NRG Energy
Performance Band
Performance Band (A+ to F) is a full measure of a company’s climate policy engagement, combing the assessment of both its direct engagement (Organisation Score) and that of its industry associations (Relationship Score). Grades from A+ to B indicate broad support for Paris-aligned climate policy, with grades from D to F indicating increasingly obstructive climate policy engagement. Where InfluenceMap's analysis detects both limited direct and indirect engagement with climate policy, a Performance Band is not computed and, in this case, it is indicated as N/A. Further details can be found here.
Organisation Score
The Organisation Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct policy engagement is towards Paris-Agreement aligned climate policy, with 0 being fully opposed and 100 being fully supportive. If the company's Engagement Intensity is below 5% (that is, limited direct policy engagement from the entity being scored) InfluenceMap does not compute an Organisational Score and, in this case, it is indicated as N/A. Further details can be found here.
Relationship Score
The Relationship Score (expressed as a percentage score from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are towards climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0 being fully opposed and 100 being fully supportive. If there is limited evidence of a company's links to industry associations engaging on climate policy, InfluenceMap does not compute a Relationship Score and, in this case, it is indicated as N/A. Further 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). EI scores over 13 indicate some active engagement on climate policy streams, EI scores over 25 indicate increasingly strategic 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? |
1
|
NS | NS | NS | NS |
1
|
1
|
|
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
|
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? |
-1
|
1
|
NS |
0
|
0
|
NS |
0
|
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
1
|
2
|
NS | NS | NS |
2
|
NS |
|
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 |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | NS | NS |
-1
|
0
|
-1
|
NS |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
1
|
NS | NS |
1
|
-2
|
1
|
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 | NS |
-2
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
1
|
1
|
1
|
-1
|
0
|
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
|
1
|
NS |
0
|
-1
|
0
|
-1
|
|
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 |
1
|
NS |
0
|
-1
|
NS | NS |
-1
|
|
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 |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source
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: NRG Energy appears to have a mixed position on climate change. While it is actively engaged in a number of climate and energy policy discussions in the US, the company often appears to push particular policy forms that it considers best for developing clean energy market, most notably the Forward Clean Energy Market. In multiple instances, the company’s support for such policy has been accompanied by pushback on other forms for climate policy already in place, or being proposed by regulators.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: As of 2019, NRG Energy has stated its support for the Paris Agreement and complementary initiatives to achieve its goals. NRG appears to advocate for the need for market-based measures to address climate change over other forms of regulation. This is evident, for example, in February 2020 comments on Connecticut’s Integrated Resource Plan. Despite this, the company has frequently stated top-line support for an economy-wide price on carbon and clean energy standards.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: NRG Energy appears to have mixed positions on climate-related regulations. The company stated support for net metering policies in its 2020 CDP response and, as evident on its website, appears to support policy-measures that aid the development of community solar initiatives. Meanwhile, November 2019 comments to the New York Public Service Commission appear to argue against renewable portfolio standards.
While NRG has frequently advocated to policymakers for a national price on carbon, for example in a September 2020 testimony to FERC, May 2020 comments to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities appear to oppose carbon taxes, arguing that paying clean energy resources is favorable to taxing emitting entities. Despite this, the company’s 2019 Sustainability Report advocated for the adoption of a national carbon price to replace other existing forms of climate regulation. In 2018, NRG supported Connecticut’s statewide emissions target, although October 2020 comments to the California’s Public Utilities Commission do not take a clear stance on the state’s GHG emissions reduction target.
Positioning on Energy Transition: NRG is actively engaged with policy discussions on the transition of the energy mix, with positions that often appear to prioritize economic competitiveness and cost-effectiveness over the need to rapidly decarbonize the energy mix. Evident in an October 2018 brief to FERC, NRG has supported capacity market mechanisms that would extend the life of GHG emissions intensive power sources. More recently, the company has advocated for a Forward Clean Energy Market (FCEM), a concept that would create a competitive market for clean energy credits. This can be seen in comments to public utilities commissions in New York (November 2019) and New Jersey (May 2020), both of which offer FCEM as a solution to prioritize competition-preserving, market-based mechanisms over other forms of policy. Throughout 2019 and 2020, NRG [731129 actively opposed Illinois’ Clean Energy Jobs Act, which mandated a statewide clean energy goal, instead introducing its own “technology-neutral” clean energy legislation. The company submitted comments in support of a 2020 Maryland bill that would require the decarbonization of the state’s power sector and implement a FCEM for competitive energy growth. NRG generally supported the federal CLEAN Future Act (sets a 100% clean energy by 2050 goal) in June 2020, but advised amendments that prioritize market-based measures over other policy mechanisms to reach the bill’s goals.
NRG has advocated for strong policies to support the growth of EV infrastructure, evident in August 2020 comments to the Public Utilities Commission of Texas. July 2020 comments to Pennsylvania’s Public Utilities Commission also suggest NRG actively supports the growth of renewables in the energy mix. A 2018 CEO statement and NRG’s 2019 Sustainability Report both propound the long-term importance of fossil gas in the energy mix without specifying clear conditions related to carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS). NRG reportedly advocated in support of the USE IT Act in 2019, a CCS research and development bill.
Industry Association Governance: NRG’s corporate website provides limited transparency on its memberships to industry associations and particularly on its alignment with the organizations’ climate policy positions. NRG Energy is a member of the Solar Energy Industries Association, which has actively lobbied for ambitious climate policy in the US. NRG is also a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Business Roundtable (BRT), both of which have engaged in obstructive lobbying on climate and energy policy in the US, albeit with some recent improvements from BRT.