2/27/10 -- Austin Energy's general manager, the much revered and very inspiring Roger Duncan, retired yesterday after more than 30 years of public service. During his Austin centric-career Roger achieved world renown in green utility implementation, co-founding one of the world's most progressive energy efficiency programs (dubbed "Energy Star" in the 80's, a name the federal government would later use), co-creating the WORLD'S FIRST green building program (no kidding), and achieving too many other things to list.
In many ways Roger is responsible for motivating people like me to believe we can do more.
And he encourages it. Big thanks to Roger: a great leader and civil servant.
Here's wishing Mr. Duncan and his family a very happy and fulfilling retirement.
re: The Mayor's forum on Austin's Electricity Plan, 2010-2021.
At the end of the evening last night, Roger Duncan said it best: having public input in the planning process for Austin's citizen-owned utility really does bring out the finest result.
BOR readers may need to suspend their disbelief for just a moment about local politics, but c'mon - let's gather round. Austinites are fortunate to have leaders such Roger. Big admiration to those folks in City government "showing up" and doing their best to deliver the best result for the rest of us.
##
Town Hall Report Last night's Forum was well attended (300+ people), putting Austinites on a good path towards future engagement, wherein we communicate more and better about local electricity issues.
Moderator Jim Walker did a great job of asking meaningful questions, keeping the input moving across the expert panel, and maintaining focus and good humor. Rather than sparring, the panelists took careful steps to clarify their likes and dislikes about the Plan (more http://burntorangereport.com/d... which I think I can distill:
Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club (eco) Wants to get moving on the plan as some of its goals (esp. saving Austinites money through energy efficiency, see below) are ambitious. Cyrus also wants to enhance public input in the coming decade, create an affordability metric for lowest income customers, and set Austin on the greenest most productive path possible.
Carol B, Texas Rose (low income) Wants Austin Energy to do a better job of monitoring how electricity bill increases are affecting Austin's lowest income customers, and wait to begin work on achieving environmental goals until after an affordability metric for lowest income customers has been established.
Roger Wood, Freescale (industrial) Wants to delay the total plan until he and others in the "biggest employer community" have a clearer understanding of the plan's financial impacts. Roger says his group http://www.ccarenergy.org/ needs better data than they were given during the scenario review process to arrive at a proper analysis. Roger believes Austin Energy should get moving on the things that benefit the community most, but hold off on instituting a total plan that may not be well-enough informed yet, financially.
Philip Schmandt, business lawyer (citizen leader) Believes the goal of the plan should be three fold: i) to establish a vision for Austin Energy that meets City Council's goals, ii) to design that vision according to what makes AE and its business model most competitive now and in future decades, iii) to design a plan that is realistically feasible and continues AE's mission of providing affordable/reliable, clean electricity and excellent customer service. He feels confident the current plan meets these criteria.
Joe Beal, frmr General Manager @ the LCRA (energy consultant) Believes AE is well-positioned to lead on green, but should move carefully in regards to energy planning and changing market conditions.
Michael Cration, Smarte Building (energy efficiency consultant) Seconded the idea that AE might be able to make its best energy efficiency gains by creating programs to improve building performance in apartment complexes, and generally supports all the views above.
##
Things I Liked 1) Citizen Input.
Citizens present were invited to input questions to the panel via file card, text, or email. (Unfortunately we ran out of time and only got to a few of the 117 questions submitted!) The event will be rebroadcast will be several times later this week, schedule here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cha...
2) Leadership Ethic.
AE General Manager Roger Duncan kicked-off the evening by citing the Austin Climate Protection Plan's commitment to make "Austin Energy the leading utility in the nation for greenhouse gas reductions." http://www.austinchronicle.com... (1)
##
Things I Learned 1) Philip's perspective.
Philip Schmandt points out AE's future viability, in terms of its business model, is a critical concern -- and that the current plan to further diversify AE's electricity generation portfolio this decade will move AE toward solving its business model problems.
2) The Mayor hires well.
While I sense reluctance on his part to get "too involved" in this process, Mayor Leffingwell did very well by Amy Everhart and crew for this event, facilitating some very good and very open community dialogue.
##
What was Missing > I wish this question had been asked --- "More $$ than what?"
