Climate Change: Federal Research, Technology, and Related Programs

Climate Change: Federal Research, Technology, and Related Programs

Order Code RL30452
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Climate Change: Federal Research,
Technology, and Related Programs
Updated October 3, 2001
Michael M. Simpson
Specialist
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Climate Change:
Federal Research, Technology, and Related Programs
Summary
A major focus of efforts to address possible global climate change has been on
energy use, given that carbon dioxide, the major “greenhouse gas,” is added to the
atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. Federal programs to increase energy
efficiency and the use of renewable energy resources have a history that goes back
well over two decades. While many of these efforts were aimed at reducing U.S.
dependence on oil imports and addressing electricity needs, they also are relevant to
environmental concerns, including climate change.
The Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) was the Clinton
Administration’s package of R&D (to develop renewable energy sources and more
energy efficient technologies), targeted tax credits (to encourage purchase and
deployment of more efficient technologies), and voluntary information programs (to
help businesses and schools be better informed when making purchasing and operating
decisions that involve energy use and emissions). These programs have been funded
as described in this report for FY2001.
The CCTI was succeeded by the Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget request
for programs which largely continue those of the CCTI (while not using that name),
and the Bush Administration’s announcements of the Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI),
which contain few specifics at present.
The FY2002 request for climate change funds was made in two main parts: $940
million for research and technology programs, and a 10-year $1.1 billion package of
energy tax credits (the issue of tax credits is not covered in this CRS report; instead,
see CRS Issue Brief IB10054 Energy Tax Policy). The climate change research and
technology funding for the Department of Energy accounted for about 86.6% of the
FY2002 request, for the Environmental Protection Agency 13% of the FY2002
request, and for the Department of Agriculture approximately 0.3% of the FY2002
request (please see IB10020 Energy Efficiency and IB10041 Renewable Energy for
more details).
While the Clinton Administration’s budget requests for CCTI basic research
activities generated little controversy, its requests for information and tax incentive
programs were more controversial. Opponents argued that the renewable energy
industry should have relied for commercial development on market forces rather than
federal tax credits and information programs. Proponents held that the federal
government needed to be involved to help overcome market barriers.
With details about the Bush Administration’s climate change initiatives still in
development, some critics highlight the general decrease in funding for climate change
research and technology, and some proponents note that many of the decreases are
due to elimination of certain earmarked projects, or near-commercialization of certain
research projects.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Federal Funding Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Department of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2001 U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2001 National Climate Change Technology Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Clinton Administration CCTI, and Bush Administration Climate Change
Research and Technology Funding by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. DOE Climate Change Research and Technology Programs . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. EPA Climate Change Research and Technology Programs . . . . . . . . . 7

Climate Change: Federal Research,
Technology, and Related Programs
Background
U.S. government policies explicitly addressing possible climate change linked to
“greenhouse gas” emissions date back to the mid-1980s.1 These policies have focused
heavily on scientific research. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, in conjunction with the
U.S. ratification of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), set the direction of U.S. efforts, which continued in the former
Bush and Clinton Administrations toward energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
R&D2, to try to move toward stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
The Climate Change Action Plan announced in 1993 by the Clinton Administration
included more than 40 federal programs to influence, assist, or work with business,
state and local governments, and other entities with the goal of reducing U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions. R&D and other programs since then had largely been
maintained or extended, or modified with some new activities and names. With
evolution from and hybridization among prior efforts, coupled with some
augmentation, packages of programs in the Clinton Administration such as the 1997
Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) were built upon these earlier efforts,
including efforts to reduce dependence on oil imports.
Carbon dioxide, the major “greenhouse gas” of concern in possible climate
change, is produced in large part as a result of energy production and use. The
federal government has had programs dealing with energy efficiency for more than 20
years, and the Congress has held hearings about them since the mid-1970s, when a
major goal of such programs was to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports during
the energy crisis.
During the preparations for the final negotiations of the December 1997 Kyoto
Protocol to the UNFCCC,3 President Clinton announced a three-stage climate change
plan on October 22, 1997.4 The CCTI was described as “the cornerstone of the
[Clinton] Administration’s efforts to stimulate the development and use of renewable
energy technologies and energy efficiency products that will help reduce greenhouse
1For details, please see CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change.
2For further details on this, please see CRS Report RL30024, Global Climate Change Policy:
Cost, Competitiveness, and Comprehensiveness.
3Please see CRS Report 98-2 Global Climate Change Treaty: The Kyoto Protocol for details.
4Details about the plan, as set forth in 1997, can be found at
[http://www.clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Work/102297.html].

