Partners, FirstEnergy, Gas Natural SDG,

Transcription

1 Adams Resources and nergy, Inc., A Corp, Allegheny Technologies, Ameren, American lectric Power, ARVA, Aventine Renewable nergy, Calpine, Centerpoint nergy, 211 ustainability CM nergy, Reporting Consolidated of the World s dison, Constellation Largest nergy, and Dominion Utilities Companies Resources, Pacific ustainability Index cores: A benchmarking tool for online sustainability reporting DT nergy, Duke nergy, Dynegy,.ON, dison International, nergy Future Holdings, ntergy, xelon, Ferrellgas Partners, Firstnergy, Gas Natural DG, Gazprom, GDF uez, Global Partners, Integrys nergy Group, Koc Holding, Korea Gas, Marquard & Bahls, Mirant, New Jersey Resources, Nextra nergy, Inc., Niource, Northeast Utilities, NRG nergy, Inc., PG&, PPL, Progress nergy, Public ervice nterprise Group, Questar, RW, cana, empra nergy, outhern Company, UGI J. mil Morhardt, lgeritte Adidjaja, Aisha haikh, Alan Hu, Aleksandr Grabovskiy, Allison cott, Ashley cott, Corporation, Williams, Wisconsin nergy, Bukola Jimoh, Carolyn Campbell, Daniel Olmsted, Danielle L. Manning, lizabeth Duckworth, ric Robert King, rin Franks, Han Dinh, Hilary Haskell, Jaclyn T. D'Arcy, Jeffrey Alan Astor, Jennifer Katelyn Ward, Jordan Lieberman, Karen de Wolski, Karen Diaz, Karina Gomez, Karun Kiani, Leah Bross, Michael Handler hoemaker, Michael a Tran nnguyentat, d Paige Costello, Xachi ingh, c imone e Berkovitz, l and Whitney llen Dawson n e r g y

2 Contents Topics Page Company Rankings 3 Lead Analyst s Commentary 4 Director s Commentary 7 PI Overview 8 PI coring in a Nutshell 9 nvironmental Intent Topics 1 nvironmental Reporting Topics 11 ocial Intent Topics 12 ocial Reporting Topics 13 nvironmental Intent lement of the PI cores 14 nvironmental Reporting lement of the PI 15 cores ocial Intent lement of the PI cores 16 ocial Reporting lement of the PI cores 17 nvironmental Intent cores Ranking 18 nvironmental Reporting cores Ranking 19 nvironmental Performance cores Ranking 2 ocial Intent cores Ranking 21 ocial Reporting cores Ranking 22 ocial Performance cores Ranking 23 Average Overall, nvironmental, and ocial PI 24 cores Performance by Country Human Rights Reporting lement Visual Cluster Analysis 26 Relationship Between PI cores and Financial 28 Variables Number of xplicit numerical goals Reported 32 Number of Topics howing Performance 33 Improvement over Previous Year Data Number of Topics in which Performance was 35 Better than ector Average Analyst s Comments, alphabetically listed by 36 company name Appendix: PI Questionnaire 86 Questions should be addressed to: Dr. J. mil Morhardt, Director (emorhardt@cmc.edu) Roberts nvironmental Center Claremont McKenna College 9 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA , UA Direct line: (99) lgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow (99) (eadidjaja@cmc.edu) Departmental ecretaries: (99) The Roberts nvironmental Center has been the foremost analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our Pacific ustainability Index (PI) and publish the results online. Industrial ector** Aerospace & Defense X X Airlines X X Banks, Insurance X Chemicals X X X Largest Companies in China X Colleges/Universities X 1 X Computer, Office quipment, X & ervices Food & Beverages X X X lectronics & X X X emiconductors nergy & Utilities X * X * X X ntertainment X Federal Agencies X Food ervices X Forest & Paper Products X X X General Merchandiser X Homebuilders X Industrial & Farm quipment X X Mail, Freight, & hipping X Medical Products & X quipment Metals X * X X Mining, Crude Oil X * X X Motor Vehicle & Parts X X X Municipalities X Oil and Gas quipment X Petroleum & Refining X X X Pharmaceuticals X X X X cientific, Photo, & Control X quipment Telecommunications, X Network, & Peripherals * Multiple-sector category was separated in later years. **As of June Top 5 Liberal Art Colleges. The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts nvironmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and social issues facing the world s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. The data presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts nvironmental Center. Copyright 211 by J. mil Morhardt. All rights reserved ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

