Climate risk mitigation strategies and policies
Download
1 / 21

Climate Risk Mitigation strategies and policies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 131 Views
  • Uploaded on

Climate Risk Mitigation strategies and policies. Dan Bakal Ceres A Presentation for Climate Change Policy En Banc February 23, 2005. The Big Picture. The relationship between capital markets and corporations is changing

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Climate Risk Mitigation strategies and policies' - Pat_Xavi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Climate risk mitigation strategies and policies
Climate Risk Mitigation strategies and policies

Dan Bakal

Ceres

A Presentation for

Climate Change Policy En Banc

February 23, 2005


The big picture
The Big Picture

  • The relationship between capital markets and corporations is changing

  • Central claim: “social, environmental and geopolitical issues can materially impact a company's ability to sustain returns.”

  • Attention to sustainability = good governance

    • Visionary boards address major trends

    • Myopic boards place shareholder value at risk

      Climate Change is a Key Wedge Issue


Climate change financial risk
Climate Change Financial Risk

  • Physical Risk

    • Physical effects may impair company profitability by reducing revenues, increasing expenses, or both

  • Policy Risk

    • Companies may incur additional costs as a result of emission reduction requirements, or may fail to earn credits associated with emissions reductions

  • Competitive risk

    • Companies may fail to recognize business opportunities related to climate change

  • Legal Risk

    • Five power companies being sued by AGs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 3 percent per year each of the next 10 years

  • Reputation risk

    • Companies may face reputation damage if perceived as causing climate change or impeding measures to reduce climate change and its impacts (e.g. ExxonMobil boycott in Europe in 2003)


Nov 2003 summit conveners 16 u s state city treasurers

California: Phil Angelides

Connecticut: Denise Nappier

Florida: Tom Gallagher

Iowa: Mike Fitzgerald

Kentucky: Jonathan Miller

Maine: Dale McCormick

Maryland: Nancy Kopp

Massachusetts: Tim Cahill

New Mexico: Robert Vigil

New York City: Bill Thompson

New York State: Alan Hevesi

North Carolina: Richard Moore

Oregon: Randall Edwards

Pennsylvania: Barbara Hafer

Vermont: Jeb Spaulding

Wash. DC: Anthony Calhoun

Nov 2003 Summit Conveners: 16 U.S. State & City Treasurers


Argument advanced at summit evolution of fiduciary duty
Argument advanced at SummitEVOLUTION OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

  • We face the largest physical changes in history of human civilization

  • Such changes are likely to have significant but uneven financial impacts on industries and regions

  • Therefore embedded in every portfolio.

  • Thus every responsible trustee, fund manager, director needs to ask: how will we be affected?

  • Willful failure to analyze is breach of fiduciary duty

    “Under what circumstances and to what degree

    is my portfolio affected by climate risk?”


Investor call for action on climate risk
Investor Call for Action on Climate Risk

  • Signers:

    • State Treasurers (CA, CT, MD, ME, NM, OR, VT)

    • State and City Comptrollers: NY State, NYC

    • Labor: AFSCME, CWA/ITA, SEIU, Teamsters

  • 10-Point Action Plan - Summary

    • SEC: Require climate risk disclosure and protect shareholder rights to file climate resolutions

    • Corporate Boards: Insist that management report climate risk information to shareholders

    • Investment Managers: Analyze climate risk

    • Institutional Investors: Adopt proxy voting guidelines supporting climate risk disclosure


Investor actions on climate risk since 2003 summit
Investor Actions on Climate Risk Since 2003 Summit

  • Global Warming Shareholder Campaign

    • Big investors - NY State files first climate resolution ever

    • Victories with 5 electric power companies

    • Highest votes ever: Apache (37%); Anadarko (32%)

  • Environmental Investing

    • CalPERS approved 2 environmental investing initiatives

    • Other states interested in replicating CA “Green Wave”

  • SEC Climate Risk Campaign

  • Ceres Electric Power Dialogue

  • Harvard Pension Trustee Workshop

  • Engagement with University Endowments

  • Building a Global Investor Network on Climate Risk (Linkages already with EU, Canada, UNEP-FI)


Investor guide to climate risk
INVESTOR GUIDE TO CLIMATE RISK

10 Steps to Address Climate Risk

Expert Advice

Risk Assessment

Network with Others

Public Statement

Public Disclosure

Emissions Accounting

Stakeholder Dialogue

Investment Strategy

Clean Energy

Government Action


Corporate governance and climate risk

AEP

Alcoa

BP

ChevronTexaco

Cinergy

ConocoPhillips

DaimlerChrysler

DuPont

ExxonMobil

Ford Motor

General Electric

General Motors

Honda Motor

IBM

International Paper

Royal/Dutch Shell

Southern Co.

