CDP 2011 India 200 Report

7/31/2019 CDP 2011 India 200 Report

1/52

CDP India 200 Report 2011Accelerating Low Carbon Growth

On behal o 551 investors with assets o US$71 trillion

C

R


2/52

2

ABRAPP - AssociaoBrasileira das EntidadesFechadas de PrevidnciaComplementar

AEGON N.V.

AKBANK T.A.S.Allianz Global InvestorsKapitalanlagegesellschatmbH

ATP GroupAviva InvestorsBank o America MerrillLynch

BlackRockBP InvestmentManagement LimitedCaliornia PublicEmployees RetirementSystemCaliornia State TeachersRetirement SystemCalvert AssetManagement Company,Inc.

Catholic SuperCCLA InvestmentManagement LtdEthos FoundationGeneration Investment

ManagementHSBC Holdings plcINGKB Kookmin BankKLPLegg Mason, Inc.London Pensions Fund

AuthorityMitsubishi UFJ FinancialGroup (MUFG)Morgan StanleyNational Australia BankNEI InvestmentsNeuberger BermanNewton InvestmentManagement LimitedNordea InvestmentManagement

PFA PensionRaieisen SchweizRoyal Bank o ScotlandGroupRobeco

Rockeeller & Co., Inc.SAM GroupSchrodersScottish WidowsInvestment PartnershipSEBSompo Japan

Insurance Inc.Standard CharteredSun Lie Financial Inc.TD Asset ManagementInc. and TDAM USA Inc.The Wellcome TrustZurich Cantonal Bank

CDP works with investors globally to advance the investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed by climate change byasking almost 6,000 o the worlds largest companies to report on their climate strategies, GHG emissions and energy use in

the standardized Investor CDP ormat. To learn more about CDPs member oering and becoming a member, please contactus or visit the CDP Investor Member section at www.cdproject.net/investormembers

2011 Carbon Disclosure Project

Investor Members


3/52

Carbon Disclosure Project 2011

551 inancial institutions with assets oUS$71 trillion were signatories to theCDP 2011 inormation request datedFebruary 1st, 2011

Aberdeen Asset Managers

Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbHABRAPP - Associao Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas dePrevidncia Complementar

Active Earth Investment ManagementAcuity Investment ManagementAddenda Capital Inc.Advanced Investment PartnersAdvantage Asset Managers (Pty) LtdAEGON Magyarorszg Beektetsi Alapkezelo Zrt.AEGON N.V.AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd

AFP IntegraAIG Asset ManagementAk Asset ManagementAKBANK T.A.S.Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo)Alberta Teachers Retirement FundAlcyone FinanceAllianz Elementar Versicherungs-AGAllianz GroupAltira GroupAmalgamated BankAMP Capital InvestorsAmpegaGerling Investment GmbHAmundi AMANBIMA Associao Brasileira das Entidades dos MercadosFinanceiro e de Capitais

Antera Gesto de Recursos S.A.APG GroupAprionisAquila CapitalARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance)Arisaig Partners Asia Pte LtdARK Investment Advisors Inc.Arma Porty Ynetimi A.S.ASB Community TrustASM Administradora de Recursos S.A.ASN BankAssicurazioni Generali SpaATP GroupAustralia and New Zealand Banking Group LimitedAustralian Central Credit Union incorporating Savings & LoansCredit Union

Australian Ethical Investment LimitedAustralianSuperAvivaAviva InvestorsAXA GroupBaillie Giord & Co.Bakers Investment Group (Australia) Pty Ltd

Banco Bradesco S/ABanco de Credito del Peru BCPBanco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.Banco do Brasil S/ABanco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econmico e Social - BNDESBanco SantanderBanesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade SocialBanesto (Banco Espaol de Crdito S.A.)Bank o America Merrill LynchBank o MontrealBank Sarasin & Cie AGBank VontobelBankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschatm.b.H.BANKINTER S.A.BankInvestBanque DegrooBarclays

Baumann and Partners S.A.BAWAG P.S.K. INVEST GmbHBayern LB

BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbHBBC Pension Trust LtdBBVABedordshire Pension FundBentall KennedyBeutel Goodman and Co. LtdBioFinance Administrao de Recursos de Terceiros LtdaBlackRockBlumenthal FoundationBNP Paribas Investment PartnersBNY MellonBNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage GesellschatBoston Common Asset Management, LLCBP Investment Management LimitedBrasilprev Seguros e Previdncia S/A.British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC)BT Investment ManagementBusan BankCAAT Pension PlanCadiz Holdings LimitedCaisse de dpt et placement du QubecCaisse des DptsCaixa Beneicente dos Empregados da Companhia SiderurgicaNacional - CBSCaixa de Previdncia dos Funcionrios do Banco do Nordeste doBrasil (CAPEF)Caixa Econmica FederalCaixa Geral de DepositosCaja de Ahorros de Valencia, Castelln y Valencia, BANCAJACaja NavarraCaliornia Public Employees Retirement SystemCaliornia State Teachers Retirement SystemCaliornia State TreasurerCalvert Asset Management Company, IncCanada Pension Plan Investment BoardCanadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)Canadian Imperial Bank o Commerce (CIBC)CAPESESPCapital Innovations, LLCCARE Super Pty LtdCarlson Investment ManagementCarmignac GestionCatherine Donnelly FoundationCatholic SuperCbus Superannuation FundCCLA Investment Management LtdCeleste Funds Management LimitedCentral Finance Board o the Methodist ChurchCeresChristian SuperChristopher Reynolds FoundationChurch Commissioners or EnglandChurch o England Pensions BoardCI Mutual Funds Signature Global AdvisorsClean Yield Group, Inc.Cleantech Invest AGClearBridge AdvisorsClimate Change Capital Group LtdCM-CIC Asset Management

Colonial First State Global Asset ManagementComerica IncorporatedComite syndical national de retraite BtirenteCommerzbank AGCommInsureCommonwealth Bank o AustraliaCompton Foundation, Inc.Concordia VersicherungsgruppeConnecticut Retirement Plans and Trust FundsCo-operative Financial Services (CFS)Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. Bhd.CRD AnalyticsCrdit AgricoleCredit SuisseGruppo Credito ValtellineseDaegu BankDaiwa Securities Group Inc.

de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A.DekaBank Deutsche GirozentraleDeutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschat mbH

Deutsche Bank AGDeutsche Postbank Vermgensmanagement S.A.Development Bank o Japan Inc.Development Bank o the Philippines (DBP)Dexia Asset ManagementDexus Property GroupDnB NOR ASADomini Social Investments LLCDongbu InsuranceDWS Investment GmbHEarth Capital Partners LLPEast Sussex Pension FundEcclesiastical Investment ManagementEcoi Investissements - Groupe Credit CooperatiEdward W. Hazen FoundationEEA Group LtdElan Capital PartnersElement Investment ManagersELETRA - Fundao Celg de Seguros e PrevidnciaEnvironment Agency Active Pension undEpworth Investment ManagementEquilibrium Capital GroupErste Asset ManagementErste Group BankEssex Investment Management Company, LLCESSSuperEthos FoundationEureko B.V.Eurizon Capital SGREvangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan or Clergy anLay WorkersEvli Bank PlcF&C Management LtdFAELCE Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade SocialFAPERS- Fundao Assistencial e Previdenciria da Extenso Rudo Rio Grande do SulFASERN - Fundao COSERN de Previdncia ComplementarFdris Gestion dActisFIDURA Capital Consult GmbHFIM Asset Management LtdFIPECq - Fundao de Previdncia Complementar dosEmpregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPqFIRA. - Banco de MexicoFirst Airmative Financial Network, LLCFirst Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1)Firstrand LimitedFive Oceans Asset Management Pty LimitedFlorida State Board o Administration (SBA)FolketrygdondetFolksamFondaction CSNFondation de LuxembourgFondiaria-SAIFonds de Rserve pour les Retraites FRRFourth Swedish National Pension Fund (AP4)FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment-Gesellschat mbHFukoku Capital Management IncFUNCEF - Fundao dos Economirios FederaisFundao AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Brasiletros

Fundao Atlntico de Seguridade SocialFundao Attilio Francisco Xavier FontanaFundao Banrisul de Seguridade SocialFundao de Assistncia e Previdncia Social do BNDES - FAPESFUNDAO ELETROBRS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROSFundao Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZFUNDAO ITAUBANCOFundao Itasa IndustrialFundao Promon de Previdncia SocialFundao Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIAFundao Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social ReerFundao Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel)FUNDIGUA - FUNDAO DE PREVIDENCIA COMPLEMENTARDA CAESBFuturegrowth Asset ManagementGartmore Investment Management LtdGEAP Fundao de Seguridade SocialGenerali Deutschland Holding AG

2011 Carbon Disclosure Project

Investor Signatories


4/52

CDP India 200 Report 2011

4

Generation Investment ManagementGenus Capital ManagementGjensidige Forsikring ASA

GLS Gemeinschatsbank eGGoldman Sachs Group Inc.GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT r globale Vermgensentwicklung mbHGovernance or OwnersGovernment Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), Republic o South

AricaGreen Cay Asset ManagementGreen Century Capital ManagementGroupe Crdit CoopratiGroupe Investissement Responsable Inc.GROUPE OFI AMGrupo Banco PopularGrupo Santander BrasilGruppo Credito ValtellineseGruppo MontepaschiGuardian Ethical Management IncGuardians o New Zealand SuperannuationGuosen Securities Co., LTD.Hang Seng BankHarbourmaster Capital