For some reason the Austin American Statesman continues to report Austin Energy's green plan "costs 20% more" than a "do nothing" option... Isn't this a gross mischaracterization? I spent some time trying to highlight this last week. (Help!) Here's three reasons why I think the Statesman's off-base on this one:
1. AE is currently spending more $$ than it's making. Roger D said clearly last night, "Costs are exceeding revenue." That trend will continue for at least the next few years and unless AE raises bills, the utility will go under. There are no future scenarios where bills do not go up. Perhaps I'm confused, or perhaps staff at the Statesman is confused -- but my understanding is the only way for bills to "remain flat" as the Statesman says, is for AE to go out of business... There's a lot of data here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
2. Pollution will almost inevitably become more expensive by 2021. AE's current plan is in large part about trying to prevent future cost shocks related to its use of heavy-polluting electricity generation resources (i.e. our coal plant). As community costs linked to NOx, heavy metals, and CO2 pollution are added into electricity prices, via health and environmental regulations, Austin will have to adjust. Keep in mind, Austin is particularly vulnerable as our coal plant is one of the worst polluters in the entire state, sorry world (more here and here and here on that). In other words, it's a reasonable assumption that bills will go up (in the pollution costs category), esp. for Austin, as long as we continue relying on coal for baseload. The new plan aims to begin transistion away from coal in a manner that's commensurate with industry expectations about future pollution costs.
3. So yes - bills will go up no matter what, but here's another thing the Statesman keeps leaving out. AE's strategy (as a green leader) is to add A LOT more energy efficiency. In fact, AE plans on having one of the most aggressive energy efficiency programs yet seen in the world. As such, Austinites will have more opportunities to reduce total electricity usage this decade. Keep in mind, it's not uncommon for customers to reduce total usage by 30%, and some are getting 50+% bill reductions http://eewaitsfornoman.blogspo... with smart energy efficiency investments. How 'bout some reporting on that, Statesman? In what ways would AE's green plan benefit consumer bills if it reaches its energy efficiency goals?
These notes are observations compiled from the last several months of involvement regarding Austin Energy's Generation Plan, 2010-2021. . . Austinites are invited to engage in town hall discussion on the subject Feb. 22, KLRU is featuring a televised round table prior, around Feb. 18. Here's some insight into "how we got here" --
(Part 1 of a 2 part series.)
Unfortunate Exclusions Invites: Austin Energy and City Council left out a few fundamental players, last year, when they made appointments to the citizen body responsible for reviewing electricity generation planning, 2010-2021. (1) Just ask "Carol B" at Texas Rose. The "Rose" in Texas Rose stands for "Rate Payers Organization to Save Energy." Neither Carol, nor any other low income advocates, nor any small business advocates, neighborhood advocates, citizen advocates, health advocates or etc were invited to participate in the citizen scenario review process. Whoops. The review board was made up of 2 clean energy advocates, 2 environmental advocates, 2 corporate business employees, 1 building manager's advocate, and the chairs of the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Commission (which are also volunteer citizen review boards). These appointments were a great start, but not a fair cross-representation of the whole community. Of course, how does one fairly represent the whole community?
Info: Furthermore, the folks who sat on the citizen review task force were shocked and frustrated to no end by resistance Austin Energy's staff showed in answering some of their questions. It's probably completely unintentional, but AE has yet to explain why certain info is secret in Austin that may not be secret in other cities or electricity markets.
And meanwhile -- the more financially oriented thinkers in the review process were further exasperated, because they were never given some essential framing for the way utility scenarios are traditionally carried out. Now this may or may not be true -- but apparently energy utility planning is modeled entirely off of proxy data, even in private companies. Not sure why. Colin Meehan of Environmental Defense tells me that when he worked in a consulting firm that performed scenario modeling services for large utilities some years ago -- all of the projects were run off proxies, that indeed using "proxy data" is industry standard. But here in Austin, without explanation to the citizen reviewers, this squishy data catalyzed distrust about AE's financial know how and many of the reviewers are unconvinced that the fiscal projections they were shown have any basis in reality. Thus, hundreds of "bill impact" questions remain. . . If only Austin Energy known to explain "proxy data" to their citizen reviewers and prioritize a clear reveal on bill impacts.
