Electric Utilities Report 2009 Carbon Disclosure Project
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Electric Utilities Report 2009
Carbon Disclosure Project
Report written for Report Sponsor: Carbon Disclosure Project
Carbon Disclosure Project by: info@cdproject.net
UK: +44 (0) 20 7970 5660
U.S.: +1 (212) 378 2086
www.cdproject.net
CDP Electric Utilities Report 2009
Carbon Disclosure Project 2008 CDP Members 2008
This report and all of the public
responses from corporations are
available to download free of MEMBER 2008
charge from www.cdproject.net.
The contents of this report may ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira Merrill Lynch & Co.,Inc. U.S.
be used by anyone providing das Entidades Fechadas de
acknowledgement is given. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
Previdência Complementar (MUFG) Japan
Brazil
Morgan Stanley Investment
Aegon N.V. Netherlands Management U.S.
APG Investments Netherlands Morley Fund Management
ASN Bank Netherlands United Kingdom
ATP Group Denmark National Australia Bank Limited
AXA Group France Australia
Banco Real Brazil Neuberger Berman U.S.
BlackRock U.S. Newton Investment
Management Limited
BP Investment United Kingdom
Management Limited
United Kingdom Pictet Asset Management SA
Switzerland
Caisse de dépôt et placement
du Québec Canada Rabobank Netherlands
Caisse des Dépôts France Robeco Netherlands
California Public Employees’ SAM Group Switzerland
Retirement System U.S. Schroders United Kingdom
California State Teachers Signet Capital Management
Retirement System U.S. Switzerland
Calvert Group U.S. Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.
Canada Pension Plan Japan
Investment Board Canada Standard Chartered PLC United
Catholic Super Australia Kingdom
CIBC Canada Sun Life Financial Inc. Canada
Ethos Foundation Switzerland Swiss Reinsurance Company
Switzerland
Folksam Sweden
The Ethical Funds Company
Fortis Investments Belgium Canada
Generation Investment The RBS Group
Management United Kingdom United Kingdom
ING Netherlands The Wellcome Trust
KLP Insurance Norway United Kingdom
Legg Mason, Inc. U.S. Zurich Cantonal Bank
London Pensions Fund Switzerland
Authority United Kingdom
01CDP Signatories 2008
CDP Signatories 2008 BlackRock U.S. Commerzbank AG Germany
BMO Financial Group Canada Companhia de Seguros Aliança do Brasil Brazil
385 investors with assets of over $57 BNP Paribas Investment Partners France Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds U.S.
Trillion were signatories to the CDP6 Boston Common Asset Management, LLC U.S. Co-operative Financial Services (CFS)
information request dated 1st February BP Investment Management Limited
United Kingdom
2008 including: United Kingdom Credit Agricole Asset Management France
Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. Brazil Credit Suisse Switzerland
British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Daegu Bank South Korea
AACHENER GRUNDVERMÖGEN KAG mbH United Kingdom
Germany Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Japan
British Columbia Investment Management
Abax Global Capital United Kingdom Corporation (bcIMC) Canada DEGI Deutsche Gesellschaft für Immobilienfonds
mbH Germany
Aberdeen Asset Managers United Kingdom BT Financial Group Australia
Deka FundMaster Investmentgesellschaft mbH
ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades BVI Bundesverband Investment und Asset Germany
Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Brazil Management e.V. Germany
Deka Investment GmbH Germany
Acuity Funds Canada CAAT Pension Plan Canada
DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Germany
Aegon N.V. Netherlands Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Canada
Delta Lloyd Investment Managers GmbH Germany
Aeneas Capital Advisors U.S. Caisse des Dépôts France
Deutsche Bank Germany
AGF Management Limited Canada Caixa Beneficente dos Empregados da Companhia
Siderurgica Nacional - CBS Brazil Deutsche Postbank Privat Investment
AIG Investments U.S. KAG mbH Germany
Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Canada Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco
do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Brazil Development Bank of Japan Japan
Alcyone Finance France Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
Caixa Econômica Federal Brazil
Allianz Group Germany Philippines
Caixa Geral de Depósitos Portugal
Altshuler Shacham LTD Israel Dexia Asset Management France
California Public Employees’ Retirement System
AMP Capital Investors Australia U.S. DnB NOR Asset Management Norway
AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Germany California State Teachers Retirement System U.S. Domini Social Investments LLC U.S.
ANBID - National Association of Brazilian California State Treasurer U.S. DPG Dt. Per.Gesellschaft für Wertpapierportfolio
Investment Banks Brazil mbh Germany
Calvert Group U.S.
APG Investments Netherlands DWS Investment GmbH Germany
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canada
ASB Community Trust New Zealand Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social Brazil
Canadian Friends Service Committee Canada
ASN Bank Netherlands ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência
CARE Super Pty Ltd Australia Brazil
ATP Group Denmark
Carlson Investment Management Sweden Environment Agency Active Pension fund
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited United Kingdom
Australia Carmignac Gestion France
Epworth Investment Management
Australian Ethical Investment Limited Australia Catherine Donnelly Foundation Canada United Kingdom
Australian Reward Investment Alliance (ARIA) Catholic Super Australia Erste Bank der Oesterreichischen Sparkassen AG
Australia CCLA Investment Management Ltd United Kingdom Austria
Aviva plc United Kingdom Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Ethos Foundation Switzerland
AXA Group France United Kingdom Eureko B.V. Netherlands
Baillie Gifford & Co. United Kingdom Ceres U.S. Eurizon Capital SGR Italy
Banco Sweden CERES-Fundação de Seguridade Social Brazil Evli Bank Plc Finland
Banco Bradesco S.A. Brazil Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP F&C Management Ltd United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Banco do Brazil Brazil FAELCE – Fundação Coelce
China Investment Corporation China de Seguridade Social Brazil
Banco Itaú Holding Financeira Brazil
Christian Super Australia FAPERS – Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária
Banco Pine S.A. Brazil da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do Sul Brazil
CI Mutual Funds’ Signature Advisors Canada
Banco Real Brazil FAPES – Fundação de Assistencia e Previdencia
CIBC Canada
Banco Santander, S.A. Spain Social do BNDES Brazil
Citizens Advisers, Inc. U.S.
Banesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Fédéris Gestion d’Actifs France
Brazil Clean Yield Group, Inc. U.S.
First Affirmative Financial Network U.S.
Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd Switzerland ClearBridge Advisors, Socially Aware Investment
U.S. First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Sweden
Bank Vontobel Switzerland FirstRand Ltd. South Africa
Close Brothers Group plc United Kingdom
BankInvest Denmark Fishman & Co. Israel
Colonial First State Global Asset Management
Barclays Group United Kingdom Australia Five Oceans Asset Management Pty Limited
BayernInvest KAG mbH Germany Columbia Management U.S. Australia
BBC Pension Trust Ltd United Kingdom Comité syndical national de retraite Bâtirente Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) U.S.
Canada Folksam Sweden
Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd Canada
02CDP Electric Utilities Report 2009
Fondaction Canada Hermes Investment Management United Kingdom MEAG MUNICH ERGO Asset Management GmbH
Germany
Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – FRR HESTA Super Australia
France MEAG MUNICH ERGO KAG mbH Germany
Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) Canada
Fortis Investments Belgium Meeschaert Gestion Privée France
Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited
Forward Funds/Sierra Club Funds U.S. (HDFC Ltd.) India Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Japan
Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund (AP4) HSBC Holdings plc United Kingdom Merck Family Fund U.S.
Sweden
I.B.I. Investments House Ltd. Israel Meritas Mutual Funds Canada
Frankfurter Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft mbH
Germany IDEAM -Integral Dévelopment Asset Management Merrill Lynch & Co.,Inc. U.S.
France
FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment METZLER INVESTMENT GMBH Germany
Gesellschaft mbH Germany Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company
Finland Midas International Asset Management
Franklin Templeton Investment Services GmbH South Korea
Germany Industrial Bank China
Mirae Investment Asset Management South Korea
Frater Asset Management South Africa Industry Funds Management Australia
Mistra, Foundation for Strategic
Front Street Capital Canada ING Netherlands Environmental Research Sweden
Fukoku Capital Management Inc Japan Inhance Investment Management Inc Canada Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Japan
FUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários Federais Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd. Japan
Brazil United Kingdom
Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Japan
Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social -
INFRAPREV Brazil Monega KAG mbH Germany
Brasiletros Brazil
Insurance Australia Group Australia Monte Paschi Asset Management SGR S.p.A
Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Brazil Italy
Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Brazil Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility U.S.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management U.S.
Fundação Codesc de Seguridade Social - FUSESC Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
Germany Morley Fund Management United Kingdom
Brazil
Investec Asset Management United Kingdom Motor Trades Association of Australia
Fundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd Australia
Companhia Riograndense de Saneamento Brazil Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Canada
Münchner Kapitalanlage AG Germany
Fundação São Francisco de Seguridade Social JPMorgan Asset Management U.S.
Brazil Munich Re Group Germany
Jupiter Asset Management United Kingdom
Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - Natcan Investment Management Canada
VALIA Brazil KBC Asset Management NV Belgium
Nathan Cummings Foundation U.S.
FUNDIÁGUA - Fundação de Previdência da KCPS and Company Israel
Companhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do Distrito National Australia Bank Limited Australia
Federal Brazil KfW Bankengruppe Germany
National Bank of Kuwait Kuwait
Gartmore Investment Management Ltd KLP Insurance Norway
National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity
United Kingdom Kyobo Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd. Supply Pension Scheme United Kingdom
GEAP Fundação de Seguridade Social Brazil South Korea
National Grid UK Pension Scheme Trustee Ltd
Generali Investments Deutschland KAG mbH La Banque Postale Asset Management France United Kingdom
Germany LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland
Generation Investment Management Germany Ireland
United Kingdom Legal & General Group plc United Kingdom Natixis France
Genus Capital Management Canada Legg Mason, Inc. U.S. Nedbank Group South Africa
Gjensidige Forsikring Norway Libra Fund U.S. Needmor Fund U.S.
GLG Partners LP United Kingdom Light Green Advisors, LLC U.S. Nest Sammelstiftung Switzerland
Goldman Sachs & Co. U.S. Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. Neuberger Berman U.S.
Governance for Owners United Kingdom Switzerland
New Alternatives Fund Inc. U.S.
Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. Canada Local Authority Pension Fund Forum
United Kingdom New Jersey Division of Investment U.S.
Guardian Ethical Management Inc Canada New Jersey State Investment Council U.S.
Local Government Superannuation Scheme
Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Australia New Mexico State Treasurer U.S.
New Zealand
Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie New York City Employees Retirement System U.S.
Hang Seng Bank Hong Kong Switzerland
New York City Teachers Retirement System U.S.
Harrington Investments U.S. London Pensions Fund Authority
United Kingdom New York State Common Retirement Fund
Harvard Management Company U.S. (NYSCRF) U.S.
Macif Gestion France
HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH Newton Investment Management Limited
Germany Macquarie Group Limited Australia United Kingdom
Hazel Capital LLP United Kingdom Maine State Treasurer U.S. NFU Mutual Insurance Society United Kingdom
Health Super Fund Australia Man Group plc United Kingdom NH-CA Asset Management South Korea
Helaba Invest KAG mbH Germany Maple-Brown Abbott Limited Australia Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Japan
Henderson Global Investors United Kingdom Maryland State Treasurer U.S. Nissay Asset Management Corporation Japan
03CDP Signatories 2008
Norfolk Pension Fund United Kingdom Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen Germany The Dreyfus Corporation U.S.
Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset Savings & Loans Credit Union (S.A.) Limited. The Ethical Funds Company Canada
Management Co., Ltd Japan Australia
The Local Government Pensions
North Carolina State Treasurer U.S. Schroders United Kingdom Insitution (LGPI)(keva) Finland
Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Scotiabank Canada The RBS Group United Kingdom
Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC)
United Kingdom Scottish Widows Investment Partnership The Russell Family Foundation U.S.
United Kingdom
Northern Trust U.S. The Shiga Bank, Ltd. Japan
SEB Asset Management AG Germany
Oddo & Cie France The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) South Africa
Old Mutual plc United Kingdom Sweden
The Travelers Companies, Inc. U.S.
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Finland
(OMERS) Canada The United Church of Canada -
SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado Brazil General Council Canada
Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Canada
Service Employees International The Wellcome Trust United Kingdom
Opplysningsvesenets fond Union Benefit Funds U.S.
