IEEFA Report 100 and counting Coal Exit Feb 2019

Transcript

1 1 Tim Buckley Director of Energy Finance Studies, Australasia 27 February 2019 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come Every Two Weeks a Bank, Insurer or Lender Announces New Restrictions on Coal Executive Summary Today, over 100 globally significant financial institutions have divested from al coal, including 40% of the top 40 global banks and therm globally significant 20 Momentum is building. insurers. Since January 2018, a bank or insurer announced their divestment from coal - fired power plants mining and/or coal Global capital is fleeing every month, and a financial inst itution . the coal sector who had previously announced a no passing fad. This is divestment/exclusion policy tightened up their policy to remove loopholes, . every two weeks 4 coal divestment/restriction policy announcements have been made by In total, 3 since the start of 2018. globally significant financial institutions nine weeks of 2019, there have been five new announcements of banks In the first coal sector. thermal Global capital is fleeing the and insurers divesting from coal. This is no passing fad. institutions have made increasingly tight Since 2013 more than 100 global financial divestment/exclusion policies around thermal coal. he ball started rolling. t When the World Bank Group moved to exit coal in 2013, coal insurance restrict Following, Axa and Allianz become the first global insurers to and investment respectively in 2015, and their policies have subsequently been mater ially enhanced. Next, some 35 export credit agencies (ECA) released a joint statement agreeing to new rules restricting coal power lending. In the same year, the China - led As green ian Infrastructure Investment Bank trumpeted its global credentials in practice ruling out with the Chairman confirming the Bank was fin ance for coal - fired power plants. One of the strongest moves in 2015 came when the world’s second largest sovereign wealth fund based in Norway (US$1 trillion) stepped up its exclusion criteria and started divesting from coal. When such a significant inves tor acts, global momentum increases.

2 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 2 ichi Life of Japan issued a new policy In May 2018 Dai announcing it would no - omo Mitsui Trust Bank ruled out coal - fired power plant longer insure coal. Sumit In September 2018 Standard Chartered announced the end of lending soon after. lending for new coal plants, anywhere in the world. To close the y ear, some 415 global investors managing a collective US$32 trillion called for a complete thermal coal phase out by 2030 across the OECD. By the start of 2019 over 30 global banks had ceased project When such a significant investor financing for thermal coal - fired power mines and/or coal ts, global momentum increases. ac plants worldwide, without geographic loopholes. In January 2019 GMO founder Jeremy Grantham stated thermal coal is “dead meat”. During the month Export Development Canada (EDC) and Barclays both announced ommitment comprising all thermal their exit from coal project finance, with EDC’s c coal infrastructure including ports and rail links. In late January 2019 Varma of Finland announced its cessation from investing in - fired coal while Nedbank of South Africa withdrew financing for two major coal projects in South Africa power plant , then February 2019 saw VIG of Austria cease . coal insurance Over 100 and counting. The implications of this are electrifying. – The financial institutions leaving coal behind are no ethically minded minnows argest across the globe. As extreme weather increases in they are some of the l frequency and extremity the list will continue to grow, while the lending exclusions and divestments will increasingly be delivered upon.

3 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 3 Table of Contents ... ... ... ... 1 Executive Summary ... ... ... ... 4 Introduction ... . 1. Forecasting Coal’s Collapse in Climate Change Scenarios 7 2. 100 and Counting: The Global Financial Institutions Restricting or ... ... ... 11 Divesting Coal ... ... ... 2.1 Global Asset Managers 11 ... 2.2 Multilateral Development Banks ... ... ... 13 2.3 Export Credit Agencies ... ... ... 15 2.4 National Development Finance Institutions ... 15 ... ... 17 2.5 Global Insurers and Reinsurance Companies ... ... ... ... . 2.6 Leading Global Banks 23 The Risk of G ... ... reenwash ... 30 ... Exclusions from the Global List of 100 and Counting ... ... 31 ... Clean Energy Lending Targets US$1.4 Trillion ... 31 – Leading Global Banks: 40% of Top 40 Global Banks Starting to Align with Paris ... ... ... ... ... 32 Coal Policy Announcements by Global Financial Institutions ... 34

4 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 4 Introduction Are Progressively Global Financial Corporations ‘ Paris Agreement ’ Implement ing Compliant Policies 1 ver 100 globally significant financial institutions including public development O , banks, national development finance institu tions, export credit agencies, private banks and insurance companies , have developed formal thermal coal mining and/or - fired power plant restriction policies since 2013. coal 3 Since the start of 2018, there have been new or significantly improved 4 2 ements from global financial institutions, one every two weeks. announc Of 3 4 new coal exclusion policies announced since 2 were new 4 January 2018, The math is simple. financial policies from As the world acts on 10 were institutions , and expanded policies building climate change, coal becomes upon earlier coal - related . the most obvious stranded asset climate an d divestment commitments. new announcements in 2019 alone show the increasing geographical diversity Five of the globally significant institutions exiting coal, including Export Development Barclays Bank UK , and VIG of Canada, Varma of Finland, Nedbank of South Africa . Austria While many of the policies initially contained exclusions and technology or country exemptions, these loopholes are increasingly being closed off in subsequent policy refinements. assets under which we define as institutions ( Globally significant financial management and/or equity market capitalisation of greater than US$10bn) are exiting coal at prog ressively faster rates because the math has become simple: coal omes the causes climate change, and as the world acts on climate change, coal bec most obvious stranded asset. IEEFA finds once an institution begins accepting the science of climate change and endorsing the Paris Agreement, they quickly understand their formal policies are usually not aligned with a ny rigorous climate scenario . Many of the policies which initially were far from complete or rigorous (sometimes little more than 1 IEEFA defines globally significant financial institutions to be a threshold of at least US$10 billion of assets under management (AuM) or loans outstanding. 2 IEEFA notes insurance companies divest coal investments across their asset portfolio, and restrict the provision of insurance, while banks restrict lending to coal companies or projects.

5 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 5 ‘greenwash’) have been subsequently upgraded to be more rigorous and comprehensive . , with initial exceptions now removed IEEFA notes the International Ene ’s central New Policy Scenario rgy Agency (IEA) and even their more ambitious Sustainable Development Scenario are entirely inadequate in modelling a delivery on the Paris Agreement. exceeding all As the rate of technology development in the global electricity sector is expectations, particularly in terms of renewables deflation, IEEFA notes the global financial institution’s new climate policies are forcing a critical evaluation of what a Paris Agreement endorsement really looks like. egrees Scenario (B2DS) or Bloomberg NEF’s New Energy The IEA’s Beyond 2 D Outlook modelling shows the true magnitude of change really required. it is clear to IEEFA that global investor As this evaluation is being undertaken, ate, and it is foreseeable that and debt capital is fleeing coal at an increasing r thermal coal and power plants become uninsurable in the medium term. As a leading example, private finance in India for a new power plant is no longer available. The rate of change globally looks very much like dominos fall ing, raising the question of who will make the next move. In recent months Japan has been party to what could amount to a pivotal change within government Over 100 and counting. and the business community, with . The pace of change is electrifying and ITOCHU Marubeni Corp being case in point, while China and s Russia lag well behind. The geographical diversity of announcements shows global momentum is building, and not withstanding some government members’ attempts to ob struct progress, the reality is that finance and corporates are increasingly taking the lead, not waiting for a political consensus to emerge before acting. Already an emerging theme in 2019 is coal companies’ inability to access capital for expansions, or mergers and acquisitions. markets The CoalTrans USA conference held in January 2019 saw executives lament the fact that access to capital is very tight: banks are still considering lending to coking coal but most refuse lending for thermal coal projects. Given the industry’s propensity to promulgate bullish demand growth forecasts that do not materialise, the behaviour by the banks is exerting some industry discipline, preventing higher prices resulting in a material increase in supply even as demand continues to decline.

6 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 6 . . market has seen a European coal demand is down 40% since 2012, and the U S similar rate of decline. The industry makes a possibly fair point that a lack of access to capital is constraining consolidation which might allow cost savings on integration and downsizing. However, the industry’s capacity to destroy investor, entirely warranted. lender and worker pension capital suggests this caution is IEEFA notes that IEA forecasts suggest unabated thermal coal use must cease globally by 2050 if the world is to successfully restrict temperature rises to 1.5 - °C 2.0 above pre - industrial levels. Global investors are likewise calling for coal use to cease by 2050. In this report, we address the progress being made by global financial institutions as they rapidly divest from thermal coal, taking a lens to:  global asse t managers;  multilateral development banks;  export credit agencies;  national development finance agencies;  global insurers and reinsurance firms; and  leading global banks. We finish the report with a review of nine global financial institutions who have co llectively pledged to invest US$1.4 trillion in clean energy lending over the coming decade. Where there are threats to incumbent industries, there are also new investing opportunities. Chuck Prince as head of Citigroup said: Preceding the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), , remaining blind “But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance” to the smart money heading for th e door. Prince was late to the party and was duly sacked as Citi shares dropped 99% or US$250bn in the following two years in one of the largest single private shareholder wealth destruction events ever. Citi has belatedly moved from being the top U.S. fin ancer of coal in 2017 to having a coal - fired power plant exclusion policy (with loopholes) in place by December 2018. In the fina ncial industry global climate risks are clear and known, just as to most, the GFC risks were known. Renewable energy is just one area of this comprehensive technology led disruption, and it is clear that in countries as diverse as India, Mexico, Australia and America that renewables are the low cost source of new generation capacity. The electric vehicle disruption of transport will compound this technology disruption, given the convergence of the transport and energy sectors. This report suggests that an i ncreasing number of global financial institutions have already looked ahead and are leaving coal at an ever - increasing pace, both in response to global warming and to ensure history, in the form of financial collapse, does not repeat itself. Financiers are increasingly unwilling to wait for governments

