Not logged in - Login
< back

Modeling

Contents [hide]

Collaborative Wiki Main Page

Inventory Collaborative Google Drive Link

Members

Co-leads: Zac Adelman (LADCO), Eric Zalewsky (NY DEC)

Ron Thomas (TCEQ), Doug Boyer (TCEQ), Weining Zhao (TCEQ), Zarena Post (TCEQ), Miranda Kosty (TCEQ), Jeff Vukovich (EPA OAQPS), Alison Eyth (EPA OAQPS), Caroline Farkas (EPA OAQPS), Mike Ku (NY DEC), Winston Hao (NY DEC), Jeongran Yum (NY DEC), Michael Woodman (MD Dept Env), Tom Moore (WESTAR/WRAP), Mark Hixon (CARB), Tim Allen (US FWS), Margaret McCourtney (MN PCA), Mark Janssen (LADCO), Jennifer Liljegren (US EPA Region 5), Kathleen Errington (NH DES), Kelly Petersen (LA DEQ), Jin-sheng Lin (VA DEQ), Shan He (NJ DEP), Susan McCusker (MARAMA), Kristen Stumpf (VA DEQ), Jim Boylan (GA DNR), Byeong Kim (GA DNR), Di Tian (GA DNR), KJ Liao (GA DNR), Wei Zhang (ID DEQ), Stephen Lachance (MI DEQ), Tom Shanley (MI DEQ)

Call Schedule

Date/Time: 4th Tuesday of the month @ 3:00 p.m. Eastern.

Call in number: 877-422-1931

Access Code: 108 816 5385#

Workplan

The national Emissions Collaborative Modeling Workgroup is responsible for testing and preparing the data platforms created by each of the inventory sector workgroups for use in air quality modeling. Along with preparing the data for modeling, this workgroup will prepare a modeling platform distribution package that includes all of data, software, and documentation needed to prepare base and future year emissions for air quality modeling simulations.

The primary work areas for this group, with objectives for each area include:

Testing and Platform Development

  • Format Checks: Check that the inventory and ancillary data formats for the data produced by each sector workgroup will work with SMOKE (or other emissions processing tool)
  • Modeling Protocol: Establish a modeling protocol that defines a modeling domain and time period for testing the processing of the Collaborative data products
  • Data Collection: Collect and collate of the non-emissions data, such as WRF output, needed for processing the emissions through SMOKE
  • SMOKE Modeling: Run through SMOKE the data from each inventory sector and create air quality model-ready emissions for a test domain and time period
  • Data Validation: Work with the sector workgroup co-leads to compare the processed emissions with pre-SMOKE inventory summaries, and compare the processed data with SMOKE output from other, recent emissions modeling platforms (e.g., EPA's 2014v2 platform)

Platform Packaging

  • EMF Platform Development: Work with EPA OAQPS to create an Emissions Modeling Framework modeling platform with the Collaborative 2016 (and future year) emissions data
  • Platform Distribution Package: Create a modeling platform distribution of the Collaborate base and future year emissions with the same level of completeness and documentation as EPA developed for their "EN" modeling platform
  • Distribution Package Testing: Test the script-based platform distribution to ensure that users can process these data outside of the EMF
  • Platform Customization: Develop and document an approach for substituting inventory sectors in the platform distribution package. User's need to be able to fairly easily substitute sector versions (e.g., alpha vs beta for nonpoint, or MEGAN vs BEIS for biogenics) to create customized emissions platforms.
  • Quality Assurance: Make sure totals equals the sum of the parts

Documentation and Evaluation

  • Sector Workgroup Feedback: Review the documentation of the data products from each sector workgroup and provide comments to the workgroup co-leads on where improvements or additional information are needed
  • Collaborative Platform Documentation: Ensure that the platform distribution packages have sufficient documentation to enable new users of the packages to install the accompanying data/software, and process the data through SMOKE.
  • Air Quality Modeling: Need for an objective evaluation of the emissions by running through air quality model and comparison to obs
  • User Feedback: How can we get feedback on different studies that use these data; different configurations, performance evaluations, etc.; put out a best practices guidance for using that data that includes a request for information back to the collaborative

