This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1126T 
entitled 'Climate Change: Federal Agencies Should Do More to make 
Funding Reports Clearer and Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary 
Programs' which was released on July 27, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, Committee on 
Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT: 

Wednesday, September 27, 2006: 

Climate Change: 

Federal Agencies Should Do More to Make Funding Reports Clearer and 
Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary Programs: 

Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director Natural Resources and 
Environment: 

GAO-06-1126T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-1126T, testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports on federal funding 
for climate research and to develop technologies to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions, among other things. The Climate Change Science Program 
(CCSP), which coordinates many agencies’ activities, also reports on 
science funding. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Climate 
Leaders and the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Climate VISION programs 
aim to reduce such emissions through voluntary industry efforts. 

This testimony is based on GAO’s August 2005 report Climate Change: 
Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More 
Complete (GAO-05-461) and its April 2006 report Climate Change: EPA and 
DOE Should Do More to Encourage Progress Under Two Voluntary Programs 
(GAO-06-97), which addressed (1) reported changes in federal climate 
change funding and (2) the status and progress of two federal voluntary 
climate programs. 

What GAO Found: 

Federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, increased from 
$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (117 percent), or from 
$3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for 
inflation. OMB reports show that, during this period, funding increased 
for technology, science, and--before adjusting for inflation--
international assistance. CCSP, which reports only science funding, 
generally presented totals that were consistent with OMB’s, but 
provided more detail. However, changes in reporting methods used by 
both OMB and CCSP limit the comparability of funding data over time, 
and therefore it was unclear whether total funding actually increased 
as reported. Furthermore, we were unable to compare changes in the 
fourth category (climate-related tax expenditures), because from 1993 
to 2004 OMB reported estimates for proposed but not existing tax 
expenditures. With regard to individual agencies’ funding, OMB reported 
that 12 of the 14 agencies receiving funding for climate change 
programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had in 
1993, but it is unclear whether funding changed as OMB reported because 
of unexplained changes in what was defined as climate change funding. 
Reported funding for DOE, the agency with the most reported climate-
related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million to $2.52 billion 
(162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion (88 percent) 
after adjusting for inflation. DOE and the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration accounted for 81 percent of the reported increase 
in funding from 1993 through 2004. However, because agency funding 
totals are composed of individual accounts, changes in the reports’ 
contents, such as the unexplained addition of accounts to the 
technology category, limit the comparability of agencies’ funding data 
over time, making it difficult to determine if these are real or 
definitional increases. 

EPA and DOE expected participants in their voluntary climate programs 
to complete several program steps within general time frames, but 
participants’ progress in completing those steps within the time frames 
was mixed. Furthermore, DOE did not have a system for tracking groups’ 
progress in completing program steps, and neither DOE nor EPA had a 
written policy specifying the consequences for participants not 
proceeding as expected. In addition, EPA and DOE had both estimated the 
share of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions attributable to 
participants in their respective programs and were working through an 
interagency process to quantify emissions reductions attributable to 
their programs. However, determining reductions attributable to each 
program will be challenging because of the overlap between these 
programs and other voluntary programs and because it is difficult to 
determine how much of a participant’s emissions reductions can be 
attributed to its participation in the program, since the participant’s 
emissions in the absence of the program cannot be known. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommended actions to improve OMB’s and CCSP’s reporting. GAO 
recommended that both EPA and DOE develop written policies on what to 
do about participants not meeting program expectations. All four 
agencies appear to have taken steps to implement our recommendations, 
but we have not fully reviewed the extent to which they have done so. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1126T. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 
512-3841 or StephensonJ@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing and to 
discuss some of our recent work on federal climate change funding and 
voluntary programs. 

Increases in the earth's average temperature that have already occurred 
over the last 100 years, combined with additional future increases 
projected by a consensus of scientists, have the potential to 
dramatically change life on earth. For example, changes in the 
frequency and intensity of rainfall, both possible effects of climate 
change, could affect human health, agriculture, forests, and water 
supplies in certain locations. Effects on planetary biodiversity are 
projected to be even more pronounced. The Congress and the president 
have supported research to improve scientific understanding of the 
climate system and to develop new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. They have also created various federal programs to help 
reduce such emissions. These programs are largely voluntary and 
encourage private and public sector entities to adopt goals for 
reducing emissions. 

My remarks today are based on our August 2005[Footnote 1] report on 
federal climate change funding from 1993 through 2004 and our April 
2006[Footnote 2] report on voluntary programs that encourage industry 
participants to set greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.[Footnote 
3] I will focus on (1) how total funding, funding by category, and 
funding by agency as reported by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) changed and the 
extent to which such funding data are comparable over time, and (2) the 
expectations for, and progress being made by, participants in two 
federal voluntary programs-the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA's) Climate Leaders and the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Climate 
VISION-and these agencies' estimates of the programs' current coverage 
(the share of U.S. emissions that participants contribute to total U.S. 
emissions) and impact (emissions reduced). 

