Introduction Motor vehicle electrification has emerged in the past decade as a potentially viable alternative to internal combustion engines. Although only a small proportion of the current motor vehicle fleet is electrified, interest in passenger vehicle electrification has accelerated in several major industrial countries, including the United States, parts of Europe, and China. Despite advances in technology, electric vehicles (EVs) continue to be significantly more expensive than similarly sized vehicles with internal combustion engines. For this reason, governments in many countries have adopted policies to promote development and sales of electric vehicles. This report discusses federal and state government policies in the United States to support electrification of light vehicles and transit buses, as well as proposals to reduce or eliminate such support. Background on Motor Vehicle Electrification More than 92 million light vehiclesâpassenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVsâwere sold worldwide in 2018. The three largest markets were China (27 million vehicles sold), Europe (20 million), and the United States (17 million). Most of these vehicles are powered by internal combustion engines. The global market for electrified vehicles is small but growing: In 2018, more than 2 million plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles were sold worldwide, a 64% increase over 2017. These account for about 2% of all passenger vehicle sales, both worldwide and in the United States. Demand for electric vehicles is expected to continue to grow, as some countries have called for a complete shift away from sales of new fossil-fuel vehicles by 2030. The market for urban transit buses is smaller than the passenger car and SUV markets, but electric vehicles make up a larger part of its footprint. China leads in this category, with 106,000 electric buses put in service in 2017, bringing its total electric bus fleet to 384,000. It has been forecast to remain the largest electric bus market going forward. In the European Union (EU) and the United States, the pace of electrification is slower: More than 200 electric buses were sold in the EU in 2017, bringing the total in service to 1,700; in the United States, approximately 100 electric buses were sold, bringing the total to 300. Two basic types of electric vehicles are now in use: Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) have both internal combustion engines and electric motors that store energy in batteries. They do not plug into external sources of electricity, but use regenerative braking and the internal combustion engine to recharge. Plug-in electric vehicles, of which there are two types: plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) use an electric motor and an internal combustion engine for power, and they use electricity from an external source to recharge the batteries. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) use only batteries to power the motor and use electricity from an external source for recharging. In this report, electric vehicles refer to these two types of plug-in vehicles, unless otherwise noted. Electrification of vehicles has been limited by three factors: (1) the high cost of producing the lithium ion batteries (currently the preferred battery chemistry) that propel them; (2) their limited range; and (3) vehicle charging time and location. Not all motorists have easy access to charging stations at home or at work, and it can take several hours to fully charge the battery that powers the vehicle, depending on the type of charger used. U.S. Trends In 2018, more than 361,000 plug-in electric passenger vehicles (including PHEVs and BEVs) were sold in the United States, as well as more than 341,000 hybrid electric vehicles. This was the first year in which total sales of plug-in vehicles exceeded sales of hybrids ( Figure 1 ). Nearly all automakers offer electric vehicles for sale: 42 different models were sold in 2018, with Tesla and Toyota recording the largest number of vehicle sales. Sales of plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles in 2018 rose by over 80% from the previous year, bringing the total sales of plug-in vehicles since 2010 to just over 1 million. The plug-in hybrid and battery electric share of the U.S. light vehicle market in 2018 was 2.1%. The price of new electric vehicles is one factor inhibiting faster adoption. For example, the Leaf, a battery electric vehicle produced by Nissan, has a manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) of $29,990, whereas the Nissan Sentra, a conventional vehicle similar in size and specifications to the Leaf, has an MSRP of $17,990. A smaller, less powerful vehicle with an internal combustion engine, the Nissan Versa, has an MSRP of $12,360; no electric counterpart is available in this price range. Electric vehicles are generally more expensive because of the high cost of producing the lithium-ion batteries that power them. The federal government has supported vehicle electrification in several ways. There have been tax incentives for the purchase of vehicles as well as for construction of vehicle infrastructure, such as charging stations. Federal research and development investments have sought to reduce battery costs, increase vehicle range, and decrease charging times. The federal government has also made other investments to build out EV infrastructure. Federal Tax Incentives for Electrification Two types of tax incentives have been used to promote electric vehicles: consumer incentives for the purchase of plug-in electric vehicles and individual and business incentives to install electric-vehicle charging stations to expand the charging network. Tax Credits for Vehicle Purchases The credit for plug-in electric vehicles (Internal Revenue Code [IRC] Â§30D) is the primary federal tax incentive for electric vehicles. The credit ranges from $2,500 to $7,500 per vehicle, depending on the vehicle's battery capacity. The tax credit is not a function of the vehicle's price. Therefore, the subsidy amount is larger (as a percentage of a vehicle's price) for less-expensive vehicles. Generally, taxpayers claim tax credits for vehicle purchases. If the purchaser or lessee is a tax-exempt organization, the seller of the vehicle may be able to claim the credit. The plug-in electric vehicle credit begins phasing out after a vehicle manufacturer has sold 200,000 qualifying vehicles for use in the United States. General Motors (GM) and Tesla have reached the 200,000-vehicle limit, and tax credits for their vehicles have begun to phase down. Empirical studies have found that tax incentives lead to increased EV purchases. However, particularly for higher-income taxpayers, the tax credit may be claimed for purchases that would have occurred absent a federal tax incentive. Some studies have also found that incentives given closer to the point of sale, such as a rebate given at the time of purchase, are more effective in stimulating vehicle sales than tax credits. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) projects that the plug-in electric vehicle credit will reduce federal tax revenues by $7.5 billion between FY2018 and FY2022. Any extensions to or expansions of the credit could increase this amount. About half of the forgone revenue is from credits claimed on corporate tax returns. Additionally, the tax credits tend to be claimed by higher-income taxpayers. For 2016, 78% of the claimants filed returns with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or more, and such returns accounted for 83% of the amount claimed. (By comparison, of all returns filed, about 17% have AGI above $100,000.) Legislation has been introduced in the 116 th Congress that would modify the plug-in electric vehicle tax credit. Some bills propose expanding the credit. For example, the Driving America Forward Act ( S. 1094 / H.R. 2256 ) would increase the per-manufacturer cap to 600,000 vehicles and modify the credit during the phase-out period. The Electric Credit Access Ready at Sale (Electric CARS) Act of 2019 ( S. 993 / H.R. 2042 ) would extend the credit through December 31, 2029, and would also allow the credit to be transferred to the financing entity. Other proposals would eliminate the credit. The Fairness for Every Driver Act ( S. 343 / H.R. 1027 ) would eliminate the credit and impose federal highway user fees on alternative fuel vehicles. Tax Incentives for Infrastructure