Communication Breakdowns Meanwhile, we are fortunate to very talented and committed staffers at City Hall and the utility who are doing their daily best to manage a flurry of incoming requests from a wide variety of concerns and knowledge bases. We might need a few more resources here. . . And, ironically, it's the things I've heard our leaders say off-hand that are defining some of today's anger.
Leadership Ain't Easy: Roger Duncan's infamous late Summer quip, "We need coal to keep the lights on," was quickly rescinded after local environmentalists (like me, the Sierra Club, and a number of UT student leaders) responded incredulously. Mr. Duncan was of course referring to the idea that unless people are willing to pay more for their electricity -- coal is an unfortunate fact of life. But it made him sound pro-coal to those of us who don't know him. (2) Another example, Mayor Leffingwell's recent remark, "We don't have to do anything for the next two years," has also upset local enviros because it sounds like he's fleeing the scene. But the Mayor is probably referring to a very complicated series of ideas, i.e.: given that the current plan so many environmentalists are endorsing doesn't call for any strategic changes in Austin Energy's electricity generation policy for at least the next three years, and the fact that the City has some relatively clear environmental policies in place, and the fact that Austin Energy is in serious financial trouble, and the fact that the Mayor's office is currently managing fears regarding deregulation (Austin Energy is a citizen-owned monopoly responsible for generating about a third of the City's operating revenue) -- it would appear the Mayor might be trying to say (without alarming anyone), "please be patient - the green plan you're supporting is already effectively in place, and I plan to continue operations carrying that out while we sort out AE's financial viability issues." But, again, that's not what it sounded like.
Unfortunate Assumptions Treehuggers like me: Another fact. Enviros like conspiracy theories. Corporations are evil and the government is full of spiritually-dead self-preservationists. . . I don't know why, but we're quick to assume the worst about those who don't share our priorities. And that's true of just about everybody. Humanity is under an awful lot of stress, right now. So, we're often driven to assume that when someone is not sharing something, they're hiding something. That may or may not be true.
Maybe it's because I've been the squeakiest of hinges in the local blogosphere, insinuating that Austin Energy was addicted to fossil fuels and blindly ignorant of coal's community costs, but I haven't had as much trouble getting my questions answered as I thought I would. Mr. Roger Duncan, General Manager of AE, has been welcoming and supportive of any efforts to help AE move off of its most destructive habit (burning coal), and he's a busy guy. I imagine there are others like me who would assume the worst before trying to build a relationship with their accused...
Suffice to say, there's a lot to know about electricity -- and personal contact, effective communication, and getting your questions answered are more fun than abstract darkness.
Last Thursday Austin Energy General Manager Roger Duncan briefed Austin City Council on the utility's Resource and Climate Protection Plan. This plan is the culmination of 18 months of input from the public, the creation of a generation resource task force of various stakeholders to review various energy plans and make recommendations, and support and input from both the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Commission -- but it still isn't the end of the line for the plan. The generation plan will also be the subject of a city-wide town hall meeting February 22nd, and city council is expected to vote on some version of it in March.
The energy plan that Duncan (who will be retiring soon and we wish him the very best) presented sets Austin on a path to reduce our carbon emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and get a total of 35% of our energy from renewable resources. It will meet council's renewable energy goals, move Austin Energy towards becoming the leading utility in the nation in terms of clean energy and global warming solutions, and re-affirm the city's commitment to the Climate Protection Plan, which has the laudable goal to establish a cap and reduction plan for the utility's carbon dioxide emissions. It is a flexible, living document that will allow council to evolve and adapt as conditions change. AND it will reduce the capacity factor of our Fayette Coal Plant by 60% and gets the ball rolling on figuring out the best way to shut it down(which you know makes me happy). Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, doesn't it?
As we've come to expect over the years from our award winning utility, Austin Energy is taking an especially responsible and forward-thinking role with this new plan. I've formed this opinion for a few reasons:
They're adopting aggressive renewable energy and efficiency goals as part of a larger, smart business plan. Austin doesn't need a new generation plan because we're going to be strapped for energy by 2020; Austin Energy could rest on their laurels and do nothing for the next ten years and we'd be fine buying up excess energy on the open market as its power purchase agreements expire and gas plants age. But if they did that, by the time 2020 rolled around Austin would be way behind the technological curve and very likely be stuck with higher rates as a result. Austin Energy has picked up on the national trend that the traditional fuels we rely upon, such as coal, are quickly becoming financial liabilities even as solar and wind are becoming more and more cost effective. This plan will allow the utility to reposition itself for 2020 going forward so that in ten years we will have made the preparations necessary to take full advantage of the coming clean tech boom rather than be left scrambling and dependent on outdated energy sources.
