Climate Change
Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions Gao ID: GAO-11-317 May 20, 2011Climate change poses risks to many environmental and economic systems, including agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Federal law has periodically required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report on federal climate change funding. GAO was asked to examine (1) federal funding for climate change activities and how these activities are organized; (2) the extent to which methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are interpreted consistently across the federal government; (3) federal climate change strategic priorities, and the extent to which funding is aligned with these priorities; and (4) what options, if any, are available to better align federal climate change funding with strategic priorities. GAO analyzed OMB funding reports and responses to a Web-based questionnaire sent to federal officials, reviewed available literature, and interviewed stakeholders.
Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, and is organized in a complex, crosscutting system. OMB reports funding in four categories: technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Over this period, technology funding, the largest category, increased from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion and increased as a share of total funding. OMB also reported $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and tax expenditures to encourage emissions reductions, with $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses in 2010. Many federal entities manage related activities, including interagency programs that coordinate agency actions. Questionnaire responses suggest that methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not interpreted consistently across the federal government. Respondents identified three methods for defining and reporting climate change funding, foremost of which is guidance contained in OMB Circular A-11. While most said their own organization consistently applied these methods internally, far fewer said that they were applied consistently across the government. Some, for example, noted that other agencies use their own interpretation of definitions, resulting in inconsistent accounting across the government, because of several factors, such as the difficulty in distinguishing between programs related and unrelated to climate change. Respondents, literature, and stakeholders identified two key factors that complicate efforts to align funding with priorities. First, notwithstanding existing coordinating mechanisms, questionnaire results indicated that federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic priorities. This is in part due to inconsistent messages articulated in strategic plans and other policy documents. A 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis had similarly found no "overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs." Second, respondents indicated that since mechanisms for aligning funding with priorities are nonbinding, they are limited when in conflict with agencies' own priorities. Questionnaire respondents also identified options to better align funding with strategic priorities. Such options included (1) a governmentwide strategic planning process that promotes a shared understanding among agencies of strategic priorities by articulating what they are expected to do within the overall federal response to climate change and (2) an integrated budget review process that better aligns these priorities with funding decisions through a more consistent method of reporting and reviewing climate change funding. Federal entities are beginning to implement some of these options. However, without further improvement in how federal climate change funding is defined and reported, strategic priorities are set, and funding is aligned with priorities, it will be difficult for the public and Congress to fully understand how climate change funds are accounted for and how they are spent. Among GAO's recommendations are that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), in consultation with Congress, clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities and assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and reporting related funding. Relevant EOP entities did not provide official written comments, but instead provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: David C. Trimble Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-9338GAO-11-317, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-317
entitled 'Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National
Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions'
which was released on June 21, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives:
May 2011:
Climate Change:
Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align
Them with Federal Funding Decisions:
GAO-11-317:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-317, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Climate change poses risks to many environmental and economic systems,
including agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems. Federal law has
periodically required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
report on federal climate change funding.
GAO was asked to examine (1) federal funding for climate change
activities and how these activities are organized; (2) the extent to
which methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are
interpreted consistently across the federal government; (3) federal
climate change strategic priorities, and the extent to which funding
is aligned with these priorities; and (4) what options, if any, are
available to better align federal climate change funding with
strategic priorities. GAO analyzed OMB funding reports and responses
to a Web-based questionnaire sent to federal officials, reviewed
available literature, and interviewed stakeholders.
What GAO Found:
Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from
$4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, and is organized in a
complex, crosscutting system. OMB reports funding in four categories:
technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate
change, international assistance for developing countries, and
wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Over
this period, technology funding, the largest category, increased from
$2.56 billion to $5.5 billion and increased as a share of total
funding. OMB also reported $26.1 billion as funding for climate change
programs and activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009, and tax expenditures to encourage emissions reductions, with
$7.2 billion in federal revenue losses in 2010. Many federal entities
manage related activities, including interagency programs that
coordinate agency actions.
Questionnaire responses suggest that methods for defining and
reporting climate change funding are not interpreted consistently
across the federal government. Respondents identified three methods
for defining and reporting climate change funding, foremost of which
is guidance contained in OMB Circular A-11. While most said their own
organization consistently applied these methods internally, far fewer
said that they were applied consistently across the government. Some,
for example, noted that other agencies use their own interpretation of
definitions, resulting in inconsistent accounting across the
government, because of several factors, such as the difficulty in
distinguishing between programs related and unrelated to climate
change.
Respondents, literature, and stakeholders identified two key factors
that complicate efforts to align funding with priorities. First,
notwithstanding existing coordinating mechanisms, questionnaire
results indicated that federal officials do not have a shared
understanding of strategic priorities. This is in part due to
inconsistent messages articulated in strategic plans and other policy
documents. A 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis had
similarly found no ’overarching policy goal for climate change that
guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.“ Second,
respondents indicated that since mechanisms for aligning funding with
priorities are nonbinding, they are limited when in conflict with
agencies‘ own priorities.
Questionnaire respondents also identified options to better align
funding with strategic priorities. Such options included (1) a
governmentwide strategic planning process that promotes a shared
understanding among agencies of strategic priorities by articulating
what they are expected to do within the overall federal response to
climate change and (2) an integrated budget review process that better
aligns these priorities with funding decisions through a more
consistent method of reporting and reviewing climate change funding.
Federal entities are beginning to implement some of these options.
However, without further improvement in how federal climate change
funding is defined and reported, strategic priorities are set, and
funding is aligned with priorities, it will be difficult for the
public and Congress to fully understand how climate change funds are
accounted for and how they are spent.
What GAO Recommends:
Among GAO‘s recommendations are that the appropriate entities within
the Executive Office of the President (EOP), in consultation with
Congress, clearly establish federal strategic climate change
priorities and assess the effectiveness of current practices for
defining and reporting related funding. Relevant EOP entities did not
provide official written comments, but instead provided technical
comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-317] or key
components. For more information, contact David Trimble at (202) 512-
3841 or trimbled@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Federal Funding for Climate Change Activities Increased Substantially
from 2003 through 2010, and Reflects a Complex, Crosscutting System:
Questionnaire Responses Suggest That Agencies Do Not Consistently
Interpret Methods for Defining and Reporting Climate Change Funding:
Respondents, Available Literature, and Stakeholders Identified Two Key
Factors That Complicate Efforts to Align Climate Change Funding with
Federal Strategic Priorities:
Respondents Suggested Options for Better Aligning Federal Climate
Change Funding with Strategic Priorities:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: OMB Reports and Other Sources of Climate Change Funding
Information:
Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB,
1993-2010:
Appendix IV: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 1993-
2010:
Appendix V: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2010:
Appendix VI: Climate Change Tax Expenditures as Reported by OMB, 2003-
2010:
Appendix VII: Source Documents Articulating Federal Strategic Climate
Change Priorities:
Appendix VIII: Supplement on How Federal Climate Activities Are
Coordinated, Provided by CEQ, OMB, and OSTP in Technical Comments:
Appendix IX: GAO Climate Change Funding Web-Based Questionnaire:
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Characteristics of Available OMB Funding Reports:
Table 2: Estimated Revenue Loss from Energy Tax Provisions That May
Reduce Greenhouse Gases as Reported by OMB, 2003-2010:
Table 3: Selected Examples of Mechanisms for Coordination on Federal
Climate Change Activities Provided by CEQ, OMB, and OSTP in Technical
Comments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-
2010:
Figure 2: Funding for Climate Change Programs and Activities in the
Recovery Act as Reported by OMB:
Figure 3: Estimated Revenue Loss from Energy Tax Provisions That May
Reduce Greenhouse Gases as Reported by OMB, 2010:
Figure 4: Selected Coordination Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change
Activities:
Abbreviations:
CCTP: Climate Change Technology Program:
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality:
CENRS: Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability:
CRS: Congressional Research Service:
DOE: U.S. Department of Energy:
EOP: Executive Office of the President:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
MAX: OMB MAX Information System:
NAPA: National Academy of Public Administration:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NRC: National Research Council:
NSTC: National Science and Technology Council:
OECC: Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy:
OTA: Office of Technology Assessment:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
SGCR: Subcommittee on Global Change Research:
USGCRP: United States Global Change Research Program:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 20, 2011:
The Honorable Edward J. Markey:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Markey:
Climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that poses risks to
many existing environmental and economic systems, including
agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health. A 2009
assessment by the United States Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP)[Footnote 1] found that climate-related changes--such as
rising temperature and sea level--will combine with pollution,
population growth, urbanization, and other social, economic, and
environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these
factors alone.[Footnote 2] Funding for climate change activities is
spread across the federal government. According to the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) June 2010 Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report to Congress, 9 of the 15 cabinet-level executive
departments, along with 7 other federal agencies, received funding for
climate change activities in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 3] In
addition, entities within the Executive Office of the President (EOP)
such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and federal
interagency coordinating bodies like USGCRP work together to ensure
federal climate change activities are guided by the latest climate
science.
Several recent reports have found shortcomings in federal efforts to
account for and organize climate change programs and activities. For
example, in 2008 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported
that the packaging of mostly existing programs into a federal climate
change strategy has resulted in a lack of a unifying mission across
the federal government.[Footnote 4] This finding is reinforced by two
of our recent reports--a 2010 report on environmental satellites used
for measuring variations in climate over time and a 2009 report on
climate change adaptation--which showed that certain federal climate-
related activities were not well coordinated across the government.
[Footnote 5] We have found in the past that when agencies do not
collaborate well when addressing a complicated, interdisciplinary
issue like climate change, they may carry out programs in a
fragmented, uncoordinated way, resulting in a patchwork of programs
that can limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.
[Footnote 6]
In this context, you asked us to review federal climate change
activities. Our objectives were to examine (1) federal funding for
climate change activities and how these activities are organized; (2)
the extent to which methods for defining and reporting climate change
funding are interpreted consistently across the federal government;
(3) federal strategic climate change priorities, and the extent to
which funding is aligned with these priorities; and (4) what options,
if any, are available to better align federal climate change funding
with strategic priorities.
To address these objectives, we analyzed climate change funding data
and tax expenditures presented in OMB's reports to Congress on federal
climate change expenditures, reviewed other relevant reports, and
interviewed stakeholders knowledgeable about federal funding for
climate change programs and activities. To identify relevant reports
and stakeholders, we reviewed our prior climate change work and
conducted a literature search and review. Using this information, we
developed a Web-based questionnaire to gather information and opinions
of key federal officials involved in defining and reporting climate
change funding, developing strategic priorities, or aligning funding
with strategic priorities.
We worked with federal officials within EOP, interagency coordinating
programs, and individual agencies to pretest the questionnaire; the
final list of questionnaire recipients included 106 federal officials.
Of these officials, 73 responded to the questionnaire, for a response
rate of about 69 percent.[Footnote 7] Not all officials responded to
all questions. Given our methodology, we may not have identified every
person who has knowledge of or experience with the topics we covered.
However, we believe we were able to reach many of the relevant federal
officials because we worked with EOP and interagency coordinating
bodies to identify the federal officials to whom we sent the
questionnaire. We did not conduct statistical analyses because the
sample of respondents was not a representative sample. We analyzed
questionnaire responses to group similar responses together into
overall themes, and used specific responses as illustrative examples
throughout the report.
The term "funding" in this report refers to budget authority, or the
authority provided by federal law to enter into financial obligations
that will result in outlays involving federal government funds, as
reported by OMB in its reports. We use the term "account" to describe
the budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities presented in
OMB reports. Unless otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal
terms (not adjusted for inflation), and all years refer to fiscal
years. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent actual funding
(not estimates), with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2010, where we
present estimated funding because actual data are not available.
"Respondents" in this report refers to federal officials who completed
the Web-based questionnaire. "Stakeholders" refers to other
individuals we interviewed who have experience with federal funding
for climate change programs and activities. Appendix I provides a more
detailed description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to May 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
In August 2005, we issued a report on federal climate change funding
for 1993 through 2004, as reported by OMB.[Footnote 8] Specifically,
we reported on how (1) total funding and funding by category changed
and whether funding data were comparable over time and (2) funding by
agency changed and whether funding data were comparable over time. We
found, among other things, that it was unclear whether funding changed
as much as OMB reported because modifications in the format and
content of OMB reports limited the comparability of funding data over
time. For example, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of
some accounts to include more activities, but did not specify how it
changed the definitions. We were also unable to compare climate-
related tax expenditures over time because OMB reported data on
proposed, but not on existing tax expenditures.[Footnote 9]
Based on these findings, we recommended that OMB (1) use the same
format for presenting data from year-to-year, to the extent that it
could do so and remain in compliance with reporting requirements; (2)
explain changes in report content or format when they are introduced;
(3) include information on existing climate-related tax expenditures
in its reports; and (4) use the same criteria for determining which
tax expenditures to include as it uses for determining which accounts
to include. Presenting tax expenditures alongside the related spending
programs is a first step in providing a useful and accurate picture of
the extent of federal support for climate change.
In its April 2006 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to
Congress--the first following our August 2005 report--OMB responded to
our recommendations about report consistency and tax expenditures.
[Footnote 10] The report stated that "to address GAO's
recommendations, reporting changes have been noted in table footnotes
throughout this report and a summary table of climate funding from
2003 through 2007 has been provided." The report also included
existing tax expenditures that could contribute to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. OMB's most recent reports generally have kept the same
structures, categories, definitions, and format as in past years and
more clearly label funding data.[Footnote 11]
Federal Funding for Climate Change Activities Increased Substantially
from 2003 through 2010, and Reflects a Complex, Crosscutting System:
Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from
$4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010. In recent years, both
funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Recovery Act) and energy-related tax expenditures (some established
in the Recovery Act) contributed significantly to the overall level of
federal resources focused on climate change.[Footnote 12] Many federal
entities manage climate change programs and activities, including
those within EOP, and interagency committees and programs that
coordinate the actions of individual agencies, reflecting a complex,
crosscutting system.
Funding Increased Significantly from 2003 through 2010, as Reported by
OMB:
From 2003 through 2010, total federal funding for climate change
activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion to $8.8 billion
(91 percent, or 62 percent after adjusting for inflation). Tax
expenditures and funding provided in the Recovery Act are not included
in this total to maintain consistency with our 2005 report on climate
change funding.[Footnote 13] In annual reports and testimony before
Congress, OMB reported climate change funding for 1993 through 2010
using four categories:[Footnote 14]
* Technology, which includes the research, development, and deployment
of technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or
increase energy efficiency. For example, according to OMB's reports on
climate change expenditures, the activities counted in the technology
category have the effect of stimulating the development and use of
certain energy technologies, including renewable, low-carbon fossil,
and nuclear technologies.
* Science, which includes research, modeling, and monitoring to better
understand climate change; efforts to assess vulnerability to climate
impacts; and programs to provide climate information to policymakers
and the public. USGCRP also reports annually on funding for climate
change science.
* International assistance, which helps developing countries to
address climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy
efficiency programs.
* Wildlife adaptation funding, which summarizes certain activities at
the Department of the Interior designed to promote adaptation--
adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or
expected climate change. This category was described by OMB as an
interim category in its June 2010 report because the Administration is
developing criteria to systematically account for a broader suite of
adaptation programs.
As shown in figure 1, technology funding increased as a share of total
federal climate change funding from 2003 through 2010 (from 56 to 63
percent), continuing the trend observed in our 2005 report on climate
change funding.[Footnote 15]
Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-
2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph]
Inflation-adjusted discretionary budget authority in billions of
dollars:
Fiscal year: 1993;
Science: $1.851 billion;
Technology: $1.197 billion;
International Assistance: $0.285 billion.
Fiscal year: 1994;
Science: $2.004 billion;
Technology: $1.44 billion;
International Assistance: $0.258 billion.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Science: $2.392 billion;
Technology: $1.743 billion;
International Assistance: $0.31 billion.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Science: $2.205 billion;
Technology: $1.474 billion;
International Assistance: $0.256 billion.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Science: $2.168 billion;
Technology: $1.382 billion;
International Assistance: $0.215 billion.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Science: $2.168 billion;
Technology: $1.617 billion;
International Assistance: $0.24 billion.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Science: $2.114 billion;
Technology: $2.161 billion;
International Assistance: $0.415 billion.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Science: $2.11 billion;
Technology: $2.243 billion;
International Assistance: $0.221 billion.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Science: $2.112 billion;
Technology: $2.047 billion;
International Assistance: $0.266 billion.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Science: $2.004 billion;
Technology: $1.968 billion;
International Assistance: $0.269 billion.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Science: $2.08 billion;
Technology: $3.009 billion;
International Assistance: $0.318 billion.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Science: $2.269 billion;
Technology: $3.293 billion;
International Assistance: $0.289 billion.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Science: $2.073 billion;
Technology: $3.123 billion;
International Assistance: $0.26 billion.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Science: $1.818 billion;
Technology: $2.999 billion;
International Assistance: $0.268 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Science: $1.905 billion;
Technology: $3.638 billion;
International Assistance: $0.196 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Science: $1.869 billion;
Technology: $4.282 billion;
International Assistance: $0.232 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Science: $2.037 billion;
Technology: $5.424 billion;
International Assistance: $0.376 billion.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Science: $2.122 billion;
Technology: $5.504 billion;
International Assistance: $1.08 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Notes: In its June 2010 report, OMB began reporting funding for
wildlife adaptation as an interim category while criteria are
developed to more systematically account for a broader suite of
adaptation programs. Funding for wildlife adaptation totaled $65
million in 2010, less than 1 percent of the total, and is not included
in this figure.
[End of figure]
Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L.
No. 111-5 (2009)) and tax expenditures related to climate change are
not included in this figure to maintain comparability with our 2005
report. Funding for these categories is presented separately in
appendixes V and VI, respectively.
From 2003 through 2010, total technology funding increased from $2.56
billion to $5.5 billion (115 percent, or 83 percent after adjusting
for inflation), according to OMB. Increases for Department of Energy
(DOE) activities were the principal drivers of the growth in funding
for technology activities, as they accounted for 80 percent of all
technology activities in 2010. Increases within DOE programming were
concentrated in the energy efficiency and renewable energy account.
In comparison, total funding for climate change science programs and
activities remained relatively flat, and funding for international
activities only recently increased substantially. Specifically, OMB
reported that funding for climate change science activities and
programs increased from about $1.77 billion in 2003 to $2.12 billion
in 2010 (20 percent, or 2 percent after adjusting for inflation).
Funding for international assistance activities decreased from $270
million in 2003 to $227 million in 2008 (15.9 percent or 27 percent
after adjusting for inflation), but then increased significantly in
both 2009 and 2010. Specifically, international assistance funding
increased to $373 million in 2009, and increased further to $1.08
billion in 2010 (an increase of 376 percent over 2008 totals),
according to OMB.
OMB's June 2010 report introduced several changes in report content
and format. Specifically, OMB reported $65 million in funding for the
interim category of wildlife adaptation activities. Appendixes III,
IV, and V present climate change funding by category, agency, and
account, as reported by OMB.
Funding for Climate Change Programs in the Recovery Act:
OMB reported $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and
activities in the Recovery Act, dwarfing the $8.8 billion reported for
similar activities in 2010.[Footnote 16] About 98 percent of this
funding was for climate change technology projects, while the
remainder was for science activities.[Footnote 17] We examined climate-
related Recovery Act funding in several reports, including a review of
DOE programs for innovative energy projects to help mitigate climate
change.[Footnote 18] Figure 2 shows the four largest categories of
funding for climate change programs in the Recovery Act, as reported
by OMB.
Figure 2: Funding for Climate Change Programs and Activities in the
Recovery Act as Reported by OMB:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Science[A]: 2%; $641 million;
Other technology[B]: 4%; $959 million;
Fossil energy research and development[C]: 13%; $3.4 billion;
Electricity delivery and energy reliability[D]: 17%; $4.34 billion;
Energy efficiency and renewable energy[e]: 64%; $16.8 billion;
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[A] Science includes funding for climate change research activities
reported by OMB as USGCRP accounts and is presented in appendix V.
[B] Other technology includes funding for other Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP) accounts not presented in figure 2 as
reported by OMB. These accounts are presented in appendix V.
[C] The DOE fossil energy research and development-efficiency and
sequestration account includes efforts to ensure clean, affordable
energy from traditional fuel resources, as reported by OMB and
presented in appendix V.
[D] The DOE electricity delivery and energy reliability account
includes activities to modernize the electric grid, and to enhance the
security and reliability of energy infrastructure, among other things,
as reported by OMB and presented in appendix V.
[E] The DOE energy efficiency and renewable energy account includes
the research and development of renewable energy technology and
efforts to improve energy efficiency, as reported by OMB and presented
in appendix V.
[End of figure]
Recovery Act funding is presented separately in appendix V and is
generally not included in summary tables cited in this report to
maintain comparability with our 2005 report.
As Reported by OMB, Estimated Revenue Loss from Energy-Related Tax
Expenditures Approached the Amount of Funding for Climate Change
Programs and Activities in 2010:
OMB also reports 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 19] In
2010, OMB listed 11 tax expenditures and energy grants with revenue
losses totaling $7.23 billion, approaching the reported funding of
$8.8 billion for climate change programs and activities. This sum
includes $3.1 billion for energy grants in lieu of technology and
investment tax credits available under the Recovery Act. Figure 3
illustrates selected tax expenditure categories in 2010, as reported
by OMB.
Figure 3: Estimated Revenue Loss from Energy Tax Provisions That May
Reduce Greenhouse Gases as Reported by OMB, 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Credit and deduction for clean-fuel-burning vehicles[A]: 3%; $240
million;
New technology credit (without coal)[B]: 11%; $780 million;
Other tax incentives related to greenhouse gas emissions reduction:
16%; $1.17 billion;
Credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes[C]: 27%;
$1.95 billion;
Energy grants in lieu of new technology credit or energy investment
credit[D]: 43%; $3.09 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[A] Credit and deduction for clean-fuel burning vehicles: The tax code
allows a number of tax credits for certain types of alternative motor
vehicles (including fuel cell, advanced lean burn technology, hybrid,
and alternative fuel motor vehicles) and other related technology.