7 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 7 to awake to the clear need for policy clarity and modernisation, although in this report we detail as a clear global leader of the benefits of showing policy California foresight. 1. C oal’s C ollapse in Climate Change Forecasting Scenarios ‘ IEA’s ’ Charts 57% Decline Sustainable Development Scenario in Coal by 2040 n a rapidly increasing number of global financial Since 2013, there has bee institutions announcing lending polices addressing the financial risks of climate change. restricting and/or The 100 and counting global financial institutions already se to the growing discrepancy between the divesting from coal is a clear respon world’s current carbon emissions trajectory and the technological investment and commitment required for the world to deliver on the Paris Agreement, a global treaty committing nations of the world to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 - 2.0°C above pre - industrial levels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) models the current trajectory of countries acting to reduce emissions under its New Policy Scenario (NPS), putting the world unacceptable 2.7°C - linear on track for an , or more if feedback loops create more non change. Scenario (SDS) forecasts a 50% In contrast, the IEA’s Sustainable Development chance of holding global temperature rises to 2.0°C. (The world would need far more aggressive policy changes to give any legitimacy to a 1.5°C ambition). The SDS models a 61% decline in global thermal coal demand by 2040. ( T able 1.1.) Table 1.1 : IEA World Coal E stimates 2014 - 2017 (act ual ) vs . 2040 (est ): NPS vs . SDS imate Source: IEA WEO2017 page 644 - 645, WEO2018 pages 520 - 521, IEEFA Calculations . Realistically the SDS is far from sufficient to deliver on the Paris Agreement . The decline trajectory for thermal coal globally needs to be terminal by 2050, absent carbon capture and storage (CCS). This is clearly modelled in the IEA’s Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS) and Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance (BNEF) New Energy Outlook

8 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 8 2018 scenario which models a 50% chance of limiting average future temperature increases to 1.75°C utilising a rapid decarbonisation pathway. Another factor driving the global acceleration of coal divestmen t coupled with Task Force institutionalisation of rigorous climate policy statements stems from the on Climate - related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). 3 Carney, the Under the visionary guidance of Bank of England’s Governor Mark – Financial Stability Board (FSB) an international body monitoring and making – recommendations about the global financial system has strongly endorsed the industry - led TCFD and its (for now) voluntary agreement to develop aligned and uniform disclosures acknowledging and assessing climate risks as they relate to financial institutions. The TCFD covers all companies. This is important given financial institutions both own, insure and lend to virtually every company in the world, and any evaluat ion of climate risk requires clarity, transparency and reporting on systemic risks in their underlying asset and liability exposures. While companies are currently not required to comply with the TCFD, financial 4 and courts are increasingly rec regulators ognising that directors have a fiduciary duty to assess, manage and report to shareholders on all key risks. For example, although a company’s Board might deem the IEA’s SDS path unlikely, their Fiduciary e financial risks in the event they Duty will be to show they have clearly evaluated th are wrong. A third factor driving global divestment away from coal is capacity versus - fired power plant capacity has continued to grow over utilisation. While global coal ge global coal - fired power plant the last decade, the concurrent collapse in avera utilisation rates has seen record lows reached each year. (See Figure 1.2) Renewables and energy efficiency have massively undermined coal power’s g - term viability. The ongoing deflation in renewable energy contrasts with the lon inflationary nature of coal fired power plants. - 3 Breaking the tragedy of the In September 2015 Mark Carney gave the landmark speech “ ”. This has been built upon in subsequent keynote speeches, including in April 2018: “ horizon A transition in thinking and Action .” 4 To take Australia as an example, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)’s Geoff Summerhayes and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC)’s John Price have made very clear policy positions for Fina ncial Institutions overall and for Company Directors on Fiduciary Duties, implementing and building upon the guidance of the FSB and the TCFD.

9 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 9 Figure 1 : Global Coal - fired Power Plants: Capacity Growth but Utilisation Falling Source: Global Coal Plant Tracker, BP World Statistics , IEEFA Calculations .

10 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 10 W ith Modelling Global Energy Demand arios Climate Change Scen The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an independent intergovernmental organisation established in 1974 under the framework of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Each year, the IEA releases a World Energy Outlook model global energy report which, among other things, attempts to demand using various . scenarios IEEFA sees the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario is the most likely reflection of the world’s likely energy future, but the Beyond 2°C Scenario is what financial institutions are committing to wh en they set Paris Agreement compliant targets. Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS) presents the most desirable scenario in The terms of human and global safety whereby nations work together to successfully limit climate change by transforming the energ y market. Under the SDS, the planet’s ‘carbon budget’ will be exhausted as early as 2023 under a 1.5°C target and by 2040 under a 2°C objective. The SDS falls short of tracking a path towards meeting the Paris Agreement’s target of restricting global warmi ng to well below 2°C with any certainty. The SDS projects a significant decline in thermal coal demand, with global trade plummeting 59% by 2040. The (NPS) is the IEA’s central scenario. Under this scenario, New Policies Scenario wly rise to 2040 and global temperatures will likely increase emissions continue to slo - century. The NPS assumes people and countries in the world by at least 2.7°C by mid will not take significant action to act on carbon emissions in line with the commitments included in the Paris Agreement. Under the NPS, global coal trade declines 5% by 2040. Current Policies Scenario (CPS) assumes no effective concerted action on climate The such that the globe’s carbon dioxide levels continue to increase and the global warming target of 1.5°C is exceeded by as early as 2022. By definition, the CPS is consistently out - of - date as any policies and measures that have taken place since mid - 2018 are not included. In the , global policies are set to give the world a 66% chance that th e 66% 2°C scenario - carbon <2°C Paris target is met through an ‘an unparalleled ramp up of all low technologies in all countries’ and the ‘rapid phase out of fossil fuel subsidies’, including massive increases to carbon pricing and ‘extensive energy market reforms’ and mand ates. 66% 2°C projects the fastest structural decline for the thermal coal industry and offers a more definite chance of meeting the Paris target of restricting global warming to well below 2°C. The (B2DS) sets out a rapid decarbonisa tion pathway aligned beyond 2°C scenario with international policy goals. To achieve net - zero emissions by 2060, technological innovation is heavily invested in and deployed to the limits across the energy system, resulting in cumulative emissions from the energy sector consi stent with a 50% chance of limiting average future temperature increases to 1.75°C. The B2DS falls within the Paris Agreement range of ambition without defining a specific temperature target.

11 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 11 Global 100 and Counting: The ina ncial 2. F Restricting or Divesting Coal I nstitutions 5 To date, o including global asset ver 100 globally significant financial institutions public development banks, export credit agencies, national development managers, and private banks have developed formal thermal coal mining finance institutions - fired power plant restriction policies . and/or coal : Global Financial Institutions Restricting Coal as at Feb 2019 Table 2.1 G l o b a l F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n s > U S $ 1 0 b n A U M T o t a l M u l t i l a t e r a l D e v e l o p m e n t B a n k s ( M D B ) 7 E x p o r t C r e d i t A g e n c i e s ( E C A ) 3 5 D e v e l o p m e n t F i n a n c e I n s t i t u t i o n s ( D F I ) 9 I n s u r e r s / R e i n s u r e r s 2 0 G l o b a l B a n k s ( P r i v a t e ) 3 4 Source: Corporate Announcements, press reports, IEEFA Calculations as of February 2019 . 2.1 Global Asset Managers 2018 Released at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2018 (COP24), t he 6 on Climate Change included within its to Governments Global Investor Statement 415 signatories some of the world’s largest pension funds, asset ma nagers and insurance companies representing over US$32 trillion in assets . ree overarching priorities: The Global Investor Statement detailed th achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals;   accelerate private sector investment into low carbon transition plans, an d commit to improve climate  related financial reporting. - Specifically, investors called for a global price on carbon emissions The investors call for the plant phase and a thermal coal - phase out of coal power out across the entire OECD by 2030, throughout China by 2040, . worldwide by 2050 and across the rest of the world b y 2050. Given the clarity of the Global Investor Statement , this report makes only selective references to divestment and climate policy highlights of global asset 5 IEEFA defines globally significant financial institutions to be a threshold of at least US$10 billion of assets under management (AuM) or loans outstanding. 6 The Investor Agenda, “ Briefing Paper on the 2018 Global Investor Statement to Governments on ”, 10 December 2018. Climate C hange

