Climate Change Sub-Segment Architecture Status and Current Direction Gene Durman: Office of Air and...

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

http://www.fsam.gov/docs/FSAM_Complete_v1_1.pdf

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


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


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


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).


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.


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.


Phase 1 Activ

ity


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


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


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


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



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


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


CC Architecture for Research

The Problem Our Approach

New Activ

ity


• 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


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


New Activ

ity

Climate Change Sub-Segment Architecture Status and Current Direction Gene Durman: Office of Air and...

Documents

Transcript of Climate Change Sub-Segment Architecture Status and Current Direction Gene Durman: Office of Air and...