3 nergy and Utilities ector Corporate nvironmental and ustainability Reporting Duke nergy Constellation nergy Gas Natural DG Xcel nergy ARVA.ON American lectric Power GDF uez Korea Gas Dominion Resources outhern Company xelon empra nergy Northeast Utilities Williams DT nergy RW ntergy PPL Niource PG& Pepco Holdings, Inc. W isconsin nergy Nextra nergy, Inc. Koc Holding Firstnergy Gazprom Consolidated dison Integrys nergy Group Progress nergy Public ervice nterprise Group NRG nergy, Inc. CM nergy Ameren cana New Jersey Resources A Corp Dynegy dison International Centerpoint nergy Marquard & Bahls Calpine Questar Atmos nergy Corp UGI Corporation Global Partners Aventine Renewable nergy Ferrellgas Partners nergy Future Holdings Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Company Rankings This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting of companies on the combined Fortune 21 nergy and Utilities sectors lists. Data were collected from corporate websites during the initial analysis period (dates shown below). A draft sector report was then made available online and letters were sent to all companies inviting them to review the analysis, to identify anything missed by our analysts, and to post additional material on their websites if they wished to improve their scores. Analysis Period: Draft sector report available for review: 1/29/21 through 11/14/21 4/4/211 through 4/18/211 A+ A A- A- A- B+ B+ B+ B B B B B- B- B- B- C+ C+ C+ C+ C C C C C C C C C C C- C- C- C- C- C- C- D+ D+ D+ D+ D D D D D- D- D- D- D- Overall Grade Duke nergy (UA) Constellation nergy (UA) Gas Natural DG (pain) Xcel nergy (UA) ARVA (France).ON (Germany) American lectric Power (UA) GDF uez (France) Korea Gas (outh Korea) Dominion Resources (UA) outhern Company (UA) xelon (UA) empra nergy (UA) Northeast Utilities (UA) Williams (UA) DT nergy (UA) RW (Germany) ntergy (UA) PPL (UA) Niource (UA) PG& (UA) Pepco Holdings, Inc. (UA) Wisconsin nergy (UA) Nextra nergy, Inc. (UA) Koc Holding (Turkey) Firstnergy (UA) Gazprom (Russia) Consolidated dison (UA) Integrys nergy Group (UA) Progress nergy (UA) Public ervice nterprise Group (UA) NRG nergy, Inc. (UA) CM nergy (UA) Ameren (UA) cana (UA) New Jersey Resources (UA) A Corp (UA) Dynegy (UA) dison International (UA) Centerpoint nergy (UA) Marquard & Bahls (Germany) Calpine (UA) Questar (UA) Atmos nergy Corp (UA) UGI Corporation (UA) Global Partners (UA) Aventine Renewable nergy (UA) Ferrellgas Partners (UA) nergy Future Holdings (UA) Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. (UA) 3 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

4 Lead Analyst s Commentary By rin Franks, CMC 12 Compared to other business sectors, many energy companies show a remarkable openness regarding environmental issues, likely because the energy sector is uniquely situated to have a profound impact on many of the most pressing environmental issues facing us today. As a global consensus on the need to combat climate change emerges, the energy sector, which is responsible for over 6% of worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, has entered the spotlight. Pressure from environmental groups and consumers is pushing energy companies to look for ways to clean their portfolios, either by moving to zero-carbon sources of energy or by lowering the GHG output of current energy sources. Companies across the world are taking different approaches in response in what they term the transition period from highemissions fuel sources, such as coal and oil, to renewable and clean fuels. ome are investing heavily in zero-carbon renewable and nuclear generation, while others focus on low-carbon generation options such as natural gas or coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CC) technologies. ffective planning and strategy is needed to make the transition to a low carbon society, and while some companies sustainability reporting shows an understanding of the need for foresight, a shift in energy generation will not happen overnight. Many of the companies we scored focused on the competition between the need to provide a steady, reliable source of energy to the customers who depend on it and the desire to promote renewable or clean forms of energy. In 29, renewables accounted for only 18% of power generation, a full 15% of which was hydroelectric power alone. This percentage is rising quickly total investment in renewables increased by 15% in 29, and in both the United tates and urope, investment in renewables has outpaced investment in conventional forms of energy since 28. However, the currently available supply of renewable power is still far below world energy needs, and many forms of renewable energy are impractical in some areas. Renewable power sources that depend on natural forces to operate, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy, do not provide constant supplies of energy. As a result, renewable energy accounts for only about 5-1% of most energy companies portfolios. ome of the top companies in the energy sector are making substantial investments in renewable energies, especially wind, solar PV, and biomass. Hydroelectric energy makes up a full 18% of GDF uez s installed portfolio, and the company has opened several large wind parks in Canada and Chile in the past few years. NRG has several large solar farms in operation, including the largest solar energy facility in California, and the company is also exploring both wind and biomass options. Notably, investment in renewable energy does not always correlate with a high PI score; Aventine Renewable nergy, a major producer of corn ethanol, has very little sustainability information available online. Nuclear electricity plants emit no GHGs during production, but mining and transportation of uranium carries some emissions costs. Therefore, nuclear fuel is often considered a zero-carbon energy form during production, but the entire nuclear fuel cycle shows that it is more aptly classified as a low-carbon fuel. Nuclear energy accounted for 13% of worldwide energy generation during 29, with the United tates and France leading in installed capacity. Construction of new reactors has slowed in the past few decades as concerns about terrorism and the environmental hazards of nuclear waste have risen. Despite this, companies such as 4 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

