Consolidated Edison, Inc. | Report on lobbying in line with net zero GHG commitments at Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Status
Withdrawn
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
ED
Lead filer
Friends Fiduciary Corporation
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
  • Net Zero / Paris aligned
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Utilities
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders of Consolidated Edision ("ConEd" or "Company") request that the Board report to shareholders (at reasonable cost, omitting confidential/proprietary information) on its framework for identifying and addressing misalignments between ConEd's lobbying and policy influence activities and positions--both direct and indirect (through trade associations, coalitions, alliances, and social welfare organization--"Associations")--and its Net Zero (emissions) climate commitments, including the criteria used to assess alignment, the escalation strategies used to address misalignments, and the circumstances under which escalation strategies are used (e.g., timeline, sequencing, degree of influence over an Association).
Whereas clause
ConEd acknowledges that climate-driven risks - including coastal storm surge, flooding, hurricane-strength winds and extreme heat1 - are material risks to the business. ConEd has clearly stated in its Clean Energy Commitment ("CEC") that it will take leadership "in the delivery of a clean energy future for our customers" by "advancing electrification of heating and transportation, and aggressively transitioning away from fossil fuels to a net-zero economy by 2050."2

ConEd is beginning to advocate for policies that advance its ambitious CEC. The Company states it has an internal process for alignment of policy advocacy actions with stated climate policies.3. However, this statement is insufficient as it lacks a clear framework detailing ConEd's methodology for assessment of misalignment, and an escalation plan, if any, to address policy misalignment.4

ConEd's positions on and details of engagement with policymakers are often unclear - especially regarding third parties advocating on its behalf. For example, ConEd's most significant trade association partnerships are with influential entities that have repeatedly opposed successful electrification strategies, and whose core actions are fundamentally in conflict with the company's CEC and capital expenditure strategy.56789

Proponents believe this level of misalignment could represent business model risk to ConEd, since affiliates are advocating for policies that may conflict with (or increase the cost of) the Company's ambitious capital expenditure plans. Some ConEd peers have taken action to address such misalignments. For instance, Eversource Energy recently left a major trade association citing its decision to "redirect costs to more targeted associations and memberships with a focus on decarbonization."10

Misaligned policy advocacy activities also represent reputational and regulatory risks to ConEd. Key stakeholders11 are repeatedly raising concers about certain trade associations operating in opposition to long-term emissions goals. Federal and state legislators are also calling for greater transparency of how ratepayer dues used for lobbying may be inconsistent with ratepayer interests.12

Further, large investors are indicating through proxy voting that climate policy alignment is an important request to support.13

Proponents believe that ConEd's existing statementes regarding policy alignment are overly vague, and current disclosures and governance processes do not adequately inform investors if or how ConEd ensures its policy advocacy activities align with its net zero commitments. Therefore, we urge the Company to consider publishing a framework as a first step to assist investors in better understanding alignment between emissions strategy and policy action.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.