US pension funds react to Republican probe of Climate Action 100+

Public pension funds in the US have pushed back against a Republican probe into the US members of Climate Action 100+, warning that climate engagement is consistent with their fiduciary responsibilities.

At the end of July, Republican lawmakers on the House Judicial Committee sent a letter to more than 130 investor signatories – or recent ex-signatories – of CA100+, demanding information on actions they planned to take as part of the initiative, which Republicans call a “climate cartel”, as well as the preservation of documents relating to it.

Since the release of the letter, CA100+ has seen a spate of exits by US asset managers.

Nuveen, Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Clearbridge Investments have all left in the past three weeks, along with a number of smaller managers. CA100+, for its part, has pushed back against what it calls “undue politicisation”, noting that it is still “net positive” for members over the last 12 months.

By contrast, no US public sector pension funds are known to have left the initiative since the letter was sent.

Responses to the Republican letter by public sector pension fund members of CA100+, obtained by Responsible Investor under freedom of information laws, show a strong response against the probe.

The Seattle City Employee’s Retirement Scheme (SCERS) refused to answer the questions in the Republican letter directly.

In its response, which was signed by executive director Jeffrey Davis, the $4 billion fund said that decarbonising the real economy would “safeguard its investment portfolio” and that this would be advanced through the fund’s company voting and engagement as well as policy advocacy.

The fund’s participation in membership groups such as CA100+ was to share information and “pursue ESG priorities of mutual concern”, it said.

“SCERS operates independently to further its mission and is not beholden to the actions or statements of that organisation or any of its members. Accordingly, SCERS believes that it has no further information relevant to your inquiries.”

 

 

 

Read more @responsible investor