Xcel Energy announced in 2019 it would be the first electric utility to derive 100% of its electricity from sources that don’t emit CO2 by 2050. Management should explain to shareholders what this will accomplish and what it will cost. Below is the shareholder proposal I just filed with Xcel.
Greenwashing Audit
Resolved:
Shareholders request that, beginning in 2020, Xcel Energy annually publish a report of actually incurred corporate costs and associated actual and significant benefits accruing to shareholders and the climate from Xcel’s global climate-related activities that are voluntary and exceed government regulatory requirements. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost and omit proprietary information.
Supporting Statement:
Xcel’s purpose is to generate profits from generating affordable and reliable electricity while obeying applicable laws and regulations. Maintaining coal plants is the least expensive option for generating electricity per the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Coal Council 2018 report, “Power Reset” (www.BurnMoreCoal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/NCC-Power-Reset-2018.pdf). Yet Xcel management intends to shutter its remaining coal plants, presumably in hopes of somehow altering global climate change.
This resolution is intended to help shareholders monitor whether Xcel’s voluntary activities and expenditures touted as protecting the climate are actually producing meaningful benefits to shareholders and the global climate.
Corporate managements sometimes engage in “greenwashing” ⎯ i.e., spending shareholder money on schemes ostensibly environment-related, but really undertaken merely for the purpose of improving the public image of management. Such insincere “green” posturing and associated touting of alleged, but actually imaginary benefits to public health and the environment may harm shareholders by distracting management, wasting corporate assets, ripping off ratepayers and deceiving shareholders and the public.
For example, Xcel Energy announced in 2019 it would be the first electric utility to derive 100% of its electricity from sources that don’t emit carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2050.
But achieving a power grid that is even 79% ‘carbon-free’ would cost Minnesota $80.2 billion through 2050. Going to 100% ‘carbon free’ would cost exponentially more.” (Source:
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2019/03/two-answers-id-like-xcel-energys-carbon-report/)
What would these expenditures accomplish?
According to the above-cited report, spending all this money would accomplish nothing for the climate. A 100% ‘carbon-free’ electricity grid would reduce global temperatures by about 0.00073 degrees Celsius by 2100, an amount far too small to even be measured.
The reality is that global greenhouse gas emissions are on the order of 55.3 BILLION tons CO2 equivalents and increasing with no end in sight according to the UN. (Source: https://junkscience.com/2019/11/un-greenhouse-gas-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2018/)
China is reportedly now adding coal plant capacity equal to the entire US coal fleet. Around the world, there are reportedly 1,100 coal plants under construction. In comparison, Xcel Energy operates a mere 13 coal plants.
So, what are the actual benefits to ratepayers, shareholders and the climate of Xcel Energy meeting its announced emissions goal? By how much, in what way, and when will any of these activities reduce or alter climate change?
The information requested by this proposal is not already contained in any Xcel Energy report.
Xcel Energy should report to shareholders what are the specific actual benefits produced by its voluntary, highly touted and costly global climate-related activities. Are the touted benefits real and worthwhile? Or are they just greenwashing? Shareholders want to know.