18 19
2. EXISTING ENGAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES WILL NOT
DECARBONIZE THE
ECONOMY
a. Weak policies fail to
influence coal, oil and gas
companies
We analyzed the fossil fuel sector policies of
the 30 asset managers to understand whether
their net zero pledges and targets were
associated with specific and public actions –
i.e. measures and indicators to ensure a decline
of the most polluting activities. We specifically
looked at their policies regarding companies
developing new fossil fuel projects.
We find that even though 20 out of 30 asset
managers now have coal policies50 and 12 have
oil & gas policies, there are major loopholes
and weaknesses that still allow most of the
asset managers to provide financial services
that are essential to the development of new
coal, oil and gas projects.
• Among the 20 asset managers that have
a coal sector policy setting out their
expectations and restrictions, only 1051
restrict investments in companies based on
their expansion plans. Of these, only 4 (AXA
IM, DWS, M&G, Ostrum) define expansion
plans as new projects along the entire coal
value chain (mines, plants, infrastructure).
As such, this means the remaining 6 can still
invest in companies with expansion plans in
part of the coal sector. Of the 10 others that
don’t restrict investments in companies
based on their expansion plans, most have
adopted weak criteria.52
• Among the 12 asset managers that
have an oil & gas sector policy setting
out their expectations and restrictions,
only Ostrum has any measures in place
to induce companies to stop their oil
and gas expansion plans, measures that
we nonetheless assess as weak. In its
assessment of oil and gas companies,
LGIM indicates that restrictions on
investing in new oil and gas fields is a
criteria, but this criteria is not a red line
that leads to sanctions. The 10 others do
not publicly ask companies to stop their
expansion plans or to adopt 2030 oil and
gas production reduction targets, while
these should be the short term priority
commitments that oil and gas majors are
pushed to make. Instead, they list more
long term or vague expectations, ranging
from adopting net zero targets, but rarely
asking for short term targets, in absolute
terms and including all emission scopes,53
to improving climate-related disclosures.
• The blindspot of passive funds: at least 22
out of the 30 asset managers have passive
funds, yet only one (Aviva Investors) applies
their fossil fuel exclusion criteria to the
majority of these funds (more than 50%).54
If asset managers are planning to decrease
the exposure of their passive funds to
fossil fuel expansion through engagement
activities, they will need to bring much
more evidence that those activities are
effective and have short term results and
don’t open the door to continued and
long-term support for the most polluting
companies. Especially as passive funds
directly finance fossil fuel assets by buying
large quantities of new bonds issued by
fossil fuel companies,55 the passive fund
problem will only grow bigger.
The full assessment of the 30 asset managers’
policies is downloadable in excel format here.
These findings put a sharp focus on the fact
that the expectations laid out don’t focus
on the priority actions56 that fossil fuel
companies should be implementing (see
actions described below under 1) and 2)). As
said above, only 1 asset manager expects oil
and gas companies to put an end to their
supply expansion plans. In contrast, 24
asset managers list more long term, vague or
unambitious expectations.57
Among these:
• 17 expect companies to align their climate
disclosures on existing standards as the
Task Force on Climate-Related Financial
Disclosures (TCFD). Many present this as
a key expectation of their engagement
activities.
• 24 expect companies to adopt
decarbonization targets and reduce
emissions, but only Ostrum mentions
the need to adopt targets in absolute
terms, including in the short term and all
emission scopes.
Disclosure-related expectations can help
improve the quality and the quantity of
the information published by engaged
companies, but they are highly insufficient
to ensure alignment of climate strategies
with science-based trajectories. The Net
Zero Asset Owners Alliance (NZAOA) warns
that “focused and in-depth engagements on
disclosure with each company in a market or
portfolio can be an inefficient use of limited
investor stewardship resources”.
58 Investors
should prioritize expectations related to
greater climate action over expectations
related to disclosure. As for expectations
related to decarbonization targets, to have
an impact they must be precise, as vague
expectations can be taken into account by
companies but still go hand in hand with
more absolute emissions and significant
fossil fuel expansion plans.
Engagement without clear expectations and
escalations can’t decarbonize the economy
For many asset managers, engaging with
companies is the key strategy for meeting
their net zero goals. Our analysis of their
engagement policies calls into question their
ability to hit their climate targets, mostly
because these policies are extremely vague
or focused on disclosure-related expectations
only.
To conduct our analysis, we extracted from
their public policies which expectations were
laid out for fossil fuel companies. We then
assessed the quality of these expectations
and especially if certain priority expectations
were present and clearly linked to a specific
escalation process.
We focused specifically on two priority
expectations that should be made to coal, oil
and gas companies:
1) Companies should commit to cease their
coal / oil & gas supply expansion plans;
2) Companies should adopt a credible and
public coal phase-out plan aligned with
a 1.5°C scenario / adopt 2030 oil and gas
production reduction targets aligned with a
1.5°C scenario.
These milestones are required for the fossil
fuel sector to be aligned with the objective
of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Indeed,
according to the IPCC, UNEP and the IEA,
several conditions must be met for the coal
and oil and gas sectors to be aligned with
the objective of limiting global warming to
1.5°C.59
Findings: what are the asset managers’
expectations for portfolio fossil fuel
companies?
Six of the asset managers in our sample
did not report basic climate-related
expectations.60 24 asset managers publicly
describe high level and basic climate-related
expectations for portfolio companies.61
Among these, only 7 go further and describe
precise and strategy-level expectations (see
table below for details). 7 asset managers
(Amundi, Ostrum, AXA IM, BNP Paribas AM,
M&G Investments, GIAM and DWS) expect
portfolio coal companies to not have any coal
expansion plans and to adopt a credible and
public coal phase out plan.62 And just one
asset manager, Ostrum, expects portfolio oil
and gas companies to cease their oil and gas
supply expansion plans.
Findings: is there an escalation process for
companies with oil and gas expansion plans?
Ostrum is the only asset manager assessed
that has published a clear expectation that
companies should stop their oil and gas
upstream expansion plans and states that this
expectation can lead to defined sanctions.
While this remains a weak escalation process
because the sanctions are not applied in a
systematic way,63 the expectation is public
and clear.
This means that the majority of the biggest 30
asset managers present in Europe and in the
US do not yet sanction polluting companies
for failing to take the right steps, because
they do not systematically apply sanctions
to signal their redlines. Engagement without
time-bound, short term and systematic
sanctions cannot push companies to move.64
20 21
“
”
Oil & gas companies have clearly
said they are being encouraged
down this short-term path by their
largest fund managers.
Adam Matthews,
Chief Responsible Investment Officer,
Church of England Pensions Board
22 23
What is each asset manager asking portfolio companies?
