Order Code RL33817
Climate Change:
Federal Funding and Tax Incentives
Updated August 2, 2007
Jane A. Leggett
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Climate Change: Federal Funding and Tax Incentives
Summary
As the prospect of climate change induced by greenhouse gases has gained
increased attention, U.S. federal funding to address this issue has expanded from a
few million dollars per year in the 1970s to $5.44 billion in FY2007. The rise in
funding is primarily attributed to the evolution of the federal effort — from scientific
research in the early years to later inclusion of technology development, voluntary
and regulatory programs, and international assistance. However, the accounting of
activities related to climate change also has changed somewhat over the years,
introducing some uncertainty in the degree to which funding has actually increased
over time.
The President’s FY2008 budget request includes $5.95 billion for federal
programs and activities identified as addressing climate change, a 9.4% increase
above FY2007. In addition to this funding, certain tax incentives may encourage
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Tax incentives are not spending per se, but
they do result in less revenue than would be accrued otherwise, and as such, are costs
to the federal government referred to as “tax expenditures.” The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) estimates climate change tax expenditures would
total $1.42 billion in FY2008, an 18% decrease below expenditures of $1.73 billion
in FY2007.
The President’s strategy on climate change is directed by the Cabinet-level
Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration. This strategy
places management responsibility and accountability for the various programs in
individual agencies. The executive branch reports funding for specific programs
administered by these agencies according to three consolidated areas: Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP), Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP),
and International Assistance.
Although more than a dozen federal agencies administer the programs and
activities within these areas, most of the funding is allocated among a few agencies.
The President’s FY2008 budget would allocate almost 60% of the total $5.95 billion
climate change request to the Department of Energy (DOE). The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) would receive about 20% of the
requested funding, whereas the Department of Agriculture, Department of
Commerce, and National Science Foundation (NSF) would each receive 4% to 5%
of the total request. The remaining agencies would receive smaller portions, ranging
from 2% to less than 1% each.
Key policy issues associated with federal climate change funding include
! prioritizing spending among individual programs, and articulating
measurable goals and milestones against which to track progress;
! improving clarity in reporting of funding, including changes in
accounting that make comparisons from year to year difficult; and
! the relationship of stability of funding and incentives to program
effectiveness.

---

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Program Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Tax Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
International Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Categories of Reported Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Consistency Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Recent Funding and the President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Interagency Objectives and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Climate Change Science Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Climate Change Technology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
International Climate Change Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Key Policy and Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Related CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix I. Congressional Language Requiring Reports to Congress
on Federal Climate Change Obligations and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix II. Climate Change Technology Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. Budget Authority for U.S. Climate Change Science:
FY1989-FY2006 Actual, FY2007 Enacted, and FY2008 Request . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Evaluation of R&D Opportunities for the CCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Total Budgetary Impact of U.S. Climate Change Initiatives:
FY2003-FY2006 Actual, FY2007 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. Budget Authority for U.S. Climate Change Programs by
Federal Department and Agency: FY2003-FY2006 Actual,
FY2007 Enacted, and the President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Budget Authority for U.S. Climate Change Science:
FY1989-FY2006 Actual, FY2007 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 4. Climate Change Technology Development and Deployment for
the 21st Century in the Strategic Plan for the Climate Change
Technology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 5. Budget Authority for National Climate Change Technology
Initiative Priorities by Federal Agency, FY2005-FY2006 Actual,
FY2007 Enacted, and the FY2008 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Climate Change:
Federal Funding and Tax Incentives
Overview
As the prospect of climate change
induced by human-related pollution has
The funding data reviewed and
gained increased attention,1 U.S. federal
summarized in this report derive
funding has expanded for activities
primarily from the 2007 report to
aimed at understanding and addressing
Congress on Federal Climate Change
the phenomenon. Both the amounts and
Expenditures by the Office of
purposes of funding have evolved. In
Management and Budget. It should be
1971, a panel of the National Academy
noted that these funds are reported by
of Sciences2 recommended that the
agencies as relevant to climate change,
United States increase its research into
but a substantial number of these
understanding the dynamics of climate
agencies’ programs were initiated —
and climate change by $25 million3 for
and are supported — primarily for other
the 10-year period of 1970-1979.4 A
purposes, such as controlling traditional
jump in funding occurred in FY1990,
air pollutants and enhancing energy
following several major international
security — and the climate change
scientific conferences in the late 1980s
benefits are supplemental to these
and an extraordinary period of heat and
original purposes.
drought in the United States. In
addition, international negotiations had
begun toward a new United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
opened for signature in 1992. Also in 1992, President George H.W. Bush expanded
climate related activities and funding beyond research with a national action program
aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. It was revised and expanded in 1993 by
President William J. Clinton.
1 Pollution affecting the Earth’s climate includes the greenhouse gases (GHG) carbon
dioxide (CO ), methane (CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), and chlorinated and fluourinated
2
4
2
chemicals (such as CFC, HFC, HCFC). It also includes tropospheric ozone, black carbon,
organic carbon, and sulfates. For more information, see CRS Report RL33849, Climate
Change: Science and Policy Implications, by Jane A. Leggett.
2 National Research Council, The Atmospheric Sciences and Man’s Needs: Priorities for the
Future (Washington: National Academies Press, 1971).
3 In 1970 dollars.
4 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Climate Change Expenditures: Report to
Congress (Washington, 2007), at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_
climate_change.pdf].

---

CRS-2
Most recently, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported that
federal funding for programs and activities related to climate change totaled $5.44
billion in budget authority in FY2007. The President’s FY2008 budget request
included a 9.4% increase in funding for these programs and activities, proposing a
total of $5.95 billion. The federal government also offers a variety of tax incentives
that could encourage reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although tax
incentives are not federal spending per se, they do reduce revenues to the federal
government that would have been accrued otherwise. In that sense, the loss of
revenues resulting from tax incentives are often presented by OMB as “tax
expenditures” of the federal government. OMB has estimated a total of $1.42 billion
in climate change-related “tax expenditures” in FY2008, down from $1.73 billion in
FY2007.
Program Areas. OMB groups funding related to climate change according
to three program areas that consolidate many individual programs and activities into
each respective area based on three primary purposes: scientific research,
technological research, and international assistance. These three program areas
reflect the total programmatic effort of the federal government to address climate
change across all agencies, as reported by OMB. These areas are as follows:
! Climate Change Science Program (CCSP);
! Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP); and
! International Climate Change Assistance.
Tax Expenditures. In addition to funding for specific programs and activities
within the above program areas, various tax provisions may provide incentives to
encourage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. As alluded to earlier, “tax
expenditures” are “revenue losses resulting from Federal tax provisions that grant
special tax relief designed to encourage certain kinds of behavior by taxpayers or to
aid taxpayers in special circumstances. These provisions may, in effect, be viewed
as spending programs channeled through the tax system.”5 Examples of tax
incentives related to climate change include credits for purchase of cleaner
automobiles, and investment in renewable electricity generation technologies.
International Context. The U.S. climate-related programs support the
commitments of the United States as a Party to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992. The
objective of the UNFCCC is “the stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic6 interference with the climate
system ... within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable
5 Congressional Research Service. 2006. Tax Expenditures: Compendium of Background
Material on Individual Provisions. Washington DC: Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate.
p.2. Tax expenditures are defined by Section 3(3) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 [2 U.S.C. 622(3)].
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_senate_committ
ee_prints&docid=f:31188.pdf].
6 Human-related.

