Detailed Information on the
EPA Climate Change Programs Assessment

The Clean Automotive Technology program will work to develop better performance measures that more clearly link to greenhouse gas reduction potential in the near term.

The Clean Automotive Technology program will annually report progress towards commercialization of its advanced technologies (2008 thru 2011).

EPA will complete an assessment and comparison of the potential benefits and efforts of the Clean Automotive Technology program to other agency??s efforts with similar goals by April 1,2005.

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the building sector.

Explanation:

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the building sector.

Explanation:

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the building sector.

Explanation:The PART goal for the Building sector is derived from energy savings, primarily electricity, occurring as a result of EPA programs. In 2006, it is estimated that EPA's work in the building sector offset 4% of total U.S. electricity demand. In order to reach the 2012 PART carbon goal, EPA will need to offset about 7% of expected total U.S. electricity demand. The electricity demand offset--where most of the program energy savings occur-- will almost double in only six years. In addition, reductions from the Building sector are expected to contribute about one third of the reductions necessary to reach the President's greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal.

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the buildings sector.

Explanation:The PART goal for the Building sector is derived from energy savings, primarily electricity, occurring as a result of EPA programs. In 2006, it is estimated that EPA's work in the building sector offset 4% of total U.S. electricity demand. In order to reach the 2012 PART carbon goal, EPA will need to offset about 7% of expected total U.S. electricity demand. The electricity demand offset--where most of the program energy savings occur-- will almost double in only six years. In addition, reductions from the Building sector are expected to contribute about one third of the reductions necessary to reach the President's greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal.

Measure: Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in the Building sector.

Explanation:For this measure, "societal dollar" is equivalent to federal funding only since industry savings offset industry costs.

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the industry sector.

Explanation:Please note that annual targets will change when the 2006 Climate Action Report comes out. This report is published to fulfill the US commitment under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In particular, the targets for the Industrial sector are expected to be considerably lower due to structural changes in specific industries, plant closings, and other economic factors. We have communicated these anticipated changes in the past, but just want to make note of it again.

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the industry sector.

Explanation:Targets have been updated to reflect information developed for the 2006 Climate Action Report.

Measure: Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in the Industry sector.

Explanation:For this measure, "societal dollar" is equivalent to federal funding only since industry savings offset industry costs.

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the transportation sector.

Explanation:The transportation sector reductions are achieved through EPA's SmartWay program. Using data from the Annual Energy Outlook, 2001, and FHWA's Highway Statistics, we calculated that GHG baseline emissions from freight trucks (class 7 and 8) were 90.8 mmtce in 2000, and would climb to 115.2 mmtce by 2010. Using a cost-benefit analysis on 16 different fuel saving technologies and strategies, we calculated that if 50% of the strategies that showed a positive financial return were adopted, it would reduce emissions by 9.2 mmtce, and if 100% were adopted, it would reduce emissions by 18.3 mmtce. After reviewing the data and taking into account past performance, EPA chose 12.0 mmtce as our target goal for 2012.

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the transportation sector.

Explanation:The transportation sector reductions are achieved through EPA's SmartWay program. Using data from the Annual Energy Outlook, 2001, and FHWA's Highway Statistics, we calculated that GHG baseline emissions from freight trucks (class 7 and 8) were 90.8 mmtce in 2000, and would climb to 115.2 mmtce by 2010. Using a cost-benefit analysis on 16 different fuel saving technologies and strategies, we calculated that if 50% of the strategies that showed a positive financial return were adopted, it would reduce emissions by 9.2 mmtce, and if 100% were adopted, it would reduce emissions by 18.3 mmtce. After reviewing the data and taking into account past performance, EPA chose 12.0 mmtce as our target goal for 2012.

Measure: Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented per societal dollar in the Transportation sector.

Explanation:For this measure, "societal dollar" is equivalent to federal funding only since industry savings offset industry costs.

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the building sector.

Explanation:

Measure: Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the transportation sector.

Explanation:The transportation sector reductions are achieved through EPA's SmartWay program. Using data from the Annual Energy Outlook, 2001, and FHWA's Highway Statistics, we calculated that GHG baseline emissions from freight trucks (class 7 and 8) were 90.8 mmtce in 2000, and would climb to 115.2 mmtce by 2010. Using a cost-benefit analysis on 16 different fuel saving technologies and strategies, we calculated that if 50% of the strategies that showed a positive financial return were adopted, it would reduce emissions by 9.2 mmtce, and if 100% were adopted, it would reduce emissions by 18.3 mmtce. After reviewing the data and taking into account past performance, EPA chose 12.0 mmtce as our target goal for 2012.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: EPA's Climate Change programs work with the private sector to cost effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and identify and facilitate energy efficiency improvements. In February 2002, President Bush reaffirmed the US pledge to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by announcing a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the US by 18% by 2012 through voluntary, incentive-based and existing mandatory measures. EPA's climate change programs help the US meet the President's announced goal.

