California Water Service Group – Lobbying Governance & Transparency

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:

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	California Water Service Group discloses several elements of a formal structure for managing its policy engagement, though the description remains general and only partially climate-specific. The company states that its public policy activities are guided by a dedicated "Political Engagement Policy" and that "Our Community Affairs & Government Relations team manages our political donations…and oversees two employee-funded Political Action Committees (PACs)." Named officers provide clear accountability, with "our VP, Customer Service & Chief Citizenship Officer…Chair, and our CEO…Vice Chair, for each PAC," indicating senior-level oversight of political activity. Beyond contributions, the company explains that "To manage external relationships and track our political and regulatory outreach activities, we continue to integrate a cloud-based tool into our processes and systems," showing at least one concrete mechanism for monitoring lobbying contacts. When asked how it assures consistency with climate objectives, the Group notes that "through our partnerships and regulatory engagement, we support policies that align with our values" and that it advocates on issues such as "conservation and sustainability…[and] initiatives that seek to strengthen resilience against drought," implying an intention to align advocacy with its climate-related priorities. However, the disclosure does not provide a detailed review procedure, frequency, or criteria for assessing direct or trade-association lobbying against climate goals, and the company admits it has "No" public commitment to conduct engagement "in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." There is also no reference to board-level approval of a climate-lobbying plan or to corrective actions with misaligned associations. Consequently, while oversight roles and a monitoring tool suggest a moderate governance approach, the absence of a climate-specific alignment policy or audit limits the overall robustness of the framework. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

California Water Service Group discloses several elements of a formal structure for managing its policy engagement, though the description remains general and only partially climate-specific. The company states that its public policy activities are guided by a dedicated "Political Engagement Policy" and that "Our Community Affairs & Government Relations team manages our political donations…and oversees two employee-funded Political Action Committees (PACs)." Named officers provide clear accountability, with "our VP, Customer Service & Chief Citizenship Officer…Chair, and our CEO…Vice Chair, for each PAC," indicating senior-level oversight of political activity. Beyond contributions, the company explains that "To manage external relationships and track our political and regulatory outreach activities, we continue to integrate a cloud-based tool into our processes and systems," showing at least one concrete mechanism for monitoring lobbying contacts. When asked how it assures consistency with climate objectives, the Group notes that "through our partnerships and regulatory engagement, we support policies that align with our values" and that it advocates on issues such as "conservation and sustainability…[and] initiatives that seek to strengthen resilience against drought," implying an intention to align advocacy with its climate-related priorities. However, the disclosure does not provide a detailed review procedure, frequency, or criteria for assessing direct or trade-association lobbying against climate goals, and the company admits it has "No" public commitment to conduct engagement "in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." There is also no reference to board-level approval of a climate-lobbying plan or to corrective actions with misaligned associations. Consequently, while oversight roles and a monitoring tool suggest a moderate governance approach, the absence of a climate-specific alignment policy or audit limits the overall robustness of the framework.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Comprehensive	California Water Service Group provides a remarkably detailed picture of its climate-related lobbying. It lists multiple named pieces of legislation it has engaged on – including California Senate Bills 1469 (water-rates decoupling) and 1197 (Water Innovation & Drought Resiliency Act), Assembly Bill 2142 (turf-replacement tax exemption), the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the state Water and Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program – as well as forthcoming proposals such as a CPUC-wide rollout of Advanced Metering Infrastructure. The company also explains exactly how it engages, citing “filings and reports; policy research; lobbying; meetings; and trade associations,” the exclusive use of contract lobbyists, quarterly Lobbyist Employer reports filed under California Government Code §86116, and publicly available support letters sent to individual legislators like Senator Ben Hueso and Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel. Finally, it is explicit about the results it is pursuing: it wants to “encourage water conservation by implementing decoupling,” secure approval for a utility-wide AMI rollout, create a state fund for drought-resilience technologies, reinstate the tax exemption for turf-replacement rebates to reduce customer costs, and obtain federal and state funding for PFAS treatment and bill-payment assistance. By naming the specific bills, the engagement channels and targets, and the concrete policy changes it seeks, the company demonstrates comprehensive transparency around its climate-policy lobbying.	A