climate change sub-segment architecture status and current direction gene durman: office of air and...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
Climate Change Sub-Segment ArchitectureStatus and Current Direction
Gene Durman: Office of Air and RadiationAugust 3, 2010
Overview
• Program Office CC Activities Baseline– Recap of the February 20 EA Workshop at which Baseline was presented– Presentation at OEI National Symposium
• Mid-Project Assessment– Manager’s perspective on preparing for potential Congressional action – Priorities for remainder of FY 2010
• Selected Next Steps– Architecture for CC Research & Development activities
• Architecting information flows on research results to outside users• Developing integrated CC forecasts and cost/benefit analysis for future policy• Sub-issue: Use of Social Media for CC R&D – methods for integrating in Troux tool
– Architecture at the interagency level• Architecting delivery of services using the BRM Mode of Delivery layer
2Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
Crosswalk with Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM)
http://www.fsam.gov/docs/FSAM_Complete_v1_1.pdf page 2 (e-page 5)
Climate change segment architecture currently in Steps 1, 2, 3
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 4
Phase 1 ActivitiesNovember 2009 – February 2010
Cross-cutting Nature of Climate
• CC issue cross-cuts at Services to Citizens layer of the BRM– Across EPA– Across Government
• Some activities are wholly CC-related (e.g., Mandatory Reporting Rule)
• Other Solutions must integrate into existing priorities
Old AQM Segment
Climate Issues
5Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
New
AQ
MCC
Se
gmen
t
Mitigation Adaptation
Volu
ntar
yM
anda
tory
STRATEGIC GOALS
PRO
GRA
M A
PPRO
ACH
Methane Programs
Waste Wise
CAFE Standards
GreenCleanup
RegionalPrograms
Local Planning & Zoning Reqmt’s
InfrastructureInvestments
Conceptual Structure of Climate Change Sub-Segment
6Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
Phase 1 Activities (November – February)
Interviews• 42 Interviews conducted• Most offices covered, more
planned• Talks with SMEs and program
leaders (branch chief & above)– Programmatic direction– What is new– What data/information req’d– Future directions
Analytics• Mapped activities on EPA
Org chart– Drivers (statutes, EOs, rules…)– Programs and Initiatives– Data flows in, across EPA, out
• Outside partner impacts– Public– NGOs– States/locals/tribes– Other Federal Agencies
7Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
Recap of EA Workshop
• Workshop held at SRA on February 20
• Attendance from across agency, approximately 30 people
• LMI (Logistics Management Institute, outside firm working with DOE) attended at their own request
• Strongly positive feedback (esp. from OW and OSWER)– Continue on same course– Contact rest of group as needed– Administrator’s office asked to be kept
informed
• Contracting pause until May
The workshop presented interactive diagrams showing data flows into and out of climate change programs, databases, and applications. Material was divided into Mandatory initiatives (programs where compliance is mandated by statute or exec order) and Voluntary programs (information transfer such as Energy Star).
8Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
Phase 1 Activ
ity
Mapping compatible with Troux, but aimed at Management rather than Architects
Diagramming for Climate Change uses the familiar EPA organization chart as its ground layer. Data flows, systems, and users are shown in layers. The Visio diagram itself uses objects that contain information that the Troux (formerly Metis) tool and upload and display. Target audience: Management and program personnel.
The old Metis tool is now upgraded to Troux, but uses Metis-style graphics. Aimed at the professional architect, the interface is not suitable for presentations to management or program offices.
9Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
Phase 1 Activ
ity
Presentation: OEI National Symposium
• Panel discussion– Chair: David Prompovitch,
Acting EPA Chief Architect– Presenters: Gene Durman
OAR, Vince Allen (OW), Lisa Jenkins (OSWER)
• Theme: DOD-type OV-1 drawing– One for each of the
presenters and their programs (Lisa Jenkins concept)
• Very brief discussion of architectural drawings and methodology
Although the presentation included some discussion of the Workshop diagrams, it focused on the above interactive diagram, a pictorial presentation of the programs affected by climate change in OAR, OW, and OSWER.
10Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
Phase 1 Activ
ity
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 11
Mid-Project AssessmentJune 2010
How can the CC architecture help top management?
Situation today• Congress could act on CC relatively
soon, ranging from…– Slight modifications to business as
usual, to– Major redirection to market-based
solutions (carbon tax, cap and trade)
• New mandates likely to involve– Cross government activities, most
likely partnering with DOE– Emphasis on research and reporting,
new tools, data sharing and transparency, some form of market-based approaches
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 12
How can the CC architecture help top management?
What managers are asking• How can I be best prepared to take
on whatever policies might emerge?
• What machinery can I put in place now to best position my program for future eventualities?
• What am I doing now that could be adapted to other uses?
