Not logged in - Login
< back

Coordination - 2021-2022

Collaborative Wiki Main Page

Inventory Collaborative Google Drive Link


Co-leads: Alison Eyth (EPA OAQPS), Zac Adelman (LADCO)

Mark Janssen (LADCO), Deborah Wilson (MARAMA), Mary Uhl (WESTAR), Tom Moore (WESTAR), Michael Vince (CENSARA), Jeff Underhill (NESCAUM), Byeong Kim (GA DNR), Doug Boyer (TCEQ), Serpil Kayin (EPA), Jeff Vukovich (EPA), Caroline Farkas (EPA), Sarah Roberts (EPA), Tammy Manning (NCDENR), Eric Zalewsky (NY), Tom Richardson (OK), Susan McCusker (MARAMA), Heather Simon (EPA), Norm Possiel (EPA), Scott Hodges (SESARM), Janice Godfrey (EPA)

Coordination Committee Meetings

Held the 2nd Wednesday of the month at 1:00 or 2:00 p.m. Eastern. This wiki will be used to present the agenda before each call.

Next meeting: August 10, 2022

July 13, 2022


  1. Discuss ozone SIP-related topics that impact decisions on a potential new platform


Alison, Zac, Norm, Winston, Heather, Mark, Michael Sheehan, Janice, Tammy, Tom R., Kevin Civerolo, Alexandra Karambelas, Susan, Steve Allison, Wendy Jacobs, Judy Rand, Eric, Caroline, Doug, Kiernan Wholean, Mary, Jennifer van Vlerah, Sarah, Michael, Greg deAngelo, Serpil, Tom M., Emily Bull



  • working towards a next collaborative / new modeling platform to meet needs into mid 2020s
  • committee would put together a proposal for a next platform
  • this would be informed by planning needs
  • 2016 used for ozone, haze, attain demos, SIPs
  • As we went through the process, things came up which we wish we had known sooner
  • would like to assimilate those types of thoughts into the plan
  • Attainment demos due early 2023
  • Bump ups for 2015 ozone NAAQS could happen as soon as this fall
  • Next attainment date will be 2027 [2026 for modeling]
  • What base year selection should there be?
  • Attainment demos are supposed to use the most recent triennial NEI closest to original designations [here it is 2017 NEI, but we modeled 2016]

Jenny [Ohio]

  • starting to dig into attainment demo process this spring
  • used 2016 last time
  • Implementation rule requirements caused some difficulties
  • A lot of modeling was with 2016, but attainment demo says it has to use 2017 NEI
  • Can't mix and match with 2023 and redo projections
  • Most of the work they did was 2016v1 [not as much 2017 NEI was in there as in 2016v2]
  • They are having to reinvent the wheel redoing an inventory
  • They have to justify in their submittals (2017) why using a different inventory is OK when using a different inventory from what was modeled. There is a tension.
  • It's not always apples to apples when comparing between 2016 and 2017-based projections.
  • Those issues are with the current submittal.


  • There were new methodological changes when going from v1 to v2

Judy R:

  • This is an RFP SIP issue
  • Modeling inventory years are based on met and doesn't always coincide with inventory year
  • The implementation rule now says you must use 2017 [most recent NEI] and not 2016
  • Shouldn't be taking credit for old rules
  • RFP inventory is summer tons/day [not annual] - it's complex to convert the modeling inventory and profiles
  • Could use EPA growth and control factors applied to 2017 NEI [converted to summer tons per day]


  • it would be better if they could align but the reg doesn't allow that
  • The inventories aren't comparable
  • Jenny needs to justify, but Judy said they haven't had to justify the difference
  • Jenny said she's been clearly told that they have to justify

Judy says it's an EPA-state collaborative


  • v3 is almost done [Alison reminds that it is more based on 2017], but it's too late for things to be done in early 2023
  • Noting that the NY SIP won't show attainment


  • RFP requires a number of different analyses that differ from standard modeling procedures
  • Has been appreciative of being involved in the Collaborative although they moved on to 2019 base year

Tom M:

  • EPA is making new versions at OAQPS is part of the the challenge
  • Would like to see better communication with the regions


  • the next due date will be in 2026 for attainment date in 2027
  • Will they still need to use 2017 as the basis for these SIPs?
  • RFP will have to go past 2026.


