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 |
| Limited |
Edison International provides only limited transparency about its climate-related lobbying. The company names just one identifiable piece of legislation it has supported—California’s “Senate Bill 350, which requires that 50 percent of energy sales to customers be produced by renewables by 2030”—and makes passing reference to other bills such as the Build Back Better Act and Assembly Bill 1279 without clarifying whether those references involve active lobbying. It repeatedly describes broad engagement with “state agencies and legislators,” participation in conferences such as COP26-28, and work through “national organizations and coalitions,” yet offers no detail on the specific mechanisms it uses (letters, meetings, testimony, trade‐association submissions) or on the policymakers it targets. The outcomes the company says it is pursuing are framed as general aspirations—e.g. “rapidly lowering GHG emissions,” “reforming cumbersome siting and permitting regulations,” and “getting the economy to net-zero … most affordably”—rather than concrete legislative changes, quantified targets, or amendments it seeks. Because the disclosures identify only a single policy engagement, provide no information on how lobbying is conducted, and articulate desired results only in broad terms, the overall level of transparency remains limited.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Edison International describes a structured process to keep its policy advocacy in line with its clean-energy strategy. The company states that “our Political Engagement Policy… includes alignment with our values, business strategy and key policy areas related to healthy democracy, pro-business approach, energy and sustainability,” and that the January 2024 update “enhance[d] disclosure of the Company’s existing lobbying practices, incorporating lobbying criteria, procedures, and oversight into the Policy and adding aggregate amounts paid for federal and state lobbying into our semi-annual reports,” illustrating written rules and monitoring mechanisms for direct lobbying. Oversight is clearly assigned: the board-level Audit and Finance Committee “annually reviews the Company’s Political Engagement Policy and compliance program and receives semi-annual reports on the Company’s political expenditures to ensure alignment with our values, business strategy and key policy areas,” while contributions are approved by “the most senior officer responsible for Corporate Affairs or the President and CEO,” establishing accountable owners. For indirect lobbying, Edison International reports that it “review[s] the public energy and climate positions of the trade associations where we make payments of at least $50,000 annually to ensure that these associations are generally aligned with the Company on climate policy” and that “we prohibit our trade associations and 501(c)(4) organizations from using Company payments for electoral or political purposes,” demonstrating an active review and control process. The company adds that it engages “with their leadership and policy committees… to ensure these associations are aligned with our clean-energy strategy,” signalling willingness to correct misalignment. While these disclosures indicate strong governance of both direct and indirect climate-related lobbying, the company does not disclose the detailed results of its association reviews or any decisions to leave or suspend memberships, nor does it publish a stand-alone lobbying-alignment audit, so transparency on outcomes remains limited.
|
3
|