Harrington Investments, IncHauck & Auhuser Asset Management GmbHHazel Capital LLPHDFC Bank Ltd

Health Super FundHealthcare o Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)Henderson Global InvestorsHermes Fund ManagersHESTA SuperHSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbHHSBC Holdings plcHSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbHHyundai Marine & Fire Insurance. Co., Ltd.Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.Ibgeana Society o Assistance and Security SIAS / SociedadeIbgeana de Assistncia e Seguridade (SIAS)IDBI Bank Ltd

Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance CompanyImpax Group plcIndusInd Bank Limited

Industrial Bank (A)Industrial Bank o KoreaIndustry Funds ManagementInrastructure Development Finance Company

INGInsight Investment Management (Global) LtdInstituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telgraos- PostalisInstituto Inraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREVInstituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREVInsurance Australia GroupInvestec Asset ManagementIrish Lie Investment ManagersItau Asset ManagementIta Unibanco Holding S AJanus Capital Group Inc.Jarislowsky Fraser LimitedJPMorgan Chase & Co.Jubitz Family FoundationJupiter Asset Management

Kaiser Ritter Partner (Schweiz) AGKB asset ManagementKB Kookmin BankKBC Asset Management NVKDB Asset Management Co., Ltd.KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschat m. b. H.KW BankengruppeKlimaINVESTKLPKorea Investment Management Co., Ltd.The Korea Teachers Pension (KTP)Korea Technology Finance Corporation (KOTEC)KPA PensionLa Banque Postale Asset ManagementLa Financiere ResponsableLampe Asset Management GmbHLandsorganisationen i Sverige

LBBW - Landesbank Baden-WrttembergLBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschat mbHLD Lnmodtagernes Dyrtidsond

Legal & General Investment ManagementLegg Mason, Inc.LGT Capital Management Ltd.LIG Insurance Co., LtdLight Green Advisors, LLCLiving Planet Fund Management Company S.A.Local Authority Pension Fund ForumLocal Government SuperLocal SuperLombard Odier Darier Hentsch & CieLondon Pensions Fund AuthorityLothian Pension FundLupus alpha Asset Management GmbHMaci GestionMacquarie Group LimitedMAMA Sustainable Incubation AGManMaple-Brown Abbott LimitedMarc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc.Maryland State TreasurerMatrix Asset ManagementMcLean BuddenMEAG MUNICH ERGO Asset Management GmbHMeeschaert Gestion PriveMeiji Yasuda Lie Insurance CompanyMendesprev Sociedade PrevidenciriaMerck Family FundMeritas Mutual FundsMetallRente GmbHMetrus Instituto de Seguridade SocialMetzler Investment GmbhMFS Investment ManagementMidas International Asset ManagementMiller/Howard InvestmentsMirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd.Mirae Asset Securities Co., Ltd.Missionary Oblates o Mary ImmaculateMistra, Foundation or Strategic Environmental ResearchMitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)

Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.Mn ServicesMonega Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbHMorgan StanleyMotor Trades Association o Australia Superannuation Fund Pty LtdMutual Insurance Company Pension-FenniaNatcan Investment ManagementNathan Cummings Foundation, TheNational Australia BankNational Bank o CanadaNational Grid Electricity Group o the Electricity Supply PensionSchemeNational Grid UK Pension SchemeNational Pensions Reserve Fund o IrelandNational Union o Public and General Employees (NUPGE)NATIXISNedbank LimitedNeedmor FundNEI InvestmentsNelson Capital Management, LLC

Nest SammelstitungNeuberger BermanNew Amsterdam Partners LLCNew Mexico State TreasurerNew York City Employees Retirement SystemNew York City Teachers Retirement SystemNew York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF)New Zealand Earthquake CommissionNewton Investment Management LimitedNGS SuperNH-CA Asset ManagementNikko Asset Management Co., Ltd.Nikko Cordial SecuritiesNissay Asset Management CorporationNORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschat AGNordea Investment ManagementNorolk Pension Fund

Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)North Carolina Retirement SystemNorthern Ireland Local Government Oicers Superannuation

Committee (NILGOSC)Northern TrustNykreditOddo & CieOECO Capital Lebensversicherung AGOld Mutual plcOMERS Administration CorporationOntario Teachers Pension PlanOP Fund Management Company LtdOppenheim Fonds Trust GmbHOpplysningsvesenets ond (The Norwegian Church Endowment)OPSEU Pension TrustOregon State TreasurerOrion Asset Management LLCParnassus InvestmentsPax World FundsPensioenonds VervoerPension DenmarkPension Fund or Danish Lawyers and EconomistsPension Protection Fund

PensionsmyndighetenPETROS - The Fundao Petrobras de Seguridade SocialPFA PensionPGGMPhillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd.PhiTrust Active InvestorsPhoenix Asset Management Inc.Pictet Asset Management SAPKAPluris Sustainable Investments SAPNC Financial Services Group, Inc.Pohjola Asset Management LtdPortolio 21 InvestmentsPorto Seguro S.A.PREVHAB PREVIDNCIA COMPLEMENTARPREVI Caixa de Previdncia dos Funcionrios do Banco do BrasilPREVIG Sociedade de Previdncia ComplementarProvinzial Rheinland HoldingPrudential Investment Management

Psagot Investment House LtdPSP InvestmentsPSS - Seguridade SocialQ Capital Partners Co. LtdQBE Insurance GroupRabobankRaieisen SchweizRailpen InvestmentsRathbones / Rathbone Greenbank InvestmentsReal Grandeza Fundao de Previdncia e Assistncia SocialRei SuperReliance Capital Ltd

ResolutionResona Bank, LimitedReynders McVeigh Capital ManagementRLAMRobecoRockeeller FinancialRose Foundation or Communities and the EnvironmentRoyal Bank o Canada

Royal Bank o Scotland GroupRREEF Investment GmbHSAM GroupSAMPENSION KP LIVSFORSIKRING A/SSAMSUNG FIRE & MARINE INSURANCESamsung SecuritiesSanlamSanta F Portolios LtdaSAS Trustee CorporationSauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KGSchrodersScotiabankScottish Widows Investment PartnershipSEBSEB Asset Management AGSecond Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2)SEIU Master Trust


5/52

CDP Signatorie

Seligson & Co Fund Management PlcSentinel InvestmentsSERPROS - Fundo Multipatrocinado

Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7)Shinhan BankShinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., LtdShinkin Asset Management Co., LtdSiemens Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbHSignet Capital Management LtdSMBC Friend Securities Co., LTDSmith Pierce, LLCSNS Asset ManagementSocial(k)Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - PrevdataSolaris Investment Management LimitedSompo Japan Insurance Inc.Sopher Investment ManagementSPF Beheer bvSprucegrove Investment Management LtdStandard CharteredStandard Chartered Korea LimitedStandard Lie InvestmentsState Bank o India

State Street CorporationStatewideSuperStoreBrand ASAStrathclyde Pension FundStratus GroupSumitomo Mitsui Banking CorporationSumitomo Mitsui Card Company, LimitedSumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., LtdSumitomo Mitsui Financial GroupThe Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd.Sun Lie Financial Inc.Superund Asset Management GmbHSUSI Partners AGSustainable CapitalSvenska Kyrkan, Church o SwedenSwedbank ABSwiss ReSwisscanto Holding AGSyntrus Achmea Asset Management

T. Rowe PriceT. SINAI KALKINMA BANKASI A.S.T.GARANTI BANKASI A.S.Tata Capital Limited

TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc.Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College RetirementEquities Fund (TIAA-CREF)Telluride AssociationTempis Asset Management Co. LtdTerra Forvaltning ASTerraVerde Capital Management LLCThe Brainerd FoundationThe Bullitt FoundationThe Central Church Fund o FinlandThe Collins FoundationThe Co-operative Asset ManagementThe Co-operators Group LtdThe Daly FoundationThe GPT GroupThe Hartord Financial Services Group, Inc.

The Japan Research Institute, LimitedThe Joseph Rowntree Charitable TrustThe Local Government Pensions InstitutionThe Pension Plan For Employees o the Public Service Alliance oCanadaThe Pinch GroupThe Presbyterian Church in CanadaThe Russell Family FoundationThe Shiga Bank, Ltd.The Standard Bank GroupThe United Church o Canada - General CouncilThe University o Edinburgh Endowment FundThe Wellcome TrustThird Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)Threadneedle Asset ManagementTokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.Toronto Atmospheric Fund

Trillium Asset Management CorporationTriodos Investment ManagementTryg

UBSUniCredit GroupUnion Asset Management Holding AGUnipensionUNISON sta pension schemeUniSuperUnitarian Universalist AssociationUnited Methodist Church General Board o Pension and HealthBeneitsUnited Nations FoundationUniversities Superannuation Scheme (USS)Vancity Group o CompaniesVCH Vermgensverwaltung AGVeris Wealth PartnersVeritas Investment Trust GmbHVermont State TreasurerVexiom Capital, L.P.VicSuper Pty LtdVictorian Funds Management CorporationVietNam Holding Ltd.

