United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Resources, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

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 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

 

GAO-06-1126T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 27, 2006

CLIMATE CHANGE

Federal Agencies Could Do More to Make 

Funding Reports Clearer and Encourage 

Progress on Two Voluntary Programs 

Highlights of GAO-06-1126T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Resources, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

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 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. 

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 

www.gao.gov/cgi emissions in the absence of the program cannot be known. -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. 
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 20051

 report on federal climate 

change funding from 1993 through 2004 and our April 20062

 report on 

voluntary programs that encourage industry participants to set greenhouse 

gas emissions reduction goals.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 

 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. 

Page 1 GAO-06-1126T 
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.4

Unless otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted 

for inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years.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. 

 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.

Page 2 GAO-06-1126T 
In summary, we found that: 

• 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. 

• 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 

Page 3 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act.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.7

Background 

 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.” 

Page 4 GAO-06-1126T 
In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration 

reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change

science.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: 

• 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. 

• Science, which includes research and monitoring to better understand 

climate change, such as measuring changes in forest cover and land use.

• International assistance, which helps developing countries address 

climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy efficiency 

programs. 

• 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.9

 

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. 

Page 5 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

• Climate Leaders, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-sponsored 

government-industry partnership established in February 2002, works with 

firms10 to develop long-term climate change strategies. According to EPA 

officials, as of November 2005, 74 firms were participating in the program. 

• 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 

 10For 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. 

Page 6 GAO-06-1126T 
with trade groups11 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. 

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. 

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: 

The Extent of 

Changes in Federal 

Climate Change 

Funding Are Difficult 

to Determine 

Reported Federal Climate 

Change Funding Increased 

for Three of the Four 

Funding Categories, but 

Data May Not Be 

Comparable Over Time 

• 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. 

 11We refer to all Climate VISION participants as trade groups, even though one participant, 

the Tennessee Valley Authority, is a utility. 

Page 7 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

• 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. 

• 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.

• 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 

Page 8 GAO-06-1126T 
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 1993 1997 2001 2004

Technology $845 $1,056 $1,675 $2,868

Science 1,306 1,656 1,728 1,976

International assistance 201 164 218 252

Tax expenditures a a a a

Total $2,352 $2,876 $3,603 $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.

Table 2 shows funding data for the seven largest technology accounts, 

which accounted for 92 percent of technology funding in 2004.

Page 9 GAO-06-1126T 
Table 2: Reported Technology Funding for Selected Accounts and Years

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars 

Agency Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

Department of 

Energy 

Energy Conservation $346 $414 $810 $868

Energy Supply — Fossil 

Energy Research and 

Development (R&D) 

250 201 292 455

Energy Supply —Renewable

Energy 

249 244 370 352

Science (Fusion,

Sequestration, and 

Hydrogen) a

b b

35 333

Energy Supply – Nuclear

c b b

39 309

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration

Exploration, Science, and 

Aeronautics 

b b b

227

Environmental

Protection Agency 

Environmental Programs and 

Management 

b

70 96 89

Other b127 33 235

Total $845 $1,056 $1,675 $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.

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 onetime 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 

Page 10 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

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. 

Reported Funding For 

Most Agencies Increased, 

but Unexplained Changes 

in Report Content Limit 

the Comparability of Data 

Over Time 

Page 11 GAO-06-1126T 
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.

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 

Voluntary Programs 

Have Shown Mixed 

Progress 

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 

Page 12 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

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. 

Participants in Both 

Programs Have Set 

Quantitative EmissionsRelated Goals 

Table 3: Climate Leaders Goals as of November 2005 

Metric used and percent to be reduced

Geographic scope

of goal 

Company Emissions

Emissions

intensity

Metric for measuring

emissions intensity 

United 

States Global

Time period 

covered

3M 30 x 2002-07

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 40 Manufacturing index x 2002-07

