Climate Action 100+ Launches Phase 2

Climate Action 100+ has launched its next phase to inspire greater corporate climate action in this critical decade. Learn more ➜

X
COMPANY ASSESSMENT

RWE AG

ABOUT THE COMPANY ASSESSMENTS

The Net Zero Company Benchmark assesses the performance of focus companies against the Initiative’s three high-level goals: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving governance, and strengthening climate-related financial disclosures. The Benchmark contains two types of analyses, a Disclosure Framework and Alignment Assessments, which complement each other and provide insight into a company’s net zero emissions transition.  

By accessing these assessments, you agree to be bound by the data usage terms and conditions. For more information on data collection and feedback, see the review and redress process. 

EXPLORE THE ASSESSMENTS

The disclosure framework evaluates the adequacy of corporate disclosure in relation to key actions companies can take to align their businesses with the Climate Action 100+ and Paris Agreement goals. The framework reflects publicly disclosed information as of December 31, 2021 and is assessed by the Transition Pathway Initiative. Download the disclosure framework methodology to learn more.

1.1
The company has set an ambition to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has made a qualitative net zero GHG emissions ambition statement that explicitly includes at least 95% of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company’s net zero GHG emissions ambition covers the most relevant Scope 3 GHG emissions categories for the company’s sector, where applicable.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA

2.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2036 and 2050 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
2.2
The long-term (2036 to 2050) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
2.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.

When no explicit long term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.

For 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the 2021 release for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores are therefore not directly comparable between years.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA

3.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2026 and 2035 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
3.2
The medium-term (2026 to 2035) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
3.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s carbon performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.

When no explicit medium term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.

For 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the 2021 release for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores are therefore not directly comparable between years.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

4.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions up to 2025 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
4.2
The short-term (up to 2025) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the most relevant Scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of its total Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a Scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant Scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any Scope 3 target.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
4.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company’s latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

This Sub-indicator is based on TPI’s carbon performance methodologies which apply the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach.

When no explicit short term target that TPI can assess is available, the latest available data point of the company’s transition pathway is used to determine long term alignment. For example, a company with a 2030 target but no targets thereafter will have its 2030 data point compared with the benchmark value in 2050.

For 2022, this company was assessed against TPI’s 1.5 Degrees scenario. This is in contrast to the 2021 release for which this company was assessed against TPI’s Below 2 Degrees Scenario. Scores are therefore not directly comparable between years.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

Indicator 5 is sector neutral, assessing the key elements that should comprise any company decarbonisation strategy. Sector-specific expectations can be found in the Climate Action 100+ Global Sector Strategies. Implementation approaches will be adapted regionally.

5.1
The company has a decarbonisation strategy that explains how it intends to meet its long and medium-term GHG reduction targets.

Offsets are now explicitly referred to in the methodology for Sub-indicator 5.1, which asks that any decarbonisation strategy “clearly identifies the set of actions the company will implement to achieve its decarbonisation targets (such as phasing out carbon intensive products or assets, developing or deploying low carbon technologies, decarbonising supply chains or using offsets).”

Offsets will be an area for future development in the Net Zero Company Benchmark.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company identifies the set of actions it intends to take to achieve its GHG reduction targets over the targeted timeframe. These measures clearly refer to the main sources of its GHG emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company quantifies key elements of this strategy with respect to the major sources of its emissions, including Scope 3 emissions where applicable.

Examples of key elements include: changing technology or product mix, supply chain measures, R&D spending, etc.

Clarifications for meeting the requirements of Metric 5.1b have been added since the March 2021 iteration of the Net Zero Company Benchmark. In order to be assessed as “Yes” on this Metric in the March 2022 iteration, companies must quantify the approximate proportion of emissions reduction each action in their decarbonisation strategy will contribute to their overall greenhouse gas reduction target. Some year-on-year scoring changes are therefore anticipated. For more details, see the 2022 Disclosure Framework assessment methodology.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
5.2
The company’s decarbonisation strategy (target delivery) specifies the role of ‘green revenues’ from low carbon products and services.

Currently Sub-indicator 5.2 and related Metrics only apply to focus companies headquartered on the European continent.

The assessment will leverage the European Union’s Green Taxonomy criteria on ‘turnover’ (or revenues) for companies headquartered on the European continent. The criteria used to assess non-European companies will be an ongoing area of development as part of broader discussions on the use of green revenue classification systems and regional taxonomies.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company already generates ‘green revenues’ and discloses their share in overall sales.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company has set a target to increase the share of ‘green revenues’ in its overall sales OR discloses the ‘green revenue’ share that is above sector average.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA

6.1
The company is working to decarbonise its capital expenditures.
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with its long-term GHG reduction target OR to phase out planned expenditure in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.

Clarifications have been added to Metric 6.1a to enable assessment of companies’ plans to phase out carbon intensive assets. Some year-on-year changes are therefore anticipated.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company explicitly commits to align its capital expenditure plans with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius AND to phase out investment in unabated carbon intensive assets or products.

