Exelon
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.
- 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. . |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
2
|
2
|
NS |
2
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
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) |
1
|
1
|
NA |
2
|
NS |
1
|
NS |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
NS |
0
|
NS |
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
1
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
1
|
NA |
-1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
0
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
NS |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
2
|
1
|
NS |
2
|
NS |
0
|
NS |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
NS |
2
|
NS |
0
|
2
|
NS | NS |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
0
|
2
|
NS |
1
|
1
|
1
|
NS |
|
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? |
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
NS |
|
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
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
NS |
|
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? |
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Exelon is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce, as evident in disclosure of dues paid in 2018.
Not specified.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Exelon is a member of the US-Japan Business Council
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Lobbying or membership fees paid 2016
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Exelon is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce, as evident in disclosure of dues paid in 2018.
Not specified.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Exelon is a member of the US-Japan Business Council
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Lobbying or membership fees paid 2016
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: Exelon is actively lobbying for US policy on climate change with mostly positive positions. The company lobbies actively at both the federal and state levels to promote measures in support of the transition to a zero-carbon energy mix.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate Policy: Exelon communicates a clear position in support of climate change science, including regulations to negate the contribution of the oil and gas sector. The company firmly supports regulatory action on climate change, as illustrated in October 2020 comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) criticizing “continued talk about the benefit of placing a meaningful price on carbon emissions, uncoupled from concrete and immediate action.” In Exelon’s 2019 Sustainability Report, CEO Christopher Crane stated the need for government regulations to drive the shift to a zero-carbon energy mix. The company appears to support the Paris Agreement.
Engagement With Climate-Related Regulations: Exelon is broadly supportive of various strands of climate policy, with some less common exceptions. Exelon spoke out against the repeal of the Clean Power Plan in 2018 and joined other US utilities in a legal challenge to Trump’s weaker Affordable Clean Energy rule the following year. In 2020, Exelon lobbied for a federal carbon fee and appeared to support New York’s 2020 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, as well as Illinois’ 2020 Clean Energy Jobs Act. Throughout the same year, Exelon heavily lobbied in support of FERC to spearhead a coordinated carbon pricing mechanism as a complement to existing state-level climate policies.
In 2020, Exelon stated clear support for Pennsylvania and New Jersey’s decisions to join and rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) emissions trading scheme. It remains unclear whether Exelon fully supports energy efficiency targets in New Jersey, as evident in April 2020 comments to the state’s Board of Public Utilities. While multiple Maryland-operating Exelon subsidiaries lobbied in support of mandates requiring utilities to create community solar programs in December 2019, a January 2021 comment from two key subsidiaries challenged “administratively burdensome” reporting requirements to track the advancement of these programs. In August 2018, Atlantic City Electric argued against the necessity of net metering in New Jersey, however, has since generally lobbied in favor of policies supporting renewable growth. This is evident in 2019 comments supporting community solar rulemaking and March 2020 comments in favor of a market-based renewable energy credit mechanism.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Exelon has a largely positive position on the transition of the energy mix and clearly supports measures to decarbonize the power sector. The company often advocates for the long-term contribution from nuclear energy to support the shift to a zero-carbon energy mix, as demonstrated in an April 2019 testimony to the Pennsylvania Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee, urging nuclear power to be eligible for clean energy credits under the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS) program. In 2019, Exelon expressed support for federal clean energy mandates. The company has been a consistent opponent of FERC’s Minimum Offer Price Rule, which appears to protect existing fossil fuel electricity-generating units and hinder the proliferation of renewable energy in the PJM capacity market. This is apparent in May 2018 comments to FERC and, more recently, in 2020 comments to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. In August 2020, Exelon opposed rulemaking changes on the Clean Air Act that would potentially ease restrictions on high GHG-emitting energy units. As evident in 2020 comments of regional subsidiaries in Maryland, Illinois, and New Jersey Exelon has actively lobbied in favor of the electrification of transportation across states.
Industry Association Governance: Exelon discloses some of its contributions to industry associations, however, does not provide elaboration on the company’s alignment with each organization’s climate policy positions. Exelon is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce. Its CEO is Vice Chairman of the Edison Electric Institute, an organization which has historically opposed key strands of US climate policy but which appears to demonstrate more mixed positions in recent years.