FirstEnergy Corporation | Establish new board committee on decarbonization risks at FirstEnergy Corporation

Status
1.45% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
7
Resolution details
Company ticker
FE
Lead filer
National Center for Public Policy
Resolution ask
Amend board structure
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Net Zero / Paris aligned
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Utilities
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Resolved: Shareholders of the FirstEnergy Corporation (the “Company”) request that the Board of Directors charter a new Committee on Decarbonization Risk to evaluate the risks and drawbacks of attempting to meet demands for Company decarbonization. The committee should engage in formal review and oversight of corporate strategy, above and beyond matters of legal compliance, to assess the Company’s responses to demands for such decarbonization on activist established deadlines. This review should include the potential impacts on the Company from flaws in activists’ climate models, concerns about technological or economic infeasibility of “green” and “renewable” energy sources, the possibility that “net-zero” decarbonization isn’t possible, that the US will not force decarbonization according to such schedules – thus obviating “stranded asset” calculations – that other countries will not adopt similar targets – thus making Company efforts meaningless – and other relevant considerations.
Supporting statement
Supporting Statement:

FirstEnergy has touted its commitment to becoming “carbon neutral” by 2050. 1 It’s not conclusive, however, that that’s even possible. And, from publicly available information, it doesn’t appear that the Company has fully considered this or the risks involved with attempting decarbonization on such a schedule.

Claims about the need for decarbonization, especially by some activist-generated date, are based on assumptions that are either counterfactual or insufficiently examined. For decades, claims have been made that carbon emissions must be reduced before some arbitrary date by which it will be too late for human civilization to sustain its existence.2 Decade after decade, those deadlines came and went and none of those apocalyptic claims held up. Nonetheless, climate activists continue to demand decarbonization by a certain deadline, assured that this time a catastrophe will ensue if their demands aren’t met in time

While such demands are silly and should be ignored outright, attempting to meet them can have serious ramifications. Propagating climate-catastrophist lies – and acting on them by reducing fossil fuel energy – has real economic, social and political consequences.

Attempting to meet carbon neutral goals raises the price of fossil fuels while subsidizing other unreliable sources of energy. This has a ripple effect on the entire economy – when the price of energy is high, the price of everything else is too.

Additionally, decarbonization is meaningless if other countries don’t follow suit, and there’s abundant evidence they won’t.3 The only thing it will do is make the US reliant on other nations, which can have negative geopolitical effects. For example, the US and other Western nations have had to rely on oppressive regimes like Russia for fossil fuels exactly when it was most politically inconvenient to.

The US government has never mandated net-zero by statute or authorized regulatory action4 and is unlikely to do so, which contravenes the assumptions of “stranded asset” analysis. If decarbonization is neither required nor technologically feasible, the Company will pointlessly contribute to economic and political turmoil while harming its shareholders in the process. Such outcomes must be considered before an energy company demonizes its flagship product.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.