  • There is confusion on this.
  • Does your base year shift when you are reclassified? [what is EPA's policy on this?]
  • It is a lot more work to have the years different


  • if date recalibrates with a reclassification, then it would need a different NEI year for its basis
  • Could the attainment demonstration be aligned with the modeling platform?
  • EPA Region interpretation can vary on this topic of justification, so can we work towards consistency nationally?
  • OH is being asked to do a lot of justification, but is NJ?
  • The projecting into the future is difficult


  • for 2023 due date, will use 2017
  • May need to use 2020 for the next one depending on when it is actually done
  • The modeling base year is not picked according to the RFP requirement (it's met-based)
  • The modeling inventory is "annual" while the RFP is in summer TPD [it is separate]
  • CAA requires the ozone inventory summer TPY anyway [by NAA]
  • They describe the modeling inventory as that - the modeling inventory
  • G&C factors from 2016 platform could be downloaded and applied to 2017 using a ratio
  • Have to do own inventory for onroad due to transportation conformity


  • Some of the methodological details are factored in regarding growth and control

The summer RPD for a weekday is a challenge to compute

Conformity analysis is the same as the onroad RFP inventory

Jenny points out that conformity analyses have to be redone no matter what (e.g. MOVES may have been updated)


  • RFP need to do a controlled and uncontrolled analysis for every year between base and future [could be up to 6 years]


  • they don't do uncontrolled for onroad because MOVES isn't available in that way
  • SIPs are due 18 months from the reclassification [e.g. to severe]
  • they have one due 2023, one in 2024, and one in 2026 due to multiple standards in play

Jenny says bump up is April, 2022 and SIPs still due Jan 1, 2023

There are different dates for 2008 and 2015 - states are reclassified under both standards

Zac: for things due in 2023 it's impossible to align


  • can't align for the 2024 date either [2008 severe status] so best can do is shoot for is 2026
  • If EPA issues guidance, the more flexibility the better [2008 was tied to 2011 initially]
  • 2017 is their product for everything
  • 2020 is complicated as you'd have to correct it for the pandemic

Zac: there is a similar conversation with RH planning staff next month


  1. Need clarification on what the base NEI year has to be [from implementation side] when a bump up happens - the original designation nearest NEI or the most recent

  1. Will need a 2026 future year off of whatever the next base year is. Any other future years??

  1. When different base years are used for RFP and modeling, what level of justification is needed / appropriate?

Zac notes that there will be a new PM 2.5 NAAQS (with unknown timing at this point)

  • at some point we'll need to be modeling PM2.5 NAA
  • can't plan for this
  • Need to bring in the regional office staff to this as well


  • in face of declining resources, we should really think about this and come up with a plan to use a year that will work for both purposes

Emily: 2023 is moderate attainment demo need for 2015 NAAQS

June 8, 2022


  1. Principles for selecting a base year for a post-2016 platform
    1. Key considerations for the new base year/platform: technical, statutory, regulatory timing, others
    2. What future years are needed
    3. Reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of the first collaborative
  2. Are some inventory sectors more important than others?

Attendees Alison, Tom R, Eric, Caroline, Debbie, Janice, Zac, Alexandria, Susan, Serpil, Byeong, Michael, Mary, Tom M, Jeff V Greg, Scott, Mark


  • Discussed participation in a new inventory collaborative effort (what do we call it? 202x Collaborative, Collaborative v2 and the extent to which EPA needed to be involved
    • Zac noted that we needed EPA’s help with projections and compiling the information into a modeling platform
    • MJOs will work to come up with a plan for communicating this need to EPA, and the best format/venue for communication
    • Alison suggests gathering technical information about what’s needed; provide historical context for modeling platforms and the needs from air agencies and sharing that with EPA management

  • Discussion on future year projections
    • Tom M. noted the need for consistency in projections as we move between platforms, can we hold emissions more constant?
    • Discussion around holding growth constant and only including controls in projections; need to communicate with EPA on the viability of control strategy focused projections
    • Planning year vs actual base year inventories are a topic to consider for the next platform

  • Discussion on the connection between the inventory platform year and statutory requirements
    • O3 attainment demonstration SIPs require inventory analyses (rate of progress, conformity) to be based on the most recent NEI year to the SIP, for the 2026 attainment demonstration this would be 2023
    • Typically a 2023-based modeling platform will not be available in time for the modeling needed to support the SIPs due in early 2026; need to consider how to bridge this gap in timing and statutory requirements; using different years for attainment demonstration modeling and other elements of the SIP complicates the process for the states submitting the SIPs
    • Alison noted that having someone with SIP writing and/or approval experience in the coordination committee could be helpful to help work through these issues

  • Principles and goals of the process for selecting a new base year
    • Tom M notes that EPA should provide projection information and teach states how to provide alternative projections through the EMP; need to be able to include and site alternative projection information; states could build capacity around the EMF for doing their own projections
    • In turn states would need to commit to review and participate in collaborative data products development
    • Susan noted that the MARAMA growth and control approach could be expanded across the country, for review across the country and expansion to other states/SCCs
    • An objective of the next collaborative is to enable state air programs to better engage in the projection process, i.e., through the EMF

  • How to select a new base year?
    • What is typical met and typical air quality when we have a large country like the US, and climate-driven changes in meteorology
    • Need to note connection with other SIP requirements like conformity (see above)
    • It may not make sense to have a single base year given that we use multi-year averages in the attainment metrics (weighted 5-year average used for future year DVs
    • Can we establish model performance for a base year and then change the base line period to use averaged or typical inventories?
    • Discussion around using alternative meteorology in the future? How to evaluate future year meteorology?