Modeling Workgroup Meetings

November 27, 2018

Attendees

Zac, Eric, Ron, Doug Boyer (TCEQ), Miranda Kosty (TCEQ), Jeff Vukovich (EPA OAQPS), Alison Eyth (EPA OAQPS), Caroline Farkas (EPA OAQPS), Winston Hao (NY DEC), Jeongran Yum (NY DEC), Michael Woodman (MD Dept Env), Tom Moore (WESTAR/WRAP), Mark Hixon (CARB), Margaret McCourtney (MN PCA), Mark Janssen (LADCO), Jennifer Liljegren (US EPA Region 5), Jin-sheng Lin (VA DEQ), Susan McCusker (MARAMA), Jim Boylan (GA DNR), Byeong Kim (GA DNR), Wei Zhang (ID DEQ), Trace McDonald (MI DEQ), Tom Shanley (MI DEQ), Kevin Briggs (CO)

Agenda

  1. Roll
  2. Review October action items and call comments
  3. Review goals/objectives of this workgroup: no/limited modeling; review, improve, document EPA platform
  4. Brainstorm on tasks and workload distribution
  5. Next Steps

Call Notes

October Action Items

  • Jeff V.: Provide a list of the routine SMOKE reports that will come out of the EPA modeling platform; indication of when these could be available to this group
    • Sending a list of the reports they will create and put in a table to provide after the call; state, county, SCC reports for CAPS by sector; not inclined to create county-SCC report; unit level comparisons for point sources
    • Schedule: looking at wrapping up most of the sectors by mid-December; start providing before the holidays

  • Jeff V.: get an indication from EPA modelers if they are receptive to requests from this group for custom SMOKE reports
    • Yes, will create these reports

  • Jeff V.: request that the EPA 2016 beta modeling platform (scripts and data) be made available to this group early, possibly as sectors were ready
    • Pushing to get the beta platform out in bulk, not feasible to make data available while they're working in the middle of it

  • Workgroup membership: for WG members who weren't on this first call, review the notes and provide feedback to Zac & Eric; in particular consider our preliminary decision to not recreate a new modeling platform, but rather the use EPA 2016 beta platform and focus on the analysis of the data, improving the platform, and documentation
    • Need to get clarity on when modeling is done with these data; how will the collaborative create buy in to the process

Review goals/objectives of this workgroup: no/limited modeling; review, improve, document EPA platform

  • Can we make a case for changing the platform that would be manifested in the version 1.0 platform
    • EPA: if we find things with beta, we're hoping that they can be integrated into V1; looking to create a V1 in the spring time frame, can make refinements to sectors and packaging; historically have been receptive to the platform packaging
  • Nature of the platforms is that things won't stop after V1, need a long term approach for storing/housing getting the files, tracking updates, tracking errata
  • Key findings for this group will be to evaluate what's in beta and what's missing, what's left to be done
  • Others are requesting the platform, do we want to wait to release when the platform is done by EPA
    • Decision was made to wait until documentation is ready
    • Review will work best as we get this platform to people as soon as possible
    • Platforms will vary once there is a release as local changes are made
    • Try to set milestones that define what the different platform versions are
    • If we wait for the documentation, it won't be ready until February;
    • Documentation for individual sectors, not pulled together into a single uniform document
    • EPA releases to the collaborative as soon as the data are available, then to the general public as soon as the documentation are available
    • If documentation isn't available int he next month, we'll get pressure from outside groups
    • Could we release inventory components as their documentation are available? No, hoping that documentation is the reference point for each sector, and this workgroup will use that to determine if all of the pieces are there
    • Don't need formal documentation, meta data source of the data, how it was compiled is good to start
    • Are all of the sectors ready now? Most of them are and EPA has processed many of them, working through some glitches: fires, biogenic, EGU, nonpoint, nonpoint O&G, Canada
  • No major pushback to EPA putting the platform together
    • Will most people use EPAs platform as is, or will there be major changes to the scripts; NY will use EPA's scripts, maintain consistency across groups; LADCO will use EMF/EPA scripts; TX will use EPS