Asset manager
Public expectation that companies
should have climate disclosures
aligned with standards such as the
TCFD
Public expectation that companies
should adopt decarbonization targets
and reduce emissions
Public expectation that coal
companies should stop expanding and
adopt a credible and public 1.5°C coal
phase out plan
Public expectation that O&G
companies should cease their O&G
supply expansion plans and adopt
2030 O&G production reduction
targets
Public commitment to apply predefined sanctions if the above expectations are not met
Yes v
No v
Request for a short-term target, in
absolute terms, including scope 3
emissions v
Less ambitious requests v
Both expectations v
One of them v
Both expectations v
One of them v
None v
Coal and oil and gas v
Coal only v
None v
BlackRock
Vanguard
State Street Global Advisors
JP Morgan AM
Invesco Limited
Amundi AM
LGIM partially67
UBS AM
DWS
Schroders
Credit Suisse AM
HSBC AM
Fidelity International
Allianz (PIMCO)
Natixis IM
M&G Investments
abrdn
Allianz (AGI)
Union Investment
BNP Paribas AM
ABP / APG AM
Aegon AM 65
Eurizon Capital
Ostrum AM 67
AXA IM
Loomis Sayles
Nordea Investment Funds - AM
Generali Investments/GIAM partially
Insight Investment - BNY Mellon
Aviva Investors
A call to asset owners
As the United Nations and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) have warned, delayed action on climate
increases the chances of a disorderly climate
transition and decreases our chances of
remaining on a 1.5°C aligned pathway.
Despite these warnings, most asset managers
are not serving their clients’ long-term
interests when exercising their stewardship
and voting or when deciding to buy new
bonds. For asset owners that are willing to
invest their assets for the medium and long
term, this misalignment with their asset
managers should be one of their biggest
worries. It is crucial they engage these very
strategic partners to ensure they understand
the extent of their climate related concerns.
Asset owners hold power when they renew
their mandates and they must use it.
“Recently, we have noticed a growing
misalignment between long term interests of
pension savers and asset managers’ actions,
which is noticeable in the recent voting
patterns” Maria Nazarova-Doyle, head of
responsible investments and stewardship at
Scottish Widows.
Focus on asset owner engagement activities:
why they need to target asset managers as
well as companies
Many institutional investors, that we will call
here asset owners, engage companies that
they co-own to encourage them to address
risks. On specific issues such as mine tailings
dam safety, or board diversity, investors often
achieve impact. They can also achieve impact
by collectively exercising pressure and being
public about escalating engagement. As an
example, the Votes Against Slavery coalition
of 122 asset owners and asset managers,
coordinated by Rathbones, successfully
engaged 39 of its 44 target companies on
forced labor and similar abuses in their supply
chains. They achieved this by threatening
to escalate through AGM voting. This case,
winner of the PRI’s 2022 stewardship award
shows what is possible with strategic,
escalating engagement by asset owners and
managers acting together.
But asset owners have made much less
impact on climate change, a systemic issue
that will affect all companies’ futures, and
investors’ overall portfolios. A case study is
Climate Action 100+ (CA100+). The recent
CA100+ Progress Report records (p.13)
that: “despite continued progress on some
disclosure indicators, real world activities do
not yet demonstrate any meaningful shifts
in business models to align with the Paris
Agreement”. As we show in section 2.b., the
progress made by companies engaged is still a
long way off. As described in a 2021 review by
Bloomberg Energy Finance, it seems that most
of the 166 companies targeted by investors
via the CA100+ initiative satisfied investors
via managing “pressure with a mixture of
greenwash and strategic thinking”.
So why is engagement failing here? An analysis
in the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA)
paper ‘The Future of Engagement’ points out
that “while corporate engagement plays a
valuable role in addressing acute ESG issues
in investor portfolios, it is limited in its ability
to address systemic problems like climate
change when conducted in isolation from
other engagement approaches”.
They set out limits to engagement71 and
conclude that asset owners committed to realworld decarbonization should complement their corporate engagement programs with
engagement across sectors and value chains,
as well as on public policy and with asset
managers.
Several senior asset owners have made similar
points after seeing how asset managers
voted at company Annual General Meetings in
2023. As an example, Adam Matthews, Chief
Responsible Investment Officer, Church of
England Pensions Board (and board member
of IIGCC) said that “oil and gas companies
chasing short-term profit maximisation has
caused a fundamental break with the longterm interests of pension funds... oil & gas companies have clearly said they are being
encouraged down this short-term path by their
largest fund managers.”
24 25
b. Poor policies mean poor
results
As we showed above, asset managers’ policies
overall still fail to disclose the right expectations
for portfolio fossil fuel companies, let alone to
link such expectations to a strong escalation
process. This calls into question their ability to
change corporate behavior.
28 of the 30 asset managers in this report
are members of the ClimateAction 100+, an
investor alliance with a combined $68 trillion
of assets. Launched in 2017, this shareholder
group focuses on 166 companies that are
critical to the net-zero emissions transition
and “establishes a common high‑level agenda
for company engagement to achieve clear
commitments”. Member investors are leading
engagement on these focus companies.
To assess whether these collective efforts, often
presented by the asset managers as crucial
elements of their engagement strategies, are
efficient, we used CA100+’s own benchmark68
to evaluate the 35 companies from the coal
mining sector (2 companies) and from the oil
and gas sector (33 companies) that are among
the initiative’s focus companies since 2017.
After five years of intensive dialogue by the
CA100+ initiative, only 20% of the companies
engaged have set an ambition to achieve net
zero emissions by 2050. In the shorter term,
while 57% of the companies have set a target
for reducing their GHG emissions up to 2025
on a clearly defined scope of emissions, only
14% have set such a target that covers at
least 95% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions and the
most relevant Scope 3 emissions. Even worse,
only two of the companies are working to
decarbonize their capital expenditures.
If there is so little progress among the
companies that are critical to the net-zero
emissions transition according to investors
themselves, this strongly questions how
engagement is currently being led by the
individual members and if it can change
corporate behavior. As most of the biggest
asset managers do not have robust sector
policies that lay out the right expectations,
clear escalation strategies and publicly
stated systemic sanctions, it is still extremely
unclear what is actually being communicated
to companies and how. Analysis of their
voting even shows that CA100+ members
rarely flex their muscles to pressure the worst
polluters.70
CA100+ focus companies from the coal mining and oil & gas sectors69 that meet the criteria of the CA100+ framework
design 06/2023 : guenole.fr
Abrdn
Aegon AM
Allianz GI
Amundi
APG AM
Aviva Investors
AXA IM
BlackRock
BNP Paribas AM
Credit Suisse AM
DWS
Eurizon
Fidelity International
GIAM
HSBC AM
Insight Investment
Invesco
JP Morgan AM
LGIM
Loomis
M&G Investments
Natixis IM
Nordea AM
Ostrum
PIMCO
Schroders
SSGA
UBS AM
Union Investment
Vanguard
ASSET
MANAGER
EVALUATION
TABLE
1 The details of the expectations published
by the asset managers are available in the
full assessment of asset managers’ policies
and is downloadable below.
2 Data as of most recent filing date, January
2023. See Methodology section for more
details (Appendix #1).
3 See Methodology section for more details
(Appendix #1) and Appendix #2 for details on
the data. Data is at the investor parent level
and not at the asset manager level. The
number given in the table is the number of
securities (i.e. tranches of bonds). It is
important to note that we did not find any
holdings on the Bloomberg Terminal for 6
parent groups out of the 30 asset managers -
this could be because of data availability or
of no exposure.
4 Aegon AM has different coal exclusions for
different scope of its assets under
management, making it impossible to
properly analyse them at the group level.
5 These figures are at the ABP level, as data
for APG AM is not available publicly.
6 These figures are at the Generali
Investments level.
* vague and/or long term expectations.
** for the coal sector but vague and/or long
term expectations for the oil & gas sector.
*** for the coal sector and the oil and gas
sector (although very weak).
