Climate Risk Mitigation strategies and policies

1. Climate Risk Mitigation strategies and policies Dan Bakal Ceres A Presentation for Climate Change Policy En Banc February 23, 2005

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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?”

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.”

13. 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

14. 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.”

15. 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

16. 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.”

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. For More Information Dan Bakal Director of Electric Power Programs Ceres (617) 247-0700 ext. 13 bakal@ceres.org www.ceres.org www.incr.com