Clarifications have been added to Metric 6.1b to enable assessment of companies’ plans to phase out carbon intensive assets. Some year-on-year assessment changes are therefore anticipated.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
6.2
The company discloses the methodology used to determine the Paris alignment of its future capital expenditures.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company discloses the methodology and criteria it uses to assess the alignment of its capital expenditure plans with its decarbonisation goals, including key assumptions and key performance indicators (KPIs).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The methodology quantifies key outcomes, including the percentage share of its capital expenditures that is invested in carbon intensive assets or products, and the year in which capital expenditures in such assets will peak.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

7.1
The company has a Paris Agreement-aligned climate lobbying position and all of its direct lobbying activities are aligned with this.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment/position statement to conduct all of its lobbying in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company lists its climate-related lobbying activities, e.g. meetings, policy submissions, etc.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
7.2
The company has Paris Agreement-aligned lobbying expectations for its trade associations, and it discloses its trade association memberships.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment to ensure that the trade associations the company is a member of lobby in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company discloses its trade associations memberships.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
7.3
The company has a process to ensure its trade associations lobby in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company conducts and publishes a review of its trade associations’ climate positions/alignment with the Paris Agreement.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company explains what actions it took as a result of this review.

Contingency: Metric 7.3b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 7.3a is also ‘Yes’.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA

8.1
The company’s board has clear oversight of climate change.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a

The company discloses evidence of board or board committee oversight of the management of climate change risks via at least one of the following:

• There is a C-suite executive or member of the executive committee that is explicitly responsible for climate change (not just sustainability performance) and that executive reports to the board or a board level committee, and/or;

 

• The CEO is responsible for climate change AND he/she reports to the board on climate change issues, and/or;

 

• There is a committee (not necessarily a board-level committee) responsible for climate change (not just sustainability performance) and that committee reports to the board or a board-level committee. 

 

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b

The company has named a position at the board level with responsibility for climate change, via one of the following:

 

• A board position with explicit responsibility for climate change, or;

 

• CEO is identified as responsible for climate change, if he/she sits on the board.  
 

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
8.2
The company’s executive remuneration scheme incorporates climate change performance elements.
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements specifically incorporate climate change performance as a KPI determining performance-linked compensation (reference to ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainability performance’ are insufficient).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements incorporate progress towards achieving the company’s GHG reduction targets as a KPI determining performance linked compensation (requires meeting relevant target indicators 2, 3, and/or 4).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
8.3
The board has sufficient capabilities/competencies to assess and manage climate related risks and opportunities. [Beta]

Beta = data collected, but not publicly assessed. Subject to change in future iterations of the Benchmark.

NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has assessed its board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and discloses the results of the assessment.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company provides details on the criteria it uses to assess the board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and/or the measures it is taking to enhance these competencies.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

9.1
Acknowledgement
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has made a formal statement recognising the social impacts of their climate change strategy—the Just Transition—as a relevant issue for its business.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has explicitly referenced the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and/or the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO’s) Just Transition Guidelines).
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.2
Commitment: The company has committed to Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has published a policy committing it to decarbonise in line with Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company has committed to retain, retrain, redeploy and/or compensate workers affected by decarbonisation.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.3
Engagement: The company engages with its stakeholders on Just Transition.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company, in partnership with its workers, unions, communities and suppliers has developed a Just Transition Plan.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
9.4
Action: The company commits to a decarbonisation strategy in line with Just Transition principles.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company supports low-carbon initiatives (e.g. regeneration, access to clean and affordable energy, site repurposing) in regions affected by decarbonisation.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company ensures that its decarbonisation efforts and new projects are developed in consultation with and seek the consent of affected communities.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
c
The company takes action to support financially vulnerable customers that are adversely affected by the company’s decarbonisation strategy.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

10.1
The company has committed to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align its disclosures with the TCFD recommendations OR it is listed as a supporter on the TCFD website.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company explicitly sign-posts TCFD aligned disclosures in its annual reporting or publishes them in a TCFD report.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
10.2
The company employs climate-scenario planning to test its strategic and operational resilience.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has conducted a climate-related scenario analysis including quantitative elements and disclosed its results.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The quantitative scenario analysis explicitly includes a 1.5° Celsius scenario, covers the entire company, discloses key assumptions and variables used, and reports on the key risks and opportunities identified.

Contingency: Metric 10.2b cannot be ‘Yes’ unless Metric 10.2a is also ‘Yes’.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

Notes

The following new disclosure(s) are relevant to the Climate Action 100+ Net-Zero Company Benchmark and have been made after the December 31, 2021 cut-off date and are not reflected in the current version of the company assessment. The information is supplementary, unaudited and does not guarantee a scoring change in future iterations of the benchmark.

Alignment Assessments (formerly called Capital Allocation Assessment Indicators) complement the Disclosure Framework. They provide independent evaluations of the alignment and adequacy of company actions with the goals of Climate Action 100+ and the Paris Agreement.

These assessments from Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) and the Climate Accounting and Audit Project (CAAP) evaluate whether a company’s financial statements and related disclosures, and the auditor’s report thereon, reflect the financial effects of climate risk and the global move onto a 2050 (or sooner) net zero greenhouse gas emissions pathway and the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C. This assessment is provisional, meaning that information will be collected and publicly assessed as part of the March 2022 Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark, but the assessment framework will be subject to change in future iterations.

