The Commission used a five-point scoring system across all evaluation criteria, with 1 being the lowest score (very inconsistent with the criteria) and 5 being the highest score (very consistent with the criteria). The scoring system was then applied in one of two ways, depending on the nature of the funding option evaluated. For most options, a low score meant the option ranked poorly and a high score meant it ranks well under the associated criterion. However, for the criterion that assesses whether the option "enables charges for adverse side effects," scores of 1 or 2 implied the option encourages unwanted behavior, a 3 was neutral, and a 4 or 5 meant it discourages unwanted behavior. For comparison purposes, the Commission used a uniform approach to the evaluation of revenue potential, whereby each mechanism was evaluated based on both a single unit percent, fee, or increase increment believed to be feasible, as well as the percent increase or fee required to raise $1 billion annually.
The Commission also established weightings for each of selected evaluation criteria. These weightings, listed in Exhibit 3-1, are presented as each criterion's fractional multiplier (that is, its share of the total weight of all multipliers, which adds up to 1.0) and therefore represent the Commission's opinions about the relative importance of individual criteria. The multipliers were then applied to the raw scores for each option to establish a total weighted score.