RETENTION OF SAVINGS: All agencies have been granted statutory authority-to retain half of the government's portion of ESPC savings generated (DOD and the General Services Administration (GSA) have specific retention authorities, and EPACT grants it to all other agencies). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encourages agencies to permit the retention of some or all of the savings at the facility or site where they occur in order to provide incentive for facility and site managers to undertake more Federal energy management initiatives and to offset other operation and maintenance costs. COORDINATION AND REPORTING: Within 60 days, OMB will convene an interagency policy group to address Federal energy management initiatives, including the increased use of ESPC. This group, which will include both energy and procurement program officials, will convene to report on the status of agencies' efforts in response to this memo, address other energy policy concerns and help spread successful energy program efforts more quickly, among agencies. Also, in accordance with the National Energy Conservation and Policy Act (NECPA), EPACT, Executive Order 13031 on Alternative Fuel Vehicle Leadership, and guidance published in OMB Circular A-11, each agency is required to submit information on energy use and energy efficiency improvements to both OMB and FEMP. OMB and DOE are working to coordinate that data collection and minimize agencies' reporting burden, while still meeting the intent of the overall reporting requirements. Potential Conflicts Between the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols Q9. An article in the July 23, 1998 edition of the Clean Air Report points out that under the Montreal Protocol the Parties are developing "strategies for phasing out" some substances and have agreed on acceptable substitutes, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), to use in place of “harmful ozonedepleting” substances which are banned by the Protocol. However, HFCs are listed in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol as one of the six greenhouse gases. The article explains that a Montreal Protocol working group (Group) wants to establish "formal consultations" with a similar panel under the Kyoto Protocol (which is not signed or ratified by the U.S. and has not entered into force) "to study the potential conflicts in implementation of the two treaties." The Group also wants “studies into alternatives for HFCs." The Group asked its “Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to consult with a counterpart group on the Kyoto treaty." The article then states: "The main concern, sources say, is that multilateral efforts to fund conversion projects that allow manufacturers to use HFCs in place of CFCs will be counter-productive and will waste resources because HFCs may have to be controlled in order to meet the goals of the Kyoto treaty, according sources who attended the meeting. HFCs are widely used in the United States as refrigerants. HFCs are also used in other industrialized nations and environmentalists are concerned that expanding their use even more could hamper future climate change control efforts. “A representative of the United States noted that the proposed TEAP study is premature because no efforts to control HFCs under the Kyoto treaty have occurred. “An EPA source says that the TEAP study may not be needed because it is not clear whether HFCs will need to be controlled as a greenhouse gas even if the Kyoto treaty is ratified. The source says that the Kyoto treaty calls for certain target levels to be met but does not specify which of the six greenhouse gases should be controlled. That is left up to the discretion of the nations and it may be possible "Despite the slow start to the proposal, some environmentalists are still calling it a 'breakthrough worth noting' toward resolving any potential conflicts between the two treaties. One environmentalist notes that the proposal may change the pattern of managing the two treaties completely separately. The source, who is watching the negotiations closely, says that it may be more than year before specific strategies for formal consultation between the two treaties are developed." Q9.1 What are these alleged "potential conflicts," if any, between the two treaties? A9.1 A possible "potential conflict," generally speaking, the Clean Air Report author might be alluding to, between the objective of the Montreal Protocol, arresting ozone layer damage, and the objective of the Kyoto Protocol which is not in force, mitigating the effects of global climate change, could be the impact which one Protocol's activities might bear on the work of the other Protocol. Specifically, using HFCs as an example, HFCs are effective non-ozone-depleting alternatives to CFCs. Yet, science has established that HFCs have large global warming potential-although considerably less than CFCs global warming potential. A consultation between scientists and technical experts who aid Parties to the respective Protocols (assuming the Kyoto Protocol is in effect for purposes of discussion) could review the synergy of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases in order that whatever future steps are necessary for atmospheric protection, the