12 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 12 to illustrate the growing momentum and increasingly global nature of managers moves reflecting the historical divestment from tobacco, asbestos and divestment in over Global asset managers are not included in the final tally of munitions firms. 100 significant financial institutions restricting coal. Norway's largest private asset , Storebrand manager holding US$85bn of assets under management has been excluding companies associated with coal since 2013 Norway’s largest and continues to progressively tighten their definition each yea r. KLP pension company (US$81bn AuM) announced in December 2018 it would exclude more global coal/fossil fuel firms. began s overeign w ealth Norway und ’s US$1 trillion divesting from coal in 2015 , f n emitters (including tar sands, and has progressively exited other extreme carbo coal - oil and gas firms ) . fired power plant majors, and most recently Governor of California the US$350bn Public Employees’ In 2015 the committed and the US$215bn State Teachers’ Retirement System Retirement System (CalPERS) from making new investments in thermal coal firms. In January 2018 the (CalSTRS) New York City fund announced it would Mayor and Comptroller of the US$189bn divest fossil fuel holdings over the coming five years. UniSuper a nd QSuper thr e w their combined In July 2018 Australian pension funds $147bn of funds under management A Climate Action 100+ , a 300 strong behind global investor initiative encouraging the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters to take necessary action on climate change - lifting to more than A $1 trillion the Australian funds pledged to steer energy - intensive companies away from h as consistently been recognised as Australia’s coal. Local Government Super leading fund on climate change issues. In August 2018 Sweden’s pension fund AP7 (US$54bn AuM) moved to divest 65 These are the first Korean orporate laggards who continue to global c financial institutions to from its fund climate denial lobby groups . divest from coal financing World fund (like passive global equities the Minerals Council Coal Association and of Australia (MCA)). asset manager , with over €1.4 trillion in AuM, Amundi of France ’s leading Europe has applied environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria to its entire portfolio since October 2018. heme and the Government Employees In October 2018 Korea’s Teachers’ Pension Sc d Pension System (total AuM of US$22bn) both announce their financial withdrawal the first Korean financial from any new coal - fired power plants . These are . institutions to divest from coal financing ô ts Group ( €150 bn AuM) reduce d In November 2018 Franc e’s Caisse des D é p its 10% exposure investment exclusions to any mining or power firm with more than , building upon FRR ’s divestment in December 2016 . to coal (previously 20%)

13 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 13 . M ultil ateral Development Banks 2 2 The President’s Climate In June 2013, then U.S. President Barack Obama rel eased “ Action Plan ” directing agencies to support climate - resilient investment. The Plan government support for public financing of new coal also called for an end to U.S. plants both domestically and overseas, except in the world’s lowest income countries where there are no other economically feasible energy alternatives, and if the most efficient coal technology is deplo yed. the largest shareholder The U.S. government is in the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development , as well as the African Development Bank. Group World Bank World Bank Group took global climate finance leadership, releasing In July 2013 the Toward a its policy: “ ustainable E nergy F uture for A ll: D irections for the World S E - S ector ”. This policy included n o new project finance for coal Bank Group’s nergy al coal mines " except in "rare circumstances , fired power plants or therm which left . gaps In December 2017, the World Bank followed their 2013 coal commitments by in g announc post 2019. an end to financing oil and gas extraction In October 2018 the World Bank made a landmark decision to cease its plans to fund a 500 megawatt (MW) coal fired power plant in Kosovo – the last coal project on its’ books. T he The alternatives to coal then World Bank President , Jim Yong Kim said are so much cheaper . t finance the Kosovo plant n the Bank could o if it wanted to because even as the alternatives , the institution’s to coal were so much cheaper n o by - laws would t allow it. (EIB) European Investment Bank the EI B also released a policy to restrict coal lending. In July 2013 Asian Infr astructure Investment Bank green Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) detailed its In January 2017 the - with an inv credentials date has seen no direct project estment process that to finance for coal projects, although in September 2017 IFC Emerging Asia Fund ’s AIIB cement operation. invested in a behind the meter coal power plant for a Myanmar New Development Bank New Development Bank (founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China and In July 2018 the South Africa , previously called the BRICS Bank) reconfirmed its’ renewable energy

14 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 14 eference. While no formal policy exists, its actions are clear: of 23 infrastructure pr - date, none are in coal. global infrastructure projects funded to Asian Development Bank In October 2018 the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said coal plants were becoming unviable investments. The ADB incorporates a US$36/t price on carbon on all lending decisions, has a strong bias to renewable energy (targeting renewables lending by 2020) US$3bn annual Coal plants are and last approved funding for an imported lignite plant in Pakistan in February 2014. Using becoming unviable outdated supercritical technology, this . investments permit - US$1.7bn project remains in the pre development stage resulting in complaints by about its slow progress. The project the ADB locks in climate risk and energy poverty for low income people in Pakistan and has attracted criticism of the ADB. International Finance Corporation tion (IFC) In October 2018 the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corpora committed to closing a material loophole that saw the IFC continue to fund private lending to coal projects. Having spent the prior - financial institutions who were on ’s IFC two years reducing its indirect exposure to coal projects via intermediaries, new policy now ringfences almost all indirect lending to ensure it excludes coal and wables in the energy sector. reaches its priorities of energy efficiency and rene European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ) EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ( In December 2018 the projects policy to expanded its upstream oil projects , no new financing for coal most and removed specific country exclusions. : Multilateral Development Banks Table Restricting Coal 2.3 t s e t a L t s r i F v e l o p m e n t B a n k s e D l a r R e s t r i c t i o n t a l i t l u R e s t r i c t i o n M e 1 o l W B a n k 2 0 1 3 O c t 2 0 1 8 d r 2 t o p e a E I n v e s t m e n r B a n k J u l y 2 0 1 3 u n 3 u 7 1 A s i a I n f r a s t r 0 c t u r e & I n v e s t m e n t 2 B a n k J a n 4 N e w D e v e l o p m e n t B a n k ( B R I C S b a n k ) J u l y 2 0 1 8 5 1 k 8 I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i n a n c e C o r p o r a t i o n ( p a r t o f t h e W o r l d B a n 0 ) O c t 2 6 n s i a n D e v e l o p m e A t B a n k O c t 2 0 1 8 7 k E u r o p e a n B a n f o r R e c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d D e v e l o p m e n t D e c 2 0 1 8 IEEFA Calculations . reports, Corporate Announcements, press Source:

15 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 15 Nordic Investment Bank tightened its climate (NIB) further In November 2017 the list our policie s. Although the bank spans eight countries it has been excluded from of globally significant institutions restricting coal € 600 - 800m per given loans of just annum. 2 . 3 Export Credit Agencies (ECA’s) have IEEFA notes 35 export credit agencies included restrictions on coal. Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development - Organisation for Economic In November 2015 the operation and Develo pment (OECD) d esignat - Co ed categories of coal plants ineligible for export credits overs 35 export credit agencies in a policy that c ECA ( January 2019, OECD guidelines for ). As of No new financing for - fired power plants allows financing of large coal coal fired power - supercritical technologies, or with an only ultra emissions intensity below 750g of carbon dioxide . plants per kilowatt hour (CO 2 /kWh). Putting “< 750g ” into context means CO2/kWh excluding every fired power plant in Australia and operating coal - India. The OECD has mandated a significant further tightening by January 2021. France’s ECA Coface In September 2015 France’s ECA Coface reconfigured its export policy to cease all fired power plants unless they had operational carbon support f - or coal and coal capture and storage (CCS) facilities. The initial 2014 Coface proposal allowed capital ready”, rather subsidies to continue if the coal - fired power plant was deemed “CCS - than “CCS opera tional”. Four years later in 2019, there are still no commercial scale, viable coal fired power plants that are CCS operational, nor any commercial scale - projects under construction. Export Development Canada ed its new reveal Export Development Canada In January 2019 Canada’s ECA, , (EDC) fired power plants, Climate Change Policy to include: “ No new financing for coal - thermal coal mines or dedicated t hermal coal - related infrastructure – regardless of geographic location. ” 4 N ational Development Finance Institutions . 2 - owned by national Development Finance Institutions (DFI) are usually majority pment projects that the governments and generally provide capital access for develo is not willing or ready to finance. DFIs lend in their home domestic private sector market, but also often finance projects in developing countries.