---

CRS-3
economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”7 Parties agreed to
produce national action plans aiming voluntarily to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990
levels by 2000, along with other reporting and cooperative provisions, but with no
meaningful consequences for failing to meet the commitments.8 The U.S.
commitment to adopting a national action plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions
resulted in expanding the scope of climate-related federal activities, and overall
funding levels in response to that expansion.
Categories of Reported Funding. Almost all the data presented in this
CRS report are as reported in OMB’s annual Federal Climate Change Expenditures
Report to Congress (of May 2007 and those of previous years). OMB prepares this
annual report in response to specific statutory requirements.9 Its report indicates
amounts of funding in terms of budget authority for the three program areas
discussed above, and estimates of tax expenditures for incentives intended to
encourage reductions in greenhouse gases.
The amounts of budget authority presented by OMB appear to represent new
budget authority in a given year, as opposed to total budget authority that includes
new budget authority plus carryover of unobligated balances of funding appropriated
in prior years.10 As such, total budget authority equals the total amount of money that
Congress has allowed an agency to obligate to spend in a given year, whereas new
budget authority is generally synonymous with appropriations provided in a given
year, excluding any funds that may be carried over from past years. Consistent with
OMB’s reports, the amounts of budget authority presented in this CRS report are new
budget authority, not total budget authority.
In its annual report, OMB also estimates the amount of funding the executive
branch expects to obligate under the three program areas in the fiscal year during
which the report is submitted, and estimates the amount of obligated funding that the
executive branch expects to expend in that year, referred to as outlays. However,
OMB does not report actual obligations or outlays (i.e. expenditures) of funds for
completed fiscal years. Rather, OMB only reports actual amounts of budget authority
for completed fiscal years, and estimates obligations and outlays only for the pending
fiscal year in which its report is submitted to Congress.
7 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio de Janeiro, 1992)
[http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2853.php].
8 For further information, see CRS Report RL33826 Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol
and International Actions, by Susan R. Fletcher and Larry Parker.
9 P.L.101-606, the Global Change Research Act of 1990, requires annual reporting of
expenditures to Congress on global change science. Section 555(b) of P.L. 108-7, enacted
in February 2003, also required that the President submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations, describing in detail all federal agency obligations and expenditures,
domestic and international, for climate change programs and activities in FY2003, as well
as additional requirements. Congress has included this reporting requirement in subsequent
annual appropriations bills. See Appendix I of this report. Language currently under
consideration in H.R. 906 would change existing reporting requirements.
10 According to OMB, “The Budget System and Concepts,” 2007, budget authority is “the
authority provided by law to incur financial obligations that will result in outlays,” or
spending. See [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/concepts.pdf].

---

CRS-4
Based on OMB’s figures, this CRS report presents the total impact to the federal
budget resulting from budget authority made available for the three major climate
change program areas, and the loss of revenues to the federal government from tax
expenditures for incentives intended to encourage reductions in greenhouse gases.
This total budgetary impact is intended to illustrate the overall level of federal effort,
or cost to the federal government, in response to concerns about climate change.
Consistency Issues. OMB’s reported levels of funding to address climate
change are approximate, and have varied over time not only because of differences
in dollar amounts for specific activities, but also as a result of changes in the
individual activities included within the major program areas. Such accounting shifts
within the program areas make it difficult to compare the funding levels consistently
across years, resulting in some uncertainty as to how funding levels have changed
over time. OMB’s reported funding levels are further complicated by the inclusion
of certain activities and incentives that may be related to the Administration’s climate
change goals, but that serve broader purposes, such as energy efficiency and nuclear
energy programs. In some instances, activities arguably related to climate change
also appear not to be included in OMB’s reporting, such as programs to control
tropospheric ozone or to conserve carbon in soils.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated the
Administration’s reporting practices, in 200511 and 2006.12 GAO recommended
greater clarity and consistency of reporting on federal funding for climate change
activities. OMB reports in 2006 and 2007 appear to have complied with many of the
GAO recommendations, although fully consistent accounting remains unavailable,
particularly for years prior to 2006.
Several agencies also have revised the set of programs and projects that they
report to OMB as supporting climate change goals, or have refined the methods of
accounting for these activities. For example, within the budgets of NASA and
NOAA, costs of salaries, laboratories, certain satellites and other expenses have been
newly reported as climate change funding in recent years, whereas they were not
reported as such earlier. Consequently, such changes in accounting continue to make
it difficult to ascertain and compare aggregate levels of funding for climate change
across the years.
Recent Funding and the President’s FY2008 Request
OMB reports that federal funding for the three major climate change program
areas has fluctuated over the past several years, with overall increases from year to
year in some cases, and decreases in others. Without adjusting for inflation, budget
authority rose from $4.88 billion in FY2003 to $5.12 billion in FY2004, and then
declined to $4.91 billion in FY2005 and $4.72 billion in FY2006. OMB reports that
enacted budget authority increased to a high of $5.44 billion in FY2007. The
President has requested a further increase to $5.95 billion in FY2008.
11 GAO. Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer
and More Complete. GAO-05-461. August 2005. 47 p.
12 GAO. Climate Change: Greater Clarity and Consistency Are Needed in Reporting
Federal Climate Change Funding. GAO-06-1122T. September 2006. 23 p.