Austin Energy and the task force that helped formulate this plan were very careful to balance considerations of reliability, affordability, and clean (in terms of the environment and human health). The city has the responsibility to make sure that everyone who lives here can afford their utility bills. It doesn't do any good to make the switch to a new clean economy if we do so on the backs of those that can least afford it. But that couldn't be farther from the case with this plan; this isn't green for some, this is green for all. Compared to other options, this plan will minimize the impact for those least able to pay their electricity bill, supports in-house economic development and the hiring of local contractors, and ensures that everyone will have a chance to play a role in moving our city and economy forward. There's been a lot of focus and attention on the utility's estimate that the plan will raise rates in 2020 by approximately 22% or $21 a month, but what's missing from that discussion is that even if Austin Energy doesn't do anything between now and 2020 rates will go up by 15% or about $14 a month. So do the math -- for an extra $7 a month in ten years, we can build up a clean local economy that minimizes impacts on low-income consumers and creates avenues to new employment opportunities, improves public health, AND puts Austin in a prime position to start lowering rates by taking advantage of cheap renewable energy. OR we can save families $7 a month compared to today on their utility bills but lose out on new jobs and leave every citizen in the city of Austin at the mercy of high fossil fuel costs and coming federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Austin Energy is not only looking at what is most affordable now, but what is most affordable in the long term. Coal may be cheap and reliable energy now, but depending on it in the long term will get us into trouble in terms of cheap and affordable in 2020.
Austin Energy is not only reaching for the low fruit of emissions reductions and energy efficiency, they're building high-tech ladders to get at the really juicy stuff at the top of the tree. Let me explain. There are a number of ways Austin Energy could go about reducing emissions. The easiest of these would be to buy renewable energy credits, or RECs. RECs and offsets are in essence a mechanism for utilities, businesses, and governmental bodies to pay someone else to clean up and still get the credit for it. They're a good and have a positive influence on society at large because they do encourage clean energy investment and development, but not necessarily in a nearby community (in fact almost certainly not). It might be easier in the short run to pay someone else to be clean up, but then we miss out on all the delicious creamy gravy that comes along with renewable energy development. If you buy RECs you don't get new jobs and businesses in your community. If you buy RECs your own people are still breathing the same amount of pollution. But Austin Energy is taking the initiative to really get at the heart of the problem by cutting the amount of pollution coming out of the smokestacks we own. For that, they should be applauded.
Austin is not alone in preparing for clean and affordable energy.
When good news like this comes across the internet like this, we have to share. From the cloudy northwest:
Portland General Electric Co. would shut down the state's only coal-fired power plant 20 years earlier than planned under a proposal it hopes to finalize with state and federal regulators in the coming months.
Essentially, the new plan to shut the Boardman plant down 20 years earlier than planned is to avoid extra costs for pollution controls (more than $500 million by 2017) and avoid carbon risks. PGE still owes $125 million on the plant, and replacing the 500 MW of power will have its costs too, but read on...
Based on its analysis of carbon and natural gas prices, however, PGE maintains that a 2020 shutdown would be the low-cost, least-risk plan for utility ratepayers and shareholders [emphasis mine]. Under the existing plan, both face the risk of making the huge investment to control haze causing pollution - which does nothing to control the plant's carbon emissions -- then seeing the plant close anyway if global warming legislation or a carbon tax makes its output prohibitively expensive.
Read the full article here. Coal represents about a quarter of PGE's generation mix. (Los Angeles also has a goal to get out of coal by 2020.)
Austin Energy has similar plans to get out of its only coal plant, the Fayette Power Project. No target date is set yet, but the utility's 2020 generation plan would reduce Austin's dependence on it by 20-30%. The next two years will be important as Austin works with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (the grid operator for most of Texas) and the Lower Colorado River Authority (co-owner of Fayette) to see what the most practical and fair way out. Learn more about the resource plan and some excellent additional recommendations at www.cleanenergyforaustin.org. You can also learn a lot from AE's website www.austinsmartenergy.com.