Evidence: Clean Air Act, Section 103(g). White House Global Climate Change Policy Book: www.whitehouse.gov/news/ releases/2002/02/climatechange.html has a summary of the President's approach to the challenge of global climate change. EPA's FY2004 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Cost-effective near term greenhouse gas reductions are an important element of meeting President Bush's national goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18% by 2012, EPA's Climate Change Programs play a role in this by promoting energy efficiency and emissions minimization in various sectors of the economy using technologies and practices available today. The majority of the Climate Change programs are voluntary partnership efforts that encourage companies to make cost effective improvements in near term. One Climate Change program is focused on the development of advanced engine and vehicle technologies that reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

Evidence: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Achieving President Bush's 2012 goal will require efforts on multiple fronts by many agencies of the federal government. The Administration's portfolio includes actions focused on reducing the fundamental scientific uncertainties associated with climate change; advancing the development and use of energy-efficient, renewable, and other low- or non-emitting technologies, and improving standards for measuring and registering emissions reductions. Activities are distributed across multiple agencies to take advantage of their unique expertise in certain areas. EPA's climate change programs are based on the agency's experience working with the private sector. The programs include voluntary partnership and outreach programs and one research and development program focused on engines and vehicles. These programs target three main sectors: Industry, Transportation, and Buildings. Because of EPA's unique approach and scope, the voluntary programs on the whole are not redundant of any other programs.

Evidence: US Climate Action Report (2002). Federal Climate Change Expenditures: Report to Congress. May 2004. The President's fiscal year 2005 Budget proposes $5.8 billion for climate change activities. EPA's share of that proposal is $110 million or 2% of the total. EPA's programs in each of the three sectors are designed to address a specific contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, ENERGY STAR is the only national program that addresses energy-efficiency specifications and labeling on major appliances, office equipment, lightning, home electronics, new homes and commercial and industrial buildings. EPA works with industrial partners to reduce emissions from various sources. EPA works to develop vehicle technologies that will get substantially greater gas efficiency.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There is no evidence that another approach or mechanism would be more efficient or effective in achieving the programs' intended purpose. EPA's climate change programs have been designed based on the principles of the President's climate policy (which stresses the use of voluntary and incentive-based programs) and within the constraints of the agency's statutory authorities. The climate change programs have been designed to focus efforts across major economic sectors, major greenhouse gases, major sources of emissions, and major groups of partners in order to maximize benefits and efficiency. The programs have been designed to address and reduce market barriers using mechanisms available to the federal government.

Evidence: Clean Air Act, Section 103(g) which allows EPA to develop, evaluate, and demonstrate nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing emissions. White House Global Climate Change Policy Book: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html has a summary of the President's approach to the challenge of global climate change. EPA's FY2004 Annual Performance Plan, Reports, and Congressional Justifications. Memo from Robert Fabricant (EPA's General Counsel) to Marianne Horinko (EPA's Acting Administrator) on "EPA's Authority to Impose Mandatory Controls to Address Global Climate Change under the Clean Air Act" 8/23/03.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: It is not clear that all the programs reviewed in this PART are effectively targeted. Considering this in terms of sectors, it is not clear that adequate comparisons are made to ensure effective targeting across the sectors. In addition, the Climate Change programs promote and accelerate many private sector (or other governmental) activities that would or could have been undertaken regardless of EPA's intervention. The programs argue that organizations and companies choose to participate in the climate partnerships because the overall savings gained by undertaking certain actions (which the organization or company identifies) will outweigh the costs. Sufficient evidence was not provided to show that the acceleration provided by EPA's Climate Change programs' warrants the intervention (and associated federal expenditures).

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: EPA has developed a limited number of long-term performance measures, at least one for each sector (buildings, industry, and transportation) evaluated in this PART. EPA has also developed acceptable long-term efficiency measures for each of the three sectors. The long-term measures are output measures because the programs directly support the President's output goal of an 18% reduction in greenhouse gas intensity. Though the R&D Clean Automotive Technology program has established goals, further work is needed to strengthen the link to the near term greenhouse reduction goals established for the Transportation sector.

