1 / 10

STAG Allocation Analysis – Background to Discussion of Monitoring Aspects

STAG Allocation Analysis – Background to Discussion of Monitoring Aspects. Monitoring Steering Committee June 21-22, 2007 Washington, DC Phil Lorang, OAQPS. Process to Date. AA approval Get contractor on board Workgroup formation Principles discussions (internal)

hosea
Download Presentation

STAG Allocation Analysis – Background to Discussion of Monitoring Aspects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STAG Allocation Analysis – Background to Discussion of Monitoring Aspects Monitoring Steering Committee June 21-22, 2007 Washington, DC Phil Lorang, OAQPS

  2. Process to Date • AA approval • Get contractor on board • Workgroup formation • Principles discussions (internal) • Joint discussions with NACAA • Identification/organization of possibly useful data elements and factors • Census population, air quality numbers, etc. • Specific candidate allocation frameworks (internal) • Impact assessment (internal) • Workgroup recommendations (internal) • Develop implementation strategy with NACAA • AA approval

  3. Data Elements • 48 data elements selected for possible use. • Population, air quality status, air stressors (e.g., emissions, VMT), workload, fiscal indicators. • We have only limited information on costs of running an air program. • Monitoring cost are the most concrete, because OAQPS estimates them routinely. • No one has put forth estimates of labor hours per rule, per inventory, etc.

  4. Turning the Crank • Contractor is ready to run scenarios to be defined by EPA workgroup • Assign available funds to national “pots”. • Define pots by pollutant or functional activity, for example. • Could be used to reflect national priorities, etc. • Allocate each pot among states based on any (or any combination of) the data elements. • E.g., allocate ozone pot in proportion to each state’s share of population-hours-ppb of ozone. • Display results using maps and charts.

  5. What Framework?

  6. Sample Screen Shots

  7. Graphics / Maps Will combine analysis w/ graphic results for clearer explanation.

  8. Implementation Subgroup • Subgroup of internal EPA workgroup. • Will consider input from NACAA. • Deal with issues of • Timing • Equity and Balance • National vs. Regional/Local Concerns • Other Implementation Policy Issues • Earliest possible affected year is now FY2009. • Presumption is that implementation would be phased in, not all at once.

  9. Next Steps / Prospective Schedule • Allocation framework and analysis – June/July • Impact assessment – Aug • Working session for selection – Aug/Sept • Recommendation to OAR – Sept • Implementation subgroup – Sept/Jan • Recommendation to AA – Oct • AA determination – Oct/Nov • Outreach with NACAA and others – Nov/Jan

  10. How Does Monitoring Fit In? • No definite workgroup plan or intention so far. • Obvious ideas: • Set aside a pot explicitly for monitoring. • Bottom-up based on air quality, requirements of regulations, etc.? • Top-down? • Don’t do this, but do check at the end for how much of each State’s allocation under a candidate scheme would be consumed by required and/or desirable monitoring. • Schemes that give very disparate results among States need to be re-thought.

More Related