Vision SuperVOLKSBANK INVESTMENTSWaikato Community Trust IncWalden Asset Management, a division o Boston Trust & InvestmentManagement CompanyWARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschat rImmobilien mbHWARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBHWells Fargo & CompanyWest Yorkshire Pension FundWestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM)Westpac Banking CorporationWhite Owl Capital AGWinslow Management, A Brown Advisory Investment GroupWoori BankWoori Investment & Securities Co., Ltd.

YES BANK Limited

York University Pension FundYouville Provident Fund Inc.Zegora Investment Management

Zevin Asset ManagementZurich Cantonal Bank

Figure 1: 2011 Signatory Investor

Breakdown

Asset Managers

Asset Owners

Banks

Insurance

Other

1% 37%

5%

23%

34%

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Figure 2: CDP Investor Signatories & Assets over time

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

NumberofSigna

tories

Signatories Assets

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


6/52


6

CEO Foreword

Corporations, investors and governments today are aced with a choice: to compete aggressively or inite resources, or toadvance towards a low-carbon economy that enables sustainable, proitable growth, whilst reducing reliance on increasinglyscarce materials.

Last year global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions reached a record high. The International Energy Agency estimatesmade or bleak reading, but compounded the necessity to take bold and decisive action, i we are to have any chance olimiting temperature increase to the 2C level agreed by world leaders, to protect against catastrophic climate change.

Whats more, rising energy demands are competing or a limited supply o ossil uels. The competition or increasingly scarcenatural resources is putting pressure on commodity prices and having a growing impact, both socially and economically. It isclear that today, more than ever, we must build momentum to decouple economic growth rom emissions.

Managing carbon emissions and protecting the business rom climate change impacts is undamental to achieving sustainable

and strong shareholder returns. Earlier this year, investment consultancy, Mercer released a report concluding that the best waor institutional investors to manage portolio risk associated with climate change may be to shit 40% o their portolios intoclimate-sensitive assets with an emphasis on those that can adapt to a low-carbon environment.

An important part o an investors strategy should be to engage with the companies in which they invest to encourageperormance improvement. Carbon Action is a new initiative launched by CDP this year. It is driven by a leading group oinvestors to encourage their portolio companies to reduce emissions, by investing in emissions reducing activities with asatisactory payback period. Carbon Action relects a growing recognition that there is a huge range o carbon reducingactivities that companies can undertake that have a very clear business case. It is, thereore, in the interests o all investors andnot just the more active owners o investments, to ensure these actions are taken.

As the management o carbon continues to move into companies core business strategies and mainstream investmentthinking, demand or primary corporate climate change inormation grows around the world. As well as working on behal

o 551 institutional investors, to gather relevant inormation rom large corporations around the world, CDP is also workingwith global businesses and governments to strengthen the resilience and sustainability o their supply chains through theCDP Supply Chain program. CDP Cities has launched to help the worlds major cities reduce climate change risk and bolstereconomic growth; and CDP Water Disclosure is now in its second year o working with major global companies to improvewater management. A key part o CDPs strategy is to ensure the eective use o data collected. To assist with this, companiesare able to obtain tools that help them to measure, report and manage carbon more eectively, through CDP ReporterServices.

It is through partnerships that CDP can achieve the largest impact. In India we are delighted to be working with our localpartners the Conederation o Indian Industry (CII - ITC CESD) and WWF India, as well as the India Report Partner,Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. In addition, we highly value the continued support o our Global Advisor, PwC, as well as that o

Accenture, Microsot, SAP and Bloomberg. These and our other partners around the world are integral to the accelerationo CDPs mission.

Whilst we wait patiently or much needed global regulation, business must continue to orge ahead, innovate and seek outopportunities by doing more with less. The decisions that perpetuate a legitimate, low-carbon and high growth economywill bring considerable value to those that have the oresight to make them. The inormation contained in this report and thecompanies responses assist in illuminating that path.

Paul Simpson

CEOCarbon Disclosure Project


7/52

Contents

2011 Carbon Disclosure ProjectInvestor Members 02

2011 Carbon Disclosure ProjectInvestor Signatories 03

Foreword: Paul Simpson, CEO,Carbon Disclosure Project 06

Executive Summary 08

Overview o the India 200/Theme& Highlights o CDP India 200Report 2011 10

Chapter1: 2011 Carbon Disclosure

Scores 24

Chapter 2: Implications o ClimateChange on Indian Industry 28

Chapter 3: Sectoral Analysis 31

Consumer Discretionary Energy Financials Industrials Inormation Technology Materials Utilities Consumer Staples

Appendix I: Company Responsesto CDP 2011, CDP 2010, CDP 2009,CDP 2008 & CDP 2007 andDisclosure scores 40

Appendix II: Global key trends 42

Appendix III: List o CDP India 200Companies 44


8/52

8

In the ace o climate change adversities,which can be an impediment to the

sustainable growth o economy, Indiacan benet rom a low carbon growthtrajectory to achieve its objectives oreconomic development and mitigationo climate change. As one o the largestand astest growing economies inthe world, India is acing increasinginternational pressure to mitigate itsGHG emissions. Transitioning to a lowcarbon economy presents multipleopportunities to India, includingsustainable economic growth,inrastructure development throughlow carbon technologies, enhancedenergy security, green employmentopportunities and a leading role in theclean technology sector.

Some o the critical actors to achievelow carbon growth include mappingand orecasting o Indias baselineGHG emissions, identication oplausible carbon abatement levers inthe key ocus sectors, gap analysis oexisting/upcoming policies and a policy

ramework or overcoming barriers tolow carbon growth. The successul

implementation o this transition wouldrequire signicant investment, planningand massive coordination among alllevels o government and sectors othe economy. However, once realized,the transition to a low carbon economywould strengthen Indias economy,energy security and its capability tomeet the challenge o climate change.

Leading companies have a strongsense o the potential impacts oclimate change on their bottom-lineperormance. They have set asideregulatory uncertainty, and instead havetaken their cues rom the market. Ratherthan standing on the sidelines waiting orclarity, they are seizing the opportunityto serve their markets and to createlong-term competitive value.

This is the th year that the CarbonDisclosure Project (CDP) sent its annualinormation request to the top 200 oIndias companies by market cap on

Executive Summary

behal o 551 investors with US$ 71trillion o assets under management,

asking them to measure and reportwhat climate change means or theirbusiness. The responses have shapedCDPs 2011 report on the India 200.

This year, 28.5% (57)* companiesrom the India 200 responded to theCDP questionnaire, compared to 51companies in 2010. 22% (10) o therespondents were either included inthe sample or the rst time or havechosen to disclose or the rst time thisyear. It can be seen that 65% (30) othe respondents have been regularlydisclosing or the last three yearsor more.

While the responses indicate somevariations across industry sectors,they provide an insight on howcompanies are gearing themselves tothe risks and opportunities posed byclimate change.

*The analysis in the report is based on 46 Indian companies who responded to CDP directly in 2011. The remaining 11 companies are not includedas they responded indirectly via their parent companies. The analysis o the parent companys response however is included in the Global 500report as they orm part o CDPs Global 500 sample. The 11 companies are listed as AQ (SA) in Appendix III.

Table 1: Companies recognized on Carbon Disclosure LeadershipIndex (CDLI) in India

Sector Company Name CDLI scores

Inormation Technology Tata Consultancy Services 86

Inormation technology Wipro 80

Financials YES BANK Limited 78

Materials ACC 78

Materials Tata Chemicals 77

Consumer Staples Tata Global Beverages 76

Materials Sesa Goa 75Utilities GVK Power & Inrastructure 75

Industrials ABB 72

Utilities Tata Power Co. 71


9/52

Executive Summa

Key fndings

Companies in the CarbonDisclosure Leadership Index

(CDLI) show a diverse mix

o sectors.This indicates thatawareness and action related toclimate change issues is not connedto a ew sectors only.

89% (41) o the respondents

report on their GHG emissions.

While this is a marginal increaserom 85% (33) in 2010, it refects theincreasing trend towards monitoring

and disclosure o GHG emissions.

91% (42) o the responding

companies have Board level or

senior management oversight

o climate change issues.

This indicates that complexity oclimate change issues requiresstrong governance and integrationo climate strategy with businessstrategy.

89% (41) o the responding

companies perceive regulatoryopportunities. Respondingcompanies are aware thattransorming key businessprocesses to meet new andemerging regulations oer businessopportunities.

Figure 3: Trends in CDP India Response Rates

37

2

51

10

44

3

51

4

57

7

Answered Questionnaire

Declined to Participate

CDP 2011

CDP 2010

CDP 2009

CDP 2007

CDP 2008

Public company responses to CDPcan be ound at www.cdproject.net

Table 2: Other Responding Companies*

Essar Steel Limited

Financial Technologies (India)

Godrej Interio Division-Godrej & Boyce Mg.Co.Ltd.

Jubilant Lie Sciences Ltd

MindTree Ltd

Mumbai International Airport Private Limited

SRF Chemicals Business

Tata Capital Limited

* Other Responding Companies are not in India 200 but have responded tothe CDP India 200 Questionnaire


10/52


10

Overview o the CDP 2011 India 200 Report

Governance

In CDP 2011, 78% (36) o therespondents have identied stronggovernance as key to managing thecomplexity o climate change issues. It isalso critical to realizing the ull potentialo business response to climate change.