[B] New technology credit (without coal): The tax code includes a tax
credit for certain electricity produced from wind energy, biomass,
geothermal energy, solar energy, small irrigation power, municipal
solid waste, or qualified hydropower.
[C] Credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes: The
tax code includes an investment tax credit for expenditures made on
insulation, exterior windows, and doors that improve the energy
efficiency of homes and meet certain standards.
[D] Energy grants in lieu of new technology credit or energy
investment credit refers to Section 1603 of the Recovery Act, which
authorizes the Department of the Treasury to make payments to persons
who place in service specified energy property in 2009 and 2010 or
whose construction commenced in 2009 and 2010. Firms can take an
energy grant in lieu of the energy production or energy investment tax
credit.
[End of figure]
The estimated revenue loss of $7.23 billion in 2010 from energy tax
provisions that may reduce greenhouse gases is over 12 times the $580
million reported by OMB for 2003.[Footnote 20] Reported revenue loss
from tax expenditures increased steadily from 2006 through 2008,
averaging about $1.5 billion. Tax expenditures reported by OMB then
jumped substantially to $2.92 billion in 2009 and $7.23 billion in
2010, reflecting, in part, certain grants authorized in the Recovery
Act. Climate-related tax expenditures are presented separately in
appendix VI and are generally not included in summary tables cited in
this report to maintain comparability with our 2005 report.
Federal Climate Change Programs Are Organized in a Complex,
Crosscutting System:
As illustrated in figure 4, climate change is a complex, crosscutting
issue, where many federal entities manage related programs and
activities. These include organizations within the EOP (colored blue),
interagency committees (colored white), and interagency programs
(colored green) that coordinate the actions of individual agencies. A
September 2010 report by the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA), which was prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and Congress, referred to this set of federal
activities as the federal "climate change enterprise."[Footnote 21]
Figure 4: Selected Coordination Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change
Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Top level:
Executive Office of the President:
* Office of Science and Technology Policy [blue box];
* Council on Environmental Quality [blue box];
* Office of Management and Budget [blue box];
* Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy [blue box]:
- Green Cabinet: OECC Director, CEQ Chair, OSTP Director, Secretaries
of DOE, DOI, DOL, DOT, HUD, USDA, Administrators of EPA and SBA.
Formal and Informal Interagency Task Forces and Working Groups:
* Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Co-chaired by: CEQ, NOAA, and
OSTP. Participating agencies: CEA, DHS, DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOS, DOT,
EPA, HHS, HUD, MCC, NASA, NEC, NIC, NSS, OECC, OMB, Education,
Treasury, USAID, USDA;
* Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage: Participating
agencies: CEQ, DOC, DOE, DOI, DOJ, DOL, DOS, DOT, EPA, FERC, OMB,
OSTP, Treasury, USDA;
* Federal Sustainability Initiative: Participating agencies: CIA, DOD,
DOE, DOI, DOL, DOT, EPA, GSA, HHS, Smithsonian, SSA, USPS, VA, other
agencies;
Other Task Forces and Working Groups:
- National Ocean Council (Co-chaired by: OSTP and CEQ);
- Recovery through Retrofit;
- Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+).
Under the Office of Science and Technology Policy:
National Science and Technology Council [white box];
* Committee on Science;
* Committee on Technology;
* Committee on Homeland and National Security;
* Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
Education;
* Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability: Co-
Chairs: EPA, NOAA, OSTP; Members: CEA, CEQ, DHS, DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI,
DOJ, DOS, DOT, DPC, EPA, FEMA, HHS, NASA, NEC, NSF, Smithsonian, OMB,
OSTP, USDA; Coordinating agencies: HUD, TVA;
- Air Quality Research;
- Disaster Reduction;
- Water Availability and Quantity;
- Toxics and Risks;
- Ecological Systems;
- U.S. Group on Earth Observation;
- Ocean Science and Technology;
- Roundtable on Climate Information and Services;
- National Earth Observations Task Force;
- Integration of Science and Technology for Sustainability Task Force;
- Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee;
- U.S. Global Change Research Program/Subcommittee on Global Change
Research[Green box]: Director Senior-Level Appointee, DOC; Members:
CEQ, DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOS, DOT EPA, HHS, NASA, NSF, OMB, OSTP,
Smithsonian, USAID, USDA;
- National Climate Assessment[Green box]: Members: CDC, Census, CEQ,
CIA, DHS, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOT, Education, EPA, HUD, NASA, NIH, NOAA,
NSF, Smithsonian, OMB, OSTP, USAID, USDA, USGCRP;
- Climate Change Technology Program[Green box]: Director: Senior-Level
Appointee, DOE; Members: CEQ, DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOS, DOT, EPA, HHS,
NASA, NSF, OMB, OSTP, USAID, USDA.
International Activities: DOE, DOS, USAID, and other agencies.
Source: GAO analysis of Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan,
Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan,NSTC organizational
chart and CEQ initiatives.
Blue box: Key entities within the Executive Office of the President.
Green box: USGCRP and the Climate Change Technology Program.
White box: National Science and Technology Council Committees.
CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
CEA – Council of Economic Advisors.
Census – Census Bureau.
CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality.
CIA – Central Intelligence Agency.
DHS – Department of Homeland Security.
DOC – Department of Commerce.
DOD – Department of Defense.
DOE – Department of Energy.
DOI – Department of the Interior.
DOJ – Department of Justice.
DOL – Department of Labor.
DOS – Department of State.
DOT – Department of Transportation.
DPC – Domestic Policy Council.
Education – Department of Education.
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency.
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
GSA – General Services Administration.
HHS – Department of Health and Human Services.
HUD – Department of Housing and Urban Development.
IARP – Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee.
MCC – Millennium Challenge Corporation.
NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
NEC – National Economic Council.
NIC – National Intelligence Council.
NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NSF – National Science Foundation.
NSS – National Security Staff.
OECC – Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.
OMB – Office of Management and Budget.
OSTP – Office of Science and Technology Policy
SBA– Small Business Administration.
SSA – Social Security Administration.
Smithsonian – Smithsonian Institution.
Treasury – Department of the Treasury.
TVA – Tennessee Valley Authority.
USAID – United States Agency for International Development.
USDA – United States Department of Agriculture.
USGCRP – United States Global Change Research Program.
USPS – United States Postal Service.
VA – Veterans Administration.
Notes: The solid line from CEQ to the blue boxes indicates its role in
administering these groups, and the dashed lines from OSTP, OECC, and
OMB indicates their involvement. OSTP co-chairs, with NOAA and CEQ,
the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, and OSTP and CEQ
jointly administer and co-chair the National Ocean Council.
According to technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, figure 4 does
not include all climate activities, such as individual agency
regulations and initiatives. Some of these are described in more
detail in appendix VII. CEQ, OMB, and OSTP also emphasized that
informal processes and ad hoc meetings play key roles in setting
climate priorities in addition to the formal processes described in
figure 4. In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP submitted table 3
in appendix VIII as supplemental information on how federal climate
change activities are coordinated.
[End of figure]
The text that follows describes the roles of the entities involved in
this enterprise.
Executive Office of the President:
Four entities within EOP--represented by the blue boxes in figure 4--
provide high-level policy direction for federal climate change
programs and activities: OMB, OSTP, the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), and the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy
(OECC).[Footnote 22] These entities lead several new interagency
initiatives--including formal and informal task forces and working
groups discussed later in this report--and participate in other
committees, programs, and activities. For example, OMB is closely
involved with budgetary decision making at USGCRP, the interagency
body that coordinates federal climate change science research.
Interagency Committees and Programs:
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)--represented, along
with subordinate committees, as the white boxes in figure 4--
coordinates science and technology policy across the federal
government. NSTC is composed of four primary committees, including the
Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability
(CENRS), which coordinates federal research and development related to
environment, natural resources, and sustainability. CENRS is composed
of several subcommittees, one of which--the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research--serves as the interagency governing body for USGCRP.
USGCRP and the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP)--the green
boxes in figure 4--coordinate federal climate change programs and
activities at the agency level. Thirteen departments and agencies
participate in USGCRP, and 12 participate in CCTP.[Footnote 23] CCTP
and USGCRP coordinate through joint membership, according to technical
comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP.
USGCRP, which began as a presidential initiative in 1989, was codified
by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.[Footnote 24] USGCRP
coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global
environment and their implications for society, and is led by an
interagency governing body, the CENRS Subcommittee on Global Change
Research (SGCR). The SGCR, facilitated by a national coordination
office, provides overall strategic direction and is responsible for
developing and implementing an integrated interagency program. The
leadership structure for USGCRP falls within the SGCR, and includes a
Chair and three vice-chairs: a Vice-Chair for Strategic Planning and
Research, a Vice-Chair for Adaptation Science, and a Vice-Chair for
Integrated Observations staffed by officials from different agencies.
The committee leadership and agency representatives oversee and direct
the program, including setting top-level goals and coordinating
investments. CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted in technical comments that OSTP
provides overall leadership and direction by administering the NSTC
and its committees.
CCTP was created in 2002 and subsequently codified in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. Its primary purpose is to assist in the
interagency coordination of climate change technology research,
development, demonstration, and deployment to reduce greenhouse gas
intensity.[Footnote 25] It provides strategic direction for climate
change technology elements of the overall federal research and
development portfolio, and facilitates the coordinated planning,
programming, budgeting, and implementation of the technology
development and deployment aspects of U.S. climate change policy. CCTP
is managed by a DOE-led steering group composed of senior-level
officials from each participating federal agency. This group provides
a venue for agencies to raise and resolve issues regarding CCTP and
its functions as a facilitating and coordinating body. The steering
group assists in developing agency budget proposals and conveying
information to agencies.
Congressional Committees:
Not represented in figure 4 are congressional committees, which play a
role in providing funding and oversight for climate change programs
and activities. The size and scope of funding for federal agencies is
determined through the federal budget process, which begins with
budget formulation, then moves through the congressional budget
process that includes consideration of appropriations legislation,
budget execution and control, and finally audit and evaluation.
[Footnote 26] Appropriations bills are developed by the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees and their subcommittees. Each
subcommittee has jurisdiction over specific federal agencies or
programs. For example, as a result of its interagency composition,
activities of USGCRP participating agencies are usually funded by
different appropriations bills that originate in nine separate
committees.[Footnote 27]
Questionnaire Responses Suggest That Agencies Do Not Consistently
Interpret Methods for Defining and Reporting Climate Change Funding:
Methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not
interpreted consistently across the federal government, according to
questionnaire responses, available literature, and stakeholders. In
responding to our questionnaire, federal officials identified three
main methods for defining and reporting climate change funding,
including formal guidance from OMB. Notwithstanding these efforts,
questionnaire responses suggest that agencies do not consistently
define and report climate change funding. While most respondents
indicated that their own organization consistently interpreted and
applied methods for defining and reporting climate change funding, far
fewer said that other agencies across the federal government did so.
Certain factors identified by respondents help to explain this
limitation, including the difficulty in distinguishing between
programs related and not related to climate change.
Respondents Identified Three Main Methods for Defining and Reporting
Federal Climate Change Funding:
In responding to our questionnaire, federal officials identified three
main methods for defining and reporting climate change funding.
[Footnote 28] According to OMB staff, each of these methods has
different levels of formality and oversight. First and foremost,
agencies rely on guidance provided by OMB through Circular A-11, which
describes how agencies are to report funding to OMB.[Footnote 29] The
circular directs agencies to report funding that meet certain criteria
in three broad categories--research, technology, and international
assistance. Budget data requested by OMB are reported by agencies
through its Web-based MAX Information System (MAX) using the criteria
specified in Circular A-11.[Footnote 30] According to OMB staff,
Circular A-11 is the primary methodology for defining and reporting
long-standing "cross-cuts" of funding for climate change activities.
Interagency groups, such as USGCRP have collaborated in the past with
OMB to clarify the definitions in Circular A-11, according to
technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP.[Footnote 31]
Second, some respondents identified guidance from interagency programs
as another method for defining climate change funding. For example, in
its 2006 strategic plan, CCTP developed a list of classification
criteria for how to report climate change technology funding.[Footnote
32] According to a high-ranking CCTP official, this list was
negotiated between its constituent agencies, and contains guidance
about how to report funding. Similarly, USGCRP developed definitions
to help agencies report research funding in categories related to its
strategic research objectives. USGCRP has the sole responsibility for
developing the definitions for more detailed science research
categories, although the total spending reported by each agency should
be consistent with the official figures released in the federal
climate change expenditures report, according to technical comments
from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP. These EOP entities also commented that
funding analyses conducted by interagency programs are reviewed prior
to release by OMB. Some agencies have also developed operational
definitions of climate change programs within their purviews,
according to several respondents. In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and
OSTP noted that such definitions help agencies ensure consistency over
time in how they interpret criteria.
Third, entities within EOP or interagency programs may informally ask
agencies to provide information on programs as part of periodic "data
calls," according to several respondents. In technical comments, CEQ,
OMB, and OSTP stated that data calls are most commonly used to collect
information from agencies for analyses internal to EOP, but also for
unique or new reporting needs. For example, USGCRP recently completed
a data call in support of our September 2010 report on geoengineering.
[Footnote 33] The data call requested agencies to report federal
funding for programs or activities that research deliberate, large-
scale interventions in the earth's climate system to diminish climate
change or its impacts, and it requested descriptions of specific
geoengineering approaches that fit this definition. Similarly, OMB
sent a recent data call asking agencies to report on programs or
activities related to climate change adaptation.
Respondents identified two key strengths of current methods for
defining and reporting climate change funding. The first was the use
of stable processes, which enable an agency to compare its own climate
change-related funding data over time, according to many respondents.
As one stated, "we have a standardized process that accompanies the
budget development process to collect climate change funding
information.—Our agencies and offices are familiar with the process
and are able to compile information relatively quickly." Another
respondent noted that the strengths of current methods include a well-
documented, systematic approach to budgeting that is based on solid
requirements. The existence of a recurring process means that
reporting can remain consistent across administrations, according to
several respondents. According to OSTP, "there is a great deal of
continuity in agencies' reporting of climate change programs and also
continuity for most definitions of climate change...Most agencies'
climate programs are ongoing, so it is relatively straightforward to
report them year after year and also straightforward to review
agencies' data every year."[Footnote 34] In addition, some respondents
noted that such continuity is useful in describing trends and can help
inform Congress about priority federal activities.
Attention from high-level entities such as OMB is the second strength
of current methods for defining and reporting climate change funding,
according to several respondents. According to OSTP, climate change
funding data may be reviewed three times each year for consistency and
accuracy: in the OMB Circular A-11 process, the process for developing
OMB's climate change expenditures report to Congress, and the USGCRP
process for reporting climate science funding to Congress.[Footnote
35] For the latter two reports, the data are presented in enough
detail to allow for program-by-program review and comparisons with
agency budgets, according to OSTP.
Questionnaire Responses Suggest That Methods Are Not Consistently
Interpreted and Applied across the Federal Government:
Notwithstanding current methods, questionnaire responses suggest that
methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are not
consistently interpreted and applied across the federal government.
While agencies generally exhibit continuity in how they assemble and
report their own federal climate change funding data, methods for
defining such funding are not consistent across the federal
government, according to questionnaire responses. Respondents
identified several factors that help to explain this inconsistency,
including the number and complexity of climate-related programs
managed by different agencies and the difficulty in distinguishing
between programs related and not related to climate change. In
technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted that consistency likely
varies by method of reporting, with the USGCRP crosscut (as defined by
Circular A-11) being the most consistent and "unique" data calls being
less so.
Respondents Indicated That Agencies Interpret and Apply Existing
Methods Differently:
Respondents indicated that agencies do not consistently interpret
existing methods for defining and reporting climate change funding
across the federal government. Most respondents said that their
agencies consistently applied methods for defining and reporting
climate change funding. However, far fewer respondents indicated that
methods for defining and reporting climate change funding were applied
consistently across the federal government.
Several respondents indicated and stakeholders said that federal
agencies use their own interpretation of definitions to account for
climate-related activities, resulting in an inconsistent accounting of
these activities across the federal government. For example, according
to one respondent, "agencies self-define their contributions, some use
inclusive definitions — while others use restrictive definitions — and
yet others do not report any investment. This makes it difficult to
get a true picture of — investment in climate change." The respondent
also indicated that differing definitions do not "allow agency-to-
agency comparisons since some agencies report apples while others
report oranges." Another respondent stated, "to the best of my
knowledge, nobody actually oversees a process for ensuring that the
different agencies use similar methodologies for reporting." The issue
of consistency also arises when federal departments collect climate
change funding data from agencies within the department. For example,
according to one respondent, "we have found inconsistencies within our
own Department from year to year because of individual agency
interpretations of the guidance. This has required significant
discussion and even re-submissions to try to ensure consistency."
According to technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, "despite the
existence of common definitions, agencies must rely on their own
interpretations. This leaves the perception, if not the reality, of
inconsistencies in how agencies report climate change funding."
According to OSTP, while reporting within agencies may be more or less
consistent, there is not always a mechanism in place to ensure
consistent reporting across agencies for each of the three methods for
defining and reporting federal climate change funding. Such
inconsistency is more applicable to data reported through interagency
programs and unique data calls, according to CEQ, OMB, and OSTP. These
EOP entities also said that respondents located within an agency may
not have the proper vantage point to evaluate the internal processes
in other agencies.
OMB staff told us that spending occurs at the subaccount level and
that it must therefore rely in part on the agency to properly
interpret the definitions. OMB staff stated that they are very
responsive to instances where they learn agencies are over-or under-
reporting official figures and were interested in specific examples of
where there were inconsistencies in their various procedures. If there
is a known inconsistency, OMB's procedure is to address it by
discussing with the agency and clarifying Circular A-11 or relevant
budget data request.
Respondents Identified Key Reasons Agencies May Interpret and Apply
Existing Methods Differently:
According to respondents, the following reasons may help explain why
agencies could use different interpretations of the existing methods
for defining and reporting climate change funding:
Size and complexity of the federal climate change enterprise. The
overall scale of the federal climate change enterprise makes it
difficult for officials to be aware of the whole range of programs and
activities, according to respondents, available literature, and
stakeholders. As noted by one respondent, instances have arisen where
agency program staff are unaware or have not included funding data for
certain programs to OMB, leading to confusion over how an agency's
budget numbers were determined. According to OMB staff, some programs
may not be reported as climate-related because agency officials may
not have identified them in their budget reviews. For example, a high-
level OMB staff member we interviewed told us that "reports may not be
consistent if agencies don't report things they should. OMB tries to
be consistent over time, but is dependent upon agency submissions."
Related to the current methods for defining and reporting funding is
the practice of aggregating funding for multiple programs or
activities without clear explanation. For example, one respondent said
that it sometimes makes the accounting easier to lump non-climate-
change activities in with climate change. Similarly, another federal
official stated that the primary challenge associated with tracking
climate change technology funding is that many programs can be
included in a given appropriation line item. According to a 2008 CRS
report, "because of the aggregation of funding information that is
publicly available, understanding the specific uses of climate change
funds can be challenging. The levels of funding for specific
activities are often unreported or unclear."[Footnote 36]
Difficulty determining which programs are related to climate change.
Determining "where to draw the line" between programs and activities
related and not related to climate change is a limitation of current
methods for defining and reporting funding, according to respondents,
available literature, and stakeholders. Some respondents noted that it
is difficult to make the distinction between what programs should and
should not be counted as funding for climate change. Part of the
difficulty lies in where to draw the line between "direct" programs
and activities--for which climate change is a primary purpose--and
"indirect" funding--which includes those programs that have a
different primary purpose but support climate change goals.[Footnote
37] The distinction is difficult to make, in part, because the primary
purpose of direct funding may be to provide coherence to the disparate
aims of the indirect programs, according to one stakeholder.
One respondent put it this way:
"The biggest limitation...is separating what activities are explicitly
'climate change' vs. broader environmental activities which have
impact on our knowledge of climate change. Our work relating to
climate change frequently also relates to other environmental
concerns--such as biodiversity patterns and loss, environmental
dynamics and systems. Teasing out the 'climate' elements...is never
easy or simple."
Indeed, such challenges of definition render the tallies of certain
types of climate change programs somewhat arbitrary, according to a
2010 report by the Congressional Budget Office.[Footnote 38] CRS
raised similar concerns in a 2008 report, noting that "inconsistencies
are likely across years due to changes in the scopes of what is
considered for 'climate change.'"[Footnote 39] Such inconsistencies
make it harder for Congress and the public to fully understand how
climate change funds are accounted for and how they are spent.
According to OSTP, if agencies reported all the investments in global
change research (a much broader scope than climate), then the process
would be more difficult, but possibly more comprehensive than the
current approach. OSTP added that the programs, and even the agencies,
that are involved in climate issues are expanding rapidly as
adaptation and mitigation activities are included, which makes
definitional issues and reporting challenges even more difficult.
These views echo a long-standing definitional problem, identified as
early as 1993 by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) in a report on climate change.[Footnote 40] At that time,
according to the report, climate-related projects were categorized as
focused (directly related to global change) or contributing (justified
on a basis other than global change but having the potential to
contribute to the global change knowledge base). According to OTA,
there were no standardized criteria for classifying contributing
research, and each agency used its own system, making it harder to
track overall climate change funding. Further highlighting the
difficulty of defining climate change programs, a DOE official told us
that "it can be difficult to distinguish between programs with direct
climate change benefits and indirect benefits, especially for
crosscutting items like basic research. If CCTP only reported those
programs that were exclusively climate change-oriented, the number of
programs and amount of funding reported would shrink dramatically.