  • Process
    • Mary notes that this group to be the nuts and bolts to the theoretical discussion on the fed-state workgroup
    • Need input from state SIP writers
    • Need participation from regional EPA staff
    • Zac asks the group members to consider the discussion topics for this call and be ready to provide input on our call in July:
      • Principles and goals of the process for selecting a new base year
      • Key considerations for the new base year/platform: technical, statutory, regulatory timing, others
      • What future years are needed
      • Reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of the first collaborative
      • Are some inventory sectors more important than others?

April 13, 2022


  1. Newly posted data
  2. Good neighbor FIP
  3. Manuscript update
  4. Preliminary thoughts on post-2016 modeling platform year


Winston, Eric, Tom R, Tammy, Janice, Sarah, Tom M, Debbie, Susan, Jeff U, Mark, Byeong, Mary, Sarah, Michael, Doug, Zac, Jeff V, Caroline


1. New data that have been posted include some files to model the 2016v3 draft solvents, and some new data for 2019 modeling platform.

2. Good neighbor FIP

  • How should MJOs/states model non-EGUs for attainment demonstrations now that the good neighbor FIP has been released?
    • Alison noted that policy staff are not on this call
  • The new good neighbor rule will result in a new on the books (OTB)/ on the way (OTW) case that LADCO and others would want to reflect in attainment demonstration modeling. Is EPA going to create a new OTB/OTW case at EPA or would states need to do this?
  • Will there be an OTB scenario developed at some point for the FIP?
  • Note that LADCO is not planning to make any changes for 2023 modeling as it is already done, but they do want to reflect this rule in the upcoming 2026 [attainment demonstration] modeling.
  • Do they wait for EPA to prepare a final FIP inventory to use as the basis for their 2026 modeling?
  • Will EPA specifically enumerate the sources subject to the FIP and how they will be impacted by the rule once it’s finalized? Alison noted that it’s a rate-based analysis.
  • For a FIP, should states should be given a plan to implement and not options?
  • Alison noted that the specifics of this particular FIP are new to all and some details are still being worked out.
  • Tom R thinks this is analogous to a NESHAP rule – where states would identify sources, and make an estimate of options / impacts, etc.
  • Zac wonders if all controls were applied to all sources, would it be overcontrolling the emissions?
  • MARAMA needs to identify the sources and level of control that needs to be applied to each one.
  • Tom M suggests there will be a range of implementation methods to meet the rule.
  • The group noted that the list of sources contributing significantly needs to be known / identified one way or the other.
  • Tom R thinks that the states will likely be tasked with this.
  • There was a question about tribal emissions and whether states have any responsibility for these (e.g., oil and gas emissions from tribal lands).
  • Q: Could AQAT be released to states for other types of analyses?
  • Q into region 5: is 2016v1 platform (which didn't use MOVES3) OK for attainment demonstrations to be submitted in 2023? Noting that demonstrations submitted in 2026 would use MOVES3.

3. Manuscript update: Zac has received some comments and is incorporating those.

4. Q from WRAP: What modeling base year / inventory might be used to meet requirements for regional haze and ozone modeling needed by mid-2020s?

  • Noting that 2020 is probably not a good year and 2023 NEI will probably not be out in time.
  • EPA prepares inventories each year but interim years do not have the same level of state/local/tribal/MJO participation as triennial years.
  • Regional haze modeling would probably start in 2024, but 2023 NEI wouldn’t be ready yet. Similar issue for ozone [attainment demonstrations – due in 2026].
  • Note that state grant budgets have remained flat, so it is difficult to build new modeling platforms.
  • It would like to come to an agreement [before the modeling needs to start], if possible and a preliminary conversation on this would be helpful
  • Regarding ozone, bump ups for were released on 4/12/2022. Attainment dates would be in 2024, so demonstrations would need to model 2026 and need to be submitted by 2025. [Attainment demonstration submissions are also due 2023].
  • TCEQ is currently focusing on 2019.
  • For 2015 standards, SIPs are typically due the year of the future inventory. 2020 and 2021 are probably not good years to model due to COVID impacts. 2023 NEI will not be out until late 2025 or 2026. Would 2022 be an appropriate year?
  • Note that there is a field study in Houston in 2022 and also 2021.
  • ORD is upgrading chemistry in CMAQ by their 2025 release. Which version of AQ model would be appropriate to use for upcoming modeling around this timeframe?
  • Would EPA still be using CAMx or switch to CMAQ?
  • Lesson learned is to figure out how representative the year needs to be. * Might we be in the same situation yet again in 2028/2029 and 2026 NEI?
  • MJOs probably pulling together modeling protocols in 2025/2026.
  • Tom notes that Mexico and Canada inventories need to be better. Tom also notes fires are increasing all the time.
  • Land managers would like to see what modeling can address. The process of holding fires constant for regional haze is questionable.