To determine how federal climate change funding by category--science, 
technology, international assistance, and tax expenditures--and agency 
changed, we analyzed data from annual OMB and CCSP reports as well as 
congressional testimony. To determine the extent to which the data on 
climate change funding were comparable over time, we analyzed and 
compared the contents of the reports and interviewed responsible 
officials. The term "funding" in this testimony reflects discretionary 
budget authority, or the authority provided in law to incur financial 
obligations that will result in outlays, as reported by OMB and CCSP in 
their reports.[Footnote 4] Unless otherwise stated, we report funding 
in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), and all years refer to 
fiscal years.[Footnote 5] To evaluate the EPA and DOE voluntary 
programs, we reviewed and analyzed EPA and DOE documents and met with 
these agencies' officials. Most of the information in the report, 
except where otherwise noted, reflects the status of the two programs 
as of November 2005. As of September 20, 2006, an additional 18 firms 
had joined Climate Leaders. To assess the reliability of EPA, DOE, and 
other data, we spoke with agency officials about data quality control 
procedures and reviewed relevant documentation. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reports. We 
performed our work on the federal funding report between July 2004 and 
August 2005 and on the voluntary programs report between June 2004 and 
March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

In summary, we found that: 

² As reported by OMB, federal funding for climate change increased from 
$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (117 percent), or from 
$3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for 
inflation. During this period, federal funding increased for science, 
technology, and before adjusting for inflation, international 
assistance, according to OMB reports. CCSP, which reports only science 
funding, provided more detail, but generally presented totals that were 
consistent with OMB's. However, changes in methods used by both OMB and 
CCSP to report funding data made it difficult to compare the data over 
time, and therefore, to determine whether total funding actually 
increased as reported. We were unable to compare changes in the fourth 
category (climate-related tax expenditures), because from 1993 to 2004 
OMB did not report estimates for existing tax expenditures. For 
individual agencies, OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that 
received funding for climate change programs in 2004 received more 
funding in that year than they had in 1993. However, unexplained 
changes in what was defined as climate change funding made it difficult 
to determine whether funding changed to the extent that OMB reported. 
Funding for the Department of Energy (DOE), the agency with the most 
reported climate-related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million 
to $2.52 billion (162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion 
(88 percent) after adjusting for inflation. DOE and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) accounted for 81 percent of 
the reported increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. However, 
because agency funding totals are composed of individual accounts, 
changes in the reports' contents, such as the unexplained addition of 
accounts to the technology category, make it difficult to compare 
funding data over time. This, in turn, makes it difficult to determine 
if these are real or definitional increases. 

² EPA and DOE expected the participants in their voluntary climate 
change programs to complete several program steps within general time 
frames, but participants' progress in completing those steps within the 
time frames varied. Moreover, DOE did not have a system to track the 
participants' progress in completing the required steps, and neither 
DOE nor EPA had a written policy specifying what actions would be taken 
to address participants' not proceeding as expected. In addition, EPA 
and DOE had both estimated the share of total U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions that could be attributed to the participants in their 
programs and were working through an interagency process to quantify 
emissions reductions attributable to their programs. However, 
determining reductions attributable to each program will be challenging 
because these programs overlap with other voluntary programs and 
because it is difficult to determine how much of a participant's 
emissions reductions can be attributed to its participation in the 
program, versus what they would have done anyway in the absence of the 
program. 

With regard to reporting of federal climate change funding, we 
recommended that OMB and CCSP use the same format for presenting data 
from year-to-year, explain changes in report content or format when 
they are introduced, and provide and maintain a crosswalk comparing new 
and old report structures when changes in report format are introduced. 
We also recommended that OMB include data on existing climate-related 
tax expenditures in future reports. 

Regarding the voluntary programs, we recommended that DOE develop a 
system for tracking participants' progress in completing key steps 
associated with its Climate VISION Program, and that both EPA and DOE 
develop written policies establishing the actions the agencies will 
take if participants are not completing program steps on time. 

All four agencies appear to have taken steps to implement our 
recommendations, but we have not comprehensively reviewed the extent to 
which they have done so. 

Background: 

In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act.[Footnote 
6] This act, among other things, required the administration to (1) 
prepare and at least every 3 years revise and submit to the Congress a 
national global change research plan, including an estimate of federal 
funding for global change research activities to be conducted under the 
plan; (2) in each annual budget submission to the Congress, identify 
the items in each agency's budget that are elements of the United 
States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an interagency long- 
term climate change science research program; and (3) report annually 
on climate change "expenditures required" for the USGCRP.[Footnote 7] 

In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration 
reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change 
science.[Footnote 8] From 1990 through 2001, the reports presented 
detailed science funding data for the USGCRP. Federal climate change 
science programs were reorganized in 2001 and 2002. In 2001, the 
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) was created to coordinate 
short-term climate change research focused on reducing scientific 
uncertainty, and in 2002, CCSP was created to coordinate and integrate 
USGCRP and CCRI activities. CCSP is a collaborative interagency program 
designed to improve the government wide management of climate science 
and research. 

