Adopt the Clean Power Plan cutting power plant emissions
Energy and environment
Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
Why shareholder democracy is necessary
Power plant emissions are cut by the utilities that own the plants, and some have moved without a mandate. As You Sow's resolutions at Arizona utility APS preceded its 2020 commitment to 100 percent clean power by 2050 and a coal exit by 2031. A binding rule like the Clean Power Plan still requires government action to cover every utility, and InfluenceMap documents fossil fuel industry groups lobbying to block federal rules of that kind. The controlling obstacle is now judicial: the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA in June 2022 that the agency lacked authority for the plan's approach of shifting power generation away from coal toward cleaner sources, so reviving it requires a new act of Congress rather than a change in corporate conduct.
How this was scoredNecessary
Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
We have not yet written down the two answers behind this rating. Recording them on every item, so a reader can check the reasoning and not only the conclusion, is work in progress.
Every rating is the higher of two answers, one for what companies do and one for what they spend to stop the outcome, because the same vote reaches both. See the full method.
Sources
- Common Ground of the American People: Energy & the Environment, Program for Public Consultation / Voice of the People, survey June 2016
- APS Changes Course for 100% Clean Energy Future, As You Sow, 2020-01-22
- US Corporate Climate Advocacy Going Into 2025, InfluenceMap, 2024-12
- The Supreme Court's EPA Ruling Explained (West Virginia v. EPA), Natural Resources Defense Council, 2022
What civil society organizations are helping owners on this
Filed and withdrew resolutions at APS in 2017 and 2019 on fossil fuel reliance ahead of the utility's 2020 coal exit and clean power commitments, and filed at Duke Energy for Scope 3 emissions to be included in its net-zero target.
Investors Applaud Duke Energy's Expanded Net-Zero Emissions Commitment, As You Sow, 2022-02
Recommends votes against directors at Duke, Southern and Dominion for delaying the retirement of more than 16.3 GW of coal beyond 2035 while adding gas generation for data centers.
2 campaigns on record
Include upstream methane leakage, customer use emissions and purchased power emissions within the company's net-zero-by-2050 target.
Result: not stated in source
In February 2022 Duke Energy announced it would expand its net-zero target to cover those Scope 3 emissions.
Investors Applaud Duke Energy's Expanded Net-Zero Emissions Commitment, As You Sow, 2022-02
Reduce the company's reliance on fossil fuel generation and address greenhouse gas emissions.
Result: Withdrawn after agreements with the company in both 2017 and 2019
In January 2020 APS committed to 45 percent renewable energy by 2030, a 65 percent clean mix by 2030 and 100 percent clean, carbon-free electricity by 2050.
APS Changes Course for 100% Clean Energy Future, As You Sow, 2020-01
Related subjects on other maps
How this rating was made
Every item on every one of our maps is read against one question: how far does this depend on the people who own companies voting their values? We answer it twice, once for what companies do and once for what they spend to stop the outcome, and take whichever answer is higher, since the same vote reaches both. The score carries its reasoning and its sources so that a reader can check it rather than take it.
- Pivotal. Owners voting their values can deliver most of the outcome.
- Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes, and others must also act.
- Helpful. Owners voting their values help, and others carry most of it.
- Independent. This moves without owners. Other levers carry it.
The advocacy record on this page holds only what a source we opened says happened. Where we searched and found nothing, the page says so rather than leaving a silence. Where a campaign names a filer the source does not name, it says that too. Ratings are ours; the list of subjects is Common Ground of the American People's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.