Additionally, establishment o stronggovernance practices will ensurethat responsible ocers throughoutthe organization understand climatechange strategy, goals, decisionmaking process, risk management andaccountability.

Figure 4: Percentage of respondents in each governance level

78

7

13

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Individual/Subset of Board or

committee appointed by the

board

No individual committee or

individual with overall

responsibility for climate change

Senior Manager/Ofcer

Question not answered

Figure 5: Incentives for management of climate change issues

32%

20%10%

38%

Monetary Incentives

Non Monetary Incentives

Monetary & Non Monetary

No Incentives

Risk and Opportunity Analysis

This section assesses the extentand manner in which companiesare responding to the risks andopportunities related to climate change.

As in previous years, three categories orisks and opportunities are highlightedin the CDP questionnaire regulatory,physical and other risks. The analysisconsiders the nancial implicationsassociated with the identied risks andopportunities and the ways in whichthey infuence businesses and their valuechains. It also describes any actions that

companies may have taken to manageor adapt to the risks/opportunities that

have been identied, including the costo those actions.

Comparative Overview

The number o companies whichperceive some sort o risk due toclimate change in CDP 2011 standsat 89% (41) o the respondents whilethe remaining 11% ( 5) o respondents,have indicated that they do not perceiveany direct risks due to climate change.It is interesting to note that 76% (35) o

the respondents perceive themselvesto be exposed to both regulatory andphysical risks which can have an impacon business. Emerging regulatory riskis viewed as aecting business mainlydue to the assumption that in thenear uture, India may have to acceptbinding emission reduction targets.Such a presumption arises mostly romthe announcement o a requirement omandatory survey o designated sectorsby the National Action Plan on ClimateChange (NAPCC), and also the end o

the rst commitment period o CleanDevelopment Mechanism, establishedunder the Kyoto Protocol, on 31stDecember, 2012. In the case o otherrisks, 67% (31) o the respondentsconsider these to aect businessthough the issues listed are companyand sector-specic. A look at thestatistics clearly show that companiesare looking at the bigger picture andare leveraging the opportunities thatclimate change oers. They are gearingup to take advantage o climate changerelated product and service demands.

An overwhelming 96% (44) o therespondents see some or the otheropportunities that climate changepresents their business with. 87% (40)o the respondents see positive revenueavenues rom regulatory changesbecause o experience o workingin a developing country, with rapidlychanging regulations and businessclimate. Responses to the CDP


11/52

1

Overview o the CDP 2011 India 200 Repo

Figure 6: Risk Perception

76% 76%

67%

Companies perceiving Risks due toclimate change

Regulatory

Risk

Physical

Risk

Other

Risk

35 35

31

Figure 7: Snapshot of Category-wise and Sector-wise Risk Perception

88%

80%

86%

78%

33%

75%

100%

57%

88%

80%

71%

67%

67%

50%

67%

100%

75% 8

0%

57%

67%

67%

50%

67% 7

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Materials Energy Industrials Financials ConsumerStaples

ConsumerDiscretionary

Ut ilit ies Informat ionTechnology

Percentage

ofrespondents

Risk perception

Regulatory Risk Physical Risk Other Risk

7 7 6

4 4 4

6 5 4

7 6 6

1 2 2 3 2 2

3 2 2

4 57

questionnaire reveals that 50% (23)and 65% (30) o the respondents are

looking orward to cashing in on physicalopportunities and other opportunitiesarising out o climate change relateddevelopments respectively.

Regulatory Risk

Companies in India are increasinglyconcerned about changes inregulations, which may resultin increased operational costs.Respondents comprising 76% (35)o the responding companies are

aware o such regulatory risks. Theyperceive international agreements,national commitments, populist policiesand stakeholder pressure, to causesignicant impact to their businesses.Carbon cess, more stringent air pollutionlimits, cap and trade schemes, uel,water and energy taxes, and generaluncertainty are seen as key actorswhich are shaping their businesses.

and economic direction that enhancesecological sustainability, demand-side

management, better technology thatlooks into aspects o mitigation oradaptation, market mechanism thatrewards sustainable development,and inclusivity that invites link-upswith civil society and local governmentinstitutions.

For instance, through the introductiono the National Mission on Sustainable

Habitat which is applicable orinrastructure companies, theGovernment o India aims to encouragepractices such as energy ecientdesign, operations and policies. One othe thrust areas is encouragement tohave a modal shit in public transport. Inuture there may also be other direct orindirect orms o discouragement to useo private vehicles. Companies involvedin agricultural products are aware thatthere could be stringent regulationsrelating to pesticide and ertilizer useor plantations in India. The majornational regulatory ramework or climatechange is the NAPCC which is guidedby the principles o protection o thepoor and vulnerable sections o societythrough what is termed as inclusivedevelopment strategy, achieving nationalgrowth through a qualitative change


12/52


12

Physical Risks

Indian companies are very concernedabout the long term uture o theirbusiness models, with 76% (35) othe responding companies statingtheir concern about the physical risks.Petroleum companies are concernedabout the impact o heavy rains andcyclones in coastal areas, which maycause either reduction or disruptionin production capacity. Rising sealevels could impact coastal acilitieslike reneries, ports, terminals, etc. asevents such as foods, related to storm

surges, could become more requent. Inrecent years, storm surges associatedwith hurricanes have resulted in reneryshutdowns in the US Gul or somecompanies. Volatility in precipitationpatterns in the orm o heavyconcentrated rainall, fash foods, andsudden changes in topography; stormsand strong winds as well as increasein temperatures will have direct impacton project execution and lie o assets.

Apprehensions o both excessive andvolatility in precipitation is very common.Companies with large exposure toinrastructural disruptions are takinga positive approach and setting updisaster recovery systems and trainings,to minimize the impact o cyclones,typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis andother such violent weather conditions.Eight companies are concerned aboutthe actual impact o a changing climatewithin the coming ve years. Mostcompanies see these occurrences asto causing a direct impact on them

resulting in inability to do business,reduction in production capacity,

increased operation costs or reduceddemand or goods and services. Themajor risk drivers perceived by therespondents in terms o physical riskswere changes in temperature extremes,changes in precipitation extremes anddroughts, tropical cyclones and inducedchanges in natural resources.

Other Risks

Companies are monitoring their risksbecause o the uncertain environment

regarding climate change, dierencesin literature and news regarding thelong term impact o climate changeand the political nature o internationaldiscussions. There are lots o business-specic and sector specic risks thatcompanies envisage themselves tobe exposed to. Changing consumerbehaviour, fuctuating socio-economicconditions, increasing humanitariandemands, uncertainty in market signals,induced changes in human and culturalenvironment and damage to reputation

upon lenient adherence, are the primarydrivers o other risk apprehensions.Moving orward, there will be a needor greater transparency and increaseddisclosure on climate action bycorporates. Internationally, this will bethrough initiatives such as the CDP andnationally, through upcoming mandatoryand voluntary disclosure requirements.Companies see these risks to be verylikely and capable o causing medium tohigh impact to their businesses.

Figure 8: Opportunity Perception

87%

50%

65%

Companies perceiving opportunities due toclimate change

Regulatory

Opportunity

Physical

Opportunity

Other

Opportunity

2330

40

Regulatory Opportunity

Despite the skepticism, 87% (40)o the responding companies areaware that new regulations andchanging business practices alsoprovide them with new opportunities.New regulations can provide anadditional source o revenue, in theorm o tradable certicates throughschemes such as Perorm, Achieveand Trade (PAT), Renewable EnergyObligations (REO) and the UNFCCC-Clean Development Mechanism(CDM). Coming o the blocks early by

manuacturing sustainable productsor sustainable services, will provideopportunities like charging premiumprices. Also, such steps can result ingreater capital availability as banks aregetting more skeptical in providing loansto companies without sustainabilityprocesses in place. Also, by ensuringproper training and putting in placesustainable processes, companiescan strive to achieve operationaleciencies. This can cause greaterdiscipline, stakeholder acceptance,reduced operational costs, and widersocial benets. Also, some companiesenvisage opportunities o venturing intonew products and services, which theysee becoming part o the wider market,because o new regulations.


13/52

1


Figure 9: Snapshot of Category-wise and Sector-wise Opportunity Perception

88%

80% 8

3%

78%

67%

75%

100%

100%

100%

50%

20%

43%

44%

100%

25%

67% 7

1%7

5%

40%

57%

67%

100%

50%

67% 7

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Materials Energy Industrials Financials ConsumerStaples


Ut il it ies Informat ionTechnology

Percentage

ofrespondents

Opportunity Perception

Regulatory Opportunity Physical Opportunity Other Opportunity

7 4 6

4 1 2

7 3 47 4 6

1 2 2

3 1 2

3 2 2

7 55

Physical Opportunity

50% (23) o the responding companiesoresee physical opportunities in thenear uture. A lot o the respondentsare big players in their elds, andthus, they believe they are in a betterposition to capitalize because otheir strong management structuresand wide operational inrastructure.

This, they believe, will enable themto ght regional competition better.Inrastructure companies think thatchange in precipitation pattern maydrive innovations in developing climate

resilient inrastructure such as articialrees and dykes that act as barriers tosea water inundation due to sea levelrise, climate resilient materials suchas heat resistant paving materials anddurable overlay materials and changesin the elevation o bridges, streets,pavement and rail lines, re-design odrainage system and raising sea walls.