16 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 16 national development finance that as of February 2019, there are IEEFA notes 12 , with nine considered globally significant . ins titutions restricting financing for coal 2.4: National Development Finance Institutions Restricting Coal Table L a t e s t D e v e l o p m e n t F i n a n c e I n s t i t u t i o n s R e s t r i c t i o n 1 F M O o f N e t h e r l a n d s ( 1 ) 2 0 1 6 2 K f W M a y 2 0 1 6 3 B N D E S o f B r a z i l O c t 2 0 1 6 4 D e n m a r k S e p t 2 0 1 7 5 F i n l a n d S e p t 2 0 1 7 6 I c e l a n d ( 1 ) S e p t 2 0 1 7 7 N o r w a y S e p t 2 0 1 7 8 S w e d e n S e p t 2 0 1 7 9 U S S e p t 2 0 1 7 1 0 U K S e p t 2 0 1 7 1 1 F r a n c e ' s A F D 2 0 1 7 1 2 S I F E M o f S w i t z e r l a n d ( 1 ) 2 0 1 8 Source: . Corporate Announcements, press reports, IEEFA Calculations due to 1 ) : ly significant financial institutions count ( AUM < US$10bn . Note Excluded from global Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, United States, U.K. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden join ed the In September 2013 for new coal policy United States in end public financing by DF I a - fired power to plants overseas, except in rare circumstances. The UK joined this policy in November 2013, inserting an exclusion for the world’s lowest income nations. France, Germany and Europe In May 2016 France’s AFD (French Deve lopment Agency), the Council of European Development Bank (CEB), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) , the KfW Development Bank of Germany and the NIB released a joint policy for the adoption of international best practice in all climate risk assessments. IEEFA notes this policy is yet to specifically exclude coal. KfW Development Bank of Germany established its own specific guidelines The on coal finance in 2015. In June 2016 KfW complied with OCED export credit agency . guidelines aligned its entire Agence Française de Développement ( AFD ) In 2017 France’s lending with the Paris Agreement, building on its 2013 - 2015 coal divestment and further expanding its renewables lending program. announcements

17 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 17 Brazil BNDES announced it would no longer support coal - or oil - Brazil’s In October 2016 , and at the same time it stepped up proactive investment in renewables plants fired infrastructure . FMO (Netherlands Development In December 2016 the Dutch Development Bank Finance Company) exited coal and coal power plant financing. In 2018 Switzerland's announced an exclusion for any financing relating to the construction of new SIFEM coal - fired thermal power plants. Iceland’s national or an extension of any existing xit plans. These have development finance institutions have also announced their e all been excluded from the list of global financial institutions exiting coal as they have an AUM < US$10bn. 2.5 Global Insurers and Reinsurance Companies globally significant insurers To date, with more than $6 trillion in assets and 20 20% of global insurance assets representing (which stand at US$30 trillion in aggregate) have adopted coal divestment policies , including the four largest 7 . European insurers When smaller insurers and partial divestments are included the total is 2 financial in stitutions globally. 5 Coal exclusion policies cover one - third of the global reinsurance market. Coal exclusi on policies cover Policies continue to be enhanced and deepened, with AXA and Allianz now - one third of the global who undertake firms excluding . reinsurance market significant capital expenditures in new coal projects. se substantive moves by Axa and Allianz focus investor and corporate attention The both on existing firms that are high emitters, and on those firms that continue to build new coal capacity, locking in additional emissions for decades to come. Some of Korea, KEPCO Chinese firms in general, and Indian clude: Glencore, examples in firms Adani Group There is a recognition that building new capacity . NTPC Ltd and drives carbon lock r decades to come, which is neither commercially sensible in fo - nor strategically aligned with the Paris Agreement. It is no coincidence that 2017 saw the greatest insurance industry losses in history - US$138bn (on a total economic loss of US$340bn ), clearly due to natural disasters raised by climate - related losses. The progressive tightening of policies in the global insurance industry is a key ) to greenwash (refer page positive. Institutions are moving from initial 30 substantive polices with real impact in driving systemic change. 7 For a full review of the 24 largest insurance firms globally, and their climate risk performance l No More: 2018 Scorecard on Insurance, Coal and to date, refer Unfriend Coal, “ Insuring Coa - ” December 2018. Climate Change

18 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 18 Axa Ax a (US$1,380bn AuM) became the first global insurance firm to divest In May 2015 with a fu rther policy to coal from its investment portfolio. Axa followed up in 2017 restrict coal insurance. Showing global climate leadership similar to Storebrand of which has been excluding companies associated with coal since 2013 (refer Norway Section 2.1), Axa lowered its revenue threshold from 50% to 30% and now exc ludes all firms producing more than 20 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) or developing more than 3 gigawatts (GW) of new coal - fired power. Allianz (US$1,000bn AuM) followed suit, also divesting coal from In November 2015 Allianz 2018 with a further policy to restrict coal its investment portfolio. Allianz in insurance. Allianz built on Axa’s lead by excluding firms building more than 500MW - of new coal fired power plant capacity, and by committing to zero coal by 2040. Aviva UK Aviva UK In July 2015 announced a global climate policy statement highlighting the financial and climate risks in its coal investment portfolio, but with a policy of engagement over divestment. To date Aviva has undertaken only limited divestment action and key financier of coal . remains a CNP Assurances , French CNP Assurances began divesting from coal firms, cutting its coal In 2015 committ ing to doubling the volume of its green threshold to 15% of turnover, while November 2018 CNP Assurances In further cut its investments by the end of 2017. coal threshold from 15% to 10% of turnover, building on its coal divestment policy first introduced in 2015. Aegon N.V. Aegon N.V., an insurance and investment management firm based in In May 2016 the Netherlands (US$908bn AuM), announced a policy of divestment from coal mining (with a 30% revenue threshold). This was followed in February 2017 with a call for the in the international forum G20 by 2020. cessation of fossil fuel subsidies Zurich In November 2017 Zurich (US$192bn AuM) announced it would cease providing insurance for thermal coal mining companies and utilities with more than 50% of - fired power (with a two - year transition period). their revenues derived from coal Markel Corp oration Markel Corporation (U.S.) is reported to have undertaken coal divestments in 2017.

19 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 19 (UK) Lloyd's d divestment from coal in November 2017, effective April 2018. announce Lloyd's Hannover Re ( US$ 73 bn In June 2018 the world’s third largest reinsurer, ), Hannover Re AuM introduced a 25% revenue maximum for its investments in coal mining. The firm fire d power plants. continues to insure coal - AG2R La Mondiale Groupama of France SCOR, Macif, , SCOR of France In September 2017 (US$22bn AuM), the fifth largest reinsurance firm in the world, exp anded their coal exclusion investment criteria, cutting the limit to 30% of revenues (down from 50% set in 2015), and also limiting coal insurance. , AG2R La Mondiale and Groupama Macif In July 2018 French insurers including all no longer invest in companies plan ning new coal - fired power announced policies to plants. from the global list as its A u M being less than US$10bn . Macif is excluded Munich Re , Swiss Re Reinsurance giants Swiss Re (US$116bn AuM) in July 2018 and Munich Re (US$245bn AuM) in August 2018 announced underwriting restrictions , building on coal aligning with the Paris 2.0 °C target . investment restrictions 2017 Generali of Italy In November 2018 Generali of Italy (US$581bn AuM) limited coal insurance, having ed divest in February 2018 . from coal Storebrand Storebrand (US$85bn AuM) announced In November 2018 Norway’s it would by 2026. Storebrand has been excluding completely exit all coal exposures globally companies associated with coal since 2013. Varma of Finland & VIG of Austria In January 2019 Varma of Finland ( € 45bn AuM) announced it would adopt the Task Force on Climate related Financial Disclosures requirements of the (TCFD) and - no longer invest in firms relyi sales . The ng on lignite or coal for more than 30% of firm is recognising the greater significance of climate risks in its Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), and building on its previous blacklisting of tobacco, cluster bombs, nuclear and biologi cal weapons firms. In February 2019 ( € 42bn AuM) announced it would cease providing VIG of Austria insurance to new coal mines and coal - fired power plants, and phase out existing insurance, and prevent new investments in coal mining and coal - fired power plant firms in its portfolio, as well as investing more in zero emissions alternatives.

20 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 20 State Compensation Insurance Fund, Natixis California divestments include the California Other insurers reported to have undertaken coal State Compensation Insurance Fund , Natixis of France , and Oslo Pension and Insurance (which exited back in 2015 ). In November 2018 Au stralia’s highlighted the drastic need for climate action, IAG able. February stating that failure to do so would make the world virtually uninsur 2019 saw report a 45% decline in profitability due to increased extreme Suncorp weather events, resulting in CEO Michael Cameron callin g for “ I'd like to see government impose a compulsory adoption for climate change action plan for Australian corporates " We have not included IAG nor Suncorp in our total list of . global insurers divesting from coal given there has been no divestment acros s eithers’ investment portfolio to date. HCF (a private health fund insurer in Australia) divested in 2017.

21 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 21 2 . 5 : Insurance and Reinsurance Companies Restricting Coal Tabl e F i r s t L a t e s t I n s u r e r s a n d R e i n s u r e r s C o u n t r y R e s t r i c t i o n R e s t r i c t i o n s 1 A X A F r a n c e M a y 2 0 1 5 D e c 2 0 1 7 2 A v i v a U . K . J u l y 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 3 A l l i a n z G e r m a n y N o v 2 0 1 5 M a y 2 0 1 8 4 O s l o P e n s i o n & I n s u r a n c e ( 2 ) N o r w a y 2 0 1 5 5 A e g o n N . V . N e t h e r l a n d s M a y 2 0 1 6 F e b 2 0 1 7 6 S t a t e C o m p e n s a t i o n I n s u r a n c e F u n d U . S . 2 0 1 7 7 M a r k e l C o r p o r a t i o n U . S . 2 0 1 7 8 S C O R F r a n c e S e p t 2 0 1 7 9 Z u r i c h S w i t z e r l a n d N o v 2 0 1 7 1 0 L l o y d s U . K . A p r i l 2 0 1 8 1 1 D a i - i c h i L i f e ( 1 ) J a p a n M a y 2 0 1 8 1 2 H a n n o v e r R e G e r m a n y J u n e 2 0 1 8 1 3 M a c i f ( 2 ) F r a n c e J u n e 2 0 1 8 1 4 A G 2 R L a M o n d i a l e F r a n c e J u l y 2 0 1 8 1 5 S w i s s R e S w i t z e r l a n d J u l y 2 0 1 8 1 6 M u n i c h R e G e r m a n y A u g 2 0 1 8 1 7 G e n e r a l i I t a l y N o v 2 0 1 8 1 8 N a t i x i s F r a n c e 1 9 S t o r e b r a n d N o r w a y 2 0 M e i j i ( 1 ) J a p a n 2 0 1 8 2 1 N i p p o n L i f e ( 1 ) J a p a n 2 0 1 8 2 2 G r o u p a m a F r a n c e 2 0 1 8 2 3 C N P A s s u r a n c e s F r a n c e 2 0 1 8 2 4 V a r m a F i n l a n d J a n 2 0 1 9 2 5 V I G A u s t r i a F e b 2 0 1 9 Corporate Announcements, press reports, IEEFA Calculations . Source: Note s : (1) Japanese insurers Dai - ichi Life, Meiji and Nippon Life are excluded from the globally significant count because t heir policies do not involve divestment of coal investments. (2) Macif and Oslo Pension & Insurance have also been excluded due to AuM