March 9, 2022


  1. Review of 2016v2 comments by sector
  2. Collaborative manuscript
  3. Other items
  4. Future meetings

Attendees Winston, Zac, Tom M, Tamara Smith-Hayes, Tammy, Susan, Mary, Mark, Jeongran, Scott, Xiangyu, Debbie, Doug, Tom R, Jeff, Doris


1. 2016v2 comments

  • Q: Do comments submitted pre-proposal need to be submitted to the docket? A: not for consideration, but yes if they are to be in the official record

  • Q: When might final rule inventories be provided? before rule publication or not? A: currently unclear

  • Q: Are the new solvents available? A: yes the 2016 solvents are available

  • Q: What changes were made to biogenic emissions? A: land use was updated to BELD5 (MODIS-based) and biomass factors changed made based on forest service data. Papers:

  • Q: When is the final rule modeling happen and when is more information needed? A: can't discuss this yet

  • Q: Vintage of Mexican inventory? A: Mexico's 2016 inventory for point, nonpoint, nonroad

  • Q: Can EPA and stakeholders interact during comment period? A: Yes, although some discussion topics may be limited.

2. Manuscript - Zac is sending to authors and group for final review.

3. Next meetings to be held at 2PM on 2nd Wednesdays based on group's feedback of having some conflicts at 1PM. Also, post-meeting a new invite was sent out with a more limited invitee list.

January 12, 2022


  1. Review of 2016v2 comment submissions


Zac, Alison, Mary, Tammy, Susan, Eric, Xiangyu, Scott, Tom R, , Tom M, Doug, Sarah, Mark, Jeff V, Michael, Byeong, Jeongran, Kevin C Doris, Winston, Alex G, Debbie, Ruby, Janice, Steve A


1. Alison and Mary discussed the topics to cover on this workgroup vs the broader Fed/State workgroup (a meeting for Fed/State will be scheduled soon). Alison will follow up with Norm on this.

2. Alison gave a presentation on the submission of comments on 2016v2. A few states were missing: Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas, and North Carolina.

  • Doris had a question on CMV for 2016 vs 2017 - Alison needs to follow up on this; also why isn't NH3 in summaries for CMV?
  • Byeong wondered why EGU and non-EGU weren't listed for GA and wanted to better understand the changes in BEIS modeling (Jeff will follow up)
  • Zac would like more information on when emissions inventory development and modeling will happen for final rulemaking
  • Tom wondered if EPA can share the submitted comments in some way

December 8, 2021


  1. Preview of what people are finding with 2016v2 review
  2. Plans for future modeling


Zac, Alison, Tammy, Susan, Eric, Xiangyu, Scott, Tom R, Doug, Serpil, Sarah, Mark, Jeff U, Jeff V, Jim B, Michael


1. Preview of findings on 2016v2

  • MARAMA (Susan): Barbara Morin is running groups
    • Will submit comments on facility names, controls, etc.
    • Jin looking at onroad activity growth, age dist, ext idling, rep counties, temporal profs; has suggestions to update temporal profiles
    • Nonpoint: found discrepancies in nonpoint SO2 (higher than 2017 NEI) - fuel content assumptions - poss due to growth from 2014
    • Differences in unpaved road PM10 emissions - modeling vs NEI - which version is put in the summary?
    • Solvents discussion and impacts regarding state rules / credits to be recognized if EFs were too low
    • OTC will continue to develop best practices roadmap for state inventory review
    • Not sure about how much we'll get on impacts of existing controls - some states may comment on this

  • LADCO (Mark)
    • Looking at non-EGU point (WI, MI, OH providing some control info for top sources in region)
    • Also can provide some emission rate information - would like to get info in there - don't want the effort to go to waste
    • Other main comment is on growth factors - airports, lime kilns, snowmobiles, I/C engines, etc
    • Will send in ERTAC-related comments on EGU growth
    • Comments will come from individual states, not integrated

  • SESARM (Scott)
    • Had a discussion last week w/ states - they will make comments individually
    • Many were looking at EGUs and closures / shutdowns, some at major non-EGUs
    • Expect comments from a few states

  • CENSARA (Mike)
    • Won't be submitting merged comments, but some states will submit
    • TX and some others working on comments - expect to be ready by end of year

  • Oklahoma (Tom R)
    • Will try to send by end of Jan
    • Found some issues with PM (issues with augmentation - assumed filterable and should have been primary)
    • 2017 NEI seems a better baseline for projecting some sources than projected 2016
    • Some comments on how oil and gas exploration was projected (2014 not a representative year)

2. Plans for future modeling

  • Will there be new MOVES runs? A: Hoping not, but possibly SMOKE-MOVES runs

  • Is a new base year (i.e., 2017) OK for non-EGU sources? A: Yes, using 2017 is fine - especially for non-EGUs not reporting in 2016

  • When is EPA planning to do more modeling pre-December 2022? A: the specific dates have not yet been determined, but likely starting sometime in spring of 2022

  • LADCO would like to know timing to coordinate with their own modeling

  • Wondering what new platform will be called - 2016v3?