Other Opportunity

While evaluating other opportunities,65% (30) o the respondingcompanies see climate change relateddevelopments as an opportunity to re-brand themselves. By providing widerstakeholder awareness, disclosures oneconomic, social and environmentalperormance indicators, andimprovement in governance, companiesbelieve they can increase their reputationin the market, providing intangiblebenets in the orm o internationalacceptance, unding, employee

turnover and project clearances. Theseconsequences are perceived to causesignicant impact to their business by17% (8) o the respondents.

The multiplier eect o

sustainability comes romhow eectively one can

enable and infuence other

stakeholders in their own

journeys. Our integrated

portolio covers green

computing, IT or green and

clean energy solutions.

Azim H Premji,

Wipro Sustainability

Report


14/52


14

Sectoral Snapshot o

Emissions Disclosure:

The analysis demonstrates that all theresponding companies rom ConsumerDiscretionary, Consumer Staples,Energy and Materials sectors havedisclosed on their GHG emissions (seeFigure 13). Further, three companiesrom the Materials sector are in theCDLI, the highest rom any sector. It isnoteworthy that non-energy intensivesectors, such as Financials andInormation Technology are also in theoreront in terms o GHG emissionsdisclosure.

Figure 11: Percentage of companies reporting GHG emission

(year wise comparative)

33

89

62

85

0

20

10

40

30

60

50

80

70

100

90

CDP2008 CDP2009 CDP2010 CDP2011

CDP Reporting Year (year wise comparative)

Reoporting%

Figure 10: Breakup of Scope of

emissions reported inCDP 2011

87%

3%

10%

Scope 1 emissions

Scope 3 emissions

Scope 2 emissions

GHG emission reported

in 2011

Over the last ew years, the numbero companies reporting their GHGemissions is on an upward trend. In2011, 89% (41) o the respondingcompanies have reported either oScope 1, 2 or 3 emissions. This is morethan a two - old increase since CDP2008 (see Figure 10). In 2011, 89% (41)o the respondents have disclosed theirScope 1 emissions while 87% (40) othe respondents have disclosedScope 2 emissions. Scope 3 emissiondisclosure stands at 54% (25), anincrease rom 46% in CDP 2010 andmore than double the 26% disclosureor CDP 2008.

The total disclosed emissions(Scope 1, 2 & 3) stands at 93.17million tonnes o CO

2e . This is lower

than the emissions reported in CDP2010 which stood at 114 milliontonnes CO

2e. As was the case in

CDP 2010, in CDP 2011 too, directScope 1 emissions account or the

biggest chunk o emissions with 87%(80.75 million tonnes CO

2e) o the total

disclosed emissions. Indirect or Scope2 emissions stand at 10% (9.46 milliontonnes CO

2e), lower than the 14% in

CDP 2010. Scope 3 emissions ormonly 3% o the total emissions disclosed.

Figure 12 shows the variations in thereported GHG emissions in milliontonnes CO

2e rom 2008 to 2011. It can

be seen that the emissions reportedhave gone down in CDP 2011.


15/52

1

Figure 12: Reported GHG Emissions in million tonnes CO2e

CDP 2008 CDP 2009 CDP 2010 CDP 2011

Scope 3 0.4 4.12 7.22 2.96

Scope 2 1.7 7.61 16.22 9.46

Scope 1 34.16 57.2 90.53 80.75

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ReportedEmissions

Yet another positive indication is thatsome companies have begun to veriy

or assure their reported emissions toensure the reliability and accuracy otheir emissions data. However, it cannotbe missed that a major percentageo the reporting companies have not


Figure 13: Sector specic analysis of companies regarding GHG disclosure

8 8

Materials

5 5

Energy

7

6

Industrials

9

6

Financials

3 3

ConsumerStaples

4 4


3

2

Utilities

7

6

InformationTechnology

Percentage

ofrespondents

Reporting Companies Companies with GHG Disclosure

0

20

10

40

30

60

50

80

70

100

90

reported veried or assured emissionsdata. For companies reporting Scope 1

and 2 GHG emissions, the percentageo companies which have reported datathat is veried or assured (completeor underway) is close to 37% while orScope 3 emissions, the percentage o

companies reporting veried or assureddata is only 24%. This clearly shows tha

Indian companies need to lay greateremphasis on getting their GHG guresveried to ensure reliability o the GHGemissions data.

Clearly, the drive to engage

in Climate Change mitigation

starts rom the top within

the group. In addition to this

the increasing customer andshareholder pressure or

TCS to disclose and improve

its carbon as well as overall

environmental perormance

has infuenced our approach

to the subject.

TCS


16/52


16

Table 3: Number o respondents undergone Verifcation or

atleast a portion o their emissions

Total Number o companies 46

The number o companies that reported to have had theirScope 1 and 2 emissions veried

17

Percentage 37

The percentage/number o companies whose verication meetCDPs verication criteria

2

Percentage 4

CDP is committed to increasing

the level o verication o emissions

disclosures in order to improve the

quality o the inormation submitted

by companies globally. In turn, this

will build trust in carbon reporting and

lead to an increase in the use o the

data in analysis and decision making.

Key drivers or verication include

the increasing market demand rom

investors, customers, regulators, non-

governmental organizations and other

stakeholders or assured and reliable

climate data.

Improved internal management

processes that can be harnessed or

competitive advantage is a key benet

o verication. In order to support this

drive, CDP rewards verication highly

in both disclosure and perormance

scoring in 2011 and it is one o the

criteria or entry into the CPLI.

Verifcation levels in 2011:

In 2011, a number o criteria were

introduced to determine what is

accepted as verication within CDPs

scoring methodology. It requires that a

verication statement:

1. Is related to the relevant emission

scope

2. Clearly states the type o verication

that has been given and the

verication standard used

3. Covers the current reporting year

4. Is undertaken by an independent

third party

Verication o emissions has decreased

in this report because CDP has

strengthened its criteria to refect

the importance o verication. 37%

(17) o respondents stated that they

had gained or were in the process o

gaining verication o Scope 1 and 2

emissions.

What is CDP doing to support

reporting companies?

For 2012, CDP is providing urther

clarity on what constitutes an

acceptable verication process, which

will be communicated as part o the

questionnaire consultation process

in September 2011. Looking urther

ahead, CDP has launched a verication

white paper and consultation on a

verication roadmap (2013-2018)

aiming to encourage more companies

to veriy their climate data. Visit

https://www.cdproject.net/verifcation

to nd out more.

Verifcation


17/52

1


Scope 1 & 2 Emissions:

Total reported emissions or Scope1 and Scope 2 in CDP 2011 havedecreased to 80.75 and 9.46 milliontonnes o CO

2e respectively rom 90.53

and 16.22 million tonnes o CO2e

reported in CDP 2010. The decreasein emissions has been observed aterthree consecutive years o risingemission gures (see Figure 12), and isseen despite the increase in number ocompanies reporting on Scope 1 andScope 2 emissions in CDP 2011.

89% (41) companies reported Scope 1emissions compared to 33 companieslast year, representing an increaseo 24%; 87% (40) o companieshave reported Scope 2 emissionscompared to 18 companies in CDP2010 registering a more than two-old

increase in the number o respondentsthat disclose Scope 2 emissions.

When considering the individual sectors,Materials reported the largest amounto Scope 1 emissions, contributing43% o the total disclosed emissions,ollowed by the Energy and Utilitiessectors with 23% and 18% o reportedemissions respectively (see Figure15). Similarly, regarding Scope 2emissions, the Consumer Staplessector has the highest share with 33%o total disclosed emissions, ollowedby Industrials, Materials and Energy

sectors, each contributing 18%, 17%and 12% respectively (see Figure 16).

The our energy intensive sectors i.eMaterials, Energy, Utilities and Industrialstogether account or more than 90%o combined Scope 1 and Scope 2emissions reported in CDP 2011.

Reporting trends urther reveal thatcompanies both in high and low energyintensive sectors possess equally highawareness and willingness to controland disclose their emissions.

A constructive trend and increasedocus on emissions monitoring is thusseen in a majority o the reportingcompanies. 89% (41) have reportedtheir Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.However, o these 41 companies, 44%(18) have excluded one or more aspecto their operations rom reporting. Forinstance, 61% (11) o the 18 companie

did not report on emissions rom oneor more oce sites, either Indian oroverseas. Similarly, 17% (3) o thesecompanies have excluded emissionsrom company owned vehicles and useo LPG on the premises.

Figure 14: Contributions of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to total emissions in each sector (absolute

emissions and percentage)

Scope 2Scope 1

219,733

2,843,081

18,255,226

33,607

9,423,339

158,077

35,073,841

14,797,069

474,251

3,175,308

1,093,921

326,690

1,721,844

935,259

1,607,578

129,618

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Consumer Discretionary

Consumer Staples

Energy

Financials

Industrials

Information Technology

Materials

Utilities

Numbers superimposed on the bars reect absolute emissions in t CO2e


18/52


18

Figure 15: Sector specic Scope 1

GHG emissions datadistribution

Energy

Industrials

Materials

Utilities

Others

43%

18%

4%

23%

12%

*Others Include Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples,

Financials and Information Technology

Figure 16: Sector specic Scope 2

GHG emissions data

distribution

Energy

Industrials

Materials

Others

Consumer staples

33%

12%

18%

17%

20%

*Others Include Consumer Discretionary, Financials,Information Technology and Utilities

Scope 3 Emissions:

The Scope 3 emissions reported to CDP2011 has decreased to 2.96 milliontonnes CO

2e rom seven million tonnes

CO2e in 2010 and our million tonnes

CO2e in 2009.