22 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 22 – A World - Leading State on Renewables, California Insurance and Pensions Climate Risk Management Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003 - - 2018) have 2011) and Jerry Brown (2011 made California a global leader in decarbonisation. California has led the world in building the then - largest solar projects , both for solar PV and so lar thermal, showing the power of scale and learning by doing. The Government in August 2018 passed its SB100 bill to mandate a move to 60% all new houses have solar by 2020 , and renewables by 2030 and legislation to require commercial buildings must also have solar by 2025, given it is now the low cost source. The California Air Resources Board has led the U.S. in automotive emissi on standards, driving productivity up and reducing imported oil dependence to build American energy security. 2015 saw California’s legislature pass a bill requiring California’s state pension funds Calpers and CalSTRS to divest their investments in coal companies. 2018 saw California’s P&GE launch the world’s two largest utility scale battery projects - date: a 300MW/1,200MWh project by Vistra Energy and a 182.5MW/730MWh to project (both to be supplied by Tesla) 2 - 3 times the size of the largest lithium battery storage facility in operation (Tesla’s South Australian Hornsdale Power Reserve at 100MW/129MWh). California has done this in clear recognition of the need for urgent action to address the growing p ressures of climate change in terms of more extreme weather events, happening more frequently. January 2019 saw the Insurance Commissioner assess the , and as a direct losses from unprecedented forest fires in November 2018 at US$11.4bn result protection, providing global financial markets yet PG&E filed for bankruptcy another star k reminder of the financial risks of climate change. January 2016 saw California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announce a Climate Risk Carbon Initiative to evaluate the impact of a 2°C scenario on insurer investments, calling on a voluntary divestment of all thermal coal investments, as well as instituting annual disclosure requirements of carbon risk. California is the six largest insurance market globall y, with annual premiums of US$259bn. November 2018 saw Commissioner Dave Jones release the results of the “ 2018 Climate Risk Carbon Initiative Coal Divestment - Up Survey ”, which reported an increase Follow in the number of Californian insurers that divested or committing to divest from thermal coal investments. 1 23 insurers have now committed to divesting some or all of their coal investments, a doubling from the 66 firms who committed to do so in 2016. 621 Californian insurers reported they already had zero coal exposure. The survey covers 1,185 property - casualt y and life insurance companies each with premiums of >US$100m annually. This Survey details that the California State Compensation Insurance Fund and the have both divested coal. Markel Corporation

23 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 23 . Leading Global Banks 2 6 tions date, 34 globally significant private banks have thermal coal lending restric To - in place. Particularly for the private sector, climate policy statements have both commonalities and individual nuances. bank policies and/or underwriting for both thermal Most have restricted lending - fired power plants . Others have just coal mining and coal announced restrictions 8 fired power plants or thermal coal mining. specifically on coal Many policies - explicitly include only project finance while more comprehensive policies also include bans on corporate finance and underwriting and extend to related coal - services such as facilitating rail and port infrastructure. : Excluding Both Thermal Coal Mining Leading Global Banks - Fired Power Plants and Coal and Natixis of France Crédit Agricole S.A. In May 2015 of France ceased financing for coal mining projects. Crédit Agricole S.A. In November 2016 this was tightened to exclude financing for coal - fired power plants , saying: “ In view of the Climate Finance Day conference... and of COP22... Crédit Agricole has decided to stop financing new coal - or fired power stations 9 ” extensions to these. - saw Natixis commit to end financing of coal fired power plants and October 2015 as general lending to corporates with a thermal coal mines worldwide, as well Ending financing for the thermal coal - greater than 50% exposure to coal, saying: “ u based economy marks a major stage in Natixis’ engagement in favo r of energy 10 .” transition Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley In November 2015 (U.S.) reoriented its lending away from coal towards low emissions technologies. Morgan Stanley excluded any financing for coal mining involving mountain top removal (a key environmental issue in the U.S.), while new coal mining lending was to be constrained, but not banned. The f irm also ceased lending for coal - fired power plants in developed countries unless the plants - were CCS enabled. Non OECD coal power plant lending was curtailed (and will diminish over time) but not banned. By June 2018 Morgan Stanley’s coal exposure 8 - to - date reference for coal mining and coal - fired power plant BankTrack provides an online up polices for all the global banks, “ List of banks that ended direct finance for new coal mines/plants ”, accessed January 2019. 9 Crédit Agricole Group, “ Crédit Agricole to stop financing new coal - fired power stations ”, 27 October 2016. 10 Natixis Press Release, “ Natixis to cease financing coal industries worldwide ”, 15 October 2015.

24 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 24 pped 84% in absolute size post their 2015 announcement, a very credible had dro 11 and real policy impact. Citi announced a similar c oal mining lending policy restriction to In October 2015 Citi From having the largest exposure to pure play coal mining firms Morgan Stanley’s. of major U.S. banks, Citi reduced their direct loan exposure by 87% to June 2018. In December 2018 number one U.S. banker of coal power in 2017 , Citi , the fired power - announced an updated coal policy excluding project financing new coal plants. However, there ar e loopholes in its policy as it allows financing if the project: ultra - supercritical ( USC ) technology; the host country has less than 90% uses aligned with the host country’s plans under the Paris electrification; and it is . Citi’s policy only co vers project finance (not corporate finance), which Agreement 12 IEEFA notes is a major gap. JPMorgan Chase an Chase announced a curtailment of lending to coal mining. In March 2016 JPMorg . , JPMorgan Chase’s direct lending book reduced 62% by June 2018 Reportedly JPMorgan Chase maintains a weak policy restricting project lending for non - ultra - (USC) coal - supercritical fired power plants. U.S. Bancorp U excluded new coal mining or power plant project finance. S . Bancorp In June 2016 . & OP Financial Group of Finland Ilmarinen 2016 saw Ilmarine n of Finland implement a 30% threshold for coal divestments and winning a AAA rating from the Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AOD P) in 2017. € 140 bn AuM ) , the largest financial services firm in Finland, put OP Financial Group ( in a coal exclusion with a 25% threshold in 2017. , Rabobank Deutsche Bank and ABN Amro In January 2017 both and Rabobank announced policies to cease Deutsche Bank new project financing for greenfield thermal coal mi ning and new coal power plant construction , with following suit in May 2017 . I n May 2 018, Deutsche ABN Amro related infrastructure. expanded Bank to also not finance new coal - their policy 11 Alison Kirsch, Jason Ope ñ a Disterhoft and Grant Marr via Rainforest Action Network (RAN), “ nce 2015 ”, August Banking on Coal Mining: U.S. Banks’ Performance Against Their Targets Si 2018. 12 For more detail on Fossil Fuel funding, refer Rainforest Action Network ’s “ Banking on Climate Change : FOSSIL FUEL FINANCE REPORT CARD 2018 ” and their January 2019 Citi oped (forthcoming).

25 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 25 Australian Banks Westpac G of Australia announced a climate policy for project roup In April 2017 finance. While it has a number of exceptions, including the exclusion of new coal basins and new coal mine projects unless the energy content is above 6,000kcal (net fired power plants unless they reduce as received), and the exclusion - of new coal the overall grid emissions intensity, the policy is the best to - date in Australia. This is - particularly given as new ultra supercritical (USC) power plants still emit an light of the ongoing failure to commercialise entirely unsustainable >800kg/kWh in coal carbon capture and storage (CCS). Bank Australia has the strongest climate aligned policy domestically, exclu ding all Bank Australia has not made and will fossil fuel lending with no exceptions, saying: “ not make any loans to the fossil fuel industry, including coal and coal seam gas projects. Bendigo and Adelaide Bank excluded coal lending in 2014. ” - The practical outcome of various new climate policies has meant new coal fired power plant financing from domestic banks across Austr alia is now no long available . The latest new coal plant proposal cited the need to rely on Chinese on a heavily Austra lian Government subsidised proposal. financing ING ING sharpened Having introduced a no new coal financing policy in January 2016, its coal exclusion policy in December 2017 by announcing that b y 2025, it will no longer finance clients in the utilities sector that are over 5% reliant on coal - fired power. Société Générale and BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas followed Société Générale In 2017 French firms Crédit Agricole ’s lead, no longer financing new coal - fired power plants globally. Importantly, S.A. policies appl y these respective to both project finance and corporate finance lending prehensively ended by these , though while project finance has been com mining and power banks, their corporate financing of both clients is governed for now by only partial exclusions or indirect reductions. KBC Group N.V. In September 2017 KBC Group N.V. of Belgium excluded coal, and tightened the policy in 2018 . Commerzbank AG In August 201 6 Commer zbank AG of Germany ceased direct coal mine and coal power plant project finance, with a three year grace period to transition towards as part of its commitment to the UN Global Compact . zero emissions alternatives From 2021 onwards, German utility clients with over 30% coal share of power generation will be excluded from the Commerzbank portfoli o and for non - German utility clients, the exclusion threshold is 50% .