With respect to federal research, OMB, in annual reports and testimony 
before the Congress, reported climate change funding for 1993 through 
2004 using four categories: 

² Technology, which includes the research, development, and deployment 
of technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or 
increase energy efficiency. Funding for this category focuses on 
programs for energy conservation, renewable energy, and related 
efforts. 

² Science, which includes research and monitoring to better understand 
climate change, such as measuring changes in forest cover and land use. 

² International assistance, which helps developing countries address 
climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy efficiency 
programs. 

² Tax expenditures related to climate change, which are federal income 
tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to encourage 
emission reductions by, for example, providing tax incentives to 
promote the use of renewable energy.[Footnote 9] 

Over the same time period, the administration also has reported 
annually on funding specifically for climate change science. CCSP is 
currently responsible for preparing these climate change science 
reports, which duplicate to some extent data provided by OMB in the 
science category. 

In 1992, the United States ratified the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, which has as its objective the 
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the earth's 
atmosphere but does not impose specific goals or timetables for 
limiting emissions. In response, federal agencies developed a plan for 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary efforts 
by companies, state and local governments, and other organizations. 
Since that time, federal agencies have sponsored voluntary programs 
that encourage private and public sector entities to curb their 
greenhouse gas emissions by providing technical assistance, education, 
research, and information sharing. The administration has promoted such 
voluntary programs, along with other measures, as an alternative to 
mandatory emissions reductions. 

In February 2002, the president announced a Global Climate Change 
Initiative to reduce the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions 
in the United States. Specifically, he established the goal of reducing 
the emissions intensity of the United States by 18 percent between 2002 
and 2012. Emissions intensity is a ratio calculated by dividing 
emissions in a given year by economic output for that year. In support 
of this goal, the president announced two new voluntary programs aimed 
at securing private sector agreements to voluntarily reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions or emissions intensity. 

² Climate Leaders, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-sponsored 
government-industry partnership established in February 2002, works 
with firms[Footnote 10] to develop long-term climate change strategies. 
According to EPA officials, as of November 2005, 74 firms were 
participating in the program. 

² Climate VISION (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: 
Opportunities Now), introduced in February 2003 and coordinated by the 
Department of Energy (DOE) in cooperation with EPA and other federal 
agencies, works with trade groups[Footnote 11] to develop strategies to 
reduce their members' greenhouse gas emissions intensity. Most 
industries participating in the program are represented by a single 
trade group. As of November 2005, 14 industry sectors and the Business 
Roundtable--an association of chief executive officers representing 
diverse sectors of the economy--were participating in the program. 
According to DOE, the trade groups participating in Climate VISION 
typically have high energy requirements. 

The Extent of Changes in Federal Climate Change Funding Are Difficult 
to Determine: 

OMB reports indicated that federal funding on climate change increased 
from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004, or from $3.28 
billion to $5.09 billion after adjusting for inflation, and that 
funding increased in three of the four categories between 1993 and 
2004. However, changes in reporting methods limit the comparability of 
funding data over time, making it unclear whether total funding 
actually increased as reported. OMB reports also indicated that 12 of 
the 14 federal agencies receiving funding for climate change programs 
in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had in 1993, but 
again, unexplained modifications in the reports' contents limit the 
comparability of agencies' funding data, making it difficult to 
determine whether funding increased as OMB reported. 

Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of the Four 
Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable Over Time: 

We found that federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, 
increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (117 
percent), or from $3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after 
adjusting for inflation, and reported funding increased for three of 
the four categories between 1993 and 2004. However, changes in 
reporting methods limit the comparability of funding data over time, 
and therefore it was unclear whether total funding actually increased 
as OMB reported. We were unable to compare changes in the fourth 
category-climate-related tax expenditures-because OMB reported 
estimates for proposed but not existing tax expenditures from 1993 to 
2004. Specifically, for 1993 through 2004, we found the following: 

² Technology funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $845 million 
to $2.87 billion (240 percent), or from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion 
(143 percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. The share of total climate 
change funding devoted to technology increased from 36 percent to 56 
percent. However, we identified several ways that technology funding 
presented in OMB's more recent reports may not be comparable to 
previously reported technology funding. For example, OMB added accounts 
to the technology category that were not reported before or were 
presented in different categories and did not explain whether these 
accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a decision to count 
existing programs for the first time. OMB also expanded the definitions 
of some accounts to include more activities without clarifying how the 
definitions were changed. Furthermore, OMB reports include a wide range 
of federal climate-related programs and activities, some of which-such 
as scientific research on global environmental change-are explicitly 
climate change programs, whereas others-such as technology initiatives 
promoting emissions reduction or encouraging energy conservation-are 
not solely for climate change purposes. 