Toyota Motor

TXU

Xcel Energy

Corporate Governance and Climate Risk

Profiled Companies =15% of Global CO2 Emissions


Corporate governance 14 point climate checklist

1. Board oversight

2. Board climate review

3. Chain of command

4. Executive compensation

5. CEO leadership

6. 10-K disclosure

7. Sustainability report

8. Emissions offsets

9. Recent inventories

10. Historical baselines

11. Future targets

12. 3rd party certification

13. Emissions trading

14. Renewable energy

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE14-Point Climate Checklist


Electric power dialogue phase i participants
Electric power DialoguePhase I Participants

Power Companies

  • Calpine

  • Con Edison

  • Keyspan

  • Northeast Utilities

  • PG&E Corp

  • PPL Corp

  • PSEG

  • Wisconsin Energy

    Environment Groups

  • NRDC, UCS, WRI, WWF

Investors

  • Calvert Group

  • CT State Treasurer

  • Innovest

  • IRRC

  • ISIS Asset Mgmt

  • NYC Comptroller

  • Pax World Fund

  • Social Investment Forum

  • Trillium Asset Mgmt

  • Walden Asset Mgmt


Electric power dialogue consensus statement
Electric Power Dialogue consensus statement

“The issue is not whether the U.S. government will regulate GHG emissions, but when and how. . . . Continued uncertainty over when and how carbon dioxide emissions will be regulated at the national level is the least optimal path forward.”

From recommendations: “National governments should “develop national policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. . . . These should include: A climate change program to limit greenhouse gas emissions to create certainty.”


2004 results electric power
2004 Results - Electric Power

  • Investors approached 6 companies - AEP, Cinergy, TXU, Southern Co., Xcel, and Reliant

  • AEP, Cinergy, and TXU have issued climate risk reports, Southern to come in April

    • Acknowledged climate change as a major business issue deserving board involvement

    • Voluntary actions are limited/insufficient

    • Regulatory uncertainty is huge challenge

    • Inevitability of GHG regulation

    • McCain-Lieberman costs would be manageable (AEP)

    • Investments in renewables, efficiency, demand-side management, IGCC, etc. are part of the solution


Aep emissions assessment report
AEP Emissions Assessment Report

“We share your position that management and the Board have a fiduciary duty to carefully assess and disclose to shareholders appropriate information on the company’s environmental risk exposure.”


Regulatory risk aep
RegulatoryRisk: AEP

“Large-scale investments in pollution control can only be undertaken prudently if there is little risk of such investments becoming “stranded” by future environmental or economic mandates, including carbon constraints.” -- Aug. 31, 2004

Assessment of AEP’s Actions to Mitigate the Economic Impacts of Emissions Policies


Cinergy climate risk report
Cinergy Climate Risk Report

Analysis of the Potential Impact of Greenhouse Gas and Other Air Emissions Regulations on Cinergy

  • The current regulatory uncertainty has made it difficult to plan capital expenditures that will bring the company into compliance with environmental requirements while also serving customer needs

  • Investing $21 million to reduce GHG emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2010 - 2012

  • Considers IGCC to be key part of long-term solution

  • Carbon controls are inevitable and a “well constructed policy that gradually and predictably” reduces greenhouse gas emissions can be managed “without undue disruption to the company or the economy.”


2004 shareholder resolutions oil gas

Votes

Apache 37%

Anadarko 28%

Marathon 28%

Petro Canada 20%

Valero 9%

ExxonMobil 9%

Dialogues

ChevronTexaco

ConocoPhillips

Devon

Valero

Unocal

Occidental

2004 Shareholder Resolutions Oil & Gas


2005 shareholder season
2005 Shareholder Season

Most resolutions ever filed:

  • Autos: Ford, GM

  • Electric power: Dominion Resources, FirstEnergy, Progress Energy

  • Oil & Gas: Anadarko, Apache, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Tesoro, Unocal, Vintage Petroleum, XTO Energy

  • Manufacturers: Allergan, Avery Dennison, Analog Devices, Corning, Dow Chemical, Newell Rubbermaid, Nucor

  • Real estate: Centex, Health Care Property Investors, Lennar Corp, Liberty Property Trust, Ryland Group, Simon Property Group

  • Financial services: J.P. Morgan Chase, Wachovia, Wells Fargo


Mckinsey quarterly feb 2005
McKinsey Quarterly - Feb. 2005

  • Over the next 5 to 15 years the way a company manages its carbon exposure could create or destroy shareholder value.

  • Managers who fail to respond to calls for more transparency and better planning will face greater public censure or even charges of breach of duty

  • Companies in all industries, whether or not they emit carbon in their production processes or produce goods that emit carbon, should set up new tracking and reporting processes to keep shareholders informed.

  • Found wide variation in the impact of regulation on carbon-intensive industries in Europe.


What really is best practice
What really is best practice?

  • Engage -with all relevant stakeholders (employees, mgmt., board, customers, suppliers, shareholders, NGOs, regulators)

  • Disclose -all relevant information (past, current and projected emissions, reduction commitments and projects, overall plans and business strategies)

  • Act -publicly acknowledge significance of climate change, make specific reduction commitments, factor cost of carbon into capital plans, perform scenario analysis, participate in collaborative efforts, seek constructive public policy solutions


For more information
For More Information

Dan Bakal

Director of Electric Power Programs

Ceres

(617) 247-0700 ext. 13

[email protected]

www.ceres.org

www.incr.com


ad