(The Norwegian Church Endowment) Norway Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)
Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Sweden
Oregon State Treasurer U.S. Sweden
Threadneedle Asset Management United Kingdom
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. U.S. SH Asset Management Inc. South Korea
Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire
Pax World Funds U.S. Shinhan Bank South Korea Insurance Co., Ltd. Japan
Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Japan Trillium Asset Management Corporation U.S.
and Economists Denmark
Shinsei Bank Japan Triodos Bank Netherlands
Pension Plan of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
Canada Canada Siemens KAG mbH Germany Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investing U.S.
PETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Signet Capital Management Ltd Switzerland TrygVesta Denmark
Social Brazil Skandia Nordic Division Sweden UBS AG Switzerland
PGGM Netherlands SNS Asset Management Netherlands Unibanco Asset Management Brazil
Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Société Générale France UniCredit Group Italy
Ltd. Canada
Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Japan Union Asset Management Holding AG Germany
PhiTrust Active Investors France
SPF Beheer bv Netherlands Unitarian Universalist Association U.S.
Pictet Asset Management SA Switzerland
Standard Chartered PLC United Kingdom United Methodist Church General Board of Pension
Pioneer Investments KAG mbH Germany and Health Benefits U.S.
Standard Life Investments United Kingdom
Portfolio 21 Investments U.S. Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH Germany
State Street Corporation U.S.
Portfolio Partners Australia Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS)
Storebrand ASA Norway United Kingdom
Porto Seguro S.A. Brazil
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Japan Vancity Group of Companies Canada
PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do
Banco do Brasil Brazil Sumitomo Trust & Banking Japan Vårdal Foundation Sweden
Prudential Plc United Kingdom Sun Life Financial Inc. Canada VERITAS SG INVESTMENT TRUST GmbH Germany
PSP Investments Canada Superfund Asset Management GmbH Germany Vermont State Treasurer U.S.
QBE Insurance Group Limited Australia Sustainable World Capital U.S. VicSuper Pty Ltd Australia
Rabobank Netherlands Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Sweden Victorian Funds Management Corporation
Railpen Investments United Kingdom Swedbank Sweden Australia
Rathbones/Rathbone Greenbank Investments Swiss Reinsurance Company Switzerland Visão Prev Sociedade de Previdencia
United Kingdom Complementar Brazil
Swisscanto Holding AG Switzerland
Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Wachovia Corporation U.S.
Assistência Social Brazil TD Asset Management Inc. and TD Asset
Management USA Inc. Canada Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston
REDEPREV-Fundação Rede de Previdência Trust and Investment Management Company U.S.
Brazil Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association – College Retirement Equities Fund WARBURG-HENDERSON KAG für Immobilien mbH
RREEF Investment GmbH Germany (TIAA-CREF) U.S. Germany
Rei Super Australia Telstra Super Australia West Yorkshire Pension Fund
United Kingdom
Rhode Island General Treasurer U.S. Tempis Capital Management South Korea
WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM)
RLAM United Kingdom Terra fondsforvaltning ASA Norway Germany
Robeco Netherlands TfL Pension Fund United Kingdom Winslow Management Company U.S.
Rock Crest Capital LLC U.S. The Bullitt Foundation U.S. XShares Advisors U.S.
Royal Bank of Canada Canada The Central Church Fund of Finland Finland YES BANK Limited India
SAM Group Switzerland The Collins Foundation U.S. York University Pension Fund Canada
Sanlam Investment Management South Africa The Co-operators Group Ltd Canada Youville Provident Fund Inc. Canada
Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda Brazil The Daly Foundation Canada Zurich Cantonal Bank Switzerland
04Sponsor’s Letter Carbon Disclosure Project Electric Utilities Report March 16, 2009 As one of the first institutional investors to support the Carbon Disclosure Project, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System is strongly committed to the Project’s mission. For the second year in a row, the Teachers’ Retirement Board has made climate risk management one of its signature initiatives in its corporate governance program. We at CalSTRS are working hard to improve our portfolio companies’ climate risk awareness and management. CDP data is essential to enhance shareholder value through our corporate governance engagement efforts. We understand that metrics matter as our country grapples with a national energy policy and as the global discussion continues on carbon trading. These challenging economic times have shown the need for increased attention to corporate risk management. Accurate data is the means to help mitigate risk for the pension security of the teachers and other public employees who depend on institutional investors such as CalSTRS. Prudent investment management requires that shareholders know what actions corporations are taking to assess and manage climate-related risks. CalSTRS chose to sponsor the Electric Utilities Report because climate change risk management within this sector is of key importance to investors. As the most carbon-intensive sector, electric utilities must be at the forefront of reporting and mitigation efforts to avoid exposure to potential regulation and litigation costs. We applaud the Carbon Disclosure Project and its signatories in producing the Electric Utilities Report. This report opens the way for consistent and comparable measurements, which are the bedrock of responsible public policy and informed investment decisions. Jack Ehnes Chief Executive Officer California State Teachers’ Retirement System
In 2008 (CDP6), CDP wrote to the
world’s largest 249 publicly traded
electric utilities globally by market
capitalization requesting this
information on behalf of 385 investors
with US$57 Trillion of assets. This
report presents an analyses of the
responses received.
The world’s electric power industry is
poised at a transformational moment.
Within two decades, it must complete
a thorough overhaul of its power
generation system and transmission
network. In the coming era of carbon
emission constraints, electric utilities
Executive must reduce their dependence on coal
and other fossil fuels that at present
produce 40% of the world’s carbon
Summary dioxide emissions from energy-related
sources. This will require a “rapid
transformation to a low-carbon,
efficient and environmentally benign
system of energy supply,” according
Since 2000 the Carbon Disclosure to the latest outlook from the
International Energy Agency (IEA).
Project (CDP) has, on behalf “What is needed is nothing short of an
energy revolution.” 1
of institutional investors, This revolution will play out in slow
challenged the world’s largest motion. Power plants are highly
capital-intensive and built to last. With
companies to measure and report long operating lifetimes, power plants
lock in a flow of GHG emissions to the
their greenhouse gas (GHG) atmosphere for many decades. The
only way to halt the build-up from
emissions and other information existing plants is to make costly
retrofits to capture the carbon or retire
as to how climate change will them early. An alternative would be to
halt construction of new carbon-
affect their businesses. emitting plants. But even this radical
option would reduce emissions from
the electric power sector by only 25%
in 2020, relative to base-case
forecasts, due to ongoing emissions
from existing fossil-energy plants still
in operation.2 This combination of
factors argues for much greater
investment in energy efficiency and
demand-side management programs
to reduce demand for power from new
and existing plants alike.