  • Wondering what other analyses v2 or v3 might be used for

  • Regarding origins of the Collaborative - states and MJOs still want to be involved, but the preferred approach may vary from 2016v1 approach

  • Would like opportunity to review emissions before they go into major modeling exercises

  • Would have liked to be involved earlier in the process for 2016v2

  • Goal is to come up with the best product

  • Can inventories be reviewed before modeling is performed (e.g., v3)?

3. Manuscript update: Zac is going to make edits hopefully before end of year and then will share.

November 10, 2021


  1. Inventory Collaborative manuscript update (Zac)
  2. Summary of comments to-date on 2016v2 (Alison)
  3. Communicating impacts of state emissions rules and regulations to EPA (Alison, All)
  4. Modeling and analysis updates with 2016 platform (All)
  5. Data sharing update


Alison, Tom R, Caroline, Mark, Zac, Scott H, Tammy, Doug, Jeff U, Mike V, Sarah, Jim B, Debbie, Jeff V Maureen (LA DEQ), Winston, Eric, Kelly P (??)


1. Inventory Collaborative manuscript update (Zac)

  • Slowly updating the manuscript on collaborative process
  • Will cut off soon
  • Probably target JAWMA, but they have page fees
  • Will share with rest of group once we have a full draft

2. Summary of comments received on the 2016v2 platform (Alison)

  • Group reviewed spreadsheet of comments
  • Zac asked about the biogenic emissions updates - more soil NO in some places and fewer VOC - Jeff replied about landuse and EF updates
  • Zac is noticing they are low in NOx for 2016v1
  • Now that there are dates for transport modeling - would like to know dates for next round of AQ modeling
  • should they be targeting their modeling efforts over next few months?

3. Communicating state emissions rules and regulations to EPA (All)

  • Susan is planning to provide updates on state / OTC rules - work is ongoing
  • Alison mentioned that having quantitative data would be most helpful
  • Ohio just finalized a solvent/surface coatings reg to mimic OTC rules [and are also looking at NOx and VOC options in the region]
  • LADCO had a Ramboll project: O3 Precursors Contract (2020)
  • Voluntary programs are hard to reflect

4. Modeling and analysis updates with the 2016 platform (All)

  • LADCO: 2016v1 - computed 12km DVs; working on finer scale domains
    • there are a lot of reductions from 2016v1
    • onroad NOx reductions are very large (not believable?) - also nonroad
    • 2016 5 year DVs are lowest on record for the region - starting place for attn demo is low
    • small reductions can show attainment in their region
    • 2016 platform platform presents low bar to show attainment
    • may be able to share at next collaborative call
    • setting up some sector-based source apportionment - first on 12km, then sector+source region tags
    • will also do some NOx/VOC brute force analyses
    • GA Tech working on HDDM on 4km domain - to create ozone isopleths for NAAs in region + source-receptor relnshps, also doing 1.33 km modeling around Detroit
    • Ohio emissions change in 2016v2 with MOVES3 - what is cause?
    • Note that the 2021 DVs in LADCO area are very low - some areas submitting redesignation requests (Detroit, Cinc, Louisville)
    • 2020 and 2021 were ozone conducive (2019 not as much); satellite backs up NOx reductions

5. Data sharing

  • EPA shipped out NY and some other drives with premerged emissions and other inputs
  • Working to transfer premerged emissions to CMAS [could send to IWDW if they have time to upload]
  • posted state-specific zips and more onroad files for modeling

October 13, 2021


  1. Mechanisms for sharing premerged emissions files
  2. State-specific inventory zip preparation
  3. Data products that would facilitate review
  4. What are MJOs doing for their states?


Alison, Eric, Steve A, Byeong, Tom R, Caroline, Debbie, Susan, Sarah, Mary, Zac, Scott H, Jeff U, Jeff V, Tammy, Mark J, Serpil, Doug, Tom M


1.Mechanisms for sharing premerged emissions files

  • EPA has determined these files can be shared
  • IWDW has limited bandwidth, but possibly could post if it was streamlined
  • CMAS can post after CMAS conference (although downloads aren't tracked like IWDW)
  • AWS is something that might be considered in the future
    • Zac is looking to start a national WG on cloud computing

2. State-specific inventory zip files

3. Other data products to facilitate review

4. What are MJOs doing for their states?

  • MARAMA has been sharing methods and going through summaries
  • WESTAR plans to have a call with states soon - oil and gas will be important
  • LADCO is trying to focus states on a few specific items
    • Working to build reports to make it easy for them to see problems
    • Looking at IPM vs ERTAC
    • Checking into MOVES inputs used
    • Examine top 20ish emission processes by state to very control info