---

CRS-5
These increases are primarily due to greater funding for technology programs,
whereas funding for scientific research and international assistance generally has
declined since FY2003. Relative to FY2007 alone, the President has proposed
increases in funding for all three program areas, with technology programs
accounting for the greatest portion of the increase. OMB’s estimates of tax
expenditures have risen sharply overall from $580 million in FY2003 to $1.73 billion
in FY2007. The more recent rise in the estimates from FY2006 to FY2007 is
primarily due to expected loss of revenues resulting from tax incentives included in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). In FY2008, OMB estimates that
climate-change related tax expenditures will fall to $1.42 billion.
As indicated in Table 1, OMB reports that the total impact to the federal budget
resulting from budget authority for the three program areas, and the loss of revenues
resulting from tax expenditures, has grown from $5.45 billion in FY2003 to $7.17
billion in FY2007. The President’s FY2008 budget estimates a further increase to
$7.37 billion. The overall increase over the past several years is primarily due to
rising investments in technology programs, and a generally upward trend in the
expansion of tax incentives intended to encourage reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. However, the accounting of activities related to climate change also has
changed somewhat over the years, introducing some uncertainty in the degree to
which actual funding has increased over time, as discussed above in the “Consistency
Issues” section of this CRS report.
Table 1. Total Budgetary Impact of U.S. Climate Change
Initiatives: FY2003-FY2006 Actual, FY2007 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2008 Request
(in millions of dollars)
Budget Authority
Major Climate Change
Program Areas
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
% Change
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Enacted
Request
2007-08
Climate Change Science
$2,078
$1,996
$1,864
$1,691
$1,822
$1,836
< 1%
Program
Climate Change Technology
$2,533
$2,870
$2,808
$2,789
$3,441
$3,917
14%
Program
International Climate Change
$270
$252
$234
$249
$188
$212
13%
Assistance
All Areas
$4,881
$5,118
$4,906
$4,716
$5,436
$5,951
9%
Estimated Tax Expenditures
Tax Provisions That May
% Change
Reduce Greenhouse Gas
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
2007-08
Emissions
$580
$500
$369
$1,160
$1,730
$1,420
-18%
Total Budgetary Impact a
$5,454
$5,582
$5,269
$5,876
$7,166
$7,371
3%
Source: OMB, Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress, FY2008, May 2007,
Table 8, p. 27. OMB adjusted the science and technology amounts for FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005
to reflect more recent accounting within these program areas.
a. The total impact to the federal budget in each year as reported by OMB differs somewhat from the
sum of budget authority for each program area and the estimates of tax expenditures, due to
exclusion by OMB of dollar amounts for certain activities to avoid double-counting.

---

CRS-6
Table 2 indicates the amount of budget authority reported by OMB for the three
major climate change program areas broken out by the 14 federal departments and
agencies that administer them, for the same years as provided in Table 1 above.
OMB’s totals for the three program areas presented in Table 1 are consistent with the
department and agency totals in Table 2 for FY2006, FY2007, and the President’s
FY2008 request. However, these totals in each table are not consistent for FY2003,
FY2004, and FY2005, because of adjustments in these years that OMB made in the
accounting of the science and technology program areas displayed in Table 1. These
adjustments do not appear to be reflected in OMB’s historical accounting of program
funding broken out by department and agency displayed in Table 2. Such
inconsistencies in OMB’s reporting make it difficult, in certain years, to compare
funding for the consolidated program areas to funding for the departments and
agencies that administer specific programs within these areas.
Table 2. Budget Authority for U.S. Climate Change Programs
by Federal Department and Agency: FY2003-FY2006 Actual,
FY2007 Enacted, and the President’s FY2008 Request
(in millions of dollars)
%
FY2003
FY2004 FY2005 FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Department or Agency
Change
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Enacted Request 2007-08
Department of Agriculture
$104
$116
$110
$110
$104
$290
179%
Department of Commerce
$156
$144
$146
$253
$244
$255
5%
Department of Defense
$83
$51
$59
$77
$72
$33
-54%
Department of Energy
$2,214
$2,519
$2,469
$2,504
$3,158
$3,511
11%
Department of Health & Human Services
$61
$62
$57
$50
$50
$49
-2%
Department of the Interior
$28
$29
$29
$27
$26
$27
4%
Department of State
$6
$6
$7
$12
$41
$41
0%
Department of Transportation
$27
$9
$3
$17
$18
$17
-6%
Department of the Treasury
$56
$52
$44
$46
$46
$56
22%
Environmental Protection Agency
$124
$127
$130
$128
$121
$118
-2%
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
$1,298
$1,548
$1,449
$1,082
$1,224
$1,203
-2%
National Science Foundation
$213
$226
$209
$215
$226
$231
2%
Smithsonian Institution
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
$6
0%
U.S. Agency for International Development
$214
$195
$183
$190
$100
$115
15%
All Departments and Agencies
$4,584
$5,090
$4,900
$4,716
$5,436
$5,951
9%
Source: OMB, op. cit., FY2008 (May 2007), FY2007 (April 2006) , FY2006 (March 2005), FY2005
(May 2004).

---

CRS-7
Interagency Objectives and Coordination
In 2002, President George W. Bush announced a goal to cut the U.S. greenhouse
gas intensity — the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of economic
activity (GDP) — by 18% through 2012.13 He included in the U.S. policy framework
other goals for global climate change aimed at
! reducing scientific uncertainties;
! advancing development and introduction of energy efficient,
renewable, and other low- or non-emitting technologies; and
! improving standards for measuring and registering emissions
reductions.
Specific outcome-oriented performance targets have been set for some climate-
related programs, such as for greenhouse gas reductions achieved by EPA’s appliance
efficiency Energy Star program, and several of the smaller voluntary partnerships.
Quantitative greenhouse gas, science, or technology performance targets have not
been identified for most of the climate-related funding requests.
The President’s strategy established a new Cabinet-level Committee on Climate
Change Science and Technology Integration to oversee the implementation of the
science and technology research programs across agencies. This committee meets
approximately quarterly, but the principal program design and management occurs
within each agency. The strategy, thus, puts accountability and leadership for the
science and technology programs in each of the relevant agencies. Communication
and coordination are facilitated through a series of inter-agency working groups that
meet with varying frequencies. Budget levels are established primarily through
dialogue between each agency and OMB. This contrasts with the practice in the early
1990s of reaching agreement among the science agencies about any increments to the
global change research budgets.
Under the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) announced in 2002, the
President set up a Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) that supplements the
U.S. Global Change Research Program (US GCRP), established by Congress in
1990,14 which emphasizes long-term scientific research. The 2002 strategy also
established a Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), parallel to the science
research program. It includes a National Climate Change Technology Initiative
(NCCTI) in addition to pre-existing clean energy research. The Department of State
takes the lead on most aspects of international cooperation.
The remainder of this report briefly describes each of the three major climate
change program areas, including science, technology, and international assistance,
and tax provisions that may encourage reductions in greenhouse gases. The report
13 The “business-as-usual” decline for this period is estimated to be about 14%.
14 U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606; 104 Stat.3096-3104).