Evidence: EPA's long-term performance measures are included (and defined) in EPA's 2003 Strategic Plan and included in EPA's 2005 Congressional Justification.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: In direct support of the President's Climate Change goal, EPA's climate change programs are targeted to deliver 120 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MMTCE) of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.

Evidence: An 18% reduction in greenhouse gas intensity is a high bar. EPA's targets and timeframes have been developed to assist in achieving this goal. The program is developing the baselines and targets for the long-term efficiency measures.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Sector-specific annual performance measures have been established that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals. Individual programs within each sector have measures which directly contribute to annual goals for the sector. Annual targets are under development for the efficiency measures. These measures track the amount of MMTCE reduced per societal dollar spent in each of the three sectors. "Societal dollar" include both federal and non-federal (i.e., private) costs. Since these are voluntary programs, industry costs for implementing these programs are offset by savings from these programs. Therefore, "societal dollar" (as used in this measure) is equivalent to the "EPA dollar" spent to achieve the MMTCE reductions.

Evidence: Annual performance measures for EPA's Climate Change program are provided in EPA's 2005 Congressional Budget Justification and GPRA documentation. A discussion of private costs and savings can be found in EPA's 2002 Annual Report: http;//energystar.gov/ia/partners/cpdann02.pdf

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Based on early calculations, it is expected that EPA's climate change programs will deliver a sizable portion of the reductions needed to achieve the President's climate goal. EPA's climate programs, in aggregate, are targeted to achieve a tripling of reductions through 2012 (a 10-year period). The President's goal set the baseline in terms of a business-as-usual path through the year 2012. EPA adopted the President's baseline projections for its climate change programs.

Evidence: The methodology and data used in developing the President's baseline and goal is available at: http:''www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/addendum.pdf

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: EPA's partners in the climate change programs are generally companies, organizations, and state and local governments. EPA determines the appropriate form of commitment necessary and the number of organizations needed to work in partnership with EPA for EPA to meet its near and longer-term goals. Partners then adopt these commitments as part of their partnership efforts. For example, partners in the Clean Automotive Technology program have agreed to support focused efforts to resolve key technology challenges with the overall goal of moving technologies closer to commercialization and partners in the aluminum industry have agreed to reduce their direct emissions of greenhouse gases by 25% relative to 2000 levels by 2010.

Evidence: Partners (in this voluntary program) make their commitments to EPA by signing partnership agreements or letters of commitment. The agreement addresses the key actions the partner will take that are within the partner's control such as undertaking or facilitating a project that improves energy efficiency or reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: A Yes answer to this question would require regularly scheduled objective, high quality, independent evaluations that examine how well the programs or sectors are accomplishing their missions and meeting their long-term goals. While several of the reports and evaluations presented by EPA meet some of the criteria, none met all of the criteria spelled out in the guidance.

Evidence:  

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Evidence was provided that showed program funding broken out and tracked to the activity level and that linked activities to specific output targets and/or accomplishments. No evidence was provided to show how these tracking sheets link to the higher-level OAR-wide budgeting efforts. The Program Plan table allows for estimating the impact of funding decisions on performance but it was not clear how this was used in real time. EPA develops business plans for the various climate programs within the sectors, which include challenges, achievements, opportunities, activities and some related budget info. The information in these plans are pulled and included in the tracking spreadsheets. Though there is evidence of expenditure tracking and it is clear that budget information is aggregated, it is not fully clear how the aggregation occurs - there is no clear thread that links the various databases and spreadsheets together.

Evidence: Program Plan for Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP) (FY03 example provided). Historical Climate Programs funding table. Business Activity Tracking System for OAP.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Strategic planning for the Climate Change Programs is done as part of two processes: the development of the National Communications required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and EPA's internal strategic plan revision process. The Climate Change programs review performance and market information to identify gaps and areas for improvement annually. During the development of the National Communication, EPA participates in evaluating progress toward and their contributions to national goals and stated policy, relying in part on historical annual review information. This information is also considered in the programs' efforts to update their section of the agency's strategic plan. Adjustments are made to EPA's programs where needed to assist in addressing shortcomings identified in the national-level as well as agency-level reviews.

Evidence: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) US National Communications (Climate Action Reports), 1997 and 2002. 1997 Climate Action Report, p. 80 -84: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usnc2.pdf. See historical business plans from the following programs: Energy Star for Industry, CHP Partnership, Landfill Methane, Coalbed Methane, SF6 Reduction for Electric Power and Magnesium, and AgSTAR. Specific example of programmatic changes that resulted from strategic planning efforts: Redesign of AgSTAR program - strategically repositioned, goals revised, and budgets substantially reduced as EPA found it difficult to advance agricultural best practices in original structure.

