Federal grant · cooperative agreement (b)
Description:otc Is Responsible for Facilitating Collaboration Among the Otc Jurisdictions, Notably the State Environmental Commissioners/ Secretaries and State Air Directors and Their Staff, to Assist Them in Reducing Ozone Precursor Emissions in Their States and in Representing Their Ozone-related Issues to the Epa. the Focus of Otc Technical and Policy Efforts Are to Ensure Real Results in Air Quality Improvements in the Otr. Activities:please Note - Numbered Activities Here Will Correlate With Numbered Deliverables / Outcomes Below 1. Support Otc Modeling Committee Work on Air Quality Modeling and Emission Inventory Development the Modeling Committee Develops a Common Model Platform for Use in Sip Planning in the Region. Once the Model Has Been Validated, It Is Then Used With Projected Future Year Emissions to Simulate Potential Changes in Air Pollution Levels. Normally, the First Future Year Emission Inventory Developed Is a Future Base Case Consisting of a 'business as Usual' Emissions Inventory That Reflects Expected Emissions Under Economic Growth, Industry Technology Trends, and All Regulations or Legislation That Will Be in Effect for That Future Year. If the Future Projection Shows That States Would Not Attain the National Standards for Ozone, the Model May Be Run Again With One or More Projected Future Year 'controlled' Emissions Inventories That Add Control Measures Beyond Current Requirements. by Running the Model Several Times, Varying the Level of Emissions Reductions Each Time, the Modelers Can Identify What General Level of Emissions Reductions Are Predicted to Attain the Ozone Standard. the Work of Identifying the Level of Emission Reductions Needed Is Made More Efficient by the Use of Screening Models Having the Best Available, But Not Necessarily Sip-quality, Data in Order to Produce Reasonably Accurate Results More Quickly. Ultimately, More Time-intensive Sip-quality Modeling Will Be Developed Using Data and Tools of the Highest Possible Quality for Final Sips. the Modeling Committee Conducts Quality Assurance Reviews of Inventory Data, Which Comes From a Variety of Federal and State Agencies and Regional Organizations. Also, Because Models Are Continually Being Updated and Refined, They Sometimes Have Initial Unrecognized Errors. a Key Role of the Modeling Committee Is to Trouble-shoot for Errors in the Modeling Code or the Input Data and Help Resolve Them. the Modeling Committee Also Assesses Current Ozone and Ozone Precursor Trends and Air Pollution Transport Patterns, Including the Assessment of the Degree of Interstate Transport of Ozone and Ozone Precursors Into and Throughout the Otr. Through the Modeling Committee, States in the Otc Coordinate Their Modeling Work by Allocating the Responsibilities for Various Components of the Modeling Work, Discussing Problems and Suggesting Possible Solutions, Developing Better Modeling Tools, and Educating Each Other in the Nuances and New Developments in This Complex Field. in Addition, the Work in the Otc Is Communicated to Other States Outside the Otr Through Public Stakeholder Webinars and Regular Interactions Among the Multi-state Air Agency Organizations. Because Ozone Precursors and Ozone Can Travel Over Long Distances, Projecting Future Ozone Concentrations Requires a Super-regional Model That Encompasses a Large Portion of the Eastern United States. It Would Be Redundant and Inefficient for Each State in the Otr to Conduct Duplicative Modeling of This Region That May Be Inconsistent Among the Modeling Platforms and Have Differing Emission Inventory Assumptions. to Avoid This Outcome, the Otc Facilitates Collaboration Among the Otc States to Eliminate Redundant Modeling Workloads and Maintain Consistency. the Otc Also Coordinates With Other Regional Planning Organizations (rpos), Upwind States, and Epa Towards a Similar Purpose, Such as the Interstate Inventory Collaborative Involving Epa, State and Local Air Agencies, and
Committed
$1.9 Million
Paid out
$957.5K
50%
Committed, not yet paid
$959.5K
50%
Loading…
Everything here is this single award's whole record — signed, amended, paid — not a fiscal-year slice. The by-year charts elsewhere split an award across the years it was committed; this page keeps it whole.
Committed is what the government has legally promised on this award so far. Contracts can also carry a ceiling — the maximum if every option is exercised. Unspent ceiling is headroom, not money owed.
The cash actually disbursed against this award. The gap from committed is the disbursement pipeline: promised, not yet cashed.
Each transaction is a signing event — an action that created or changed the award, dated the day it was signed — not a payment. Negative amounts are real: money de-committed at closeout or renegotiation.
One bar, the award’s whole arithmetic: paid out, then committed, not yet paid, then unspent ceiling.