revert back to historical levels of funding since that program ended. We’re certainly hoping to revert back again to higher levels of funding in the coming years.

The Diavik diamond mine closing in the next year takes out a big chunk of industrial emissions overall. Are we on track for the NWT’s 2030 emissions goal?

Yeah, we’re on track based on the modelling we’ve conducted. Certainly Diavik will have an impact, as well as other mines changing their operation levels.

One thing to keep in mind with this, in terms of economic activity, is there are a lot of variations in this that don’t only include the mines. It’s not the only factor that explains the variations, but it will have an impact and it is part of the reason why the target is achievable. But again, if we hadn’t done everything we’ve done, the result in 2030 would have been worse in terms of emissions.

The bigger goal the GNWT adopted last year – without really shouting it out much – was net zero by 2050. What does net zero actually mean in practice?

Essentially, net zero means you’ve reduced your emissions enough that you’re in a position to reduce them down to zero with additional measures like direct air capture or carbon credits, or some of these other initiatives that don’t necessarily mean changing your energy sources or reducing your energy use.

With current technology types and forecast changes in the price of alternative energy, we think we could get close to a 90-percent reduction in emissions by 2050. Only the remaining 10 percent would have to be covered by those technologies I mentioned.

But it could also be that a technology we haven’t modelled comes in and really changes the picture for us.

What is going into that big picture for 2050 in terms of the 90-percent reduction you mentioned?

We can look at a study we completed about a year and a half ago. That study concluded the bulk of the changes could be achieved through four major components: keep using biomass; increase the amount of renewable electricity being produced like solar and wind, battery storage, hydro; things like electric heating and electric transportation; and meet the gap with things like biofuels, direct air capture and potentially carbon credits.

Is the focus now shifting so the department is spending more of its time thinking about net zero and 2050 rather than 2030?

We haven’t abandoned the 2030 target. That’s still a target we want to achieve. and we’re not quite there yet. Certainly, Diavik will have an impact – it’s a big one – but we’re not there yet and we don’t want to necessarily bank on reduced economic activity to achieve our targets. Until things are firmed up, I think we’re going to want to keep working at that goal in terms of planning.

Though you’re right – the window of opportunity to really impact 2030 is almost closing now. It’s only five years in the future. So in terms of planning, we’re definitely pivoting toward 2050 and figuring out what kind of initiatives and projects and other changes we’d have to make to get there.