5 Constellation nergy are calling for and increasing investment in nuclear energy, which they characterize as a reliable source of low-emissions fuel. ARVA, a top-scoring company, manages an entirely low-carbon portfolio, with renewables playing a minor role in comparison to nuclear energy. ARVA has vertically integrated the entire nuclear cycle, from mining of uranium to disposal of nuclear wastes, an approach that allows ARVA to monitor the handling of radioactive material through the entire fuel cycle. In addition, ARVA leads the world in technology for recycling and reenriching fuel and for reduction in total volume of high-level nuclear waste. Nuclear energy carries some serious concerns, but ARVA demonstrates the responsible approach to handling this unique fuel. One commonly-cited approach to the low-carbon energy transition is the need for bridge technologies fuel sources and energy production methods that can be integrated with current plants to cut emissions in the interim period before renewable energies become more reliable. A popular option is to increase use of natural gas, the fossil fuel source with the lowest emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. Many power plants currently operating on coal can be adapted to use natural gas for much less than the cost of building a new plant, making natural gas an appealing option for companies lacking the capital for significant infrastructure investments. Natural gas can also be used for heating, providing lower emissions intensity than heating with electricity. Gas Natural DG, as its name suggests, has invested heavily in natural gas and operates several combined-cycle plants that produce electricity from natural gas more efficiently. Other companies with substantial installed natural gas capacity include Korea Gas, Williams, and Gazprom. All these companies provide information within their sustainability reporting on the environmental benefits of natural gas. While natural gas does emit about half the CO2 of traditional coal sources, this does not make it a clean fuel source. Gazprom, the largest natural gas producer in Russia, claims that because it primarily relies on natural gas, Gazprom has a minimal impact on the environment. This is simply too generous a conclusion; production of energy using natural gas brings with it significant emissions of the GHGs CO2 and methane, especially when emissions from exploration and extraction are included. Natural gas will be a valuable bridge technology during the shift to low-carbon energy generation, but reliance on natural gas without simultaneously investigating renewable power options would be a mistake. While those companies currently betting on natural gas to deal with climate change may have a strong mediumterm position, they will need to reformulate their strategy eventually. The true winners in the lowcarbon future will be those that acknowledge this reality and plan accordingly. Another option many groups are exploring as a bridge technology is carbon capture and sequestration (CC). While CC can theoretically be used on any fossil-fuel-based plant, most CC investment is focused on plants using lignite and coal, as these fuels produce the highest emissions. ome methods of CC separate CO2 out of the fuel prior to combustion, while others use scrubbers to capture CO2 from exhaust streams. Currently available technologies are estimated to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants by 85-9%. uccessful demonstrations of carbon sequestration have injected CO2 into deep underground geological formations, where it will not contribute to global warming unless released. CC technologies are relatively new, so only a few locations currently utilize CC at the industrial level. Unsurprisingly, energy companies with significant investment in coal are eagerly investigating CC. With the largest coal portfolio in the United tates, 5 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

6 American lectric Power is installing a pilot CC system in West Virginia that will be due to operate at the commercial level by 215. In addition to engaging in numerous pilot-scale CC projects, another company,. ON, is designing its new coalfired plants to be what it calls carbon capture ready. These plants will be equipped to easily install CC technology once it is available at a commercially viable level. With significant investments and fast-tracked research into CC worldwide, energy industry experts believe that full-scale implementation of CC, both in retrofitted and new plants, will be possible by 22. Although there are high expectations for CC technology, it carries serious concerns, both environmental and economic. CC is an extremely energy-intensive process, and current technologies use approximately % of the energy generated by the plant solely to remove CO2. As a result, the cost of electricity produced by CCequipped plants will be significantly higher double, by some estimates. In addition, decreased efficiency will require an increase in mining and transportation of coal, which will increase GHG emissions in the back-end of energy production. The cost of CC makes it unappealing to many companies, while the indirect impacts on the environment make it unappealing to many environmentalists. While CC has high potential value, it also perpetuates polluting forms of energy rather than pushing towards truly renewable sources. The uncertainties and indirect costs of CC suggest that while it will have enormous value for reducing emissions of currently-operating coalfired plants, it must still be considered a bridge technology, not a definite solution to the problem of climate change. In general, companies with more in-depth analysis of their approaches to climate change tend to have low-emissions portfolios that reflect this concern. For one notable example, however, this is not the case. RW is the single largest CO2 emitter in urope, mainly because its portfolio is dominated by older coal and lignite plants. The company has recognized that this fact has given it the responsibility to seriously and carefully take action to improve its emissions profile. In its 29 Responsibility Report, RW provides thorough analysis of the possible strategies it can employ to reduce its emissions in the coming years, considering all the approaches discussed here and more. While not all of the proposed options are as green as they could be, the report provides an excellent example of the kind of consideration that today s energy companies must give to climate change, and the detailed analysis shows that RW is taking its responsibilities seriously. As the effects of climate change become more visible, energy companies must respond with long-term analysis and planning. A low-carbon future will not simply happen on its own, and concerted effort and leadership within the energy sector is vital to the cause. Further Reading and References: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (22). Workshop on Carbon Dioxide Capture and torage, Proceedings. Regina, Canada: CN. Retrieved from: ons_and_data_supporting_material.shtml International nergy Agency. (21). Key World nergy tatistics. Paris: IA Head of Communication and Information Office. Retrieved from: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. (211). Retrieved from: Renewable nergy Policy Network for the 21st Century. (21). Renewables 21 Global tatus Report. Paris: RN21 ecretariat. Retrieved from: ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

