Scored evidence collected on an entity's engagement with land-use and circular economy policy will now be fully weighted into the final calculations for each entity's metrics. This follows a two year process where InfluenceMap has evolved its methodology to collect evidence on corporate and industry engagement with these key areas of climate-related policy.
We have strengthened the algorithm for discounting the impact older evidence on an organization's top-line metrics. Evidence from within the last two years is weighted the strongest and then gradually weighted out of the scoring calculations as it gets older. All evidence that is 5 years or older is completely removed from the scoring calculations. Users will still be able to view older evidence items that are archived the scoring matrix below, but these will not be impacting the organization's current scores.
Climate Policy Engagement Overview: The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) is highly engaged with California climate policy, taking firmly negative positions on a number of different climate policy strands. The group consistently conveys positions that seek to weaken or block climate legislation and publishes an annual list of “job killer” bills that it opposes, including bills aiming to increase California’s GHG emissions reduction target. CalChamber has also joined the US Chamber in engagements on federal climate policy, including recent opposition to the Biden administration’s pause on pending liquified natural gas (LNG) export permits.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: CalChamber appears to have limited top-line messaging on climate policy, despite its high levels of engagement on specific climate proposals. The group promotes voluntary, market-based approaches to responding to climate change over government regulation. For example, in June 2024 coalition comments, it opposed legislation to regulate California’s carbon offset market, appearing unsupportive of its increased ambition in favor of federal guidance with less stringent requirements, and emphasizing that “voluntary carbon offsets are already subject to rigorous reporting requirements.”
Engagement with Climate-Related Policy: CalChamber demonstrates vocal opposition to a broad range of climate policy strands, with recent engagement primarily focused on California’s cap-and-trade system and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations. The group previously labeled California legislation on cap-and-trade a “job killer,” and although this position has been amended as of April 2024 according to a statement on its website, CalChamber remains opposed to the legislation, arguing that it will “lead to market instability.” In a May 2023 coalition letter directly commenting on the proposed legislation, CalChamber asserted that its provisions “go directly counter to the cost containment safeguards the legislature built into the reauthorization of the program,” and that any attempt through the proposed legislation to improve California’s cap-and-trade system is unnecessary, as “there is not one metric that has been relied on to prove that the program is not functioning as intended.”
CalChamber has been a longstanding opponent of GHG regulation in the state. In a March 2023 coalition letter to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, CalChamber opposed Senate Bill 12, which would raise the state’s GHG emissions reduction target to 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. Similarly, in August 2022, the group opposed the previous iteration of the same bill in another coalition letter. Previously, during the 2021 legislative session, CalChamber registered in opposition to the California Climate Crisis Act, which would have set a GHG emissions reduction target of at least 90% below 1990s levels by 2045, and signed a March 2021 joint letter condemned Senate Bill 261’s emissions reductions targets for automobiles and light-duty trucks.
Positioning on Energy Transition: CalChamber has been actively engaged in opposing a range of policies in California and at the federal level that are aimed at transitioning the energy mix. In an April 2024 coalition letter, CalChamber joined a number of other state-level Chambers of Commerce and business groups to call on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) authorization request to enact rail decarbonization policy in the state, warning that “granting the waiver would open the floodgates to expansion of these disruptive mandates” as EPA authorization of the request would lay the groundwork for other states to adopt similar policies. In March 2024, CalChamber participated in another coalition letter sent to the US Secretary of Energy, calling for the reversal of the Biden Administration’s decision to pause liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits.
At the state level, CalChamber has advocated on hydrogen production policy with positions that do not appear to align with IPCC guidance. For example, in June 2024 comments on California Senate Bill 1418, the group supported expediting permitting to facilitate the transition to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in an apparent effort to promote the use of hydrogen, which currently relies on fossil fuels as its primary feedstock, over efforts to electrify transportation. Earlier, in January 2024 comments, CalChamber opposed legislation to implement hourly matching requirements that would ensure the use of renewable energy as a feedstock for hydrogen production, stating that the policy would “have devastating consequences for the launch of a clean, sustainable, and affordable hydrogen market in California.”
Lastly, although CalChamber stated support for the development of carbon capture technology in June 2024 comments to the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, it did not specify the use case for the technology. The group’s position on the role of carbon capture as a tool to transition the energy mix, and the extent to which this aligns with ICPC guidance, remains unclear.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q3 2024.