£
<

?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
08-P-0206
July 23, 2008
Why We Did This Review
We did this review to evaluate
the extent to which the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) voluntary
programs can significantly
reduce future GHG emissions,
and whether their data is
complete and reliable.
Background
Concerns about human-caused
global warming and the
potential impacts of GHG
emissions were first raised in
the 1960s. In 1992, the United
States signed and Congress
ratified the United Nations
Framework Convention on
Climate Change Treaty in
Rio de Janeiro. The "Rio"
Treaty requires the United
States to implement programs
to reduce GHG emissions.
The United States decided to
achieve this goal through
implementing voluntary
programs.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2008/
20080723-08-P-0206.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs
Have Limited Potential
What We Found
The set of voluntary GHG programs we reviewed use outreach efforts to recruit
program partners and reduce GHG emissions. We found the greatest barriers to
participation were the perceived emission reduction costs and reporting
requirements. We also found that it is unlikely these voluntary programs can
reduce more than 19 percent of the projected 2010 GHG emissions for their
industry sectors. From this, we determined that if EPA wishes to reduce GHG
emissions beyond this point, it needs to consider additional policy options.
We recognize that data collection can be challenging for voluntary programs.
However, 8 of the 11 programs in our review showed weaknesses in their current
data collection and reporting systems - caused by limited, unverified, and
anonymous data reporting. These systems are neither transparent nor verifiable,
and are limited by anonymous reporting and use of third party industry data.
Further, none of the programs' memoranda of understanding establish
consequences for failure to report, and generally provided little assurance that
firms are actively participating in the program. EPA has been a leader in
developing protocols to produce estimates for greenhouse gas sources and sinks
categories in the United States. However, data uncertainty has continued to be a
concern the voluntary programs have struggled to address. As a result, the
reported accomplishments of these voluntary programs may be based on
unreliable data.
What We Recommend
We recommend EPA review emission reduction cost analyses annually and
update as needed. For programs that recruit and enroll participants, EPA should
adopt written partnership agreements that require stronger data quality provisions
and details on how Confidential Business Information (CBI) will be handled. For
programs that do not recruit and enroll participants, EPA should develop a policy
or procedure that specifically identifies how these voluntary GHG programs link
their reported outcomes to program efforts.
The Agency concurred with most of the recommendations, but expressed concern
with developing emission reduction cost analyses for programs that serve multiple
industry sectors, and about their ability to safeguard CBI data. The OIG believes
that developing analyses for individual sectors and specifying in partnership
agreements how CBI data will be handled will meet the intent of these
recommendations.

-------