7 Director s Comments Interesting Times for Climate Change cientists as well as the nergy Industry Global climate change and ocean acidification 1, largely resulting from utility-scale burning of fossil fuels 2, pose major issues for both the energy industry and society as a whole. Decreasing society s dependence on fossil fuel is the most straightforward solution, but much of what we thought might help reach that goal seems less feasible by the day. Nuclear power seemed like the logical workhorse to supplant some fossil fuel burning, but the Fukushima Daiishi nuclear disaster has made a lot of people dubious about the engineering of nuclear power plant safety systems. In May, I was in Germany visiting alternative energy facilities when Angela Merkel shut down eight nuclear power plants in response to the Japanese problem, and not only does it now look like they will never reopen, the entire rest of the German nuclear power plant fleet is scheduled to be shuttered within the next decade. The national elections in Italy yesterday appear to end the nuclear option there also, and it seems likely that this reaction to Fukushima will be repeated elsewhere, leaving a potential energy shortfall. It would be nice if renewables, carbon-based or not, could more than fill that shortfall, but they too are under siege. The uropean Union, in particular, had instituted a range of generous feed-in tariffs (subsidies, actually) for non-fossil energy solutions, and some of those were what I was visiting in Denmark and Germany: mini hydroelectric and combined heat and power installations, wind turbines offshore and scattered around the countryside, and interesting solar thermal and photovoltaic installations. These and other innovative generation systems seem like the best hope for decarbonizing energy production. But, according to the latest issue of Power (June 211, page 1), a trade journal for the global generation industry, countries all over the world are abandoning subsidies for renewables because of the world economic doldrums, and it is these subsidies that are largely responsible for the rapid rise of renewables. o with these new limitations on non-fossil fuel options, it looks even less likely that the world as a whole is going to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions any time soon. As a result, those of us watching the global effects of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide will have plenty of work going forward, monitoring substantial ecological changes both in the oceans and on land. Most analysts also anticipate a gradual increase in flooding in flood-prone areas (such as the American Midwest, much of it underwater this spring), and more drought in dry ones, stronger tropical cyclones, more wildland fires (like those raging in Arizona as I write), and a plethora of exacerbated human health problems, largely the result of an expansion of habitats suitable for tropical parasites and disease vectors. All this is happening already; what if we reach one of the climate tipping points that we know have occurred in past warming cycles? As I say, interesting times, and not much relief in sight. 1 For current insight into the magnitude of the problem read the Roberts Center s new book Global Climate Change and Natural Resources 211: A Roberts nvironmental Center Annual napshot available from Amazon.com. 2 Although land conversion and methane from agriculture and human waste are also major contributors. 7 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

8 The Pacific ustainability Index (PI) Overview the PI coring ystem The Pacific ustainability Index (PI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the sustainability reporting a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 1,9 corporate sustainability reports analyzed from 22 through 29 at the Roberts nvironmental Center. The Roberts nvironmental Center The Roberts nvironmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College (CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic understanding of today s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved-- beyond the confines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts (Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and CMC alumnus), other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the Claremont Colleges. Methodology tudent analysts download relevant nglish language web pages from the main corporate website for analysis. Our scoring excludes data independently stored outside the main corporate website or available only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company when a direct link is provided in the main corporate website. We archive these web pages as PDF files for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics, fill out a PI scoring sheet ( and track the coverage and depths of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials. cores and Ranks When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PI database. The PI database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center s website. This sector report provides an indepth analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest companies of the sector, as listed in the latest 21 Forbes lists. Prior to publishing our sector report, we notify companies analyzed and encourage them to provide feedback and additional new online materials, which often improve their scores. What do the scores mean? We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. cores of subsets of the overall score are also normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be different from grades posted online on the Roberts nvironmental Center's website, since the normalization of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis. Companies with scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that sector and deserve an A ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