The financial statements reviewed are as of 31 December 2020.

Download CTI and CAAP’s Climate Accounting and Audit assessment methodology to learn more.

See scoring rules

Green—At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on all Sub-indicators and Metrics that make up the indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on all Metrics that make up the Sub-indicator.

Amber— At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on at least one Metric that makes up the Indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a ‘Yes’ on at least one Metric that makes up the Sub-indicator.

Red—At the overall Indicator level, the company receives a ‘No’ on all Sub-indicators or Metrics that make up the indicator. At the Sub-indicator level, the company receives a “No” for all Metrics that make up the Sub-indicator.

Climate Accounting and Audit (Overall Score)
1
The audited financial statements and notes thereto incorporate material climate-related matters.

For rate-regulated entities, the climate-related financial impacts might be mitigated if they are subject to rate-regulation, since regulators can choose between allocating losses to either consumers or shareholders.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The financial statements demonstrate how material climate-related matters are incorporated.

Climate-related matters may include the physical impacts of climate change and/or transition impacts from climate mitigation on the company’s market, sector, business environment, and drivers of its costs and revenues. It also includes the company’s own response, for example any emissions targets set and the company’s strategy for decarbonisation.

In addition to overall considerations, such as the company’s ability to continue as a going concern, examples of relevant assets and liabilities include (but are not limited to): property plant and equipment (PPE) assets; goodwill and other intangible assets; inventory; asset retirement or decommissioning obligations; deferred tax assets and liabilities; investments, including joint ventures and associates; and/or provisions and loss contingencies.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The financial statements disclose the quantitative climate-related assumptions and estimates.

This Metric is assessed independently from Metric 1a on how the company has considered climate matters. This Metric can be achieved by disclosing relevant climate-related quantitative inputs even if the company did not take climate into consideration for such inputs.

Examples of relevant assumptions and estimates include (but are not limited to): projected interim and long-term commodity prices used in forecasting revenues, for example oil, gas and coal prices; CO2 prices used in forecasting costs; cash flow growth rates; and/or estimated remaining useful lives, particularly of climate-exposed assets and related obligations.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
c
The financial statements are consistent with the company’s other reporting.

This metric is contingent on Metric 1a. To be assessed as ’Yes’, the company must have been assessed as ’Yes’ for Metric 1a.

Other reporting includes other sections of the annual report (or similar filing) and may also include separate reporting such as sustainability reports, TCFD reports, analyst presentations, and the company’s website.

This Metric focuses on financial statements. The company’s other reporting on climate provides the context for evaluating the financial statements, but is not separately assessed.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
2
The audit report demonstrates that the auditor considered the effects of material climate-related matters in its audit.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The audit report identifies how the auditor has assessed the material impacts of climate-related matters.

This Metric focuses on the auditor’s disclosure of Key or Critical Audit Matters (K/CAMs) as applicable under the relevant auditing standards. Discussions may either be in a separate climate-related K/CAM or on specific accounting topics. This Metric may also be achieved through reporting of how climate was considered in assessing risk and determining the audit approach.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The audit report identifies inconsistencies between the financial statements and ‘other information’.

This Metric assesses the auditor’s consistency check. An inconsistency between the discussion of climate matters outside the financial statements and consideration in the financials could result in a material misstatement in reporting.

Information that comprises ‘other information’ is specified under the relevant auditing standards. If Metric 1c is assessed as ‘Yes’ this Metric will likely result in a ‘Yes’.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
3
The audited financial statements and notes thereto incorporate the material impacts of the global drive to net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 (or sooner) which for the purpose of this assessment is considered to be equivalent to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The financial statements use, or disclose a sensitivity to, assumptions and estimates that are aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner).

This Metric focuses on the use of assumptions and estimates that are ‘best estimates’ of scenarios aligned with achieving net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner (‘aligned assumptions’), or the provision of a sensitivity analysis using such assumptions and estimates.

Currently, the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario and related price deck are used for this assessment, where applicable. This sets out a pathway to reach net zero emissions by mid-century and keep the global temperature rise to 1.5°C with a 50% probability. However, additional updated reference scenarios may become available over time.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The audit report identifies that the assumptions and estimates that the company used were aligned with achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (or sooner) or provides a sensitivity analysis on the potential implications.

This Metric is independent of Metric 3a, as the auditor is asked to take an independent role in assessing the assumptions used by the company (either directly or through sensitivity analysis), or to indicate what reasonably-aligned assumptions would be and provide its own sensitivity analysis.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

These alignment assessments from Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) analyse electric utility companies’ announced retirement schedules for their legacy coal and natural gas-fired power generation capacity and new planned carbon-emitting assets relative to a range of climate change scenarios. The analyses give investors insights on the relative adequacy and alignment of company actions with the Paris Agreement goals.

CTI’s assessments are analysed using modelling, which is based on asset level global coal generation data as of January 2021 and natural gas data for companies in the EU, UK, and USA as of May 2021. Public disclosure and asset ownership information is assessed as of 31 December 2021.