**** for the coal sector and the oil & gas
sector (although weak for the oil and gas
sector).
Denies debt
to coal
developers?
Denies debt
to O&G
developers?
*
* 4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Sets credible public
expectations
for fossil fuel
companies?1
Has a robust
escalation process
for O&G developers?
Total exposure to
the biggest fossil
fuel developers
(shares & bonds)2
Number of newly
issued fossil fuel
bonds invested in
(#)3
29 10
$4 bn
32 9
$3.9 bn
$15.5 bn
Data not available
Data not available
$2.6 bn5
$4.5 bn
$1 bn 10
$179.5 bn 48
$3 bn 13
$7.4 bn 25
$10.3 bn 24
$1.8 bn 10
Data not available
(Allianz Group level)
(Allianz Group level)
(BPCE Group level)
(BPCE Group level)
$4.7 bn
$0.3 bn6 7
$5 bn 8
$0.1 bn 20
$17.7 bn 37
$25.8 bn 35
$11.7 bn 5
$1 bn 22
6 3
$4.2 bn
22 22
$7.3 bn
32 $0.4 bn
11 $1.8 bn
31 $4.5 bn
26 $8.8 bn
5 $86.2 bn
38 $10.8 bn
$3.2 bn
$170.3 bn
$1.9 bn
**
**
**
**
**
**
****
**
26 27
3. 72
4. OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
TO ASSET MANAGERS
We describe below some of the key
actions that are needed to close the
gap between asset managers’ net
zero commitments and how they are currently
managing their business. These priority actions
must be taken in addition to any portfolio
decarbonization targets.
1. Stop supporting coal
• Immediately drop all forms of direct
support for companies developing new
coal projects. This should especially
include halting new bond purchases on
the primary and secondary markets.
• Beyond the requirement to stop expansion,
set the expectation that all coal companies
in the portfolios have facility-by-facility
closure plans by 2030 in the OECD and
European countries, and by 2040 worldwide.
Immediately commit to exclude all portfolio
companies that would not have such plans
by 2025 at the latest.
2. Withdraw support from
companies expanding oil and
gas production
• Adopt investment restrictions on a
growing number of oil and gas companies,
with a focus on halting new upstream and
midstream oil and gas projects, as well as
initiating a controlled decline in oil and gas
production aligned with a 1.5°C scenario.
This implies halting new bond purchases
of oil and gas developers.
• Engage with portfolio companies to
clearly communicate that they must
cancel any plans to develop new oil and
gas upstream and midstream projects by
a predefined time frame and adopt 2030
oil and gas production reduction targets
aligned with a 1.5°C scenario. Implement
a progressive and time-bound escalation
strategy that describes the sanctions
implemented in case the expectations are
not met. Immediately commit to exclude
all portfolio companies that are still
involved in new upstream and midstream
oil and gas projects by 2025 at the latest.
3. Adopt robust engagement
policies
• Adopt meaningful policies for
engagement with investees and clients.
Robust engagement approaches include
clearly defined public demands, a timebound escalation strategy ending with meaningful financial sanctions, and, in
the case of equity investors, transparent
criteria for shareholder votes, and
disclosure on voting records. Escalate
engagement with companies pursuing or
facilitating fossil fuel expansion by voting
against their directors. Vote in favor of
all pro-climate shareholder resolutions,
particularly those which constrain
companies’ involvement in new fossil fuel
projects.
• Report at least annually on the concrete results (or lack thereof) of any engagement strategies. Reporting and assessment of
progress will push engagement policies
to improve and get more efficient. Using
vague claims of “engagement” should be
considered as greenwashing.
28 29
“
”
Net zero asset owners should
“engage with asset managers to
ensure they understand the extent
of [climate related] concerns.
Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance,
“Advancing Delivery on
Decarbonisation Targets”
30 31
APPENDIX #1
METHODOLOGY
1. Financial research
Where does the financial data on asset
managers’ exposure come from?
a. Newly issued bonds data73
This report features data on the exposure of
the 30 asset managers, at their parent group
level, to newly issued bonds of fossil fuel
developers. The list of fossil fuel developers
was extracted from the Global Coal Exit
List (GCEL) and Global Oil and Gas Exit List
(GOGEL) and comprises a list of 590 parent
companies that are either coal developers
or in the top 100 of upstream oil and gas
developers. Blomberg equity tickers were
taken at both the parent and subsidiary level,
provided that the company is a fossil fuel
developer according to the above definition
AND that the company has a ticker identified
by Urgewald. Bond issuances that occurred
between 01/01/022 and 19/05/2023 were
identified on Bloomberg for 94 companies.
All bonds marked as «green instruments» in
Bloomberg were removed from the analysis.
The number of bond issuances identified is
only indicative and is underestimated because
a company’s bond was only considered if
that company has a direct equity ticker in
the coal and O&G databases (e.g. newly
created SPVs are outside the scope of this
analysis). Furthermore, as bond holdings data
is incomplete on the Terminal, our research
is a stark underestimation of the flows going
to newly issued bonds. It is important to
note that the data featured in the report is
at the investor parent level (e.g. holdings
for DWS are reported under Deutsche Bank
and could include holdings from other asset
management subsidiaries of the group) as
the Bloomberg Terminal does not provide
accurate identification of the investor at the
asset management level.
b. Overall exposure data (share and
bond holdings)
This report features the exposure of the 30
asset managers to fossil fuel expansion. The
list of fossil fuel developers was extracted
from the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) and
Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL) and
comprises a list of 590 parent companies that
are either coal developers or in the top 100 of
upstream oil and gas developers.
Coal
Our research is based on the Investing in
Climate Chaos research,74 which includes
data on the institutional investors which
hold bonds and shares in selected fossil fuel
companies. For this report, the research
comprises of:
• The selected companies that are flagged in
the GCEL as developing new coal projects.
• The asset manager level data, which
means that this is a subset of the
institutional investors holdings featured
in the Investing in Climate Chaos research.
For example, data is displayed here at
the level of Allianz Global Investors and
PIMCO, versus at the Allianz Group level.
The names of the asset management
entities that we attached to each asset
manager were based on information
available in Refinitiv/Bloomberg and sent
to each asset manager by email asking for
verification. These names were then used
to calculate the exposure of the group to
GCEL and GOGEL developers.
The data comprises both bond and share
holdings, as of January 2023, and was
extracted by research institute Profundo.
Oil and gas
Our research is based on the Investing in
Climate Chaos research,75 which includes data
on the institutional investors which hold bonds
and shares in selected fossil fuel companies.
For this report, the research comprises of:
• The selected companies that are flagged
in the GOGEL as having new upstream
oil and gas expansion plans (top 100
companies in terms of resources under
development and extraction, as measured
by mmboe). The research then includes
the exposure of the 30 asset managers to
these companies.
32 33
• The asset manager level data, which
means that this is a subset of the
institutional investors holdings featured
in the Investing in Climate Chaos research.
The data comprises both bond and share
holdings, as of January 2023, and was
extracted by research institute Profundo.
2. Policy analysis section
How have we chosen participants?
Asset managers were selected based on
the size of their assets under management
(AUM) and their geographical zone (Europe)
with adjustment to include five big US asset
managers that are present in the European
market.
