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 |
Fortis Inc. offers a mixed but improving picture of transparency around climate-related lobbying. The company openly discusses one concrete policy engagement, the draft Clean Electricity Regulations (CERs) released on 19 August 2023, but does not identify any additional climate policies, leaving only a partial view of the breadth of its activity. It is clearer about how it lobbies: Fortis describes submitting written feedback during Environment and Climate Change Canada’s consultation on the CERs and notes that it “aligned its comments with those of Electricity Canada and the Canadian Gas Association,” indicating both direct engagement with ECCC and indirect engagement through trade associations. The company is most explicit about its objectives, calling for “regional flexibility” in the CERs, “extended compliance timelines,” the option to use “carbon offsets,” “multi-year averaging for calculating emissions,” and “regional adjustment mechanisms” to avoid impacts on reliability and affordability. These detailed proposals show that Fortis has been transparent about the policy changes it seeks, even though it has disclosed only one specific policy and a limited set of engagement methods and targets.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Fortis discloses a clear internal process for governing its lobbying activities, overseen by defined senior bodies, yet it does not explicitly tie this framework to climate-specific positions or targets. Its Political Engagement Policy states that “the Chief Legal Officer will be responsible for the review of the general policy positions of any political party, candidate or organization to which Fortis proposes to contribute in advance to determine whether there is any material misalignment with our values and policies,” while section 5.2 extends this pre-screen to “trade associations and other tax-exempt organizations that conduct lobbying and other public policy-related activities.” Oversight is elevated to the board level, as “Management will annually report to the Fortis Board of Directors…with an assessment of whether there is any material misalignment,” and the “Governance and Sustainability Committee of the Fortis Board of Directors…is responsible for oversight of our political activity.” The company also commits to public transparency, pledging to “provide periodic disclosure regarding…any findings of material misalignment… and any steps taken,” and it demonstrates action by noting that “UNS Energy withdrew from membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council due to the potential for misalignment with our corporate values and policies.” These disclosures indicate a defined policy, a named oversight body and evidence of acting on misalignment for indirect lobbying, signalling moderate governance. However, the documents focus on general “values and policies” and “sustainability” rather than explicitly assessing alignment with climate-related positions; we found no evidence of a dedicated climate-lobbying review, no description of how direct lobbying positions are tested against climate goals, and no climate-specific audit or public report. Consequently, while the governance structure is well articulated, its application to climate lobbying remains unspecified.
|
2
|