The primary federal tax incentive for EV infrastructure has been the tax credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property (IRC Â§30C), which expired in 2017. The credit was generally 30% of the cost of qualified property, with the credit limited to $30,000 for businesses at each separate location and $1,000 for property installed at a taxpayer's primary residence. For property sold to a tax-exempt entity, such as a school or a hospital, the seller of the property may have been able to claim the credit. Qualifying property included electric charging infrastructure as well as other forms of clean-fuel refueling property. The credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property has been a temporary tax credit since first enacted in 2005. The credit has been extended six times, often retroactively. The credit most recently expired at the end of 2017, but could be extended again. The uncertainty surrounding temporary tax incentives that are often retroactively reinstated diminishes their effectiveness as an investment incentive. The Electric CARS Act of 2019 ( S. 993 / H.R. 2042 ) would extend the credit through 2029. Data are not available on how much of the revenue loss associated with this provision is for EV infrastructure. The most recent one-year extension of this incentive, for all types of alternative fuel refueling property, was estimated to reduce federal tax revenues by $67 million over the 10-year budget window. Making the credit permanent for all types of qualifying property would reduce federal revenue by an estimated $332 million between FY2018 and FY2027. The tax credits for EV charging infrastructure that expired at the end of 2017, if extended, could support additional investment in Level 2 charging infrastructure. Expanded access to Level 2 charging at homes and workplaces could be a cost-effective solution to building out EV infrastructure in the near term. However, if electric vehicles are to be widely used for long-distance trips, a network of direct-current fast charger (DCFC) infrastructure (Level 3) is likely necessary. The tax credit is relatively small compared to the cost of a DCFC charging station. The high cost of this infrastructure, even if tax credits are extended, may continue to pose a barrier, especially if utilization rates are low. Given the differences in the costs and benefits associated with Level 2 and DCFC chargers, tax incentives could be provided that reflect some of these differences. There are few DCFC public chargers, yet having access to such infrastructure may have strong network benefits. Broadly, access to charging infrastructure has been shown in some studies to be a driver of demand for EVs. If Congress wanted to encourage greater EV use, tax credits could be designed to provide a larger incentive for investments in public DCFC infrastructure, relative to Level 2 charging stations. Storage incentives are another policy option that could support investment in EV infrastructure. On-site battery storage systems can be installed to allow solar power to be used for EVs. Tax incentives for batteries that facilitate EV use could encourage more of this activity. The Energy Storage Tax Incentive and Deployment Act of 2019 ( S. 1142 / H.R. 2096 ) would provide an investment credit for business or home use of energy storage. Tax-preferred bond financing options could also be used to support EV infrastructure investment. State and local financing for infrastructure solely or partially dedicated to EV charging projects may use tax-exempt bonds so long as the project is classified as serving a "public purpose" as defined in the federal code (IRC Â§141). A federal infrastructure bank or "green bank" might also be used to support EV infrastructure investment. One option to capitalize this type of bank would be to issue tax-favored bonds. EVs and Federal Highway Taxes Since 1956, federal surface transportation programs have been funded largely by taxes on motor fuels that flow into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). A steady increase in the revenues flowing into the HTF due to increased motor vehicle use and occasional increases in fuel tax rates accommodated growth in surface transportation spending over several decades. In 2001, though, trust fund revenues stopped growing faster than spending. In 2008, Congress began providing Treasury general fund transfers to keep the highway account solvent. Electric vehicles do not burn motor fuels, and hence users do not pay motor fuels taxes. Several states have imposed some form of tax or fee on electric vehicles that is dedicated to transportation, such that EV drivers also contribute to paying for highway infrastructure. Legislation has been introduced in the 116 th Congressâthe Fairness for Every Driver Act ( S. 343 / H.R. 1027 )âthat would, in addition to repealing the existing tax credit for plug-in electric vehicles, impose an annual fee on alternative-technology vehicles that draw power from a source not subject to fuel excise taxes. This fee would be designed to compensate for plug-in electric vehicles not paying the gas tax (or other fuel excise tax). Imposing a fee on electric vehicles or other alternative vehicles would increase their cost of ownership, although as a share of the vehicle's total cost, the amount would likely be small. Exempting electric vehicles from taxes or fees imposed on other types of vehicles is one option for encouraging the purchase of electric vehicles. Research and Development Priorities Investment in transportation electrification R&D is one approach to reducing the overall cost of electric vehicle technologies. The Obama Administration made vehicle electrification a national goalâincluding increased spending on battery R&D, stimulus funding for construction of battery manufacturing plants in the United States, and development of DOE electric vehicle research and demonstration programs such as the "EV Everywhere Grand Challenge." The Trump Administration requested reductions in funding levels for vehicle technologies R&D for FY2018 and FY2019, but Congress instead increased the program's funding levels for those years. Federal R&D funding for electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging infrastructure is primarily administered through the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Within EERE, the Office of Transportation oversees the sustainable transportation R&D portfolio, which includes R&D programs in vehicle technologies, bioenergy technologies, and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Activities related to electric vehicles and charging infrastructure are within the Vehicle Technologies Office. In the 116 th Congress, some legislative proposals would support R&D programs. The Vehicle Innovation Act of 2019 ( S. 1085 / H.R. 2170 ) would authorize R&D programs and other activities to develop innovative vehicle technologies (including electric vehicles and charging infrastructure). Appropriations for Electric Vehicle Research Congress provides funding for electric vehicle technologies R&D through annual appropriations to EERE in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. The Trump Administration's budget request for EERE was $343 million for FY2020, $2,036 million (86%) less than the FY2019 enacted level of $2,379 million ( Table 1 ). The budget request, which "focuses DOE resources toward early-stage R&D and reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies," would provide $73.4 million to vehicle technologies for FY2020, $279.6 million (79%) less than the $344 million that was directed to vehicle technologies within the Joint Explanatory Statement of the FY2019 appropriations conferees. The FY2019 joint explanatory statement included support for various vehicle technologies to advance transportation electrification research: $163.2 million for the battery and electrification technologies subprogram ($38.1 million for electric drive research and developmentâincluding $7 million to enable extreme fast charging and advanced battery analytics); $10 million for continued funding of Section 131 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act ( P.L. 110-140 ) for transportation electrification; and $37.8 million for the Clean Cities program, which provides competitive grants to support alternative fuel, infrastructure, and vehicle deployment activities. According to the FY2020 DOE budget request, the vehicle technologies