---

CRS-8
also identifies several policy issues related to federal funding for climate change
programs and activities.
Climate Change Science Program
Significant advances have been made over the past two decades to collect
observations of Earth processes relevant to climate change; to develop a variety of
models to analyze and forecast economic, energy, atmospheric, ocean and land
systems; and to understand the potential impacts of climate change on humans and
ecosystems.
Congress established the Global Change Research Program (GCRP) in the
Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L.101-606), aimed at understanding and
responding to global change. The Global Change Research Act requires a scientific
assessment report to Congress at least every four years, as well as annual reports on
climate change activities and budget. As discussed below, the first and only national
assessment complying with the Global Change Research Act was published in
December 2000.
In the FY2004 budget, the Administration integrated the long-standing Global
Change Research Program with the more recent Climate Change Research Initiative
(CCRI) noted above, establishing the current programmatic framework of the
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). However, there appears to be little
practical distinction between these two efforts within this larger program area, in
terms of their similar goals of advancing climate change research. The overall
strategy, the Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan, was published in 2003
and is supported by ongoing reviews by the National Academy of Science. The CCSP
Strategic Plan groups research into seven elements:
! atmospheric composition,
! climate variability and change,
! global water cycle,
! land use/land cover change,
! global carbon cycle,
! ecosystems, and
! human contributions and responses.
The CCSP Strategic Plan further lays out five goals, which do not correspond
closely with the seven research elements. It plans to produce 21 “synthesis and
assessment” (SAR) products, originally intended to be completed in 2007.15 The
Administration intends these SAR products, taken together to meet the four-year
reporting requirement of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Others disagree
that this series of reports will suffice to meet the statutory requirement or to meet the
needs of policy-makers.
15 Additional information on the SARs, including their content and status, can be found at
[http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/].

---

CRS-9
A National Academy of Science panel, convened at the request of the former
director of the CCSP to consider how to measure progress for the program, noted that
the CCSP Strategic Plan “does not contain measures of success, and program
objectives are written too broadly for them to be inferred.”16 The panel concluded
that metrics could be developed and used for the CCSP, but highlighted the
considerable challenge and cost in identifying, producing, and using a set of metrics
to measure progress for all elements of the CCSP. It also noted that “while some
metrics can measure short-term impacts (e.g., CCSP payoffs scheduled to occur
within two to four years), it may take decades to fully assess the substantial
contributions to the global debate on climate change being made by the CCSP and
its predecessor US GCRP.”17
The President requested $1.84 billion for FY2008 to support climate change
research under the CCSP. This proposed level of funding would be provided to 13
federal agencies through nine appropriations bills. The FY2008 request is $14
million (0.8%) above the FY2007 budget authority of $1.82 billion, and $145 million
(8.6%) above the FY2006 level. The research in this area is intended to help reduce
uncertainties in the science, as highlighted by a National Academy of Sciences
report18 requested by the President in 2001. Nearly 60 percent of the President’s
FY2008 budget request for climate change science is proposed for NASA, primarily
for space-based observations. The history of U.S. funding for climate change science
since FY1989 is presented in Figure 1 and Table 3. The amounts are as reported by
the CCSP, which do not appear to reflect OMB’s adjustments to the amounts for
FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005, as presented in Table 1 of this CRS report.
16 National Research Council, Thinking Strategically: The Appropriate Use of Metrics for
the Climate Change Science Program, 2005.
17 Ibid. Executive Summary, p. 9.
18 National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2001).

---

CRS-10
Figure 1. Budget Authority for U.S. Climate Change Science:
FY1989-FY2006 Actual, FY2007 Enacted, and FY2008 Request
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
9
91
198
19
993
96
1
98
19
00
2
19
20
200
004
06
t
2
Fisc al Years
20
es
qu
Re
Actual $
Cons tant 2005 $
08
20
Source: Prepared by CRS with information from the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), at
[http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight2/default.htm#funding]; accessed August 2, 2007.
Note: Constant amounts adjusted for inflation in 2005 dollars are as reported by the CCSP. The
dollar amounts for FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 do not appear to reflect accounting adjustments by
OMB in its FY2008 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress.
The tightening fiscal environment of federal discretionary budgets is resulting
in shifting of funds within several agencies from climate change to other priorities.
For example, NASA’s climate-related budget has declined by more than 30% since
FY2000.19 NASA funds associated with the Climate Change Science Strategic Plan,
and the greatest portion of CCSP funds, are aimed at research on the natural carbon
cycle, climate modeling, and the link between atmospheric chemistry and climate.
NASA has changed some of its accounting methods since 2005, and has revised
the set of programs and projects it counts within the CCSP. These revisions make
comparison of budget authority difficult to track across multiple years. Elements of
several satellite systems, including the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, the Gravity
Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and portions of the High-End
Computing and Scientific Computing projects are newly included in the 2007 White
House report. Due to cost overruns in major missions of NASA, funds have been
shifted since FY2005 from programs that support climate change to other priorities,
such as the Mission to Mars. Analysis operations in the Earth Sciences is cut in the
President’s FY2008 budget request from $461 million in FY2006 and $454 million
19 National Research Council, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2006).

---

CRS-11
in FY2007 to a proposed $429 million in FY2008.20 An NAS panel21 noted that
cutting research and analysis of observations from missions already launched reduces
the “return on investment” from the high front-end expenditures to acquire satellite-
based data. The NAS report was released too late to influence the President’s
FY2008 request.
Table 3. Budget Authority for U.S. Climate Change Science:
FY1989-FY2006 Actual, FY2007 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2008 Request
(in millions of nominal dollars, and adjusted for inflation in 2005 dollars)
Fiscal Year
Nominal Dollars
2005 Dollars
1989
$134
$209
1990
$659
$975
1991
$954
$1,355
1992
$1,110
$1,531
1993
$1,326
$1,775
1994
$1,444
$1,885
1995 $1,760
$2,234
1996
$1,654
$2,039
1997
$1,656
$1,995
1998
$1,677
$1,989
1999
$1,657
$1,925
2000
$1,687
$1,896
2001
$1,728
$1,886
2002
$1,667
$1,792
2003
$1,766
$1,857
2004
$1,975
$2,021
2005
$1,865
$1,865
2006
$1,691
$1,656
2007
$1,822
$1,745
2008 Request
$1,836
$1,719
Source: Prepared by CRS with information from the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), at
[http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight2/default.htm#funding]; accessed August 2, 2007.
Note: Constant amounts adjusted for inflation in 2005 dollars are as reported by the CCSP. The
dollar amounts for FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 do not appear to reflect accounting adjustments by
OMB in its FY2008 Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress.
20 Freilich, Michael H. 2007. NASA Earth Science Division Overview: Status, Contraints
and Challenges. April 11 [http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/DOCS/ScienceTeam/
OCRT_Apr2007/Freilich_OCRT2007.pdf].
21 National Research Council. 2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National
Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. (Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.)