² Science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 billion (51 
percent), according to both OMB and CCSP, or from $1.82 billion to 
$1.98 billion (9 percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, 
science's share of total climate change funding decreased from 56 
percent to 39 percent. OMB and CCSP generally presented consistent 
climate change science funding totals from 1993 through 2004. CCSP 
reports also presented more detailed data, but these data were 
difficult to compare over the entire period because CCSP periodically 
introduced new categorization methods without explaining how the new 
methods related to the ones they replaced. Specifically, over the 
period CCSP used seven different methods to present detailed science 
funding data, making it impossible to develop consistent funding trends 
for the entire timeframe. 

² International assistance funding reported by OMB increased from $201 
million to $252 million (25 percent), but decreased from $280 million 
to $252 million (10 percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. Moreover, 
its share of total climate change funding decreased from 9 percent to 5 
percent. International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally 
comparable over time, although several new accounts were added without 
explanation. 

² Tax expenditures were not fully reported by OMB for any year, even 
though climate-related tax expenditures amounted to hundreds of 
millions of dollars in forgone federal revenue in fiscal year 2004. 
Although not required to do so, OMB reported proposed climate-related 
tax expenditures. However, OMB did not report revenue loss estimates 
for existing climate change-related tax expenditures. Whereas OMB 
reported no funding for existing climate change-related tax 
expenditures in 2004, the federal budget for that year listed four tax 
expenditures related to climate change, including estimated revenue 
losses of $330 million for incentives to develop certain renewable 
energy sources. 

Table 1 shows federal climate change funding by category between 1993 
and 2004. 

Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, Selected 
Years: 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars. 

Category: Technology; 
1993: $845; 
1997: $1,056; 
2001: $1,675; 
2004: $2,868. 

Category: Science; 
1993: 1,306; 
1997: 1,656; 
2001: 1,728; 
2004: 1,976. 

Category: International assistance; 
1993: 201; 
1997: 164; 
2001: 218; 
2004: 252. 

Category: Tax expenditures; 
1993: [A]; 
1997: [A]; 
2001: [A]; 
2004: [A]. 

Total; 
1993: $2,352; 
1997: $2,876; 
2001: $3,603; 
2004: $5,090. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[A] OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate- 
related tax expenditures for this year. 

[End of table] 

Table 2 shows funding data for the seven largest technology accounts, 
which accounted for 92 percent of technology funding in 2004. 

Table 2: Reported Technology Funding for Selected Accounts and Years: 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Account: Energy Conservation; 
1993: $346; 
1997: $414; 
2001: $810; 
2004: $868. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Account: Energy Supply --Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D); 
1993: 250; 
1997: 201; 
2001: 292; 
2004: 455. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Account: Energy Supply --Renewable Energy; 
1993: 249; 
1997: 244; 
2001: 370; 
2004: 352. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Account: Science (Fusion, Sequestration, and Hydrogen)a[A]; 
1993: [B]; 
1997: [B];
2001: 35; 
2004: 333. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Account: Energy Supply - Nuclear[C]; 
1993: [B]; 
1997: [B]; 
2001: 39; 
2004: 309. 

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Account: Exploration, Science, and Aeronautics; 
1993: [B]; 
1997: [B]; 
2001: [B]; 
2004: 227. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; 
Account: Environmental Programs and Management;
1993: [B]; 
1997: 70; 
2001: 96; 
2004: 89. 

Agency: Other; 
Account: [Empty]; 
1993: [B]; 
1997: 127; 
2001: 33; 
2004: 235. 

Agency: Total; 
Account: [Empty]; 
1993: $845; 
1997: $1,056; 
2001: $1,675; 
2004: $2,868. 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

[A] Sequestration can be defined as the capture and isolation of gases 
that otherwise could contribute to global climate change. 

[B] OMB did not report a value in the technology category for this 
account for this year. 

[C] For 2001 Energy Supply --Nuclear funding, we counted the Nuclear 
Energy Research Initiative and Energy Supply --Nuclear budget accounts 
as presented by OMB. OMB did not separately present these accounts for 
2004, and included funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative 
within the Energy Supply--Nuclear account. 

[End of table] 

OMB and CCSP officials told us that time constraints and other factors 
contributed to changes in report structure and content over time. For 
example, OMB officials said that the short timeline for completing the 
report required by the Congress (within 45 days of submitting the 
upcoming fiscal year's budget for the three most recent reports) 
limited OMB's ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. OMB and 
CCSP officials also noted that each report was prepared in response to 
a one-time requirement and that they were not directed to use the same 
report format over time or to explain differences in methodology from 
one report to another. The director of CCSP told us that changes to 
climate change science reports, such as the creation and deletion of 
different categorization methods, were made because CCSP was changing 
towards a goals-oriented budget, and categorization methods changed as 
the program evolved. The director also said that future reports will 
explicitly present budget data as it was reported in prior reports to 
retain continuity, even if new methods are introduced. Regarding tax 
expenditures, OMB officials said that they consistently included in the 
reports those proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was 
specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They also stated that 
they had not included existing tax expenditures that may reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions but that were enacted for other purposes, and 
that the Congress had not provided any guidance to suggest that 
additional tax expenditure data should be included in the annual 
reports. 