program has set goals that "are necessary for new technology options to be more efficient and at least as affordable compared to [the] baseline while also accounting for consumer pay- back period expectations." To advance vehicle electrification, DOE established the following research priorities: identify new battery chemistry and cell technologies with the potential to reduce the cost of electric vehicle batteries by more than half, to less than $100 per kilowatt hour (kWh) (with an ultimate goal of $80/kWh); increase vehicle range to 300 miles; and decrease charge time to 15 minutes or less by 2028. The request for FY2020 would reduce funding and prioritize "early-stage activities," including the development of critical materials-free battery technologies. The request would eliminate funding for battery safety testing, battery thermal performance testing, and Clean Cities coalition support, training and technical assistance, and partnership activities. Clean Cities Program The DOE Clean Cities program supports local actions to reduce petroleum use in transportation. The program funds transportation projects nationwide through a competitive application process, and leverages these funds with additional public- and private-sector matching funds and in-kind contributions. While the program supports a variety of alternative fuels and vehicles in an effort to reduce petroleum use, funding opportunities by Clean Cities that directly support EVs include the EV Everywhere PlugâIn Electric Vehicle Local Showcases. EV Everywhere PlugâIn Electric Vehicle Local Showcases were selected in 2016 and are in progress. The three projects were selected to promote and demonstrate plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) use by "establishing local showcases that provide a hands-on consumer experience and in-depth education in a conveniently located, brand-neutral setting." The awardees plan to establish showcases in at least 14 states, including states in the Upper Midwest, California, the Pacific Northwest, and New England. In the FY2019 joint explanatory statement, Congress directed DOE "to continue to support the Clean Cities program, including competitive grants to support alternative fuel, infrastructure, and vehicle deployment activities." In the FY2020 budget request, the Trump Administration proposed eliminating funding for the Clean Cities program. In the 116 th Congress, two bills that pertain to electric vehicles would establish competitive grant programs within the Department of Transportation for electric vehicle charging infrastructure ( H.R. 2616 and S. 674 ). Alternative Fuel Corridors Purchases of electric vehicles in the near future will depend to some extent on the steps state and local governments and private entities take to build a reliable network of charging stations. Section 1413 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94 ) seeks to address that goal; it requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to designate by 2020 national alternative fuel corridors (AFCs) to promote vehicle use of electricity, hydrogen, propane, and natural gas. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been working with other federal, state, and local officials and industry groups to plan AFC designations on interstate corridors ( Figure 2 ). FHWA has assigned designations to highways as either "corridor ready"âthey have enough fueling stations to serve a corridorâor "corridor pending," where alternative fueling is insufficient. In the case of electric vehicles, a corridor-ready designation would apply if there were EV charging stations at 50-mile intervals, with a goal of establishing Level 3 DC Fast Charge infrastructure. Under this program, FHWA has developed standardized AFC signage and other forms of public education, and encouraged regional cooperation in planning new fueling networks. FHWA has undertaken three rounds of AFC nominations, the latest announced in April 2019. FHWA has identified building out alternative corridors on the most traveled Interstates, such as I-95 and I-80, as priorities for third-round funding. An additional goal is to secure nominations for areas targeted for EV investments by Electrify America in its Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) investment plan. Signage and installation of alternative fueling infrastructure along these corridors have been determined to be eligible expenses under FHWA's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. In addition, the Department of Energy's Clean Cities program provides funding for fueling infrastructure, and some states have similar programs. Federal Support for Municipal Bus Electrification Until recently, the operation of battery electric buses in U.S. cities was seen as a long-term prospect because of their relatively high cost, range limits, and recharging infrastructure needs. But with technological improvements, public transportation agencies have begun to show interest in electric buses to replace vehicles powered by diesel and other fossil fuels. This interest is especially strong in metropolitan areas with air quality problems. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides substantial support to transit agencies to purchase buses. Federal funds can be spent on most types of bus technology; the choice of technology is up to the transit agency concerned. Transit buses typically operate over short distances with fixed routes and frequent stops. In 1996, 95% of the buses in service were powered by diesel fuel ( Figure 3 ). More recently, transit agencies have integrated buses fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and biodiesel into their fleets. Since the end of the last recession, the share of lower-emission hybrid busesâincluding diesel buses with electric motorsâhas also increased, rising from just under 5% of buses in use in 2009 to nearly 15% in 2016. Diesel-electric buses are powered by both an electric motor and a smaller-than-normal internal combustion engine; regenerative braking systems store energy from use of the bus's mechanical systems, giving the bus greater range. The purchase price of hybrids is less expensive than a fully electric bus, and hybrids reduce emissions compared to conventional diesel buses. There were 300 battery electric buses in operation domestically at the end of 2017, less than 0.5% of the 65,000 buses in public transit agencies' fleets. However, the two biggest transit bus systems in the United States, Los Angeles Metro and New York City Transit, have announced plans to move to zero-emission bus fleets, most likely using battery electric buses, by 2030 and 2040, respectively. Electric buses are typically expensive to purchase, costing as much as $300,000 more than conventional diesel buses, and require additional investment to build recharging infrastructure. On the other hand, electric buses are quieter than internal combustion engine vehicles, may have lower operating costs due to the absence of engines and transmissions requiring maintenance, and have low or zero direct emissions. The range an electric bus can travel on one charge has in the past been a limiting factor, but newer models can travel more than 200 miles, still short of the 600-mile or more range that conventional and other alternative fuel buses can travel. A study by Carnegie Mellon University found that when social costs, such as the health effects of diesel emissions, are taken into account, battery electric buses have lower total annualized costs than conventional diesel buses over the typical 12-year life cycle of a transit bus. Electric buses are generally eligible for FTA funding under several programs, including the Bus and Bus Facilities Program. One discretionary component of the FTA bus program is the Low or No Emission Vehicle (Low-No) program, which provides funding to state and local authorities for the purchase or lease of zero-emission and low-emission transit buses as well as acquisition, construction, and leasing of required supporting facilities. Electric buses are purchased through the Low-No bus program; mandatory spending of $55 million per year through FY2020 was authorized in the FAST Act. An additional $29.5 million was appropriated for FY2018. School buses generally have diesel engines, and they are primarily funded locally. FTA does not fund school buses, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the School Bus Rebate Program, which assists school districts in