Many programs, such as wind energy and energy efficiency, have easily
identified climate change co-benefits. However, there may be other
programs with climate change co-benefits that are more difficult to
identify, such as clean coal technology."[Footnote 41]
Difficulty reconciling reporting categories with changing priorities.
Some respondents noted that it is difficult to use standardized
reporting categories when priorities change. For example, one
respondent said the current methods are not flexible and do not allow
for the inclusion of climate change activities that are very relevant
but are happening outside of what is traditionally considered part of
the climate change budget. Another respondent reported this was the
case with adaptation activities, but also noted that agencies are in
the process of developing definitions and reporting methods for the
crosscutting, nontraditional category. One federal official we spoke
with noted that, because of historical inertia, the current reporting
process may not fit well with changing priorities. This official
stated that "it is hard to change the reporting categories used in
USGCRP's Our Changing Planet reports even though they no longer make
any sense. It is risky to change such categories because people will
ask questions about why the change was made."
According to several respondents, a recent proliferation of unique
budget data inquiries have made it more difficult to consistently
track and report funding data. According to one respondent, "too many
different entities are requesting similar, but different information
related to climate change." Another respondent said, "the way that we
collect data and maybe even the data that we collect may inhibit our
flexibilities in responding to the varying and increasing calls for
information from outside entities. For example, our process may be
designed to respond to OMB requests for information but may not
directly respond to requests from other entities if the information
requested is different." In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP
noted that respondents are likely referencing the difficulty in
responding to unique data calls, not that the data calls undermine the
effectiveness of long-standing crosscuts.
Agency support for USGCRP. According to OSTP, each agency pays its
share of USGCRP's budget, which is determined by the amount of climate
change research funding it reports. Hence, the more climate research
funding an agency reports, the higher its assessment for supporting
the USGCRP office and other joint responsibilities. According to
technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, this assessment was 0.35
percent in fiscal year 2010. Several stakeholders who were formerly
involved in federal climate change funding decisions said that
distributing the cost of funding USGCRP in this way provides an
incentive for agencies to be cautious in how they report climate
change activities. Some respondents echoed this concern. In certain
situations, agencies may report conservatively to, for example, pay a
lower assessment. In other instances, agencies may take the opposite
approach. For example, according to one stakeholder, some agencies
over-report their climate change activities because they see an
opportunity to take credit for leadership.
OMB staff acknowledged this may be the perception, but disagreed that
agencies could manipulate official climate spending figures. According
to technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, it is questionable
whether official numbers can be manipulated in this way because OMB
reviews annual variations to ensure that criteria are being
consistently applied over time. More likely, respondents are referring
to informal data calls conducted by EOP and interagency committees,
according to the technical comments.
Respondents, Available Literature, and Stakeholders Identified Two Key
Factors That Complicate Efforts to Align Climate Change Funding with
Federal Strategic Priorities:
Respondents, available literature, and stakeholders identified several
existing mechanisms intended to align climate change funding with
strategic priorities. These sources identified two key factors that
complicate these efforts: (1) the lack of a shared understanding of
federal strategic priorities among federal officials and (2) the fact
that existing mechanisms that could help align agency funding with
priorities are nonbinding, limiting their effectiveness where they
conflict with agency responsibilities and priorities.
Existing Mechanisms Intended to Align Funding with Priorities:
Respondents identified existing mechanisms intended to help align
climate change funding with priorities. Several said that the budget
development process aligns agencies' climate change funding with
federal strategic priorities. For example, one said that funding is
closely aligned with strategic priorities through the annual budget
process, the research and development priority setting process, and
interagency coordination meetings. Many also said that current
interagency processes harness a broad array of stakeholders, and that
their participation leads to stronger alignment of funding and
priorities, both across the federal government and within their
organizations.
OMB, OSTP, and CEQ use executive-level guidance memoranda to define
climate change priorities within the overall federal budget. The
Directors of OMB and OSTP described climate change priorities within
the science and technology budget in a July 21, 2010, memorandum for
the heads of executive departments and agencies titled Science and
Technology Priorities for the FY 2012 Budget.[Footnote 42] The
memorandum instructs agencies to explain in their budget submissions
how they will redirect available resources, as appropriate, from lower-
priority areas to science and technology activities that address six
challenges. One of the six challenges identified in the memorandum is
"understanding, adapting to, and mitigating the impacts of global
climate change." Specifically, agencies are requested to identify the
activities in their budgets that support two priority areas--the
National Climate Assessment (described in more detail in appendix VII)
and the monitoring, reporting, and verifying of greenhouse gas
emissions. OMB and OSTP also issued supplemental guidance on climate
change science collaboration on August 13, 2010. [Footnote 43]
The Directors of OMB and OSTP issued a similar memorandum for the
fiscal year 2011 budget on August 4, 2009.[Footnote 44] According to
OSTP, overarching climate change priorities are also discussed by OECC
policy committees and through discussions convened by the Assistant to
the President for Energy and Climate Change.
Other processes for setting priorities are collaborative exercises
between entities within the EOP, interagency coordinating programs,
and agencies, according to most of the respondents who answered the
related survey question. For example, as stated by one respondent,
"the USGCRP and to a lesser extent the CCTP have responsibility for
priority setting on climate change science. USGCRP is overseen by OSTP
and the NSTC. The Council on Environmental Quality is responsible for
coordinating federal environmental efforts across agencies and EOP
offices, including development of policy and initiatives. Congress has
responsibility for developing and enacting legislation including
budget legislation that may include specific national, regional or
state initiatives that may be conducted through federal agencies.
National Academies/National Research Council is tasked with producing
independent reports on successes and challenges to keep the process
moving forward and identify obstructions to achieving strategic goals."
Many other respondents also noted the collaborative nature of climate
change priority setting within the federal government. According to
OSTP, "priorities listed in memos and documents that describe
Administration policy...are set by multiple iterations of discussions
among EOP offices and the USGCRP principals. These reflect a broad
process of Science and Technology priority setting, along with budget
discussions, within the National Science and Technology Council..., in
particular the Committee for Environment, Natural Resources, and
Sustainability, of which the Subcommittee on Global Change Research is
a part."
Several respondents noted that USGCRP recently launched a new
strategic planning process, in part to improve how climate change
priorities are set. For example, one respondent stated that "the
USGCRP is undergoing a strategic realignment to become an integrated,
end-to-end program. A strategic planning process has been initiated
recently." Additional respondents noted that the program is at a
turning point, having just launched a new planning process with
greater emphasis on providing information and guidance for decision
makers. CEQ, OMB, and OSTP technical comments noted that USGCRP also
recently launched a new national climate assessment designed to engage
stakeholders in a process that builds on science, data, and
information to help decision-making for analysis and mitigation.
Questionnaire Responses Indicated That Federal Officials Lack a Shared
Understanding of Priorities:
Despite existing coordination mechanisms, federal officials across the
climate change enterprise lack a shared understanding of priorities,
according to questionnaire responses, available literature, and
stakeholders. This is partly due to the multiple, often inconsistent
messages articulated in different forums and in different policy
documents. Our review of these sources found that there is not
currently a consolidated set of strategic priorities that integrates
climate change programs and activities across the federal government.
When asked what the priorities across the federal government were, the
respondents who answered the question provided a wide range of
answers. While the broad category with the most responses was
"adaptation," a number of other categories--such as priorities listed
in the USGCRP and CCTP strategic plans--were almost as frequently
cited. Other responses included a new focus on providing climate
change information to decision makers. For example, according to one
respondent, "a recent emphasis seems to be connecting the use of
[climate change] science to meet end-user needs—.As a result, 'science
translation' has become a new priority as well as advancing impact
assessment and adaptation models and tools." Only a few respondents
suggested that there was an absence of strategic priorities, with one
stating, "I'd argue that there are not [any], or perhaps few,
strategic priorities across government. Agencies have their own
internal missions and priorities; I've seen little willingness or
ability to shift those priorities and programming decisions to meet
overall strategic interests, even following transition to a new
Administration."
These results are supported by a 2008 CRS analysis, which states
"there has not been an overarching policy goal for climate change that
guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs. U.S.
federal policy on climate change has been a coalescence of separate
goals--evolved distinctly for science, technology, energy production,
foreign assistance, and trade--not a single, integrated strategy. The
current federal effort largely has been built 'bottom up' from a
variety of existing programs, Presidential initiatives, and
Congressionally-directed activities. Choices tend to be based on
departmental missions and the degree of support for the input
activities."[Footnote 45]
In the absence of clear, overarching priorities, federal officials are
left with many different sources that present climate change
priorities in a more fragmented way.
Through our review of questionnaire responses, available literature,
and interviews with stakeholders, we found that federal strategic
climate change priorities are presented in six general sources: (1)
strategic plans for interagency programs and agencies, (2) executive-
level guidance memoranda, (3) the development of new interagency
initiatives, (4) regulations and guidance memoranda, (5) international
commitments, and (6) testimony of federal executives before Congress.
Each of these sources is discussed in more detail in appendix VII.
The multiple sources for communicating priorities across the climate
change enterprise may result in conflicting messages and confusion.
Our review found multiple plans with different scopes, goals, and time
frames. While OSTP and OMB most recently directed agencies to focus on
activities in their budgets that support the national assessment and
monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions, the 2003 USGCRP strategic plan
and its 2008 revision generally focus federal research on different
priorities, mostly related to reducing scientific uncertainty about
climate changes.[Footnote 46] CCTP's 2006 strategic plan similarly
focuses federal resources on different priorities, including capturing
and sequestering carbon dioxide. While these strategic plans were
created for different purposes and times, and are not mutually
exclusive, they--and the programs charged with implementing the plans-
-represent the operational link between EOP and agencies. According to
a high-ranking OMB staff member we interviewed, "to the extent that
OMB receives direction from the administration, it will implement the
president's priorities. If that doesn't happen, OMB will take the
existing strategic plans as direction."
Several respondents said there is no single lead to direct and
coordinate federal climate change efforts, which nearly matches an
observation from our 1990 report that "the President has not
designated any individual or agency to assume overall leadership or
management responsibility for global climate change."[Footnote 47] For
example, according to one respondent, there is "no single lead person
to direct and coordinate all the efforts." Another respondent said
"without clear direction and leadership by the White House, it is very
difficult for the agencies to set strategic priorities." According to
one stakeholder, "there are many willing partners in the federal
government, but there is a small bottleneck at the top. Agencies want
to take action but don't know who is in charge of administration
policies."
The lack of a shared understanding of strategic priorities combined
with the crosscutting nature of the federal climate change enterprise
is likely to complicate efforts to align funding with priorities. Our
past work on interagency collaboration has shown that collaborating
agencies must have a clear and compelling rationale to work together
to overcome significant differences in agency missions, cultures, and
established ways of doing business.[Footnote 48] This requires agency
staff working across agency lines to define and articulate the common
outcome or purpose they are seeking to achieve that is consistent with
their respective agency goals and mission. Without a clear common
purpose, it is more difficult for agencies to define roles and
responsibilities within the complex climate change enterprise
previously illustrated in figure 4. Agreeing on roles and
responsibilities--clarifying who will do what--and committed
leadership by those involved in the collaborative effort are necessary
to overcome barriers to working across agencies.
Existing Mechanisms Intended to Align Funding with Priorities Are
Nonbinding, Limiting Their Effectiveness Where They Conflict With
Agency Responsibilities and Priorities:
Existing mechanisms intended to align funding with strategic
priorities are nonbinding, according to respondents, available
literature, and stakeholders. For example, one respondent said that
existing "coordination mechanisms are non-binding. It is difficult to
reconcile the different missions of the agencies without strong
commitment from each agency." Another respondent stated, "Undertaking
interagency projects in climate change is extremely challenging. The
system is not designed to encourage interagency activity—Each agency
has its own processes, deadlines, and requirements." Other respondents
noted that the interagency policy process does not control agency
budgets, and that agencies with their own budget authority may pay
little attention to federal strategic priorities. In other words,
federal strategic priorities set through an interagency process may
not be reflected in budget decisions for individual agencies.
Several federal officials we interviewed said that interagency
coordinating programs like USGCRP generally do not have direct control
over agency budgets. A high-ranking USGCRP official told us that
"USGCRP does not control any resources. It doesn't do anything but put
out reports. Program office staff help different agencies collaborate,
but it doesn't amount to prioritization."[Footnote 49] Similarly, a
high-ranking CCTP official told us that every constituent agency of
CCTP has control over its own budget; CCTP has no authority to direct
funding for climate change technology programs. According to a 2009
National Research Council (NRC) report, the absence of centralized
budget authority limits the ability of the USGCRP to influence the
priorities of participating agencies or implement new research
directions that fall outside or across agency missions.[Footnote 50]
The current approach for integration is likely to continue as long as
strategic decision making is decoupled from agency budgetary processes
or while USGCRP has no budgetary authority, according to observations
in a 2008 USGCRP expert roundtable discussion.[Footnote 51]
Several respondents observed that the number of staff available to
coordinate governmentwide climate change programs is currently
limited, which may also make it more difficult to align funding with
priorities. For example, according to one respondent, USGCRP has a
small number of staff, which limits the effectiveness of coordination
efforts. Another respondent stated that the current model of a very
small USGCRP staff office is not effective. A 2008 CRS report noted
that "one potentially important element in the success of programs is
the expertise of federal officials in these programs, and whether
federal policies enhance or hinder the recruitment, development and
effective use of personnel. Barriers to job mobility of federal
personnel across programs and departments also likely discourage
development, interaction and collaboration across agencies and
disciplines." When provided with this information, a USGCRP official
stated that "the USGCRP staff is very well qualified to do their job.
This issue is not about qualification but about the lack of
empowerment and respect from Federal Agencies."
Nonbinding mechanisms for aligning funding with priorities have
limited effectiveness where they conflict with agency responsibilities
and priorities, according to certain stakeholders and respondents who
commented on the subject. According to them, funding is not aligned
well with new priorities across the federal government because there
is a reluctance to make room in existing budgets for new work or
because most funding is pre-committed to existing programs, limiting
the capacity to make major new funding commitments. For example,
according to one respondent, "agency mission requirements can take
precedence, and this can limit the effectiveness of responding to
strategic priorities. This becomes increasingly the case when going
from the highest leadership levels down into lower levels of the
organization." Another respondent stated that her agency, "like all
the agencies, has a very difficult time changing agency priorities and
strongly resists stopping any current programs." As noted by a
different respondent, agencies generally have to stop doing existing
good things to do new good things, even when existing programs have
not completed their objectives.
Respondents Suggested Options for Better Aligning Federal Climate
Change Funding with Strategic Priorities:
Respondents, stakeholders, and available literature identified several
ways to better align federal climate change funding with strategic
priorities. They suggested (1) options to improve the tracking and
reporting of climate change funding, (2) options to enhance how
strategic climate change priorities are set, (3) the establishment of
formal coordination mechanisms, and (4) continuing efforts to link
related climate change activities across the federal government.
Federal entities reported that they are already taking steps to
implement several of these options.
Options to Improve the Tracking and Reporting of Climate Change
Funding:
Respondents identified two key options to improve how climate change
funding is tracked and reported, a key element in improving how
funding is aligned with priorities: an integrated budget review
process that provides a more centralized and predictable approach for
collecting and reviewing climate change funding, and enhanced guidance
on how to define and report funding. In technical comments, CEQ, OMB,
and OSTP stated that they are already taking steps to implement these
options.
An Integrated Budget Review Process:
Many respondents called for a more coordinated, centralized approach
to reporting and reviewing climate change funding--referred to by some
as an integrated budget review process. Such a process could address
the limitations of current methods for defining and reporting climate
change funding, such as the difficulty in distinguishing between
programs related and not related to climate change. Several
respondents stated that requests for climate change funding data
should come from one source to increase the efficiency and consistency
of reporting. According to one respondent, "if possible, it would be
great if one organization (OMB) were the sole entity that requested
information from Departments. That would help to ensure consistency
and the use of common definitions and terms." Another respondent added
that "a more formal request--with better guidance on what should be
reported--coming from OMB...might impose more discipline and accuracy
on the process." Other respondents noted that a more interactive
relationship with OMB would help provide consistency in climate change
funding reports. As we said earlier, OMB's MAX A-11 data entry system
provides a centralized collection point for agencies to enter climate
change budget data specified in OMB Circular A-11.
An integrated budget review process could also be a way to better
align agency funding and interagency priorities.[Footnote 52]
According to OSTP, more interaction between OMB, OSTP, and agency
budget and programmatic leads would help to develop more consistent
reporting as well as provide a better framework for developing
initiatives and building crosscut strategic elements. As a means of
achieving this goal, OMB and OSTP held a budget hearing with USGCRP
and agency officials in September 2010, according to OSTP. According
to OMB and OSTP guidance on climate change science collaboration dated
August 13, 2010, participating agencies were to:
"Prepare for a joint budget hearing in late September in which
agencies, through their USGCRP Principals, articulate their climate
change science request to OMB, OSTP, and other Executive Offices,
including CEQ, and other USGCRP agencies. Agencies should coordinate
prior to the meeting in order to present FY 2012 climate change
science initiatives in appropriate detail, recognizing the relative
size of agency investments to the National Climate Assessment and
overall climate change science budget. Agencies should also address
how their FY 2012 activities will build upon efforts by partner
agencies while minimizing overlap and duplication."
OSTP cautioned, however, that there are inherent limitations in the
system because priorities that span the federal government, by
definition, involve multiple agency budgets. Communication is
critical, and it is useful to have OMB, OSTP, and USGCRP talking to
each other about priorities in the process of strategic planning and
budget decisions, according to OSTP.
The joint budget hearing proposed last August by OSTP and OMB appears
similar to past practices identified as useful by stakeholders.
Several stakeholders we interviewed described how the federal climate
change enterprise--successfully, in their view--integrated funding
with priorities in the early 1990s. For example, according to one
stakeholder,
"USGCRP held a series of interagency meetings to develop the crosscut
climate change science budget before sending it to OMB for review. At
the meetings, each of the 13 agencies that were part of USGCRP had to
prove their climate related activities were linked to the goals of the
program. The integrated budget review process challenged people to
match the priorities of the program in order to obtain funding. The
review process was challenging, and probed the 'readiness' and
relevance of individual programs before they received funding. The
integrated budget reflected the best set of priorities at the time. An
integrated budget review hasn't happened in 12 years."
Other stakeholders and sources said an integrated budget review would
be useful because, in the past, such a system engaged agencies in the
interagency process and fostered agreement on priorities.
OMB staff cautioned that there are trade-offs with a more formal
process such as an integrated budget review, noting that "formality
only works with a limited number of topics because it requires a great
deal of effort.... Over time, the process didn't work out very well
because large meetings with high level officials are hard to schedule
and take a lot of time." In addition, past integrated budget reviews
focused solely on climate change science programs and activities
because USGCRP was the only interagency program in existence. It is
not clear how--or if--formal budget review processes could be applied
more comprehensively across the climate change enterprise.
Additional Guidance from the Executive Office of the President on
Defining and Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding:
Many respondents reported wanting additional guidance from OMB, OSTP,
or USGCRP about how to define and report climate change funding. As
stated by one respondent, "Interactive discussions between responsible
parties from OSTP, OMB, and [USGCRP] with the purpose of defining the
true scope of funding for climate change would be very useful. Since
areas of climate research change annually, this would be an ongoing
process." Another respondent asked for a review and revision by OMB of
all climate change reporting requirements to better define the
categories and what information is needed. One approach could be to
reach agreement with congressional appropriators on a set of
definitions and criteria for climate change programs that could be
used for several years, according to one respondent. In any case,
several respondents noted that guidance needs to clearly articulate
what is and is not considered to be climate change funding.
Options to Enhance How Strategic Climate Change Priorities Are Set:
As we have previously reported, enhanced priority setting processes
can encourage agency collaboration by defining and articulating a
common outcome, reinforcing accountability for collaborative efforts
through plans and reports, and establishing mutually reinforcing or
joint strategies to achieve the outcome.[Footnote 53] Respondents,
available literature, and stakeholders identified several options for
enhancing the process of setting federal climate change priorities,
including (1) using a governmentwide strategic planning process, and
(2) developing a clear leadership and coordination structure.
A Governmentwide Strategic Planning Process:
According to questionnaire respondents, available literature, and
stakeholders, a governmentwide strategic planning process could
enhance how strategic priorities are set by articulating what
individual agencies are expected to do within the overall federal
response to climate change.[Footnote 54] Some respondents noted the
need to expand planning beyond individual elements--such as science or
technology--and to develop a truly crosscutting climate change
strategic plan. For example, according to one respondent, "there is a
need now to go to the next level and coordinate across disciplinary
areas in order to address the urgent challenges related to climate
variability and change." Other respondents said that developing a more
detailed and actionable list of priorities through existing planning
processes would be helpful.
A number of federal climate-related strategic planning processes are
under way or have been recommended. For example, USGCRP is undertaking
a strategic planning process to ensure the alignment of Administration
priorities, NRC guidance, and agency programs and budgets, according
to CEQ, OMB, and OSTP technical comments. In addition, a 2010 NAPA
report recommended that the President empower a senior interagency
group--led at the White House and convened at the Deputy Secretary or
Secretary level--to provide the President annually with a strategic
plan for management of federal climate research and service delivery.
[Footnote 55]
As OSTP acknowledged to us, "The major challenge is the need to
connect climate science programs with broader inter-and intra-agency
climate efforts." OSTP stated that while significant progress is being
made in linking the climate science-related efforts, individual
agencies still want to advance initiatives that promote or serve their
agency missions. This, according to OSTP, yields a broader challenge
of tying climate-related efforts (science, mitigation, and adaptation)
together into a coherent governmentwide strategy.