Reported Funding For Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained Changes 
in Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over Time: 

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies receiving funding for climate 
change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they 
had in 1993. However, it is unclear whether funding changed as OMB 
reported because of, among other things, unexplained changes in what 
was defined as climate change funding. Reported funding for the 
Department of Energy (DOE), the agency with the most reported climate- 
related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million to $2.52 billion 
(162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion (88 percent) 
after adjusting for inflation. DOE and NASA accounted for 81 percent of 
the reported increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. However, 
because agency funding totals are composed of individual accounts, 
changes in the reports' contents, such as the unexplained addition of 
accounts to the technology category, limit the comparability of 
agencies' funding data over time, making it difficult to determine if 
these are real or definitional increases. OMB stated that it 
consistently reported funding data for the 3 years presented in each of 
its reports and that there had been no requirement to use a consistent 
format from one report to the next or to explain differences in 
methodology from one report to another. 

We recommended that OMB and CCSP use the same format for presenting 
data from year-to-year, explain changes in report content or format 
when they are introduced, and provide and maintain a crosswalk 
comparing new and old report structures when changes in report format 
are introduced. We also recommended that OMB include data on existing 
climate-related tax expenditures in future reports. OMB agreed with the 
recommendations relating to report content and format and said it was 
studying the other recommendations. CCSP agreed with all of our 
recommendations. Both agencies appear to have taken actions in response 
to our recommendations, but we have not comprehensively reviewed the 
extent to which they may have done so. 

Voluntary Programs Have Shown Mixed Progress: 

EPA and DOE expect participants in their respective programs to 
complete a number of actions within certain timeframes. However, 
participants' progress toward completing those actions was mixed, and 
neither agency had a written policy for dealing with this situation. 
EPA estimated that the first fifty Climate Leaders participants 
accounted for at least 8 percent of U.S. emissions on average for the 
years 2000 through 2003, and DOE estimated that Climate VISION 
participants account for over 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions; both agencies believe these to be conservative estimates. 
While EPA and DOE are participating in an interagency process to 
estimate the impact of their programs on emissions, we found that 
accurately attributing specific emissions reductions to either program 
would be difficult. 

Some Climate Leaders and Climate VISION Participants Have Not Completed 
Program Steps as Soon as Expected, and Neither Agency Had a Written 
Policy For Dealing with Such Participants: 

EPA and DOE expect participants in their voluntary emissions reduction 
programs to complete a number of actions; however, participants' 
progress toward completing those actions, as well as the agencies' 
efforts to track accomplishments, varied. For example, within about 1 
year of joining the program, EPA expects firms to enter into 
discussions with the agency to establish an emissions reduction goal 
and to complete these negotiations, generally within another year. As 
of November 2005, 38 of the 74 firms had established goals, while most 
of the other 36 firms, including 13 that joined in 2002, were still 
working to establish goals; most of the remaining firms had joined the 
program recently and had not yet established goals. EPA officials told 
us that they were developing a system for tracking firms' progress in 
accomplishing the key steps associated with participating in the 
program, but were still in the process of obtaining and validating data 
from participants. While EPA officials told us that they would be 
willing to remove participants from the program if they were not 
progressing as expected, they had not specified the conditions under 
which they would do so. DOE asks that trade groups participating in its 
Climate VISION program develop a work plan for measuring and reporting 
emissions information within about 1 year after joining the program and 
report their emissions levels. As of November 2005, 11 of the 15 
participating trade groups had completed their work plans and 5 groups 
had reported on emissions. As of November 2005, DOE officials said that 
the agency did not have a system for tracking how long each group takes 
to complete its work plan and report emissions data. Furthermore, while 
DOE officials said that the agency would remove groups from the program 
if they did not seem to be taking sufficient action, DOE had not yet 
established specific deadlines for reporting emissions. Because DOE did 
not have a system for tracking how long participants take to complete 
key program steps--and neither DOE nor EPA had established written 
policies for taking action against participants not progressing as 
expected--it will be difficult for them to ensure that all participants 
are meeting program expectations. 

We recommended that DOE develop a system for tracking participants' 
progress in completing key steps associated with its Climate VISION 
Program, and that both EPA and DOE develop written policies 
establishing the actions the agencies will take if participants are not 
completing program steps on time. DOE and EPA appear to have taken 
steps to implement our recommendation regarding a written policy, but 
we have not conducted a comprehensive review to determine the extent to 
which the recommendations have been implemented. 