1 “World Energy Outlook: 2008,” International Energy Agency,
Paris, 2008.
2 Put another way, three-quarters of the projected output of
electricity worldwide in 2020 (and more than half in 2030)
will comes from power stations already operating today,
under baseline forecasts.Executive Summary
On the regulatory side, global up 20% of the EU’s energy use. As the • Japan has launched a voluntary
momentum for an energy revolution is European Commission formulates its cap and trade scheme, and the
now in full swing. In the US, the year position for the next phase of the electric power sector has
opened with the launch of the Regional Kyoto Protocol, regulations for electric voluntarily pledged to reduce
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the utilities are at the center of the debate. its GHG emissions intensity
country’s first mandatory cap-and- With many observers concerned that (per kilowatt-hour) by 20% below
trade system for fossil-fuel fired power carbon prices alone do not provide a 1990 levels over five years.
plants. Utilities companies in ten strong enough signal to alter utility • China has passed a series of
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are investment decisions, several policy climate-related laws due to come
now getting their first taste of climate alternatives are being considered. into force at the end of 2009.
change regulation, with roughly 225 Goals include reducing energy
power plants covered under the In early March 2009, 44 members of consumption per unit of GDP by
emissions trading scheme. the European Parliament proposed an 20%, doubling renewable energy
amendment to the Industrial Emissions capacity and monitoring the
The global economic crisis has also Directive to introduce an emission limit environmental performance of
thrust the electric power sector into of 350 grams CO2 per kWh electricity carbon-intensive industries.4
the spotlight. Less than a month into produced for any new power plants. • Russia has set a goal to reduce the
his first term, President Obama signed The limit would be applicable from country’s energy intensity per unit
into law a stimulus package that puts 2020 for new plants and from 2025 of GDP by at least 40% from 2007
clean energy and energy efficiency at for existing plants. Such an emissions levels by 2020. In January 2009, the
the center of economic recovery plans. performance standard would government also approved targets
The package – 13% of which is effectively rule out any new coal-fired to generate 4.5% of energy from
devoted to climate and energy issues – plants as well as older, single cycle renewable sources by 2020,
includes nearly US$41 Billion in gas-fired plants without carbon although details on how this will be
funding for renewable energy research capture and storage. While the achieved are not yet clear.5
and development, energy efficiency amendment has garnered significant • India is also adopting new
and building retrofit programs, smart support and is being supported by regulations for its utilities sector in
grid development, a loan guarantee various NGO groups, it is still unclear an effort to cut GHG emissions.
program for rapid deployment of clean if it can clear a plenary vote. As a part of the national action plan
technology, carbon capture and on climate change, the government
storage (CCS) demonstration and Other countries around the globe are
following suit and forming climate has announced a new renewable
green job training. The stimulus also energy standard for utilities;
extends the “production tax credit” change policies that will profoundly
reshape the electric power sector. companies will be required to
for wind energy by three years and purchase 5% of their power from
includes tax credit extensions for • Australia has announced the renewable sources by 2010, after
biomass, geothermal, landfill gas and details of its Carbon Pollution which the minimum standard will
some hydropower projects. Reduction Scheme (CPRS), which be increased by 1% for the next
Europe, too, is moving quickly on new includes the implementation of a 10 years.
climate and energy policy. The EU GHG emissions trading scheme
Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) by January 2010. While the plan
came into force in 2005 and set caps includes provisions to give A$3.9
on emissions for over 12,000 sites Billion of free permits to coal-fired
owned by approximately 5,000 generators over the first five years
companies. But Brussels has not of the system, Standard and Poor’s
stopped there. In January 2009 – just has forecasted that the details of
three days after the inauguration of the plan “are likely to influence the
President Obama in the US – the investment decisions and ultimately
European Commission put forward its the credit profile of the Australian
Climate and Energy package, outlining utilities sector.”3 At the same time,
its strategy to achieve a 20% the government is under increasing
reduction in GHG emissions below pressure from industry groups to
1990 levels by 2020 and ramp up delay the launch of carbon trading
renewable energy production to make due to the current economic
downturn.
3 “Australia’s Carbon Plan Offers Mixed Bag for Local Corporates.” Standard & Poor’s Commentary Report, Jan. 27, 2009.
4 “Global Climate Change Regulation Policy Developments: July 2008-February 2009.” DB Advisors,
Deutsche Bank Group, Feb. 2009.
5 Ibid.
07CDP Electric Utilities Report 2009
With all of these policy developments, Key Findings 31% of Asian companies did so.
there is little doubt that 2009 is For those companies that reported
shaping up to be a pivotal year for the • Response Rates – The overall emissions intensity figures in metric
global electric power sector. This response rate for electric utilities tonnes of carbon dioxide-
report offers an in-depth analysis of has improved, with 53% of utilities equivalent per Megawatt-hour
the responses of 110 global, publicly- invited answering the CDP6 (2008) (CO2-e/MWh), American Electric
traded electric utilities to the CDP6 Questionnaire in comparison to just Power and TransAlta Corp. are
(2008) Questionnaire. It is the second 44% in 2006. Response rates were among those with the most carbon
iteration of such a sector-specific CDP highest for a relatively small sample emissions-intensive generation,
report; the first was published in 2006. of companies from Australia/New while Entergy Corp. and FPL
This report provides details on the Zealand, while the response rate for Group have some of the least
level of climate change disclosure US companies increased markedly, intensive electricity production,
offered by this critical sector to from 48% in 2006 to 67% in 2008. due to their use of nuclear power
investors and other key stakeholders, Notably lacking were responses and renewables.
as well as an analysis of the from three key GHG-emitting • Generation Fuel Mix – Just under
responding utilities’ emissions countries: only three Chinese, half of the CDP6 (2008) electric
intensities, generation fuel mixes and one Indian and no Russian electric utility respondents disclosed
investments in emerging technologies utilities responded to the latest current capacity and production
and services. While it appears that an questionnaire. In total, 110 unique figures by fuel type. This is a critical
increasing number of utilities are responses were analyzed for factor for investors to determine the
addressing these issues in their CDP this report. extent to which a utility may be
disclosure, more improvement is • Carbon Disclosure Leadership exposed to climate regulations as
needed in key areas, such as reporting Index (CDLI) – A new CDLI scoring well as the company’s future
on generating capacity and production system was introduced for CDP6 competitive positioning – yet,
by fuel type as well as specifics (2008) to evaluate companies across disclosure in this area is still
around emissions forecasting and sectors on the extent and quality of dramatically lacking. 62% of
reduction planning. their climate change disclosure. The European companies provided
highest scoring electric utilities for current capacity and production
CDP6 (2008) are Endesa, Iberdrola, data, but only 14 out of the 110
and AGL Energy with 85, 82 and 81 respondents provided data on
points, respectively, out of 100 total forecasted capacity and
possible points. These utilities production.