Download CTI’s electric utilities assessment methodology to learn more.

See scoring rules

1. COAL PHASE-OUT 

  • Green—The company has announced a full retirement of their coal-fired generation by 2040 consistent with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS), CTI’s interpretation of a Paris Agreement-aligned pathway.
  • Amber—The company has announced a full retirement of their coal-fired generation by 2040, but it is not yet consistent with B2DS.
  • Red—The company has announced only a partial retirement of their coal-fired generation by 2040. Alternatively, the company has not yet announced a coal retirement schedule, or there is insufficient data disclosed on their retirement plans.

2. GAS PHASE-OUT 

  • Green—The company has announced a full retirement of their gas-fired generation by 2050 consistent with the IEA’s B2DS, CTI’s interpretation of a Paris Agreement-aligned pathway.
  • Amber—The company has announced a full retirement of their gas-fired generation by 2050, but it is not yet consistent with B2DS.
  • Red—The company has announced only a partial retirement of their gas-fired generation by 2050. Alternatively, the company has not yet announced a gas retirement schedule, or there is insufficient data disclosed on their retirement plans.

3. ALIGNMENT OF COAL PHASE-OUT 

  • Green—100% of the company’s operating and planned coal capacity is consistent with the IEA’s B2DS or the company has already phased out all coal capacity.
  • Amber—75-99% of the company’s operating and planned coal capacity is consistent with B2DS.
  • Red—Less than 75% of the company’s operating and planned coal capacity is consistent with B2DS.

4. ALIGNMENT OF GAS PHASE-OUT 

  • Green—100% of the company’s operating and planned gas capacity is consistent with the IEA’s B2DS or the company has already phased out all gas capacity.
  • Amber—75-99% of the company’s operating and planned gas capacity is consistent with B2DS.
  • Red—Less than 75% of the company’s operating and planned gas capacity is consistent with B2DS.
1
COAL PHASE-OUT: Has the company announced a full phase-out of coal units by 2040 that is consistent with Carbon Tracker Initiative's (CTI) interpretation of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS)?

This assessment shows the scope and pace of the company’s coal plant retirements, as well as whether the goals and ambitions of the Paris Agreement are integrated into the company’s power generation strategy.  

CTI examines whether companies have developed and disclosed:

  • a full phase-out retirement schedule for all coal-fired generation capacity with assigned retirement years that are consistent with the demand constraints outlined in B2DS,
  • a full retirement schedule with inconsistent retirement years,
  • an only partial retirement schedule, or
  • provided no or insufficient information to assess.

B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.

The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.

Partial retirement of the fleet
2
GAS PHASE-OUT: Has the company announced a full phase-out of gas units by 2050 that is consistent with CTI's interpretation of the IEA’s B2DS?

This assessment shows the scope and pace of the company’s gas plant retirements, as well as whether the goals and ambitions of the Paris Agreement are integrated into the company’s power generation strategy.  

CTI examines whether companies have developed and disclosed:

  • a full phase-out retirement schedule for all gas-fired generation capacity with assigned retirement years that are consistent with the demand constraints outlined in B2DS,
  • a full retirement schedule with inconsistent retirement years,
  • an only partial retirement schedule, or
  • provided no or insufficient information to assess.

B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.

The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.

Partial retirement of the fleet
3
ALIGNMENT OF COAL PHASE-OUT: The percentage of the company's operating and planned coal capacity that is aligned with CTI's interpretation of IEA’s B2DS.

The smaller the percentage of coal capacity aligned with B2DS, the higher the transition risk for the company.  

This assessment uses CTI’s least cost methodology to identify the relative alignment of the company’s coal capacity retirements compared to CTI’s interpretation of the IEA’s B2DS, where perfect alignment = 100%.

B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.

The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.

61%
4
ALIGNMENT OF GAS PHASE-OUT: The percentage of the company's operating and planned gas capacity that is aligned with CTI's interpretation of IEA’s B2DS.

The smaller the percentage of gas capacity aligned with B2DS, the higher the transition risk for the company. 

This assessment uses CTI’s least cost methodology to identify the relative alignment of the company’s gas capacity retirements compared to CTI’s interpretation of the IEA’s B2DS, where perfect alignment = 100%.

B2DS is a rapid-transition scenario equivalent to an estimated 1.75°C of global warming in this century (with an approximate 50% probability). Net zero emissions would be reached by 2060.

The intent is to assess all companies against a net zero by 2050 scenario, as and when the necessary data becomes available. In the absence of sufficient data to assess companies against the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, companies are assessed against the next most ambitious scenario, which is the IEA’s B2DS.

41%

These alignment assessments from the 2 Degrees Investing Initiative (2DII) are made using the PACTA methodology and data provided by Asset Resolution. They analyse electric utility companies’ planned capital expenditures (CAPEX) and production capacity for the coming 5 years, relative to a range of climate change scenario pathways for the sector. The analyses give investors insights on the relative adequacy and alignment of company actions with the Paris Agreement goals. These 2DII assessments reflect the company’s physical assets as of 31 December 2021. Download 2DII’s electric utilities assessment methodology to learn more.