steps taken by the different Protocols would be complementary and harmonious. Although neither Protocol has any provision to control the use or consumption of HFCs, given the growing use of HFCs, if the Kyoto Protocol were in effect, at some point in the future it is conceivable that Parties to the Kyoto Protocol might discuss what steps might be necessary beyond the identification of HFCs and the other five greenhouse gases—a Party could choose to meet its emission targets. With a more formalized sharing of scientific and technical information between experts who have been focusing on discrete segments of atmospheric phenomena, the Protocol's objectives could be pursued complementarily without any hypothetical possible future conflict. Q9.2 Why is it necessary, or even desirable, to establish such "formal A9.2 consultations" under the two Protocols, particularly since the Kyoto Protocol does not require any Party to control all or any particular Annex A gas? It is not necessary, strictly speaking, but I believe very desirable, for efficiency's sake at the very least, for there to be put in place a no or low-cost "bridge"-a formalized consultative/discussion mechanism-to harmonize the atmospheric protection objectives of the Montreal Protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the Kyoto Protocol, were it to come into force and the United State were a Party. Such a contemplated consultative link, and the merits of it, in no way foretells discussion of control measures for HFCs or any other greenhouse gas (Kyoto Protocol Annex A gases) or other chemicals. Q9.3 Could such consultations be established before the Kyoto Protocol enters into force? A9.3 As a matter of substance, we do not see a conflict between the two treaties. Nothing in the Kyoto Protocol mandates control or reduction of HFCs in particular, rather a Party could choose to regulate other greenhouse gases within the six-gas basket. In terms of the "consultation" issue, while expert bodies under two treaties might theoretically "consult," it is more common that the secretariats of two treaties are asked by the Parties to the respective treaties to consult about an issue of common concern (e.g., consultations between the secretariats of the Basel Convention and the International Maritime Organization regarding issues of maritime transport of hazardous waste). This is a very frequent occurrence in the world of environmental and related treaties. Of course, the secretariats of various treaties have no authority to take any decisions pursuant to such consultations; any such decisions must be made by the Parties to the relevant treaties. Q9.4 Please provide examples of other environmental and energy protocols or treaties where such a consultation process has been established, explain how such consultation processes work, and how effective and successful they are. A9.4 Please see the response to Q9.3. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change IPCC Proposed Rules Changes Q1. Al. Should the IPCC consider proposed chances in its rules before it considers the At the 14th Plenary (in Vienna, September 28 - October 3, 1998) the IPCC embarked in earnest on its Third Assessment Report on Climate Change, which the IPCC expects to complete in 2001. In this effort, the IPCC and its U.S. Chairman are seeking to produce the best, most objective scientific assessment possible. They are also seeking to ensure that the IPCC's scientific assessment is relevant to the questions and concerns being raised by policymakers around the world. If not objective, the IPCC's scientific assessment will quickly be repudiated; if not relevant to policymakers, it will not provide an informed and authoritative scientific basis for policy decisions. To carry out its Second Assessment Report, the IPCC adopted rules of procedure to help organize and structure the assessment process and to avoid ad hoc decisions. The rules of procedure were intended to facilitate and improve the scientific assessment effort. As the IPCC embarks on its Third Assessment Report, it was reasonable and desirable for the IPCC to revisit its rules to decide whether the approach adopted to serve a previous assessment effort remains valid and should continue in the new one. It is also reasonable and desirable for the IPCC to adopt an approach that best achieves its objectives of scientific objectivity and policy relevance. The U.S. position going into the XIVth Plenary discussions was that past practice and precedent would certainly be instructive, but neither should preclude the IPCC from adopting new approaches or procedures which may better serve to meet the IPCC's objectives. Line-By-Line Approval of the Synthesis Report Q2. Should the United States insist on line-by-line approval of the Synthesis Report? A2. In his proposal for a new approach to the Synthesis Report, the IPCC Chairman urged that it consist of two parts—a short summary for policymakers and a longer underlying report. He suggested that the summary for policymakers be approved line-by-line by governments. He also suggested that the longer underlying report be submitted for acceptance by governments but not approved line-by-line. The Chairman's proposal, much of which has already been agreed by the IPCC at its 13th |