CRS-2
gas emissions,”5 through a combination of research and development (R&D), and
information and tax incentive programs. Stage 1, as announced in 1997, included
funding for research and development (R&D), tax incentives for early action, a set of
federal government energy initiatives including various tax credits to encourage
purchase and use of more efficient technologies, and industry consultations to explore
ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stage 2, expected to begin around 2004,
would have reviewed and evaluated stage 1. Stage 3, as envisioned prior to Kyoto,
included actions aimed at reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2008-2012, meeting
the binding targets the U.S. expected to be in the Kyoto Protocol through measures
that include domestic and international emissions trading. The Kyoto Protocol (which
the United States signed on November 11, 1998 but which has not been submitted to
the U.S. Senate for advice and consent on ratification), outlines an obligation for the
United States to reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 7% below
1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.6 The Clinton Administration supported United
States participation in this protocol. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, has
rejected the protocol.
The Congress has passed budget resolutions and appropriations bills with
provisions prohibiting the use of funds to implement the Kyoto Protocol, which has
not been ratified by the United States or entered into force internationally. Some
controversy has been engendered by the possible linkage of funding proposals
associated with the CCTI to the Kyoto Protocol goals. After some early
consideration of these concerns, for the most part the R & D elements have been
found acceptable to the Congress. Moreover, many of the programs related to the
CCTI and other climate research preceded the Kyoto Protocol, and in fact would be
relevant to the voluntary commitments the United States made in the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change to try to meet a voluntary goal of
returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. (See CRS
Report RL30024, Global Climate Change Policy: Cost, Competitiveness, and
Comprehensiveness).
As first outlined in President Clinton’s FY1999 budget request7, the CCTI was
to be a combination of research and technology programs and of tax incentives to
accelerate development and deployment of technologies designed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions: “The CCTI builds and expands upon an existing foundation
of advanced science, basic research, and government-industry partnership. It will
increase U.S. competitiveness, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, help maintain
U.S. leadership in energy technology, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the
same time.”8
5Testimony on May 20, 1999 by Deidre A. Lee, Acting Deputy Director for Management,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to the House Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth.
6Please see CRS Report 98-2 Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol for further details.
7See [http://clinton2.nara.gov/OMB/legislative/testimony/test052099ddm.html for details.
8Climate Change Technology Initiative - A White House Fact Sheet, November 1998.

CRS-3
The Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget request included funding for most
programs of the CCTI (while not using that name). Those request levels are included
in Table 1 below. Separately and later, in June 2001 the Bush Administration
announced two programs, the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and the
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCTI). Funding details presently are
largely absent from the announcements of those initiatives. While details about those
initiatives are pending, information on these programs made available to date is
summarized below.
Federal Funding Levels
CCTI funding consisted of two basic parts: (1) research and technology
programs, and (2) targeted tax incentives (the tax incentive initiative is not covered
in this report; see CRS Report 98-193E Global Climate Change: the Energy Tax
Incentives in the President’s FY 2001 Budget). The research and technology program
in turn consisted of two main parts: research and development, which primarily
focused on understanding processes and developing new technologies related to
carbon sequestration and to improving energy efficiencies; and information, audit, and
other assistance programs to facilitate diffusion and market penetration of
technologies designed to improve energy efficiency or otherwise diminish greenhouse
gas emissions. These two main parts of the research and technology side of CCTI
were not always clearly distinct; to some extent there was a continuum with R&D at
one end and assistance programs at the other. Nonetheless, the distinction has proved
significant, in that R&D was less controversial than the assistance programs were, as
some argued that market forces should have been allowed to determine commercial
development and application. (The same objections were lodged against the tax
incentive proposals.) As enacted for FY2001, $1.239 billion went to research and
technology programs and no funds were provided for tax incentives.
Under the Bush Administration, the FY2002 request for climate change research
and technology is $940 million. Also requested is $1.1 billion for a 10-year package
of energy tax credits, not covered in this CRS report. As shown in Table 1, the
research and technology funding proposed for the Department of Energy accounted
for about 86.6% of the overall climate change research and technology request; 13%
was proposed for the Environmental Protection Agency, and approximately 0.3%
proposed for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