This sample consists of:
• The 25 biggest asset managers
headquartered in Europe: Natixis IM,
Ostrum, Loomis Sayles, AXA IM, Amundi,
BNP Paribas AM, LGIM, Generali Insurance
Asset Management (GIAM), Nordea AM,
M&G Investments, Union Investment,
Aviva Investors, Eurizon, UBS AM, Fidelity
International, Aegon AM, Allianz Group -
AGI, APG AM, Schroders, Abrdn, Deutsche
Bank - DWS, HSBC AM, Allianz Group
- PIMCO, BNY Mellon - Insight, Credit
Suisse AM;
• 5 asset managers headquartered in the US:
BlackRock, State Street Global Advisors,
JP Morgan AM, Invesco, Vanguard.
How have we collected the information?
A questionnaire was pre-filled and sent to
30 asset managers. We received an answer
from 24 of them.76 The assessment is based
only on publicly available information -
policies published after April 2023 were not
taken into account. All asset managers were
subsequently provided with the opportunity
to review the assessment and respond.
Information was collected between April and
May 2023.
Where to find detailed ratings of asset
managers’ fossil fuel policies?
The full assessment of asset managers’
policies is downloadable here.
Reclaim Finance, in coordination with dozens
of NGOs, tracks, assesses and compares
fossil fuel policies adopted by financial institutions worldwide. Visit the Coal Policy Tool and the Oil and Gas Policy Tracker.
How have we evaluated participants?
The questionnaire is based on two categories:
the coal policy section and the oil and gas
policy section. These sections are focused
on public sectoral policies and take into
account any public policy that details the
expectations and restrictions applied to
portfolio companies (e.g. the engagement
policy of the asset manager will be considered
if it details the set of expectations and related
escalation process for energy companies).
Policies that do not cover the majority of the
asset manager’s AuM will not be considered.
These sections focus specifically on key asks
that should be made to coal, oil and gas
companies for the fossil fuel sector to be
aligned with the objective of limiting global
warming to 1.5°C. According to the IPCC,
UNEP and the IEA, several conditions must
be met for the coal and oil and gas sectors
to be aligned with the objective of limiting
global warming to 1.5°C. Please refer to our
Asset Manager Recommendations for more
details and sources (https://reclaimfinance.
org/site/en/recommendations/).
“
”
One of the most impactful ways
for asset owners to enact policy
advocacy is to engage with
their most important strategic
partners – their asset managers.
In fact, asset owners with net-zero
commitments will find that meeting
their commitment will become
increasingly challenging without
such engagement.
Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance,
“Aligning Climate Policy Engagement
with Net-Zero Commitments”
34 35
APPENDIX #2
FINANCIAL RESEARCH DETAILS
Asset manager holdings in newly issued bonds by fossil fuel developers77 Investor / asset manager Issuers of newly issued bonds that have been bought by the investor (based on information from the Bloomberg platform) Vanguard ConocoPhillips, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Coterra Energy Inc, Diamondback Energy Inc, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, EQT Corp, Range Resources Corp, Ecopetrol SA, CNX Resources Corp, TotalEnergies SE, Var Energi ASA, Freeport Indonesia PT, Transnet SOC Ltd, POSCO, Bayport Polymers LLC, Sumitomo Corp, Mitsui & Co Ltd, JERA Co Inc.
BlackRock ConocoPhillips, Diamondback Energy Inc, BP Capital Markets America Inc, TotalEnergies SE, EQT Corp, Var Energi ASA, CNX Resources Corp, Coterra Energy Inc, Ecopetrol SA, Freeport Indonesia PT, POSCO, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, Glencore Funding LLC, Matador Resources Co, Bayport Polymers LLC, Range Resources Corp, JERA Co Inc, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co Ltd, Peabody Energy Corp, Sasol Financing USA LLC, Sumitomo Corp.
JPMorgan Chase BP Capital Markets America Inc, ConocoPhillips, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, CNX Resources Corp, Range Resources Corp, Diamondback Energy Inc, Coterra Energy Inc, Korea Midland Power Co Ltd, Bayport Polymers LLC, EQT Corp, Var Energi ASA, Ecopetrol SA, Freeport Indonesia PT, POSCO, Transnet SOC Ltd, Glencore Funding LLC Allianz CNX Resources Corp, ConocoPhillips, TotalEnergies SE, Freeport Indonesia PT, Range Resources Corp, Coterra Energy Inc, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, Var Energi ASA, Matador Resources Co, Diamondback Energy Inc, Bayport Polymers LLC, BP Capital Markets America Inc, EQT Corp, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co Ltd, POSCO Invesco TotalEnergies SE, BP Capital Markets America Inc, EQT Corp, ConocoPhillips, Freeport Indonesia PT, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, POSCO, Ecopetrol SA, REC Ltd, Power Finance Corp Ltd, Diamondback Energy Inc, Coterra Energy Inc, Sasol Financing USA LLC, NTPC Ltd, Bayport Polymers LLC, CNX Resources Corp, Range Resources Corp, Huaibei Mining Holdings Co Ltd Groupe BPCE Var Energi ASA, EQT Corp, Freeport Indonesia PT, POSCO, Diamondback Energy Inc, Range Resources Corp, Bayport Polymers LLC, Coterra Energy Inc, ConocoPhillips, TotalEnergies SE, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Glencore Funding LLC, Matador Resources Co Schroders TotalEnergies SE, Ecopetrol SA, EQT Corp, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Diamondback Energy Inc, ConocoPhillips UBS Ecopetrol SA, ConocoPhillips, Var Energi ASA, TotalEnergies SE, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, State Power Investment Corp Ltd, Diamondback Energy Inc, BP Capital Markets America Inc, EQT Corp, Huaibei Mining Holdings Co Ltd, CNX Resources Corp, Freeport Indonesia PT, Range Resources Corp State Street ConocoPhillips, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, CNX Resources Corp, Matador Resources Co, EQT Corp, Range Resources Corp, Diamondback Energy Inc, Sasol Financing USA LLC, Coterra Energy Inc, Freeport Indonesia PT, TotalEnergies SE, Korea Midland Power Co Ltd, Var Energi ASA, Ecopetrol SA Abrdn BP Capital Markets America Inc, Var Energi ASA, ConocoPhillips, Bayport Polymers LLC, Coterra Energy Inc, Diamondback Energy Inc, CNX Resources Corp, China National Petroleum Corp, Ecopetrol SA, TotalEnergies SE, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Sumitomo Corp, JERA Co Inc, EQT Corp Deutsche Bank Var Energi ASA, ConocoPhillips, TotalEnergies SE, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Coterra Energy Inc, Sasol Financing USA LLC, Matador Resources Co, Range Resources Corp, CNX Resources Corp, Ecopetrol SA, Transnet SOC Ltd, EQT Corp, Diamondback Energy Inc
M&G Ecopetrol SA, Var Energi ASA, TotalEnergies SE, CNX Resources Corp DZ Bank TotalEnergies SE, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Ecopetrol SA, Sasol Financing USA LLC Credit Suisse TotalEnergies SE, BP Capital Markets America Inc, ConocoPhillips, Var Energi ASA, Ecopetrol SA, Diamondback Energy Inc, EQT Corp, Coterra Energy Inc, Sumitomo Corp, Sasol Financing USA LLC, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, Bayport Polymers LLC
Credit Agricole Group TotalEnergies SE, Ecopetrol SA, Freeport Indonesia PT, ConocoPhillips, Diamondback Energy Inc, Pioneer Natural Resources Co, BP Capital Markets America Inc Axa Var Energi ASA, TotalEnergies SE, China Huadian Corp Ltd, ConocoPhillips, Diamondback Energy Inc, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Freeport Indonesia PT Aegon Essence Securities Co Ltd, ConocoPhillips, Freeport Indonesia PT, CNX Resources Corp, Diamondback Energy Inc, Var Energi ASA BNP Paribas TotalEnergies SE, Power Finance Corp Ltd, Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd, REC Ltd, Var Energi ASA, YPF SA, YPF Energia Electrica SA Bank of New York Mellon BP Capital Markets America Inc, ConocoPhillips, Var Energi ASA, EQT Corp, CNX Resources Corp, Range Resources Corp, Bayport Polymers LLC, TotalEnergies SE, Coterra Energy Inc, Diamondback Energy Inc, Pioneer Natural Resources Co
HSBC TotalEnergies SE, BP Capital Markets America Inc, ConocoPhillips, Ecopetrol SA, Diamondback Energy Inc, Coterra Energy Inc Assicurazioni Generali Coterra Energy Inc, EQT Corp, BP Capital Markets America Inc, Ecopetrol SA, TotalEnergies SE Nordea Diamondback Energy Inc, Coterra Energy Inc, Ecopetrol SA Intesa Sanpaolo TotalEnergies SE, Diamondback Energy Inc, Sasol Financing USA LLC, Ecopetrol SA, Var Energi ASA, Matador Resources Co, CNX Resources Corp Legal & General Ecopetrol SA, CNX Resources Corp, Diamondback Energy Inc, TotalEnergies SE, ConocoPhillips Co
1. 25 of the 30 asset managers currently have net zero pledges via their membership to the Net Zero Asset Manager Initiative (NZAM) and are “committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, in line with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius; and to supporting investing aligned with net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.