Brainstorm on tasks and workload distribution

October 23, 2018

Action Items

  • Jeff V.: Provide a list of the routine SMOKE reports that will come out of the EPA modeling platform; indication of when these could be available to this group
  • Jeff V.: get an indication from EPA modelers if they are receptive to requests from this group for custom SMOKE reports
  • Jeff V.: request that the EPA 2016 beta modeling platform (scripts and data) be made available to this group early, possibly as sectors were ready
  • Workgroup membership: for WG members who weren't on this first call, review the notes and provide feedback to Zac & Eric; in particular consider our preliminary decision to not recreate a new modeling platform, but rather the use EPA 2016 beta platform and focus on the analysis of the data, improving the platform, and documentation
    • TCEQ agrees. TCEQ will provide EI updates to EPA as expeditiously as possible.

Attendees

Zac (LADCO), Eric (NY DEC), Winston (NY DEC), Jeongran (NY DEC), Mike Ku (NY DEC), Mark Janssen (LADCO), Mike Woodman (MDE), Mark Hixon (CARB), Margaret MPCA), Kathleen (NH DES), Kelly (LA DEQ), Vivian (LA DEQ), Christine (LA DEQ), Kristen (VA DEQ), Jin-sheng (VA DEQ), Susan (MARAMA), Tim (US FWS), Chris (TCEQ), Jeff (US EPA OAQPS)

Agenda

  1. Introductions
  2. Background on the Inventory Collaborative + Q&A for people new to the Collaborative
  3. Workgroup ground rules
  4. Discussion on the goals/objectives of this workgroup
  5. Workgroup products and milestones
  6. Thoughts on logistical challenges: modeling, software distribution, data distribution
  7. Next Steps

Call Notes

Background on the Inventory Collaborative

Workgroup ground rules

  • Structure & membership
    • Co-leads: Zac Adelman, LADCO (temporary until EPA co-lead identified); Eric Zalwesky, NY DEC
    • Co-leads take care of the logistics, facilitate discussions, drive the schedule
    • Workgroup members contribute to the extent that they have time and ability
    • Collaborative is a voluntary effort of federal, state, and MJO staff; other organization staff (e.g., university or consulting) can be invited to make presentations to the workgroup, but not to participate as a member
  • Operational Principles
    • Do the best possible work and create the best possible products given the available resources; perfect is the enemy of good
    • Documentation of the process is as important as the process
    • Transparency in the workgroup's decisions is fundamental to the Collaborative
    • Strive for consensus-based decisions
  • Communication
    • Document our meetings, decisions, and work through this wiki
    • Google Drive is used to share data, files, and documents
    • Email group: inventory-collaborative-modeling-workgroup@ladco.org

Discussion on the goals/objectives of this workgroup

  • Goal is to create a national emissions modeling platform for processing the Collaborative 2016 and future year inventories
  • An emissions modeling platform is the software (SMOKE+scripts) and data (inventories+ancillary) for preparing inputs to chemistry-transport models, includes documentation
  • NY DEC: kudos to EPA for putting together well-documented and functional emissions modeling platforms
  • Do we take what EPA is already doing with the 2016 modeling platform or do we start from scratch and build our own platform?
    • LADCO: use what EPA has already done and build off of that
    • NY: use EPA's beta platform as a starting point
    • TCEQ: we agree with this one. I don’t think we need to wait for the v1. Get the kinks out as early as we can.
    • MN: start with EPA's platform
  • This workgroup's efforts may be best targeted at testing and improving the EPA platform
    • Improvements to ancillary data
    • Document process for switching out sectors in the EPA platform (e.g., biogenic or EGU point)
      • TCEQ: MEGAN v. BEIS, and ERTAC v. IPM/Engineered whatever, and other options.
    • Define a series of evaluation reports/products/analyses and work on these through this workgroup
    • Leverage regional expertise to evaluate the platform performance/skill by region
    • Create new modeling grids, and regrid the data
      • TCEQ: Do we know exactly what EPA is planning? I can offer up our definitions. For our WRF domain we used essentially what EPA is using, but we have one huge 12 km domain that we aggregate up to 36 km outside the CONUS for quicker runtimes.
  • Need to get understandable, custom reports from EPA to use for doing the evaluation, analysis
    • Can we define the reports that we want to see and ask EPA to generate these reports? Action: Jeff V. is going to check on this
  • This group would serve as the first beta tester for 2016 beta platform being created by EPA
    • Can this workgroup get preferred, early access to the EPA platform scripts for beta testing? Action: Jeff V. is going to check on this