See scoring rules

1. ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPANY’S 2021 TECHNOLOGY MIX VS. THE 2021 SECTOR AVERAGE 

  • Green—The company is ‘Ahead’ or ‘Slightly Ahead’ of the sector average.
  • Amber—The company is ‘Aligned’ with the sector average.
  • Red—The company is ‘Behind’ or ‘Slightly Behind’ the sector average.

2. ALIGNMENT OF THE COMPANY’S 2026 PRODUCTION FORECASTS FOR EACH TECHNOLOGY COMPARED TO INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (IEA) SCENARIOS.  

  • Green—The company’s production trajectory is below the target for the NZE<1.5°C (where ‘NZE’ is the IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 Scenario).
  • Amber—The company’s production trajectory is below the target for the SDS 1.5°C-1.8°C (where ‘SDS’ is the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario).
  • Red—The company’s production trajectory is above the target for the SDS>1.8°C or Significantly above the target for the SDS>2.7°C.

3. ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPANY’S AGGREGATE IEA SCENARIO ALIGNMENT 

  • Green—The company is ‘Ahead’ or ‘Slightly Ahead’ of the NZE target technology mix for the utilities sector.
  • Amber—The company is ‘Aligned’ with the NZE target technology mix for the utilities sector.
  • Red—The company is ‘Behind” or ‘Slightly Behind’ the NZE target technology mix for the utilities sector.
1

Assessment of the company’s 2021 technology mix vs. the 2021 sector average.

This assessment shows how the company’s present mix of power technologies currently compares with the sector average for each technology. 

The analysis is conducted on the technology level, meaning 2DII compares the technology share of the company with the technology share of the global sector average. The assessment is based on whether the company’s technology mix is ahead of the market in terms of a decrease in fossil fuel-based production (coal, oil and gas) or an increase in low carbon production (nuclear, hydro and renewables). For more information on how the sector average is calculated see the supporting methodology document.  

Possible assessment outcomes include: Behind (>15% negative deviation); Slightly Behind (5-15% negative deviation); Aligned (+ or – 5%); Slightly Ahead (5-15 % positive deviation); or, Ahead (>15% positive deviation). 

For example, if the market’s power technology mix consists of 20% coal power, while the company’s technology mix consists of 17% coal power, then the company is ‘Ahead’ of the market (>15% positive deviation from the sector average), implying that it’s greener than the market in terms of coal power. Similarly, if the market’s technology mix consists of 15% renewable power, and a company’s technology mix consists of 10% renewable power, then it’s ‘Behind’ the market (>15% negative deviation from the sector average). 

a
COAL
Slightly Ahead
b
OIL
Ahead
c
GAS
Behind
d
NUCLEAR
Behind
e
HYDRO
Behind
f
RENEWABLES
Ahead
2

Assessment of International Energy Agency (IEA) scenario alignment for each technology based on 2026 production forecasts.

This assessment shows the company’s planned contribution to the transition towards a low carbon power system for the coming 5 years, in relative terms for various technologies. 

The assessment evaluates the company’s planned capacity additions and reductions with IEA scenarios and identifies the scenario pathway to which it most closely corresponds per technology.

The “aggregate net zero scenario alignment of the company” is calculated for the IEA Net Zero by 2050 Scenario (NZE) via a weighted average alignment across all technologies. The weighting uses a combination of: (i) the company’s target production per technology (i.e., the relative importance of the technology to the company); and (ii) the change in capacity per technology anticipated by the IEA NZE between 2021 and 2026 (i.e., the relative importance of the technology in the scenario).

Companies’ trajectories for each technology are assessed against the target value for each scenario. The result is assessed as being either aligned with the NZE (NZE<1.5°C), aligned with the Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS <1.75°C), aligned with the Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS 1.5°C-1.8°C), above the Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS >1.8°C), or significantly above the Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS >2.7°C).  The IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) is used to identify trajectories that are significantly above the SDS.

a
COAL
Close to SDS 1.5°C-1.8°C
b
OIL
Significantly above SDS >2.7°C
c
GAS
Above SDS >1.8°C
d
NUCLEAR
Significantly above SDS >2.7°C
e
HYDRO
Significantly above SDS >2.7°C
f
RENEWABLES
Close to SDS 1.5°C-1.8°C
g
AGGREGATE NET ZERO SCENARIO ALIGNMENT
NZE Slightly Behind

InfluenceMap provides detailed analyses of corporate climate policy engagement and the alignment of company climate policy engagement actions (direct and indirect via their industry associations) with the Paris Agreement goals. These scores reflect InfluenceMap’s assessment as of 24 January 2022.Up-to-date scores, which are refreshed on a continual basis, can be found here. Download InfluenceMap’s climate policy engagement assessment methodology to learn more.