September 21, 2021


  1. Overview of 2016v2 Release
  2. Q & A about release and discussion about review


Alison, Mark J, Tom R Tom M, Zac, Norm, Tammy, Byeong, Susan, Doug, Caroline, Jeongran, Serpil, Michael, Jeff U, Jeff V, Sarah, Mary, Jim B, Eric, Marc, Serpil, Mike S, Margaret, Ruby


1.       Overview of 2016v2 release (EPA)

  • Components:
    • Technical Support Document
    • Data files for 2016, 2023, 2026, and 2032:
    • 20xxemissions: SMOKE inputs by inventory category in (e.g., point, nonpoint, nonroad)
    • Spatial surrogates (36km, 12km, 4km) and ancillary data also included
    • Scripts to run SMOKE to prepare emissions (adding CAMx conversion late this week)
    • 2016v2_info… txt file replaces README for running SMOKE (due to https://gaftp)
  • Summaries:
    • US inventory state and national summaries
    • US inventory state + SCC summary
    • County+monthly summaries
    • Facility summaries: ptnonipm, pt_oilgas
    • Onroad summaries
    • Control strategy tool summaries (inputs and intermediate results)
  • Future year EGU information:
  • Sector overview
    • ptegu: minor updates from 2016v1
    • pt_oilgas: Includes WRAP inventory – otherwise minor updates
    • np_oilgas: Includes WRAP inventory + run of 2017 NEI tool for CY2016
    • airports: reflects corrections to 2017 NEI (released summer 2020)
    • ptnonipm: minor updates from 2016v1; some new control info
    • beis: updated with 2017 NEI land use and emission factors
    • cmv: unchanged from 2016v1, but new years added
    • onroad: based on MOVES3 with 2017 NEI-based inputs [retained most 2016v1 activity submissions]
    • nonroad: based on MOVES3 [very similar to 2016v1]
    • afdust: updated to backcast from 2017NEI
    • rail: unchanged from 2016v1, but new years added
    • solvents: new sector based on K. Seltzer methods; removed overlap with ptnonipm and nonpt
    • rwc: from 2017 NEI
    • ptagfire: same as 2016v1
    • ptfire: minor corrections from 2016v1 (split into wild and rx)
    • ptfire_othna: same as 2016v1
    • fertilizer: updated with a new run of CMAQ
    • livestock: 2017 NEI backcast to 2016
    • Canada: updated to new 2016 inventories
    • Mexico: updated for point, nonpoint, nonroad; onroad the same
  • Data Review process
    • Send questions and comments to for everything but future year EGUs
    • Data files small enough to email can also be sent
    • Future year EGU comments / questions should be sent to
    • Comments requested by December 17, 2021
    • If you find additional summaries would be helpful for the review, email Alison Eyth and
    • Interim questions / discussion are encouraged at WG meetings
    • Information on how/whether state & regional rules can be reflected in the inventories is encouraged
    • Feedback on TSD is welcome (typos, unanswered questions, etc.)

2.       Q&A about 2016v2 release (all)

  • Were surrogates changed?
    • One new surrogate was added (public schools - for off-network school buses). Most other surrogate data unchanged but origin spatial coverage has changed to be the same for 36km, 12km, and 4km surrogates
  • Details on MOVES inputs are important (LADCO)
  • Info on state rules would be helpful
    • MARAMA reviewing the MOG comments on rules not being included
    • LADCO has some information for their states
  • Is there metadata in the control packets? A: yes, some - plus summaries available
  • What process will MJOs/states follow to review the data?
    • A: MJOs to get together after the call and work on organizing the review
    • EPA can participate on targeted meetings and engage at existing workgroups
  • Zac may be able to auto-generate charts for 2016v2 vs 2016v1 before next meeting
  • Model performance evaluation is not yet available, but EPA has not seen anything of concern with preliminary evaluation
  • New IPM reference case to be discussed at upcoming meetings on EGUs

3.       Upcoming meetings conflict with EIAG seminars. Decided to start 1 hour earlier to avoid seminar time.

August 18, 2021


  1. Update on 2016v2 status (EPA)
  2. Update from MJOs/states on ongoing modeling (All)
  3. Discussion about inventory and modeling collaboration


Alison, Mark J, Tom R, Zac, Debbie, Winston, Tammy, Byeong, Caroline, Jeongran, Serpil, Michael, Jeff U, Jeff V, Sarah, Mary, Jim B, Eric,


1.       Update on 2016v2 status (EPA)

  • Inventories are ready for 2016, 2023, 2026, 2032
  • working on packaging and TSD -*post in about a month (mid-September)
  • MOVES3 EFs and a package to run for 2016 are already posted, plus nonroad emissions
  • 2016v2 onroad and nonroad emissions to be presented by Janice on MOVES MJO call tomorrow
  • 2016v2 web page with brief summary to go up soon

