What do our scores mean?
The organizational score represents the degree to which the organization influencing climate policy and legislation. Corporations also have relationship scores reflecting their links with influencers like trade associations. Both are combined to place the corporation in a performance band. Full details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). Clearly energy companies are more affected by climate regulations and will have a higher EI than, for example retailers. So an organization’s score should be looked at in conjunction with this metric to gauge the amount of evidence we are using in each case as a basis for scoring. On our scale, an EI of more than 35 indicates a relatively large amount of climate policy engagement.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
Updated terminology, February 2021
We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.
here1
here2
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
- Details of Relationship Score
-
What is the Relationship Score
A corporation, as well as its organizational score will have a relationship score. It is computed by aggregating the organizational scores of the Influencers (trade bodies etc.) it has relationships with, weighted by both the strength of these relationships and the relative importance of the Influencers towards climate change policy. Full details can be found here.
|
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
1
|
NS | NS | NS |
-1
|
1
|
-1
|
NA |
|
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
Is the organization supporting the science-based response to climate change as set out by the IPCC? (the IPCC) |
0
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
NA |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
0
|
NS | NA | NS |
-2
|
0
|
NS | NA |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NA |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
0
|
NA |
-1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS |
0
|
0
|
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
NS | NS | NS |
0
|
-2
|
NS | NS | NA |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
NS |
0
|
0
|
-2
|
0
|
0
|
NS | NA |
|
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
Is the organization supporting an IPCC-aligned transition of the economy away from carbon-emitting technologies, including supporting relevant policy and legislative measures to enable this transition? |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
NA |
|
GHG Emission Regulation
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Standards, targets, and other regulatory measures directly targeting Greenhouse Gas emissions |
0
|
-1
|
-2
|
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
-1
|
NA |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
Is the organization transparent about its involvement with industry associations that are influencing climate policy, including the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate? |
0
|
NS |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy executive Sasha Weintraub is on the Board of Directors of the American Gas Association (AGA).
Sasha Weintraub, SVP of Natural Gas Business
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy executive Sasha Weintraub is on the Board of Directors of the American Gas Association (AGA).
Sasha Weintraub, SVP of Natural Gas Business
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce
N/A
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce
N/A
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI).
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO of Duke Energy was a former member of EEI's Board of Directors.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke is a member of Duke Energy
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO of Duke Energy is the Chairman of EEI
Lynn Good
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI).
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO of Duke Energy was a former member of EEI's Board of Directors.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke is a member of Duke Energy
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO of Duke Energy is the Chairman of EEI
Lynn Good
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy does not appear to have attended ALEC's 2020 Annual Meeting, however, IM was unable to find other evidence supporting the company's departure from ALEC.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy attended ALEC's 2019 Annual Meeting
Susan Vick
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a private sector member of ALEC
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy does not appear to have attended ALEC's 2020 Annual Meeting, however, IM was unable to find other evidence supporting the company's departure from ALEC.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy attended ALEC's 2019 Annual Meeting
Susan Vick
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a private sector member of ALEC
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a member of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
Rob Caldwell
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of a subsidiary of Duke Energy is a former board member of AWEA
Rob Caldwell
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Duke Energy is a member of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
Rob Caldwell
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of a subsidiary of Duke Energy is a former board member of AWEA
Rob Caldwell
How to Read our Relationship Score Map
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Duke Energy appears to have a largely negative influence on climate change policy in the US. In particular, Duke has lobbied against GHG emissions standards and the transition of the US energy mix.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Duke stated it is focused on technological, rather than regulatory solutions to climate change in a 2019 investor call. However, the report notes that Duke's 2020 climate report states that the company prefers market-based approaches to incentivize decarbonization rather than "imposing a price or dictating a certain generation mix." In 2021, Duke CEO Lynn Good stated support for the Biden Administration to re-enter the Paris Climate Agreement.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: In 2018, Duke Energy supported repealing the Clean Power Plan to replace it with the weaker Affordable Clean Energy Rule. However, Duke supported energy efficiency standards for general service lightbulbs in 2019. Duke has also engaged widely and with mixed positions on renewable energy legislation. In 2019, the utility opposed net metering programs in various states and lobbied to increase the fixed monthly charges on electric bills, limiting incentives for certain forms of solar energy generation. Duke supported a Federal Solar Investment Tax Credit to increase solar incentives for households in 2020.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Duke lobbies largely negatively on energy transition policy and appears focused on preserving natural gas in the US energy mix. The company's 2020 Climate Report offers some transparency in climate policy priorities, including broad support for policies that promote technological advancement toward decarbonization. Duke highlighted the ongoing importance of coal in 2019. In 2020, Duke CEO Lynn Good repeatedly defended the role of natural gas in the energy mix. In her communications, Good continues to highlight the intermittency and costliness of renewables as a justification for increasing natural gas and nuclear power in the energy mix. However, in 2020 Duke supported the city of Charlotte’s carbon reduction goals through partnership in its renewable power agreement. In addition to advanced Carbon Capture and Storage technology, Duke’s 2020 climate report emphasizes policy advocacy on other advanced technologies such as seasonal battery storage and nuclear.
CEO Lynn Good stated support in 2021 for policies to facilitate the total electrification of transportation by 2030. Duke showed support for the electrification of transportation by supporting electric vehicle charging stations in Kentucky in 2019 and advocated in 2019 for policymakers to support EVs through its membership in the Zero Emission Transportation Association. In 2020, Duke actively supported legislation criminalizing protests against fossil fuel infrastructure.
Industry Association Governance: Duke Energy remains a member of several trade associations actively opposed to US climate change policy, including the US Chamber of Commerce and American Legislative Exchange Council. 2020 evidence shows that Duke is disclosing annual membership dues paid to the Chamber of Commerce and other trade associations. However, it does not disclose its membership with ALEC, which is evidenced in the list of attendees to ALEC's 2019 Annual Meeting. In addition, while Duke maintains that continued participation is important for driving internal discussions, the utility has not issued a clear or concise review of how these groups' lobbying activities align with or diverge from its own.