---

CRS-12
The first and only national assessment of climate change science and impacts,
required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, was published in December
2000. The act mandates a subsequent report no later than 2004. The Government
Accountability Office found in February 2005 that the Administration had failed to
comply with the congressional requirement. As noted above, the CCSP is due to
produce 21 Synthesis and Assessment Reports on specific topics; the first was
published in April 2006,22 whereas the remaining reports are due to be released
through 2008. The Bush Administration contends that these will, in aggregate,
comply with the requirement of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Others
disagree that this series of reports will suffice to meet the statutory requirement or to
meet the needs of policy-makers.
Climate Change Technology Program
The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is the technology
component of the climate change strategy announced by President Bush in 2002,
though many of these programs existed prior to establishment of the CCTP.
Currently, the CCTP is composed of programs administered by 11 agencies plus the
Executive Office of the President. The CCTP objective is to accelerate the
technological advances needed to facilitate the reduction and avoidance, as well as
capture and storage, of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). While the
Strategic Plan sets many milestones for demonstrations of specific technologies, there
are no specific targets or measures for greenhouse gas emissions or capture in the
CCTP Strategic Plan,23 which was released in September 2006.
The six strategic goals outlined for the CCTP are to advance development of
technologies that:
! reduce emissions from energy end-use and infrastructure,
! reduce emissions from energy supply,
! capture and sequester carbon dioxide,
! reduce emissions of non-CO greenhouse gases,
2
! improve capabilities to measure and monitor GHG emissions, and
! bolster basic scientific contributions to technology development.
As reported by OMB, federal funding for climate change technology has
increased from $845 million in FY1993 to $3.44 billion in FY2007, a $2.60 billion
(307%) increase. The President’s FY2008 budget request includes $3.92 billion for
FY2008, a $476 million (14%) increase above FY2007. However, the actual increase
in funding for these efforts may be lower than the dollars amounts suggest, as OMB
has redefined the initiatives included within the CCTP over time, and individual
22 Karl, Thomas R., Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, eds.,
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling
Differences, a Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on
Global Change Research (Washington, 2006).
23 U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
Strategic Plan (Washington, 2006); [http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/
index.htm].

---

CRS-13
programs funded within larger accounts are often counted in more than one initiative.
For example, an increasing number of existing nuclear energy programs, as well as
some clean coal programs, have been counted in later years that originally were not
included in OMB’s earlier reporting of climate change technology funding.
Such changes make it difficult to track the content and evolution of specific
climate change technology programs, and funding for them, across the years. GAO
has made similar observations, and has identified several ways that technology
funding presented in OMB’s more recent reports may not be comparable to
previously reported technology funding,24 introducing some uncertainty in the
funding trend. As quantified results expected from programs are set and monitored
(as required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993),25
redefinitions of program areas also may complicate performance tracking and
accountability, in addition to making funding comparisons difficult from year to year.
Congress appropriates funds to DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to administer more than 60
programs to support voluntary deployment of existing technologies. Programs
include Energy Star, Climate Leaders, the Methane Partnership Initiatives, Value
Added Producer Grants, and many others. In FY2007, DOE represented 88% ($3.0
billion) of the budget authority enacted for the CCTP, with EPA and NASA receiving
about 3% and 4%, respectively of the $3.44 billion total.
From FY2003 to FY2004, the total budget authority for the CCTP rose, largely
due to inclusion of a greater share of funding for DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative
than in prior years. While the clean coal program previously had focused on
reduction of major pollutants, its focus was reported by OMB to have shifted to
improving efficiency, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit of
electricity produced. On the other hand, the reported increase in the CCTP funding
from FY2005 reflects less of the previously reported infrastructure funding in DOE’s
nuclear energy program, and a redirection in FY2006 of $400,000 from energy
supply and conservation programs into analysis and other activities of the CCTP.
The President’s FY2008 request includes numerous changes to funding that
Congress enacted for FY2007 to support DOE’s climate change technology
programs. Some of these proposed changes include:
! a $175 million (12%) reduction for energy efficiency and renewable
energy, including reductions for wind energy, efficient lighting and
increases for cellulosic biofuels and hydrogen storage;
! a $5 million (5%) reduction for energy supply and conservation for
electricity transmission and distribution;
24 GAO. Climate Change: Greater Clarity and Consistency Are Needed in Reporting
Federal Climate Change Funding. GAO-06-1122T. September 2006, p. 3.
25 P.L. 103-62.

---

CRS-14
! a $31 million (6%) increase for Fossil Energy Research and
Development/Efficiency and Sequestration, while reducing funds for
carbon sequestration (-$19 million) and integrated combined cycle
generation technology (-$6 million);
! a $299 million (61%) increase for nuclear energy supply and
conservation to support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership; and
! a $208 million (42%) increase for nuclear fusion research,
sequestration and hydrogen research, including support to the
international ITER nuclear fusion partnership and three bioenergy
research centers.
The President’s FY2008 budget request also includes a substantial increase of
more than 400% for the USDA to administer certain programs under the CCTP, from
$46 million in FY2007 to $234 million in FY2008. About two-thirds of this funding
would be for proposed mandatory programs for bioenergy research, grants and loans
included in the Administration’s 2007 Farm Bill proposal.26 Another one-third
would be for increases in discretionary spending on bioenergy research, education
and extension service.
The President’s budget proposal also would cut climate change technology
funding for the Department of Defense (DOD) by $39 million (54%), from $72
million in FY2007 to $33 million in FY2008. This proposed reduction reflects an
omission of funding not to continue congressionally designated projects, as well as
less funding requested because of the completion of research on military use of waste
materials for electricity production.
Appendix II provides tables highlighting the Administration’s priorities for
specific technologies planned for development by DOE and EPA under the CCTP,
over the near-, medium-, and long-term. Of note, research on carbon sequestration
in the oceans (sometimes proposed as a geo-engineering approach to reducing
carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere) was ended in FY2006 due to
findings of adverse effects (e.g., mortality of invertebrates) on deep ocean biology
and chemistry.27
The Administration also has reviewed the progress of the CCTP in meeting its
priorities. In its Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning,28 the
Administration calls for the need to “periodically assess the adequacy of the multi-
agency portfolio with respect to its ability to achieve, or make technical progress
toward, CCTP strategic goal attainment; identify gaps, opportunities, and make
26 Title-by-Title details of USDA’s 2007 Farm Bill proposal are available at [http://www.
usda.gov/wps/portal/usdafarmbill?navtype=SU&navid=FARM_BILL_FORUMS].
27 Department of Energy, FY2008 Congressional Budget Request, 2007, available at
[http://www.er.doe.gov/ober/CCRD/tcp.html].
28 U.S. Climate Change Techology Program, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program:
Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning (Washington, 2005) [http://www.
climatetechnology.gov/vision2005/index.htm].