reducing diesel emissions. In 2017, nearly $9 million was provided to replace diesel buses with diesel-electric hybrids. In the 116 th Congress, some legislative proposals would support vehicle fleet electrification, including transit buses. The Green Bus Act of 2019 ( H.R. 2164 ) would require that any bus purchased or leased with funds provided by the Federal Transit Administration for public transportation purposes be a zero-emission bus. The Federal Leadership in Energy Efficient Transportation (FLEET) Act ( H.R. 2337 ) would authorize the U.S. Postal Service to enter into energy savings performance contracts to purchase or lease low-emission and fuel-efficient vehicles (including electric vehicles) and to construct or maintain infrastructure, including electric vehicle charging stations, among other provisions. Â Other Federal Policies Affecting Electrification The following policies were generally established for purposes not directly related to vehicle electrification, but they have dimensions that may support that goal. Volkswagen Settlement In 2016, Volkswagen Group reached a number of legal settlements concerning violations of the Clean Air Act. As part of its settlement terms, Volkswagen pledged to invest $2 billion over a 10-year period in zero-emissions vehicle infrastructure and education in select U.S. cities through its Electrify America initiative. Of that amount, $800 million is to be spent in California. As an additional condition, Volkswagen was also required to fund a $2.7 billion national Environmental Mitigation Trust, funds from which are available to states and other beneficiaries for mitigating the negative impacts of the excess diesel emissions that were released by Volkswagen's noncompliant vehicles. States could choose to spend some of this special funding on bus electrification, including school buses. Federal Motor Vehicle Environmental Regulations The first motor vehicle fuel economy standards were enacted in 1975 in response to the oil embargo of 1973-1974 (Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975; P.L. 94-163 , as amended). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets and enforces the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks, which were most recently legislatively set in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-140 ) at 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. Because EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it joined with NHTSA during the Obama Administration to promulgate new, stricter combined CAFE/GHG standards for motor vehicles. These new standards established targets for reduced GHG emissions and rising CAFE fuel economy of nearly 50 mpg by model year (MY) 2025. Electrification was seen as one means of reaching the new CAFE/GHG targets. The Trump Administration has proposed to leave the current CAFE/GHG standards in place through model year 2026, based on its analysis that economic and technological factors have changed since the standards were put in place in 2010. EPA asserted in April 2018 that the goals established for MY2026 could be achieved only with more extensive vehicle electrification than now anticipated, and rejected previous EPA determinations that EV sales in future years would grow rapidly enough to enable automakers to comply with the MY2022-MY2025 standards: "Based on consideration of the information provided, the Administrator believes that it would not be practicable to meet the MY 2022â2025 emission standards without significant electrification and other advanced vehicle technologies that lack a requisite level of consumer acceptance." Prospects for Electrification of Autonomous Vehicles Fully autonomous passenger vehicles hold the potential for safer transportation and new mobility for the elderly, the disabled, and those who cannot afford to purchase a car. The projected timeline for emergence of fully autonomous vehicles varies from several years to several decades. It is often assumed that autonomous vehiclesâincluding those providing ride-sharing servicesâwill employ electric motors instead of internal combustion engines, but that assumption is based on the types of federal and state policies that are put in place. In the absence of policies favoring EVs, future autonomous vehicles could be powered by fossil fuels. There are several reasons why electrification may not be the ultimate choice for autonomous vehicles. Analyses by Ford and Volvo have for the following reasons led them to retain internal combustion engines for their ride-sharing ventures for the present: Expense and I nconvenience . Electric vehicles remain expensive compared to conventional vehicles, and many models have short driving ranges and long refueling times. Shared vehicles, which may be on the road for many hours a day, magnify these shortcomings. Battery L ife . Frequent use of battery fast charging is known to lead to faster degradation of the battery. Energy- I ntensity . Autonomous vehicles rely on energy-intensive technologies. It has been estimated that operation of an autonomous driving system for two hours in an electric vehicle could use as much as 10% of its stored energy before the vehicle moves, requiring even more frequent recharging. These drawbacks are countered by the following factors that could make electrification of autonomous vehicles the more attractive power source: Compatibility . The extensive use of computers and sensors in autonomous vehicles may be easier to embed in electric vehicles, which have fewer mechanicalâand more electronicâparts than a conventional vehicle. Operability . Electricity is generally less expensive than gasoline or diesel, and maintenance costs for electric vehicles, with many fewer parts, may be considerably lower. Emissions . The power demands of autonomous vehicle equipment and computers will reduce the fuel economy of gasoline and diesel vehicles and increase emissions. It has been estimated that increased power requirements will increase emissions from combustion vehicles by over 60 grams of CO 2 equivalent per mile, equal to reducing fuel economy of a 35 mpg vehicle to 29 mpg. Switching to electricity would diminish the direct emissions. State Incentives and Utility Issues Acceptance of electric vehicles and related infrastructure is affected by legislation, regulations, and policies adopted by state agencies and electric utilities. State Incentives Incentives vary widely from state to state. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks vehicle and charger incentives on a state-by-state basis. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia currently offer incentives for certain hybrid or electric vehicles, or both. Those incentives include permitting solo drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles to use high-occupancy (carpool) lanes, income tax credits and rebates for the purchase of an electric vehicle, reduced registration fees, parking fee exemptions, excise tax and emission test waivers, and income tax credits for installation of a home or business charger. These incentives have been found to vary in their effectiveness. Several analyses have shown that tax incentives for electric vehicles and infrastructure are the "dominant factors in driving PEV adoption." Rebatesâwhich happen at the point of sale or within a short time after a vehicle purchaseâhave been identified as the most effective incentive because their value is clear to buyers at the time of a vehicle transaction. Zero Emission Vehicle Program The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted low-emission vehicle regulations in 1990, requiring automakers to sell light vehicles in that state that meet progressively cleaner emissions standards. As part of these emission regulations, CARB also established the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, which requires automakers to offer for sale the lowest-emission vehicles available, with a focus on battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The number of ZEVs each automaker is required to sell is based upon its total light-vehicle sales in California. CARB has set ZEV sales percentages through a vehicle credit system, increasing annually to 2025. Nine other states have adopted the California ZEV regulations. The states affected by the regulations represent over one-third of all U.S. new light vehicle sales. Utilities and EVs and EV Infrastructure: Tax and Regulatory Issues Electric utilities, which are