Direct Lobbying Transparency
| Overall Assessment | Comment | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Avista provides a moderate level of transparency around its climate-policy lobbying. It names identifiable policies it has engaged on, most clearly its participation in the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s Climate Protection Program rule-making, its voiced opposition to Washington’s HB 1084, and references to the Clean Energy Transformation Act and Climate Commitment Act that frame its resource planning. The company explains one concrete mechanism—direct participation in the CPP rule-making process before the Oregon DEQ and Environmental Quality Commission—and mentions working "through the regulatory and stakeholder process" and awaiting decisions from state utility commissions, but it does not consistently describe additional tools such as meetings, letters or coalition work, nor does it detail the individual officials it approached. Avista is clearer on the positions it takes: it argues that the CPP should balance emissions cuts with “affordability, reliability, and customer choice,” and it opposed HB 1084 because it "sought to eliminate natural gas as an energy choice in favor of 100% electrification." Beyond these examples, the company sets only broad aspirations such as wanting to "promote environmental stewardship along with economic and community vitality" and to expand renewable natural gas, without specifying the legislative changes it seeks. Overall, Avista discloses several concrete policies and expresses its policy preferences, but the description of lobbying channels and targets remains limited. | 2 |