2.       MJO / state modeling updates (MJOs and states)

  • LADCO have 2016 and 2023 runs in queue with multiple nested grids
    • 12/4/1.33 km domains for 2016 and 2023 one-way nested with CAMx
    • have a new machine to run on but 1.33 is making it slow
    • working to put on AWS
    • will run state sector tag SA run to look at contributions by sector to design control strategies
    • also plan brute force NOx and VOC cuts - will help refine control needed
    • will try to model more targeted control scenarios
    • Movesmrg processing is slowest process for them
    • running for ozone season - and will do attainment test: RRFs, FYDVs, how nested grid impact performance
    • 4km definitely has better performance than 12km, so will keep that for sure
    • want to evaluate the value added from 1.33km in terms of model performance

  • Mark: ERTAC is close to v16.2 (comments came in in February) - looking at those soon
    • new shutdowns keep coming in - individual companies come out with plans in "waves"
    • Serpil: shutdowns have been projected by IPM
  • Alison recommend bringing up agenda items for EGU call to Serpil and Susan

  • Eric:
    • In middle of some CAMx runs for 2016 and 2023 with 2016v1 on OTC 4km domain
    • source apportionment modeling for 2023 on 12km domain just finished
    • looking forward to version 2
    • 4km surrogate had an issue for rec marine - posting new surrogate
    • one hour time shift in SMOKE - Eric will follow up on this offline

  • Zac: diesel defeat devices and impacts on emissions - has anyone modeled this?
    • Debbie mentioned that they have been working on estimating emissions from removing devices from medium and heavy duty trucks [using tool developed by Jenny St. Clair]
    • Debbie described the resolution of the tool outputs - some presentations have been given
    • there are some shops that "specialize" on this - it's an emissions estimation tool
    • available on Github
    • Zac has a report by Ramboll to provide some adjusted EF factor tables for MOVES - based on defeat devices; will model at some point

3.       How we might be able to use the emissions collaborative as a way to facilitate engagement between EPA and states/regions on future modeling platforms (Zac, others)

  • letter was sent to Peter about collaborative process
  • ideally would like to see data and configurations for the modeling before it was started
  • motivation: where there is going to be a culpability assessment, stakeholders should have a chance to see what data are going, and anticipate source/receptor relationship
  • Were looking for more collaboration but more practical process than 2016v1 collaborative
  • there are established relationships and tools with the Inventory Collaborative
  • how can we use Collaborative if we are to use it?
  • presented ideas to Mike K, Peter, others today and ask today
  • will see how they respond regarding a path forward
  • We might be able to leverage Collaborative to figure out a better way to collaborate
  • Process needs to be faster and less resource intensive, but different from just releasing data with TSDs
  • Alison mentioned we are trying to balance a lot of things: regulatory objectives, court-ordered deadlines, etc. The door is always open if people notice things. We try to collaborate as best we can.
  • Zac would like to see more structured communication and finite time - they are not trying to slow things down - can be on order of weeks and getresponse on what we did with feedback
  • Jeff U: really appreciated the collaborative process - thanks for making that effort; sometimes work happens and states don't have time to turn things around; would like to build on success of collaborative - it worked and should be applied in other areas

June 9 2021


  1. MOVES3 data posted for 2016
  2. Review of projections approaches and data


Alison, Mark J, Tom R, Zac, Debbie, Winston, Tammy, Byeong, Susan, Caroline, Jeongran, Serpil, Hang Qu, Michael, Jeff U, Jeff V, Xiangyu, Tom M, Doug B, Sarah, Mary


1. We discussed that the onroad and nonroad outputs from MOVES3 for 2016 are posted here:

  • Zac and Mark mentioned it would be helpful to run a day or partial month from the scripts - e.g., a day is corrupted. Alison will look into that

2. We discussed that there is projection information available from the following locations:

3. Next call: August 11

May 12, 2021


  1. Data sharing for 2016v2
  2. What have centers been doing?


Alison, Zac, Susan, Doug, Jim B, Caroline, Winston, Serpil, Tammy Mark J, Tom R, Jeff U, Jeff V, Jeongran, Eric, Xiangyu, Jin, Byeong, Mary, Heather; Not here: Sarah, Norm, Tom M


1. Data sharing for 2016v2:

  • What about inventory mode for onroad?
    • Alison mentioned that there are countyxSCC inventories available for all completed cases on FTP
  • Jeff discussed np_oilgas for 2016v2: EQUATES for exploration and WRAP for production
  • Improvement includes prescribed burn diurnal profile updates and fires split by sector
  • EPA reviewed sector plans for 2016v2 and mentioned late summer as target for sharing 2016, 2023, and 2026 inventories

