71 



new source review programs and provisions for addressing both 

 existing and future impairment. Each option will be assessed 

 with varying degrees of emission reductions and varying time 

 frames for the reductions. 



The following criteria have been adopted by the Commission 

 to evaluate the emission management options: 



• Visibility improvement. 



• Economic effects including direct and indirect costs and 

 benefits. 



• Attendant environmental affects either positive or 

 negative. 



• Social impacts on lifestyles and demographics. 



• Equity across social groups, source sectors, states, 



etc. 



Administrative feasibility and efficiency. 



Having provided an overview of the Commission's structure 

 and approach to meeting its mandate, we would now like to move on 

 to a number of issues that have or will affect the Commission's 

 ability to meet its mandate. 



The first is the resource base from which the Commission is 

 currently operating. As we discussed earlier, the Commission has 

 relied primarily on in kind services to develop its analytical 

 techniques and emission management options. However, we are now 

 at a juncture where the complexity of the socio economic analysis 

 of these management options and the need for total objectivity in 

 the analysis requires additional resources. The Alternative 

 Assessment Committee has estimated the cost of the analysis to be 

 $1.5 million. The Commission currently has only $250,000 to 

 commit towards it. In addition, the Commission needs $550,000 

 for public input, technical tasks and additional work on Mexican 

 emissions. In pursuit of these funds the Commission, with the 

 support of its Public Advisory Committee has requested an $1.8 

 million line item appropriation from the Appropriation 

 Committee's Subcommittee on HUD, VA and Independent Agencies. In 

 sum, it would be very unfortunate to have the significant 

 collaborative effort put forth to date undermined by the lack of 

 resources to analyze recommendations in a thorough and unbiased 

 way. 



A second issue is the lack of support provided by EPA for 

 regional haze research. However, before going into this issue we 