A Clear Leadership and Coordination Structure:
Some respondents noted that it would be helpful to clearly identify a
lead person or organization responsible for developing and integrating
strategic climate change priorities across the government. According
to several respondents, developing federal strategic climate change
priorities would be easier if there was a clear leadership and
coordination structure responsible for setting governmentwide climate
change priorities. They cited a particular need to integrate policy,
science, mitigation, adaptation, technology and the other aspects of
the federal climate change enterprise into a single structure for
setting priorities. One official stated that this would require "a
real commitment to a full-time leader with staff and adequate
resources to work closely with all of the Federal Agencies, USGCRP,
OMB and the Hill in developing a strongly coordinated global change
crosscut that has consistent goals and objectives with well-defined
and linked performance measures, as well as the requisite authorities
to make (or at least propose) changes to programs and budgets in order
to better meet the measures and achieve the overall strategic goals
and objectives."
Several respondents specifically cited the need to integrate USGCRP's
focus on science with CCTP's focus on technology. As stated by one
respondent, "until now, there has been a general disconnect between
USGCRP and CCTP--we should connect the science and technology programs
much more closely." According to OSTP, the USGCRP's strategic planning
process will incorporate better mechanisms for linking with the CCTP.
It maintains that in this way, climate technology plans, policies, and
projections developed by CCTP can be integrated with those of the
climate science and adaptation groups.
Several respondents did note that developing an overarching framework
for setting priorities would be challenging. One respondent cautioned
that the mix of technology, economics, and policy expertise cannot be
found completely in one agency or EOP entity. As stated by another
respondent, "This is bigger than any single agency. Therefore, no
single agency can be put in charge." Several respondents expressed a
similar sentiment.
The Establishment of Formal Coordination Mechanisms:
Respondents noted that the establishment of formal coordination
mechanisms--such as executive-level memoranda that specify how
agencies are to work together--could improve how federal climate
change funding aligns with strategic priorities. Many respondents
called for improved coordination to better align funding with
priorities. Several identified related options, including formally
identifying a single contact point for coordinating climate change
funding within each agency and defining the role of this contact
within interagency structures. For example, one respondent stated, "In
each agency there needs to be a formal internal process that links
budget (CFO) to strategy (Policy), reporting to the agency Head or
Deputy.... Each agency team, in turn, needs to be linked to an
interagency coordinating body that champions strategic planning,
strengthens data and tools for decision-making, shares information
with agencies, educates new managers and appointees, and presents
integrated reports on status and progress toward goals." In addition,
several stakeholders we interviewed described how, in the early days
of USGCRP, formal "terms of reference" defined who did what and the
relationships between federal agencies and the EOP. The terms of
reference included specific milestones of what would be produced by
when, goals, roles, and responsibilities for each agency that was part
of USGCRP.
A 2010 NAPA report noted that the development of a senior-level
federal interagency coordination mechanism with a broad mandate would
be enormously valuable, not only to coordinate federal climate
research and service delivery, but also to potentially coordinate
other climate initiatives.[Footnote 56] In its report, NAPA recognized
that the same senior interagency group needed to coordinate federal
climate research and service delivery ideally could be configured to
support the overarching executive branch climate policy agenda, which,
according to the report, would likely bring beneficial synergy and
focus to decision making.
Another approach for aligning funding with priorities that enjoyed
success in the past, according to the results of a 2008 USGCRP expert
roundtable discussion, was OMB's past practice of favoring interagency
priorities over individual agency priorities when collectively
reviewing climate science budget decisions.[Footnote 57] The
roundtable discussion emphasized that there needs to be a "carrot" (a
flexible pool of funding to encourage agency participation) and
"stick" (a penalty for not addressing interagency priorities) to
enhance agency implementation of interagency program priorities.
According to our interviews with stakeholders, past USGCRP funding
decisions vetted by an integrated budget review process, were enforced
by what was known as "fencing." Once agencies signed off on their
contribution to the USGCRP during budget negotiations with OMB,
funding became "fenced off." Therefore, once an agency committed funds
it was not allowed to "change its mind," as OMB would not allow it to
reprogram the funds for other purposes elsewhere in its budget.
[Footnote 58] In other words, once the priorities were set through the
budget review process, they were locked in through "fencing."
A different idea to improve the coordination of climate change
programs suggested by several reports we reviewed was to provide
USGCRP with a central budget to allocate to its member agencies, or
the authority to redirect agency funding to interagency priorities. A
2009 NRC report stated that an increased discretionary budget for the
USGCRP director, sufficient to carry out interagency efforts such as
workshops would provide flexibility and seed money for objectives that
are of higher priority to the program than to any participating
agency.[Footnote 59] However, certain respondents warned that giving
budget authority to USGCRP was not practical, noting that the
discretion that agencies have is appropriate because many climate
change activities also serve other functions. Furthermore, according
to the testimony of a former director of OSTP, "it is a reality that
central budgeting for an interagency effort like [USGCRP] or CCTP is
incompatible with the Federal budget structures and processes."
[Footnote 60]
EOP offices have begun taking steps to improve coordination. For
example, a July 2010 memorandum from OMB and OSTP to department and
agency heads detailing certain climate-related priorities states that
"in requesting funds for large-scale [science and technology] projects
involving significant interagency or international collaboration,
agencies should identify: the lead organization for the collaboration;
the unique capabilities brought to the collaboration by each
partnering organization; and the specific roles and responsibilities
for each organization. Agencies should coordinate with partner Federal
agencies to formulate budget requests for interagency collaborations."
[Footnote 61]
Continuing Efforts to Link Related Climate Change Activities:
Efforts to link related climate change activities across the federal
government could better align climate change funding with priorities,
according to respondents, available literature, and stakeholders. For
example, developing a small number of tools that can serve all
agencies would improve the government's overall effectiveness,
according to one respondent. An area of possible linkage frequently
mentioned by respondents includes efforts to coordinate climate
services across the federal government. According to NOAA, a climate
service could provide a single source for climate data, information,
and decision support services to help individuals, businesses,
communities, and governments make smart choices in anticipation of
future climate changes. Several stakeholders noted that this service
could better focus climate efforts to achieve federal strategic
priorities. The 2010 NAPA report discusses the factors needed for a
NOAA Climate Service to succeed--such as the designation of a lead
federal agency to be the day-to-day integrator of the overall federal
effort regarding climate science and services--and makes
recommendations on how to achieve those factors.[Footnote 62] Also in
2010, the NSTC's CENRS established the Roundtable on Climate
Information and Services in recognition of the fact--stated in
testimony and in National Research Council reports--that no single
agency possesses all the information and capabilities of climate
services delivery, according to technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and
OSTP.[Footnote 63]
There has been some recent progress on linking related federal climate
change programs, according to OSTP. Specifically, OSTP stated that the
science portion of the CEQ, NOAA, and OSTP-led Climate Change
Adaptation Task Force is being integrated within USGCRP. OSTP also
stated that it is working to create an interagency body that will
bring together agencies that provide climate services to allow for
better links between climate services and other federal climate-
related activities.
Conclusions:
Climate change has proven to be among the most challenging
environmental issues currently being addressed by the federal
government. Our work on similarly complex and interdisciplinary issues
underscores the importance of close interagency coordination and
collaboration to ensure that funds are properly accounted for and are
spent so that they have their intended effect. This work also
emphasizes that having agencies agree on roles and responsibilities--
clarifying who will do what--is necessary to overcome barriers to
working across agencies.
The responses of federal officials to our Web-based questionnaire,
together with other information gathered for this review, suggest that
various issues may be limiting the effectiveness of the climate change
enterprise. The questionnaire responses provide the unfiltered views
of the federal officials who work directly on these issues and
represent a range of vantage points on federal efforts. We worked with
CCTP, CEQ, OMB, OSTP, and USGCRP to identify the officials most
knowledgeable about governmentwide efforts to align funding with
priorities, including respondents from entities within EOP,
interagency coordinating programs, and individual agencies. Among the
key issues identified by questionnaire responses, available
literature, and interviews with stakeholders are that (1) methods for
defining and reporting climate change funding are not interpreted
consistently across the federal government, and (2) federal officials
do not have a shared understanding of strategic priorities.
The Administration has recognized the need for improvement, and has
taken steps to both begin to augment the reporting of climate change
funding and to better align funding with priorities. That said,
officials responding to our questionnaire provided additional options
that may further improve how agencies, interagency bodies, and
entities within EOP define and report federal climate change funding,
set strategic priorities, and align funding with priorities. Without
further improvement in these areas, it will be difficult for Congress
and the public to fully understand how climate change funds are
accounted for and how they are spent.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate
change programs and activities, we recommend that the appropriate
entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the
Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Energy and Climate Change
Policy, Office and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in consultation with Congress, work together with
relevant federal agencies and interagency coordinating bodies to take
the following two actions:
Clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities,
including the roles and responsibilities of the key federal entities,
taking into consideration the full range of activities within the
federal climate change enterprise.
Assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and
reporting federal climate change funding and aligning funding with
priorities, and make improvements to such practices as needed for
Congress and the public to fully understand how climate change funds
are spent.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Chair of CEQ,
the Director of OMB, and the Director of OSTP. They did not provide
official written comments to include in our report. Instead, they
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
appropriate congressional committees, the Chair of CEQ, the Director
of OMB, and the Director of OSTP, and other interested parties. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix X.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
David C. Trimble:
Acting Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This report examines (1) federal funding for climate change activities
and how these activities are organized; (2) the extent to which
methods for defining and reporting climate change funding are
interpreted consistently across the federal government; (3) federal
strategic climate change priorities, and the extent to which funding
is aligned with these priorities; and (4) options, if any, available
to better align federal climate change funding with strategic
priorities.
To collect information for these objectives, we analyzed climate
change funding data and tax expenditures presented in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) reports, reviewed other relevant reports,
and interviewed stakeholders knowledgeable about federal climate
change funding programs and activities. To identify relevant reports,
we reviewed our prior climate change work and conducted a literature
search and review with the assistance of a technical librarian. To
identify stakeholders, we reviewed our prior climate change work and
relevant reports to identify individuals with specific knowledge of
federal climate change funding. The stakeholders we interviewed were
formerly involved with climate change funding decisions within the
federal government.
Using information we gathered through our literature review and
initial interviews with stakeholders, we developed a Web-based
questionnaire to gather information and opinions of key federal
officials involved in defining and reporting climate change funding,
developing strategic climate change priorities, or aligning funding
with strategic priorities. We designed the questionnaire to collect
information through open-ended questions, organized in different
sections to allow respondents to answer the questions most in line
with their knowledge and experience, and to skip sections with which
they were less familiar. The questionnaire was divided into five
sections: (1) background, where we asked for a range of descriptive
information about the respondents; (2) defining and reporting federal
climate change funding; (3) setting federal strategic climate change
priorities; (4) aligning federal climate change funding with strategic
priorities; and (5) conclusion, where we asked for additional comments.
After we drafted the questionnaire, we asked for comments from select
federal officials involved with climate change issues within the
Executive Office of the President, interagency coordinating programs,
and individual agencies. We conducted pretests with these officials to
check that (1) the questions were clear and unambiguous, (2)
terminology was used correctly, (3) the questionnaire did not place an
undue burden on agency officials, (4) the information could feasibly
be obtained, and (5) the questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased.
We made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire based
on the feedback we received. A copy of the Web-based questionnaire is
included in appendix IX.
To identify questionnaire respondents, we requested and received lists
of knowledgeable officials from the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), OMB, Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and United States Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP). On July 26, 2010, we sent an e-mail
notifying 147 officials of their opportunity to participate in the
questionnaire and described the topics that the questionnaire would
cover. We asked these recipients to notify us if they were not the
appropriate person to fill out the questionnaire, and to tell us who
might be appropriate, if possible. Based on these responses, we
removed 11 officials from our list of potential respondents and added
3. Consequently, we invited a nonprobability sample of 139 officials
to complete our Web-based questionnaire. We later removed an
additional 33 officials from the respondent list because we learned,
through follow up phone calls or e-mails, that certain individuals
were either not knowledgeable or not available (e.g., no longer
federal employees). The final list of potential respondents included
106 federal officials.
We administered a Web-based questionnaire that was accessible through
a secure server. On August 6, 2010, we sent an e-mail announcement to
notify the respondents that the questionnaire was available online,
and they were given unique passwords and usernames. We sent a follow-
up e-mail message on August 27, 2010, to those who had not yet
responded. Then we contacted all remaining nonrespondents by
telephone, starting on September 7, 2010. The questionnaire was
available online until September 24, 2010.
Of the 106 officials who were asked to participate, 73 responded to
the questionnaire, for a response rate of about 69 percent. Not all
officials responded to all questions. The officials who responded hold
a variety of positions within the federal government and represent a
diverse array of disciplines. For example, when respondents were asked
to best describe their positions within the federal government, 7
responded "budget-oriented," 9 responded "policy-oriented," 15
responded "both budget-and policy-oriented," 19 responded "program
manager," 7 responded "scientist," and the rest did not answer or
responded "other." Respondents were from entities within the Executive
Office of the President, interagency coordinating programs, and
individual agencies. Given our methodology, we may not have identified
every person who has knowledge of or experience with the topics we
covered; however, we do believe we were able to reach many of the
relevant federal officials because we worked with CCTP, CEQ, OMB,
OSTP, and USGCRP to identify potential participants.
[End of section]
We asked several OSTP officials to respond individually to the
questionnaire, but OSTP elected to provide a single formal response.
OSTP officials stated that their collective response was the subject
of lively internal debate and that they believed that questionnaire
responses from individual federal officials that had not been vetted
by agency management deserved less weight. Throughout this report we
attribute information from this formal collective response directly to
OSTP using phrases such as "according to OSTP" or "OSTP stated."
The questionnaire presented in appendix IX asked a series of open-
ended questions. As already noted, not all officials responded to all
questions. We analyzed questionnaire responses by developing and
testing a coding structure and coding the interviews using qualitative
analysis software. We used this software to help us group similar
responses together into overall themes to assist in the writing
process. We did not use the software for statistical analysis because
the sample of respondents was not a representative sample.
We used specific responses as illustrative examples throughout the
report, and employed a simple scale to describe the extent to which
respondents made statements related to a theme or other topic
discussed in the report. Descriptors are in relation to the total
number of respondents who commented on a particular theme or topic,
which varied by the theme or topic. We use "several," "certain," and
"some" interchangeably to mean three or more, but fewer than one-
third. We use "many" to mean more than one-third, and "most" to mean
more than half of the relevant respondents. If, in the report, we make
a general statement like "respondents said—", then the text following
the statement will provide additional details. To make the report more
readable and less confusing, we do not include the numbers of
respondents who commented on particular themes.
We received and incorporated comments from federal entities. On
December 17, 2010, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP submitted consolidated technical
comments. We accounted for these comments in our draft report. We also
incorporated technical comments submitted from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP on
April 27, 2011.
The term "funding" in this report reflects budget authority, or the
authority provided by federal law to enter into financial obligations
that will result in outlays of federal government funds, as reported
by OMB. Unless otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms
(not adjusted for inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years.
Totals and percentages may not add due to rounding. When we adjusted
for inflation, we used a fiscal year chain weighted gross domestic
product price index composed of averages of quarterly indexes from the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National
Income and Product Accounts, table 1.1.4. Unless otherwise specified,
figures represent actual funding (not estimates), with the exception
of 1993, 1994, and 2010, where we present estimated funding because
actual data are not available.
For the purposes of this report, the term "agency" includes cabinet-
level departments and other agencies, and we use the term "account" to
describe the budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities
presented in OMB reports. When we refer to respondents in this report,
we mean federal officials who completed the questionnaire.
Stakeholders refers to other individuals we interviewed who are
experienced with federal funding for climate change programs and
activities. HTML links to Web sites in this document are not
maintained over time.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to May 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: OMB Reports and Other Sources of Climate Change Funding
Information:
Congress periodically included provisions in appropriations laws
requiring OMB to report funding for climate change programs and
activities. As a result, OMB published several Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Reports to Congress. Table 1 provides links to reports
available on OMB's Web site, along with selected information about
each report.
Table 1: Characteristics of Available OMB Funding Reports:
Report year: FY 2011;
Date issued: June 2010;
Legal requirement: Pub. L. No. 111-88, § 426 (2009);
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2009 Actual;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2010 Enacted;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2011 Proposed.
Report year: FY 2010;
Date issued: Not Applicable;
Legal requirement: None;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: None;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: None;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: None.
Report year: FY 2009;
Date issued: Not Applicable;
Legal requirement: None;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: None;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: None;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: None.
Report year: FY 2008;
Date issued: May 3, 2007;
Legal requirement: Pub. L. No. 110-5, § 104 (2007) (which continued in
effect Pub. L. No. 109-102, § 585(b) (2005));
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2006 Actual;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2007 Enacted;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2008 Proposed.
Report year: FY 2007;
Date issued: April 2006;
Legal requirement: Pub. L. No. 109-102, § 585(b) (2005);
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2005 Actual;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2006 Enacted;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2007 Proposed.
Report year: FY 2006;
Date issued: March 2005;
Legal requirement: Pub. L. No. 108-447, § 576(b) (2004);
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2004 Actual;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2005 Enacted;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2006 Proposed.
Report year: FY 2005;
Date issued: May 2004;
Legal requirement: Pub. L. No. 108-199, § 555(b) (2004);
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2003 Actual;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2004 Enacted;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2005 Proposed.
Report year: FY 2004;
Date issued: August 2003;
Legal requirement: Pub. L. No. 108-7, § 555(b) (2003);
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2002 Actual;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2003 Enacted;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2004 Proposed.
Report year: FY 2003;
Date issued: July 2002;
Legal requirement: Pub. L. No. 107-115, § 559(b) (2002);
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2001 Actual;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2002 Estimate;
Fiscal year budget authority data presented: 2003 Proposed.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB reports.
Note: To view the full OMB reports, click on the report year in the
table. OMB did not publish reports for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
[End of table]
USGCRP program also reports funding for climate change science
programs and activities in its annual reports to Congress.[Footnote
64] In addition, both the Congressional Budget Office and
Congressional Research Service recently reported on climate change
funding.[Footnote 65]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB,
1993-2010:
Funding Category: Technology;
1993: $845 million;
1994: $1.038 billion;
1995: $1.283 billion;
1996: $1.106 billion;
1997: $1.056 billion;
1998: $1.251 billion;
1999: $1.694 billion;
2000: $1.793 billion;
2001: $1.675 billion;
2002: $1.637 billion;
2003: $2.555 billion;
2004: $2.868 billion;
2005: $2.808 billion;
2006: $2.789 billion;
2007[A]: $3.485 billion;
2008[A]: $4.196 billion;
2009: $5.386 billion;
2010: $5.504 billion.
Funding Category: Science;
1993: $1.306 billion;
1994: $1.444 billion;
1995: $1.760 billion;
1996: $1.654 billion;
1997: $1.656 billion;
1998: $1.677 billion;
1999: $1.657 billion;
2000: $1.687 billion;
2001: $1.728 billion;
2002: $1.667 billion;
2003: $1.766 billion;
2004: $1.976 billion;
2005: $1.864 billion;
2006: $1.691 billion;
2007[A]: $1.825 billion;
2008[A]: $1.832 billion;
2009: $2.023 billion;
2010: $2.122 billion.
Funding Category: International assistance;
1993: $201 million;
1994: $186 million;
1995: $228 million;
1996: $192 million;
1997: $164 million;
1998: $186 million;
1999: $325 million;
2000: $177 million;
2001: $218 million;
2002: $224 million;
2003: $270 million;
2004: $252 million;
2005: $234 million;
2006: $249 million;
2007[A]: $188 million;
2008[A]: $227 million;
2009: $373 million;
2010: $1.080 billion.
Funding Category: Wildlife adaptation[B];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: $65 million.
Funding Category: Total;
1993: $2.352 billion;
1994: $2.668 billion;
1995: $3.271 billion;
1996: $2.952 billion;
1997: $2.876 billion;
1998: $3.114 billion;
1999: $3.535 billion;
2000: $3.511 billion;
2001: $3.603 billion;
2002: $3.522 billion;
2003: $4.584 billion;
2004: $5.090 billion;
2005: $5.269 billion;
2006: $5.876 billion;
2007[A]: $5.498 billion;
2008[A]: $6.255 billion;
2009: $7.782 billion;
2010: $8.771 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB reports:
Notes: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for the
account for that year.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub.
L. No. 111-5 (2009)) and climate change tax expenditures are not
included in this table to maintain comparability with our 2005 report.
See appendix V for more information about the Recovery Act and
appendix VI for more information about tax expenditures.
[A] OMB did not publicly report climate change funding for these years
because the annual appropriations laws did not include a reporting
requirement. OMB provided data for these years directly to GAO.
[B] Wildlife adaptation funding is an interim category while the
Administration develops criteria to systematically account for a
broader suite of adaptation programs.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 1993-
2010:
Agency: Department of Energy;
1993: $963 million;
1994: $1.113 billion;
1995: $1.173 billion;
1996: $1.008 billion;
1997: $968 million;
1998: $1.186 billion;
1999: $1.536 billion;
2000: $1.652 billion;
2001: $1.665 billion;
2002: $1.636 billion;
2003: $2.214 billion;
2004: $2.519 billion;
2005: $2.469 billion;
2006: $2.504 billion;
2007[A]: $3.158 billion;
2008[A]: $3.791 billion;
2009: $4.711 billion;
2010: $4.564 billion.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
1993: $888 million;
1994: $999 million;
1995: $1.305 billion;
1996: $1.218 billion;
1997: $1.218 billion;
1998: $1.210 billion;
1999: $1.155 billion;
2000: $1.161 billion;
2001: $1.176 billion;
2002: $1.090 billion;
2003: $1.299 billion;
2004: $1.548 billion;
2005: $1.449 billion;
2006: $1.082 billion;
2007[A]: $1.223 billion;
2008[A]: $1.221 billion;
2009: $1.205 billion;
2010: $1.195 billion.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
1993: $55 million;
1994: $56 million;
1995: $60 million;
1996: $52 million;
1997: $57 million;
1998: $53 million;
1999: $138 million;
2000: $132 million;
2001: $54 million;
2002: $59 million;
2003: $104 million;
2004: $116 million;
2005: $110 million;
2006: $110 million;
2007[A]: $109 million;
2008[A]: $116 million;
2009: $322 million;
2010: $567 million.