regulated by the state in which they are located, are in a unique position as the primary providers of electricity to aid in integrating EVs into the grid. Utilities can provide incentives to consumers to charge EVs during off-peak hours when there is excess generation. Utilities may also be in the position to install public electric charging infrastructure, assuming that there are no limits on their owning these assets. Many of the barriers utilities face with respect to electrification infrastructure are regulatory, and the role of tax policy in addressing such barriers may be limited. Sluggish growth in energy demand has posed a challenge for the electric utility sector. The industry has recognized EVs as an opportunity for growth. For this reason, electric utilities may have their own market-based incentives (absent federal intervention) to invest in EV infrastructure and take measures to support consumer EV adoption. Further, electric utilities may support extending current-law vehicle and infrastructure tax credits. At the same time, preparing the grid for a surge in electric car ownership could require substantial capital investments, if peak demand is increased. Tax Incentives to Utilities for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure A number of challenges are associated with providing tax incentives to utilities that provide EV infrastructure. While 65% of electricity customers across the United States are customers of investor-owned utilities, most other users purchase electricity from cooperatives or municipal power providers. There are limited options for providing a direct federal tax benefit to cooperative or municipal utilities that do not pay federal income taxes. Further, in many states customers may purchase electricity from competing suppliers and pay the local electric utility for delivering it. A tax incentive to provide EV infrastructure might be made available only to utilities, to other electricity suppliers, or to both. Applicability of such an incentive would vary according to state policies or the type of utility. State regulatory commissions typically establish prices or rates that allow utilities to earn a rate of return that the regulator determines to be reasonable. This rate of return is fixed, such that additional tax incentives do not necessarily increase the return that a utility can realize. Federal taxes are an operating expense. In some states, tax incentives that reduce utilities' operating expenses result in lower rates for electricity customers (not higher returns for utilities). Hence, federal tax incentives may provide a limited near-term incentive for utilities to increase capital spending on EV infrastructure. State Regulatory Considerations In the United States, the sale of electricity is governed by many different federal, state, and local regulations. When it comes to the sale of electricity for the purpose of charging EVs, the states generally have regulatory jurisdiction over retail electricity transactions, though federal and municipal authorities may also play a role. State approaches to regulation vary considerably. Rules and regulations governing the retail sale of electricity generally originate with a state public utility commission. An electric utility is defined in federal law as any person, state, or federal agency "which sells electric energy." This definition could potentially be interpreted to mean that electric vehicle charging station operators are electric utilities by virtue of the fact that they sell electricity, and are therefore subject to all laws, requirements, and regulations pertaining to electric utilities. Should charging station operators be subject to regulation as electric utilities, or is regulatory reform necessary to accommodate this new class of electricity transactions? Faced with the question of whether or how to regulate the operators, states have taken a variety of approaches: Some states have issued new guidelines or regulations that define the requirements for regulated utilities to operate charging stations. For example, some states (e.g., Oregon) allow existing regulated utilities to invest in and operate EV charging stations as separate, nonregulated ventures. Others (e.g., Texas) have effectively limited the operation of charging stations to electric distribution utilities by requiring operators to meet high technical and financial standards. Still others (e.g., Kansas) have prevented electric utilities from owning and operating charging stations altogether. Other states (e.g., New York) have exempted charging station operators from public utility regulations. This leaves questions as to which regulatory agency, if any, is responsible for regulating the charging station operators, as well as whether additional regulation is needed in order to ensure fair market practices. Finally, some states have refrained from taking action altogether. Without regulatory changes, private charging station operators in these states may be subject to regulation as a utility by the state's public commission. Lack of clarity about how operators will be regulated is seen by some as an impediment to the spread of the technology in these states. In some cases, EV service providers have avoided regulation as a utility by providing charging services for free, or by charging customers by the minute rather than by the amount of electricity used. Whether public utilities or private companies may operate electric vehicle charging stations and whether station operators are subject to regulation as a utility may affect deployment of EV charging infrastructure. State jurisdiction over retail electricity transactions may limit the potential role of the federal government in regulating the provision of EV charging services. An additional consideration is the potential for electric vehicle batteries to be used for storage, referred to as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) storage. V2G storage would allow idle vehicle batteries to be used for grid services, such as demand response. The batteries could reduce vehicle owners' electricity demand during peak periods or provide electricity to the grid during peak periods in response to time-based rates or other financial incentives. In the United States, utilities are beginning to test V2G performance in demonstration projects. In addition to technology, other identified challenges include regulation, market, and end-user acceptance.


Introduction Multiple decades of scientific studies find that human activities induce global climate change by emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) from fuel combustion, certain industries, deforestation, and other activities. Scientists researched and assessed the science of GHG-induced climate change for more than 150 years before government policymakers around the world agreed to cooperate to consider how to address its risks to humans and ecosystems. Following several international scientific meetings in 1985-1987, governments decided to establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, to provide them with assessments of climate change science, projected social and economic impacts, and potential response strategies. In 1989, the U.N. General Assembly provided a mandate to negotiate what became, in 1992, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC has been the primary multilateral vehicle since 1992 for international cooperation among national governments to address GHG-induced climate change. While the UNFCCC is a focal point for national governments, its periphery is one forum, among others, for information sharing, collaboration, and activism also for subnational governments, financial institutions, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations. This report is not describing these other, increasingly important aspects of international cooperation on climate change. This report summaries the content of the UNFCCC and its two subsidiary international treaties: the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) and the 2015 Paris Agreement (PA). It also describes the existing guidelines to implement the PA, known as the 2018 Katowice Climate Package. The report highlights information relevant to the 2019 climate change conference, known as COP25. This report is not comprehensive. A number of other CRS reports provide greater detail and nuance on these and other aspects of the international climate change negotiations and cooperation. Some are listed at the end of this report. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change The UNFCCC has been the primary multilateral vehicle since 1992 for international cooperation to address GHG-induced climate change. As of January 1, 2020, there are 197 Parties to the UNFCCC that have ratified, accepted, or acceded to the international treaty, including the United States. There is broad agreement that participation of all countries would be necessary to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC, which is stated as follows: to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, in a time frame which allows ecosystems to adapt naturally and enables sustainable development. Achieving the objective would require both abatement of GHG emissions and facilitation of adaptation to adverse impacts of climate change in order to enable sustainable development. Stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere requires that net GHG emissionsâthe balance of "gross" emissions of GHG to the atmosphere and removals of GHG from the atmosphereâreach "net zero" or "carbon neutrality." Removals and sequestration can occur by photosynthesis (vegetation, sea algae) or through advanced technologies. Some increased level of removals, or "sinks," could allow for some amount of human-related GHG emissions to continue. The United States and other Parties to the UNFCCC agreed to this objective when they ratified the treaty. As a framework convention, this international treaty provides the structure for collaboration and evolution of efforts over decades, as well as the first qualitative step in that collaboration. The UNFCCC does not, however, include quantitative and enforceable objectives and commitments for any Party. The UNFCCC was adopted in 1992 and entered into force in 1994. The UNFCCC's governing body, the Conference of the Parties (COP), met in its 25 th session (COP25) from December 2 to 13, 2019, in Madrid, Spain. Initially, Chilean President SebastiÃ¡n PiÃ±era stepped forward to host COP25 in place of Brazil following the election of President Jair Bolsonaro. PiÃ±era sought to underscore his efforts to address climate change but ultimately decided that the summit should take place elsewhere due to mass protests in Chile. All Parties to the UNFCCC, including the United States, have a set of common obligations under the treaty: to inventory, report, and mitigate their human-related GHG emissions, including emissions and removals from land uses; to cooperate in preparing to adapt to climate change; and to assess and review, through the COP, the effective implementation of the UNFCCC, including the commitments therein. Certain obligations are additional or more specific for the countries that had higher incomes in 1992, and those countries are listed in Annex I of the Agreement. They are commonly referred to as Annex I Parties. All others are non-Annex I Parties. These additional or more specific obligations included more frequent reporting and providing financing and technology transfers, among others. The bifurcation of Parties and commitments has been a major point of contention and, some would argue, delay in negotiation and implementation of the climate change agreements (see text box). The UNFCCC and its subsidiary agreements do not define the terms developing country or developed country . In the 1990s, the Annex I Parties anticipated that developing country Parties would "graduate" into specific commitments and become donor countries as their incomes and emissions grew. As discussed later, related disagreements directly contributed to U.S. nonparticipation in the KP, the collapse of negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, and the withdrawal or decision of some Parties not to adopt GHG abatement targets in the second period of the KP from 2013 to 2020. The Copenhagen Accord In Copenhagen at COP15 in 2009, the COP was unable to adopt an agreement among all Parties as Bolivia, Cuba, Peru, and Venezuela opposed the text. The decision of the COP included a nonbinding political statement, the Copenhagen Accord, which began a turn toward more explicit commitments by non-Annex I Parties to GHG mitigation under the UNFCCC. The Copenhagen Accord specified that the Annex I Parties would implement quantified economy-wide GHG targets for 2020 in an agreed reporting format. Non-Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC would commit to implement mitigation actions to be submitted in an alternative agreed format. At least 43 Annex I Parties (15 Parties, including the United States, plus the EU-28 jointly submitting a pledge) and 47 non-Annex I Parties had submitted nonbinding pledges. While most countries participated, the pledges remained bifurcated by both the type of action and the reporting requirements. Among other differences, Annex I Parties were to submit quantified economy-wide GHG emissions targets for 2020 relative to a baseyear, while non-Annex I Parties were to submit "nationally appropriate mitigation actions" with no associated dates. The submissions would be compiled separately by the Secretariat of the UNFCCC. The Kyoto Protocol (KP) The first subsidiary agreement to the UNFCCC was the 1997 KP, which entered into force in 2005. The United States signed but did not ratify the KP and so is not a Party to it. The KP established legally binding targets for 37 high-income countries and the European Union (EU) to reduce their GHG emissions on average by 5% below 1990 levels during 2009-2012. It precluded GHG mitigation obligations for developing countries. All Parties with the Quantified Emissions Limitation and Reduction Obligations (QELROS) under the KP (i.e., GHG targets) were judged in compliance after the end of the first commitment period of 2009-2012. The domestic GHG emissions of some Parties were higher than their targets, but as envisioned under the KP, Parties could fulfil their obligations by acquiring emission reduction credits through the three market mechanisms of the treaty: the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, and emissions trading. Most of the high-income Partiesâmostly the EU members and other European nationsâtook on further GHG reduction targets for 2013-2020. The Secretariat's assessment of the emissions of the KP Parties with QELROS, as of November 2018, found: Annex I Parties are progressing towards their 2020 targets but gaps remain. Individual Parties have made varying progress towards their 2020 targets: most Parties' emission levels are already below their 2020 targets; some Parties must make further efforts to meet their targets by strengthening implementation of their existing [policies and measures]; and using units from MBMs [market-based mechanisms], if needed, and the contribution from LULUCF [land use, land use change, and forestry], if applicable; other Parties' emissions remained above their base-year level, owing mainly to inadequacy of domestic [policies and measures], high marginal mitigation costs or energy system constraintsâthey indicated that the use of units from MBMs and, if applicable, the contribution from LULUCF are expected to make a sizable contribution towards achieving their targets. The United States did not join the KP, and Canada withdrew before the end of the first commitment period. At least in part, their reasons for disengaging from the KP included the non-Annex I Parties' objections to acceding to quantified GHG reduction commitments. While negotiating the second KP commitment period, Australia, Japan, and other Parties also decided to seek an agreement that included commitments on the same terms from all Parties. This led to a mandate, negotiated at the 2011 COP17 in Durban, South Africa, to develop a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC applicable to all Parties no later than 2015. The Durban Mandate resulted in the 2015 PA, discussed below. The Paris Agreement (PA) The PA is the second major subsidiary agreement under the UNFCCC. The PA is to eventually replace the KP as the primary subsidiary vehicle for process and actions under the UNFCCC. Obama Administration officials stated that the PA is not a treaty requiring Senate advice and consent to ratification. The U.N. Climate Conference in Madrid included COP25 and the second session of the "Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement" (CMA2), along with meetings of other related bodies. Though the United States has given notice of