"... In PAGE 33: ...Table 8 - Annual Nitrate Load and NOx Emissions Reductions, Benefits and Costs ($1990) . Year 2005 Bay jurisdictions Airshed Scenario NOx Emissions Reductions (000 tons) Nitrate Load Reductions (000 lbs) Cost (M$) Mean Benefit (M$) High benefits (M$) NOx Emissions Reductions (000 tons) Nitrate Load Reductions (000 lbs) Cost (M$) Mean Benefits (M$) High Benefits (M$) CAA 357 8,099 417 33 387 1,462 17,543 1,185 125 1,468 Mobile Sources 15% 17% 244 6 67 9% 11% 513 7 88 Utility 72% 71% 67 24 279 83% 79% 423 108 1,265 Non-Utility 13% 12% 105 3 41 8% 10% 248 10 115 OTAG 310 7,049 517 26 307 1,024 13,669 1,725 84 985 Mobile Sources 13% 13% 96 2 25 9% 10% 286 4 46 Utility 85% 85% 356 23 276 84% 85% 1,114 75 876 Non-Utility 2% 2% 65 1 6 7% 5% 326 5 63 Table9 - Gross and Net Costs per pound of Nitrate Reduced Bay jurisdictions Airshed Scenario Gross Cost/ton of NOx reduced Gross Cost/lb of nitrate reduced Cost/lb net of mean ozone benefits Cost/lb net of high ozone benefits Gross Cost/ton of NOx reduced Gross Cost/lb of nitrate reduced Cost/lb net of mean ozone benefits Cost/lb net of high ozone benefits CAA 1,168 51 47 4 811 67 60 -16 Mobile Sources 4,436 126 123 91 4,039 265 261 220 Utility 262 5 3 -15 349 31 23 -61 Non-Utility 2,283 57 55 34 2,000 136 130 73 OTAG 1,668 73 70 30 1,685 126 120 54 Mobile Sources 2,462 102 100 76 2,979 206 203 172 Utility 1,348 60 56 13 1,298 96 90 21 Non-Utility 9,286 435 432 393 4,657 465 458... In PAGE 34: ...Table9... In PAGE 34: ... Table9 also shows cost- effectiveness results when costs are attributed to both the reduction of nitrate loads in the Bay and ambient ozone levels. The benefits of ancillary ozone improvements are netted out of the costs before the cost per ton is calculated.... In PAGE 35: ... 24 Also, note that the ozone benefits are smaller for both mean and high benefits because NOx emissions reductions are smaller than they were under the CAA scenario. Table9 shows again what we would expect for the stricter controls in the OTAG scenario relative to the CAA scenario -- that the cost-effectiveness of NOx emissions 22 See Table 2 above for S-R coefficients. 23 Recall that under the OTAG scenario, mobile source controls include only the introduction of Low Emission vehicles.... In PAGE 36: ... From the pe rspective of the Bay community, it is cost-effectiveness in terms of nitrate loading reductions that is most important. These results are shown in Table9 . Costs for the airshed also climb in terms of this measure under the OTAG scenario (from $67/pound for the CAA scenario to $126/pound for the OTAG scenario).... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ...able 15 Cost-effective designs.....................................................................................................60 Table16 Cost-effective designs with sharing.... ..."

"... In PAGE 33: ...Table 8 - Annual Nitrate Load and NOx Emissions Reductions, Benefits and Costs ($1990) . Year 2005 Bay jurisdictions Airshed Scenario NOx Emissions Reductions (000 tons) Nitrate Load Reductions (000 lbs) Cost (M$) Mean Benefit (M$) High benefits (M$) NOx Emissions Reductions (000 tons) Nitrate Load Reductions (000 lbs) Cost (M$) Mean Benefits (M$) High Benefits (M$) CAA 357 8,099 417 33 387 1,462 17,543 1,185 125 1,468 Mobile Sources 15% 17% 244 6 67 9% 11% 513 7 88 Utility 72% 71% 67 24 279 83% 79% 423 108 1,265 Non-Utility 13% 12% 105 3 41 8% 10% 248 10 115 OTAG 310 7,049 517 26 307 1,024 13,669 1,725 84 985 Mobile Sources 13% 13% 96 2 25 9% 10% 286 4 46 Utility 85% 85% 356 23 276 84% 85% 1,114 75 876 Non-Utility 2% 2% 65 1 6 7% 5% 326 5 63 Table9 - Gross and Net Costs per pound of Nitrate Reduced Bay jurisdictions Airshed Scenario Gross Cost/ton of NOx reduced Gross Cost/lb of nitrate reduced Cost/lb net of mean ozone benefits Cost/lb net of high ozone benefits Gross Cost/ton of NOx reduced Gross Cost/lb of nitrate reduced Cost/lb net of mean ozone benefits Cost/lb net of high ozone benefits CAA 1,168 51 47 4 811 67 60 -16 Mobile Sources 4,436 126 123 91 4,039 265 261 220 Utility 262 5 3 -15 349 31 23 -61 Non-Utility 2,283 57 55 34 2,000 136 130 73 OTAG 1,668 73 70 30 1,685 126 120 54 Mobile Sources 2,462 102 100 76 2,979 206 203 172 Utility 1,348 60 56 13 1,298 96 90 21 Non-Utility 9,286 435 432 393 4,657 465 458... In PAGE 34: ...D. Table9 examines the cost-effectiveness of the CAA cont rols from both the Bay states and the entire airshed. The first columns for each region attribute all of the costs first to NOx emissions reductions and then to reduction of nitrate loadings to the Bay.... In PAGE 34: ... Rather, the proximity of the Bay states to the Bay makes them more cost-effectiveness in reducing nitrate loading. In terms of sources, Table9 shows that in both the Bay region and the airshed, the gross costs per pound of nitrate reduced are dramatically lower for utilities than for the mobile sources under CAA controls. It makes sense, then, that the Clean Air Act targeted utilities so strongly.... In PAGE 35: ... 24 Also, note that the ozone benefits are smaller for both mean and high benefits because NOx emissions reductions are smaller than they were under the CAA scenario. Table9 shows again what we would expect for the stricter controls in the OTAG scenario relative to the CAA scenario -- that the cost-effectiveness of NOx emissions 22 See Table 2 above for S-R coefficients. 23 Recall that under the OTAG scenario, mobile source controls include only the introduction of Low Emission vehicles.... In PAGE 36: ... From the pe rspective of the Bay community, it is cost-effectiveness in terms of nitrate loading reductions that is most important. These results are shown in Table9 . Costs for the airshed also climb in terms of this measure under the OTAG scenario (from $67/pound for the CAA scenario to $126/pound for the OTAG scenario).... ..."

"... In PAGE 15: ... To do this, we estimate the aggregate reduction in visits per season at each site, and divide this into the aggregate consumer surplus loss. This gives the results in Table5 . Taking Ben Nevis as an example, it may be seen that the car parking fee (option A) has a higher welfare loss per reduced visit than the increase in access time (option B), since the former imposes a higher per-climber welfare loss but is less effective in reducing visits.... ..."

"... In PAGE 8: ... Furthermore, the infrastructure does not address holding content at all. Here it is a belief that S-Tags-Semantics-Problem in Table 3 is not entirely responsible for holding content, because more problems described in Table2 amp; 3 are significantly inter-related to the holding function too. Table 3.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...assenger-hours in the U.S. air transport system (Figure 1). For our base case, we compared six different strategies for AED deployment ( Table2 ).... ..."