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program to other efforts that have similar goals?

Explanation: EPA's climate change activities include the Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) program. The CAT program's goal is to develop innovative and advanced technologies that can reduce both fuel consumption and emissions. Other agencies, most notably the Department of Energy (DOE) and private industry are also engaged in similar efforts to improve the energy efficiency of vehicles. EPA has conducted at least one thorough peer review of technologies (and associated benefits) that it has experience with and has done internal comparisons with other agencies efforts at different levels. In addition, the Agency has participated in peer-reviews of similar efforts at other agencies. Limited evidence was provided on the periodicity of peer reviews and on the process for completing peer-review comparisons. Future peer-reviewed analyses should incorporate more alternative approaches rather than mainly activities the agency is already undertaking.

Evidence: DOE's annual National Laboratory R and D Merit Review and Peer Evaluation - EPA comments. Technology benefits comparison presentations to senior management. Progress Report on Clean and Efficient Automotive Technologies under Development at EPA, January 2004 (peer-reviewed).

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: Within the framework of their current strategy, EPA has a prioritization process. First, the Agency uses a technical screening process to ensure that only projects which have high technical potential are funded. For example, EPA performed combustion modeling analysis on all new engine concepts to determine the potential efficiency benefits and only pursued those which show the maximum net benefits. Also, EPA uses a commercialization screening process to ensure that only those projects which have the potential for excellent long-term business cases are funded.

Evidence: Progress Report on Clean and Efficient Automotive Technologies Under Development at EPA - Interim Technical Report - January 2004. Highlights of the Hybrid Propulsion Activity, Automotive Research Center, University of Michigan. March 2004.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: While EPA collects a lot of data (quarterly, annually, etc.) on progress for certain programs/sectors (i.e. reduction in gas emissions, number of buildings earning the ENERGY STAR label, etc.) and in those cases the programs/sectors clearly use the data to make resource and planning decisions, this is not the case for all programs/sectors reviewed in this PART.

Evidence:  

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Senior managers in the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) develop and identify the major program commitments and results during the year. These commitments identify, prioritize, and organize the work and results that will be accomplished. All managers have a Performance Standard as part of their Performance Agreement which lists the specific goals they need to meet. For example, "In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 81 MMTCE through EPA partnerships with business, schools". The voluntary partners in EPA's climate change programs are held accountable to the extent that EPA recognition of their participation is withdrawn if they fail to meet their partnership agreements. Because these are predominately voluntary programs, traditional accountability mechanisms are not particularly effective. [DO I HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THE CRADAS/CAT DOES WITH THEIR PARTNERS?]

Evidence: EPA Performance Standard from the Office of Air and Radiation. Partnership agreements. Letters to partners warning that their performance is failing to meet their commitments, and letters to partners withdrawing the partnership agreement (denying them the use of identifying symbols in their advertising, etc.) when they failed to meet their commitments.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Two levels of budget tracking are used for the Climate Change programs - at the office level at the division level. In addition, spreadsheets are used to track spending/obligations at the project/activity level. These obligations are ultimately aggregated for use in the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the program develops an operating plan which reflects how it plans on spending its budget. This is linked to the overall agency operating plan. EPA's budget and operating plan are aligned with the Agency's Strategic Plan.

Evidence: Program Plan for Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP) (FY03 example provided). Business Activity Tracking System for OAP. EPA's Annual Operating Plan and Congressional Justification. EPA's Annual Report and Financial Statements.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Climate Change programs do track expenditures and emissions reductions and have proposed sector-level efficiency measures to help quantify efficiency changes. The programs have undertaken specific projects to help improve efficiency in certain areas. Examples include improving data management with the ISTAR system to keep better records and make information more easily available and automating the process of third party certification for Energy Star products and homes. The level of action taken to improve efficiency varies from sector to sector, program to program. It clear that there has been a focus on tracking and improving the efficiency of the Energy Star programs but more limited evidence was provided for other programs evaluated under this PART, particularly the Clean Automotive Technology program.

Evidence: EPA contract and grant rules and procedures for full and open competition. The program relies on work assignments placed against negotiated contracts awarded through full and open competition.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: EPA's Climate Change programs collaborates and coordinate activities where needed with the Department of Energy (DOE) on buildings, industry, and transportation programs. There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and DOE to coordinate energy efficiency efforts for residential and commercial buildings. There is also an MOU between EPA, DOE and the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on energy efficiency in buildings. In addition, any entity that wants to participate in the ENERGY STAR program must sign an MOU with EPA that establishes roles and responsibilities. For the transportation sector, EPA meets regularly with both DOE and the Dept. of Transportation to coordinate activities. EPA also collaborates with DOE and private companies working on hydraulic hybrid and clean diesel engine technologies. EPA is working with DOE's Clean Cities program to promote fuel efficient technologies for highway vehicles through partnerships with States and local communities.

Evidence: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the EPA, DOE, and HUD to coordinate policies and activities aimed at improving the energy efficiency of public, assisted, and insured housing, as well as housing financed through HUD's formula or competitive grant programs. MOU between EPA and DOE to significantly improve the energy efficiency of buildings and reducing their environmental effects. DOT/EPA memo promoting the use of funds for truck anti-idling projects.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Climate Change programs follow EPA's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds. EPA has a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO accounting principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. At each step in the process, the propriety of a payment is reviewed. EPA trains individuals to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities for invoice review and for carrying out the financial aspects of program objectives. Annually, each division director must conduct an evaluation of their internal management control systems in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of the Chief Financial Office and to certify that their management systems provide reasonable assurance that they are in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. The programs have no material weaknesses as reported by he Office of the Inspector General and a process is in place to minimize erroneous payments.

Evidence: Implementation of the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act - Annual Assurance letters. Office of Inspector General - Annual Financial Integrity Report, Unqualified audit opinion of EPA Financial Statements. Agency financial and resource management policies (posted on Agency intranet)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: EPA has not provided sufficient evidence of a system (or process) that the program uses to evaluate program management and to correct deficiencies when they are identified. The Climate Change program does have a systematic approach toward conducting program reviews that address Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) issues.

Evidence:

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: The Agency did not provide sufficient evidence of an adequate management process that maintains program quality. The program did indicate the occurrence of weekly meetings with contractors.

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The programs have consistently demonstrated adequate progress towards achieving annual Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals and should be on the path towards achieving the long-term goals and timeframes established to support the President's greenhouse gas intensity goal.

Evidence: EPA's Annual Reports. Annual report on Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs. EPA's FY2005 Annual Plan and Congressional Justification.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: EPA's Climate Change programs have achieved their GPRA goals every year and have exceeded targets in several years.

Evidence: EPA's Annual Reports. Annual report on Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs. EPA's FY2005 Annual Plan and Congressional Justification. Summary table of sector progress was provided.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: EPA tracks and will continue to track the dollars it receives and the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved every year. In 1998, there were 0.9 million metric tons of carbon equivelant (MMTCE) reduced for every dollar spent. Through 2002, for every dollar spent there was a 1.2 MMTCE reduction. The programs expect further efficiency gains in the future. In addition to improving its MMTCE per dollar over time, EPA has also demonstrated improvements in other areas. With relatively level funding, there have been increases in the number of partners, number of products, and number of product categories in several programs.

Evidence: Additional examples of improvements given approximately level funding: In 1997, Energy STAR homes counted 370 builders as partners and 1,200 homes. In 2003, more than 2,000 builders had constructed a total of over 200,000 Energy STAR qualified new homes. The Green Power Partnership started in 2000 and has grown to more than 230 partners committed to purchasing more than 1 billion kWh of green power.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are public and private programs with similar goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency but many of these programs are different in scope and approach. For example, DOE is heavily involved in basic R&D and some states have implemented energy efficiency programs whereas EPA's approach is to develop and work with industry-wide partnerships. Comparison is not easy but not impossible. Limited evidence of quantified or documented comparisons was provided, especially for programs other than Energy Star. According to one study, EPA's cost for energy savings and environmental benefits is a fraction of the states' cost.

Evidence: Five Years In: An Examination of the First Half-Decade of Public Benefits of Energy Efficiency Policies." www.acee.org/pubs/u041.pdf

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Evaluations of some of EPA's climate programs have been completed (some by EPA and others by outside groups) which indicate that the programs have been effective but the evaluations do not meet all the PART independent evaluation criteria. Other evaluations have been completed that haven't focuses solely on EPA's programs. Many evaluations have focused on the Energy Star programs more so or to the exclusion of the other Climate Change programs.

Evidence: Gillingham, Kenneth et al. 2004. Retrospective Examination of Demand-Side Energy-Efficient Policies, p.5. Horowitz, Marvin 2004. Electricity Intensity in the Commercial Sector: Market and Public Program Effects, p. 135.