See scoring rules

Organisation and Relationship Scores 

  • Green—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is above 75%. This indicates broad alignment with the Paris Agreement.
  • Amber—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is between 50-74%. This indicates mixed engagement on climate policy.
  • Red—The company’s Organisation and/or Relationship score is below 50%. This indicates increasingly significant misalignment with the Paris Agreement as the percentage nears zero. Scores below 25% indicate material and significant opposition.
  • Grey (Not applicable)—The company’s Organisation Score is not applicable when its Engagement Intensity score is below 5%. The company’s Relationship Score is not applicable when it does not maintain significant links to industry associations actively influencing climate policy (as per InfluenceMap’s current database).

Engagement Intensity Score 

  • Above 25% indicates increasingly active and strategic policy engagement as the percentage nears 100%, with the highest Climate Action 100+ companies currently scoring around 60%.
  • Above 12% indicates active policy engagement.
  • Between 5-12% indicates a moderate level of climate policy engagement.
  • Below 5% indicates low-level engagement with climate policy.
Organisation Score (0-100%)

Organisation Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct engagement is with climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0% being fully opposed and 100% being fully supportive.

See scoring rules above for more details.

The level of company support for (or opposition to) Paris-aligned climate policy.

56%
Relationship Score (0-100%)

Relationship Score (expressed as a percentage 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.

This calculation accommodates an assessment of the strength of the relationship between a company and an industry association, for example a stronger weighting will be attributed where a company has a representative on the board of an industry association.

See scoring rules above for more details.

The level of a company’s industry associations’ support for (or opposition to) Paris-aligned climate policy.

60%
Engagement Intensity Score (0-100%)

Engagement Intensity (expressed as a percentage score from 0 to 100) is a measure of the level of policy engagement by the company, whether positive or negative.

See scoring rules above for more details.

The level of a company’s direct climate policy engagement (positive or negative).

39%

Notes

Assessments of the company’s publicly disclosed information against each indicator, sub-indicator, and metric provide information on the company’s alignment with the Climate Action 100+ goals. The disclosure assessment indicators reflect publicly disclosed information as of January 22, 2021. The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), supported by its research and data partners the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE) and FTSE Russell, conducted the company disclosure research and analysis. InfluenceMap provided independent analysis of the company’s corporate climate lobbying practices (indicator 7).

1.1
The company has set an ambition to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 or sooner.
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company has made a qualitative net-zero GHG emissions ambition statement that explicitly includes at least 95% of scope 1 and 2 emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company’s net-zero GHG emissions ambition covers the most relevant scope 3 GHG emissions categories for the company’s sector, where applicable.

See Scope 3 Application for details.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

2.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2036 and 2050 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
2.2
The long-term (2036 to 2050) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
2.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company's latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.*

The intent is for the long-term target to be aligned with a trajectory to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot (equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net-zero emissions by 2050). If a company’s current emissions intensity is aligned with the assessment scenario used (or will be aligned in the short or medium term), it is assumed that the intensity will continue to be aligned in the long term.

This sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which applies the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA), a science-based method for companies to set GHG reduction targets necessary to stay within reference climate scenarios. Details related to this company’s Carbon Performance assessment conducted by TPI may be viewed here.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA

3.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions by between 2026 and 2035 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
3.2
The medium-term (2026 to 2035) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any scope 3 target.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
3.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company's latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.*

The intent is for the medium-term target to be aligned with a trajectory to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot (equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net-zero emissions by 2050). If a company’s current emissions intensity is aligned with the assessment scenario used (or will be aligned in the short term), it is assumed that the intensity will continue to be aligned in the medium term.

This sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which applies the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA), a science-based method for companies to set GHG reduction targets necessary to stay within reference climate scenarios. Details related to this company’s Carbon Performance assessment conducted by TPI may be viewed here.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

4.1
The company has set a target for reducing its GHG emissions up to 2025 on a clearly defined scope of emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
4.2
The short-term (up to 2025) GHG reduction target covers at least 95% of scope 1 & 2 emissions and the most relevant scope 3 emissions (where applicable).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company has specified that this target covers at least 95% of total scope 1 and 2 emissions.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
If the company has set a scope 3 GHG emissions target, it covers the most relevant scope 3 emissions categories for the company’s sector (for applicable sectors), and the company has published the methodology used to establish any scope 3 target.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
4.3
The target (or, in the absence of a target, the company's latest disclosed GHG emissions intensity) is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.*

The intent is for the short-term target to be aligned with a trajectory to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot (equivalent to IPCC Special Report on 1.5° Celsius pathway P1 or net-zero emissions by 2050). If a company’s current emissions intensity is aligned with the assessment scenario used, it is assumed that the intensity will continue to be aligned in the short term.

This sub-indicator is based on TPI’s Carbon Performance methodologies which applies the Sectoral Decarbonisation Approach (SDA), a science-based method for companies to set GHG reduction targets necessary to stay within reference climate scenarios. Details related to this company’s Carbon Performance assessment conducted by TPI may be viewed here.

NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

5.1
The company has a decarbonisation strategy to meet its long and medium-term GHG reduction targets.

The use of offsetting or carbon credits should be avoided and limited, if at all applied. Offsetting or ‘carbon dioxide removal’ should not be used by companies operating in sectors where viable decarbonisation technologies exist. For example, offsetting would not be considered credible if used to offset emissions for a coal-fired power plant because viable alternatives exist to coal-fired power plants.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company identifies the set of actions it intends to take to achieve its GHG reduction targets over the targeted time frame. These measures clearly refer to the main sources of its GHG emissions, including scope 3 emissions where applicable.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company quantifies key elements of this strategy with respect to the major sources of its emissions, including scope 3 emissions where applicable.

Examples of key elements include: changing technology or product mix, supply chain measures, R&D spending, etc.

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
5.2
The company’s decarbonisation strategy includes a commitment to ‘green revenues’ from low carbon products and services.

Currently sub-indicator 5.2 and related metrics only apply to focus companies headquartered in the European Union (E.U.).

The assessment will leverage the European Union’s Green Taxonomy criteria on ‘turnover’ (or revenues) for companies headquartered in the E.U. The criteria used to assess non-E.U. companies will be an ongoing area of development as part of broader discussions on the use of green revenue classification systems and regional taxonomies.

PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company already generates ‘green revenues’ and discloses their share in overall sales.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company has set a target to increase the share of ‘green revenues’ in its overall sales OR discloses the ‘green revenue’ share that is above sector average.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

6.1
The company is working to decarbonise its future capital expenditures.
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align future capital expenditures with its long-term GHG reduction target(s).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company explicitly commits to align future capital expenditures with the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
6.2
The company discloses the methodology used to determine the Paris alignment of its future capital expenditures.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
a
The company discloses the methodology it uses to align its future capital expenditures with its decarbonisation goals, including key assumptions and key performance indicators (KPIs).
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The methodology quantifies key outcomes, including the share of its future capital expenditures that are aligned with a 1.5° Celsius scenario, and the year in which capital expenditures in carbon intensive assets will peak.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

InfluenceMap provides detailed Paris-aligned analysis of corporate climate lobbying independently of the Climate Action 100+ Net-Zero Company Benchmark.

See the individual company profile here.

Explore InfluenceMap’s full ranking of Climate Action 100+ focus companies.

7.1
The company has a Paris-Agreement-aligned climate lobbying position and all of its direct lobbying activities are aligned with this.
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment/position statement to conduct all of its lobbying in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
b
The company lists its climate-related lobbying activities, e.g., meetings, policy submissions, etc.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
7.2
The company has Paris-Agreement-aligned lobbying expectations for its trade associations, and it discloses its trade association memberships.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company has a specific commitment to ensure that the trade associations the company is a member of lobby in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company discloses its trade associations memberships.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
7.3
The company has a process to ensure its trade associations lobby in accordance with the Paris Agreement.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company conducts and publishes a review of its trade associations’ climate positions/alignment with the Paris Agreement.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company explains what actions it took as a result of this review.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA

8.1
The company’s board has clear oversight of climate change.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a

The company discloses evidence of board or board committee oversight of the management of climate change risks via at least one of the following:

 

• There is a C-suite executive or member of the executive committee that is explicitly responsible for climate change (not just sustainability performance) and that executive reports to the board or a board level committee, and/or;

 

• The CEO is responsible for climate change AND he/she reports to the board on climate change issues, and/or;

 

• There is a committee (not necessarily a board-level committee) responsible for climate change (not just sustainability performance) and that committee reports to the board or a board-level committee.

 

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b

The company has named a position at the board level with responsibility for climate change, via one of the following:

 

• A board position with explicit responsibility for climate change, or;

 

• CEO is identified as responsible for climate change, if he/she sits on the board.

 

YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
8.2
The company’s executive remuneration scheme incorporates climate change performance elements.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
a
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements specifically incorporate climate change performance as a KPI determining performance-linked compensation (reference to ‘ESG’ or ‘sustainability performance’ are insufficient).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company’s CEO and/or at least one other senior executive’s remuneration arrangements incorporate progress towards achieving the company’s GHG reduction targets as a KPI determining performance linked compensation (requires meeting relevant target indicators 2, 3, and/or 4).
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
8.3
The board has sufficient capabilities/competencies to assess and manage climate related risks and opportunities.

Sub-indicator 8.3 and its underlying metrics will not be assessed in the current cycle.

NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
a
The company has assessed its board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and discloses the results of the assessment.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED
b
The company provides details on the criteria it uses to assess the board competencies with respect to managing climate risks and/or the measures it is taking to enhance these competencies.
NOT CURRENTLY ASSESSED

10.1
The company has committed to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company explicitly commits to align its disclosures with the TCFD recommendations OR it is listed as a supporter on the TCFD website.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The company explicitly sign-posts TCFD aligned disclosures in its annual reporting or publishes them in a TCFD report.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA
10.2
The company employs climate-scenario planning to test its strategic and operational resilience.
PARTIAL, MEETS SOME CRITERIA
a
The company has conducted a climate-related scenario analysis including quantitative elements and disclosed its results.
YES, MEETS ALL CRITERIA
b
The quantitative scenario analysis explicitly includes a 1.5° Celsius scenario, covers the entire company, discloses key assumptions and variables used, and reports on the key risks and opportunities identified.
NO, DOES NOT MEET ANY CRITERIA

Notes

*In the absence of a credible 1.5°C scenario, companies have been measured against a best-available below 2°C scenario. Company assessments will be adjusted when a credible 1.5°C scenario becomes available.

These indicators analyse electric utilities companies’ capital expenditures (CAPEX) and economic output from legacy fossil fuel and prospective carbon-emitting assets relative to a range of climate change scenarios. The analysis gives investors additional insights on the relative adequacy and alignment of company actions with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

1
COAL PHASE-OUT: Has the company announced a full phase-out of coal units by 2040 that is consistent with Carbon Tracker Initiative's interpretation of the IEA’s Beyond 2°C Scenario?

This indicator identifies the comprehensiveness of the company’s announced retirement schedule for its coal plants based on disclosed retirement dates and Carbon Tracker’s proprietary asset level least cost scenario analysis against the IEA’s B2DS. The purpose is to show the scope and pace of a company’s coal plant retirements.  

These results are rated from 1-4, as follows:

(1) Companies with an announced full retirement of their coal fired generation fleet consistent with CTI’s interpretation of a Paris-aligned pathway;
(2) Companies with full retirement which is not yet consistent with a Paris-aligned pathway;
(3) Partial retirement of the fleet;
(4) Unannounced/ insufficient data on retirements.

Partial retirement of the fleet*
2
GAS PHASE-OUT: Has the company announced a full phase-out of natural gas units by 2050 that is consistent with Carbon Tracker Initiative's interpretation of the IEA’s Beyond 2°C Scenario?

This indicator identifies the comprehensiveness of the company’s announced retirement schedule for its natural gas plants based on disclosed retirement dates and Carbon Tracker’s proprietary asset level least cost scenario analysis against IEA’s B2DS. The purpose is to show the scope and pace of a company’s natural gas plant retirements.  

These results are rated from 1-4, as follows:

(1) Companies with an announced full retirement of their coal fired generation fleet consistent with CTI’s interpretation of a Paris-aligned pathway;
(2) Companies with full retirement which is not yet consistent with a Paris-aligned pathway;
(3) Partial retirement of the fleet;
(4) Unannounced/ insufficient data on retirements.

Unannounced/ insufficient data on retirements*
3
ALIGNMENT OF COAL PHASE-OUT: The percentage of the company's operating and planned coal capacity that is aligned with Carbon Tracker Initiative's interpretation of IEA’s Beyond 2°C Scenario. N/A signifies that no coal plants were identified.

This indicator uses Carbon Tracker’s least cost methodology to identify the relative alignment of the company’s coal capacity retirement compared to CTI’s interpretation of IEA’s B2DS where perfect alignment = 100%. (In parentheses, we identify what percentage of the company’s coal units have been assigned a retirement date aligned with B2DS.)

34% of capacity (23% of units)
4
ALIGNMENT OF GAS PHASE-OUT: The percentage of the company's operating and planned gas capacity that is aligned with Carbon Tracker Initiative's interpretation of IEA’s Beyond 2°C Scenario. N/A signifies that no gas plants were identified.

This indicator uses Carbon Tracker’s least cost methodology to identify the relative alignment of the company’s gas capacity retirement plan compared to CTI’s interpretation of IEA’s B2DS where perfect alignment = 100%. (In parentheses, we identify what percentage of the company’s gas units have been assigned a retirement date aligned with B2DS.)

35% of capacity (0% of units)

1

Assessment of the company’s 2021 technology mix vs. the sector average.

This indicator assesses the technology mix of the company in 2021 compared to the market in 2021. The analysis is conducted on the technology level, meaning 2Dii compares the technology share of the company with the technology share of the sector average. For example, if the market’s power technology mix consists of 20% of coal power, while the company’s technology mix consists for 17% of coal power, then the company is ‘ahead’ of the market, implying that it’s greener than the market in terms of coal power.

Possible assessment outcomes include: Behind (>15% negative deviation); Slightly Behind (5-15% negative deviation); Aligned (+ or – 5%); Slightly Ahead (5-15 % positive deviation); or, Ahead (>15% positive deviation).

a
COAL
Slightly Ahead
b
OIL
Ahead
c
GAS
Behind
d
NUCLEAR
Behind
e
HYDRO
Behind
f
RENEWABLES
Ahead
2

Assessment of IEA scenario alignment for each technology based on 2026 forecasts. Companies’ trajectories for each technology are assessed as being below a Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS <1.75C), below a Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS 1.75C-2C), above a Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS >2C), or significantly above a Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS >3C).

This indicator analyses the company’s planned capacity additions and retirements (for power companies) with IEA scenarios and identifies the scenario pathway to which it most closely corresponds per technology. For example, it assesses whether the company is planning to build more windmills and solar farms, and to retire coal plants, and with which scenario that is most closely aligned.

a
COAL
Significantly above SDS >3
b
OIL
Significantly above SDS >3
c
GAS
Below SDS 1.75-2
d
NUCLEAR
Significantly above SDS >3
e
HYDRO
Significantly above SDS >3
f
RENEWABLES
Significantly above SDS >3

Notes