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
1993: $0;
1994: $12 million;
1995: $35 million;
1996: $14 million;
1997: $14 million;
1998: $18 million;
1999: $60 million;
2000: $14 million;
2001: $54 million;
2002: $43 million;
2003: $56 million;
2004: $52 million;
2005: $44 million;
2006: $46 million;
2007[A]: $46 million;
2008[A]: $46 million;
2009: $46 million;
2010: $421 million.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
1993: $200 million;
1994: $173 million;
1995: $192 million;
1996: $175 million;
1997: $147 million;
1998: $163 million;
1999: $236 million;
2000: $156 million;
2001: $157 million;
2002: $179 million;
2003: $214 million;
2004: $195 million;
2005: $183 million;
2006: $190 million;
2007[A]: $114 million;
2008[A]: $136 million;
2009: $222 million;
2010: $383 million.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
1993: $66 million;
1994: $63 million;
1995: $120 million;
1996: $113 million;
1997: $102 million;
1998: $89 million;
1999: $93 million;
2000: $91 million;
2001: $93 million;
2002: $100 million;
2003: $156 million;
2004: $144 million;
2005: $146 million;
2006: $253 million;
2007[A]: $258 million;
2008[A]: $286 million;
2009: $392 million;
2010: $378 million.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
1993: $124 million;
1994: $142 million;
1995: $222 million;
1996: $216 million;
1997: $222 million;
1998: $214 million;
1999: $222 million;
2000: $229 million;
2001: $181 million;
2002: $189 million;
2003: $212 million;
2004: $226 million;
2005: $209 million;
2006: $215 million;
2007[A]: $230 million;
2008[A]: $229 million;
2009: $293 million;
2010: $348 million.
Agency: Department of Defense;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $83 million;
2004: $51 million;
2005: $59 million;
2006: $77 million;
2007[A]: $101 million;
2008[A]: $176 million;
2009: $261 million;
2010: $226 million.
Agency: Department of State;
1993: $1 million;
1994: $1 million;
1995: $1 million;
1996: $3 million;
1997: $3 million;
1998: $5 million;
1999: $7 million;
2000: $7 million;
2001: $7 million;
2002: $7 million;
2003: $6 million;
2004: $6 million;
2005: $7 million;
2006: $12 million;
2007[A]: $41 million;
2008[A]: $59 million;
2009: $55 million;
2010: $199 million.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
1993: $26 million;
1994: $73 million;
1995: $124 million;
1996: $114 million;
1997: $99 million;
1998: $103 million;
1999: $126 million;
2000: $124 million;
2001: $146 million;
2002: $136 million;
2003: $124 million;
2004: $127 million;
2005: $130 million;
2006: $128 million;
2007[A]: $121 million;
2008[A]: $131 million;
2009: $139 million;
2010: $164 million.
Agency: Department of Interior;
1993: $22 million;
1994: $29 million;
1995: $27 million;
1996: $26 million;
1997: $26 million;
1998: $26 million;
1999: $27 million;
2000: $27 million;
2001: $27 million;
2002: $26 million;
2003: $29 million;
2004: $29 million;
2005: $29 million;
2006: $27 million;
2007[A]: $27; million
2008[A]: $34 million;
2009: $45 million;
2010: $128 million.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: $5 million;
1996: $6 million;
1997: $13 million;
1998: $5 million;
1999: $3 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $27 million;
2004: $9 million;
2005: $3 million;
2006: $17 million;
2007[A]: $18 million;
2008[A]: $20 million;
2009: $45 million;
2010: $128 million.
Agency: Trade and Development Agency;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $16 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $10 million;
2010: $17 million.
Agency: Smithsonian Institution;
1993: $7 million;
1994: $7 million;
1995: $7 million;
1996: $7 million;
1997: $7 million;
1998: $7 million;
1999: $7 million;
2000: $7 million;
2001: $7 million;
2002: $6 million;
2003: $6 million;
2004: $6 million;
2005: $6 million;
2006: $6 million;
2007[A]: $6 million;
2008[A]: $6 million;
2009: $6 million;
2010: $7 million.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: $35 million;
1999: $40 million;
2000: $47 million;
2001: $54 million;
2002: $56 million;
2003: $61 million;
2004: $62 million;
2005: $57 million;
2006: $50 million;
2007[A]: $47 million;
2008[A]: $4 million;
2009: $5 million;
2010: $4 million.
Agency: Millennium Challenge Corporation;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: $2 million.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $10 million;
2000: $10 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty].
Agency: Total;
1993: $2.352 billion;
1994: $2.668 billion;
1995: $3.271 billion;
1996: $2.952 billion;
1997: $2.876 billion;
1998: $3.114 billion;
1999: $3.535 billion;
2000: $3.511 billion;
2001: $3.603 billion;
2002: $3.522 billion;
2003: $4.584 billion;
2004: $5.090 billion;
2005: $4.900 billion;
2006: $4.716 billion;
2007[A]: $5.499 billion;
2008[A]: $6.255 billion;
2009: $7.757 billion;
2010: $8.731[B] billion.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB reports.
Notes: Blank cells [Empty] indicate that OMB did not report a value
for the account for that year.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
[A] OMB did not publicly report climate change funding for these years
because the annual appropriations laws did not include a reporting
requirement. OMB provided data for these years directly to GAO.
[B] Total 2010 funding of $8.731 billion as presented by OMB and
reported in this appendix does not match the total of $8.771 billion
presented in appendixes III and V. In its June 2010 report that
presented these data, OMB noted that totals may not add due to
rounding and subtraction of double-counts.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2010:
Technology;
Direct Technology:
Account: Department of Agriculture;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: $3 million;
2002: $3 million;
2003: $42 million;
2004: $45 million;
2005: $48 million;
2006: $49 million;
2007[A]: $48 million;
2008[A]: $51 million;
2009: $271 million;
2010: $453 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: 0;
2000: [Empty];
2001: 0;
2002: [Empty];
2003: $2 million;
2004: $2 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: $2 million;
2007[A]: $2 million;
2008[A]: $2 million;
2009: $5 million;
2010: $5 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
Rural Business Service; Renewable energy program;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: 0;
2003: $22 million;
2004: $23 million;
2005: $23 million;
2006: $23 million;
2007[A]: $23 million;
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
Rural Business Service; Value Added Producer Grants[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $2 million;
2006: $3 million;
2007[A]: $3 million;
2008[A]: $5 million;
2009: $6 million;
2010: $4 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
Rural Business Service; Rural Energy For America[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: $36 million;
2009: $5 million;
2010: $39 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
Rural Business Service; Biorefinery Assistance Program[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: 0;
2010: 0;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
Rural Business Service; Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $55 million;
2010: $55 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Forest Service; Forest and
Rangeland Research;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 3;
2002: [Empty];
2003: $1 million;
2004: 0;
2005: $2;
2006: $2;
2007[A]: $2 million;
2008[A]: $1 million;
2009: $1 million;
2010: $5 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Forest Service; Research and
Development - Inventories of Carbon Biomass;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $1 million;
2004: 0;
2005: $1 million;
2006: $1 million;
2007[A]: $1 million;
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation
Service;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: 0;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation
Service; Carbon Cycle;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $1 million;
2004: $1 million;
2005: $1 million;
2006: $1 million;
2007[A]: $1 million;
2008[A]: 0;
2009: $9 million;
2010: $7 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation
Service; Biomass Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $3 million;
2003: $14 million;
2004: $14 million;
2005: $13 million;
2006: $14 million;
2007[A]: $14 million;
2008[A]: 0;
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service; Biofuels/Biomass research;
Formula Funds, National Research Initiative;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $3 million;
2004: $5 million;
2005: $5 million;
2006: $3 million;
2007[A]: $3 million;
2008[A]: $5 million;
2009: $5 million;
2010: $5 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Office of the Chief Economist -
Methane to Markets[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: 0;
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; National Agricultural Statistics
Service[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: 0;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Rural Business Service; Rural
Energy For America[C, D];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: $55 million;
2010: $60 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Rural Business Service; Repowering
Assistance Program[C, D];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: $35 million;
2010: 0;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; Rural Business Service;
Biorefinery Assistance Program[C, D];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: $75 million;
2010: $245 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Agriculture; National Institute of Food and
Agriculture; Biomass Research and Development[C, D];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: $2 million;
2009: $20 million;
2010: $28 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Commerce;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $26 million;
2006: $18 million;
2007[A]: $22 million;
2008[A]: $14 million;
2009: $15 million;
2010: $18 million;
ARRA[B]: $4 million.
Account: Department of Commerce; National Institutes of Standards and
Technology;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $40 million;
2004: $28 million;
2005: $26 million;
2006: $18 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; National Institutes of Standards and
Technology; Industrial Technical Services - Advanced Technology
Program;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $30 million;
2004: $18 million;
2005: $8 million;
2006: $10 million;
2007[A]: $6 million;
2008[A]: $4 million;
2009: $7 million;
2010: $15 million;
ARRA[B]: $4 million.
Account: Department of Commerce; National Institutes of Standards and
Technology; Scientific and Technical Research Services;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: 0;
2000: $2 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $10 million;
2004: $10 million;
2005: $18 million;
2006: $8 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; International Trade Administration;
Operations and Administration[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: $2 million;
2009: $2 million;
2010: $2 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Defense;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $83 million;
2004: $51 million;
2005: $59 million;
2006: $77 million;
2007[A]: $101 million;
2008[A]: $176 million;
2009: $261 million;
2010: $226 million;
ARRA[B]: $139 million.
Account: Department of Defense; Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $45 million;
2004: $15 million;
2005: $27 million;
2006: $49 million;
2007[A]: $69 million;
2008[A]: $98 million;
2009: $98 million;
2010: $93 million;
ARRA[B]: $44 million.
Account: Department of Defense; Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $16 million;
2004: $17 million;
2005: $18 million;
2006: $17 million;
2007[A]: $13 million;
2008[A]: $44 million;
2009: $54 million;
2010: $13 million;
ARRA[B]: $18 million.
Account: Department of Defense; Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $3 million;
2004: $1 million;
2005: $1 million;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: $13 million;
2008[A]: $34 million;
2009: $108 million;
2010: $120 million;
ARRA[B]: $35 million.
Account: Department of Defense; Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-wide;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $19 million;
2004: $19 million[I];
2005: $13 million[I];
2006: $11 million[I];
2007[A]: $6 million[I];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: 0;
2010: 0;
ARRA[B]: $42 million.
Account: Department of Defense; Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-wide; Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $17 million;
2005: $11 million;
2006: $7 million;
2007[A]: $6 million;
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Defense; Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-wide; Office of the Secretary of Defense[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $2 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: $4 million;
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy;
1993: $595 million;
1994: $753 million;
1995: $829 million;
1996: $683 million;
1997: $658 million;
1998: $729 million;
1999: $890 million;
2000: $980 million;
2001: $1.050 billion;
2002: $1.519 billion;
2003: $2.099 billion;
2004: $2.390 billion;
2005: $2.342 billion;
2006: $2.374 billion;
2007[A]: $3.032 billion;
2008[A]: $3.663 billion;
2009: $4.543 billion;
2010: $4.399 billion;
ARRA[B]: $25.223 billion.
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Conservation;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $897[I];
2003: $880 million;
2004: $868 million;
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Conservation; Energy
Conservation Research and Development;
1993: $346 million;
1994: $435 million;
1995: $468 million;
1996: $415 million;
1997: $414 million;
1998: $457 million;
1999: $518 million;
2000: $577 million;
2001: $619 million;
2002: $622 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Conservation; State Energy
Grants;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $45 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Conservation; Weatherization;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $230 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply/Energy Supply and
Conservation;
1993: $249 million;
1994: $318 million;
1995: $361 million;
1996: $268 million;
1997: $244 million;
1998: $272 million;
1999: $332 million;
2000: $315 million;
2001: $375 million;
2002: $400 million[I];
2003: $667 million[I];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply/Energy Supply and
Conservation; Nuclear Energy Research Initiative;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $32 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply/Energy Supply and
Conservation; Electricity/Electricity Supply and
Distribution/Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $88 million;
2004: $73 million;
2005: $57 million;
2006: $77 million;
2007[A]: $120 million;
2008[A]: $130 million;
2009: $113 million;
2010: $109 million;
ARRA[B]: $4.340 billion.
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply/Energy Supply and
Conservation; Renewables;
1993: $249 million;
1994: $318 million;
1995: $361 million;
1996: $268 million;
1997: $244 million;
1998: $272 million;
1999: $332 million;
2000: $310 million;
2001: $370 million;
2002: $368 million;
2003: $322 million;
2004: $352 million;
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply/Energy Supply and
Conservation; Nuclear;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: 0;
2000: $5 million;
2001: $5 million;
2002: [Empty];
2003: $257 million;
2004: $309 million;
2005: $291 million;
2006: $343 million;
2007[A]: $513 million;
2008[A]: $682 million;
2009: $787 million;
2010: $747 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply/Energy Supply and
Conservation; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $1.234 billion;
2006: $1.166 billion;
2007[A]: $1.411 billion;
2008[A]: $1.722 billion;
2009: $2.179 billion;
2010: $2.242 billion;
ARRA[B]: $16.800 billion.
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $24 million;
2000: $52 million;
2001: $18 million;
2002: $184 million[I];
2003: $253 million;
2004: $455 million;
2005: $374 million;
2006: $397 million;
2007[A]: $493 million;
2008[A]: $611 million;
2009: $762 million;
2010: $560 million;
ARRA[B]: $3.400 billion.
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
Sequestration Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $32 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $152 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Science;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $13 million;
2000: $33 million;
2001: $35 million;
2002: $35 million[I];
2003: $298 million;
2004: $333 million;
2005: $386 million;
2006: $391 million;
2007[A]: $487 million;
2008[A]: $512 million;
2009: $700 million;
2010: $723 million;
ARRA[B]: $283 million.
Account: Department of Energy; Science; Sequestration;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $32 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Information Administration;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $3 million;
2000: $3 million;
2001: $3 million;
2002: $3 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Departmental Administration - Climate
Change Technology Program Direction[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: 0;
2005: 0;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: $1 million;
2008[A]: $1 million;
2009: $2 million;
2010: $9 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Energy; Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee
Program[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: 0;
2007[A]: $7 million;
2008[A]: $5 million;
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Advanced Research Projects Agency;
Energy (ARPA-E)[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $9 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Energy; Advanced Research Projects Agency;
Energy (ARPA-E) Recovery Act[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: 0;
2010: 0;
ARRA[B]: $400 million.
Account: Environmental Protection Agency;
1993: [Empty];
1994: $43 million;
1995: $102 million;
1996: $96 million;
1997: $86 million;
1998: $90 million;
1999: $109 million;
2000: $103 million;
2001: $123 million;
2002: $115 million;
2003: $102 million;
2004: $110 million;
2005: $110 million;
2006: $109 million;
2007[A]: $105; million
2008[A]: $114 million;
2009: $111 million;
2010: $133 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Programs and
Management;
1993: [Empty];
1994: $35 million;
1995: $91 million;
1996: $81 million;
1997: $70 million;
1998: $73 million;
1999: $72 million;
2000: $76 million;
2001: $96 million;
2002: $89 million;
2003: $82 million;
2004: $89 million;
2005: $91 million;
2006: $90 million;
2007[A]: $92 million;
2008[A]: $97 million;
2009: $94 million;
2010: $113 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Environmental Protection Agency; Science and Technology;
1993: [Empty];
1994: $8 million;
1995: $11 million;
1996: $15 million;
1997: $16 million;
1998: $17 million;
1999: $37 million;
2000: $27 million;
2001: $27 million;
2002: $26 million;
2003: $20 million;
2004: $22 million;
2005: $19 million;
2006: $19 million;
2007[A]: $13 million;
2008[A]: $17 million;
2009: $17 million;
2010: $20 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Research and
Technology (PATH);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $10 million;
2000: $10 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Interior;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $1 million;
2004: $1 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Interior; U.S. Geological Survey - Surveys.
Investigations and Research; Geology Discipline, Energy Program;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $1 million;
2004: $1 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Exploration,
Science & Aeronautics;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $152 million;
2004: $227 million;
2005: $208 million;
2006: $129 million;
2007[A]: $139 million;
2008[A]: $137 million;
2009: $119 million;
2010: $124 million;
ARRA[B]: $31 million.
Account: National Science Foundation; Research and Related Activities;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $9 million;
2004: $11 million;
2005: $11 million;
2006: $18 million;
2007[A]: $21 million;
2008[A]: $22 million;
2009: $24 million;
2010: $26 million;
ARRA[B]: $2 million.
Account: Department of Transportation;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $27 million;
2004: $5 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: $16 million;
2007[A]: $17 million;
2008[A]: $19 million;
2009: $43 million;
2010: $125 million;
ARRA[B]: $100 million.
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Transit Administration;
Capital Investment Grants;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $26 million;
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Transit Administration;
Research and University Research Centers and Formula and Bus Grants[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: $14 million;
2007[A]: $16 million;
2008[A]: $18 million;
2009: $19 million;
2010: $94 million;
ARRA[B]: $100 million.
Account: Department of Transportation; Office of the Secretary of
Technology; Transportation, Policy, Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $1 million;
2004: $4 million;
2005: $1 million;
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation; Research and Special Programs
Administration; Research and Special Programs;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: 0;
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: 0;
2005: [E];
2006: $1 million;
2007[A]: $1 million;
2008[A]: $1 million;
2009: 0;
2010: $1 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Transportation; Research and Innovative
Technology Administration; Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $1 million;
2005: $1 million;
2006: $1 million;
2007[A]: $1 million;
2008[A]: $1 million;
2009: $1 million;
2010: $1 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Highways
Administration; Federal-aid Highways[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $19 million;
2010: $19 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Aviation
Administration; Research, Engineering, and Development[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $3 million;
2010: $11 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Direct Technology Total;
1993: $595 million[I];
1994: $796 million[I];
1995: $931 million[I];
1996: $779 million[I];
1997: $744 million[I];
1998: $819 million[I];
1999: $1.009 billion;
2000: $1.095 billion;
2001: $1.176 billion;
2002: $1.637 billion;
2003: $2.555 billion;
2004: $2.868 billion;
2005: $2.808 billion;
2006: $2.789 billion;
2007[A]: $3.485 billion;
2008[A]: $4.196 billion;
2009: $5.386 billion;
2010: $5.504 billion;
ARRA[B]: $25.499 billion.
National Climate Change Technology Initiative[C]:
Account: Department of Energy;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $162 million;
2006: $289 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply and Conservation; Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $65 million;
2006: $66 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply and Conservation;
Nuclear[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $9 million;
2006: $102 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
Efficiency and Sequestration[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $89 million;
2006: $121 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
Departmental Administration-Climate Change Technology Program
Direction[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Programs and
Management[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $11 million;
2006: $10 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
National Climate Change Technology Initiative Total:
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: $173 million[italics];
2006: $299 million[italics];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Indirect Technology:
Account: Department of Energy;
1993: $250 million;
1994: $242 million;
1995: $231 million;
1996: $212 million;
1997: $201 million;
1998: $351 million;
1999: $417 million;
2000: $434 million;
2001: $499 million;
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
1993: $250 million;
1994: $242 million;
1995: $231 million;
1996: $212 million;
1997: $201 million;
1998: $196 million;
1999: $233 million;
2000: $243 million;
2001: $274 million;
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
Coal-efficient combustion & utilization;
1993: $186 million;
1994: $166 million;
1995: $144 million;
1996: $120 million;
1997: $101 million;
1998: $105 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
Natural gas--efficient combustion & utilization;
1993: $64 million;
1994: $76 million;
1995: $87 million;
1996: $92 million;
1997: $100 million;
1998: $91 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply; Nuclear Energy Research
and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: 0;
1999: $18 million;
2000: $22 million;
2001: $34 million;
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Conservation Research and
Development; Weatherization & State Energy Grants;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: $155 million;
1999: $166 million;
2000: $169 million;
2001: $191 million;
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Biobased Products & Bioenergy;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $195 million;
2000: $200 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $86 million;
2000: $76 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Agriculture Research Service;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $44 million;
2000: $46 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Cooperative State Research,
Education, & Extension Service; Research and Education Assistance;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $11 million;
2000: $11 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Cooperative State Research,
Education, & Extension Service; Initiative for Future Agriculture &
Food Systems;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: $9 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Forest Service; Forest and
Rangeland Management;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $9 million;
2000: $9 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Executive Operations;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $1 million;
2000: $1 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Departmental Administration;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [E];
2000: [E];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Alternative Agricultural Research
and Commercialization;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $4 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation
Service - Forestry Incentives Program;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $16 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Agriculture; Rural Development - Rural
Community Advancement Program;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $1 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $109 million;
2000: $124 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply; Solar and Renewable
Energy Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $40 million;
2000: $70 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Conservation Research and
Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $41 million;
2000: $11 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: 0;
2000: $13 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Science (Basic Science);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $27 million;
2000: $30 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $73 million;
2000: $64 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: $63 million;
1996: $56 million;
1997: $42 million;
1998: $29 million;
1999: $30 million;
2000: $22 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; Under Secretary for Technology/Office
of Technology Policy;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $1 million;
2000: 0;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; Under Secretary for Technology/Office
of Technology Policy; Salaries and Expenses;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: 0;
1996: $1 million;
1997: $1 million;
1998: $1 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; National Institutes of Standards and
Technology;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $29 million;
2000: $22 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; National Institutes of Standards and
Technology; Scientific and Technical Research and Services;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: $7 million;
1996: $7 million;
1997: $7 million;
1998: $6 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; National Institutes of Standards and
Technology; Industrial Technology Services;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: $56 million;
1996: $48 million;
1997: $34 million;
1998: $22 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: National Science Foundation; Research and Related Activities;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: $53 million;
1996: $53 million;
1997: $56 million;
1998: $47 million;
1999: $40 million;
2000: $42 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation; National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (and FTA prior to FY 1999); Operations and Research;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: $5 million;
1996: $6 million;
1997: $13 million;
1998: $5 million;
1999: $3 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Indirect Technology Total;
1993: $250 million;
1994: $242 million;
1995: $352 million;
1996: $327 million;
1997: $312 million;
1998: $432 million;
1999: $685 million;
2000: $698 million;
2001: $499 million;
2002: [F];
2003: [F];
2004: [F];
2005: [F];
2006: [F];
2007[A]: [F];
2008[A]: [F];
2009: [F];
2010: [F];
ARRA[B]: [F].