---

CRS-15
recommendations.” The CCTP contracted a review of the R&D portfolio, with a
report issued in July 2006.
The review panel concluded that, while the CCTP portfolio is strong in near-
term technology options, there is also a need to accelerate R&D on more mid- and
long-term technology solutions to climate change over the next century. The review
noted gaps in the portfolio, particularly for the CCTP goals concerning non-CO2
greenhouse gases and for measuring and monitoring greenhouse gases; the gaps are
associated with a low level of funding for these areas. Other gaps were identified for
exploratory research addressing novel and advanced concepts aimed at breakthrough
technologies and research in the basic sciences and potentially enabling disciplines
of materials, biology, physical sciences, computational sciences, and nanotechnology.
The review designed a conceptual framework to assist in setting priorities for
future CCTP R&D portfolios, as illustrated in Figure 2. It defines “Impact” as
progress toward a particular CCTP strategic goal; “Probability of Success” is defined
as the level of certainty that the technology would be successfully developed and
achieve the specified impact. The concept appears, in this formulation, not to include
the relative costs of R&D to achieve the impact. The figure is illustrative and not
intended by the review panel as a statement of prioritization among actual
opportunities; it provides a conceptual example of how priorities among the large
array of R&D opportunities might be evaluated for future expenditures.
Figure 2. Evaluation of R&D Opportunities for the CCTP
Source: Brown, Marilyn, Matt Antes, Charlotte Franchuk, Burton H. Koske, Gordon Michaels, Joan
Pellegrino, et al., Results of a Technical Review of the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program’s
R&D Portfolio, 2006, [http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/PDFs/CCTP_Wkshp_Rpt_6-28Final.pdf].

---

CRS-16
International Climate Change Assistance
In addition to domestic programs that support climate change science and
technologies, the United States expends funds in its work with other nations and
private enterprises to address climate change. For example, the President’s FY2008
budget request includes $5 million to support the Department of State (DOS)
contributions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The request also includes a larger amount of $115 million for international
climate change assistance through the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). The request is $15 million (15%) more than the funding
level of $100 million in FY2007, and is $75 million (39%) down from the level of
$190 million in FY2006.29 Of the cut from FY2006 to FY2007, $28 million was a
reduction of funding for “modern energy services” in Afghanistan. USAID does not
distinguish funding for measuring, monitoring, reporting, verification and reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions from other activities in the relevant sectors. The OMB
report states, “All of the activities that assist with technology transfer and carbon
capture promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”30
Beginning with the FY2007 budget request, the international assistance category
included $26 million for the Department of State to support the Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). The President’s FY2008
budget request for the APP includes $30 million for the Department of State, $15
million for the Department of Energy, $5 million for the Department of Commerce,
and $2 million for the Environmental Protection Agency. The APP is a voluntary
partnership among six countries that aims to advance technologies that may help
reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of partner nations: the United States, China,
India, South Korea, Australia and Japan. The initial set of projects under the APP’s
workplan emphasize sectoral assessments, capacity building, identifying best
practices, and technology research and demonstration.31 Some critics argue that the
APP is a diversion from cooperation under the United Nations and the UN FCCC,
but few would deny that technological advance in the major developing countries
will be essential to reducing their greenhouse gas emission projections. The FY2008
request also includes $133.9 million for the Treasury Department to contribute to the
29 The foreign operations appropriations bill for FY2006, Section 585(a) stated, “Of the
funds appropriated under the heading ‘Development Assistance,’ ... not less than
$180,000,000 shall be made available to support clean energy and other climate change
policies and programs in developing countries, of which $100,000,000 should be made
available to directly promote and deploy energy conservation, energy efficiency, and
renewable and clean energy technologies, and of which the balance should be made
available to directly: (1) measure, monitor, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; (2)
increase carbon sequestration activities; and (3) enhance climate change mitigation and
adaptation programs.”
30 OMB, op. cit., 2007, p. 40, footnote 2.
31 For more information, see CRS Report RL33826, Climate Change: the Kyoto Protocol
and International Actions, by Susan R. Fletcher and Larry Parker, for a brief summary of
the APP.

---

CRS-17
Asian Development Bank, which may fund a new environmental program that would
be related to the APP.
For the International Climate Change Assistance category, the President’s
FY2008 budget request includes $36 million for the Global Environment Facility
(GEF). The GEF supports projects to demonstrate innovative clean energy production
and efficient energy use.32 The climate-related portion is about one-third of the total
funding for the GEF proposed in the President’s FY2008 request, and would be an
increase of 38% over the FY2006 and FY2007 amounts for climate change-related
activities.
The United States also encourages countries to conserve tropical rain forests,
thereby avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the removal by trees of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It does this by a “swap” of a country’s debt for
payment into conservation funds, authorized by the Tropical Forest Conservation Act
(TFIP). The President’s FY2008 budget request would provide $20 million in
FY2008 — the same as in recent years — in the Treasury Department’s budget for
climate-related debt restructuring programs.33
Tax Provisions
Tax provisions, often not for the explicit purpose of addressing climate change,
may contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by establishing incentives for
incremental investments in technologies (e.g., wind energy) that emit less than the
technologies they are thought to replace (e.g., fossil fuel combustion). In its federal
expenditures report, OMB reports tax expenditures, which are the estimated loss of
federal revenues that result from taxpayers taking advantage of these preferential tax
treatments.
Tax expenditures are reported for 11 types of tax credits, deductions, and
exclusions for a wide variety of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments.
OMB’s estimated value of these tax expenditures jumped sharply from $369 million
in FY2005 to $1.16 billion in FY2006, and to $1.73 billion in FY2007. This rise in
estimates is primarily based on new and expanded tax incentives authorized in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), specifically in Title XIII of that statute, the
Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. OMB estimates that climate change-related tax
expenditures in FY2008 would decline by more than $300 million to $1.42 billion.
Although OMB expects tax expenditures to constitute almost one-quarter of the
estimated budgetary impact of climate change activities in FY2007, this share is
projected to fall to under one-fifth in the President’s FY2008 budget.34
32 26 For background on the GEF, see CRS Report RS21858, Global Environment Facility
(GEF): Overview, by Susan R. Fletcher.
33 For more information, see CRS Report RL31286, Debt-for-Nature Initiatives and the
Tropical Forest Conservation Act: Status and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
34 OMB, op. cit. 2007.