2. See NZAOA’s Future of Engagement paper.
3. Bonds issued between 01/01/2022 and 19/05/2023. Holdings as of most recent filing data, May 19th 2023.
4. Data is at asset manager level. The list of fossil fuel developers was extracted from the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) and Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL): a list of 590 parent companies that are either coal developers or in the top 100 of upstream oil and gas developers.
5. It is important to note that bond holdings data is highly incomplete on the Bloomberg Terminal because of disclosure rules. Thus, our research is a stark underestimation of bond holdings.
6. Bond holder data generally represents less than 50% of the total outstanding bond issuance. The Bloomberg help desk explained that they ingest portfolio holdings data either through direct data feeds from fund houses or publicly available sources. The considerable amount of missing data arises from fund houses being unwilling to share their portfolio holdings or due to private mandates.
7. By robust expectations we mean expecting portfolio coal companies to not have any coal expansion plans and to adopt a credible and public coal phase out plan.
8. Although these sanctions are not applied in a systematic way.
9. Refer to the methodology section for more details.
10. The IPCC indicates that putting an end to new fossil fuel projects is essential to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that it is possible to meet the world’s energy needs and limit global warming to 1.5°C without them.
11. The complete assessment of asset managers’ policies based on the questionnaire is downloadable below. All asset managers were given a few weeks to provide input on this assessment.
12. Source: Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) and Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL).
13. https://www.iisd.org/articles/press-release/new-analysis-what-ipcc-energy-pathways-tell-us-about-parisaligned-policies
14. Building on these conclusions, the United Nations now qualifies as greenwashing any climate pledges made by financial institutions that are yet to put an end to their support for fossil fuel expansion.
15. Fossil fuel fundraising across asset classes. Source: Cojoianu et al. (2022) and Cojoianu, T.F. et al, (2021).
Regional Studies. The city never sleeps: but when will investment banks wake up to the climate crisis?
16. Such as filing resolutions and voting at shareholders’ meetings
17. Fossil fuel fundraising across asset classes. Source: Cojoianu et al. (2022) and Cojoianu, T.F. et al, (2021).
Regional Studies. The city never sleeps: but when will investment banks wake up to the climate crisis?
18. Out of the largest 100 emitters – responsible for almost 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions – only 30 are listed on equity (stock) markets, but all are dependent on bond markets for their financing.
19. Other examples include Gazprom, Abu Dhabi National Oil Co, PEMEX.
20. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/en/2020/12/03/will-investors-use-their-bond-power/
21. https://www.responsible-investor.com/pri-asks-its-bondholder-signatories-to-get-behind-ca100- engagement/
22. Anticipated liquidity of a corporate bond can significantly lower the cost of capital for the issuer of the bond.
See Goldstein, M.A.; Hotchkiss, E.S.; Pedersen, D.J. Secondary Market Liquidity and Primary Market Pricing of Corporate Bonds. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019, 12, 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12020086
23. 23 of the 30 asset managers have passively managed assets. Vanguard, SSGA and BlackRock are by far the biggest passive managers, with each more than US$ 2.5 trillion passively managed.
24. https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/exchange-traded-funds-are-directly-financing-fossil-fuelcompanies-large-scale
25. Bonds issued between 01/01/2022 and 19/05/2023. Holdings were extracted as of most recent filing data, May 19th 2023. It is important to note that holdings were available only for 24 parent groups, thus our research is a stark underestimation of investments into newly issued bonds.
26. Holdings as of most recent filing data, May 19th 2023.
27. Holdings as of most recent filing data, May 19th 2023.
28. Source: Investing in Climate Chaos, data as of January 2023.
29. And while asset managers might argue that they could sell the bonds right before assets get stranded, the difficulty to predict the rapidity at which the energy transition will happen might mean that asset managers References will find a lack of buyers for their fossil fuel bonds.
30. https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/946d6aac-e6cc-430a-8898-520cf90f5d3e/AFII_Oil_and_gas_sector_ Jan23_v8_jo_v2.pdf
31. Extracted from the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) and Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL): a list of 590 parent companies that are either coal developers or in the top 100 of upstream oil and gas developers.
32. It is important to note that bond holdings data is highly incomplete on the Bloomberg Terminal because of disclosure rules. Thus, our research is a stark underestimation of bond holdings.
33. Fossil fuel fundraising across asset classes. Source: Cojoianu et al. (2022) and Cojoianu, T.F. et al, (2021).
Regional Studies. The city never sleeps: but when will investment banks wake up to the climate crisis?
34. Anticipated liquidity of a corporate bond can significantly lower the cost of capital for the issuer of the bond.
See Goldstein, M.A.; Hotchkiss, E.S.; Pedersen, D.J. Secondary Market Liquidity and Primary Market Pricing of Corporate Bonds. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019, 12, 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12020086
35. Wilson, C. & Caldecott, B. (2021). Breaking the Bond: Primary Markets and Carbon-Intensive Financing.
University of Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment Working Paper 21-05.
36. Wilson, C. & Caldecott, B. (2021). Breaking the Bond: Primary Markets and Carbon-Intensive Financing.
University of Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment Working Paper 21-05.
37. The list was extracted from the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) and Global Oil and Gas Exit List (GOGEL) and includes 590 parent companies that are either coal developers or in the top 100 of upstream oil and gas developers.
38. Includes holdings from Ostrum and Loomis
39. Data at Generali Insurance Asset Management (GIAM) level was not available in our research.
40. Loomis and Ostrum investments are already included in BPCE Group (Natixis IM) investments, as they are NIM affiliates.