26 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 26 HSBC HSBC committed to end financing for new coal April 2018 fired power plant In - projects, but left a loophole in its policy allowing the bank to finance (up to the end – of 2023) new coal plants in Bangladesh, Indon countries which esia and Vietnam rank in the top five globally in terms of planned coal power capacity. This builds on HSBC’s exit from th ermal coal mining policy announced in October 2016. Royal Bank of Scotland RBS UK ) announced In May 2018 the Royal Bank of Scotland ( a coal mine and power plant exclusion. Lloyds Banking Group announced a coal mine and power Lloyds Banking plant exclusion in August 2018. Standard Chartered Standard Chartered solidified their coal lending exclusion of May In September 2018 ons. 2016, removing country excepti Banco Santander of Spain BBVA and February 2018 BBVA introduce a policy of no lending to new coal mines and saw coal plants plus an excl usion of clients who derive > 40% of revenue from mining. In November 2018 Banco Santander introduced a new coal exclusion policy. Barclays Bank In January 2019 Barclays Bank expanded its April 2018 exclusion of project finance for coal mining t o also exclude coal plants. the Dai - In May 2018 Japan witnessed their first thermal coal exclusion move, with coal power ompany’s an nouncement restricting finance to ichi Life Insurance c plant s. By the end of 2018 t hree of Japan’s largest life insurance firms , Nippon Life , Dai - ichi Life and Meiji Yasuda Life each announced they would no longer fund new coal projects total of 20 globally luded from the . These announcements are exc significant insurers divesting from coal given there is no associated divestment decision to date . Leading Global Banks : Excluding Thermal Coal Mining Bank of America In May 2015 Bank of America announced a curtailment of lending to coal mining. Similar to Morgan Stanley, Bank of America’s direct lending book reportedly reduced a material 80% by June 2018 from a relatively small overall starting point versus its U.S. peers.

27 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 27 Wells Fargo introduced a relative non - committal coal mining Wells Fargo In December 2015 lending policy restriction, although reports project finance lending has halved to June 2018. UBS , National Australia Bank Credit Suisse Development , and the Bank of Singapore globally significant banks have announced policies to reduce thermal Several other coal mine lending, including: Credit Suisse in March 2017; UBS in April 2017; in December 2017; and the National Australia Bank Development Bank of Singapore (DBS) in January 2018, albeit for OECD countries only. : al - fired Power Plants Excluding Co Leading Global Banks DZ Bank and SEB, PNC, - fired Various global banks have announced policies to cease lending to new coal SEB of Sweden in N ovember 2016; PNC U.S. in March 2017; power plants, including: DZ Bank , German y’s second largest bank, in March 2017. and Japan In July 2018 Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank (assets of US$483bn) become Japan ’s first bank to put in place a policy precludin g project finance for new coal fired power - plants, with no geographic exclusions. he three largest banks in Japan - Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Mizuho Financial T Group, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, all announced updated policies g to the coal - fired power sector over 2018 but each stopped short of for lendin discontinuing financing for coal power projects . These banks are excluded from our . tally of globally significant financial institutions exiting coal , Standard Bank and FirstRand Nedbank of South Africa Bank In April 2018 Nedbank of South Africa announced a new coal power exclusion poli cy. Nedbank of South Africa showed real progress with its January 2019 decision to withdraw funding two proposed new coal - fired power stations at from Thabametsi and Khanyisa , saying it would redirect its funding to energy efficiency and low cost renewables instead . In September 2018 Standard Bank of South Africa announced a withdrawal from new coal power plant financing as well. In February 2019 FirstRand Bank withdrew from funding commitments for the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal - fired power plant projects in South Africa. This decision seems predicated largely on the entirely unviable state of coal plants rather than a formal clim ate policy.

28 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 28 6 . lobal Banks : Restricting Coal 2 Table Leading G t s e t a L t s r F i y e t n R e s t r i c t i o n u o C s k n a R B s t r i c t i o n r a o h c B a l m i n i n g a n d c o t l f i r e d p o w e r p l a n t s o 1 M o r g a n S t a n l e y U . S . N o v 2 0 1 5 a 2 e d i t A g r i c o l e S A F r r n c e M a y 2 0 1 5 N o v 2 0 1 6 C 3 S o c i e t e G e n e r a l e F r a n c e M a y 2 0 1 5 N o v 2 0 1 6 e 4 N P P a r i b a s F r a n c B M a y 2 0 1 5 N o v 2 0 1 6 1 0 2 t c O e c n a r F s i x i t a N 5 5 0 6 G N e t h e r l a n d s J a n 2 0 1 6 D e c 2 N 1 7 I 7 S B a n c o r p U U S . J u n 2 0 1 6 . 8 D e u t s c h e B a n k G e r m a n y J a n 2 0 1 7 r 9 a b o b a n k N e t h e R l a n d s J a n 2 0 1 7 a 1 0 A B N A m r o N e t h e r l n d s M a y 2 0 1 7 s 1 e s t p a c G r o u p A u W t r a l i a A p r 2 0 1 7 1 1 2 K B C G r o u p B e l g i u m S e p t 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 n 1 B V A S p a i B F e b 2 0 1 8 3 1 4 C o m m e r 8 b a n k G e r m a n y A u g 2 0 1 6 M a r 2 0 1 z t c O . K . U C B 2 1 8 r p A 6 1 0 0 2 1 5 H S 8 0 2 y a M . 1 . U S B R 6 1 K U p u o r G g n i k n a B s d y o l L 7 1 8 1 0 2 g u A . K . K 1 a n d a r d C h a r t e r e d U . t . M a y 2 0 1 6 S e p t 2 0 1 8 S 8 9 B a r c l a y s B a n k U . K . A p r 2 0 1 8 J a n 2 0 1 9 1 8 0 a n c o S a n t a n d e r S p a i n N o v 2 0 1 B 2 2 1 i t i U . S . O c t C 0 1 5 D e c 2 0 1 8 2 i 2 A u s t r a l t a B a n k ( 1 ) A u s 2 r a l i a 2 e n d i g o B a n k B ( 1 ) A u s t r a l i a 3 E x c l u d i n g T h e r m a l C o a l M i n i n g O n l y c 2 a n k o f A m e r i B a U . S . M a y 2 0 1 5 4 2 5 G o l d m a n S a c h s ( 2 ) U . S . N o v 2 0 1 5 5 2 6 W e l l s F a r g o U . S . U . S . N o v 2 0 1 3 a M . S . U ) ( e s a 2 6 1 0 r 2 7 J P M o r g a n C h 2 8 l m a r i n e n F i n l a n d 2 0 1 6 I r 9 P 2 i n a n c i a l G O o u p F i n l a n d 2 0 1 6 F 3 0 C r e d i t S u i s s e S w i t z e r l a n d M a r 2 0 1 7 l 3 B S S w i t z e r U a n d A p r 2 0 1 7 1 3 2 N a t i o n a l A u s t r a l i a B a n k A u s t r a l i a D e c 2 0 1 7 S 3 3 D B ( 4 ) S i n g a p o r e J a n 2 0 1 8 a E l u d i n g C o a l F i r e d P o w e r P l c n t s O n l y x 3 S E B S w e d e 4 N o v 2 0 1 6 n 3 5 P N C U . S . M a r 2 0 1 7 a 3 Z B a n k G e r m D n y M a r 2 0 1 7 6 3 7 S u m i t o 8 o M i t s u i T r u s t B a n k J a p a n J u l 2 0 1 m 9 2 0 1 8 J a n i a 2 0 1 c A p r 3 8 N e d b a n k S o u t h A f r h t u o S k n a B d r a d n a t S 9 3 8 1 0 2 t p e S a c i r f A Source: Corporate Announcements, pr ess reports, IEEFA Calculations. Some global banks have been excluded, including: Notes: (1) Bendigo Bank and Bank Australia: Excluded, AUM < US$10bn . G oldman S ac hs : Excluded because there is no disclosure, the exposure is increasing not (2) decreasing, and off - balance sheet activity is extreme. Excluded because it h (3) JP M organ Chase: as a coal - fired power plant restriction, but only for project lending, and only for non - USC, and no reporting of progress. power plant exclusion is only for OECD countries. (4) DBS: Excluded because its