Account: Technology Total;
1993: $845 million;
1994: $1.038 billion;
1995: $1.283 billion;
1996: $1.106 billion;
1997: $1.056 billion;
1998: $1.251 billion;
1999: $1.694 billion;
2000: $1.793 billion;
2001: $1.675 billion;
2002: $1.637 billion;
2003: $2.555 billion;
2004: $2.868 billion;
2005: $2.808 billion;
2006: $2.789 billion;
2007[A]: $3.485 billion;
2008[A]: $4.196 billion;
2009: $5.386 billion;
2010: $5.504 billion;
ARRA[B]: $25.499 billion.
Science:
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Department of
Agriculture;
1993: $55 million;
1994: $56 million;
1995: $60 million;
1996: $52 million;
1997: $57 million;
1998: $53 million;
1999: $52 million;
2000: $56 million;
2001: $51 million;
2002: $56 million;
2003: $60 million;
2004: $70 million;
2005: $62 million;
2006: $61 million;
2007[A]: $61 million;
2008[A]: $65 million;
2009: $47 million;
2010: $109 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Department of
Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
1993: $17 million;
1994: $18 million;
1995: $24 million;
1996: $24 million;
1997: $26 million;
1998: $27 million;
1999: $26 million;
2000: $28 million;
2001: $29 million;
2002: $30 million;
2003: $35 million;
2004: $37 million;
2005: $38 million;
2006: $38 million;
2007[A]: $40 million;
2008[A]: $39 million;
2009: $20 million;
2010: $20 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Department of
Agriculture; Cooperative State Research, Education, & Extension
Services; Research and Education;
1993: $11 million;
1994: $12 million;
1995: $10 million;
1996: $10 million;
1997: $12 million;
1998: $7 million;
1999: $7 million;
2000: $9 million;
2001: $4 million;
2002: $9 million;
2003: $8 million;
2004: $16 million;
2005: $5 million;
2006: $4 million;
2007[A]: $2 million;
2008[A]: $4 million;
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Department of
Agriculture; Economic Research Service;
1993: $1 million;
1994: $1 million;
1995: $1 million;
1996: $1 million;
1997: $1 million;
1998: $1 million;
1999: $1 million;
2000: $1 million;
2001: $1 million;
2002: [E];
2003: 0;
2004: 0;
2005: 0;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: 0;
2009: 0;
2010: $1 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Department of
Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Conservation
Operations;
1993: $2 million;
1994: $2 million;
1995: $2 million;
1996: $2 million;
1997: $1 million;
1998: $1 million;
1999: $1 million;
2000: $1 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service; Forest and Rangeland Research;
1993: $24 million;
1994: $23 million;
1995: $23 million;
1996: $15 million;
1997: $17 million;
1998: $17 million;
1999: $17 million;
2000: $17 million;
2001: $17 million;
2002: $17 million;
2003: $17 million;
2004: $17 million;
2005: $18 million;
2006: $18 million;
2007[A]: $19 million;
2008[A]: $22 million;
2009: $22 million;
2010: $32 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Department of
Agriculture; National Institute of Food and Agriculture[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $5 million;
2010: $56 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Commerce;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: $235 million;
2007[A]: $236 million;
2008[A]: $272 million;
2009: $377 million;
2010: $360 million;
ARRA[B]: $218 million.
Account: Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Operations, Research, and Facilities;
1993: $66 million;
1994: $63 million;
1995: $57 million;
1996: $57 million;
1997: $60 million;
1998: $60 million;
1999: $63 million;
2000: $67 million;
2001: $93 million;
2002: $100 million;
2003: $98 million;
2004: $116 million;
2005: $120 million;
2006: $226 million;
2007[A]: $229 million;
2008[A]: $265 million;
2009: $274 million;
2010: $309 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Procurement, Acquisition and Construction[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: $9 million;
2007[A]: $7 million;
2008[A]: $7 million;
2009: $101 million;
2010: $49 million;
ARRA[B]: $218 million.
Account: Department of Commerce; National Institute of Standards and
Technology;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: 0;
2009: $2 million;
2010: $2 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Energy; Science (Biological & Environmental
Research);
1993: $118 million;
1994: $118 million;
1995: $113 million;
1996: $113 million;
1997: $109 million;
1998: $106 million;
1999: $114 million;
2000: $114 million;
2001: $116 million;
2002: $117 million;
2003: $112 million;
2004: $129 million;
2005: $127 million;
2006: $130 million;
2007[A]: $126 million;
2008[A]: $128 million;
2009: $168 million;
2010: $165 million;
ARRA[B]: $65 million.
Account: Environmental Protection Agency; Science and Technology;
1993: $26 million;
1994: $30 million;
1995: $22 million;
1996: $18 million;
1997: $13 million;
1998: $13 million;
1999: $17 million;
2000: $21 million;
2001: $23 million;
2002: $21 million;
2003: $22 million;
2004: $17 million;
2005: $20 million;
2006: $19 million;
2007[A]: $16 million;
2008[A]: $17 million;
2009: $18 million;
2010: $21 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Health and Human Services;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: $35 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes
of Health;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: $35 million;
1999: $40 million;
2000: $47 million;
2001: $54 million;
2002: $56 million;
2003: $61 million;
2004: $62 million;
2005: $57 million;
2006: $50 million;
2007[A]: $47 million;
2008[A]: $4 million;
2009: $5 million;
2010: $4 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Health and Human Services; National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: $4 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Health and Human Services; National Eye
Institutes;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: $9 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Health and Human Services; National Cancer
Institute;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: $21 million;
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Health and Human Services; National Institute
of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal & Skin Diseases;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [E];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of the Interior; U.S. Geological Survey; Surveys,
Investigations, and Research;
1993: $22 million;
1994: $29 million;
1995: $27 million;
1996: $26 million;
1997: $26 million;
1998: $26 million;
1999: $27 million;
2000: $27 million;
2001: $27 million;
2002: $26 million;
2003: $28 million;
2004: $28 million;
2005: $27 million;
2006: $27 million;
2007[A]: $27 million;
2008[A]: $34 million;
2009: $45 million;
2010: $63 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Science,
Aeronautics, and Technology;
1993: $888 million;
1994: $999 million;
1995: $1.305 billion;
1996: $1.218 billion;
1997: $1.218 billion;
1998: $1.210 billion;
1999: $1.155 billion;
2000: $1.161 billion;
2001: $1.176 billion;
2002: $1.090 billion;
2003: $1.144 billion;
2004: $1.321 billion;
2005: $1.241 billion;
2006: $953 million;
2007[A]: $1.084 billion;
2008[A]: $1.084 billion;
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Science[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: 0;
2009: $1.086 billion;
2010: $1.071 billion;
ARRA[B]: $237 million.
Account: National Science Foundation; Research and Related Activities;
1993: $124 million;
1994: $142 million;
1995: $169 million;
1996: $163 million;
1997: $166 million;
1998: $167 million;
1999: $182 million;
2000: $187 million;
2001: $181 million;
2002: $189 million;
2003: $188 million;
2004: $215 million;
2005: $198 million;
2006: $197 million;
2007[A]: $207 million;
2008[A]: $207 million;
2009: $269 million;
2010: $319 million;
ARRA[B]: $121 million.
Account: Smithsonian Institution; Salaries and Expenses;
1993: $7 million;
1994: $7 million;
1995: $7 million;
1996: $7 million;
1997: $7 million;
1998: $7 million;
1999: $7 million;
2000: $7 million;
2001: $7 million;
2002: $6 million;
2003: $6 million;
2004: $6 million;
2005: $6 million;
2006: $6 million;
2007[A]: $6 million;
2008[A]: $6 million;
2009: $6 million;
2010: $7 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of State; International Organizations and
Programs[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $1 million;
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $4 million;
2005: $1 million;
2006: $1 million;
2007[A]: $1 million;
2008[A]: $1 million;
2009: $2 million;
2010: $3 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Highways
Administration; Federal-aid Highways[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $14 million;
2005: $11 million;
2006: [E];
2007[A]: [E];
2008[A]: $11;
2009: [E];
2010: 0;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Transportation; Account: Federal Aviation
Administration; Research, Engineering, and Development[ C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: 0;
2005: [E];
2006: [E];
2007[A]: [E];
2008[A]: [E];
2009: $2 million;
2010: $3 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Transportation; Account: Federal Transit
Administration; Research and University Research Centers and Formula
and Bus Grants[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [E];
2007[A]: [E];
2008[A]: [E];
2009: [E];
2010: [E];
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Development
Assistance;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $6 million;
2003: $6 million;
2004: $6 million;
2005: $6 million;
2006: $13 million;
2007[A]: $14 million;
2008[A]: $14 million;
2009: $17 million;
2010: $36 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: U.S. Global Change Research Program Total;
1993: $1.306 billion;
1994: $1.444 billion;
1995: $1.760 billion;
1996: $1.654 billion;
1997: $1.656 billion;
1998: $1.677 billion;
1999: $1.657 billion;
2000: $1.687 billion;
2001: $1.728 billion;
2002: $1.667 billion;
2003: $1.725 billion;
2004: $1.803 billion;
2005: $1.660 billion;
2006: $1.488 billion;
2007[A]: $1.825 billion;
2008[A]: $1.832 billion;
2009: $2.023 billion;
2010: $2.122 billion;
ARRA[B]: $641 million.
Account: Climate Change Research Initiative; Department of Agriculture;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $2 million;
2004: $6 million;
2005: $8 million;
2006: $8 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Climate Change Research Initiative; Department of
Agriculture; Agricultural Research Service;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: 0;
2004: $1 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: $2 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Climate Change Research Initiative; Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service; Forest and Rangeland Research;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $1 million;
2004: $5 million;
2005: $6 million;
2006: $6 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Operations, Research, and Facilities;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty[;
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $18 million;
2004: $34 million;
2005: $46 million;
2006: $34 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Science (Biological & Environmental
Research);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $3 million;
2004: $27 million;
2005: $25 million;
2006: $28 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Science,
Aeronautics, and Technology;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $3 million;
2004: $65 million;
2005: $94 million;
2006: $95 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: National Science Foundation; Research and Related Activities;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $15 million;
2004: $30 million;
2005: $25 million;
2006: $25 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of State; International Organizations and Programs;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $1 million;
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration;
Federal Aid - Highways;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $4 million;
2005: $1 million;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Transit Administration;
Formula Grants and Research[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: Empty].
Account: Department of Transportation; Federal Aviation
Administration; Research, Engineering, and Development[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: 0;
2005: 0;
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Development
Assistance;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $6 million;
2005: $6 million;
2006: $13 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Climate Change Research Initiative Total;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $41 million;
2004: $173 million;
2005: $204 million;
2006: $203 million;
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Science Total;
1993: $1.306 billion;
1994: $1.444 billion;
1995: $1.760 billion;
1996: $1.654 billion;
1997: $1.656 billion;
1998: $1.677 billion;
1999: $1.657 billion;
2000: $1.687 billion;
2001: $1.728 billion;
2002: $1.667 billion;
2003: $1.766 billion;
2004: $1.976 billion;
2005: $1.864 billion;
2006: $1.691 billion;
2007[A]: $1.825 billion;
2008[A]: $1.832 billion;
2009: $2.023 billion;
2010: $2.122 billion;
ARRA[B]: $641 million.
International Assistance: Core Agencies:
Account: Department of State;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $5 million;
2005: $7 million;
2006: $12 million;
2007[A]: $41 million;
2008[A]: $59 million;
2009: $55 million;
2010: $199 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of State; International Organizations and Programs;
1993: $1 million;
1994: $1 million;
1995: $1 million;
1996: $3 million;
1997: $3 million;
1998: $5 million;
1999: $7 million;
2000: $7 million;
2001: $7 million;
2002: $7 million;
2003: $6 million;
2004: $5 million;
2005: $6 million;
2006: $6 million;
2007[A]: $6 million;
2008[A]: $29 million;
2009: $29 million;
2010: $39 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of State; Economic Support Fund[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: 0;
2005: $1 million;
2006: $6 million;
2007[A]: $32 million;
2008[A]: $26 million;
2009: $24 million;
2010: $158 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of State; Diplomatic and Consular Affairs[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: $3 million;
2008[A]: $4 million;
2009: $2 million;
2010: $2 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of the Treasury;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $43 million;
2003: $56 million;
2004: $52 million;
2005: $44 million;
2006: $46 million;
2007[A]: $46 million;
2008[A]: $46 million;
2009: $46 million;
2010: $421 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of the Treasury; International Development
Assistance; Global Environment Facility[G];
1993: [Empty];
1994: $12 million;
1995: $35 million;
1996: $14 million;
1997: $14 million;
1998: $18 million;
1999: $60 million;
2000: $14 million;
2001: $41 million;
2002: $38 million;
2003: $56 million;
2004: $32 million;
2005: $20 million;
2006: $26 million;
2007[A]: $26 million;
2008[A]: $26 million;
2009: $26 million;
2010: $26 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of the Treasury; Debt Restructuring; Tropical
Forest Conservation;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: $13 million;
2002: $5 million;
2003: [Empty];
2004: $20 million;
2005: $24 million;
2006: $20 million;
2007[A]: $20 million;
2008[A]: $20 million;
2009: $20 million;
2010: $20 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of the Treasury; Asian Development Bank[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of the Treasury; Clean Technology Fund[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: 0;
2009: 0;
2010: $300 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of the Treasury; Strategic Climate Fund[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: 0;
2010: $75 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $236 million;
2000: $156 million;
2001: $157 million;
2002: $174 million;
2003: $208 million;
2004: $195 million;
2005: $183 million;
2006: $190 million;
2007[A]: $100 million;
2008[A]: $122 million;
2009: $222 million;
2010: $383 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Development
Assistance (DA);
1993: $200 million;
1994: $173 million;
1995: $192 million;
1996: $175 million;
1997: $147 million;
1998: $163 million;
1999: $169 million;
2000: $109 million;
2001: $112 million;
2002: $116 million;
2003: $140 million;
2004: $125 million;
2005: $134 million;
2006: $118 million;
2007[A]: $89 million;
2008[A]: $88 million;
2009: $113 million;
2010: $313 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Development Credit
Authority (DCA);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $1 million;
2000: $1 million;
2001: $1 million;
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Economic Support
Fund;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $19 million;
2000: $8 million;
2001: [Empty];
2002: $12 million;
2003: $6 million;
2004: $9 million;
2005: $5 million;
2006: $33 million;
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: $6 million;
2009: $94 million;
2010: $44 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Assistance for the
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (FSA);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $35 million;
2000: $34 million;
2001: $31 million;
2002: $30 million;
2003: $48 million;
2004: $47 million;
2005: $34 million;
2006: $30 million;
2007[A]: $5 million;
2008[A]: $15 million;
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Assistance for
Eastern Europe and the Baltic States (AEEB);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $12 million;
2000: $4 million;
2001: $13 million;
2002: $11 million;
2003: $8 million;
2004: $7 million;
2005: $5 million;
2006: $6 million;
2007[A]: $3 million;
2008[A]: $11 million;
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Assistance for
Europe. Eurasia. and Central Asia[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: $15 million;
2010: $26 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; International
Disaster Assistance (IDA);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: $4 million;
2003: $4 million;
2004: $2 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: $2 million;
2007[A]: $2 million;
2008[A]: $2 million;
2009: 0;
2010: 0;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Andean Counterdrug
Initiative (ACI);
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: $2 million;
2004: $3 million;
2005: $2 million;
2006: 0;
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: U.S. Agency for International Development; Pub. L. 480 Title
II Food Aid[ C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $1 million;
2005: $1 million;
2006: $1 million;
2007[A]: 0;
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Core Agencies Total;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $323 million;
2010: $1.003 billion;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
International Assistance: Complementary Agencies[C]:
Account: Department of Agriculture; Forest Service; Forest and
Rangeland Research[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $4 million;
2010: $5 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Operations, Research and Facilities[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $9 million;
2010: $9 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Commerce; International Trade Administration;
Operations and Administration[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $2 million;
2010: $2 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply; Solar and Renewable
Energy Research and Development;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $6 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty];
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Energy Supply; Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $8 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Fossil Energy Research and Development;
Efficiency and Sequestration[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $3 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Department of Energy; Science[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $3 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Programs and
Management[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $20 million;
2010: $21 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Millennium Challenge Corporation[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $2 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Science[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $2 million;
2010: $2 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: National Science Foundation; Research and Related
Activities[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $3 million;
2010: $6 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: US Trade and Development Agency;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: $16 million;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $10 million;
2010: $17 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: Complementary Agencies Total;
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $50 million;
2010: $77 million;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Account: International Assistance Total;
1993: $201 million;
1994: $186 million;
1995: $228 million;
1996: $192 million;
1997: $164 million;
1998: $186 million;
1999: $325 million;
2000: $177 million;
2001: $218 million;
2002: $224 million;
2003: $270 million;
2004: $252 million;
2005: $234 million;
2006: $249 million;
2007[A]: $188 million;
2008[A]: $227 million;
2009: $373 million;
2010: $1.080 billion;
ARRA[B]: [Empty].
Wildlife Adaptation[H]:
Account: Department of Interior; National Park Service; Operation of
the National Park Service[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $10 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service; Resource
Management[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $40 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Department of Interior; Bureau of Land Management; Management
of Lands and Resources[C];
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $15 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Wildlife Adaptation Total:
1993: [Empty];
1994: [Empty];
1995: [Empty];
1996: [Empty];
1997: [Empty];
1998: [Empty];
1999: [Empty];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: 0;
2010: $65 million;
ARRA[B]: 0.
Account: Total Climate Change Funding;
1993: $2.352 billion[I];
1994: $2.668 billion[I];
1995: $3.271 billion[I];
1996: $2.952 billion[I];
1997: $2.876 billion[I];
1998: $3.114 billion;
1999: $3.535 billion;
2000: $3.511 billion;
2001: $3.603 billion;
2002: $3.522 billion;
2003: $4.584 billion;
2004: $5.090 billion;
2005: $5.269 billion;
2006: $5.876 billion;
2007[A]: $5.498 billion[I];
2008[A]: $6.255 billion[I];
2009: $7.782 billion[I];
2010: $8.771 billion[I];
ARRA[B]: $26.140 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB reports.
Blank [Empty] cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for the
account for that year.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Italics indicate that the number does not add to the section total
because it is already counted elsewhere in the table.
Climate-related tax expenditures are not included in this table to
maintain comparability with our 2005 report, Climate Change: Federal
Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and more Complete,
GAO-05-461. Climate-related tax expenditures are presented separately
in appendix VI.
[A] OMB did not publicly report climate change funding for these years
because the annual appropriations laws did not include a reporting
requirement. OMB provided data for these years directly to GAO.
[B] In its June 2010 report, OMB reported funding for climate change
programs and activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009)).
[C] Funding for this account has been added since our 2005 report,
Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be
Clearer and more Complete, GAO-05-461.
[D] OMB identified funding for this account as mandatory under the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-234
(2008)).
[E] OMB presented funding of less than $500,000 for this account.
[F] OMB did not distinguish between indirect and direct technology
funding for this year.
[G] GEF funding as presented by OMB for each year represents the
portion of total GEF funding that is related to climate change.
[H] Wildlife adaptation funding is an interim category while the
Administration develops criteria to systematically account for a
broader suite of adaptation programs.
[I] GAO calculated the total for shaded cells based on OMB data
presented in its reports.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Climate Change Tax Expenditures as Reported by OMB, 2003-
2010:
Table 2: Estimated Revenue Loss from Energy Tax Provisions That May
Reduce Greenhouse Gases as Reported by OMB, 2003-2010:
Revenue effect in millions of dollars:
Tax provisions that may reduce greenhouse gases:
New technology credit (without coal)[B];
2003: $380 million;
2004: $330 million;
2005: $219 million;
2006: $440 million;
2007[A]: $410 million;
2008[A]: $900 million;
2009: $360 million;
2010: $780 million.
Credit and deduction for clean-fuel burning vehicles;
2003: $90 million;
2004: $70 million;
2005: $70 million;
2006: $110 million;
2007[A]: $260 million;
2008[A]: $170 million;
2009: $130 million;
2010: $240 million.
Exclusion of utility conservation subsidies;
2003: $110 million;
2004: $100 million;
2005: $80 million;
2006: $110 million;
2007[A]: $120 million;
2008[A]: $120 million;
2009: $140 million;
2010: $140 million.
Credit for holding clean renewable energy bonds;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: $20 million;
2007[A]: $20 million;
2008[A]: $40 million;
2009: $70 million;
2010: $80 million.
Allowance of deduction for certain energy efficient commercial
building property;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: $80 million;
2007[A]: $190 million;
2008[A]: $170 million;
2009: $60 million;
2010: $80 million.
Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: $10 million;
2007[A]: $20 million;
2008[A]: $30 million;
2009: $30 million;
2010: $20 million.
Credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: $230 million;
2007[A]: $380 million;
2008[A]: $230 million;
2009: $570 million;
2010: $1.950 billion.
Credit for energy efficient appliances;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: $120 million;
2007[A]: $80 million;
2008[A]: $120 million;
2009: $130 million;
2010: $130 million.