are providing comprehensive • Emissions Reduction Planning &
descriptions of company-specific Investments – Out of the 110
climate change risks and unique responses analyzed for this
opportunities as well as their report, 61% of respondents say
strategies to integrate climate they are forecasting future GHG
change into core business emissions and 59% say they have
strategies. an emissions reduction plan in
• Quantitative Emissions Reporting place – both encouraging signs.
– Out of the 110 electric utility Forty-eight companies also
responses analyzed for this report, provided specific details on the
93 companies (or 85%) provided baseline years and target strength
quantitative GHG emissions data of their emissions reduction targets.
(either direct Scope 1 or indirect Finally, numerous companies
Scope 2 emissions) in their CDP6 included disclosure on a range of
responses. Fewer companies investment opportunities from
reported on standard metrics of renewable energy installations and
emissions intensity (emissions demand side management (DSM)
released per unit of output). 90% programs to facility upgrades, fuel
of European companies reported switching and research and
emissions intensity figures, whereas development of carbon
only 52% of North American and sequestration and storage (CCS).
08Contents
Contents
Executive Summary 6
1 Introduction 10
2 Analysis of CDP6 Electric 13
Utilities Responses – Sample
and Response Rates
3 Carbon Disclosure 17
Leadership Index –
Electric Utilities
4 Quantitative Emissions 20
Reporting
5 Generation Fuel Mix Trends 27
6 Emissions Reduction 38
Planning and Investments
7 Conclusion 49
8 Appendices 50
Appendix I: Scores and 50
Emissions by Company
Appendix II: CDP6 57
CDP6 Questionnaire,
CDLI Methodology and
Glossary of Key Terms
091 The CDP Questionnaire covers four
major areas:
1 The risks and opportunities that
climate change presents to the
business;
2 Greenhouse gas emissions
accounting;
3 Management’s strategy to reduce
emissions/minimize risk and
capitalize on opportunity; and
4 Corporate governance with regard
to climate change.
Introduction The corporate data received in
response to CDP’s annual requests
provides investors with vital information
regarding the current and prospective
impact of climate change on their
The Carbon Disclosure Project is portfolios, and represents an important
resource for investment decisions. The
the largest investor coalition in the fact that CDP’s requests are made on
behalf of investors serves to raise the
world. Last year more than awareness of senior management that
climate change is a business issue that
385 signatory investors, with a requires serious strategic focus. After
eight years of consecutive growth, CDP
combined asset base of US$57 currently runs projects in more than 20
countries, with new projects launched
Trillion, signed CDP6 (2008) – in China, Korea, Latin America, the
Netherlands and Spain in 2008.
our sixth annual request for
CDP is pleased to report that it
information – which was sent to received a record number of company
responses to its 2008 annual request –
over 3,000 companies worldwide. more than 1,550 in total. This
demonstrates an increased
On February 1st 2009, a further understanding by the world’s largest
corporations of the importance of
request was sent on behalf of climate change and its relevance to
475 investors with US$55 business strategy and shareholder
value. And as both signatory investors
Trillion in assets to over 3,700 and corporate responses to CDP have
risen, in most cases the quality of
companies globally. responses has also vastly improved in
comparison to previous years.
Since 2007, CDP has also expanded
its work into a number of new
programs. The CDP Supply Chain
project is designed to assist
companies in understanding the
emissions and risks and opportunities
that climate change presents to their
supply chains. For some sectors this is1. Introduction
larger than the direct operations of the None of these stabilization targets
company. This work has also been come with any climate guarantees, World primary energy
applied to public spending through the however, and while a consensus
CDP Public Procurement program. around the 2°C target is emerging
demand and related CO2
CDP is also the secretariat for The there is ongoing debate among emissions are forecast to
Climate Disclosure Standards Board scientists and policymakers as to grow by 45%, to 41
(CDSB) which is developing a globally which stabilization target is most gigatonnes (GT) annually
accepted framework, based on prudent and achievable. Even a 2°C
existing standards, for corporate warming would lead to permanent by 2030, equal to 1.6%
reporting on climate change. ecosystem changes including loss of growth per year.
coral reefs, mountain glaciers and
Why Electric Utilities? onset of ice sheet melting which
produces substantial sea level rise
When negotiators gather in
over time. Few policymakers seem
Copenhagen, Denmark, at the end of
willing to consider targets beyond 3°C
2009 to hammer out an agreement to
of warming that portend far more
extend and expand the terms of a
serious consequences for the world’s
global agreement to reduce GHG
coastlines, freshwater and agricultural
emissions, their first-order challenge
resources.
will be to address a key policy question:
What limits should be set to stabilize Yet even the higher 550 ppm target,
atmospheric emissions in order to with the greater environmental risks it
mitigate the effects of climate change? entails, presents a huge challenge for
the world’s energy producers and
While the answer is far from simple, it
electric utilities in particular. According
is clear that the stakes are high.
to the latest baseline outlook from the
According to the latest analysis from
International Energy Agency (IEA) that
the Intergovernmental Panel on
extends through 2030:7
Climate Change:6
• World primary energy demand and
• The world is on course to double
related CO2 emissions are forecast
the concentration of carbon dioxide
to grow by 45%, to 41 gigatonnes
equivalent (CO2-e) in the
(GT) annually by 2030, equal to
atmosphere to 700 parts per million
1.6% growth per year. China, India
(ppm) by the end of this century.
and the Middle East are expected
• This concentration would lead to an
to account for three-quarters of this
eventual average temperature
increase.
increase of up to 6 degrees
• Fossil fuels in 2030 still are
Centigrade (6°C), or nearly 11
projected to account for 80% of the
degrees Fahrenheit, with
world’s primary energy mix, down
catastrophic environmental
only slightly from today.
consequences for the globe.