54 % (25) o respondents o CDP 2011have disclosed quantitative Scope 3emissions.

With increasing emphasis onverication and assurance o emissiongures, it is pertinent to note that the

disclosed Scope 3 emissions o over52% (13) o the respondents have notbeen assured or veried. This clearlyindicates that reporting on Scope3 emissions needs more attention.

The Scope 3 gures o 48 % (12) orespondents have either been veriedor verication is underway. 60% (15) othe respondents who have disclosedtheir Scope 3 emissions have indicatedthat their Scope 3 emissions haveincreased compared to the previousyears. This could be attributed to various

reasons such as increase in headcount,increased logistics operations, overallimproved measurement o Scope 3emissions among others. 24 % (6) orespondents disclosed their Scope 3emissions or the rst time and 8% (2)o those who disclosed their Scope 3gures reported a decrease comparedto the previous year.

A mapping o the Scope 3 emissionsto identiy the primary sources revealeda trend similar to CDP 2010. For

CDP 2009, 96% o reported Scope3 emissions were on account obusiness travel. In CDP 2010, thisgure decreased to 43.5%, which in

Figure 17: Mapping of Scope

3 emissions

35%

5%

54%

6%

Business Travel

Employee Commuting

Transportation & Distribution

Others

CDP 2011 has urther decreased to35% (1.03 million tonnes CO

2e). This

indicates that Indian business is in theprocess o adopting alternatives tobusiness travel.

A surprising shit in the trend oScope 3 emission sources is a sharpincrease in the emissions disclosedrom transportation and distribution oproducts. These emissions stood at54% (1.59 million tonnes) accounting othe biggest chunk o Scope 3 emissionscompared to the mere 8% o the totalScope 3 emissions reported in CDP

2010. Employee commuting accountsor 5% (0.16 million tonnes) o Scope 3emissions reported by the companieswhile other parameters such as wastegenerated in operations, courier, sale oelectricity, use o paper products etc.accounted or 6% ( 0.165 million tonneso the reported emissions.

This has decreased signicantlycompared to the 46.5% that itcontributed to, in CDP 2010.


19/52

1


Methodologies GHG

Emissions AccountingThe GHG protocol remains themost widely used with 46 % (21) orespondents adopting this protocol oraccounting o their GHG emissions.

This, though, is a decrease o 14%compared to CDP 2010 when responserate where 60% o the respondentshad adopted this protocol. The decreasecan be attributed to an increase in thepreerence or the use o the IndiaGHG protocol, which has increasedto 13% (6) rom 9% in CDP 2010.

Figure 18: Methodologies adopted

by companies for

GHG accounting

46% (21)

13% (6)

2% (1)

11% (5)

2% (1)

15% (7)

11% (5)

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A CorporateAccounting and Reporting Standard(Revised Edition)

India GHG Inventory Programme

IPIECA's Petroleum Industry Guidelines for

reporting GHG emissions, 2003

ISO 14064-1

USEPA Climate Leaders: Direct Emissionsfrom Stationary combustion

Others

Question Not Answered

Figure 19: Trend in methodology selection for GHG emissions accounting

over the years

46

13

19

11

60

9

17

14

68

11

17

4

61

0

35

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol

India GHG Inventory Programme

Others

ISO 14064 -1

Percentage of Responding companies

CDP 2008

CDP 2009 CDP 2010

CDP 2011

Linear (CDP 2011)

Linear (CDP 2010)

Linear (CDP 2009)

Linear (CDP 2008)

The number o respondents usingthe ISO14064-1 protocol has alsodecreased rom 14% in CDP 2010to 11% (5) in CDP 2011. Close to19% (9) o the respondents are usingother protocols to account or theiremissions while 11% (5) have notresponded to this question. Figure 15shows the percentage breakup on therespondents. The other methodologiesthat have been used by companies varywith the sector to which they belong.Some o those that have been used thisyear are:

GHG Protocol Corporate ReportingStandard by Cement Sustainability

initiative o World Business Councilor Sustainable Development

UNFCCC CDM MethodologyAmerican Petroleum InstituteCompendium o Green House GasMethodologies or the Oil and NaturaGas Industry 2009.

Methodology given by ChicagoClimate Exchange, which usesemission actors or dierent uelsrom IPCC website.


20/52


20

GHG Emission Reduction Targets

The gure 17 shows the response othe CDP 2011 companies to emissionreduction targets. In 2011, 48% (22) donot have any emissions reduction targetsthat are active, ongoing, or have reachedcompletion in the reporting year.

Similar to the trend that was observed inCDP 2010; the majority o the reportedtargets are intensity based. 41% (19) oresponding companies have reported anintensity target or emission reduction andonly one company reported an absolute

target. 4% (2) o the respondents havereported both absolute and intensitytargets.

Similar to CDP 2010, the targets thatwere set by companies were quantitativein nature.

GHG Emissions Intensity

Benchmarks

Figure 20: Response of companies to emission reduction targets

41%

2%4%

48%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Intensity

target

Absolute

target

Absolute &

Intensity

No targets Not

Answered

Percentageofcom

paniesdisclosingtargets

Emission intensity measures describean organizations CO

2e emissions in the

context o another business metric. In

this way, emissions are normalized toaccount or growth. There is no singlemetric specied in the methodologyor measuring the GHG emissions

Figure 21: Reported emission

intensity type

28

31

14

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

In terms of

Revenue/sales

In terms of

full timeemployees

In terms of

output or

product

Others

NumberofCompaniesReporting

Emission Intensity Type

Figure 22: Change in Absolute Scope 1 & 2 emissions from previous year

9

24

1

6

4

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Decrease

Increase

No Change from previous year

First year of estimation

Question not answered

No emissions data Available

Number of Companies

intensity. CDP oers the respondents achoice in terms o measuring the GHGemissions in terms o nancial output,

CO2 emissions per Full time equivalentemployee and additional normalizedmetric that is appropriate to thereporting company.


21/52


2

Table 4: Reported Perormance Targets o Responders

Company Sector Target

Unit

Target Type Perormance Target Baseline Timeline Status

ACC Materials CO2-e Intensity Reduction rom 545.8 kg CO

2/ tonne

to 518.8 kg CO2/ tonne o cementitousmaterial excluding emissions rom sitepower generation

2009 2013 Ongoing

AmbujaCements

Materials CO2-e Intensity Reduction rom 785 kg CO

2/ tonne to 628

kg CO2/ tonne o cement production

1990 2013 Ongoing

SterliteIndustries

Materials CO2-e Intensity 10% reduction in CO

2emission/ tonne o

product2006 2012 Ongoing

TataChemicals

Materials CO2-e Intensity 20% reduction in CO

2emission/ tonne o

product2008 2020 Ongoing

BharatPetroleumCorporation

Energy Energy Intensity 3 to 5% reduction in energy consumption 2009 2010 Achieved

Cairn India Energy CO2-e Intensity Reduction rom 135 mt CO

2e o base year 2009 2010 Achieved

GodrejConsumerProducts

ConsumerStaples

CO2-e Intensity 4%reduction in CO2emission /mt oproduct

2009 2011 Completed

Procter andGambleCompany

ConsumerStaples

CO2-e Intensity 20% reduction in CO

2e/unit o production 2007 2012 Ongoing

Mahindra &Mahindra

Consumerdiscretionary


2emission/litre o

product2009 2010 Achieved

TitanIndustries


CO2-e Absolute &

Intensity50% reduction in CO2emissions over baseyear

2010 2015 Ongoing

18.2% reduction in CO2e/unit o

production2010 Ongoing

Shree Cement Industrials CO2-e Intensity 20% reduction in CO

2emission/ tonne o

product1990 2020 Achieved

ABB Industrials CO2-e Intensity 2.5% reduction in CO

2emission/FTE 2009 2010 Not

AchievedTata PowerCo.