Participants in Both Programs Have Set Quantitative Emissions-Related 
Goals: 

The specific types of emission reduction goals being established by 
Climate Leaders firms and Climate VISION groups varied. Of the 38 firms 
participating in Climate Leaders that had established emission 
reduction goals as of November 2005, 19 had committed to reduce their 
total greenhouse gas emissions, 18 had committed to reduce their 
emissions intensity (emissions per unit of output), and 1 firm had 
committed to reduce both its total emissions and its emissions 
intensity. Furthermore, firms' goals differed in their geographic scope 
and the time period they covered. For example, Cinergy Corporation 
pledged to reduce its total U.S. domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 5 
percent from 2000 to 2010, while Pfizer, Inc., pledged to reduce its 
worldwide emissions by 35 percent per dollar of revenue from 2000 to 
2007. Table 3 presents information on the 38 firms' goals. 

Table 3: Climate Leaders Goals as of November 2005: 

Company: 3M; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 30; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2002-07. 

Company: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 40; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Manufacturing index; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2002-07. 

Company: American Electric Power; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 4; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-06. 

Company: Ball Corporation; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 16; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Production index; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2002-12. 

Company: Bank of America Corporation; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 9; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2004-09. 

Company: Baxter International Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 16; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Unit of production value; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-05. 

Company: Calpine; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 4; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Megawatt hour; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2003- 08. 

Company: Caterpillar; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 20; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Dollar of revenue; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2002-10. 

Company: Cinergy Corporation; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 5; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-10. 

Company: The Collins Companies; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 18; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-10. 

Company: Eastman Kodak Company; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2002-08. 

Company: Exelon Corporation; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 8; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-08. 

Company: First Environment, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: Net 0[A]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: by 2008. 

Company: FPL Group, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 18; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Kilowatt hour; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-08. 

Company: Frito-Lay, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 14; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Pound of production; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2002-10. 

Company: GAP, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 11; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Square foot; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2003-08. 

Company: General Electric; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 1; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2004-12. 

Company: General Motors Corporation; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: xb; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-05. 

Company: Green Mountain Energy Co; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: Net 0[A]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2005-09. 

Company: Hasbro, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 30; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-07. 

Company: Holcim (U.S.) Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 12; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Ton of cement; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-08. 

Company: IBM Corporationc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 4; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Energy use ; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: Average annual reduction; 
2000-05. 

Company: Interface, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 15; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Unit of production; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-10. 

Company: International Paper; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 15; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-10. 

Company: Johnson & Johnson; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 14; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-10. 

Company: Marriott International, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 6; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Available room; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2004-10. 

Company: Melaver, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: Net 0[A]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2006-09. 

Company: Miller Brewing Company; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 18; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Barrel of production; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-06. 

Company: National Renewable Energy Lab; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 10; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Square foot; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-05. 

Company: Pfizer, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 35; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Dollar of revenue; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2000-07. 

Company: PSEG; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 18; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Kilowatt hour; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000- 08. 

Company: Roche Group US Affiliates; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-08. 

Company: SC Johnson; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 23; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Pound of product; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2000-05. 

Company: Staples, Inc; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 7; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2001-10. 

Company: St. Lawrence Cement; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 15; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Ton of product; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2000-10. 

Company: Sun Microsystems; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 20; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: x; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: [Empty]; 
Time period covered: 2002-12. 

Company: United Technologies Corporation; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: 16; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: Dollar of revenue; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2001-06. 

Company: Xerox Corporation; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions: 10; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Emissions intensity: [Empty]; 
Metric used and percent to be reduced: Metric for measuring emissions 
intensity: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: United States: [Empty]; 
Geographic scope of goal: Global: x; 
Time period covered: 2002-12. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[A] Net zero means that the company will substitute emissions it 
produces by some other activity such that no new, additional emissions 
are produced. Green Mountain Energy, for example, is substituting 
emissions from fossil fuel-based energy, such as coal or gas, with the 
purchase of renewable energy that produces few greenhouse gas emissions 
relative to fossil fuels. 

[B] General Motors pledged to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions 
from its North American facilities. 

[C] IBM pledged to achieve a reduction in its average annual carbon 
dioxide emissions equivalent to 4 percent of the emissions associated 
with the company's worldwide energy use. IBM also pledged to reduce its 
perfluorocarbon emissions from its semiconductor manufacturing 
processes by 10 percent from 2000 to 2005. 

[End of table] 

In contrast to EPA's program, 14 of the 15 trade groups participating 
in DOE's Climate VISION established an emissions-related goal in 
collaboration with DOE or another federal agency upon joining the 
program. (The remaining group, the Business Roundtable, did not 
establish a quantitative emissions goal because of the diversity of its 
membership). According to a DOE official, participants need not 
establish new goals as a condition of joining the program. Nine of the 
14 groups had set goals to improve their emissions intensity, 2 groups 
had established a goal of reducing emissions of specific greenhouse 
gases, 2 groups had set goals to improve energy efficiency, and 1 group 
had established a goal of both reducing its total emissions and 
improving its energy efficiency. For example, the American Forest & 
Paper Association pledged to reduce emissions intensity by 12 percent 
between 2002 and 2012, while the American Iron and Steel Institute 
agreed to a 10-percent, sector wide increase in energy efficiency by 
2012. Some of these groups stated that their goals would be difficult 
to achieve, however, without reciprocal federal actions, such as tax 
incentives or regulatory relief. Table 4 presents information on 
Climate VISION industry groups' goals. 