• In this baseline forecast, US$26
• Holding the concentration to 550
Trillion of cumulative energy-sector
ppm might reduce the eventual
investments will be required in
temperature to a more tolerable
2007-2030 (in 2007 dollars), with
3°C increase.
the power sector accounting for
• A more ambitious goal of holding
52% (US$13.2 Trillion) of this total.
the concentration to 450 ppm might
Slightly over half of the energy
limit the temperature increase to a
sector investment will be simply to
safer level of a 2°C. While a
maintain fossil energy infrastructure
challenging target, this is the target
and current supply capabilities.
that many scientists, politicians and
NGOs have said we should not
exceed in order to avoid potentially
disastrous feedbacks in the climate
system.
6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth
Assessment Report, Geneva, 2007.
7 This forecast takes into account national energy policies
adopted as of mid-2008.
11CDP Electric Utilities Report 2009
To alter this business-as-usual forecast The 450 ppm stabilization target would Electric Utilities and the
in favor of a plan to achieve a 550 ppm involve even stronger, broader and Carbon Disclosure Project
stabilization target, the IEA estimates: quicker policy goals that, if
technologically achievable, “would For the first time in 2008, the Carbon
• Growth in world primary energy certainly be unprecedented in scale Disclosure Project included
demand would have to be cut to and speed of deployment,” according supplementary sector-specific
32% through 2030, equal to 1.2% to the IEA. In the 450 ppm scenario: questions in addition to the standard
per year. CDP Questionnaire to address the
• Energy-related CO2 emissions • Growth in energy-related CO2 unique challenges facing the electric
would have to fall to 33 GT annually emissions follows the same utilities sector. The Electric Utilities
by 2030 or 19% less than the trajectory as in the 550 ppm supplementary questions to the
baseline forecast. scenario through 2020, but then Carbon Disclosure Project’s sixth
• The price of CO2 as a tradable falls much more quickly as annual Information Request are based
commodity would reach US$90 per renewable energy technologies are on a reporting framework developed
metric ton. deployed on a massive scale. by the Institutional Investors Group on
• US$1.2 Trillion extra would have to • By 2030, hydropower, biomass, Climate Change (IIGCC), Ceres, and
be invested in power plants, mainly wind and other renewables would the Australia/New Zealand Investor
in industrialized countries as account for 40% of total generation Group on Climate Change (IGCC).
defined by the Organization for worldwide, almost double the CDP is very grateful to these
Economic Cooperation and baseline forecast. organizations for developing this
Development (OECD). • Energy-related CO2 emissions in framework. The supplementary
• US$2.9 Trillion extra would have to OECD countries would be almost questions seek to address some of the
be invested in more energy-efficient 40% lower than today, while other core issues facing the world’s major
equipment and appliances. major economies would limit their investor-owned electric utilities:
• This added US$4.1 Trillion future growth in emissions to 20%.
investment (equal to 0.24% of • The price of CO2 would reach • How much carbon dioxide and
projected annual world GDP) would US$180 per metric ton by 2030. other GHG emissions are utilities
yield US$7 Trillion in energy savings • US$3.6 Trillion extra would be emitting today, and what are their
over the period. invested in power plants, mainly projections for the future?
• Coal plants with an installed after 2020. • What mix of power plants is
capacity of 160,000 megawatts • US$6.6 Trillion extra would be producing these emissions, and
(MW) would be equipped with invested in more energy-efficient how might these emissions be
carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment and appliances. reduced?
technology by 2030 to make them • This added US$9.2 Trillion • To what extent are utilities making
carbon neutral. (Notably, CCS investment (equal to 0.55% of use of non-carbon generating
capacity is negligible in the baseline projected annual world GDP) would sources like wind, solar and nuclear
forecast.) yield US$5.8 Trillion in energy power, and how much do they
savings over the period, with higher intend to increase their use?
electricity costs outpacing the value • How much do they rely on coal, the
of the energy savings. most-carbon intensive fuel, and
• Coal plants with an installed what efforts are they making toward
capacity of 350,000 MW would be deployment of carbon capture and
equipped with CCS, more than storage technologies?
double the amount in the 550 ppm • What steps are they taking to
scenario. promote more efficient use of
electricity and a “smarter grid” to
If the 450 stabilization target were to support more renewable energy
be achieved, global energy-related development and demand-control
CO2 emissions would be held to 25.7 programs?
GT annually by 2030; that is less than • Are they assuming a price for
projected now for just developing carbon dioxide emissions in their
(non-OECD) countries in 2030. This planning forecasts?
means industrialized (OECD) countries
could not bring about this global target The following sections provide a
on their own, even if their emissions summary of the CDP6 (2008) Utility
were to fall to zero. It also means that Sector Supplement findings.
developing countries must play an
active role as their emissions start to
catch up to those of OECD nations,
even if they never match them on a
per-capita basis, even after 2030.
122 Overview
The Carbon Disclosure Project invited
the 249 largest publicly traded Electric
Utilities globally by market
capitalization in 2008 to respond to
the CDP6 (2008) Questionnaire along
with the Electric Utilities
supplementary questions. RiskMetrics
Group was commissioned by CDP
and California State Teachers’
Retirement System (CalSTRS) to
analyze the company responses. The
overall response rate for electric
utilities improved from previous years,
with 53% of utilities invited answering
Analysis of CDP6 the CDP6 (2008) Questionnaire in
comparison to 44% in 2006. In
addition, 23 utilities that did not
Electric Utilities answer the CDP5 (2007) Questionnaire
were new respondents in 2008. A
further 6% of utilities provided some
Responses – information. However, 35% of
contacted utilities did not respond to
the questionnaire and another 5%
Sample and
formally declined to participate.
In total, 110 unique responses were
analyzed for this report due to parent/
Response Rates subsidiary relationships among some
respondents. Of these 110 responses,
15 companies elected not to make
their responses publicly available.