41. Severe allegations by Hindenburg Research of widespread systemic corporate fraud, stock manipulation and money laundering which saw the Adani Group lose over $150billion USD in a month this year. Since then, many of these key allegations have been corroborated and further explored in multiple ongoing media investigations included below, including allegations of breaching India’s rule for promotor entities and free float status of subsidiary companies. The Adani Group is planning to develop more new thermal coal mining capacity than any other private company globally. Many of its projects have destroyed unique ecosystems with devastating impacts on local communities who depend on them. Adani’s projects are violating Indigenous land rights in Australia and India, displacing thousands of vulnerable people and destroying their livelihoods. Today, the Adani Group’s ongoing business relationship with the Myanmar military junta and the military conglomerate Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC) was further exposed linking the Adani Group’s business activities to genocide and severe crimes against humanity.
42. Extraction on Bloomberg as of most recent filing data, May 19th 2023.
43. See https://www.coalexit.org/methodology.
44. Source: Insightia. DWS, Amundi and LGIM voted against the reelection.
45. Source: Insightia. DWS voted against the resolution on dividends.
46. Scroll.in investigation: From 2014 to 2019: How the Adani Group funded its expansion (May 2019)
47. Market Forces held a webinar with Responsible Investor which reported allegations of the company moving money between entities (Sept 2021)
48. https://hindenburgresearch.com/adani/
49. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/adani-credit-facilities-expose-collateral-web-full-of-red-flags-1.1885715 and https://adanitoxicbonds.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Adani-Green-Briefing.pdf
50. Defined as policies presenting both expectations to companies and restrictions applied (investment restrictions or other sanctions like voting).
51. Amundi, APG AM, AXA IM, BNP Paribas AM, DWS, HSBC AM, M&G Investments, Ostrum, Union Investment, GIAM
52. For more details on our analysis of these other criteria, see our Coal Policy Tool.
53. Only 4 among the 10 ask for net zero targets in absolute terms (Ostrum, Amundi, BNP Paribas AM and Abrdn). Among these, only Ostrum asks for short term targets, in absolute terms, and including scope 3 emissions.
54. Amundi applies its fossil fuel exclusion criteria to about 30% of its passive assets and BNP Paribas AM to almost 30% of its passive assets.
55. Wilson, C. & Caldecott, B. (2021). Breaking the Bond: Primary Markets and Carbon-Intensive Financing.
University of Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment Working Paper 21-05
56. Companies should commit to cease their coal / oil & gas supply expansion plans. Companies should adopt a credible and public coal phase-out plan aligned with a 1.5°C scenario / adopt 2030 oil and gas production 36 37
39 [email protected]
WHO’S MANAGING YOUR FUTURE?
An assessment of asset managers’ climate action
Reclaim Finance is an NGO affiliated with Friends of the Earth France. It was founded in 2020 and is 100% dedicated to issues linking finance with social and climate justice. In the context of the climate emergency and biodiversity losses, one of Reclaim Finance’s priorities is to accelerate the decarbonization of financial flows. Reclaim Finance exposes the climate impacts of some financial actors, denounces the most harmful practices and puts its expertise at the service of public authorities and financial stakeholders who desire to to bend existing practices to ecological imperatives.
Urgewald is a non-profit environmental and human rights organization. For 25 years, Urgewald has been fighting against environmental destruction and for the rights of people harmed by corporate profit interests.
Re:Common carries out campaigns and investigations againsts corruption and environmental destruction caused by corporations and their financiers.
The Sunrise Project grows social movements to drive the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy as fast as possible.
The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with millions of members and supporters. 38 reduction targets aligned with a robust 1.5°C scenario. By robust 1.5°C scenario, we mean aligned with a
1.5°C scenario with no or low overshoot (and without excessive reliance on negative emissions).
57. Expectations made by the asset managers can be found in the downloadable excel file.
58. Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance, 2022, The future of investor engagement: A call for systematic stewardship to address systemic climate risk
59. Please refer to our Asset Manager Recommendations for more details and sources (https://reclaimfinance. org/site/en/recommendations/).
60. Our analysis of their policies has not identified any clear expectations made to companies on climate related grounds. The asset managers were sent our analysis and have not highlighted a gap in our analysis or sent comments on this conclusion.
61. These expectations can all be found in the downloadable excel available below.
62. Aligned with a 1.5°C scenario. To be noted: 10 other asset managers expect one of these two asks but not both.
63. Failure to meet Ostrum’s demands do not lead to systematic / automatic voting sanctions. Voting sanctions are applied on a case by case basis.
64. Quigley, E.C., E. Bugden, and A. Odgers. 2020. “Fossil Fuel Divestment: Advantages and Disadvantages for the University of Cambridge.” Cambridge, UK. https://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/sm6_divestment_report. pdf., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3849513
65. Aegon AM has different coal exclusions for different scopes of its assets under management, making it impossible to properly analyse them at the group level.
66. Ostrum has a clear expectation for oil and gas companies : “Companies included in Ostrum Asset Management’s portfolios will be assessed on the basis of: A halt to new unconventional/controversial oil and gas production projects, and a plan to exit unconventional/controversial activities by 2030 at the latest; A halt to approval for new conventional oil and gas exploration or production projects. New projects are defined as having a final investment date after the end of 2021, in line with IEA recommendations.” - see its Oil and Gas Policy.
67. LGIM only partially has this expectation. LGIM indicates “Does the company place restrictions on investing in the exploration of new greenfield sites?” in its climate expectations for oil and gas companies and indicates “we will use active and escalating engagement with the aim of ensuring […] no further oil sand resources are exploited” in its Coal Policy.
68. https://www.climateaction100.org/net-zero-company-benchmark/
69. The 35 companies under coal mining and oil and gas sectors that were engaged since 2017.
70. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/investors-biggest-climate-pressure-group-dont-likepressure-2023-06-12/
71. Including the “significant resources needed”, “the inefficiencies of focusing on voluntary, company-bycompany, disclosure”, “an uneven focus across companies and asset classes” and the boundaries set by public policy.
72. As bond data is highly incomplete on the Bloomberg Terminal, our research is a stark underestimation of bond holdings.
73. Data on investments in bonds issued between 01/01/202 and 19/05/2023.
74. See https://investinginclimatechaos.org/.
75. See https://investinginclimatechaos.org/.
76. We have received no answer from Vanguard Group, Insight Investment, Invesco, Schroders, abrdn. M&G Investments was willing to participate but because of a communication issue, this was after the deadline.
77. See Methodology section for more details.
Credits
Pexels | AdobeStock | Unsplash
Agenda Item No: 14.c.
MEETING DATE/TIME: 8/2/2023
ITEM NO: 2023-2900
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
SUBJECT: Receive Updates on City Council Committee and Ad Hoc Assignments, and, if Necessary, Consider Modifications to Assignments and/or the Creation/Elimination of Ad Hoc(s), and Consider the Formation of an Ad Hoc to Plan for the City's 150-Year Anniversary.
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk PREPARED BY: Kristine Lawler, City Clerk PRESENTER: Mayor Rodin and Various Councilmembers
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Special Assignments - rev 6-22-23
Summary: City Council members will provide reports and updates on their committee and ad hoc assignments. If necessary, the Council may consider modifications.
