Usefulness of alternative integrative assessment methodologies in public decision making

Many diverse social, economic, and environmental effects are associated with each of the available energy development alternatives. The assessment of the costs, risks, and benefits of these energy development options is an important function of the U. S. Department of Energy. This task is more difficult when no single alternative is better than the others in all respects. This paper compares benefit-cost and multi-attribute utility analysis as decision aids for these more difficult and more common assessment cases. PNL has developed expertise in making these assessments through its involvement since the Calvert Cliffs decision in both the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and the development of methods to make these statements more thorough and responsive to the spirit of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Since 1973 PNL has had continuing efforts to quantify, value, and compare all of the major factors which influence the overall impacts of energy development options. An important part of this work has been the measurement and incorporation of the relative values which community groups place on these conflicting factors. Such difficult assessment problems could be approached in many ways including the use of benefit-cost or multi-attribute utility analysis. This paper addresses the following questions: (1) Should an integrative assessment methodology be used for the overall assessment of these costs, risks, and benefits. (2) If an integrative assessment methodology is to be used, what alternative methods are available and what should be the basis for selecting a method. (3) Is it possible to use one of the available alternatives for one portion of the assessment and another for another portion of the assessment. The answers to these questions presented in this report are applicable to most public decision problems