9 PI coring in a Nutshell Our analysis of sustainability reporting has a set of basic topics applied to all organizations as well as a series of sector-specific topics. The topics are divided into environmental and social categories the latter including human rights and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance. 1. Intent The Intent topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them. 2. Reporting The Reporting topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data) or qualitative (for which we don t). For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective (i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year. For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective. 3. Performance For each Reporting topic, two performance points are available. For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue). For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one point for perspective. The 11 human rights topics are scored differently, with five reporting points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a policy or standard and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two performance points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance. Distribution of cores by topics 9 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

10 nergy and Utilities nvironmental Intent Topics Percent of possible points for all companies combined Two possible points for each topic: Accountability 4 * Report contact person 19 * nvironmental management structure Management 16 * nvironmental education 2 * nvironmental management system 21 * nvironmental accounting 23 * takeholder consultation Policy 9 * nvironmental policy statement 1 * Climate change/global warming 11 * Habitat/ecosystem conservation 12 * Biodiversity 13 * Green purchasing Vision 5 * nvironmental visionary statement 6 * nvironmental impediments and challenges 1 Accountability Management Policy Vision Notes: * These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire. 1 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

11 nergy and Utilities nvironmental Reporting Topics even possible points for each topic: Percent of possible points for all companies combined missions to Air 83 * Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total 112 * Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG) 113 * ulfur hexafluoride (F6) emission recovery rate 114 * Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 115 * Methane (CH4) 116 * ulfur hexafluoride (F6) 117 * Nitrous oxide (N2O) 118 * Carbon monoxide (CO) 12 * Lead (Pb) 121 * Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 123 * Particulate matter (dust) 126 * Halon 127 * ulfur oxides (Ox) nergy 26 * nergy used (total) 27 * nergy used (renewable) Management * Notices of violation (environmental) 39 * nvironmental expenses and investments 1 4 * Fines (environmental) 133 * Green technologies research and development 137 * Pipelines, monitoring and maintenance * Green transportation initiatives * Accidental spills Materials Usage missions to Air nergy Management Materials Usage Products Recycling Waste Water 147 * Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Products 144 * co-efficiency monitoring Recycling 3 * Waste recycled: solid waste 32 * Waste (office) recycled 14 * Coal ash recycled 15 * Recycled materials used 16 * Materials recycled: Wastewater Waste 34 * Waste (solid) disposed of 35 * Waste (hazardous) produced 37 * Waste (hazardous) released to the environment 18 * Coal ash generated 11 * Waste water released to natural water bodies Water 29 * Water used Notes: * These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

12 nergy and Utilities ocial Intent Topics Percent of possible points for all companies combined Two possible points for each topic: Accountability 51 * Health and safety, or social organizational structure 54 * Third-party validation Management 17 * Workforce profile: ethnicities/race 18 * Workforce profile: gender 52 * Workforce profile: age 53 * mergency preparedness program 82 * mployee training for career development Policy 45 * ocial policy statement 47 * Code of conduct or business ethics 49 * upplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management ocial Demographic 8 * mployment for individuals with disabilities Accountability Management Policy ocial Demographic Vision Vision 42 * ocial visionary statement 43 * ocial impediments and challenges Notes: * These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

13 nergy and Utilities ocial Reporting Topics Percent of possible points for all companies combined even possible points for each topic: Human Rights 1 * exual harassment 7 * Political contributions 8 * Bribery 58 * Anti-corruption practices 59 * Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 6 * limination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation 61 * Free association and collective bargaining of employees 62 * Fair compensation of employees 63 * limination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 64 * Reasonable working hours 65 * ffective abolition of child labor Management 2 * Women in management 1 Qualitative ocial 66 * Community development Human Rights Management Qualitative ocial Quantitative ocial 67 * mployee satisfaction surveys 68 * Community education 7 * Occupational health and safety protection 72 * mployee volunteerism 155 * Access to electricity (electrification) Quantitative ocial 3 * mployee turnover rate 74 * Recordable incident/accident rate * Lost workday case rate 76 * Health and safety citations 77 * Health and safety fines 81 * ocial community investment 157 * Training, hours per number of employees Notes: * These numbers correspond to the numbers in the PI questionnaire. Items with numbers higher than 99 are sectorspecific questions. Appendix 1 has the complete questionnaire ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

14 nergy and Utilities nvironmental Intent lements of the PI cores nvironmental visionary statement 95.9% 92.9% Climate change/global warming 92.% 83.% nvironmental policy statement 87.8% 79.6% nvironmental education 76.% 71.% Habitat/ecosystem conservation 76.% 73.% Report contact person 72.% 57.% takeholder consultation 68.% 58.% nvironmental management structure 44.% 66.% nvironmental impediments and challenges 63.3% 57.1% Biodiversity 6.% 58.% nvironmental accounting 58.% 47.% nvironmental management system 5.% 45.% Green purchasing 46.% 43.% % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% = Percentage of companies addressing the topics = Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic, indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