Background: City Council members are assigned to a number of committees and ad hoc activities. These assignments are included as Attachment 1.
Discussion: Previously, the City Council discussed having more time allocated to reporting on committee and ad hoc activities. Often, the Council Reports section of the regular agenda is rushed due to impending business (i.e., public hearings), and not enough time is afforded for reports beyond community activities.
In an effort to foster regular updates on committee and ad hoc assignments, this item is being placed on the agenda to provide the City Council members an expanded opportunity to report on assignments and modify assignments as necessary.
The City of Ukiah will be celebrating its 150-year anniversary as an incorporated city in the year 2026. This will be a great opportunity for local events, celebrations, and to shine a light on our community as a great destination. Staff is recommending that the Council form an ad hoc to work with Staff and other local agencies to plan ahead for this momentous occasion.
Recommended Action: Receive report(s). The Council will consider modifications to committee and ad hoc assignments along with the creation/elimination ad hoc(s).
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: No
CURRENT BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A
FINANCING SOURCE: N/A
PREVIOUS CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER NO.: N/A
COORDINATED WITH: N/A
DIVERSITY-EQUITY INITIATIVES (DEI):
CLIMATE INITIATIVES (CI):
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (GP):
2023 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSIGNEMENTS
LOCAL / UKIAH VALLEY MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT City Broadband Project TBD TBD
Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
to evaluate the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the California's Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Last mile Broadband.
Orozco Jim Robbins, Grants Manager; 463-6708; [email protected] Investment Oversight Committee Varies
Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.
Ukiah, CA 95482
Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
Reviews City investments, policies, and strategies
Crane
Orozco - AlternateAlan Carter, Treasurer
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance; 463-6220 [email protected] Disaster Council
Shall meet a minimum of once a year at a time and place designated upon call of the chair Place designated upon call of the chair or, if she/he is unavailable or unable to call such meeting, the first vice chair and then the City Manager or her/his designee.
Office of Emergency Management 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482467-5765 - Tami Bartolomei Develop any necessary emergency and mutual aid plans, agreements, ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations.
OrozcoDuenas- Alternate
Traci Boyl, City Manager's Office Management Analyst; 467-5720; [email protected] Greater Ukiah Business & Tourism Alliance (GUPTA)
4th Monday of month, 10:00 a.m.
200 S School St.Ukiah, CA 95482
200 S School St.Ukiah, CA 95482
Promotes tourism and works to strengthen and promote the historic downtown and businesses within the greater Ukiah area RodinDuenas - Alternate
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager; 467-5793 [email protected] Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission (IWPC) 2nd Thursday of month, 6:00 p.m.
Civic Center300 Seminary Avenueconference room 5
IWPC Staff P.O. Box 1247Ukiah, CA 95482391-7574 - Candace Horsley Develops coordination for water resources and current water rights: Potter Valley project - Eel River Diversion RodinOrozco- Alternate
Sean White, Director of Water Resources; 463-5712 [email protected] North Coast Opportunities (NCO) 4th Wednesday of month, 2 p.m. Alternating locations - Ukiah and Lakeport Governing Board ChairNorth Coast Opportunities413 North State StreetUkiah, CA 95482 Assist low income and disadvantaged people to become self reliant Burgess Jake Burgess, Community Services Supervisor; 463-6201
[email protected]
Sun House Guild ex officio 2nd Tuesday of month, 4:30 p.m. Sun House 431 S. Main St. Ukiah, CA 431 S. Main Street Ukiah, CA 95482 467-2836 Support and expand Grace Hudson Museum Duenas Neil Davis - Alternate David Burton, Museum Director; 467-2836 [email protected] Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) 2nd Thursday of month, 1:30 p.m.
Board of Supervisors Chambers; 501 Low
Gap RoadUkiah, CA
County Executive Office501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010Ukiah, CA 95482463-4441 GSA serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency in the Ukiah Valley basin CraneDuenas - Alternate
Sean White, Director of Water Resources; 463-5712 [email protected]
MENDOCINO COUNTY MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT City Selection Committee Called as required by the Clerk of the Board BOS Conference Room 501 Low Gap Rd. Rm. 1090 Ukiah, CA C/O: BOS 501 Low Gap Rd., Rm 1090 Ukiah, CA 95482 463-4441 Makes appointments to LAFCO and Airport Land Use Commission (Mayor - Primary; Vice Mayor - Alternate) Mayor Rodin Vice Mayor Duenas - Alternate Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217 [email protected] Economic Development & Financing Corporation (EDFC)
2nd Thursday of month, 2:00 p.m.
Primarily 631 S. Orchard Street (location varies)
Executive Director631 South Orchard AvenueUkiah, CA 95482467-5953 Multi-agency co-op for economic development and business loan program Riley(appointed 12/19/18)
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager; 467-5793 [email protected] Library Advisory Board
3rd Wednesdays of alternate months; 1:00 p.m.
Various Mendocino County Libraries Ukiah County Library 463-4491 Review library policy and activities Duenas Rodin - Alternate Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217; [email protected] Mendocino County 1st District Liaison Monthly; TBD
Civic Center Annexconference room #5411 West Clay St.Ukiah, CA 95482 Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
To coordinate activities and policy development with the City's 1st District Supervisor RodinCrane - Alternate
Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager;
463-6221; [email protected]
Mendocino County 2nd District Liaison 1st Wednesdays of month, 8:00 a.m.
Civic Center Annexconference room #5411 West Clay St.Ukiah, CA 95482 Civic Center300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482
To coordinate activities and policy development with the County's 2nd District Supervisor RodinDuenas - Alternate
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager;467-5793 [email protected] Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG)
1st Monday of month, 1:30 p.m.
Board of Supervisors Chambers501 Low Gap RoadUkiah, CA
Executive Director
367 N. State Street, Ste. 206 Ukiah, CA 95482463-1859
Plan and allocate State funding, transportation, infrastructure and project County wide DuenasSher - Alternate
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City
Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected]
Mendocino County Airport Land Use Commission As needed
BOS Conference Room
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1090,Ukiah, CA
Mendocino County Executive Office 501 Low Gap Rd. Rm. 1010 Ukiah, CA 95482 To formulate a land use compatibility plan, provide for the orderly growth of the airport and the surrounding area, and safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity Liaisons: Owen/Schlatter
Greg Owen, Airport Manager; 467-2855;
[email protected] Schlatter, Director of Community Development; 463-6219; [email protected] Mendocino County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) 1st Monday of month, 9:00 a.m. Board of Supervisors Chambers Executive Director
200 S. School Street, Ste. 2Ukiah, CA 95482463-4470
Required by legislation - planning spheres of influence, annexation, service areas, and special districts RodinCrane - Desired Alternate if
appointment becomes available with City Selection Committee Craig Schlatter, Director of Community Development; 463-6219; [email protected] 6/23/2023
ATTACHMENT 1
2023 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ASSIGNEMENTS
MENDOCINO COUNTY
Continued MTG DATE/TIME MEETING LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority (MSWMA)
3rd Thursday of every other month (varies), 10:00 a.m.
Willits Council Chambers
Solid Waste Director3200 Taylor DriveUkiah, CA 95482468-9710 County-wide Solid Waste JPA Crane Sher- Alternate Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) Board of Directors
Last Wednesday of month, 1:30 p.m.
