Members Distance Themselves from ALEC's Climate Policies

A right-wing policy group is fighting sensible coal regulations, and many of its corporate members are denying involvement. It's a climate whodunnit.

Hot for Coal

On September 26, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) announced that its Board of Directors had approved two new resolutions opposing public health standards recently put in place by the Obama administration. 

The first calls for the Environmental Protection Agency to perform additional analyses of the combined effect of every potential regulation on the coal industry. The second seeks to overturn the Stream Protection Rule, which creates buffers around waterways that decrease (but can't eliminate) the negative impacts of mountaintop removal mining.

Neither resolution would change much, even if they're passed by state legislatures. They are advisory measures, communicating political opinions to watchdog agencies. However, the resolutions continue ALEC's long and well-documented track record on climate change, which includes opposing federal attempts to reduce greenhouse gases, overruling municipal climate agreements, repealing renewable energy standards, fighting rooftop solar, censoring what can be taught in schools, and denying the scientific consensus that man-made climate change is occurring. 

ALEC has gained influence by bringing conservative politicians and corporate lobbyists together to vote on legislative priorities. Their copy-and-paste bills can be easily swapped in from state to state. Corporations can become further involved by sponsoring conferences, joining issue-based task forces, and having their representative sit on ALEC's Private Enterprise Advisory Council.

What's peculiar about this advisory council -- one of several ALEC leadership teams -- is how many individuals represent companies that have relatively decent sustainability, labor, and social responsibility platforms. So what did they think about these new resolutions? I contacted them to find out.

Pfizer's Opposition

When reached for comment, Pfizer issued a previously-released statement, including a line that they "disagree with ALEC’s position on climate change." The pharmaceutical giant's official policy recognizes the risks of climate change, albeit with a prescription that relies heavily on voluntary measures. Still, their desire to "work with policymakers to encourage reduction of GHG emissions" is a far cry from ALEC's open defiance of government action on climate change.

Pfizer was involved in one of the very few publicized instances where an anti-environmental policy was defeated by ALEC members. According to InsideClimate News, Pfizer helped defeat model legislation designed to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency, an outrageous and extreme proposal.

It is unclear to what extent other companies are fighting harmful environmental policies within ALEC. Almost every company that responded insisted that their involvement in ALEC is limited to business matters, not environmental ones. But if their financial contributions, membership dues, and conference sponsorships are not restricted for specific purposes, they could be boosting ALEC's capacity for engaging in anti-environmental legislation as well.

Others Respond

Spokespeople for State Farm and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) believed that the two coal resolutions did not come before the Private Enterprise Advisory Council. Neither organization had a stance on the resolutions. For-profit education company K12 Inc. declined to comment on the policies.

Telecommunications conglomerate AT&T stated, "We do not agree with all the positions of the various organizations that we support. We believe, however, that it is better to work from within these organizations rather than from the outside looking in." 

The company's formal policy recognizes climate change and the need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. AT&T also has a "Public Policy and Corporate Reputation Committee" that oversees its sustainability and social responsibility efforts. However, requests for clarification on AT&T's efforts to change ALEC from within went unanswered. 

United Parcel Service (UPS) had a similar claim: "As with many organizations we belong to, UPS does not agree with everything every organization supports, however, we feel it is important to have a seat at the table to advocate for policies that are in the best interest[s] of UPS and our employees."

Both UPS and AT&T signed the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, a public-private agreement led by the White House to get companies on the record in favor of combating climate change. Signatories voiced their support for a strong outcome at the Paris climate negotiations and committed to lowering their own carbon emissions.

Crickets Elsewhere

Emails sent to the following Private Enterprise Advisory Council members went unanswered: American Bail Coalition, Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Automotive Trade Association Executives, Diageo North America, Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company, and NetChoice. Of these, at least one (Diageo) has an active sustainability program.

Despite the positive environmental records of a few of its members, ALEC is still indebted to the fossil-fueled past. ALEC's advisory council contains ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, Energy Future Holdings, and Koch Industries Public Sector (yes, of Koch Brothers fame). ExxonMobil's leadership in ALEC has even lead to an interesting sub-plot in the #ExxonKnew investigation. 

It's hard to say who, exactly, is pushing these resolutions inside ALEC when the two most prominent members tied to coal -- coal-mining Peabody Energy and dirty utility Energy Future Holdings -- are struggling to get out of bankruptcy. 

Most of ALEC's anti-environmental model legislation, including the two coal resolutions, originated in the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force. Task force members appear to have a special animosity for anything that could rein in coal, especially the Clean Power Plan, a flexible standard that limits carbon emissions from power plants. However, the task force's new private chair -- the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association -- stated that it was not involved in the development or proposal of the two coal resolutions.

Given ALEC's unique setup combining politicians and businesses, it seems unlikely that the two resolutions would have made it all the way through ALEC's inner machinery without the fingerprints of any company. Perhaps the public controversy over ALEC's influence has left its remaining members skittish of claiming credit.

The Changing Tide

Interestingly (and embarrassingly, for ALEC), the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force's previous private chair, American Electric Power, departed ALEC by saying that it would be reallocating its resources toward implementing the Clean Power Plan and decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions. 

American Electric Power isn't alone in its reasoning: former members Shell and Google also called out ALEC's climate stance as they headed out the door ("they're just literally lying," said Google CEO Eric Schmidt). Environmental concerns have been a major trend in the ALEC exodus that has reached more than 100 members and counting, according to the Center for Media & Democracy. 

This mass exit gives us reason to hope. Years of bad press and scores of engaged citizens have exerted tremendous pressure on the corporate laggards. Each departure has the potential to spark another rush for the exits, further limiting ALEC's corrosive influence. Which one of the companies named above will be next?