FirstEnergy Corp
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? |
NS | NS | NA | NS | 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) |
0
|
NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NS |
|
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 |
0
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
0
|
NS | NA | 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 |
0
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
NS | NS |
1
|
-1
|
-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 |
NS |
0
|
NS |
-2
|
-2
|
NS | 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? |
1
|
NS | NS |
0
|
-2
|
-1
|
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 |
NS | NS | NS |
-2
|
-1
|
NS | 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
|
NS |
0
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
Open PDF file of Data Source
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: FirstEnergy appears to have taken an actively oppositional stance towards climate-related policy in the United States. The company’s infrequent top-line messaging on climate change contradicts its active engagement against renewable energy policies, energy efficiency standards, and emissions standards. FirstEnergy often emphasizes cost-effectiveness in policy engagements and has supported a range of actions highly obstructive to climate policy progress.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate Policy: FirstEnergy’s position on the broad need for climate action is unclear. While the company appears concerned with its own emissions reductions, it remains unclear if they support IPCC demanded global action. In its 2019 Climate Report, the utility comments on the need for climate regulations in general with unclear qualifications for its support. In 2020, FirstEnergy submitted comments to the New Jersey Board of Public utilities in support of market-based solutions on climate. Lastly, a statement in its 2020 climate report aligns the company's operational goals with those of the Paris Agreement but does not take a clear stance on the treaty itself.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: FirstEnergy appears to have pursued an active strategy to block climate-related regulation in the United States. The company is recognized for its role in supporting Ohio’s House Bill 6 (HB 6), which included a sixty million dollar bribery scheme through the no-longer existing subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions. The 2019 bill dismantled Ohio's Renewable Portfolio Standards and undermined the state’s energy efficiency standards. While FirstEnergy’s argument centered on protecting its nuclear facilities, the company also pushed for implementation of the bill's energy efficiency reforms to the Ohio Public Utilities Commission in late 2019.
FirstEnergy has actively opposed net metering in New Jersey, as evident in comments to the state’s Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) in 2017 and 2020 advocating for the program’s discontinuation. FirstEnergy has also opposed Renewable Portfolio Standards, stating that they are no longer relevant to the NJBPU in 2017. Additionally, the company appears wary of energy efficiency policies, as evident in vague support for efficiency policies in the company's 2020 CDP response, and its conditional support for New Jersey’s “extremely ambitious” efficiency targets.
FirstEnergy has lobbied significantly against GHG emissions standards at the federal level. A 2018 consultation condemns the CAA GHG emissions standards and simultaneously supports the repeal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) on related grounds. Later that year, FirstEnergy actively supported the Advanced Clean Energy rule, arguing that the CPP emissions standards overstepped the scope of the EPA’s authority. In Ohio, the utility issued a 2018 comment to the Public Utilities Commission arguing against the expansion of emissions reductions regulations.
Positioning on Energy Transition: FirstEnergy appears to have predominantly negative engagement with the transition of the energy mix. The company’s notable support for HB6, which bailed out nuclear and coal plants while upending Ohio clean energy policies, suggests a negative position on the energy transition. In 2016, FirstEnergy directly advocated to the EPA to weaken the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), a compliance program related to the CPP. In 2018, a FirstEnergy petition to the US Department of Energy urged for federal protection of a “diverse array of energy resources,” including coal and nuclear. Conversely, FirstEnergy has supported the growth of transportation electrification, smart grids, and wind and solar power in New Jersey throughout 2019 and 2020. These efforts simultaneously urge that utilities play a more significant role in these efforts.
Industry Association Governance: FirstEnergy offers limited transparency around its memberships to industry associations and has not clearly disclosed its alignment with industry groups. FirstEnergy is a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Edison Electric Institute, and the US Chamber of Commerce, with the latter particularly engaged in frequent obstruction of climate policy.