CRS-4
Table 1. Clinton Administration CCTI, and Bush Administration
Climate Change Research and Technology Funding by Agency
($ millions)
Department /
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
Agency
enacted
enacted
enacted
enacted
request
Department of
729
902
980
1103
814
Energy
Environmental
90
109
103
123
123
Protection
Agency
Housing and
0
10
10
10
0
Urban
Development
Department
0
0
0
3
3
of Agriculture
Department of
0
0
2
0
0
Commerce
TOTAL
819
1021
1095
1239
940
Source: “President Clinton’s FY2001 Climate Change Budget,” page 13, and “Federal
Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress June 2001"
Department of Energy
Carbon dioxide as noted above, the major greenhouse gas, arises mostly from
combustion of fossil fuels. The Department of Energy, which has long had R&D
programs relating to fossil fuel energy use, was by far the largest recipient of both
CCTI funding and the FY2002 climate change request (received $1,103 million in
FY2001; $814 million requested in FY2002, as was noted, this was about 86.6% of
the overall interagency climate change request). Funding for the DOE’s efforts were
planned for the research, development, and deployment of more energy efficient and
renewable technologies such as:
! for “Buildings,” low-power sulfur lamps, advanced heat pumps, chillers and
commercial refrigeration, fuel cells, insulation, energy conserving building
materials, and advanced windows;
! for “Electricity,” generation using alternatives to fossil fuels such as solar
energy, biomass power, wind energy, geothermal power, hydropower, and
optimized nuclear power;
! for more efficient “Industries” including aluminum, steel, mining, agriculture,
chemicals, forest products, and petroleum;

CRS-5
! for researching, developing, and deploying more efficient “Transportation”
technologies, such as advanced engines, hybrid systems, fuel cells and emission
controls; these constitute the federal component of the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a 10-year government/domestic auto industry
partnership that aims to produce by 2004 a prototype midsized family car with
80 mile per gallon gasoline efficiency and a two-thirds reduction in carbon
emissions; seven federal agencies are involved in the PNGV (Commerce,
Defense, Energy, Transportation, EPA, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation) (for details on PNGV,
see CRS Report RS20852);
! for trying to find better ways to “Remove and Sequester Carbon” from fossil
and other fuels, via agricultural and other approaches (in conjunction with
EPA, and originally planned in conjunction with USDA); and
! for governmental efforts (federal, state, and others) to conserve energy
through more highly coordinated “Management, Planning, Analysis and
Outreach.”9
As with the PNGV program, many of DOE’s research and technology dollars
have been spent in partnership with other federal entities such as EPA, with other
governmental units, and with private sector entities.
Table 2 below shows a breakdown of funding levels for the DOE climate change
research and technology programs.
Table 2. DOE Climate Change Research and Technology
Programs
($ millions)
Program
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
enacted
enacted
enacted
enacted
request
Buildings
102
124
141
105
60
Energy Conservation
79
96
115
Energy Conservation
(Federal Buildings)
20
24
24

Solar Ht/Cool
3
4
2
/Hot Water
9Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative, Research and Development Support.
E n e r g y I n f o r m a t i o n A g e n c y , U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y .
[http:www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/climate99/research.html]

CRS-6
Transportation
223
250
274
255
198
Energy Conservation
193
202
232

Solar/Renewable,
30
42
39
Alternative Fuels
Energy Information
--
3
3
Administration
--
3
**
Basic Science
Industry
136
167
170
149
88
Energy Conservation
136
166
170
Basic Science
–
1
**
Electricity
239
311
307
421
310
Solar/Renewable
239
291
268
373
277
Nuclear
0
0
5
5
5
Fossil
--
18
34
43
28
Basic Science
--
2
**
--
--
Carbon Removal &
--
13
9
39
43
Sequestration
Fossil
--
6
9
Basic Science
--
7
**
Management,
29
38
43
43
41
Planning, Analysis &
Outreach
29
38
43
Energy Conservation
Basic science
**
**
33
--
--
Total (may not add
729
902
976
1009
740
due to rounding)
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. “Department of Energy Report to Congress on FY2000
Expenditures for Energy Supply, Efficiency, and Security Technologies Supporting the
Climate Change Technology Initiative” May 18, 1999. P. 3. Also, Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report to Congress June 2001.
**“Basic Science” was presented in FY99-00 for the only time as a specific category. It had
been and is now funded in a fragmented fashion throughout other categories.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency uses two main budget categories: Science
and Technology (S&T, which includes R&D and technology development and
diffusion efforts), and Environmental Programs and Management (EPM, which are
the costs to run programs). Therefore, it is difficult to consistently separate R&D
from technology assistance and diffusion efforts. For example, in EPA’s climate
change Buildings Sector, the owner of a building can have EPA’s benchmarking tool
voluntarily applied to that building as a target for energy reduction. Various activities
can be tried, e.g., plugging leaks and replacing less efficient lights with more efficient
lights, to see if the benchmark will be met. If not, other activities can be tried in an

