MEMORANDUM

TO:       Implementation Strategies and Issues Workgroup
              Mini-Workgroup on Criteria for Evaluation

FROM:     Don Theiler

SUBJECT:  Results of the Characterization of Cost-Effectiveness

DATE:     March 26, 1996

I would like to summarize the results of our mini-workgroup call this morning related to the
characterization of cost-effectiveness.  It is my understanding that we came to a consensus on
the following points:

    1.    It will not be possible to characterize the cost-effectiveness of the strategies
          selected for evaluation by using just one measure; it is recognized that
          multiple measures will be needed.

    2.    The measures of cost-effectiveness will use changes in ozone levels resulting
          from the implementation on the various strategies as the primary methods of
          characterizing the effectiveness of the alternatives.

    3.    The measures of effectiveness should be quantifiable and measurable.

    4.    The number of measures of effectiveness should be limited to the extent
          possible.

    5.    The measures of effectiveness should be expressed in as simple a manner as
          possible without losing important information needed to differentiate between
          the strategies evaluated.

    6.    Initially the costs will be displayed as the total cost of implementing a
          strategy.  For some strategies the costs may be expressed as a range.  A cost
          estimate will be developed for each strategy.

It is recognized that we will look at the opportunities for combining the cost and effectiveness
data in manners that will enhance the ability of the policy group to compare and evaluate the
various strategies.  We will do this as we have a better indication of the types of data that will
be produced and can agree on how the data should be combined.
The following scenarios are some of the ways in which the ozone data may be displayed:

    1.    Change in peak 1-hour levels in each of the subregions identified in the
          sensitivity run memo.  (Also change in peak 8-hour concentrations.)

    2.    Change in peak 1-hour levels in each of the serious and severe nonattainment
          areas.  (Also change in peak 8-hour concentrations.)

    3.    Average daily incoming ozone levels into the subregions identified in the
          sensitivity run memo.  (Also changes in the incoming average ozone to the
          serious and severe nonattainment areas.)

    4.    Number of grid cells in the modeling domain above the 80/100/120 ppb of
          ozone.

    5.    Number of areas in nonattainment status.

    6.    Number of grid cells where ozone has increased in the overall modeling
          domain, including the number of these grid cells that are in nonattainment
          areas or are pushed to the nonattainment level; maximum increase in ozone
          levels for each of the subregions identified in the sensitivity run memo.

I would suggest that we examine these scenarios closely to see if we want to modify, add to,
or subtract from them.

We will determine the next teleconference date at the meeting of the implementation strategies
workgroup meeting in Baltimore on April 1.  I would suggest that this memo be on the agenda
for discussion at that April 1 meeting.