Credit for residential purchases/installations of solar and fuel cells;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: $10 million;
2007[A]: $10 million;
2008[A]: $20 million;
2009: $110 million;
2010: $180 million.
Credit for business installation of qualified fuel cells;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 0;
2006: $30 million;
2007[A]: 30 million;
2008[A]: 0;
2009: [Empty];
2010: [Empty].
Energy Investment Credit[C];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: $40 million;
2009: $270 million;
2010: $530 million.
Qualified energy conservation bonds;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: 0;
2009: 0;
2010: $10 million.
Total energy tax provisions that may reduce greenhouse gases;
2003: $580 million;
2004: $500 million;
2005: $369 million;
2006: $1.160 billion;
2007[A]: $1.520 billion;
2008[A]: $1.840 billion;
2009: $1.870 billion;
2010: $4.140 billion.
Energy grants: Energy Grants in Lieu of New Technology Credit or
Energy Investment Credit[D];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007[A]: [Empty];
2008[A]: [Empty];
2009: $1.050 billion;
2010: $3.090 billion.
Total (tax provisions plus grants);
2003: $580 million;
2004: $500 million;
2005: $369 million;
2006: $1.160 billion;
2007[A]: $1.520 billion;
2008[A]: $1.840 billion;
2009: $2.920 billion;
2010: $7.230 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB reports.
Notes: OMB did not report revenue effects for existing tax
expenditures that may reduce greenhouse gases from 1993 through 2002.
OMB began reporting revenue effects for existing climate-related tax
expenditures in response to recommendations from our 2005 report,
Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be
Clearer and more Complete, GAO-05-461. Data for 2003 and 2004 were
presented in OMB's April 2006 report.
Blank [Empty] cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for the
account for that year.
[A] OMB did not publicly report climate change funding for these years
because the annual appropriations laws did not include a reporting
requirement. OMB provided data for these years directly to GAO.
[B] Estimates of revenue loss from coal provisions have been removed
from the tax expenditure estimate in the budget. In previous years,
the Energy Investment Credit was contained within the New Technology
Credit.
[C] In previous years, the Energy Investment Credit was contained
within the New Technology Credit. The Energy Investment Credit also
includes the business installation of fuel cells, which was an
independent entry in tables from previous years. Estimates of revenue
loss from the micro-turbine provision have been removed from the tax
expenditure estimate in the budget.
[D] Firms can take an energy grant in lieu of the energy production
credit or the energy investment credit for facilities placed in
service in 2009 and 2010 or whose construction commenced in 2009 and
2010. The grants are considered outlays and are direct substitutes for
the energy tax provisions.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Source Documents Articulating Federal Strategic Climate
Change Priorities:
Our review of questionnaire responses, available literature, and
interviews with stakeholders found that federal climate change
priorities are presented in six general sources, including (1)
strategic plans for interagency programs and agencies, (2) executive
level guidance memoranda, (3) the development of new interagency
initiatives, (4) regulations and guidance memoranda, and (5)
international commitments, and (6) testimony of federal executives
before Congress.[Footnote 66]
Strategic Plans:
Two interagency programs that coordinate federal climate change
activities have strategic plans with explicit goals. In its 2003
strategic plan, USGCRP identifies five strategic goals to focus and
orient research in the program: (1) improve knowledge of the Earth's
past and present climate and environment, including its natural
variability, and improve understanding of the causes of observed
variability and change; (2) improve quantification of the forces
bringing about changes in the Earth's climate and related systems; (3)
reduce uncertainty in projections of how the Earth's climate and
related systems may change in the future; (4) understand the
sensitivity and adaptability of different natural and managed
ecosystems and human systems to climate and related global changes;
and (5) explore the uses and identify the limits of evolving knowledge
to manage risks and opportunities related to climate variability and
change.[Footnote 67] OMB's June 2010 report to Congress on climate
change funding provides a slightly different interpretation of the
USGCRP strategic plan, with an increased emphasis on providing usable
information for decision makers.[Footnote 68]
The USGCRP strategic plan includes a range of approaches to work
toward these goals. The plan also spells out criteria for establishing
funding priorities. For example, the USGCRP strategic plan states that
programs with good track records of past performance will be favored
for continued investment to the extent that timetables and metrics for
evaluating future progress are provided. USGCRP's strategic plan was
revised in 2008, but the overall goals were not altered.[Footnote 69]
USGCRP has kicked off a strategic planning process that will yield a
new research plan in 2011 and a full strategic plan in 2013, according
to OSTP.
USGCRP utilizes reports and discussions conducted by the National
Academies as a source of input to its planning.[Footnote 70] According
to OSTP, the National Academies has been very valuable in advising the
U.S. government on strategic priorities as well as specific
programmatic directions. Most recently, the America's Climate Choices
suite of studies, which were supported by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has proven very helpful guiding the
strategic direction for a variety of activities currently under way,
according to OSTP.[Footnote 71]
In its September 2006 strategic plan, CCTP sets six strategic goals
to, in part, enable the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations
at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference.[Footnote 72] These goals are (1) reduce emissions from
energy end use and infrastructure; (2) reduce emissions from the
energy supply; (3) capture and sequester carbon dioxide; (4) reduce
emissions of noncarbon dioxide greenhouse gases; (5) improve
capabilities to measure and monitor greenhouse gas emissions; and (6)
bolster basic science contributions to technology development. CCTP's
strategic plan also includes a list of core approaches and federal
programs that contribute to achieving these goals. The plan also
includes a prioritization process with planning principles and
investment criteria to, for example, maximize expected return on
investment. CCTP's strategic plan has not been revised, but a CCTP
official stated that the priorities established in its 2006 strategic
plan remain essentially unchanged, with the exception of an increased
focus on geoengineering and adaptation.[Footnote 73]
Individual agencies are also including climate change in their
strategic plans. For example, U.S. Department of Agriculture's fiscal
year 2010-2015 strategic plan includes a strategic goal to ensure
national forests are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to
climate change while enhancing water resources.[Footnote 74]
Similarly, sections of the U.S. Department of the Interior's proposed
fiscal year 2011-2016 strategic plan relate to climate change
adaptation activities. Further, within the Department of the Interior,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a strategic plan for
responding to climate change. Other agencies are undertaking similar
efforts.
Executive Level Guidance Memoranda:
Executive level guidance memoranda are a mechanism for OMB and OSTP to
define climate change priorities within the overall federal budget.
The Directors of OMB and OSTP described climate change priorities
within the science and technology budget in a July 21, 2010,
memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies titled
Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2012 Budget.[Footnote 75]
The memorandum instructs agencies to explain in their budget
submissions how they will redirect available resources, as
appropriate, from lower-priority areas to science and technology
activities that address six challenges. One of the six challenges
identified in the memorandum is "understanding, adapting to, and
mitigating the impacts of global climate change." Specifically,
agencies are requested to identify the activities in their budgets
that support two priority areas--the National Assessment (described in
more detail below) and the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. OMB
and OSTP also issued supplemental guidance on climate change science
collaboration on August 13, 2010.[Footnote 76]
The Directors of OMB and OSTP issued a similar memorandum for the
fiscal year 2011 budget on August 4, 2009.[Footnote 77] One of the
four key challenges identified in that memorandum was promoting
innovative energy technologies to reduce dependence on energy imports
and mitigate the impact of climate change while creating green jobs
and new businesses.
Development of New Interagency Initiatives:
Several new formal and informal interagency task forces and working
groups managed by entities within the Executive Office of the
President also demonstrate current climate change priorities. These
include efforts to implement a 2009 Executive Order on federal
sustainability, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, an
Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, the creation of
a recurring national climate assessment process, the development of a
NOAA climate service, and other formal and informal efforts. According
to OSTP, overarching climate-related policy directions are coordinated
in part by the "Green Cabinet."
Federal Agency Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans:
The October 5, 2009, Executive Order 13514 on Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance set sustainability
goals and targets, such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions and
energy efficiency improvements, for federal agencies to meet.[Footnote
78] The Executive Order requires all federal agencies to (1) annually
submit a comprehensive inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and (2)
prepare a strategic sustainability performance plan that includes,
among other things, a greenhouse gas reduction target for fiscal year
2020 and several water consumption and waste reduction targets.
Agencies are to integrate sustainability performance plans into their
strategic planning and budget processes. CEQ released guidance on
Federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Accounting on October 6, 2010.
The guidance establishes methods for calculating and reporting
greenhouse gas emissions associated with federal agency operations.
The White House released federal agency Strategic Sustainability
Performance Plans on September 9, 2010.[Footnote 79]
Climate Change Adaptation Task Force:
Executive Order 13514 also called for federal agencies to participate
actively in the already existing Interagency Climate Change Adaptation
Task Force.[Footnote 80] The task force, which began meeting in Spring
2009, is co-chaired by CEQ, NOAA, and OSTP, and includes
representatives from more than 20 federal agencies and executive
branch offices. The task force was formed to develop federal
recommendations for adapting to climate change impacts both
domestically and internationally, and to recommend key components to
include in a national strategy.
On October 14, 2010, the task force released its interagency report
outlining recommendations to the President for how federal policies
and programs can better prepare the United States to respond to the
impacts of climate change. The report recommends that the federal
government implement actions to expand and strengthen the nation's
capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to climate
change. These recommended actions include making adaptation a standard
part of agency planning to ensure that resources are invested wisely
and services and operations remain effective in a changing climate.
According to CEQ, the task force will continue to meet as an
interagency forum for discussing the federal government's adaptation
approach and to support and monitor the implementation of recommended
actions in the progress report. It will prepare another report in
October 2011 that documents progress toward implementing its
recommendations and provides additional recommendations for refining
the federal approach to adaptation, as appropriate, according to CEQ.
[Footnote 81]
Related to the efforts of the Adaptation Task Force, OMB is beginning
to account for federal climate change adaptation expenditures. In its
June 2010 report to Congress, OMB summarized certain activities at the
Department of the Interior designed to promote wildlife adaptation,
and noted that it is working to develop criteria to systematically
account for a broader suite of adaptation programs.[Footnote 82]
Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force:
The Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage was
established on February 3, 2010, to develop a comprehensive and
coordinated federal strategy to speed the commercial development and
deployment of clean coal technologies.[Footnote 83] The task force, co-
chaired by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection
Agency, was charged with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to
the widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and
storage within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial
demonstration projects online by 2016. The task force issued its
report on August 12, 2010.[Footnote 84] The report concludes that
carbon capture and storage can play an important role in domestic
greenhouse gas emissions reductions while preserving the option of
using abundant domestic fossil energy resources. However, widespread
cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage will occur
only if the technology is commercially available at economically
competitive prices and supportive national policy frameworks are in
place. The task force's recommendations include specific actions to
help overcome remaining barriers to deployment.
National Climate Assessment:
The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that USGCRP prepare an
assessment periodically, but at least every 4 years, which analyzes
the effects of global change on the natural environment and biological
diversity, among other things.[Footnote 85] According to an OSTP
official, the next assessment mandated by the act will be released in
2013. To meet this deadline, OSTP is leading an interagency effort
under the auspices of USGCRP to establish a recurring National Climate
Assessment. According to an OSTP official, this effort is coordinated
through the Interagency National Climate Assessment Task Force, which
represents 18 agencies and departments.[Footnote 86]
OSTP is working with agencies and USGCRP to develop the scope and plan
for the assessment. According to a September 7, 2010 Federal Register
notice, the National Climate Assessment to be released in 2013 is
envisioned as a comprehensive assessment of climate change, impacts,
vulnerabilities and response strategies within a context of how
communities and the nation as a whole create sustainable and
environmentally sound development paths.[Footnote 87] The notice
states that the primary vision of the National Climate Assessment is a
continuing, inclusive national process that (1) synthesizes relevant
science and information; (2) increases understanding of what is known
and not known; (3) identifies needs for information related to
preparing for climate variability and change and reducing climate
impacts and vulnerability; (4) evaluates progress of adaptation and
mitigation activities; (5) informs science priorities; (6) builds
assessment capacity in regions and sectors; and (7) builds societal
understanding and skilled use of assessment findings.
NOAA Climate Service:
In an announcement on February 8, 2010, the Department of Commerce
proposed establishing a NOAA climate service. Though not established,
planning information is available on the NOAA climate service Web
site, including draft vision and strategic framework
documents.[Footnote 88] According to NOAA, such a climate service
would provide a single, reliable, and authoritative source for climate
data, information, and decision-support services to help individuals,
businesses, communities, and governments make smart choices in
anticipation of a climate changed future. A NOAA climate service would
provide a one-stop shop for users across the nation, according to
NOAA, and would also bring together many of the agency's existing
climate assets including research labs, climate observing systems,
modeling facilities, and monitoring systems.[Footnote 89]
Other Formal and Informal Interagency Task Forces and Working Groups:
According to CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, there are other climate-related
formal and informal interagency task forces and working groups within
the federal government. These groups include:
* National Ocean Council: Executive Order 13547 regarding Stewardship
of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes established a national
policy to ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the
health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, among other
things. The order also created a National Ocean Council to ensure that
federal agency decisions and actions affecting the ocean, coasts, and
Great Lakes will be guided by articulated stewardship principles and
national priority objectives.[Footnote 90]
* Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD+): In December 2010, the U.S. government released its strategy
to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and
increase carbon sequestration by forests in developing countries. This
governmentwide strategy outlines how the United States will allocate
and invest the $1 billion dedicated for REDD+ announced at the 2009
meeting of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change in Copenhagen.[Footnote 91]
* Recovery through Retrofit: According to CEQ, they facilitated a
broad interagency process to propose federal action that would expand
green job opportunities in the United States and boost energy savings
by improving home energy efficiency. The resulting report released in
October 2009 builds on investments made in the Recovery Act to expand
the home energy efficiency and retrofit market.[Footnote 92]
Regulations and Guidance:
While Congress has not passed comprehensive legislation intended to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are several ongoing federal
efforts to develop regulations and guidance related to climate change.
These include, but are not limited to, (1) Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulations under the Clean Air Act, (2) EPA greenhouse
gas reporting rules, and (3) draft CEQ guidance to agencies on the
consideration of greenhouse gases when fulfilling the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA has the statutory authority
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under the
Clean Air Act because greenhouse gases meet the act's definition of an
air pollutant. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that EPA must
regulate greenhouse gas emissions as an air pollutant if EPA finds
them to be an endangerment to public health or welfare. In response to
this case, EPA issued a finding that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, and hydrofluorocarbon emissions from new motor vehicles are
contributing to air pollution, which is endangering public health and
welfare.[Footnote 93] Based on this endangerment finding, EPA issued a
final rule establishing greenhouse gas emissions standards for new
light-duty motor vehicles on May 7, 2010.[Footnote 94] Under EPA's
current interpretation of the Clean Air Act, greenhouse gas emissions
from certain stationary sources will be subject to regulation under
the act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions beginning
in 2011 as a result of this final rule.[Footnote 95]
However, in May 2010, EPA issued a final rule that would only impose
the Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title
V permitting provisions on a select number of stationary sources,
including coal-fired power plants, beginning in 2011. Under this rule,
if a coal-fired power plant is built or an existing plant makes a
major modification--a physical or operational change that would result
in a significant net increase in emissions--the plant would need to
obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit from the
appropriate regulatory authority that implements the best available
control technology for greenhouse gas emissions.[Footnote 96]
[End of section]
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 directed EPA to issue a
regulation requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions
above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy. In
accordance with the direction in the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the act, EPA issued the regulation under its Clean Air
Act authority on October 30, 2009. The regulation requires certain
facilities that directly emit greenhouse gases and upstream suppliers
of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases, as well as
manufacturers of vehicles and engines, to report their annual
greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, facilities that emit 25,000
metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas
emissions per year and most upstream suppliers and vehicle and engine
manufacturers are required to report their emissions. The regulation
includes provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through
monitoring, recordkeeping, and verification requirements.
On February 18, 2010, CEQ proposed changes to how federal agencies
implement the NEPA, in conjunction with its fortieth anniversary.
[Footnote 97] CEQ released for public comment draft guidance on how
federal agencies should analyze the environmental effects of
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when they describe the
environmental effects of a proposed action under NEPA.[Footnote 98]
The draft guidance advises agencies that a quantitative and
qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from a proposed
action that would be reasonably anticipated to cause direct emissions
of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or more may provide
meaningful information to decision makers and the public. Once the
agency determines that an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions or
climate change issues is appropriate, the draft guidance further
instructs the agency to identify alternative actions that are both
adapted to anticipated climate change impacts and mitigate the
emissions that cause climate change.
International Commitments:
The December 2009 Copenhagen Accord, a nonbinding political agreement,
articulated a collective commitment by developed countries to provide
new and additional resources approaching $30 billion between 2010 and
2012 to support developing countries' mitigation and adaptation
efforts, according to a November 2010 statement by the Department of
State. In accordance with the accord, the current Administration
proposed that the United States would reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 in conformity
with anticipated energy and climate legislation.[Footnote 99]
According to an April 2010 Department of State fact sheet, federal
agencies are working with international partners to provide "fast
start" climate finance approaching $30 billion during the period of
2010 to 2012 to help meet the adaptation and mitigation needs of
developing countries. Programs identified as priorities include
reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation and efforts to
deploy clean energy technologies in developing countries.[Footnote 100]
Congressional Testimony:
Two 2009 testimonies by Dr. John P. Holdren, Director of OSTP, provide
a governmentwide view of climate change programs and priorities in the
current Administration. In a July 30, 2009, testimony, Dr. Holdren
emphasized three areas needing comprehensive and coordinated treatment
from USGCRP: (1) adaptation research to increase knowledge about the
abilities of communities, regions, and sectors to adapt to a changing
climate; (2) integrated assessment of how regional and local climate
impacts are experienced in different ways in different places across
the country and across different economic sectors; and (3) climate
services and coordinated information to assist decision making across
public and private sectors, such as providing local planners with
information on likely changes in precipitation amounts and flooding
rains.[Footnote 101] Similarly, in a December 2, 2009, testimony, Dr.
Holdren stated, "Besides enhancing research and modeling of the
physical climate system, four areas of particular need for more
comprehensive and coordinated treatment from USGCRP are Earth
observations, adaptation research, integrated assessment, and climate
services."
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Supplement on How Federal Climate Activities Are
Coordinated, Provided by CEQ, OMB, and OSTP in Technical Comments:
In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP submitted table 3 to display
how climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue, where many
federal entities manage related program and activities. According to
CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, this supplement provides a high-level
representation of how informal processes and ad hoc meetings play a
key role in setting climate priorities in addition to the formal
processes described in figure 4 in the body of this report.
Table 3: Selected Examples of Mechanisms for Coordination on Federal
Climate Change Activities Provided by CEQ, OMB, and OSTP in Technical
Comments:
Category: Cabinet-level processes;
Selected examples: Green/energy cabinet meetings; National Ocean
Council.
Category: National Science and Technology Council;
Selected examples: Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and
Sustainability: U.S. Global Change Research Program; Roundtable on
Climate Information and Services; Task Force on Integrating Science
and Technology for Sustainability; Subcommittee on Water Availability
and Quality; Arctic Research Policy Committee.
Category: Issue-specific task forces, programs, and initiatives;
Selected examples: Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, Interagency
Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, Climate Change Technology
Program, Executive Order on Federal Leadership in Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Performance.
Category: Interagency processes;
Selected examples: Legislative Referral Memorandum (LRM) process,
Review of proposed rules under Executive Order 12866, President's
Annual budget process.
Source: CEQ, OMB, and OSTP technical comments.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Climate Change Funding Web-Based Questionnaire:
This appendix presents the text of the Web-based questionnaire that we
developed to gather information and opinions of key federal officials
involved in defining and reporting climate change funding, developing
strategic climate change priorities, or aligning funding with
strategic priorities. Several hyperlinks to additional information
embedded within the questionnaire are not reproduced in this appendix.
Introduction:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent,
nonpartisan congressional agency, is studying federal funding for
climate change programs and activities at the request of
Representative Edward Markey, Chairman of both the House Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Energy and
Commerce. Through this web-based questionnaire, GAO is seeking
insights from key federal officials, such as you, to the following
questions:
1. To what extent do federal agencies use a consistent methodology for
defining and reporting climate change funding?
2. What are federal strategic climate change priorities, and to what
extent is funding aligned with these priorities?
3. What options, if any, are available to better align federal climate
change funding with strategic priorities?
Your responses to the questionnaire will help GAO explain to Congress
how federal climate change funding is tracked and directed toward
goals. This information may assist Congress as it considers climate
change policy options.
This questionnaire is divided into five sections: (I) Background, (II)
Defining and Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding, (III) Setting
Federal Strategic Climate Change Priorities, (IV) Aligning Federal
Climate Change Funding with Strategic Priorities, and (V) Conclusion.
Sections II, III, and IV begin with questions asking about your
familiarity with the section topics. Because your experience and
knowledge about these topics differ from that of other respondents,
the questionnaire allows you to only answer questions that are related
to topics with which you are most familiar.
Timing:
The questionnaire can be filled out in as little as 30 minutes, but
may take longer depending on the amount of information you would like
to share in response to open-ended questions. We understand that there
are great demands on your time, but your response is critical to help
us provide information to Congress.
Your Responses:
Please respond to the questions to the best of your knowledge and
experience without consulting others. Our report to Congress will not
associate your name with your responses or list you as a respondent.
Your responses will be combined with those of the other respondents
and summarized in our report to Congress.
Navigation, Exiting and Printing the Survey:
To save and exit: you can complete the questionnaire in one or
multiple sessions. To end a session, or upon completion of the
questionnaire, click on the "Save and Exit" button at the bottom of
the screen. Always use the "Save and exit" button to close the
questionnaire. If you do not use this button, You will lose all the
responses entered on the last screen that you viewed. To paste your
responses from another document: select the text you would like to
paste, copy it, click on the question text box, and type "Ctrl" and
"V" to paste the text in the box. To learn more about navigating,
exiting, and printing the survey, please click here.