Utilities CO2-e Intensity 8% reduction in CO

2emission/ MWh

generated2009 2011 Achieved

InosysTechnologiesLtd

InormationTechnology


2e/unit revenue 2008 2015 Ongoing

HCLTechnologies



2emission/ FTE 2009 2020 Ongoing

SatyamComputerServices



2e/FTE 2011 2014 Ongoing

Tech Mahindra InormationTechnology


2e/FTE 2009 2013 Ongoing

TCS InormationTechnology

CO2-e Intensity 5% reduction in CO2e/FTE 2010 2011 NotAchieved

HDFC BankLtd

Financials CO2-e Intensity 15% Reduction in CO2e/unit revenue, /metric tonne per millon prot,/FTE

2010 2011 Achieved


22/52


22

Table 5: Reported emission intensity targets

Company Sector Emission Intensity

Reported

Metric used

TCS InormationTechnology

8 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue

2.4 Metric tonnes o CO2e per FTE

0.2 Metric tonnes o CO2e per square oot

Wipro InormationTechnology

50.4 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


HCL Technologies InormationTechnology

10.65 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue

2 Metric tonnes o CO2e per FTEHDFC Bank Limited Financials 49.36 Metric tonnes o CO

2e per unit total revenue


YES BANK Limited Financials 6.8 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue



ICICI Bank Limited Financials 1.68 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue



ACC Materials 17563.2 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


0.549 Metric tonnes o CO2e per tonne o cementitious material

Tata Chemicals Materials 0.0019 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


Procter & Gamble Com-pany

Consumer Staples 0.0000748 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


Tata Global beverages Consumer Staples 11.35 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


0.35 Metric tonnes o CO2e per metric tonne o product

Godrej Consumer Prod-ucts

Consumer Staples 3.42 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue



ABB Industrials 0.0000465 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


L&T Industrials 0.000001 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue



23/52

2


Company Sector Emission Intensity

Reported

Metric used

ITC Industrials 0.0000045608 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


0.233507 Metric tonnes o CO2e per MWh

Shree Cement Industrials 0.0002 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue



GVK Power &Inrastructure

Utilities 0.0001439 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue

1103 Metric tonnes o CO2e per FTE

Tata Power Co. Utilities 0.000168 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


0.695 Metric tonnes o CO2e per MWHr

Essar Oil Energy 0.000005538 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit total revenue


0.17685 Metric tonnes o CO2e per metric tonne o crude through-

put

Cairn India Energy 90.6 Metric tonnes o CO2e per 1000 tonnes o hydrocarbon

production

Mahindra & Mahindra ConsumerDiscretionary


0.76 Metric tonnes o CO2e per unit o productionGodrej industries Consumer

Discretionary124.93 Metric tonnes o CO

2e per unit total revenue




24/52

24

Chapter 1: 2011 Carbon Disclosure Scores

Disclosure score highlights

Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index(CDLI)

For the second year in India,company responses to the InvestorCDP inormation request arescored according to CDPs scoringmethodology. This methodologyprovides or the analysis o companyresponses in terms o both disclosure the comprehensiveness o a response- and perormance, the companyscontribution to action on climate changemitigation and adaptation. When the

methodology is applied this results incompanies receiving a disclosure scoreand, where sucient disclosure exists, aperormance band.

In 2010, responding companiesreceived a disclosure score only. Forthe rst time in 2011, the perormanceaspect o the scoring methodology hasbeen introduced or the India 200.

Disclosure scores

Disclosure scores are an assessmento the quality and completenesso a companys response; theyare not a measure o a companysperormance in relation to climatechange management

Scoresareplottedovera100-point

normalized scale

Companiesareassessedbasedontheir level o disclosure o carbonemissions measurement techniquesand subsequent public disclosure

More inormation related to scoringcan be ound in the CDP inormationrequest, supporting methodology andguidance documents, as well as withinindividual company responses at www.cdproject.net.

Analysis o the responses which score

highly on disclosure provides insightsinto the characteristics and commontrends among the leading companies ocarbon disclosure, and highlights goodpractices in reporting, governance, riskmanagement and other areas.

Figure 23: Snapshot of CDLI overview

Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) 2011

Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI)

Disclosure is steadily improving among India200 respondents; the average CDLI scorein 2011 is 77, up 5 points from the averageCDLI score of 72 in the year of 2010.

70.5

71.5727373.57474.5757677

72.5

71 Year 2010 Year 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

TataConsultancy

Services

Wipro YES BANKLimited

ACC TataChemicals

Tata GlobalBeverages

SesaGoa

GVK Power &Infrastructure

ABB Tata PowerCo

The Top 10 companies in the CDLI Band

shows a diverse mix of sectors such as

Materials, Utilities, Information technology,

Financials and Consumer staples.

This suggests that awareness of climatechange and its importance to businesses is

not conned to only some sectors.

There is an increasing level of interest in the

climate change by the executive manage-

ment and it is expected that there will soon

be a visible percolation to businesses in the

supply chain of these organizations.


25/52

2

Table 6: Companies recognized on Carbon Disclosure LeadershipIndex (CDLI) in India

Sector Company Name CDLI scores

Inormation Technology Tata Consultancy Services 86

Inormation technology Wipro 80Financials Yes BANK Limited 78

Materials ACC 78

Materials Tata Chemicals 77

Consumer Staples Tata Global Beverages 76

Materials Sesa Goa 75

Utilities GVK Power & Inrastructure 75

Industrials ABB 72

Utilities Tata Power Co. 71

2011 Carbon Disclosure Sco

The CDP scoring methodology isavailable on the CDP website.

From 2010 onwards, the responsesby Indian CDP participants werescored ollowing the global methodology(see Appendix 3).

As seen rom the India CDLI, thetop 10 shows a diverse mix osectors such as Materials, Utilities,Inormation Technology, Financialsand Consumer Staples. This suggeststhat awareness o climate change andits importance to businesses is notconned only to traditional sectors

whose operations have a direct bearingon the environment. The quality andcompleteness o the disclosure o thecompanies in the CDLI shows thatthere is an increasing level o interestin climate change by the executive

continues to improve. The CDLIcomprises six sectors with three leaders

in the Materials sector and two leadersin Inormation Technology and Utilitieseach.

The 2011 responses clearly refect theintegration o climate change into thebusiness strategies o the respondingIndian companies. As indicated by theresponses, managements responsibilityand interest in managing climate changrisks and beneting rom climate changrelated opportunities has increasedmaniold compared to the previous

years. The business impacts o ClimateChange are now evaluated careully andclimate change mitigation initiatives arebeing integrated into the operations othe organization.

management and it is expected thatthere will soon be a visible percolation

to businesses in the supply chain othese organizations.

It can be seen rom the scoresthat the standard o disclosure issteadily improving among India 200respondents; the average disclosurescore in the CDLI in 2011 is 77, up 5points rom the average CDLI scoreo 72 in the year o 2010. The highestdisclosure score in 2011 is 86, whichis only slightly lower than 87 in 2010.

This may be due to the increasing

stringency o the scoring mechanismeach year. However, the lowest CDLIscore in 2011 is 71, up rom 64 pointsin 2010. This indicates that the depthand quality o inormation provided inresponse to the CDP questionnaire

Representation in thesustainability space isimperative and the Bank hasengaged with global thoughtleadership orums like theClinton Global Initiative (CGI),Triple Bottom Line Investing(TBLI), Tllberg Forum,Cleantech Forum amongstmany others. Additionally theBank has also become therst Indian Bank in privatesector to become signatory toUNEP Statement by FinancialInstitutions on the Environment

and Sustainable Developmentand the Carbon DisclosureProject (CDP).

YES BANK Limited


26/52

26

The 2011 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index(CDLI)

Generally, companies scoring within

a particular range suggest levels o

commitment to, and experience o,

carbon disclosure. The indicative

description o each level is provided

below or guidance only; investors

should read individual company

responses to understand the context

or each business.

How is the disclosure score

determined?

In determining the disclosure score

or each company, we assess the

ollowing:

Thelevelofunderstandingand

disclosure o company-specic

exposure to climate-related risks

and opportunities

Thelevelofstrategicfocusand

commitment to understanding the

business issues related to climate

change, emanating rom the top o

the organization

Theextenttowhichacompanyhas

measured its carbon emissions

Theextentoftheinternaldata

management practices or

understanding GHG emissions,

including energy use

Thefrequencyandrelevanceo disclosure to key corporate

stakeholders

Whetherthecompanyusesthird

party or external verication o

emissions data to promote greater

condence and usage o the data

Eligibility or the CDL

In order to be included in the CDLI

companies must:

RespondusingtheOnline

ReportingSystem(ORS)priorto

the deadline

Provideapublicresponse

Scorewithinthetop10companyscores o the reporting population

More inormation on the CDLI can

be ound in the inormation request,

supporting methodology and guidance

documents at www.cdproject.net

What does a CDP carbon disclosure score represent?

The journey to leadership

High

(>70)

Senior management

understand the

business issues related

to climate change and

are building climate

related risks and

opportunities into

core business

Midrange

(50-70)

Increased

understanding and

measurement o

company-specic

risks and opportunities

related to climate

change

Low

(


27/52

2

Band A/A- (>70)

Fully integrated climate change strategy drivingsignicant maturity in climate change initiatives

Band B (>50)

Integration o climate change recognised as priorityor strategy, not all initiatives ully established

Band C (>30)

Some activity on climate change with varied levels ointegration o those initiatives into strategy

Band D (>15)

Limited evidence o mitigation or adaptationinitiatives and no/limited strategy on climate change

Band E (15)

Little evidence o initiatives on carbon management potentially dueto companies just beginning to take action on climate change

Performance

band(Aishighest)

No perormance score allocated below a disclosure o 50%

Figure 25: Carbon perormance elements

What does a

perormance band

represent?

Companies scored on disclosure whoachieve a suciently high score, overa qualiying threshold o 50, receive aperormance band. Disclosure scoreso less than 50 do not necessarilyindicate poor perormance; rather,they indicate insucient inormation toevaluate perormance. However, it is

reasonable to assume that companieswhich do not disclose well may not betaking much action on climate change.

Perormance is grouped in six bands:A, A-, B, C, D and E which are denedby the ollowing characteristics.

To achieve the highest perormanceband (A), companies not only haveto achieve a disclosure score o 50or above, and a perormance scoregreater than 70, but also meet theollowing requirements:

Scoremaximumperformance

points on question 13.1a (absoluteemissions perormance); at least a2.65% reduction in carbon emissionsmust have been achieved as a resulto emissions reduction activities overthe last year

Disclosegrossglobalscope1and

scope 2 gures

Scoremaximumperformancepoints or verication o scope 1and scope 2.