---

CRS-18
For FY2006, the largest of the tax expenditures — about 47% of the total
projected for F2008 — is the set of new technology credits for solar, geothermal,
wind, biomass, poultry waste, municipal solid waste energy, and certain hydropower
installations. The share of these over OMB’s projection for the period 2008-2012 is
expected to be 66%.
Although tax credits and deductions for clean-fuel burning vehicles are expected
to result in tax expenditures of about $260 million in FY2007, this figure is projected
by OMB to drop to zero and below (i.e. net revenues) by 2010. Likewise, the second
largest category of tax expenditures, credits for energy efficiency improvements to
existing homes, is estimated to rise from $230 million in FY2006 to $380 million in
FY2007, then decline to $150 million in FY2008 and to zero by FY2009. Other tax
credits due to expire by FY2009 include credits for energy efficient appliances and
for residential purchases or installations of solar and fuel cells.
One policy issue related to the tax provisions is their continuity over periods of
time that are consistent with planning and construction of large capital projects, such
as commercial wind and other renewable energy installations. Because these take a
number of years to execute, tax provisions may not predictably be available for a
sufficiently long period for investors to take advantage of them for entirely new
facilities (as opposed to facilities that may already have been planned). This could
reduce their effectiveness in encouraging actions that may help to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. On the other hand, the tax incentives are intended to stimulate
deployment of new technologies, rather than to support a market that may not
become commercially viable.
Key Policy and Funding Issues
Members of Congress and others have expressed interest in the priorities and
evaluation of federal climate change funding and tax incentives. Key policy and
funding issues include the following:
! Establishing priorities across different opportunities to address
climate change, including scientific research, technology
development, programs to encourage mitigation of greenhouse
gases, and adaptation to potential future climate change.
! Policy preferences extended differentially among energy choices,
such as clean coal, nuclear, the variety of renewable energy
alternatives, and energy efficiency, as part of a U.S. strategy that
must address multiple concerns, including energy security, trade
deficits, and affordable energy.
! Defining and articulating measurable goals and milestones for
climate change programs, and monitoring of achievements towards
those goals. Because initiatives have been redefined and otherwise
modified, tracking achievements from specific funding may be
especially challenging.

---

CRS-19
! Improving clarity in the reporting of funding and expenditures,
particularly to address the difficulty in comparing funding across
years because of the shifts in accounting of activities within larger
program areas, as well as the need for consistent use of funding
categories, such as budget authority, appropriations, and actual
expenditures, to make apt comparisons from year to year.
! Assuring coordination and accountability within the federal
government of the dozens of identified climate change programs,
and many others that are related to — or potentially conflicting with
— goals that address climate change.
! Maintaining stability of funding and tax incentives over a period that
is consistent with planning and executing the targeted projects. This
has been a concern with a number of federal research programs, such
as shifts within NASA, as well as for investment tax incentives that
require several years for planning and to reap the intended tax
benefits.
! Establishing spending priorities among the many federal agencies
that administer climate change programs, and balancing climate
change with other domestic spending priorities that compete in a
fiscally tightening environment, such as the shifting of funds within
NASA from observation satellites and research and analysis to larger
space missions within the agency.
Related CRS Reports
CRS Report RL31931, Federal Laws and Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas
Reductions, by Brent D. Yacobucci and Larry Parker.
CRS Report RL33588, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget and Electricity
Production Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL33599, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity
Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.

---

CRS-20
Appendix I. Congressional Language Requiring Reports
to Congress on Federal Climate Change Obligations
and Expenditures
Each year since at least 2003, Congress has included specific language in the
annual appropriations bill for foreign operations, requiring the President to report to
Congress on all federal agency obligations and expenditures for climate change
programs and activities. Congress most recently included this reporting requirement
in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act for FY2006 (Section 585(b) of P.L. 109-102).
This language was not included in the Revised Continuing Appropriations
Resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), which funded foreign operations and many
other federal agencies and activities. However, that law did require agencies to
adhere to the same authorities and conditions that were enacted for FY2006, in effect
continuing the requirement for the President to report on climate change obligations
and expenditures in FY2007.
The statutory language from Section 585(b) of P.L. 109-102 is provided below:
CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT- Not later than 60 days after the date on
which the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request is submitted to Congress,
the President shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations
describing in detail the following —
(1) all Federal agency obligations and expenditures, domestic and
international, for climate change programs and activities in fiscal year 2006,
including an accounting of expenditures by agency with each agency identifying
climate change activities and associated costs by line item as presented in the
President’s Budget Appendix; and
(2) all fiscal year 2005 obligations and estimated expenditures, fiscal year
2006 estimated expenditures and estimated obligations, and fiscal year 2007
requested funds by the United States Agency for International Development, by
country and central program, for each of the following: (i) to promote the transfer
and deployment of a wide range of United States clean energy and energy
efficiency technologies; (ii) to assist in the measurement, monitoring, reporting,
verification, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) to promote carbon
capture and sequestration measures; (iv) to help meet such countries’
responsibilities under the Framework Convention on Climate Change; and (v) to
develop assessments of the vulnerability to impacts of climate change and
mitigation and adaptation response strategies.

---

CRS-21
Appendix II. Climate Change Technology Priorities
Table 4. Climate Change Technology Development and
Deployment for the 21st Century in the Strategic Plan
for the Climate Change Technology Program
Goal
Short Term
Midterm
Long Term
10-20 years
20-40 years
40-60 years
Goal 1:
Hybrid and plug-in
Fuel cell vehicles
Widespread use of
Energy End-Use
hybrid electric
and hydrogen fuels
engineered urban
and Infrastructure
vehicles
designs and regional
planning
Engineered urban
Low emission
Energy managed
designs
aircraft
communities
High-performance
Solid-state lighting
Integration of
integrated homes
industrial heat,
power, process and
techniques
High efficiency
Ultra-efficient
Superconducting
appliances
HVACR
transmission and
equipment
High efficiency
“Smart” buildings
boilers and
combustion systems
Transformational
technologies for
energy-intensive
industries
Energy storage for
load leveling
Goal 2:
IGCC
FutureGen scale-up Zero-emission fossil
Energy Supply
Commercialization
energy
Stationary hydrogen
Hydrogen co-
Hydrogen and
fuel cells
production from
electric economy
coal/biomass
Cost-competitive
Low wind speed
Widespread
solar photovoltaics
turbines
renewable energy
Demonstrations of
Advanced
Bio-inspired energy
cellulosic ethanol
biorefineries
and fuels
Distributed electric
Community-scale
Widespread nuclear
generation
solar
power
Advanced fission
Gen IV nuclear
Fusion power plants
reactor and fuel cycle plants
technology
Fusion pilot plant
demonstration

---

CRS-22
Goal
Short Term
Midterm
Long Term
10-20 years
20-40 years
40-60 years
Goal 3: Capture,
CSLF and CRSP
Geologic storage
Track record of
Storage, and
proven safe
successful CO2
Sequestration
storage experience
Pos combustion
CO2 transport
Large-scale
capture
infrastructure
sequestration
Oxy-fuel combustion
Soils uptake and
Carbon and CO2
land use
based products and
materials
Enhanced
Ocean CO2
Safe long-term ocean
hydrocarbon recovery biological impacts
storage
addressed
Goal 4: Other Gases Methane to Markets
Advanced landfill
Integrated waste
gas utilization
management system
with automated
sorting, processing
and recycling
Precision agriculture
Soil microbial
Zero-emission
processes
agriculture
Advanced
Substitutes for SF
Solid-state
6
refrigeration
refrigeration/AC
technologies
systems
Goal 5: Measure
Low-cost sensors and Large-scale, secure
Fully operational
and Monitor
communications
data storage system integrated MM
systems architecture
(sensors, indicators,
data visualization
and storage, models).
Direct measurement
to replace proxies
and estimators
Source: U.S. Climate Change Techology Program, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program:
Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning (Washington, 2005) [http://www.climatetechnology.
gov/vision2005/index.htm].

