Climate Change: Federal Agencies Should Do More to Make Funding Reports Clearer and Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary Programs
Published: 2006-09-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 report on federal climate  change funding from 1993 through 2004 and our April 2006 report on  voluntary programs that encourage industry participants to set greenhouse  gas emissions reduction goals. 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.  Unless otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted  for inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years. 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:    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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act. 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.
In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration  reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change  science. 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.
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  firms 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  with trade groups 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.
section_title: The Extent of Changes in Federal Climate Change Funding Are Difficult to Determine
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of the Four Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable Over Time
paragraphs: 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:     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.
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  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 2 shows funding data for the seven largest technology accounts,  which accounted for 92 percent of technology funding in 2004.
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.
section_title: Reported Funding For Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained Changes in Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over Time
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Voluntary Programs Have Shown Mixed Progress
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Participants in Both Programs Have Set Quantitative Emissions- Related Goals
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: 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.
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.