Alternating locations - Ukiah Conference Center or Fort Bragg, or Point Arena Executive Director
241 Plant RoadUkiah, CA 95482462-1422
County-wide bus transportation issues and funding Sher Duenas - Alternate Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Mendocino Youth Project JPA Board of Directors
3rd Wednesday of month, 7:45 a.m. 776 S. State Street Conference Room Mendocino Co. Youth Project776 S. State Street, Ste. 107Ukiah, CA 95482 707-463-4915 Targets all youth with a focus on drug and alcohol prevention, healthy alternatives and empowering youth to make healthy choices Cedric Crook, Police CaptainDuenas - Alternate
Cedric Crook, Police Captain 463-6771; [email protected] Russian River Flood Control District
(RRFCD) Liaison
1st Monday of month, 5:30 p.m.
151 Laws Ave.,Suite D Ukiah, CA
151 Laws Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482; [email protected]; 462-5278 Proactively manage the water resources of the upper Russian River for the benefit of the people and environment of Mendocino County White/Orozco Sean White, Director of Water Resources; 463-5712 [email protected] Ukiah Players Theater Board of Directors
3rd Tuesday of month, 6:00 p.m
1041 Low Gap Rd Ukiah, CA 95482 462-1210
1041 Low Gap RdUkiah, CA 95482462-1210
To oversee the activities, organization and purpose of the Ukiah Players Theater Greg Owen, Airport Manager(appointed 12/19/18)
Kristine Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217 [email protected] Ukiah Unified School District (UUSD) Committee Quarterly 511 S. Orchard, Ste. D Ukiah, CA 95482 511 S. Orchard Ukiah, CA 95482 Information exchange with UUSD Board Chair, Mayor, Superintendent, and City Manager Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; 463-6221 [email protected]
REGIONAL MTG DATE/TIME LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Great Redwood Trail Agency
Bi-monthly, 3rd Thursdays, 10:30 a.m.
Various Locations - announced
419 Talmage Road, Suite M Ukiah, CA 95482463-3280
Provides a unified and revitalized rail infrastructure meeting the freight and passenger needs of the region RodinDuenas - Alternate
Neil Davis, Community Services Director467-5764 [email protected] League of California Cities Redwood Empire Legislative Committee Prior to Division Meetings, meets 3x in person and then via conference call Various locations that are announced
Redwood Empire League President; Public Affairs Program Manager (916) 658-8243 Elected city officials and professional city staff attend division meetings throughout the year to share what they are doing and advocate for their interests in Sacramento OrozcoDuenas -Alternate
Sage Sangiacomo, City Manager; 463-6221 [email protected] Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA)
4th Thursday of month, 9:00 a.m. (only 5 times a year)
Windsor Town Hall
Russian River Watershed Assoc. 425 South Main St., Sebastopol, CA 95472 508-3670 Consider issues related to Russian river - plans projects and funding requests RodinSher - Alternate
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected] Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Commission
4th Thursday of month, 9:00 a.m. (see NCPA calendar)
Roseville, CA and other locations
651 Commerce Drive Roseville, CA 95678916-781-4202
Pool of State and local power utilities developing and operating power generation, providing scheduling and related energy services and providing regulatory and legislative support.
Crane - CommissionerSauers - Alternate and
Commissioner in absence of Commissioner Crane
Cindi Sauers - Electric Utility Director;463-6286 [email protected] Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) – Lodi Energy Center (LEC) Appointment 2nd Monday of month, 10:00 AM Lodi, CA and other locations 651 Commerce DriveRoseville, CA 95678916-781-4299
Committee oversees the operation, maintenance and expenditures of the LEC 300 MW generating project.
Sauers – Project Participate Appointee
Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director,463‐6286, [email protected] Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC)
4th Wednesday of month, 10 a.m. 35 Iron Point Circle Suite 225 Folsom, CA 35 Iron Point Cir #225Folsom, CA 95630916-852-1673; [email protected] Provide electric transmission to its Member utilities through transmission line ownership or contract arrangements.
CraneSauers - Alternate
Cindi Sauers - Electric Utility Director;463-6286 [email protected]
STANDING COMMITTEES MTG DATE/TIME LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS/CONTACT COMMITTEE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT Diversity and Equity TBD Virtual Meeting Room (link to be created) Civic Center 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 Improve diversity and equity in the City’s workforce and municipal services Orozco/Duenas Traci Boyl, City Manager's Office Management Analyst; 467-5720; [email protected] Executive Committee 2nd Tue, every other month beginning in January; 5:00 p.m.
Ukiah Valley Conference Center,200 S. School Street Ukiah, CA Civic Center
300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482 [email protected]
Per the recently adopted agreement between the City of Ukiah and the Ukiah Valley Fire Protection District Orozco/Sher
Doug Hutchison, Fire Chief; 463-6263; [email protected] Countywide Oversight Board to the RDA Successor Agencies 4th Thursday of January, 4:00 p.m.; meets annually
Ukiah Valley Conference Center,200 S. School Street Ukiah, CA City of UkiahATTN: City Clerk300 Seminary Ave.Ukiah, CA 95482707-463-6217 oversee and direct the Successor Agencies of the former redevelopment agencies Crane Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance; 463-6220 [email protected] Lawler, City Clerk; 463-6217, [email protected] 6/23/2023
COMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO PRINCIPAL STAFF SUPPORT
Electric Grid Operational Improvements Crane/Orozco Cindy Sauers, Electric Utility Director; 463-629586 [email protected]
Trench Cut Policy Development Crane Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected]
Advance Planning & Policy for Sphere of
Influence (SOI), Municipal Service Review (MSR),
Annexation, Tax Sharing, Detachment, and Out
of Area Service Agreements
Crane/Rodin
Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director
463-6219 [email protected]
UVSD/ City Relations
Ad hoc committee to address specific issues with the
Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, including discussion of overall sewer system service delivery policies, operating policy revisions, potential revisions to the current
Operating Agreement, and cost sharing
Crane/Orozco
Dan Buffalo, Director of Finance;
463‐6220 [email protected]
Sean White, Water Resources Director
463‐5712 [email protected]
Orr Street Bridge Corridor Rodin/Sher Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer; 463-6280 [email protected]
Complete Streets Rodin/Crane
Tim Eriksen, Public Works Director/City Engineer;
463-6280 [email protected]
Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
467-5793 [email protected]
Neil Davis, Community Services Director
467-5764 [email protected]
Special Districts (Water District Consolidation) Orozco/Crane Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager 467‐5793 [email protected]
Corp Yard Planning Crane/Orozco Jason Benson, Senior Civil Engineer 463‐6284 [email protected]
City/District Review of 2019/22 Proposed Fire
Code Crane/Orozco Doug Hutchison, Fire Chief
463‐6263 [email protected]
Mendocino County Courthouse Project and
Reuse Sher/Orozco Shannon Riley, Deputy City Manager
467‐5793 [email protected]
Climate Action Plan
Will coordinate with the Community Development
Director to identify and assign representation to each of the identified categories, and also coordinate with the Community Development Director and the Climate Action
Plan Working Group related to other outreach efforts
during the development of the draft municipal Climate
Action Plan related to the 2040 General Plan
Sher/Duenas
Craig Schlatter, Community Development Director
463-6219 [email protected]
2023 AD HOC COMMITTEES
3/16/2023