CRS-7
iterative fashion, trying and recording and incorporating the findings in the
benchmark. This program includes activities that can be described as both research-
related and technology diffusion and assistance. EPA’s figures for climate change
S&T are used here.
The EPA received $123 million in FY2001 and requested the same amount for
FY2002 (which is 13% of the overall interagency climate change request). While there
has been some discussion about the proper roles for government, industry, and
academe in climate change and other R&D,10 the climate change R&D activities were
not highly controversial. In general, EPA funds targeted for R&D, especially areas
of more basic R&D that predate the CCTI and the Kyoto Protocol, were less
controversial, and funds for new programs intended to assist technology deployment
and diffusion and to help consumers learn about and choose more efficient
commodities and processes have been more controversial.
The elements and levels of EPA’s climate change research and technology funds
are summarized in Table 3. Activities related to these program areas are briefly
described below. Some of these funding areas focused heavily on R&D, while others
involved information dissemination and other activities.
Table 3. EPA Climate Change Research and Technology
Programs
($ millions)
Program
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
enacted
enacted
enacted
request
Buildings
38.8
42.6
52
53
Transportation
31.8
29.6
27
32
Industry
18.6
22.0
32
27
Carbon Removal
0.0
1.0
1
2
State & Local
2.9
2.5
8
9
Governments
International Capacity
7.4
5.6
**
**
Building
Research
10
0
0
***
Total
109.5
103.3
120
123
Sources: EPA FY2000 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, p. VI-19
and HR1743 "Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Authorization
Act of 1999" ordered to be reported May 26, 1999. Also, Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report to Congress June 2001.
10Please see CRS Report 98-365 Some Perspectives on the Changing Role of the U.S.
Government in Science and Technology for details.

CRS-8
** Funding for State & Local Governments was combined with funding for International
Capacity Building in FY01 and FY02.
***Money for research was incorporated into other categories.
! The “Buildings” component of EPA’s climate change research and technology
activities include housing and commercial structures. EPA and others
(including DOE) argue that efforts by individual and organizational consumers
to secure the most energy efficient process or commodity are hampered by a
lack of objective information on which to make comparisons (for details, see
IB10020 Energy Efficiency: Budget, Climate Change, and Electricity
Restructuring Issues). Through the Agency’s ENERGY STAR Program and
ENERGY STAR Buildings and Green Lights Partnership, EPA evaluates and
certifies energy-saving building-related products (including such items as
televisions, appliances, residential lighting, and whole houses), and makes that
information available so that consumers and businesses can choose energy-
saving and pollution-reducing products more easily.
! “Transportation” activities of EPA include the following:
<
expanded support for a program which provides new incentives for
commuters to consider transit, ridesharing, or other alternatives to
driving;
<
continued support of state and local efforts toward livable
communities and smart growth; and
<
continued efforts in the Transportation Partners network which links
about 340 local governments, community organizations, and
companies in order to produce knowledge that is designed to reduce
vehicle miles traveled
<
continued work contributing to the Partnership for a New Generation
of Vehicles (the government/domestic auto industry partnership
described previously under DOE).
! EPA’s “Industry” efforts include working with industries (especially energy-
intensive industries such as cement, chemicals, steel, petroleum, airlines, and
food processing), commonly through technical assistance, to audit and identify
greenhouse gas emission sources and to help in formulating appropriate
reduction goals and strategies, including removal of regulatory and other
barriers. This includes working with ongoing privately-funded energy
efficiency programs at private companies.
! “Carbon Removal” efforts at EPA are planned in coordination with the
Department of Agriculture. The EPA/USDA funds for this activity are to
study the kinds and sizes of incentives that could be given to land owners and
crop growers to increase the quantity of carbon stored on agricultural and
forest lands, and at the same time improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion, and
enhance other environmental and conservation goals.