15 nergy and Utilities nvironmental Reporting lements of the PI cores Green technologies research and development 28.6% 1.% Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total 42.3% 71.7% Waste recycled: solid waste 2.9% 6.% nergy used (total) 2.6% 58.% nvironmental expenses and investments 22.9% 58.% Water used 24.% 52.% nergy used (renewable) 18. % 48.% Carbon dioxide (CO2) or equivalents (i e GHG) 26.7% 46.7% Waste (hazardous) produced 23.7% 46.% Notices of violation (environmental) % 44.% Waste (office) recycled % 38.% Waste (solid) disposed of % 38.% Waste (hazardous) released to the environment % 32.% Fines (environmental) % 3.% % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% = Percentage of companies addressing the topics = Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic, indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

16 nergy and Utilities ocial Intent lements of the PI cores Code of conduct or business ethics 92.% 9.% ocial visionary statement 81.6% 74.5% mployee training for career development 74.% 7.% Health and safety, or social organizational structure 6.% 41.% Third-party validation 54.% 41.% ocial policy statement 53.1% 46.9% upplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management 52.% 46.% mergency preparedness program 5.% 45.% Workforce profile: gender 48.% 4.% Workforce profile: ethnicities/race 42.% 35.% Workforce profile: age 38.% 29.% ocial impediments and challenges 32.7% 29.6% mployment for individuals with disabilities 2.% 16.% % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% = Percentage of companies addressing the topics = Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic, indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

17 nergy and Utilities ocial Reporting lements of the PI cores Occupational health and safety protection Community development limination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation Bribery Community education Political contributions 59.5% 53.9% 46.4% 41.7% 43.4% 47.5% 91.8% 89.8% 85.7% 79.6% 79.6% 79.6% mployee volunteerism Anti-corruption practices exual harassment ocial community investment 42.6% 41.1% 35.9% 26.3% 77.6% 65.3% 63.3% 62.% Recordable incident/accident rate Free association and collective bargaining of employees Lost workday case rate Women in management Fair compensation of employees Degrading treatment or punishment of employees mployee satisfaction surveys mployee turnover rate limination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor ffective abolition of child labor Reasonable working hours Health and safety citations Health and safety fines Access to electricity (electrification) Training, hours per number of employees 42.9% 22.2% 4.% 22.9% 36.7% 24.2% 36.7% % 32.7% % 3.6% % 28.% 1. 9 % 26.5% 1. 5 % 24.5% % % 4.6% 12. % 2.9% 6.% 2.%.%.%.%.% 6.% 37.4% % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% = Percentage of companies addressing the topics = Percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined for each topic, indicating the depth of reporting coverage measured by PI criteria for each topic. If both percentages are the same it means that each of those reporting companies reporting on a topic got all the possible points ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

18 nvironmental Intent cores Xcel nergy ARVA Northeast Utilities xelon American lectric Power outhern Company GDF uez Dominion Resources RW Constellation nergy PG&.ON Duke nergy Public ervice nterprise Group empra nergy Gazprom Pepco Holdings, Inc. Nextra nergy, Inc. ntergy Gas Natural DG DT nergy Consolidated dison Niource Williams Firstnergy Integrys nergy Group Progress nergy New Jersey Resources Koc Holding Korea Gas PPL Ameren Wisconsin nergy cana Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. CM nergy dison International nergy Future Holdings Questar A Corp Calpine Centerpoint nergy Marquard & Bahls UGI Corporation Atmos nergy Corp Ferrellgas Partners Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Global Partners Aventine Renewable nergy nvironmental intent scores include topics about the firm s products, environmental organization, vision and commitment, stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, environmental aspects and impacts, choice of environmental performance indicators and those used by the industry, environmental initiatives and mitigations, and environmental goals and targets. A+ A+ A A A A A A A A A- A- A- A- A- A- B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B B B B B B B- B- B- C+ C+ C+ C+ C C C- C- C- D+ D+ D+ D D D D- F I core Rankings Xcel nergy ARVA Northeast Utilities xelon American lectric Power outhern Company GDF uez Dominion Resources RW Constellation nergy PG&.ON Duke nergy Public ervice nterprise Group empra nergy Gazprom Pepco Holdings, Inc. Nextra nergy, Inc. ntergy Gas Natural DG DT nergy Consolidated dison Niource Williams Firstnergy Integrys nergy Group Progress nergy New Jersey Resources Koc Holding Korea Gas PPL Ameren Wisconsin nergy cana Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. CM nergy dison International nergy Future Holdings Questar A Corp Calpine Centerpoint nergy Marquard & Bahls UGI Corporation Atmos nergy Corp Ferrellgas Partners Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Global Partners Aventine Renewable nergy 18 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