Fig. 1: Electric Utilities 250
CDP6 Response Status
6% 54%
5%
35%
Answered Questionnaire
Information Provided
Declined to Participate
No Response
13CDP Electric Utilities Report 2009
Key Trends from Fig. 2: CDP6 Response by sample* CDP5 Response by sample**
CDP Global Samples
Australia 200 (201***) 48% Answered Questionnaire Aust/NZ 150 (141) 50% Answered Questionnaire
This sixth iteration of the CDP
Questionnaire sought greater overall 96 7 28 70 70 6 20 45
coverage than in previous years, with Asia 80 (80) 35% Answered Questionnaire Asia 80 (77) 19% Answered Questionnaire
information being requested from 28 2 32 18 15 4 44 14
more than 3,000 companies Brazil 75 (72) 83% Answered Questionnaire Brazil 60 (57) 82% Answered Questionnaire
worldwide. In 2008, CDP expanded to 60 11 1 47 2 7 1
cover 21 geographical areas (up from Canada 200 (194) 47% Answered Questionnaire
Canada 200 (187) 55% Answered Questionnaire
16 in 2007) and two sector samples
103 7 30 47 91 2 58 43
(Electric Utilities and Transport). The
corporations’ responses and reports Electric Utility 250 (250) 52% Answered Questionnaire Electric Utility (240) 47% Answered Questionnaire
analyzing findings from these samples 133 1613 87 113 16 16 95
will be posted on the CDP website as France 120 (120) 63% Answered Questionnaire France 120 (120) 56% Answered Questionnaire
they are launched worldwide. (See 76 10 6 28 67 3 10 40
www.cdproject.net for further details.) FTSE 100 (100) 90% Answered Questionnaire FTSE 100 (100) 91% Answered Questionnaire
Response rates across the vast 90 13 6 91 12 6
majority of samples are above 50%, FTSE 250 (250) 58% Answered Questionnaire FTSE 250 (250) 59% Answered Questionnaire
with an average response rate of 55%. 144 26 37 43 148 18 37 47
The FTSE 100 had the highest Germany 200 (200) 55% Answered Questionnaire Germany 200 (200) 52% Answered Questionnaire
response rate with 90 companies 109 4 18 69 104 7 35 54
(90%) responding. By comparison, the Global 500 (500) 77% Answered Questionnaire Global FT500 (500) 77% Answered Questionnaire
Electric Utilities 250 sample response
383 1127 79 383 16 39 62
rate of 53% is slightly below the
India 200 (200)19% Answered Questionnaire India 110 (110) 35% Answered Questionnaire
average, ranking 11th out of the
combined 23 geographic and sector 39 15 155 38 2 70
samples. The Electric Utilities’ Italy 40 (39) 46% Answered Questionnaire Italy 40 (40) 45% Answered Questionnaire
response rate is also slightly below 18 4 17 18 11 20
that of the Transport sector, although Japan 150 (152) 72% Answered Questionnaire Japan 150 (151) 74% Answered Questionnaire
in that case only 100 companies were 110 14 37 112 34 32
surveyed.
Nordic 190 (188) 58% Answered Questionnaire Nordic 125 (125) 68% Answered Questionnaire
Responses to the CDP6 (2008) 109 3 40 36 86 6 21 12
Questionnaire have been classified in South Africa 100 (98) 58% Answered Questionnaire South Africa 40 (38) 68% Answered Questionnaire
the same way as in past years: 58 18 28 26 1 3 8
Answered Questionnaire (AQ), Switzerland 100 (96) 57% Answered Questionnaire Switzerland 50 (50) 78% Answered Questionnaire
Provided Information (IN), Declined to 54 23 19 39 5 6
Participate (DP) and No Response
S&P USA 500 (500) 64% Answered Questionnaire S&P USA 500 (500) 56% Answered Questionnaire
(NR).
321 22 64 93 282 25 76 117
Transport 100 (100) 58% Answered Questionnaire Transport 100 (100) 47% Answered Questionnaire
58 44 34 47 8 12 33
China 100 (100) 5% Answered Questionnaire
5 18 17 60 0 20 40 60 80 100%
Korea 50 (50) 32% Answered Questionnaire
16 27 7 Sample (number of companies)
Latin America 40 (38) 52% Answered Questionnaire Answered Questionnaire
20 11 16 Provided Information
Netherlands 50 (50) 52% Answered Questionnaire Declined to Participate
26 3 8 13 No Response
* Response rates calculated at 31 July 2008; numbers may
New Zealand 50**** (50) 50% Answered Questionnaire differ from local report that calculated response rates before
25 2 3 20 or after this date.
** Response rate as published in CDP5 Report.
Spain 35 (35) 71% Answered Questionnaire
*** The first listing is the official sample name, the number in
25 1 9 brackets is the actual number of companies that were
included in CDP6 for that sample.
**** New Zealand is included as an individual sample for the first
0 20 40 60 80 100% time, having previously been combined with Australia.
142. Analysis of CDP6 Electric Utilities Responses
Historical Overview Meanwhile, the response rate of Asian
Fig. 3: Electric Utilities
utilities was only 31%. This is partly
The response rate for the Electric attributable to the increase in the Response Rate
Utilities 250 sample has been steadily Asian questionnaire sample from 53
improving since its introduction in companies in 2007 to 74 in 2008; 100
2006. This is despite the fact that 36 smaller companies that are less
Percentage of companies
companies, or 14% of the sample, familiar with the CDP tend to be less 80
were invited for the first time in 2008. likely to respond. As in 2007, all
Companies that have not been invited 60 53.4%
Japanese utilities receiving the 43.9%
47.5%
in the past are less familiar with the questionnaire again responded in 40
CDP process and may be under less 2008. Japanese utilities are
pressure from investors to report on increasingly coming under pressure to 20
climate change risks. Countries that deliver on the country’s emissions
were added to the CDP6 (2008) reduction targets under the Kyoto 0
Questionnaire sample but not Protocol. In October 2008, Japan CDP4 CDP5 CDP6
represented in the CDP5 (2007) launched a voluntary emissions
Questionnaire include Argentina, trading scheme in which companies
Colombia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, can set their own caps. Japanese Fig. 4: Response Rates by Region
Turkey, Vietnam and the United Arab electric utilities have pledged to
Emirates. The Russian questionnaire reduce the carbon intensity of Number of compnies surveyed
sample was also significantly electricity production by 20% below 33 60 74 77 5
increased from four to 19 companies 1990 levels by 2012. 100
for CDP6 (2008), though none 6% 5% 5% 5%
responded. Elsewhere in Asia, only three of 11 16% 20%
Chinese utilities invited, and one of 11 80 24%
37%
In addition, 23 companies that did not Indian utilities, responded to CDP6 14%
respond to the CDP5 (2007) 6% 61%
(2008). While these countries have 60
Questionnaire or only provided some rapidly growing GHG emissions and
information responded to the CDP6 are at the forefront of negotiations 40 80%
(2008) Questionnaire. New companies between developed and developing 64% 3% 65%
responding to CDP for the first time countries leading up to the December 58%
came from Colombia and Japan, 20
2009 COP-15 talks in Copenhagen, 31%
demonstrating the growing recognition electric utilities in Asia still lag behind
of CDP around the world. in critical disclosure of GHG emissions 0
South Europe Asia US/ Australia
and reduction strategies. However, a America Canada /NZ
Geographic Trends few Asian utilities are setting
In terms of geographic trends, disclosure best practice standards, Declined to Participate
Australia/New Zealand had the highest including Hong Kong-based CLP No Response
response rate, at 80%; however, this Holdings, which received one of the Provided Information
is based on the smallest survey highest Carbon Disclosure Leadership Answered Questionnaire
universe of only five utilities. The Index scores for the sector.