29 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 29 7 : Global Financial Institutions Restricting Coal During 2018 - 2019 2 Table . c w e E n h a n N e m e n t t o t u t i o n C o u n t r y b l o A n n o u n a e m e n t F i n a n c i a l I n s t i E x i s t i n g P o l i c y D a t e l G c r i n g 2 D 1 8 u 0 S F E M S w i t z e r l a n d * 2 0 1 8 1 I g B G r o u p B e l i u m * 2 0 1 8 K 2 C e i j i J a p a n * 2 0 1 8 3 M i p p o n L i f e J a p a n * 2 0 1 8 4 N n r u p a m a F r a o c e * 2 0 1 8 5 G C N P A s s u r a 6 c e s F r a n c e * 2 0 1 8 n 7 B S S i n g a p o r e * J a n - 1 8 D B B A S p a i n * F e b - 1 8 8 V o 1 m e r z b a n k G e r m a n y * M a r - C 8 9 m L d o y 0 s U . K . * A p r - 1 8 1 l * H B C U . K . S A p r - 1 8 1 1 2 A l l i a n z G e r m a n y * M 1 y - 1 8 a 1 D a i - i c h i L i f e J a p a n * M a y - 1 8 3 M 4 S U . K . * B a y - 1 8 1 R 5 H a n n o v e r R e G e r 1 a n y * J u n - 1 8 m 1 M a c i f F r a 6 c e * J u l - 1 8 n F 8 1 1 7 A G 2 R L a M o n d i a l e - r a n c e * J u l 1 8 u m i t o m o M i t s u i T r u s t B a n k J a p a n * J u l - 1 8 S 8 9 w i s s 1 R e S w i t z e r l a n d * J u l - 1 S 2 M u n i c h R e G e 0 m a n y * A u g - 1 8 r 2 1 L l o y d s B a n k i n g G r o u p U . K . * A u g - 1 8 t 2 t a n d a r d B a n k S o u S h A f r i c a * S e p - 1 8 2 2 3 S t a n d a r d C h a r t e r e d U . K . * S e p - 1 8 t 2 W o r l d B a n k G l o b a l * O c 4 - 1 8 a 2 A D B A s i 5 * O c t - 1 8 2 e 6 G n e r a l i I t a l y * N o v - 1 8 2 7 a n c o S a n t a n d e r S p a i n * N o v - 1 8 B * 8 t i U . S . i D e c - 1 8 2 C 9 E B R D E u r o p e * D e c - 1 8 2 u r i n g J a n u r y 2 0 1 9 D n V r m a F i n l a 1 d * J a n - 1 9 a 2 B a r c l a y s B a n k U . K . * J a n - 1 9 C 3 p o r t D e v e l o p m e n t x a n a d a C a n a d a * J a n - 1 9 E 4 N e d b a n k S o u t h A f r i c a * J a n - 1 9 i 5 I G A u s t r V a * F e b - 1 9 t a l 3 4 T o Source: Corporate websites, IEEFA Calculations.

30 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 30 ash The Risk of Greenw Over 100 globally significant financial institutions have now restricted or banned coal project and/or corporate finance, divested coal investments and/or insurance. Institutions with the best policies are absolute bans on financing coal projects and the parent companies, and/or divestments from such companies entirely. Other policies that only restrict project finance can be strengthened, and the follow - on policy developments we have tracked in this report illustrate the progressive policies, showing a greater commitment / alignment with the Paris tightening up of Agreement and the progressive removal of loopholes and exceptions. However, there are still outliers financing coal while presenting to shareholders and aim alignment – communities climate policies that cl known as greenwashing. Policy loopholes include failure to be consistent across the breadth of the institution’s entire business. For example, project finance for coal is excluded but cases, an institution may be corporate finance to the parent entity is not. In other divesting - fired power plants. thermal coal investments but continuing to insure coal Different definitions of what constitutes a material exposure to thermal coal or coal power plants are used, often defined as a 25% or 30% rev enue threshold. profit group Urgewald has developed an online tracking of coal exposed Non - corporations globally, which highlights the need to prioritise the exclusion of the 13 fire largest new coal mine and coal - given they facilitate d power plant developers the lock - in of new carbon emissions for decades to come. The global carbon budget is already on track to be well - exceeded by existing fossil fuel operations. A key issue is that almost all financial instituti ons still fail to properly implement policies aligned with the Paris Agreement which targets limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 - °C . Full alignment would require evaluating and incorporating the 2.0 °C (refer Section 1). Scenario (B2DS) , rather than the NPS o r SDS IEA’s Beyond 2 In insurance and reinsurance , has rated institutions in terms of: Unfriend Coal coal insurance underwriting exclusions (includ ing the threshold applied); 1. 2. divestment policies for coal mining , coal - fired power plants and their associated infrastructure providers and probably most importantly, new thermal coal mine and coal fired power plant developers, in the asset management arm o f the - insurer, both for bond, infrastructure and equity portfolios, as well as core assets owned by the institution as well as assets managed by the firm on behalf of policy holders (including the threshold applied); and 3. n of other fossil fuels (e.g. tar sands, deep sea Other criteria, including: inclusio drilling); transparency of reporting; investment in clean energy investments; Board accountability for climate action; and public advocacy for climate action. 13 Urgewald, “ Global Coal ”, November 201 7 , Heffa Schuecking. Exit List

31 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 31 rom t he G lobal L ist of 100 and Exclusions o unting f C to restrict coal lending by the world’s top two fund managers with a Actual progress collective US$11 trillion of assets under management have been less than impressive. 14 t even Blackrock rather hypocritically given tha In 2017 stated that “coal is dead”, it Blackrock was recently is yet to produce a climate policy. reported to be the today s single largest fossil fuel owner globally. The Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink’ in January 2019 speaks to Fiduciary Duty but fails to mention climate Letter to CEOs change. Vanguard have been underwhelming in terms of fai ling to vote Both Blackrock and talk against Board members who are climate deniers. Vanguard has started ing about climate issues but actions to date are limited, particularly when it comes to pro xy voting or excluding the worst corporates on climate/emissions intensity. In November 2015 Goldman Sachs claimed it was curtailing lending to coal mining. Ove r 2015 2018 Goldman Sachs was r eportedly the leading arranger of finance for - coal companies of the U.S. majors, and while its direct lending book was relatively sm all, total exposure increased 50% over this period and there is no ongoing public monitoring of this policy. We have not included Blackrock, Vanguard or Goldman Sachs in the total number of global financial institutions restricting coal. somewhat arbitrarily use In this report we a US$10bn threshold to categorise d financial institutions as globally significant. This count is only for insurance firms, plus public and private banks, it does not include asset managers , for whom there have been over one thousand globally whom have excluded thermal coal to - date. Clean Energy Lending Targets – US$1.4 T rillion In this report we have tracked zero emissions lending targets as the flip - side of nks exiting thermal coal. Many of the same globally significant financial global ba institutions that have historically financed coal are rapidly awakening to the enormous opportunities and growth in financing renewables. rld have each committed to financing at To date, nine of the largest banks in the wo least US$100bn of clean energy investments, a staggering US$1,388bn total. These nine global bank leaders have provided critically important support for the development of the global green bond market , which hit a record US$167bn of new issuance in 2018. This market is giving positive support for clean energy investing global ly and in particular opening up access to the global pension capital pool of over for emerging markets. US$41 trillion 14 Australian Financial Review, “ BlackRock says coal is dead as it eyes renew able power splurge ”, 26 May 2017.

32 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 32 Citigroup In 2015 announced a new US$100bn 2025 target for investment in renewable technologies, having already delivered on its US$50bn target by 2015 Bank of America , Credit Agricole ahead of schedule. BBVA Goldman Sachs , of France, UK have all made pledges similar to Citi. HSBC of Spain and The largest low carbon solutions commitment globally to date was from Morgan in April 2018. This firm has committed US$250bn by 2030, having to date Stanley S$84bn since 2006. This commitment was closely followed by already funded U Wells Fargo with US$200bn by 2030, building upon JPM Chase ’s August 2017 commitment of US$200bn by 2025 which in particular backed the development of the global green bond market. 2 . 8 : Global Financ e Invest ing in Clean Energy (US$bn) Table F i n a n c i a l I n s t i t u t i o n C l e a n E n e r g y P l e d g e D a t e o f P l e d g e U S $ b n C i t i g r o u p P l e d g e d U S $ 1 0 0 b n b y 2 0 2 5 ( U S $ 5 0 b n d o n e b y 2 0 1 3 ) F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 5 1 5 0 B a n k o f A m e r i c a P l e d g e d U S $ 1 2 5 b n b y 2 0 2 5 J u l y 2 0 1 5 1 2 5 G o l d m a n S a c h s P l e d g e d U S $ 1 5 0 b n b y 2 0 2 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 5 1 5 0 J P M C h a s e P l e d g e d U S $ 2 0 0 b n b y 2 0 2 5 A u g u s t 2 0 1 7 2 0 0 H S B C P l e d g e d U S $ 1 0 0 b n b y 2 0 2 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 7 1 0 0 B B V A P l e d g e d U S $ 1 0 0 b n b y 2 0 2 5 M a r c h 2 0 1 8 1 0 0 M o r g a n S t a n l e y P l e d g e d U S $ 2 5 0 b n b y 2 0 3 0 A p r i l 2 0 1 8 2 5 0 W e l l s F a r g o P l e d g e d U S $ 2 0 0 b n b y 2 0 3 0 A p r i l 2 0 1 8 2 0 0 C r e d i t A g r i c o l e S A E u r o 1 0 0 b n i n g r e e n i n v e s t m e n t s b y 2 0 2 0 M a y 2 0 1 8 1 1 3 T o t a l ( U S $ b i l l i o n ) 1 , 3 8 8 Source: Corporate websites, IEEFA Calculations . IEEFA would note there is a serious inconsistency with some global financial institutions both financing the clean energy future and claiming to endorse the Paris Agreement, whil 2018, we - e also being some of the largest coal lenders. Over 2016 note that Citi (#7), HSBC (#8), JPM Chase (#14), Goldman Sachs (#16) and Credit 15 Agricole SA (#28) were all in the world’s top 30 of coal fired power plant lenders. - 4 0% of Top 40 Global Banks Leading Global Banks: Starting to Align with Paris t op 40 global banks by market capitalisation (40%) have As detailed, 16 of the and/or coal - fired power formal policies that either exclude thermal coal mining plants, and/or commit to very material clean energy finance targets. Given recent moves by the likes of Dai ichi Life, Sumitomo Mitsui Trust , Marubeni - and ITOCHU i n Japan , the ADB, Varma of Finland, Barclays Bank, Citi, Nedbank and VIG of Austria , there is a clear probability of continued policy announcements over 2019 to see global action to tighten coal exclusions materially, and for loopholes to be progressively closed; a clear case of rising stran ded asset risk. 15 ”, December 2018, Greig Aitken. Banktrack/U rgewald , “ Coal plant developers: 2018 analysis