CRS-9
! EPA works with “State and Local Governments” to help find ways to reduce
energy use and pollution, sometimes by supporting existing state and local
programs. The Cities for Climate Protection program, for example, involves
54 local governments in 1998 in implementing building, transportation, waste,
and renewable energy projects to eliminate about 3 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide. A state-level example is New Jersey’s state carbon bank
program, established to help achieve New Jersey’s greenhouse gas emissions
reduction goal of 3.5% below 1990 levels by 2005.
! Developing countries currently emit more than half the global total of
greenhouse gases, and such emissions are growing rapidly. “International
Capacity Building” involves EPA and other agencies working to study ways
to provide technical assistance to developing countries to aid in reducing their
emissions.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Climate change research and technology programs, new to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in FY1999, were for the government/
housing developers/ builders Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing
(PATH). Administered by HUD and identified as part of the CCTI through FY2001,
PATH research had a number of goals in addition to climate change. PATH efforts
sought “to develop and disseminate technologies that will result in housing that is
substantially more affordable, durable, disaster resistant, safer and energy/resource
efficient...”11 No money for HUD was requested by the Bush Administration for
FY2002.
Department of Agriculture
The FY2002 request of $3 million, unchanged from the amount enacted in
FY2001, for USDA’s climate change research and technology activities is principally
to try to understand and better manage the carbon cycle, from sources to
sequestration, focusing principally on agricultural approaches.
Department of Commerce
Various programs within the Department of Commerce addressed issues relating
to climate change. The wide range of research in Commerce’s National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) included long-standing climate-related work,
much of it not specifically identified as CCTI but rather part of NOAA’s generic
mission. Among other things, research at NOAA sought to determine “the impacts
of climate variability and change on ecosystems; ... understand how radiative,
chemical, and dynamical processes interact in the upper troposphere/lower
stratosphere to affect climate; ... (and) study the effects of climate variability and
11Department of Housing and Urban Development Policy Development and Research, from
[http://www.hud.gov/bdfy2000/summary/pdandr/randt.cfm]

CRS-10
change on health...”12 There also were programs at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) which looked at climate change issues.13 The $2
million requested and provided in the FY2000 budget for the CCTI specifically was
new to the Department and did not go to NOAA14 or NIST as a single CCTI line-item
but to various climate-related R&D projects. No funds were specified for Commerce
Department climate change activities in subsequent budget requests.
2001 U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative
The Bush Administration submitted a FY2002 climate change budget request
that largely followed the programs and categories that made up the Clinton
Administration’s Climate Change Technology Initiative. On June 11, 2001 the Bush
Administration issued the White House Initial Review on Climate Change, a Cabinet-
level review of U.S. climate change policy. Members of the Cabinet, the Vice
President, and senior White House staff examined the science, technologies, U.S.
activities, and options for addressing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The White House Initial Review included the announcement of the U.S. Climate
Change Research Initiative which: “... directs the Secretary of Commerce, working
with other agencies, to set priorities for additional investments in climate change
research, to review such investments, and to maximize coordination among federal
agencies; fully funds all priority research areas that the Secretary of Commerce’s
review finds are underfunded or need to be accelerated relative to other research;
challenges the major greenhouse gas emitting countries to increase significantly their
investments in high priority areas of climate change research; provides up to $25
million, and calls on other developed countries to provide matching funds, to help
build climate observation systems in developing countries; and proposes a joint
venture with the EU, Japan and others to develop state-of-the-art climate modeling
to help us better predict the causes and consequences of climate change.”15
Further details are pending. The funding mentioned in the Initial Review has not
been included in the FY2002 budget request.16
12Department of Commerce budget initiative, details of which can be found at
[http://www.oarhq.noaa.gov/]
13Telephone communication with the National Institute of Standards and Technology on
December 6, 1999.
14Personal communication with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
December 6, 1999.
15White House Initial Review on Climate Change, Issued June 11, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
16While the Secretary of Commerce is specifically listed, no details are provided about specific
roles for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other parts of Commerce, or
other federal agencies.

