PPL Corporation
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.
Update August 2021: If limited evidence had been collected either on a company's direct policy engagement (Organization Score) or industry association links (Relationship Score) this is signified with an ‘n/a’ (not available). If limited evidence has been collected in both areas, the Total Score is also given as n/a. Full details and links back to any primary evidence that has been collected can still be located on the company’s profile.
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? |
1
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
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) |
2
|
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? |
-1
|
NS | NS |
-1
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
0
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
0
|
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
1
|
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 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS |
0
|
NS | 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 | NS | NS | 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 |
0
|
NS |
-1
|
NS |
-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
|
1
|
1
|
-1
|
1
|
NS | 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 |
-1
|
-2
|
1
|
-1
|
0
|
NS |
0
|
|
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
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: PPL Corporation (PPL) has disclosed high-level support for net-zero emissions by 2050 in the UK and for the electrification of transportation broadly. However, the company has also opposed various forms of climate-related regulation that impact its US operations, particularly via subsidiary Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities (LG&E and KU).
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: PPL does not appear to take a clear position on the Paris Agreement but has communicated support for the UK’s net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 target. In PPL’s 2019 Sustainability Report, the company briefly emphasized support for market-based climate legislation but did not mention positions on other forms of climate policy. This same position emphasizing market-based measures is also evident in PPL’s 2020 CDP response while discussing their position on US GHG policies.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: In its 2019 Sustainability Report and 2020 CDP response, PPL Corporation discloses support for “inside the fence” emissions reductions measures, which apply emissions standards to individual power plants rather than a power system as a whole. However, PPL Corporation has previously lobbied against stringent GHG emissions standards in the US. In February 2018 comments to the EPA, subsidiary Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities (LG&E and KU) supported the repeal of the Clean Power Plan and argued to weaken the scope of compliance to its emissions standards. The subsidiary further lobbied for weaker compliance structures while backing the Affordable Clean Energy rule in October 2018.
PPL Corporation appears not to support net metering policies that promote increased use and integration of renewables into the energy mix. Despite disclosing a mixed position on net-metering policies in its 2020 CDP response, PPL subsidiary LG&E and KU actively supported a Kentucky bill that eroded the state’s net metering laws in 2019. In 2020, PPL expressed mixed support for net metering policies in the company’s CDP response. Further, the company appears to have a negative stance on community solar programs, communicating opposition to proposals that it believes will increase administrative burden on utility companies.
Positioning on Energy Transition: PPL Corporation appears to have a mixed position on the transition of the energy mix. In 2017 comments to the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, the company advocated for increased electric vehicle adoption and charging infrastructure in the state. PPL’s support for the electrification of transportation is further evident in the company’s 2020 CDP response, in which PPL advocated for increased utility ownership of EV infrastructure. In 2020, the corporation became a sponsor of the Low-Carbon Resources Initiative (LCRI), a program which aims to advance pathways to economy-wide decarbonization through research and development. However, a February 2020 response from subsidiary LG&E and KU to the Kentucky Public Service Commission emphasize costs of low-carbon technologies and consequently push for more moderated efforts to decarbonize the energy mix.
Industry Association Governance: PPL publicly discloses its memberships to industry associations on its corporate website, however it provides limited detail on the company’s alignment with the organizations’ climate policy positions. In its 2020 CDP response, the company provides some, though largely vague descriptions of alignment with industry association positions on climate legislation. PPL is a member of the American Gas Association and the Edison Electric Institute with CEO Vincent Sorgi on the executive board of the latter. Both have lobbied in opposition to strands of climate policy in the United States.