33 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 33 - China is positioned as a lender of last resort for coal fired power plants, but given China is concurrently building the world’s leading exposure to vertically i ntegrated , a lending change in China against foreign zero emissions industries of the future rophic hit for any with new coal would be great for the global climate and a catast coal power plants in development, or even those left owning/financing newly commissioned coal plants. With five of the ten largest banks globally, China is a – ave any formal pivotal player but as yet, none of these institutions are known to h restrictions on coal financing in place. - fired Japan remains a very significant investor and lender to coal mines and coal power plants globally, particularly in emerging markets. Over 2016 - 2018, Mizuho were the top two lenders to new coal power Financial and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial 16 However, IEEFA has detailed plant developments globally. the start of what looks to us to be a major pivot away fr om coal, with ongoing positive statements combined with actions from leading corporates, financial institutions and government ministers. IEEFA notes that Marubeni Corp , Mitsui & Co and most recently ITOCHU in February 2019 have all announced coal industr y restrictions. As Warren Buffett says: “ Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked. ” Mark Carney has been consistently sounding the stranded asset , the tide is ebbing. warning for four years; the financial risks are rising bruary 2019 , a report released on n Fe I The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry in Australia g ave a damning assessment of financial institutions, highlighting repeated dishonesty, tic failures of management and Boards in terms of corruption and systema implementing their Fiduciary Duties. We mention this in light of the commitments of most global financial institution majors to implement policies consistent with a 1.5 - .0 °C 2 es. This report shows there is progress being limit to global temperature ris made but that it is far from sufficient, and governments and civil society must continue to hold these global institutions to look beyond their myopically near - term horizons and align their policies with global accords such as the Paris Agreement, and to call out the laggards , as has been the case with Glencore . 16 rgewald , “ Coal plant developers: 2018 analysis ”, December 2018, Greig Aitken. Banktrack/U

34 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 34 Coal Policy Announ cements by Global Financial Institutions In preparing this report, IEEFA reviewed the original source documents where possible to confirm the wording, dates and nature of policies and any loopholes. Any mistakes or omissions in this report are ours. If w e have omitted an announcement by a globally significant financial institution, please contact the author so that we may update our figures. IEEFA would like to acknowledge the significant, ongoing efforts b y civil society in assisting financial institutions to better recognise the need for a social licence to operate and giving consideration to other stakeholders.

35 Over 100 Global Financial Institutions Are Exiting Coal, With More to Come 35 About IEEFA The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis conducts research and analyses on financial and economic issues related to energy and the environment. The Institute’s mission is to accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy . www.ieefa.org About the A uthor Tim Buckley Tim Buckley, IEEFA’s director of energy finance research, Australasia, has over 25 years of financial market experience covering the Australian, Asian and global equity markets from both a buy and sell side perspective. Tim was a top - ra ted Equity Research Analyst and has covered most sectors of the Australian economy. Tim was a Managing Director, Head of Equity Research at Citigroup for many years, as well as co - Managing Director of Arkx Investment Management P/L, a global listed clean e nergy investment company that was jointly owned by management and Westpac Banking Group.

Related documents

CityNT2019TentRoll 1

CityNT2019TentRoll 1

STATE OF NEW YORK 2 0 1 9 T E N T A T I V E A S S E S S M E N T R O L L PAGE 1 VALUATION DATE-JUL 01, 2018 COUNTY - Niagara T A X A B L E SECTION OF THE ROLL - 1 CITY - North Tonawanda TAX MAP NUMBER ...

More info »
RIE Tenant List By Docket Number

RIE Tenant List By Docket Number

SCRIE TENANTS LIST ~ By Docket Number ~ Borough of Bronx SCRIE in the last year; it includes tenants that have a lease expiration date equal or who have received • This report displays information on ...

More info »
G:\COMP\PHSA\PHSA.bel

G:\COMP\PHSA\PHSA.bel

G:\COMP\PHSA\PHSA-MERGED.XML PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT [As Amended Through P.L. 115–408, Enacted December 31, 2018] References in brackets ¿ ø¿ ø are to title 42, United States Code TITLE I—SHORT TITL...

More info »
CRPT 116hrpt9 u2

CRPT 116hrpt9 u2

U:\2019CONF\HJRes31Front.xml APPRO. SEN. [COMMITTEE PRINT] REPORT { } CONGRESS 116TH 1st HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Session 116- FURTHER APPROPRIATIONS FOR MAKING CONTINUING OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR THE...

More info »
Justification Book

Justification Book

UNCLASSIFIED Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Estimates February 2018 Office of the Secretary Of Defense Defense-Wide Justification Book Volume 3B of 5 Research, Development, Test & ...

More info »
OperatorHoursReport

OperatorHoursReport

John Bel Edwards Rebekah E. Gee MD, MPH SECRETARY GOVERNOR State of Louisiana Louisiana Department of Health Office of Public Health Certified Water and Wastewater Operators 2018 - 2019 Hours Hours li...

More info »
OctoberCUR2018

OctoberCUR2018

CHANCELLOR'S UNIVERSITY REPORT OCTOBER 29 2018

More info »
Untitled

Untitled

Harmoniz ed vision 4 hedule of the United States (2019) Re Tariff Sc Annotated f poses ting Pur or Statistical Repor GN p .1 GENERAL R ATION ULES OF INTERPRET inciples: wing pr ollo y the f verned b i...

More info »
untitled

untitled

G:\P\16\HR1\INTRO.XML ... (Original Signature of Member) TH 116 CONGRESS 1 ST S ESSION H. R. 1 To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengt...

More info »
NB18

NB18

Table of Contents National Board Pressure Relief Device Certificati ons NB-18 FOREWARD... 1 NATIONAL BOARD PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICE CERTIFICATION... 2 DETERMINATION OF CERTIFIED RELIEVING CAPACITIES... ...

More info »
NCDOT Current STIP

NCDOT Current STIP

May 2019 NCDOT Current STIP

More info »
June2018CUR

June2018CUR

CHANCELLOR'S UNIVERSITY REPORT JUNE 25 2018

More info »
City 2018 2019

City 2018 2019

2018–2019 CATALOG Fall 2018, Spring 2019, Summer 2019 1313 Park Blvd., San Diego, CA 92101 619-388-3400 www.sdcity.edu Ricky Shabazz, Ed.D. President San Diego City College is accredited by the Accred...

More info »
Operator Directory Listing

Operator Directory Listing

OPERATOR'S DIRECTORY SORTED BY OPERATOR NAME DATA SUPPLIED BY: FORM 1006 B CURRENT AS OF: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 Please notify Surety Department at ( 405 ) 521-2273 of any corrections or omissions th...

More info »
FactoryTalk View Site Edition User's Guide

FactoryTalk View Site Edition User's Guide

User Manual FactoryTalk View Site Edition User's Guide

More info »
G:\COMP\SBA\SBA.bel

G:\COMP\SBA\SBA.bel

G:\COMP\SBA\SMALL BUSINESS ACT.XML SMALL BUSINESS ACT [Public Law 85–536; Approved July 18, 1958] [15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.; 72 Stat. 384 et seq.] [As Amended Through P.L. 115-416, Enacted January 3, 201...

More info »
DEC CUR

DEC CUR

CHANCELLOR'S UNIVERSITY REPORT DECEMBER 10, 2018

More info »
Nios® II Software Developer's Handbook

Nios® II Software Developer's Handbook

® Nios II Software Developer's Handbook ® ® Quartus Updated for Intel Prime Design Suite: 19.1 Subscribe NII-SDH | 2019.04.30 Send Feedback Latest document on the web: PDF | HTML

More info »
Squire Patton Boggs Tariff Book

Squire Patton Boggs Tariff Book

Squire Patton Boggs Tariff Book January 11, 2019

More info »