---

CRS-23
Table 5. Budget Authority for National Climate Change Technology Initiative Priorities by Federal Agency,
FY2005-FY2006 Actual, FY2007 Enacted, and the FY2008 Request
(in millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Explanation Provided by the NCCTI Strategic Plan
Activity
Agency
Actual
Actual
Enacted
Request
Hydrogen Storage
DOE
$22
$26
$35
$44 Addresses key challenge to advancing a hydrogen-based
transportation system, which could substitute for oil and
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A major
technological breakthrough is needed to be able to store enough
hydrogen on board a fuel cell vehicle to provide a driving range
comparable to today’s vehicles.
Low Wind Speed
DOE
$10
$6
$12
$6 Currently, wind power is only cost competitive in areas of high
Technology
wind speeds, which are relatively sparse and not near major load
centers. Improving technologies to make wind power competitive
in low-wind speed areas could expand this GHG-free power
producer and displace (or reduce future need for) coal- and gas-
fired electricity generation. Includes R&D on deepwater off-
shore systems.
Solid State Lighting
DOE
$14
$19
$30
$19 Such lighting has the potential to double the efficiency of
conventional lighting. Deployment could reduce GHG emissions
and slow the growth of future base load electricity generation
capacity, which will largely use coal.

---

CRS-24
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Explanation Provided by the NCCTI Strategic Plan
Activity
Agency
Actual
Actual
Enacted
Request
Cellulosic Biomass
DOE
$11
$14
$33
$38 The research focuses on converting complex cellulosic
(Biochemical Platform
carbohydrates of biomass into simple sugars. Ultimately, this
R&D)
could lead to use of “waste” biomass to produce power,
chemicals, and fuel, such as ethanol. Cellulosic biofuels can
displace fossil fuel products and have the potential to be nearly
“carbon neutral” by cyclically capturing and releasing carbon
dioxide, the main GHG, to the atmosphere.
Transportation Fuel Cell
DOE
$8
$1
$8
$8 This activity works to incorporate fuel cells into vehicles —
Systems
converting hydrogen into electricity and water vapor — directly
displacing the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles. Sequestration
DOE 78.2 The continued use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, to
generate electricity may be important to maintain both a
diversified fuel mix and ensure adequate energy supplies at a
reasonable price. A successful carbon sequestration research and
development effort could allow the continued use of economical
fossil fuels, while also limiting GHG emissions to the
atmosphere.

---

CRS-25
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Explanation Provided by the NCCTI Strategic Plan
Activity
Agency
Actual
Actual
Enacted
Request
Sequestration
DOE
$44
$65
$105
$86 Present technology for geologic carbon sequestration has costs in
the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon emissions avoided.
DOE’s sequestration program aims to reduce the cost of carbon
sequestration to $10 or less per net ton of carbon emissions
avoided by 2015. Achieving a mid-point stabilization scenario
(e.g., 550 parts per million CO2) would not require zero emission
systems in the near term but would allow 10-15 years to develop
cost effective technology for new electricity generation capacity
and capital stock replacement.
Integrated Gasification
DOE
$45
$56
$59
$53 Instead of burning coal, IGCC technology gasifies coal in such a
Combined Cycle (IGCC)
way so as to enable the more efficient conversion of coal and
other carbon-based feedstocks into electricity and other useful
products, providing the potential for over 50 percent reduction in
CO2 emissions, compared to today’s more conventional
combustion technologies. It also facilitates capture and
sequestration processes.
Nuclear Hydrogen
DOE
$9
$24
$19
$23 This program aims to develop technologies that will apply heat
Initiative
available from advanced nuclear energy systems, in combination
with power production, to produce hydrogen at a cost that is
competitive with other alternative transportation fuels. Although
but one of many hydrogen production methods, nuclear energy
provides an emissions-free way to produce large amounts of
hydrogen.

---

CRS-26
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Explanation Provided by the NCCTI Strategic Plan
Activity
Agency
Actual
Actual
Enacted
Request
Advanced Fuel
DOE
$0
$78
$167
$395 Advances in nuclear fuel recycling can make nuclear power,
Cycle/Advanced Burner
which emits no GHG emissions, more attractive. The Advanced
Reactor
Burner Reactor (ABR) is a component of a multifaceted research
program aimed at recycling spent nuclear fuel; reducing waste;
promoting non-proliferation; and enabling the expansion of
nuclear power — a GHG-free energy source. With ABR
technology, the only waste to be placed in a repository is of a less
challenging content, absent long-lived radioactive isotopes and
other transuranics. One Yucca Mountain size repository would be
able to accommodate the waste from many reactor years of
operation — a content that would fill as many as 21 equal
repositories taking all that spent fuel directly.
Methane Partnership
EPA
$9
$10
$13
$13 Includes EPA’s domestic partnership programs with industry, as
Initiatives
well as the international Methane to Markets Partnership. These
programs encourage development and deployment of
technologies to reduce methane emissions and make a substantial
contribution to achievement of the President’s GHG intensity
reduction goal.
Climate
EPA
$2
NAa
NAa
NAb Climate Leaders is a set of flagship voluntary industry-
Leadersa
government partnerships that encourage private entities to
develop and implement long-term, comprehensive climate
strategies, and set GHG emission reduction goals.

---

CRS-27
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Explanation Provided by the NCCTI Strategic Plan
Activity
Agency
Actual
Actual
Enacted
Request
c
Climate Change
DOE
$0
$1
$1 The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is multi-
Technology Program
agency planning and coordination activity, led by DOE, that
(CCTP) Support
carries out the President’s climate change technology initiative
and implements relevant climate change provisions of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is important to the support of the
larger CCTP portfolio.
All Priority Activitiesb
$173
$299
$481
$685
Source: Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, Appendix B, pp. 221-223, available at [http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/index.htm], and OMB, Federal
Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress, May 2007, Table 5, p. 16.
a. “Climate Leaders” is listed in the CCTP Strategic Plan but is not included in Table 5 of the OMB Report to Congress, op cit., May 2007. The CCTP Strategic Plan reported FY2006
enacted budget authority, and a FY2007 budget request, of $2.0 million for each of those fiscal years.
b. Totals for the President’s FY2008 budget request reflect only those proposals that are listed in Table 5 of the OMB Report to Congress, op cit., May 2007.
c. In FY2005, $1.5 million was enacted for CCTP within DOE’s Cellulosic Biomass, and Transportation Fuel Cells Programs.

---