• What impacts will policy option X have on my existing CC and non-CC related activities?
What the CC segment can offer• Ability to put new priorities in context
quickly– Comprehensive overview of baseline CC
operations– Who is doing what, how they relate, how
information is flowing, how it links to current obligations and budget
– A structure for presenting this at internally and among agencies
• Identification of gaps among programs, research efforts, and interagency relationships– How to link models and data for more
efficient reporting, baseline assessment, and options evaluation
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 13
Themes for FY 2010 CC segment continuation
• Research and its relation to programs’ and agency priorities1. Map CC research to program priorities, data transparency
requirements, public needs2. Begin mapping of interagency climate models, impacts models, and
economic benefits models to describe integrated baseline for present and future policy
• Interagency delivery of CC-related services to citizens1. Begin process of mapping EPA’s contributions to CC services to other
agencies’ services• Use BRM Mode of Delivery as the organizing concept for service
categorization
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 14
Continued Coordination with EA Program
1. Forum for inter-program coordination– EAWG and Workshop have been
valuable forums for communication– May conduct additional workshops or
other meetings as new issues emerge
2. Troux development– Integrate Visio work to date into the
EPA tools– Use Troux to develop interactive
analytics not possible in Visio
3. Interagency development– As interagency relationships are
developed (e.g., with DOI), EA Program will be involved
4. Special issues development– Some issues discovered by CC
Segment are really general—of potential concern elsewhere in FSAM• E.g., Social media modeling within FSAM
and Troux
5. Budget crosswalk– Changes in BAS structure since 2005
have made it difficult to duplicate earlier budget work
– Need methodology to do management-level budget analysis for CC Sub- Segment, perhaps other segments
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 15
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 16
Priority Next StepsJuly 2010 – September 2010
Continuation of Program Mappings
Filling in gaps, validating previous results
• Further interviews with main offices already contacted– OAR, OW, OSWER, OEI
• Validation and further details of existing material
Document activities in other offices
• Additional interviews with offices/regions not yet reached– OCSPP, OA, OIA, ORD, regions
(see next)
• Fill in links between AA-ships
• Provide some contacts with key outside agencies (e.g., DOE, USDA)
New Activ
ity
17Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
CC Architecture for Research
Disseminating research results to external users• Showing research as series of
projects is not useful
• APPROACH: focus on how CC-related projects and programs deliver results to programs, partners, public
• Emphasize how research + combinations of authoritative data + innovative info/analytic tools = benefit to states, locals, etc.
Architecting major climate and cost/benefit models
• Future mitigation programs are likely to be market based
• Analytics will integrate climate forecasts + impacts models + benefits models = basis for trades
• Will enable next generation of trading after CAMDS-type cap and trade
New Activ
ity
18Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
CC Architecture for Research
The Problem Our Approach
New Activ
ity
19Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment
• Concentrate on projects whose results will be used by specific audiences– Map projects to EPA offices
interested in results– Map project results to outside
users (e.g., state/local govs)– Emphasize projects whose
results will be distributed using IT services• Web services• Dedicated analytic tools• Etc.
• Many individual research projects relate in some way to climate change issues– Simply enumerating individual
research projects in the architecture tool (Visio, Troux) doesn’t add much value—a text list of projects would be just as useful
• Projects’ results can be of interest to multiple audiences– Internal EPA offices– External Fed agencies– Non-fed gov’t and public
Interagency Services to Citizens
The Problem • The Federal Gov’t provides many
climate-related Services to Citizens– Information and data– Direct services (planning,
emergency response)– Grants and other funding for
infrastructure– Etc.
• Some services are provided jointly by more than one agency– EPA + DOE, EPA + DOT, etc.
Our Approach• Develop a view of Services that
puts the Service itself at the center of the model
• Model to illustrate: what it is, and how it is delivered– Use the BRM Mode of Delivery as
the Reference Model– Show all contributing agencies
and data flows– Discover redundancies and gaps
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 20
New Activ
ity
Interagency Climate Impacts Modeling Architecture
The Problem• Long range response to Climate
Change, no matter what form it takes (cap & trade, carbon tax, etc.) must rely in the end on an integration of – Climate forecasts– Models of the effects of these
climate forecasts on air, water, land resources
– Valuation or risk assessment of those effects
• All these pieces exist or are being built, but there is no mapping of how they fit together
Our Approach• Begin the process of mapping links
between the pieces, including EPA and other players– Major climate models (NOAA,
universities, etc.)– Major impact models (heat effects,
stormwater effects, etc.)– Valuation models (ecosystem services,
etc.)• The results will be preliminary, but the
architecture discipline seems ideal for this purpose– Our project can provide a methodology
for raising this architecture to the management level
Status Rpt on Climate Change Sub-Segment 21
New Activ
ity