Table 4: Climate VISION Trade Groups' Goals as of November 2005: 

Industry/participant: Aluminum; Aluminum Association; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 53%; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Combined direct carbon emissions intensity based on PFC 
reductions and reduced anode carbon consumption; 
Start and end dates: 1990-2010. 

Industry/: participant: Automobiles; Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 10% ; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Carbon dioxide emissions per vehicle produced; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12. 

Industry/: participant: Cement; Portland Cement Association; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 10%; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Carbon dioxide emissions per ton of cementitious product 
produced or sold; 
Start and end dates: 1990-2020. 

Industry/: participant: Chemicals; American Chemistry Council; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 18%[A]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Greenhouse gas emissions intensity[B]; 
Start and end dates: 1990-2012. 

Industry/: participant: Electric power; American Public Power 
Association; Edison Electric Institute; Electric Power Supply 
Association; Large Public Power Council; National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association; Nuclear Energy Institute; Tennessee Valley 
Authority; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: The equivalent of; 3 to 5%; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Ratio of carbon equivalent emissions to generation in 
megawatt hours; 
Start and end dates: 2002-02 to 2010- 12. 

Industry/: participant: Forest products; American Forest & Paper Assn; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 12%; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Greenhouse gas intensity; 
Start and end dates: 2000-12. 

Industry/: participant: Iron and steel; American Iron and Steel 
Institute; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: 10%; 
Goal metric: Millions of British thermal units per ton of steel 
produced; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12. 

Industry/: participant: Lime; National Lime Association; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 8%; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Fuel used per ton of lime produced; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12. 

Industry/: participant: Magnesium; International Magnesium Assn; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: 100%; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Sulfur hexafluoride emissions; 
Start and end dates: by; 2010[C]. 

Industry/: participant: Minerals; Industrial Minerals Association North 
America; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 4.2%; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12. 

Industry/: participant: Mining; National Mining Association; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: 10%; 
Goal metric: Energy efficiency; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12. 

Industry/: participant: Mining; National Mining Association; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: 25 MMTCE; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Methane emissions in million metric tons carbon dioxide 
equivalent/year; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12[D]. 

Industry/: participant: Mining; National Mining Association; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: Oil and gas: 2 MMTCE; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: Oil and gas: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: Oil and gas: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Oil and gas: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent; 
Start and end dates: Oil and gas: 2002-15[E]. 

Industry/: participant: Oil and gas; American Petroleum Institute; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: 10%; 
Goal metric: Energy efficiency; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12. 

Industry/: participant: Railroads; American Association of Railroads; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: 18%; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: Transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions intensity 
adjusted for traffic levels in ton miles; 
Start and end dates: 2002-12. 

Industry/: participant: Semiconductors; Semiconductor Industry Assn; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: 10%; 
Type of goal: Reduce emissions: intensity: [Empty]; 
Type of goal: Improve energy efficiency: [Empty]; 
Goal metric: PFC emissions in million metric tons of carbon equivalent; 
Start and end dates: 1995-2010. 

Sources: Climate VISION web site. 

[A] According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. 
chemistry industry reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by 12 percent 
from 1990 to 2000, with projections to 2002. 

[B] ACC measures its greenhouse gas emissions intensity using a special 
index that is particularly suited for an industry with a diverse 
product base. The index measures changes in the physical quantity of 
production, and where these data are unavailable, the index is based on 
changes in electricity consumption and production worker hours. 

[C] The International Magnesium Association committed to eliminate all 
SF6 emissions by 2010 and did not define a baseline year because of the 
nature of its goal. 

[D] The National Mining Association committed to maintain annual 
methane emissions reductions achieved since 1990. 

[E] The National Mining Association committed to maximize efforts to 
reduce annual carbon reductions projected as a result of the 
partnership with DOE. These projections are 600,000 metric tons of 
carbon equivalent by 2010 and 2 million metric tons by 2015. 

