Below is a copy of the public testimony delivered by Jakob Evans, Policy Strategist with Sierra Club California, at the CalPERS board meeting in November 2025:
Good afternoon board members,
I want to begin by thanking staff for continued conversations about our concerns with the implementation of the climate action plan. As the plan meets a milestone of $60 billion of investments, this is a prime moment for increased transparency.
In September, we shared Sierra Club’s principles for climate investments, which highlight ways that CalPERS can cement its climate leadership and maximize its climate action plan by implementing strong definitions of climate solutions.
These principles are increasingly important as CalPERS reports progress towards fulfilling its $100 billion commitment to climate solutions. Without ironclad climate solution definitions, investments in fossil fuel corporations, and other false solutions that have no place in a list of climate solutions, call into question the integrity of the Climate Action Plan. Moreover, false solutions present an opportunity cost for investments in clean technologies and weaken the position of existing renewables investments.
Based on publicly disclosed information about the Climate Action Plan, it appears that CalPERS does not have guardrails or negative screens for mitigation and adaptation investments. In other words, CalPERS does not have standards for how it defines climate solutions. This is how major polluters end up in the Climate Action Plan. Fossil fuels are not the only companies that should be subject to rigorous evaluation. Implementing strong climate solution definitions that reflect the nuance of technologies like carbon capture is essential. For example, carbon capture applied to hard-to-decarbonize industries like cement production has a key role in a low-carbon economy, and is not comparable to carbon capture applied to polluting oil and gas industries. Without clear criteria, CalPERS has no way of showing that this is taken into account when counting investments for the climate action plan.
CalPERS has responded to stakeholder concerns about fossil fuels in the Climate Action Plan by emphasizing that the investments are small and that “green assets are green assets.” To that, I ask, how does measuring the green revenues of the world’s largest polluters contribute to reduced climate risk? Those investments do not represent additionality, and they don’t drive decarbonization. They don’t protect beneficiaries’ savings from the systemic risks of climate change.
Principles that define climate solutions and establish a framework for risk reduction are important for all stakeholders: staff, the Board, beneficiaries, and external managers that will carry some of this work forward under CalPERS’ direction. Furthermore, a clear and transparent Climate Action Plan can serve as a model for other investors figuring out how to mitigate climate risk. The strength of CalPERS’ strategy–to reduce climate risk by financing the clean energy transition– will be amplified if peers adopt similar plans. Adopting principles would set CalPERS as an indisputable leader in climate investments, but that would require CalPERS to exclude fossil fuels from this $100 billion.
In addition to strong climate solution definitions, CalPERS must regularly report on all asset classes included in the plan, to whatever level it is legally able to. If you can say the fund has reached $60 billion in climate solutions investments, you should be able to say what these investments are.
Our members are eager to see CalPERS push the ball further on this, and I’d like to pass along a letter signed by Sierra Club members asking for the fund to implement climate investment principles. 35% of these members self-identified as CalPERS beneficiaries.
Thank you.
--
Read the press statement: Sierra Club Urges CalPERS to Better Define What the Pension Considers ‘Climate Solutions’ Investments