19 nvironmental Reporting cores Constellation nergy GDF uez Xcel nergy Duke nergy Gas Natural DG ARVA American lectric Power Northeast Utilities Gazprom Dominion Resources Korea Gas.ON PPL DT nergy xelon outhern Company empra nergy PG& Wisconsin nergy Pepco Holdings, Inc. Progress nergy Consolidated dison Integrys nergy Group Williams Niource Public ervice nterprise Group Nextra nergy, Inc. Firstnergy RW ntergy New Jersey Resources Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. Ameren Questar Koc Holding CM nergy Marquard & Bahls UGI Corporation cana Calpine Global Partners Atmos nergy Corp Aventine Renewable nergy A Corp nergy Future Holdings dison International Centerpoint nergy Adams Resources and nergy, Ferrellgas Partners nvironmental reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses its emissions, energy sources and consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use, mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and water used. They also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance and stewardship of products, and environmental performance of suppliers and contractors. A+ A- A- B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ B B B- B- B- C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C C C C C C C- C- C- C- C- D+ D+ D+ D D D D D- D- D- D- D- D- F F F F F F F F R core Rankings Constellation nergy GDF uez Xcel nergy Duke nergy Gas Natural DG ARVA American lectric Power Northeast Utilities Gazprom Dominion Resources Korea Gas.ON PPL DT nergy xelon outhern Company empra nergy PG& Wisconsin nergy Pepco Holdings, Inc. Progress nergy Consolidated dison Integrys nergy Group Williams Niource Public ervice nterprise Group Nextra nergy, Inc. Firstnergy RW ntergy New Jersey Resources Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. Ameren Questar Koc Holding CM nergy Marquard & Bahls UGI Corporation cana Calpine Global Partners Atmos nergy Corp Aventine Renewable nergy A Corp nergy Future Holdings dison International Centerpoint nergy Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Ferrellgas Partners 19 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

20 nvironmental Performance cores American lectric Power Duke nergy GDF uez Gazprom Korea Gas outhern Company Constellation nergy Wisconsin nergy DT nergy Dominion Resources xelon Progress nergy RW Gas Natural DG ARVA Xcel nergy PPL PG& empra nergy Integrys nergy Group Koc Holding Pepco Holdings, Inc. Northeast Utilities Nextra nergy, Inc..ON Niource Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. Public ervice nterprise Group Firstnergy ntergy Consolidated dison Williams Questar cana dison International Centerpoint nergy Ameren Atmos nergy Corp nergy Future Holdings Calpine Aventine Renewable nergy UGI Corporation Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Global Partners New Jersey Resources Ferrellgas Partners Marquard & Bahls CM nergy A Corp nvironmental performance scores are based on whether or not the firm has improved its performance on each of the topics discussed under the heading of environmental reporting, and on whether the quality of the performance is better than that of the firm s peers. coring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in previous reports, two points if better than industry peers, three points if both. A+ A B+ B+ C+ C C C C C C- C- C- D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D D D D D D D D- D- D- D- D- D- F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F P core Rankings American lectric Power Duke nergy GDF uez Gazprom Korea Gas outhern Company Constellation nergy Wisconsin nergy DT nergy Dominion Resources xelon Progress nergy RW Gas Natural DG ARVA Xcel nergy PPL PG& empra nergy Integrys nergy Group Koc Holding Pepco Holdings, Inc. Northeast Utilities Nextra nergy, Inc..ON Niource Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. Public ervice nterprise Group Firstnergy ntergy Consolidated dison Williams Questar cana dison International Centerpoint nergy Ameren Atmos nergy Corp nergy Future Holdings Calpine Aventine Renewable nergy UGI Corporation Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Global Partners New Jersey Resources Ferrellgas Partners Marquard & Bahls CM nergy A Corp 2 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

