Sign up to access all our data and the evidence and analysis underlying our overall scores. Once you've created an account, we'll get in touch with further details:
Sign Up
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
American States Water Co offers a fairly robust disclosure of its climate lobbying activities. The company names a specific climate-related law, “SB1469,” and also engages with the State Water Resources Control Board. It describes both direct engagement with policymakers and elected officials, stating, “This effort included meeting directly with policy makers and elected officials or with their executive staff to discuss SB1469,” and participation in the California Foundation on the Environment and Economy. The company’s stated outcomes include implementing decoupling mechanisms to promote water conservation and reduce GHG emissions, explaining “Decoupling separates revenue from sales through a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (WRAM) and keeps the water utilities whole for implementing conservation rates and programs,” as well as consolidating non-viable water systems to ensure regulatory compliance, improve resilience to climate-related events, and advance energy efficiency. By detailing its policy actions, methods, and intended results, the company demonstrates a moderate level of transparency in communicating its climate lobbying efforts.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
American States Water Co states that “Our external engagement activities are aligned with our internal company priorities…These include reducing the effects of climate variability, reducing energy and emissions, fortifying the water infrastructure, and increasing conservation and efficiency,” and explains that “The executive management team works cohesively on the company's strategies and priorities…[which] are then conveyed to each departments' teams so that there is consistency across the organization in messaging, strategy, and values.” This reveals a defined process for aligning climate-related external advocacy and identifies a senior management body responsible for oversight, indicating moderate governance strength. However, the company also notes that it has “No [public commitment] and we do not plan to have one in the next two years” regarding conducting its engagement in line with the Paris Agreement, and it does not disclose any monitoring procedure, criteria, or results for assessing whether its direct lobbying or trade-association activity remains consistent with its climate objectives. Thus, while some governance mechanisms and oversight are described, the disclosure lacks detailed monitoring, reporting, and trade-association alignment procedures.
|
2
|