United States/Canada, South America Interestingly, utilities in Annex 1
and Europe followed closely, with countries saw a decrease in
response rates of 65%, 64% and responses for 2008, when compared
58%, respectively. The increasing to response rates for CDP4, when the
likelihood of federal climate legislation last Electric Utilities supplement report
in the United States makes it not was written. (Annex 1 countries have
surprising that the response rate for ratified the Kyoto Protocol and
US utilities increased from 48% in adopted emissions reduction targets.)
2006 to 67% in 2008. More surprising Utilities located in these countries had
is that a greater percentage of a 59% response rate in 2006, but only
European utilities did not respond, a 54% response rate in 2008.
especially given that many are already However, this minor shift is mainly due
required under the EU ETS to report to additional Russian utilities included
their GHG emissions. in the 2008 questionnaire sample that
provided no response. (None of the 19
Russian utilities invited responded to
the CDP6 (2008) Questionnaire.
15CDP Electric Utilities Report 2009
However, this may be due to the The large questionnaire sample of 77 The analyzed response sample also
restructuring through 2007 and 2008 North American utilities and high includes eight Brazilian electric utilities
of the state-owned Unified Energy response rate from US/Canada means and one Colombian company.
System of Russia [RAO UES] – which that 44% of all analyzed responses Accordingly, the South American
responded to CDP in 2005 – to create come from this geographic region. sample is focused mainly on Brazil.
several smaller state-owned and This concentration should be kept in While there were 21 South American
private electric utilities.) Within the mind when comparing trends in utilities that technically answered the
Annex 1 sample, disclosure remains quantitative emissions reporting, fuel CDP Questionnaire, several from Peru,
high across Europe and Japan, with all mix forecasts and emissions reduction Venezuela, Chile and Argentina
electric utilities invited from the United planning. However, when responses referenced parent company
Kingdom and Japan responding to the are analyzed according to United responses, such as from Endesa and
CDP6 (2008) Questionnaire. Nations Framework Convention on Suez. For analysis of responses
Climate Change (UNFCCC) status throughout this report, only parent
Also of note is the increase in the US (i.e., whether a country has ratified the companies are considered.
response rate. For CDP4, American Kyoto Protocol and whether or not it
and Australian utilities were combined has accepted emissions reduction
into an “Annex 1 Not Ratified” group, targets), the focus shifts to Annex 1
with a 48% response rate. (Australia utility respondents that make up 46%
has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol.) of the questionnaire sample. This
Separating out the US utilities for represents the key pool of countries
CDP6 (2008) has resulted in a 67% with existing emissions reduction
response rate. Several US utilities that targets that are expected to set
did not respond or only provided increasingly stringent targets for their
some information to the CDP5 (2007) electric utilities. Unfortunately, the
Questionnaire were new respondents complete lack of participation among
for CDP6 (2008). These include Russian utilities holds down the Annex
Ameren Corporation, CH Energy 1 response rate. Despite Russia’s
Group, Dominion Resources, ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in
Dynegy, Idacorp, OGE Energy 2004 that brought the treaty into force,
Corporation and Pepco Holdings. there is still much progress to be
These companies are likely made in Russia and in other critical
responding to growing US investor Annex 1 countries to increase their
pressure for climate disclosure. All of response rates.
these companies except CH Energy
and Pepco have received shareholder
proposals requesting information
about their GHG reduction plans.
Fig. 5: Response Rates Fig. 6: Region of Analyzed Fig. 7: UNFCCC Status of Analyzed
by UNFCCC Status Responses Responses
100
8% 44%
4% 38% 16%
80
60 67.2%
53.8%
40
41.8%
26%
20
18% 46%
0
Annex 1 US/Canada Non-Annex 1
Non-Annex 1 Asia Annex 1
US Europe United States
Australia/New Zealand
South America
163 As institutional investors look to
companies for disclosure on climate
change that will help inform
investment decisions, a growing
number of companies are following
best practice by providing
comprehensive high-quality responses
to the CDP Questionnaire. These
companies are using the CDP
reporting process to publicly identify
climate change risks and
opportunities, describe climate
change strategies, and offer
quantitative data to help investors
assess the potential financial impact
Carbon Disclosure of climate risks.
The CDLI scoring system is designed
to highlight companies taking the lead
Leadership Index on climate change disclosure. This
scoring system has been applied to
respondents in the Electric Utilities
– Electric Utilities 250 to identify 12 leading CDP6 (2008)
respondents who demonstrate effort,
thought, clarity and detail in their
public CDP responses. Any CDP6
(2008) company response that is “not
The Carbon Disclosure Leadership public” is not eligible for inclusion in
the CDLI because, by definition, that
Index (CDLI) highlights the leading company is not demonstrating
disclosure best practice.
CDP6 (2008) respondents. The It should be noted that while the CDLI
CDLI scoring system has been score is a good indicator of how well a
company has responded to the CDP6
applied to the electric utilities (2008) Questionnaire, it does not fully
reflect company performance in
sector to identify companies climate change management, nor
does it account for absolute
providing public, high-quality emissions, reduction achievements,
carbon intensity or governance
disclosure through the CDP practices in awarding the rating. In
general, a high score can be achieved
Questionnaire. by following the guidance issued by
CDP and providing a comprehensive
description of activities. A company
without a climate change strategy and
associated measurement systems and
targets will not score highly. The best
responses are both company-specific
and detailed.
17You can also read