To get help: Should you have any questions, please click here.
Abbreviations:
CCTP - Climate Change Technology Program:
CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality:
GAO - Government Accountability Office:
OMB - Office of Management and Budget:
OSTP - Office of Science and Technology Policy:
USGCRP - United States Global Change Research Program:
Key Terms:
Approaches for aligning climate change funding with priorities means
systems utilized to clearly define how funding will be used to achieve
goals. These could include formal strategic plans or memos or other
guidance issued through the budget process.
Climate Change Funding - Click here for some basic information on how
the Office of Management and Budget presents climate change funding in
its reports to Congress.
Definitions may include OMB Circular A-11, which describes the types
of programs that agencies should report to OMB as part of the Climate
Change Technology Program (CCTP), United States Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP), and climate change international assistance.
Definitions may also include more specific guidance such as the
Climate Change Technology Program Classification Criteria found in
CCTP's 2006 Strategic Plan.
Method means practices or procedures used to define and report climate
change funding.
Organization means federal agencies, sub-agencies, or departments,
Executive Office of the President entities such as CEQ, and
crosscutting programs such as USGCRP.
Reporting refers to how funding information makes its way from the
program level through federal agencies to OMB. Reporting can take
place at several stages in the budget process and may involve systems
such as OMB's MAX.
I. Background:
1. Please provide your name, title, and organization.
2. Which best describes the location of your position within the
federal government?
* Executive Office of the President, such as OMB, OSTP, and CEQ:
* Crosscutting program, such as USGCRP and CCTP:
* Agency, subagency, or department:
* Multiple (please explain):
* Other (please explain):
If you chose 'multiple', please explain:
If you chose 'other', please explain:
3. Which best describes your position?
* Primarily budget oriented:
* Primarily policy oriented:
* Both budget and policy oriented:
* Program manager:
* Scientist:
* Other (please explain):
If you chose 'other', please explain:
4. Within the last fiscal year, approximately what percentage of your
work time was spent on tasks directly or indirectly related to climate
change?
II. Defining and Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding:
In the following questions, we ask about how funding for climate
change programs and activities is defined and reported within your
organization and across the federal government.
Your Organization:
5. Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the
following questions about the methods employed by your organization to
define and report climate change funding? (Before responding, please
scroll down to review questions 6 to 11):
* Yes (Go to question 6):
* No (Click here to skip to question 12):
* Not applicable (Click here to skip to question 12).
6. How does your organization define and report climate change
funding? (Please be specific about any definitions, guidance, or any
other methods you refer to in your response):
7. To what extent does your organization consistently define and
report climate change funding from year to year?
8. To what extent are current methods for defining and reporting
climate change funding applied consistently within your organization?
9. What are the strengths of current methods employed by your
organization to define and report climate change funding, if any?
10. What are the limitations of current methods employed by your
organization to define and report climate change funding, if any?
11. If you identified limitations with current methods in question 10,
how might they be addressed?
Across the Federal Government:
12. Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the
following questions about the methods employed to define and report
climate change funding across the federal government? (Before
responding, please scroll down to review questions 13 to 17).
* Yes (Go to question 13):
* No (Click here to skip to question 18).
13. To what extent is climate change funding defined and reported
consistently across the federal government from year to year?
14. To what extent do officials across the federal government
consistently apply current methods for defining and reporting climate
change funding? Please be specific about which methods you are
referring to in your responses.
15. What are the strengths of current methods for defining and
reporting climate change funding across the federal government, if
any? Please be specific about which methods you are referring to in
your responses.
16. What are the limitations of current methods for defining and
reporting climate change funding across the federal government, if
any? Please be specific about which methods you are referring to in
your responses.
17. If you identified limitations with current methods in question 16,
how might they be addressed?
III. Setting Federal Strategic Climate Change Priorities:
In the following questions, we ask about how strategic priorities for
climate change programs and activities are set across the federal
government.
18. Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the
following questions about how the federal government sets strategic
climate change priorities? (Before responding, please scroll down to
review questions 19 - 24).
* Yes (Go to question 19):
* No (Click here to skip to question 25).
19. What are the current strategic climate change priorities across
the federal government?
20. What are the current processes for setting strategic climate
change priorities across the federal government?
21. What are the strengths of the current processes for setting
strategic climate change priorities across the federal government, if
any?
22. What are the limitations of the current processes for setting
strategic climate change priorities across the federal government, if
any?
23. If you identified limitations with the current processes for
setting priorities in question 22, how might they be addressed?
24. If you identified limitations with the current processes for
setting priorities in question 22, who within the federal government
should take the lead on addressing them? Please explain your rationale.
IV. Aligning Funding With Federal Strategic Climate Change Priorities:
In the following questions, we ask about how funding for climate
change programs and activities is aligned with federal strategic
priorities within your organization and across the federal government.
Your Organization:
25. Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the
following questions about how your organization aligns its climate
change funding with federal strategic priorities? (Before responding,
please scroll down to review questions 26 - 29):
* Yes (Go to question 26):
* No (Click here to skip to question 30).
* Not applicable (Click here to skip to question 30).
26. To what extent does your organization's planning and funding
reflect strategic priorities across the federal government?
27. What are the strengths of your organization's current approaches
for aligning its climate change funding with federal strategic
priorities?
28. What are the limitations of your organization's current approaches
for aligning its climate change funding with federal strategic
priorities?
29. If you identified limitations with your organization's approaches
in question 28, how might they be addressed?
Across the Federal Government:
30. Do you have sufficient knowledge or experience to answer the
following questions about how climate change funding is aligned with
strategic priorities across the federal government? (Before
responding, please scroll down to review questions 31 - 35):
* Yes (go to question 31):
* No (Click here to skip to question 36).
31. To what extent is climate change funding aligned with strategic
priorities across the federal government?
32. What are the strengths of current approaches for aligning climate
change funding with strategic priorities across the federal
government, if any?
33. What are the limitations of current approaches for aligning
climate change funding with strategic priorities across the federal
government, if any?
34. If you identified limitations in question 33, how might they be
addressed?
35. If you identified limitations in question 33, who within the
federal government should take the lead on addressing them? Please
explain your rationale.
V. Conclusion:
Please share any additional comments.
[End of section]
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Steven Elstein (Assistant
Director), Kendall Childers, Jeremy Cluchey, Holly Dye, Cindy Gilbert,
Carol Henn, Helen Hsing, Richard Johnson, Perry Lusk, Steven Putansu,
Ben Shouse, Jena Sinkfield, Jeanette Soares, Ardith Spence, John
Stephenson, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Joe Dean Thompson, Lisa Van Arsdale,
and Raj Verma made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] USGCRP coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in
the global environment and their implications for society.
[2] Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Thomas R.
Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds. (Cambridge
University Press, 2009).
[3] Office of Management and Budget, Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report to Congress (June 2010). See [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_rep
orts/FY2011_Climate_Change.pdf].
[4] Congressional Research Service, Climate Change: Federal Program
Funding and Tax Incentive, RL33817 (Dec. 22, 2008).
[5] GAO, Environmental Satellites: Strategy Needed to Sustain Critical
Climate and Space Weather Measurements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-456] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27,
2010). GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning
Could Help Federal Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO-10-113
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009). Climate change adaptation means
adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or
expected climate change.
[6] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005), and Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
[7] We sent our questionnaire to several OSTP officials, asking that
they respond individually, but OSTP elected to provide a single formal
response. Throughout this report we attribute information from this
formal collective response directly to OSTP using phrases such as
"according to OSTP" or "OSTP stated." We count the collective OSTP
response as one of the 73 included in the 69 percent response rate.
[8] GAO, Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding
Should Be Clearer and More Complete, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-461] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 25,
2005).
[9] The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws
may, in effect, be viewed as expenditures channeled through the tax
system. Like the annual lists of tax expenditures prepared by the
Department of the Treasury, this report considers only tax
expenditures related to individual and corporate income taxes and does
not address excise taxes.
[10] OMB's Fiscal Year 2007 Report to Congress on Federal Climate
Change Expenditures (April 2006) is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/legislative
/fy07_climate_change.pdf]. See appendix II for information about these
OMB reports.
[11] See appendixes III through VI for detailed climate change funding
data from OMB reports.
[12] Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009). Certain energy grants in lieu of new
technology or energy investment tax credits authorized by the Recovery
Act are accounted for in the tax expenditures category.
[13] These categories are reported separately following this section
of the report and in appendixes V and VI.
[14] Each year from 1998 to 2007, an annual appropriations law
required OMB to report certain climate change funding data. Annual
appropriations laws for 2008 and 2009 did not require OMB to report
such data, but the annual appropriations law for 2010 did require OMB
to report on certain climate change funding for 2009 and 2010. OMB's
most recent report was released in June 2010. For more information
about recent OMB climate change funding reports, see appendix II.
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-461].
[16] Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009). Recovery Act funding was available for
obligation until September 30, 2010. This sum does not include $3.1
billion for energy grants in lieu of new technology or energy
investment tax credits available under the Recovery Act. This $3.1
billion is accounted for in the tax expenditures category discussed in
this section.
[17] In technical comments, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP noted that Recovery Act
funding was primarily intended to stimulate the economy, not
necessarily address climate change. The EOP entities noted that co-
benefits are a big part of technology funding, citing weatherization
funding in the Recovery Act as an example in which there is a climate
change benefit from efficiency, but which also helps low-income
Americans disproportionately impacted by higher energy prices.
[18] GAO, Department of Energy: Further Actions Are Needed to Improve
DOE's Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-627] (Washington, D.C.:
July 12, 2010). Other relevant GAO reports include Independent
Oversight of Recovery Act Funding for Mississippi's Weatherization
Assistance Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-796R] (Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2010) and Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and
Strengthen Accountability over States' and Localities' Uses of Funds,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-999] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 20, 2010).
[19] The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws
may, in effect, be viewed as expenditures channeled through the tax
system. Like the annual lists of tax expenditures prepared by the
Department of the Treasury, this report considers only tax
expenditures related to individual and corporate income taxes and does
not address excise taxes.
[20] OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-
related tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004.
[21] Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, Building
Strong for Tomorrow: NOAA Climate Service, a report prepared for
Congress, the Department of Commerce, and NOAA (Sept. 13, 2010).
[22] In March 2011, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy
joined the Domestic Policy Council.
[23] The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, the
Interior, State, Transportation, and Health and Human Services
participate in both USGCRP and CCTP. The Environmental Protection
Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National
Science Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development
also participate in both USGCRP and CCTP. The Smithsonian Institution
participates in USGCRP but not in CCTP.
[24] Pub. L. No. 101-606 (1990). For more information about USGCRP,
see [hyperlink, http://www.globalchange.gov/].
[25] Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 1601 (2005).
[26] For detailed information about the federal budget process, see
GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-
734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005).
[27] U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Subcommittee on
Global Change Research, Our Changing Planet (Washington, D.C., October
2009).
[28] In our Web-based questionnaire, we defined "method" as practices
or procedures used to define and report climate change funding, and
"reporting" as how funding information makes its way from the program
level through federal agencies to OMB.
[29] For further information about the climate change components of
OMB Circular A-11, see Section 84--Character Classification (Schedule
C) at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a11_current_year_a11_toc/]. In
its reports to the Congress, OMB also presents tax expenditures
related to climate change. OMB works with the Department of the
Treasury to identify relevant tax expenditures.
[30] See [hyperlink, https://max.omb.gov/maxportal/] for more
information about OMB's MAX system.
[31] CEQ, OMB, and OSTP submitted consolidated technical comments on
this report.
[32] For more information about CCTP's only Strategic Plan to date,
see [hyperlink, http://www.climatetechnology.gov/].
[33] GAO, Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal
Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23,
2010).
[34] As previously noted, we attribute information from OSTP's formal
collective response to our questionnaire directly to OSTP using
phrases such as "according to OSTP" or "OSTP stated."
[35] USGCRP budget data are documented and tabulated in its Our
Changing Planet annual report to Congress.
[36] Congressional Research Service, Climate Change: Federal Program
Funding and Tax Incentives, RL33817 (Dec. 22, 2008).
[37] OMB stopped reporting this distinction in 2001. See appendix V
for more details.
[38] Congressional Budget Office, Federal Climate Change Programs:
Funding History and Policy Issues, Pub. No. 4025 (Washington, D.C.,
March 2010)
[39] Congressional Research Service, Climate Change: Federal Program
Funding and Tax Incentives, RL33817 (Dec. 22, 2008).
[40] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing for an
Uncertain Climate--Volume I, OTA-O-567 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, October 1993).
[41] CEQ, OMB, and OSTP technical comments emphasized the importance
of addressing co-benefits in greater detail, noting that, for example,
research and development support for clean energy technologies has
clear economic benefits as it addresses a market failure for
underinvestment in early stage research and development. Additionally,
they noted investments in alternative fuel vehicles have a security
impact because they support reducing America's oil consumption.
[42] Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2012
Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, M-10-30 (July 21, 2010), available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets].
[43] This supplemental guidance is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets].
[44] Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science Technology
Policy, Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2011 Budget,
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, M-09-
27 (Aug. 4, 2009), available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId=1565].
[45] Congressional Research Service, Climate Change: Federal Program
Funding and Tax Incentives, RL33817 (Dec. 22, 2008).
[46] USGCRP is undertaking a strategic planning process to ensure the
alignment of administration priorities, National Research Council
guidance, and agency programs and budgets, according to CEQ, OMB, and
OSTP.
[47] GAO, Global Warming: Administration Approach Cautious Pending
Validation of Threat, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-90-63] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
8, 1990).
[48] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] and Managing
for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
29, 2000).
[49] When provided with this response, CEQ, OMB, and OSTP clarified
that this statement referred to the USGCRP coordination office, not
the program.
[50] National Academies, National Research Council, Restructuring
Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change
(Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009).
[51] See [hyperlink,
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratoptions/climate-
professional-Oct08.pdf] to access the USGCRP Climate Experts
Roundtable listening session.
[52] Since 1994, we have recommended integrated budget reviews of tax
expenditures and related spending programs to determine the most
effective methods for achieving federal objectives. See GAO, Tax
Policy: Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD/AIMD-94-122] (Washington, D.C.:
June 3, 1994) and Government Performance and Accountability: Tax
Expenditures Represent a Substantial Federal Commitment and Need to Be
Reexamined, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-690]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2005).
[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106].
[54] In addition, such a governmentwide strategic plan would seem
consistent with the recently enacted GPRA Modernization Act of 2010
(Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2011)), which requires OMB to coordinate with
agencies to develop priority goals to improve the performance and
management of the federal government, including outcome-oriented goals
covering a limited number of crosscutting policy areas. In addition,
the act requires OMB, in coordination with other federal agencies, to
develop the federal government performance plan. This plan must
establish performance goals for the federal government, including
performance goals related to the priority goals, identify major
management challenges that are governmentwide or crosscutting in
nature, and describe plans to address such challenges, among other
things. For each federal government performance goal, the plan must
identify the agencies, organizations, program activities, regulations,
tax expenditures, policies, and other activities contributing to the
performance goal.
[55] Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, Building
Strong for Tomorrow: NOAA Climate Service, a report prepared for
Congress, the Department of Commerce, and NOAA (Sept. 13, 2010).
[56] Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, Building
Strong for Tomorrow: NOAA Climate Service, a report prepared for
Congress, the Department of Commerce, and NOAA (Sept. 13, 2010).
[57] See [hyperlink,
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratoptions/climate-
professional-Oct08.pdf] to access the USGCRP Climate Experts
Roundtable listening session.
[58] See Roger A. Pielke, Jr., The Development of the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, 1987-1994, a policy case study prepared for
the 2001 American Meteorological Society Policy Symposium
(Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, May 2001). See also W. Henry Lambright, "The
Rise and Fall of Interagency Cooperation: The U. S. Global Change
Research Program," Public Administration Review, vol. 57, no. 1 (Jan.-
Feb. 1997), 36-44.
[59] National Academies, National Research Council, Restructuring
Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change
(Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009).
[60] Statement of Dr. John H. Marburger, III, Director, Office of
Science and Technology Policy to the Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation, United States Senate, A Time for Change: Improving
the Federal Climate Change Research and Information Program (Nov, 14,
2007).
[61] Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2012
Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, M-10-30 (July 21, 2010), available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets].
[62] Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, Building
Strong for Tomorrow: NOAA Climate Service, a report prepared for
Congress, the Department of Commerce, and NOAA (Sept. 13, 2010).
[63] According to technical comments from CEQ, OMB, and OSTP, the
purpose of the Roundtable on Climate Information and Services is to
bring together those CENRS members who have a mandate, obligation,
and/or interest in the development and provision of climate services,
including supporting science and technology, to rationalize the
functional, operational, and structural elements of climate services
for the nation.
[64] For more information on USGCRP's annual reports to Congress, see
[hyperlink, http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/our-changing-
planet-ocp].
[65] Congressional Budget Office, Federal Climate Change Programs:
Funding History and Policy Issues, Pub. No. 4025 (Washington, D.C.,
March 2010), and Congressional Research Service, Climate Change:
Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, RL33817 (Dec. 22, 2008).
[66] CEQ, OMB, and OSTP technical comments noted that the examples
cited are not all of the mechanisms used to set federal climate change
policies and that there is a difference between policy mechanisms and
science research efforts.
[67] Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (July
2003), [hyperlink, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/strategic-plan-
2003/2003-strategic-plan].
[68] OMB's Fiscal Year 2011 Report to Congress on Federal Climate
Change Expenditures (June 2010) is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId=2776].
[69] Revised research plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(May 2008), [hyperlink, http://www.globalchange.gov/about/strategic-
plan-2003/revised-research-plan].
[70] See [hyperlink,
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/nrc-reports] for key
reports from the National Research Council (NRC) that are relevant to
USGCRP's planning and evolution. The NRC functions under the auspices
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The mission of the NRC is
to improve government decision making and public policy, increase
public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and
dissemination of knowledge in matters involving science, engineering,
technology, and health.
[71] The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-
161(2007)) required the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences under which the latter would establish a committee to
"investigate and study the serious and sweeping issues relating to
global climate change and make recommendations regarding what steps
must be taken and what strategies must be adopted in response to
global climate change, including the science and technology challenges
thereof." To fulfill this mandate, the National Academies completed a
series of reports collectively titled America's Climate Choices
available at [hyperlink, http://americasclimatechoices.org/].
[72] U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, DOE/PI-
0005 (September 2006), [hyperlink,
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/CCTP-StratPlan-Sep-
2006.pdf].
[73] Geoengineering means large-scale deliberate interventions in the
earth's climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts.
[74] United States Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan for FY
2010-2015, [hyperlink,
http://www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/sp2010/sp2010.pdf].
[75] Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2012
Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, M-10-30 (July 21, 2010), available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets].
[76] This supplemental guidance is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets].
[77] Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments
and Agencies, Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2011
Budget, M-09-27 (Aug. 4, 2009), available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId=1565].
[78] Additional information on the October 5, 2009, Executive Order
13514 on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability].
[79] Federal Agency Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans are
available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability/plans].
[80] For more information about the Climate Change Adaptation Task
Force, see [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation]
[81] The White House Council on Environmental Quality, Progress Report
of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Recommended
Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
(October 5, 2010). This report is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/Interagency
-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Progress-Report.pdf].
[82] OMB's Fiscal Year 2011 Report to Congress on Federal Climate
Change Expenditures (June 2010) is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId=2776].
[83] For more information about the Interagency Task Force on Carbon
Capture and Storage, see [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/ccs].
[84] The Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force report is available on
the Department of Energy's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/sequestration/ccs_task_force.html\ and
the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html\.
[85] Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 106 (1990), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2936.
[86] For more information about the National Climate Assessment,
including links to newsletters, task force meetings, and workshops,
see [hyperlink, http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment].
[87] 75 Fed. Reg. 54403 (Sept. 7, 2010).
[88] For more information about the NOAA Climate Service, see
[hyperlink, http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html]. A range of climate
information is presented at [hyperlink, http://www.climate.gov],
NOAA's Climate Services Portal.
[89] The Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011 prohibits any funds appropriated in the act to be used to
implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service as NOAA had
previously described it.
[90] For more information about the National Ocean Council, see
[hyperlink, http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans].
[91] For more information about the REDD+ Strategy, see [hyperlink,
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/policies_prog/redd.htm
l].
[92] For more information about the Recovery Through Retrofit report,
see [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/retrofit].
[93] A bill has been introduced which would exclude greenhouse gases
from being defined as "air pollutants" subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act. See H.R. 97, 112th Cong. (2011). In addition, numerous
lawsuits have been filed challenging the endangerment finding, which
have been consolidated into one case in the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
[94] Numerous lawsuits challenging this rule have been filed and
consolidated into one case in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
[95] See 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004 (Apr. 2, 2001). Known as the timing or
triggering rule, numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging this
rule.
[96] 75 Fed. Reg. 31514 (June 3, 2010). Known as the tailoring rule,
numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging this rule. These
lawsuits have been consolidated with the lawsuits challenging the
timing or triggering rule in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In
addition, bills have been introduced which would preclude EPA from
regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of stationary sources under
the Clean Air Act. See H.R. 153 (112th Cong.); H.R. 199 (112th Cong.);
S. 228 (112th Cong.); S. 231 (112th Cong.).
[97] Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970). For more information on CEQ's draft
NEPA guidance, see [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa].
[98] The guidance is not applicable to federal land and resource
management actions.
[99] See [hyperlink, http://unfccc.int/home/items/5264.php] for more
information.
[100] For more information about international climate change finance,
see the Department of State Climate Change Web page at [hyperlink,
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/].
[101] Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, before The
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States
Senate (July 30, 2009), [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/galleries/press_release_files/HoldrenTestimony
.pdf].
[102] Testimony of John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, before the
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House
of Representatives, on the Administration's View of the State of the
Climate (December 2, 2009), [hyperlink,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pressroom/12022009].
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
