Kinder Morgan
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.
- 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. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
|
Climate Science Transparency
Is the organisation being transparent about climate change science? |
0
|
NS | NA | NS | NS |
0
|
-1
|
NA |
|
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
0
|
NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
0
|
NS | NA | NS | NS |
0
|
NS | NA |
|
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
-2
|
NA |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NA |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
-1
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
-1
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Energy Policy and Mix
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy policy and the energy mix. We refer to IPCC thinking on renewables, coal, oil and gas. |
-1
|
-1
|
NS | NS |
-1
|
-1
|
NS | NA |
|
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
NS | NS | NS |
-1
|
NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
The Caring for Climate “inventory” of climate change policy influences: Are companies being transparent about their business associations which may impact climate debate and policy |
-1
|
NA |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Kinder Morgan has an unnamed member of senior management on the board of the API
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Kinder Morgan has an unnamed member of senior management on the board of the API
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
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.
Kinder Morgan (KM) appears to have a negative stance toward policy action on climate change. White papers published on its corporate website disseminate misinformation on climate science and evoke the threat of energy poverty as a justification for continued fossil fuel use. In 2016, the president of Kinder Morgan Canada insinuated climate change denial, a position he later reversed. Despite top-line recognition of the need for lowering CO2 emissions, the company does not seem to support a global energy transition at the speed or scale recommended by the IPCC.
Executive Chairman Richard Kinder has attempted to cast doubts on the viability of a non-fossil fueled future in the past. This position forms the basis of an undated white paper titled "The Need for Fossil Fuel," which points to the cost, lack of flexibility, and inefficacy of renewable energy regulations. The paper also actively opposes specific policies such as the Renewable Fuel Standard. While the company's 2018 ESG report states support for “performance-based” federal regulations on methane, KM attempted to weaken legislation on methane emissions reduction in 2017.
Evidence suggests KM employed disputed statistics to increase support for US pipeline projects in 2018. In 2019, a spokesperson for the company defended state-level adoption of the Critical Infrastructure Act, a model law drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council to criminalize protests against fossil fuel infrastructure. While the company supports measures to replace coal with natural gas in order to lower carbon emissions, it frequently highlights natural gas as a necessary complement to renewables given the latter’s intermittency and unreliability. These statements suggest support for a permanent rather than a transitional role for natural gas in the energy mix.
Kinder Morgan lacks a dedicated disclosure of its climate change policy positions. Likewise, its Environmental Stewardship report lists senior management positions in several trade associations, but omits other organizations in which it participates, such as American Gas Association. The company has a member of senior management on the board of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association demonstrating frequent opposition to climate policy.