withdrawal from the PA, its withdrawal is to take effect no earlier than November 4, 2020. Until then, the United States may participate as a Party. After withdrawal takes effect, the United States may participate in a more limited way as an Observer State. The PA was intended to be legally binding on its Parties, though not all provisions in it are mandatory. The PA requires that Parties submit nonbinding pledges, in NDCs, to mitigate their GHG emissions and enhance removals. NDCs may also articulate goals to adapt to climate change and cooperate toward these ends, including mobilization of financial and other support. Some provisions are binding, such as those regarding reporting and review, while others are recommendations or collective commitments to which it would be difficult to hold an individual Party accountable. Key aspects of the agreement include: Temperature goal. The PA defines a collective, long-term objective to hold the GHG-induced increase in temperature to well below 2 o Celsius (C) and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 o C above the pre-industrial level. As discussed below, a periodic "Global Stocktake" is to assess progress toward the goals. Single GHG mitigation framework. The PA establishes a process, with a ratchet mechanism in five-year increments, for all countries to set and achieve GHG emission mitigation pledges until the long-term goal is met. For the first time under the UNFCCC, all Parties participate in a common framework with common guidance, though some Parties are allowed flexibility in line with their capacities. Accountability framework. To promote compliance, the PA balances accountability to build and maintain trust (if not certainty) with the potential for public and international pressure ("name-and-shame"). Also, the PA establishes a compliance mechanism designed to use expert-based and facilitative review and response rather than punitive measures. Many Parties and observers are to closely monitor the effectiveness of this strategy. Adaptation. The PA also requires "as appropriate" that Parties prepare and communicate their plans to adapt to climate change. Parties agreed that adaptation communications would be recorded in a public registry. Collective financial obligation. The PA reiterates the collective obligation in the UNFCCC for developed country Parties to provide financial resourcesâpublic and privateâto assist developing country Parties with mitigation and adaptation efforts. It urges scaling up from past financing. The Parties agreed to set, prior to their 2025 meeting, a new collective quantified goal for mobilizing financial resources of not less than $100 billion annually to assist developing country Parties. The Katowice Package At COP24/CMA1 in Katowice, Poland, in 2018, the PA Parties agreed to many of the guidelines and processes so that Parties may implement the PA as intended. Despite these agreements, Parties did not resolve several issues of significance. Negotiations on these issues will likely continue at COP26/CMA3 in Glasgow, Scotland, in November 2020. The Katowice Package, as it is often called, clarified some ambiguities in the PA that were considered important to U.S. interests, including guidelines for Parties to report their NDCs, and the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) with guidelines and formats to allow a Party's NDC to be clearly understood. The Katowice Package thereby supports the effectiveness of the consultative compliance mechanism of the PA (discussed below). Below are brief summaries of key aspects of the Katowice Package. NDC Guidelines The Parties to the PA agreed to new guidelines on how to report NDCs. NDCs are to be updated every five years and "will" represent a progress in ambition to abate GHG emissions beyond the previous NDC. While Parties agreed that they "should" use a prescribed format for communicating NDCs, the details are still to be worked out. There is not agreement yet on "common timeframes" for NDCsâwhether NDCs should look five or 10 years into the future. Those Parties that submitted NDCs with time frames up to 2025 (including the United States) must communicate "new" NDCs by 2020. Those Parties with NDCs with time frames up to 2030 must communicate or update their NDC in 2020. Were the United States to remain in the PA, it would be required to submit a new NDC in 2020. The content of NDCs continues to be nationally determined and nonbinding, but it should reflect what a Party intends to achieve. The guidelines apply to NDCs submitted in 2025, but Parties are invited to use an agreed format in updating their NDCs in 2020. The guidelines also address how to report adaptation measures for Parties that wish to include them in their NDCs. Voluntary Cooperation and Market Mechanisms The PA provides in Article 6 for Parties to choose voluntary cooperation with other Parties to implement their NDCs. The purpose is to allow "higher ambition in their mitigation and adaptation actions and to promote sustainable development and environmental integrity" (Article 6.1). This article, in other words, allows the use of market mechanisms to achieve GHG mitigation at the lowest possible cost and in concert with sustainable development. This, in theory, can induce Parties to take on stronger GHG mitigation commitments while ensuring that the GHG mitigation constitutes real emission reductions. The debate about the purpose for voluntary cooperation and market mechanismsâand the rules by which they are put into operationâwas a major area of work undecided in Katowice. Adaptation Reporting Parties agreed to provide information on adaptation priorities, needs, plans, and actions in new "adaptation communications," as well as through the NDCs. Parties agreed in Katowice that the Adaptation Fund, originally established under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, will serve the PA. It will be one of the operating entities to the financial mechanism of the PA in addition to the Global Environment Facility and the Green Climate Fund, discussed below Global Stocktake As prescribed by the PA, a Global Stocktake is to be held every five years. Parties agreed that the Global Stocktake will consider progress toward the UNFCCC's objective and the PA's aims overall. It will use best available science and will cover mitigation, adaptation, financial flows, equity, and means of implementation and support. It will not examine the situations of individual Parties. Parties decided that the next Global Stocktake would be held in 2023. A number of decisions were reached regarding the Global Stocktake, including the information it is expected to receive from the ETF (discussed below) and other sources from PA processes. Input may also come from nonstate actors, including non-Parties, localities and subnational governments, the business community, and all parts of civil society. The Enhanced Technology Framework (ETF) Setting strong requirements for the transparency of each Party's efforts has been a priority of the United States since the negotiation of the UNFCCC. ETF guidelines specify the information that Parties must report with their NDCs. That information is expected to support a "facilitative multilateral consideration of progress," along with biennial transparency reports. Methods for GHG emission estimation and other technical issues will continue to rely on the IPCC's technical advice. According to the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, all Parties must provide information on the following, as applicable to their NDCs: Quantifiable information on the reference point for GHG mitigation actions or targets; Time frame and/or periods (i.e., the start and end dates) for implementation; Scope and coverage of the NDC (i.e., the quantitative target, which sources and gases are covered); National planning processes for developing the NDC and, if available, implementation plans taking into account national circumstances; All assumptions and methodological approaches; How the Party determines that its NDC is fair and ambitious; and How the NDC contributes toward achieving the objective of the UNFCCC. The guidelines are to facilitate review and, under the committee (below), consultation intended to encourage compliance with commitments. Whether a Party supplies a timely NDC and reports its NDC according to the guidelines is subject to review by a technical group of experts. The adequacy and appropriateness of Parties' NDCs