2. What have centers been doing?

  • LADCO working on modeling 3 grids for 2016 (12km, 4km, 1.3km)
    • working on rest of inventory and will go to 2023
    • interested in 2016v2 once available
    • working w/ CAMx on fine grids
    • 4km files are large
    • onroad and nonroad split into diesel, non-diesel

  • NY continuing to work with 2016v1
    • processed w/ 12km OTC grid + 4km
    • doing some source apportionment for 2023 - also w/ diesel + non-diesel for OR & NR state + sector
    • running CMAQ + CAMx

    • working to get ERTAC v16.2 running in June & July
    • working on diesel tampering emissions

  • GA
    • wondering about plans to remove CB from CMAQ
    • is onroad NOx still overestimated? - see Toro et al. paper

April 14, 2021


  1. Ongoing work at EPA and data requests
  2. Development of 2016 case with some 2017 NEI
  3. Other topics


Alison, Susan, Debbie, Doug, Caroline, Winston, Serpil, Tammy, Mark J, Sarah, Tom R, Tom M, Jeff U, Jeff V, Jeongran, Eric


1. Ongoing work at EPA + data requests

  • 2016, 2023, 2026 MOVES3 - 2023 needed by LADCO and Northeast for NAAs in addition to 2016 and 2026
  • is taking LADCO a while to run SMOKE-MOVES for different grids - could they get inventory mode version? A:EPA posts county SCC inventories fore each case we've run
  • Mark: is the nonpoint inventory we post good enough for SIP modeling? A can't answer. Consult your regional rep
  • EQUATES initiative - share onroad on MOVES MJO - Kristen may present in May
  • Fed/State WG (Norm/Mary) - working to find dates in May

2. Working on a 2016 case with more 2017

  • Can EPA provide modeling input files for 2016? (they are interested once available)
  • OTC modeling committee - discuss incorporating their rules into inventories
  • 2026 projections needed by LADCO and MARAMA/OTC/NESCAUM asked about this - possibly TX, Denver and possibly other areas (CA) [areas moderate for 2015 could bump up to serious (2026)]

3. Other topics

  • April 22 EGU WG call - discussion with Tom R; trying to get some RCU folks on that - call moved to May due to a conflict for Tom R
  • Tom / Jeff Vukovich - OOOOa control program - getting more info from operators?
  • Tom Moore Also working on EGUs
  • A lot of rules promulgated in Obama administration but unclear how they were actually implemented
  • Tom: Projections have a hard time accounting for incentive-base programs (e.g. to support climate)
  • WRAP working on a 2017 platform (only base year); finished GEOSchem, running WRF at 36/12 (due May), considering making some adjustments to 2017 oil/gas, otherwise using 2017 as-is; no plans for projections
  • ozone season total summaries for 2017 for base and future years for 2026
  • Meet next month? If don't need we can cancel later (scheduled for May 12)
  • Paper outline: Tom M looked at this; Tom R also did; nuts and bolts to describe the effort

February 10, 2021


  1. Recent data releases and ongoing work at EPA (Alison)
  2. Needs for modeling inventories during next couple years (All)
  3. Ideas for building platforms for non-triennial NEI years (Zac)
  4. Set dates for upcoming meetings


Alison, Zac, Tom R, Tammy, Jin, Kathleen (for Jeff U), Debbie, Susan, Doug, Byeong, Mary, Jeff V, Sarah, Todd Pasley (NC), Michael Woodman (MD), Tom M, Mark J, Caroline, Jim B, Serpil, Winston (NY)


1. Recent data releases and ongoing work at EPA

Alison reviewed a presentation about recent data package updates including the airport correction in 2017 NEI, SAPRC availability, 2018 platform development for CDC collaboration, ORD's EQUATES project

  • Tom mentioned they has some 2018 EGU data and wondered if it would be helpful
  • Tom asked if we could review the new Canada and Mexico inventories at an upcoming meeting

Alison mentioned getting questions from various states and contractors on availability of 2017NEI-based projections and MOVES3 data.

There are questions about which state and federal rules are included in 2016v1 and which may not be included either because they happened too recently or were not included for other reasons.

  • Zac mentioned that LADCO had recently collected data on state and federal rules
  • Susan mentioned that OTC was working updating its list of rules

2. Discussion of state/regional needs

Alison pointed out that some states are using different base years than 2016 including 2017, 2018, and 2019. A discussion of state/region needs followed:

  • LADCO is still using 2016 base year but needs 2026 future year
  • OTC needs 2026 future year
  • WESTAR is working on a base year only 2017 platform
  • SESARM doesn't have regulatory needs but will do some planning modeling
  • Tom mentioned that a high-medium-low approach for projections could be useful
  • Zac mentioned RCP inventories work with multiple projections

3. Discussion of ideas for buiding modeling platforms for non-triennial NEI years

  • Zac reviewed the table he prepared considering which sectors might be reused between interim years.

  • Some sectors have activity changes, some met changes, and some both

4. Next meetings will be monthly and canceled if no topics available.