Workgroup products and milestones

  • beta and v1 emissions modeling platforms
  • target is to have a public distribution within 3-6 months

Thoughts on logistical challenges: modeling, software distribution, data distribution

  • Emissions data collection
    • modeling workgroups will be putting their data products into a staging area on Google Drive
    • EPA and the collaborative will have access to this staging area
    • the data will eventually be packaged and distributed as part of an emissions modeling platform
  • Emissions processing
    • SMOKE-EMF or SMOKE?
      • TCEQ: Is Texas the only SMOKE-free group? I assume we can get files in flat formats? If not, we may have code that we’ve used in the past to convert SMOKEd files
    • EPA is creating a SMOKE-EMF 2016 beta platform; they're already processing several inventory components
  • Documentation
    • Specification sheet model being used for the inventory workgroups would also be used here; need to document software in addition to data
  • Platform packaging
  • Platform distribution
    • Is there a protocol for distributing emissions data? If not, we'll need to develop one with EPA
    • TCEQ: Would EPA host this on their ftp site, or is there an alternative?
  • Emissions data evaluation
    • What types of evaluations would we do?
    • It could be useful to present the data in different ways, from different perspectives
    • Create a standard format for the analyses so that each workgroup is create products that are comparable
    • Create a repository for sharing emissions analysis codes and scripts
    • It's not clear what level of evaluation EPA will be doing, and how they will deliver this evaluation
    • What can this group bring to the evaluation from the regional/state/local perspective?
    • TCEQ: This makes me think about how states often develop refinements for their own inventories and use EPA’s platform for everywhere else. Can the collaborative do some outreach to try to gather this information from any state who isn’t participating in the 2016 effort due to resource constraints. Maybe some kind of “last call” through the MJOs? Then again, maybe this kind of piecemeal isn’t the preferred approach.
  • Feedback to inventory workgroups
    • review documentation/spec sheets
    • beta testing of the EPA platform package
  • Platform technical support

Next Steps

  • Evaluate the state of the Collaborative inventory workgroups, and figure out when we expect to get data from these groups
  • Need to decide if this workgroup is going to do emissions processing, if so where and by whom, or if we let EPA do the processing and we focus on the evaluation/documentation of the process
    • If anyone has time, it might be a good check for someone to SMOKE this separately, that way we could all agree that the processing gave the same results.
    • In this first meeting, the feeling was that we should be taking what EPA is already doing and then focus our efforts on evaluation; need to bring in other perspectives from those WG members who are not on this call (other MJOs, states, and EPA) before we commit to this direction
  • Develop a process for evaluating the collaborative emissions, e.g., air quality modeling, inventory comparisons back to earlier NEI versions
    • Build capacity to share scripts/tools
    • Define some evaluation metrics that we would all like to see, and commit to using the evaluation products to making improvements to the modeling platform (e.g., to ancillary data)
  • TCEQ: So this workgroup will not address any potential meteorology issues, even though SMOKE relies on the met, and the PGM relies on the met? This workgroup will not apply AMET to EPA’s met or air quality results? Nor will this group review EPA’s met procedures and documentation?