are not subject to review under the ETF. Flexibility in reporting under the PA is afforded only for those provisions in the modalities, procedures, and guidelines that are specified to allow flexibility. These provisions include (1) the frequency and level of details of reporting, (2) the modalities of the review, and (3) the modalities of the facilitative multilateral consideration of progress. A Party may determine whether to make use of flexibilities. That said, using the flexibilities is not without checks in the review processes. A developing country that claims inadequate capacity to meet the guidelines and elects to apply a flexibility must make clear in its Biennial Transparency Report that it has applied a flexibility. It must explain the capacity constraint, how it intends to address the constraint, and its intended time frame to make improvements to the constraint(s). The technical review teams may not review these flexibilities. Committee The Parties established a 12-member committee to "facilitate implementation" of the PA. The committee is intended to support Parties' efforts to meet their obligations under the PA as a soft, pro-compliance mechanism. The PA's compliance processes are consultative, not punitive. The committee may initiate a "consideration" should a Party not submit or update its NDC as required or provide mandatory communications. Financing In 2009 and 2010, developed countries pledged collectively to mobilize US$100 billion per year by 2020, from public and private sources, to support mitigation and adaptation activities in low-income countries. COP decision 1/CP.21 to adopt the PA (not the PA itself) stated that developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025. Prior to 2025, the Parties shall set a new collective quantified goal for financial resources from a floor of US$100 billion per year. The goal should take into account the needs and priorities of developing countries. Parties may take into consideration the information from the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts. The financial pledges are not an enforceable commitment by developed country Parties. Many stakeholders argue, nonetheless, that the resources are essential to help low-income countries contribute to GHG abatement and adaptation in the context of sustainable development. The financial flows are also important politicallyâin part to build confidence in the functionality of the UNFCCC and PA and to build trust between the lower and higher income economies. At COP24 and since then, some countries made pledges toward this goal. Some developing country Parties submitted NDCs with GHG mitigation targets they would achieve unconditionally and more ambitious targets that they would achieve with adequate financial and technical support. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was proposed, during the 2009 COP in Copenhagen to be a new international financial institution connected to the UNFCCC. The fund and its design was agreed during the 2011 COP in Durban, South Africa. The GCF was made operational in 2014. The GCF aims to assist lower-income countries in their efforts to combat climate change through the provision of grants and other concessional financing for mitigation and adaptation projects, programs, policies, and activities. The GCF is capitalized by contributions from donor countries and other sources, potentially including innovative mechanisms and the private sector. The GCF officially opened for capitalization at the U.N. Climate Summit in September 2014. The GCF's initial resource mobilization lasted from 2015 to 2018. As of the most recent published reporting (April 30, 2019), the GCF had raised over $10.2 billion in signed pledges from 48 countries/regions/cities during the resource mobilization period. The GCF board recently approved 10 new projects, increasing the GCF portfolio to 111 projects and increasing the level of related GCF funding to over $5.2 billion in 99 developing countries. On October 25, 2019, during the Pledging Conference for GCF's First Replenishment in Paris, 27 countries made pledges totaling $9.8 billion to cover the next four years of the fund. Parties agreed in Katowice that the Adaptation Fund, which was established under the KP, will serve the PA, in addition to the Global Environmental Facility and the GCF. Thus far, the Adaptation Fund has been financed by a share of the proceeds of the emissions trading mechanisms under the KP, as well as by voluntary contributions. With a transition from the KP to the PA, arrangements for the flow of funds are not completely agreed upon. Parties agreed that a share of the proceeds from one of the new cooperative mechanisms will continue to provide a share of its proceeds to the Adaptation Fund. A number of Parties oppose proposalsâparticularly from Parties that are relatively small and perceived to be especially vulnerable to climate changeâto use the other two market mechanisms under Article 6 to finance the Adaptation Fund. Beginning in 2020, developed countries are to submit biennial communications on expected levels of climate finance. The communications are to contain both quantitative and qualitative information. The biennial communications and Secretariat synthesis of the information therein is to inform the Global Stocktakes. Starting in 2020, the Standing Committee on Finance is to report on the determination of support needs of developing countries to implement the UNFCCC and the PA. The committee is also to consider financial needs consistent with long-term low-emissions and sustainable development pathways. Technology The Technology Framework of the PA is to provide overall guidance to the Technology Mechanism that was established under the UNFCCC. The purpose of both is to foster sharing of information and cooperation to develop new, low-emission technologies and technologies to increase resilience to climate change. Supporters viewed the technology mechanisms as important in transforming the set of technologies available, and the economies that use them, as a means to meet the objective of the UNFCCC. The Technology Framework is to have five focus areas: (1) innovation, (2) implementation, (3) enabling environments and capacity-building, (4) collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and (5) support. The Parties intend that the framework should facilitate the active participation of all relevant stakeholders and take into account sustainable development, gender, the special circumstances of the least developed countries and small island developing states, and the enhancement of capacities of indigenous people and "endogenous technologies." The Executive Committee of the Technology Framework is expected to report on the progress and challenges of its work in joint annual reports with the Climate Technology Centre established under the UNFCCC. Related CRS Products CRS Report R44609, Climate Change: Frequently Asked Questions About the 2015 Paris Agreement , by Jane A. Leggett and Richard K. Lattanzio CRS In Focus IF10239, President Obama Pledges Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets as Contribution to 2015 Global Climate Change Deal , by Jane A. Leggett CRS Report R44092, Greenhouse Gas Pledges by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , by Jane A. Leggett CRS In Focus IF10668, Potential Implications of U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change , by Jane A. Leggett CRS Report R44761, Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement , by Stephen P. Mulligan CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1836, Constitutional Limits on States' Efforts to "Uphold" the Paris Agreement , by Stephen P. Mulligan CRS Report R41889, International Climate Change Financing: The Green Climate Fund (GCF) , by Richard K. Lattanzio CRS Report R41845, The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI): Budget Authority and Request, FY2010-FY2016 , by Richard K. Lattanzio CRS In Focus IF10248, China's "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution" to Addressing Climate Change in 2020 and Beyond , by Jane A. Leggett CRS In Focus IF10296, New Climate Change Joint Announcement by China and the United States , by Jane A. Leggett CRS Report R40001, A U.S.-Centric Chronology of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , by Jane A. Leggett CRS In Focus IF10904, Potential Hydrofluorocarbon Phase Down: Issues for Congress , by Jane A. Leggett