CRS-11
2001 National Climate Change Technology Initiative
In the same Initial Review, the Bush Administration announced the National
Climate Change Technology Initiative, in which “the President is charging the
Secretaries of Commerce and Energy, working with other agencies, to:
! Evaluate the current state of U.S. climate change technology research and
development and make recommendations for improvements.
! Provide guidance on strengthening basic research at universities and national
laboratories, including the development of the advanced mitigation
technologies that offer the greatest promise for low-cost reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions.
! Develop opportunities to enhance private-public partnerships in applied
research and development to expedite innovative and cost-effective approaches
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
! Make recommendations for funding demonstration projects for cutting-edge
technologies.
! Develop improved technologies for measuring and monitoring gross and net
greenhouse gas emissions.
! Enhance coordination across federal agencies, and among the federal
government, universities, and the private sector.”17
No proposed funding or timetable were mentioned in the White House
announcement about the NCCTI.
Conclusion
Possible climate change linked to “greenhouse gas” emissions has been addressed
by various U.S. government policies, including an emphasis on R&D, since the mid-
1980s. U.S. efforts in the former Bush and Clinton Administrations toward energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and R&D were given direction by the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 and the UNFCCC. The 1993 Climate Change Action Plan linked or made
partnerships among various federal agencies, business, state and local governments,
and other entities with the goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The
Clinton Administration’s CCTI built upon these earlier efforts. The current Bush
Administration has, with funding and other details pending, announced its U.S.
Climate Change Research Initiative (which has the goal of setting priorities for
additional investments in and interagency coordination of climate change research),
and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (which has the goal of
strengthening research in academe and national labs, improving monitoring of
17White House Initial Review, ibid.

CRS-12
greenhouse gas emissions, and funding demonstrations of cutting-edge technologies).
As funding and other details become available, differences from earlier climate-change
programs may become apparent.
There were two parts to the research and technology elements of the Clinton
Administration’s CCTI: (1) R&D of environmentally more beneficial technologies and
policies; and (2) information, audit, and other assistance intended to help individual
and organizational consumers learn of, choose, and use more efficient goods and
processes (e.g., energy saving computers or industrial processes).
The pursuit of R&D was not highly controversial, especially for basic research.
More controversy arose from the federal government’s past and proposed efforts to
use public funds to encourage and to help private individuals, companies, and
organizations more quickly benefit from various environmental technologies. As
stated by then OMB Acting Deputy Director for Management Deidre Lee, spurring
broader use of energy efficient technologies and renewable energy would have
reduced energy bills and secured other benefits, so that “even if the threat of global
warming did not exist, the [Clinton] Administration believes that these [CCTI]
programs make good sense because they help our country address other energy-
related and environmental challenges.”18 It was argued by some that economic
benefits of saving money should have been sufficient incentives for consumers to
invest in more efficient technology, that the renewable energy industry should have
relied for commercial development on market forces rather than federal tax credits
and information programs.19 On the other hand, Lee and others argued that the
Government needed to be involved to help overcome market barriers, such as a lack
of accurate information and existing subsidies for other energy technologies, so as to
permit informed energy-saving choices.
In the CCTI, the Clinton Administration drew on several federal agencies and
departments in addressing the issue of climate change while aiming to secure other
societal benefits as well. While the Clinton Administration’s budget requests for
CCTI R&D activities generated some controversy, its requests for CCTI information
and tax incentive programs were more controversial. Differences between the Clinton
Administration and Congress on the value of information and incentive programs in
the various federal agencies and departments existed not only because of different
perspectives between the executive and legislative branches, but also because of
procedural and jurisdictional boundaries among the congressional committees and
subcommittees responsible for the various federal agencies and departments (see CRS
Report RL30043 Environmental, Health, and Safety Tradeoffs: A Discussion of
Policymaking Opportunities and Constraints for details). These boundaries made
difficult tradeoffs among the several elements of CCTI and meant that each element
tended to fend for itself in budgetary considerations.
18Testimony on May 20, 1999 by Deidre A. Lee, Acting Deputy Director for Management,
OMB, to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on
National Economic Growth.
19This position was described by Hon. Ken Calvert in his opening statement of the House
Science Committee hearing on April 14, 1999.

CRS-13
The specified focus on the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy in the current
Bush Administration’s Climate Change Research Initiative and National Climate
Change Technology Initiative is different from the approach of many of the programs
in the CCTI. Details about the CCRI and NCCTI are pending and may illuminate
other differences from the climate change efforts of the Clinton Administration’s
CCTI. As it stands, some critics of current climate change policy highlight the general
decrease in funding for climate change research and technology, while on the other
hand some proponents note that many of the decreases are due to elimination of
certain earmarked projects, or near-commercialization of certain research projects.