American Electric Power 4 x 2001-06 

Ball Corporation 16 Production index x 2002-12

Bank of America Corporation 9 x 2004-09

Baxter International Inc. 16 Unit of production value x 2000-05

Calpine 4 Megawatt hour x 2003-08

Caterpillar 20 Dollar of revenue x 2002-10

Page 13 GAO-06-1126T 
Metric used and percent to be reduced

Geographic scope

of goal 

Company Emissions

Emissions

intensity

Metric for measuring

emissions intensity 

United 

States Global

Time period 

covered

Cinergy Corporation 5 x 2000-10

The Collins Companies 18 x 2000-10

Eastman Kodak Company 10 x 2002-08

Exelon Corporation 8 x 2001-08

First Environment, Inc. Net 0ax by 2008

FPL Group, Inc. 18 Kilowatt hour x 2001-08

Frito-Lay, Inc. 14 Pound of production x 2002-10

GAP, Inc. 11 Square foot x 2003-08

General Electric 1 x 2004-12

General Motors Corporation 10 xb 2000-05

Green Mountain Energy Co. Net 0ax 2005-09

Hasbro, Inc. 30 x 2000-07

Holcim (U.S.) Inc. 12 Ton of cement x 2000-08

IBM Corporationc 10 4 Energy use x Average

annual 

reduction

2000-05

Interface, Inc. 15 Unit of production x 2001-10

International Paper 15 x 2000-10

Johnson & Johnson 14 x 2001-10

Marriott International, Inc. 6 Available room x 2004-10

Melaver, Inc. Net 0ax 2006-09

Miller Brewing Company 18 Barrel of production x 2001-06

National Renewable Energy 

Lab.

 10 Square foot x 2000-05

Pfizer, Inc. 35 Dollar of revenue x 2000-07

PSEG 18 Kilowatt hour x 2000-08

Roche Group US Affiliates 10 x 2001-08

SC Johnson 23 Pound of product x 2000-05

Staples, Inc. 7 x 2001-10

St. Lawrence Cement 15 Ton of product x 2000-10

Sun Microsystems 20 x 2002-12

United Technologies 

Corporation

 16 Dollar of revenue x 2001-06

Xerox Corporation 10 x 2002-12

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

Page 14 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

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 

Type of goal

Industry/

participant 

Reduce 

emissions

Reduce 

emissions

intensity 

Improve

energy 

efficiency Goal metric

Start and

end dates

Aluminum 

Aluminum Association 

 53% Combined direct carbon emissions 

intensity based on PFC reductions 

and reduced anode carbon

consumption 

1990-2010

Automobiles 

Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers

10% Carbon dioxide emissions per 

vehicle produced 2002-12

Cement 

Portland Cement Association 

 10% Carbon dioxide emissions per ton 

of cementitious product produced 

or sold 

1990-2020

Page 15 GAO-06-1126T 
Type of goal

Industry/

participant 

Reduce 

emissions

Reduce 

emissions

intensity 

Improve

energy 

efficiency Goal metric

Start and

end dates

Chemicals 

American Chemistry Council

 18%a Greenhouse gas emissions 

intensityb

1990-2012

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 

 The equivalent

of 

3 to 5% 

 Ratio of carbon equivalent 

emissions to generation in

megawatt hours 

2002-02 to 

2010-12

Forest products

American Forest & Paper Assn. 

 12% Greenhouse gas intensity 2000-12

Iron and steel 

American Iron and Steel Institute 

 10% Millions of British thermal units per 

ton of steel produced 2002-12

Lime 

National Lime Association 

8% Fuel used per ton of lime produced 2002-12

Magnesium 

International Magnesium Assn. 

100% Sulfur hexafluoride emissions by

2010c

Minerals 

Industrial Minerals Association North 

America 

4.2% Greenhouse gas emissions from 

fuel combustion

2002-12

Mining 

National Mining Association 

 10% Energy efficiency 2002-12

25 MMTCE Methane emissions in million 

metric tons carbon dioxide 

equivalent/year 

2002-12d

2 MMTCE Million metric tons of carbon

equivalent 

2002-15e

Oil and gas 

American Petroleum Institute

 10% 

Energy efficiency 

2002-12

Railroads 

American Association of Railroads 

 18% Transportation-related greenhouse 

gas emissions intensity adjusted 

for traffic levels in ton miles 

2002-12

Semiconductors

Semiconductor Industry Assn. 

10% PFC emissions in million metric

tons of carbon equivalent 

1995– 2010

Page 16 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

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. 

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 Conclusions 

Page 17 GAO-06-1126T 
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. 

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. 

Page 18 GAO-06-1126T 

Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(360768) 
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. However, 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. 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER