EPA's Coordination with Department of Transportation at State and Voluntary Energy Reduction Program: Status and Success 132 133 APPENDIX 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Members Dr. D. James Baker: Chair, National Science and Technology Sub- committee on Global Change Research, and Administrator, Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Under Sec- retary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce. Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Chairman Ken Calvert "General Agreement" That Societal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Responsible For At Least Part of the Earth Surface Reliance on the National Research Council for Outside Input Recommendation of Recent National Research Council Reports U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Participation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 151 IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and For- 152 Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) Request for Parties to Provide Submissions by 1 August 165 IPCC Report on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Man- 166 The Honorable Dan W. Reicher, Assistant Secretary for Energy Effi- ciency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy DOE's Building Technology Programs 2010 Greenhouse Gas 169 DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 2010 172 DOE's Transportation Technology Programs 2010 and 2020 173 DOE's Industry Programs 2010 and 2020 Greenhouse Gas 324 International Clean Energy Program Goals Effectiveness of EPA's Programs Versus Those of DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) Analysis of the Fis- Goal of Tripling Non-hydroelectric Renewable Energy Gener- 507 Mr. Paul M. Stolpman, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001 Benefits of EPA Work Already Underway Benefits of EPA's ENERGY STAR Program Through 1999 Mr. Paul M. Stolpman, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- Benefits if All Commercial Building Owners and Managers New Government-Industry Initiative to Develop a New Gen- State and Local Climate Change Program International Capacity Building Effectiveness of EPA's Programs Versus Those of DOE February 17, 2000 Federal Register Notice (65 F.R. 8097- 8103) of EPA Proposal to Approve Revisions to the Air Pollu- tion Control State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submitted by October 29, 1999 ICF Consulting Press Release Announcing Comparison of Global Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Part- 1114 1136 APPENDIX 2: Additional Materials for the Record Our Changing Planet: The FY 2001 U.S. Global Change Research Pro- Analysis of the Climate Change Technology Initiative: Fiscal Year 2001, "Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee Regarding EPA's Cli- "Environmental Protection Agency FY 2001 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification: Reduction of Global and Cross-border "Driving Investment in Energy Efficiency: Energy Star and Other Vol- untary Programs: Climate Protection Division 1998 Annual Report. "Research Strategy: Global Change Research Program, Peer Review Draft, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protec- Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature, Panel on Reconciling "A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan," A report of the Carbon and Climate 1720 1764 1889 2087 2177 Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1999, Energy Infor- Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1998, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy, EPA 236-R-00-001, April 2000 U.S. Methane Emissions 1990-2020: Inventories, Projections, and Oppor- tunities for Reductions, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environ- 2275 Q1.4 Does the reference to “every dollar spent by EPA” cover the entire CCTI program since its origin, or only for one fiscal year? If the former, what is the total dollar figure and the fiscal years and how did the Division calculate the $15 from that figure? A1.4 Please see response to prior question. Q2. Please explain how and in what form voluntary partners for each of the CCTI programs make "commitments" to EPA and if those commitments subject to conditions. Q2.1 Why, for purposes of evaluations, does EPA assume that these commitments will be “met”? If that assumption proves wrong, won't that effect the evaluations made for the 1998 report and EPA's testimony and would EPA go back and tell Congress of the impact after appropriations, possibly based on the evaluations, are provided? A2.1 EPA does not assume that these commitments will be met for purposes of calculating the above numbers. Although EPA expects additional benefits from its partners, we conservatively calculate the cost-effectiveness of the programs to date based on the benefits that will result from the investments and changes in practices that have already been made. EPA also estimates what additional benefits would result if current partners meet all of their commitments so that EPA can better establish program goals and evaluate our progress towards meeting those goals. Q2.2 When and how does EPA ultimately determine whether or not all commitments are met? A2.2 As explained in the previous responses, EPA measures the success of its programs based on investments and changes in practices by its partners that have already been made. Each year EPA compiles up to date information on these program accomplishments and measures them against program goals. Q3. EPA's Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee Regarding EPA's Climate "EPA measures the performance of its climate programs using returning....to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions of (1155) carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.' "This aim was strengthened to a national goal for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to be a national goal in 1993, and President Clinton's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was designed to achieve an emissions reduction goal. The Climate Change Technology Initiative builds upon many of the successful efforts under CCAP and maintains reductions in greenhouse emissions as a primary goal. "EPA has developed annual performance goals for its climate change programs through 2010 and beyond using the following outcome based measures: reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced energy consumption. "EPA has used a variety of methods to track its progress for these measures. While the specific methodologies used to collect data and estimate program impacts vary from program to program, EPA has relied upon direct program participant reporting as a key input for measuring program results in many cases. Partner reports are reviewed for accuracy and compared to trend data. For instance, The ENERGY STAR Buildings and Green Lights Partnership collected detailed, technology specific reports from program participants that include energy saving from completed energy-efficiency projects as well as detail information on investments in energy-efficient technologies. Other programs, such as EPA's ENERGY STAR Labeling program, rely on industry reports of shipments of equipment, the penetration rate of the ENERGY STAR label for that particular equipment, and expected penetration of energy-efficient equipment prior to activities related to the ENERGY STAR labeling program. "Based on this information and other program specific factors, EPA calculated the energy savings and energy cost savings resulting from the climate programs. EPA calculates the carbon, NO, and SO2 reductions from its programs by applying regional carbon (or NO, and SO2) factors (carbon emitted/kWh) to the reported or calculated energy savings. "Some of the other factors that EPA has used in determining program benefits include estimates of free-ridership (benefits from projects that would have been undertaken by program participants without |