Notes:

BandA-companiesareconsidered

strong perormers, with aperormance score high enough tobe considered or perormance band

A. However, they do not meet allother requirements to achieve thishighest perormance band.

CDPreservestherighttoexclude

a company rom the highestperormance band (A) i there isanything in its response that callsinto question its suitability orinclusion.

Perormance scoring is an instructiveexercise or all stakeholders. The scoreprovides an indication o the extent

to which companies are addressingthe potential opportunities and riskspresented by climate change. CDPrecognizes that this is a process thatwill evolve over time. It is importantor investors to keep in mind that thecarbon perormance band is not:

Ameasureofhowlowcarbona

company is

Anassessmentoftheextentto

which a companys actions have

reduced carbon intensity relative toother companies in its sector

Anassessmentofhowmaterial

a companys actions are relativeto the business; the score simplyrecognizes evidence o action.

CDP recommends investors reviewindividual company disclosures inaddition to perormance rankings inorder to gain the most comprehensiveunderstanding o company

perormance. A listing o the bandsor the companies which were scoredis included in the Appendix. Scoredcompanies that did not qualiy ora perormance band appear in the

Appendix with a dash (-) in theperormance band column.

2011 Carbon Disclosure Sco


28/52


28

Figure 26: The climate change regulatory landscape facing global organizations

Drivers

India has made commitments to lower itsemissions intensity to the internationalcommunity and inaction could hurtIndias credibility.

India is set to undertake rapid expansionin infrastructure. However, it is equallycritical to account for the impact ofclimate change-related costs, while makingtechnological choices so that the countrydoes not lose out on pertinent opportunities.

India is particularly vulnerable to theimpact of climate change because largeportions of its growing population are:

Indias proactive stance can open diverse

avenues for the country to strengthenits global footing through:

Benets

If India is proactive, it will have moreleverage to press developed nationsto do their part by reducing emissionsand facilitating technology transfer,adaptation and nance.

A low-carbon development path wouldentail less dependence on fossil fuels andincreased investments in clean technology,resulting in increased energy security, jobcreation and economic growth.

By adopting low-carbon growth, India willcontribute to the mitigation of climatechange and encourage other nations todo the same. This will curb the adverseimpact of climate change the world over.

International efforts to combatclimate change

Clean technologies

Sustainable growth

Dependent on agriculture as livelihood

Below the poverty line

Living in coastal areas

Carbon Disclosure Project 2011 FTSE 350 Report

Chapter 2: Implications o Climate Change on

Indian Industry

Recognizing that climate change is amajor threat, India has engaged actively

in multilateral negotiations in the UNFramework Convention on ClimateChange, in a positive, constructive andorward looking manner.

The success o the national eortsby the Indian Government will besignicantly enhanced providedthe developed countries arm theirresponsibility or accumulated GHGemissions and ulll their commitmentsunder the UNFCCC to transer additionalnancial resources and climate riendly

technologies to support both adaptationand mitigation in developing countries.

India is determined that its per capitaGHG emissions will at no point exceedthat o the developed countries even asit pursues its development objectives.

Opportunities presented

by the challenge o climate

change

Indias economy is expected to continuegrowing at a rapid pace over the next 20years. An estimated three-ourths o theinrastructure that will be used in India in2030 is yet to be built. Thereore, Indiais presented with a unique opportunityto continue its rapid economic growthand develop its inrastructure through alow-carbon pathway. The benets o alow-carbon economy include meeting

the objectives o ast-paced economicgrowth and addressing the challenge oclimate change.

The transition to a low-carbon economycan drive sustainable growth, whilemanaging GHG emissions andaddressing the risks o climate change.

Although the Government o India (GoI)has already put in place numerouspolicy initiatives to promote mitigationand adaptation to climate change, acoordinated eort rom all sectors o the

industry, government and public will berequired to take India on its low-carbongrowth trajectory.

Current Regulations and

Policies Relevant to Low-

Carbon Growth in India

National Action Plan on Climate

Change

The National Action Plan on ClimateChange (NAPCC) was ormally unveiledin June 2008, endeavoring to outline thestrategy or conronting the challengeo sustaining economic growth, whilecoping with the global threat o climatechange. The NAPCC primarily aimsat identiying potential opportunitiesand delineating the path orward orimplementation o technologies thataddress Indias twin needs: sustainabledevelopment, and adaptation &mitigation o commercial emissions inan accelerated manner. The NAPCCoutlines the ocal components o thestrategy in the orm o eight NationalMissions, representing a multi-pronged,long-term and integrated strategy toachieve key goals in the context oclimate change.


29/52

2

Among the eight national missionsunder the NAPCC, the National Solar

Mission, National Mission or EnhancedEnergy Eciency and the NationalMission on Sustainable Habitat arethe key components o the strategyto achieve climate change mitigation-related objectives. The National Missionor a Green India outlines the nationsstrategy to enhance carbon sinks,increase the orest cover and preservebiodiversity. The ocus o the NationalMission or Sustaining the HimalayanEcosystem, and the National WaterMission is on strategies or adaptationto climate change and management onatural resources. Finally, the NationalMission or Strategic Knowledge orClimate Change will promote researchand development in the climate changesciences, including seeking internationalcooperation in technology development,setting up a climate change researchund and disseminating climate changeknowledge.

Post the COP15 (Conerence o theParties) in Copenhagen in 2009, Indiacommitted to reduce emissions intensity(GHG emissions per unit GDP) by 20-25% below the 2005 levels by 2020.

The climate change policies in India areocused to achieve the voluntary targets,while maintaining the growth o theeconomy.

Low Carbon Expert Group

It is important that the implementation oIndias eorts to combat climate changecan be channelled through a strategy

consistent with the national objectiveso poverty alleviation, sustainabledevelopment and inclusive growth. Forthis purpose, the Planning Commissioninstituted an Expert Group headed byDr. Kirit Parikh, the ormer member oIndias Planning Commission, to developa strategy or a low-carbon economyor India. The expert group consists omembers rom the government, industry,academia and civil society.

The mandate o the low-carbon expertgroup is to:

Reviewtheexistingstudiesonlow-

carbon growth conducted by variousorganizations.

Assesslow-carbonoptionsrelevant

to the Indian economy.

Draftanactionplancomprising

critical low-carbon initiatives.

Providealistofenablinglegislatures,

rules and policies to operationalizelow-carbon roadmap.

The Low carbon Expert Group hasidentied the ollowing ocus sectors:power, iron and steel, cement, buildingsand transportation.

Renewable Purchase Obligation and

Renewable Energy Certifcates

The Central Electricity RegulationCommittee (CERC) oversees theRenewable Purchase Obligations(RPO) and Renewable Energy Certicate

(REC) mechanism, which aims atmeeting the targets or renewableenergy specied in NAPCC. Under theNAPCC, the target or the purchase orenewable energy was set at 5% o thetotal grid power purchase or FY 09-10, with an increase by 1% every yearor the next decade. Obligated entities(OEs) such as distribution licensees,captive power plant owners and openaccess consumers will be mandated toulll RPOs.

CERC approved the detailed procedureor the REC mechanism on 1 June2010. RECs represent an aggregationo certain non-energy and societalbenecial attributes, e.g. environmentaland socio-economic benets, oelectricity generated rom renewableenergy sources and are an ideal solutionto challenges posed by RPOs. Theseattributes, embodied in the orm ocerticates, may be traded separatelyrom electricity. One REC will be issued

to renewable energy generator or oneMWh o renewable electrical energy ed

into the grid and the same will remainvalid or a period o one year rom thedate o issuance.

The promotion o renewable energythrough RPO and trading o RECs willincrease renewable energy generation inIndia, displace ossil uels and contributto Indias low-carbon growth.

Perorm Achieve and Trade (PAT)

The Perorm, Achieve and Trade (PAT)

scheme is an initiative under the NationaMission or Enhanced Energy EciencyIt is a market based mechanismto enhance cost-eectiveness oimprovements in the energy eciencyo Designated Consumers. TheDCs are energy-intensive acilities/establishments identied across eightenergy intensive sectors by Bureau oEnergy Eciency (BEE) in Phase I orthe period 2011-2014. These sectorsinclude power, iron and steel, cement,ertilizer, pulp and paper, aluminum,

textiles and chlor-alkali.So ar about 477DCs have been identied by BEE.

The scheme received the in-principalapproval o the Prime Ministers Councilon Climate Change in August 2009 andthe approval o the Union Cabinet onJune 2010. The regulatory unctions othe PAT scheme will be implementedby BEE and Energy Eciency ServicesLtd. (EES) under the Ministry o Power.BEE is expected to announce energyeciency targets or DCs by end 2011.

Each DC will be mandated to reducespecic energy consumption (SEC) bya xed percentage within a speciedtime period o three years. Under thescheme, DCs will have the choice toreduce energy consumption eitherthrough the implementation o energyeciency measures or through thepurchase o energy saving certicates(ESCerts). I DC is capable o exceeding

Implications o Climate Change on Indian Indust


30/52


30

its energy-saving targets, then throug

CDP 2011 India 200 Report

Documents

Transcript of CDP 2011 India 200 Report