Direct Lobbying Transparency
| Overall Assessment | Comment | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive | Trane Technologies discloses a very detailed picture of its climate-policy engagement. It names multiple identifiable measures it has worked on, including U.S. federal buildings procurement rules that add the social cost of carbon, state-level energy-code “stretch codes” in Washington, Colorado, California and New York, federal and state legislation to phase-down HFCs that align with the Kigali Amendment, revisions to the EU Building Performance Directive and F-Gas Regulation, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, and the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, among others. The company is equally clear on how it seeks to influence these measures, explaining that it has “drafted legislation and regulation,” “educated policymakers and staff,” “submitted public comments,” organised a round-table in the European Parliament with named MEPs and Commission officials, worked with the U.S. EPA, California Air Resources Board and other state regulators, and lobbies “directly and through consultants and trade associations to secure legislative success.” Finally, Trane Technologies sets out the concrete outcomes it is pursuing: rules that “ban particular high-GWP HFCs in transport refrigeration, foams, and HVAC,” incorporation of the social cost of carbon in federal procurement, higher Energy Star efficiency levels, delayed sunset of certain air-conditioning classes to speed heat-pump uptake, and broader goals such as phasing down HFCs, tightening building-energy codes and expanding incentives for energy-efficient and electrified equipment. By naming the policies, describing the channels and targets of engagement, and articulating the specific legislative or regulatory changes it wants to see, the company demonstrates a comprehensive level of transparency around its climate-related lobbying. | 4 |