[End of table] 

Both Agencies Had Estimated Their Programs' Coverage and Were Working 
to Estimate Their Impact, But It Will Be Difficult to Attribute 
Specific Emissions Reductions From These Programs: 

EPA and DOE both estimated the share of total U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions attributable to participants in their respective programs and 
were working to develop an estimate of the programs' impacts. EPA 
estimated that Climate Leaders participants accounted for at least 8 
percent of U.S. emissions. According to EPA, this was a conservative 
estimate, because it was based solely on emissions from the program's 
first 50 participants. DOE estimated that Climate VISION participants 
accounted for over 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 
noted that this was a conservative estimate. Both agencies were 
participating in an interagency process to estimate the effect of their 
programs on reducing emissions, which was expected to be completed in 
2006. However, preparing accurate estimates of these programs' impacts 
will be difficult. First, there is considerable overlap between these 
two programs and other voluntary programs. For example, 60 of the 74 
Climate Leaders participants also participated in one or more other EPA 
programs, and 3 of the 14 Climate VISION participants with quantitative 
goals also participated in EPA voluntary programs. Such overlap makes 
it difficult to determine the effects that are attributable to a given 
program. Second, it will be difficult to determine how much of a firm's 
or trade group's emissions reductions can be attributed to its 
participation in the program because the level of a participant's 
emissions in the absence of the program is unknown. For example, higher 
energy prices or changes in business operations could lead to emissions 
reductions, making it difficult to distinguish reductions attributable 
to participation in the program versus other causes. 

Conclusions: 

In conclusion, we found that the lack of consistency and clarity in 
OMB's and CCSP's reports made it difficult to identify trends in 
federal climate change funding. A better understanding of these 
expenditures is needed before it is possible to assess CCSP's and other 
federal agencies' progress towards their climate change goals. We 
therefore made a total of seven recommendations to OMB and three to 
CCSP to clarify how they present climate change funding information. 
OMB agreed with most of our recommendations and CCSP agreed with all of 
our recommendations. Both agencies appear to have taken steps to 
implement our recommendations, but we have not comprehensively reviewed 
the extent to which they have done so. 

We found that opportunities remain to improve the progress of both 
voluntary programs, since some industry participants in both programs 
appeared not to be progressing at the rate expected by the agencies. We 
also found that it will be difficult for the agencies to estimate the 
emissions reductions attributable to their programs, due to overlaps 
between organizations participating in more than one voluntary program 
and to the fact that it was difficult to know how much of a 
participant's emissions reductions were a direct result of the program 
or other factors, such as higher energy prices, which generally lead to 
lower emissions. Therefore, we recommended that DOE develop a system 
for tracking participants' progress in completing key steps associated 
with the program, and that both EPA and DOE develop written policies 
that establish the actions the agencies will take if participants are 
not completing program steps on time. EPA did not comment on our 
recommendation; DOE stated that it agreed with our recommendation 
regarding a tracking system and would consider our recommendation 
regarding establishing a written policy. We have not fully reviewed the 
extent to which the recommendations have been implemented. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee 
may have. 

Contact and Staff Acknowledgements: 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 
(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. John Healey, Anne K. Johnson, 
and Vincent P. Price made key contributions to this testimony. John 
Delicath, Karen Keegan, and Charles Egan also made important 
contributions. 

(360768): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: Federal 
Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete. 
GAO-05-461 (Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2005). 

[2] U.S. Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: EPA and DOE 
Should Do More to Encourage Progress Under Two Voluntary Programs. GAO-
06-97 (Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006). 

[3] For the sake of consistency, we describe both Climate Leaders and 
Climate VISION participants' targets as goals, even though DOE 
describes Climate VISION participants' targets as commitments. 

[4] An OMB official stated that there is no mandatory budget authority 
for climate change programs. 

[5] When we adjusted for inflation, we used a fiscal year price index 
that we calculated based on a calendar year price index published by 
the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. Unless 
otherwise specified, figures represent actual funding (not estimates), 
with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2004, where we present estimated 
funding reported by CCSP because actual data are not available. For the 
purposes of this testimony, the term "agency" includes executive 
departments and agencies, and we use the term "account" to describe the 
budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities presented in OMB 
and CCSP reports. Throughout this testimony, we characterize all 
climate change science reports from 1993 through 2004 as CCSP reports, 
even though CCSP has been in existence only since 2002, and reports 
prior to 2002 were published by a predecessor organization. Totals and 
percentages may not add due to rounding. 

[6] Pub. L. No. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096 (1990) (partially terminated 
pursuant to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, 
Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003 (1995)). 

[7] The annual reporting requirement for climate change expenditures 
was terminated effective May 15, 2000. The reporting requirement had 
called for "(A) the amounts spent during the fiscal year most recently 
ended; (B) the amounts expected to be spent during the current fiscal 
year; and (C) the amounts requested for the fiscal year for which the 
budget is being submitted." 

[8] To maintain consistency with OMB data, which are available from 
1993 to 2004, we reviewed reported science funding from 1993 to 2004. 

[9] The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws 
may, in effect, be viewed as expenditures channeled through the tax 
system. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
as amended, requires that the budget include the level of tax 
expenditures under existing law. Like the annual lists of tax 
expenditures prepared by the Department of the Treasury, this testimony 
considers only tax expenditures related to individual and corporate 
income taxes and does not address excise taxes. 

[10] For the sake of brevity, we refer to all participants in the 
Climate Leaders programs as firms, even though one of them, the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is a federal research laboratory. 

[11] We refer to all Climate VISION participants as trade groups, even 
though one participant, the Tennessee Valley Authority, is a utility. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: