Estimating criteria pollutant emissions using the California Regional Multisector Air Quality Emissions (CA-REMARQUE) model v1.0

Zapata, Christina B.; Yang, Chris; Yeh, Sonia; Ogden, Joan; Kleeman, Michael J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1293-2018

Articles | Volume 11, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1293-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1293-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 4

Development and technical paper

|

11 Apr 2018

Development and technical paper |

| 11 Apr 2018

Estimating criteria pollutant emissions using the California Regional Multisector Air Quality Emissions (CA-REMARQUE) model v1.0

Christina B. Zapata, Chris Yang, Sonia Yeh, Joan Ogden, and Michael J. Kleeman

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Apr 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Aug 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of gmd-2017-176, Zapata et al., Estimating Criteria Pollutant Emissions Using the California Regional Multisector Air Quality Emissions (CA-REMARQUE) Model v1.0', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Sep 2017
SC1: 'Code Accessibility', Lutz Gross, 12 Sep 2017
RC2: 'Reviewer Comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Sep 2017
AC1: 'response to comments', Michael Kleeman, 26 Oct 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Michael Kleeman on behalf of the Authors (19 Nov 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Nov 2017) by Tim Butler

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Dec 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors made great strides to address my concerns from my review of their original submission to GMDD. My remaining suggestions are largely editorial. I have only one content-related suggestion:

Content suggestion:

Page 3 / line 89:
I still feel that the process of interpreting the results by the reader would be improved greatly if two graphics were added to the text of the manuscript... stacked bar or area charts of sectoral GHG emissions for the BAU and GHG-Step scenarios. These graphics would allow the reader to understand how the model is responding to the constraint, which is important since those responses are what drive the emissions changes highlighted later in the manuscript. While the revised text has been modified to refer to where to find such information, and while the supplemental info now includes the GHG-Step plot, I think both these graphics should be explicitly included in the body of the manuscript. I don't think this is a required change, per se, but it would improve the manuscript.

As an aside, the authors suggest that the GHG-Step constraint being implemented at a single future year (as opposed to phased in) does not result in a discontinuity in the model's response. When I look at the GHG-Step graphic, I do see a discontinuity in 2050, so I think the authors' revised text indicating that there is no discontinuity is not correct or is at least too strong.

Editorial suggestions:

I feel that the authors' language and choice of words could be tightened. For example, below are some particular items:

Page 1/line 9 "sophisticated programs" - It is unclear what is meant by "programs." Computer programs? Management programs? Whether they are "sophisticated" also seems very subjective. Perhaps "comprehensive" would be a better adjective (although I recognize that this can also be subjective).

Page 1/line 11 "aggressive GHG reduction" - One person's "aggressive" is another person's "moderate," and another person's "lenient." I think these terms are best used when comparing policies (e.g., policy A is more lenient than policy B). I suggest just referring to this as a GHG policy. If you feel it is aggressive, perhaps you could cite a reference to this interpretation?

Page 1/line 13 "necessarily include changes in..." - I think "necessarily" is too strong here. Also, I would add "across economic sectors" at the end.

Page 1/line 23 "manifests most notably through a comparison" - I don't think this use of manifest is correct... This reads as if the act of comparing the results leads to the behavior occurring, which I do not believe is the intent. Perhaps "apparent most notably through a comparison"...

Page 1/line 31 "debating optimal strategies" - "optimal" typically refers to the mathematically least cost option. Policymakers don't generally think in those terms. I suggest "debating alternative strategies", "debating candidate strategies", or "debating cost-effective candidate strategies".

Additional editorial suggestions:

Page 29/ line 689 - "each ... experience" should be "each ... experiences"

Page 33 / line 773 - This refers to having evaluated multiple GHG policies, but you really only evaluated one here.

Page 1/line 21 "with obvious implications" - At least one style guide that I have read suggests avoiding words such as "obvious" and "clearly".

Page 1/line 25- Page 1/line 26 "PM2.5", "PM0.1" should use subscripts

Page 1/line 25 "vs." Spell out "versus"?

Page 1/line 32 "including (among other things)..." - This is redundant since "including" implies you may not be listing all those things.

15/360 - Not necessary to use apostrophe on "CA-TIMES"

Throughout:

- I don't recall ever seeing in-text citations of this format... two authors, followed by "et al" (e.g., Curly, Moe, et al., 2015). Please check the journal requirements. Usually these in-text citations would just be: (e.g., Curly et al., 2015).

- Commas are not used in a consistent manner in the abstract and introduction sections

Graphics:

For Figure 9: I think this is OK, but it is not necessary to include the data under the table. The data could be provided in the Supplemental Information instead.

For Figures 10 through 15: I greatly prefer the formatting of these figures to the versions in the original submission. I have only a minor suggestion. It would be helpful to readers to more explicitly identify the right hand column as depicting deltas. Also, having the units on the graphic itself would be useful. Finally, I think it should be more clear that the column on the right is comparing both results for the year 2050. One possible suggestion would include the following changes:

(i) change the heading over the left column to:
2050 BAU (ug m-2 min-1)

(ii) and the right column to:
2050 GHG-Step minus 2050 BAU (ug m-2 min-2)

It this is too much text for the right-hand column, perhaps you could put the units under the column name?

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Dec 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Jan 2018) by Tim Butler

AR by Michael Kleeman on behalf of the Authors (10 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (19 Jan 2018) by Tim Butler

AR by Michael Kleeman on behalf of the Authors (24 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (26 Jan 2018) by Tim Butler

AR by Michael Kleeman on behalf of the Authors (13 Feb 2018)

Short summary

The CA-REMARQUE emissions model translates policies designed for climate change mitigation into inputs needed for air pollution analysis in California. The model captures the complicated trade-offs associated with changing fuels and technologies that sometimes increase air pollution emissions in some areas while decreasing emissions in other areas. These detailed calculations are needed in highly populated regions like California where simple emissions controls have already been applied.