21 ocial Intent cores ARVA.ON Xcel nergy American lectric Power Constellation nergy Duke nergy outhern Company Gas Natural DG Korea Gas GDF uez Dominion Resources Williams empra nergy Northeast Utilities Pepco Holdings, Inc. ntergy Consolidated dison Ameren Wisconsin nergy Niource PG& DT nergy xelon Koc Holding cana Progress nergy PPL Integrys nergy Group RW CM nergy Nextra nergy, Inc. Atmos nergy Corp Gazprom Firstnergy Centerpoint nergy New Jersey Resources Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. Marquard & Bahls A Corp dison International nergy Future Holdings Aventine Renewable nergy Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Calpine Questar Public ervice nterprise Group Global Partners UGI Corporation Ferrellgas Partners ocial intent scores include topics about the firm s financials, employees, safety reporting, social management organization, social vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and certifications, social aspects and impacts, choice of social performance indicators and those used by the industry, social initiatives and mitigations, and social goals and targets. A+ A A A A- A- A- A- B+ B+ B+ B+ B B B- B- B- B- B- B- C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C C C C- C- C- C- C- C- D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D D D D D- D- I core Rankings ARVA.ON Xcel nergy American lectric Power Constellation nergy Duke nergy outhern Company Gas Natural DG Korea Gas GDF uez Dominion Resources Williams empra nergy Northeast Utilities Pepco Holdings, Inc. ntergy Consolidated dison Ameren Wisconsin nergy Niource PG& DT nergy xelon Koc Holding cana Progress nergy PPL Integrys nergy Group RW CM nergy Nextra nergy, Inc. Atmos nergy Corp Gazprom Firstnergy Centerpoint nergy New Jersey Resources Dynegy NRG nergy, Inc. Marquard & Bahls A Corp dison International nergy Future Holdings Aventine Renewable nergy Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Calpine Questar Public ervice nterprise Group Global Partners UGI Corporation Ferrellgas Partners 21 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

22 ocial Reporting cores Duke nergy Gas Natural DG Constellation nergy ARVA Xcel nergy.on xelon Korea Gas GDF uez outhern Company empra nergy Williams Dominion Resources American lectric Power ntergy RW Koc Holding DT nergy Niource Nextra nergy, Inc. Northeast Utilities PPL NRG nergy, Inc. Firstnergy cana A Corp Public ervice nterprise Group CM nergy Integrys nergy Group Wisconsin nergy Centerpoint nergy Ameren PG& Consolidated dison New Jersey Resources Progress nergy dison International Marquard & Bahls Pepco Holdings, Inc. Calpine Atmos nergy Corp Dynegy Global Partners nergy Future Holdings Questar Aventine Renewable nergy Ferrellgas Partners Gazprom UGI Corporation Adams Resources and nergy, Inc ocial reporting scores are based on the degree to which the company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its employees and contractors. They also include social costs and investments. A+ A+ A A- B+ B+ B B B- B- B- B- B- B- B- B- C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C C C C C C C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- C- D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D D D D D D D D- R core Rankings Duke nergy Gas Natural DG Constellation nergy ARVA Xcel nergy.on xelon Korea Gas GDF uez outhern Company empra nergy Williams Dominion Resources American lectric Power ntergy RW Koc Holding DT nergy Niource Nextra nergy, Inc. Northeast Utilities PPL NRG nergy, Inc. Firstnergy cana A Corp Public ervice nterprise Group CM nergy Integrys nergy Group Wisconsin nergy Centerpoint nergy Ameren PG& Consolidated dison New Jersey Resources Progress nergy dison International Marquard & Bahls Pepco Holdings, Inc. Calpine Atmos nergy Corp Dynegy Global Partners nergy Future Holdings Questar Aventine Renewable nergy Ferrellgas Partners Gazprom UGI Corporation Adams Resources and nergy, Inc ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector

23 ocial Performance cores Duke nergy Xcel nergy Constellation nergy outhern Company Gas Natural DG.ON ARVA xelon Korea Gas DT nergy Williams empra nergy Dominion Resources A Corp PPL CM nergy Firstnergy ntergy American lectric Power RW Northeast Utilities GDF uez Wisconsin nergy Consolidated dison Ameren Niource NRG nergy, Inc. Progress nergy PG& Integrys nergy Group Koc Holding dison International UGI Corporation New Jersey Resources Dynegy Pepco Holdings, Inc. Nextra nergy, Inc. Calpine Aventine Renewable nergy cana Public ervice nterprise Group Ferrellgas Partners Gazprom Centerpoint nergy Atmos nergy Corp Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Global Partners Marquard & Bahls nergy Future Holdings Questar ocial performance scores are based on improvement, performance better than the sector average, or statements of compliance with established social standards. A+ B- B- C+ C+ C C C C C- C- C- C- C- C- C- D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ D D D D D D D D D D- D- D- D- D- D- D- D- D- D- D- D- F F F F F F F P core Rankings Duke nergy Xcel nergy Constellation nergy outhern Company Gas Natural DG.ON ARVA xelon Korea Gas DT nergy Williams empra nergy Dominion Resources A Corp PPL CM nergy Firstnergy ntergy American lectric Power RW Northeast Utilities GDF uez Wisconsin nergy Consolidated dison Ameren Niource NRG nergy, Inc. Progress nergy PG& Integrys nergy Group Koc Holding dison International UGI Corporation New Jersey Resources Dynegy Pepco Holdings, Inc. Nextra nergy, Inc. Calpine Aventine Renewable nergy cana Public ervice nterprise Group Ferrellgas Partners Gazprom Centerpoint nergy Atmos nergy Corp Adams Resources and nergy, Inc. Global Partners Marquard & Bahls nergy Future Holdings Questar 23 ustainability Reporting of the nergy and Utilities ector