According to the analysis used to plan Austin's energy future it costs 3% more to lower Austin's CO2 footprint by 61 percent, as compared to the current plan which will lower CO2 18 percent, by 2020, below 2005 emissions levels. Expenses-wise that's an exceptionally small gap for an incredibly large gain, and likely that "3% more" is backwards. Let me explain.
(An interesting campaign to do the right thing. I gladly signed and I hope you will too. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
(Co-sponsored by Jake Stewart, frmr manager of Austin's Climate Protection Program.)
Some friends recently suggested we petition Austin's new City Council to recommit to Mayor Wynn's 2007 Climate Protection Mandate. I think this is a great way to urge our leaders AND show them our support.BOR readers know I've been involved in (and somewhat critical of) Austin Energy's Recommended Generation Plan, 2010 to 2020. I'm one of thousands concerned about the plan's alarming financial oversights, costly health impacts and lack of initiative on climate and environmental issues. But I also think it's important to let our elected officials know that I (we) will support them if they come through with some strong climate actions.
The City of Austin makes the goal of its Climate Protection Plan clear: to "make Austin the leading city in the nation in the fight against climate change." We have created the petition below to show our support for the Mayor, City Council, Austin Energy, Austin's city leaders, and our diverse community of multiple stakeholders, to achieve rapid implementation of affordable, world-leading, climate solutions, immediately.
We, the citizens of Austin, TX, urge members of Austin City Council to officially recommit to our City's Climate Protection Program. We feel our City can and must do more, and we stand ready to support our City's commitment to world-changing leadership.
In 2007, just two years ago, when the Austin Climate Program was adopted, more than half of today's council was not yet elected, we had a different Mayor and a different City Manager. We urge our City's new leadership team to recommit the City to the bold, urgent and important goals laid out in 2007.
We ask that today's City leadership put climate solutions first on their agenda and make public their commitment to finding an affordable way forward.
Austin needs to be a leader on the environment and clean energy. We pledged to do just that. Now it is time for us to move forward and fulfill our promises.
The risk analysis used to create Austin Energy's Staff Generation Plan omits numerous elements that will cause Austin's near-future electricity prices to spiral upward.
Alarming Financial Risks associated with: ozone nonattainment, greenhouse gas regulation, coal ash regulation, health injury costs, exposure to litigation, and highly volatile maintenance costs -- are all left out of the analysis used to guide our City's energy plan, 2010 to 2020. Thus, City managers are recommending a coal-centric strategy. Risks omitted all target Austin's coal plant, located in La Grange and responsible for providing 1/3 of your electricity...
Hundreds of Texans from all walks of life rallied to Roll Beyond Coal on Halloween, Saturday, October 31.
There were 200 people in Dallas including speakers -- Representatives Carol Kent, Lon Burnam, Robert Mikloss, and Dallas Council Member Linda Koop.
There were 200 also in Austin including MC Ian Davis and speakers Representative Eddie Rodriguez, Austin Council Member and bike advocate Chris Riley (He stood up for the City's Climate Protection Agreement) and Dr. Kimberly Carter of Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility (She really nailed the seriously SCARY part of the Halloween message about Texas coal pollution).
100 oeople came out in the sparking city by the sea, Corpus Christi where their Clean Economy Coalition is in a contested case hearing this week along with Sierra Club over the proposed and quaintly named Las Brisas, 'the Breezes' coke plant. Corpus speakers included two physicians -- a family practioner from Aransas Pass, Dr. Lorraine Stehn, pediatrician Dr. Kevin Hopkings, Stacy Barrera, President of the TAMU-CC Young Democrats, former REpresentative Arnold Gonzales and Hal Suter of the Sierra Club.
There was also 50 people rolling beyond coal in Beaumont and 35 in Alpine, Texas. Calmly scared half to death about rising coal costs, health and environmental impacts of 12 new Texas coal plants http://www.texas.sierraclub.or... , they are taking action to stop the second wave of the Texas coal rush and promoting instead clean air, clean power, green jobs, and the availability of water in the future.
Coal Plant Pollution means Attainment of Federal Air Quality Standards Shot to Hell
"These 12 new coal plants are a significant jump to the 17 operating coal plants we already have in Texas," said Rita Beving with Dallas Sierra Club. "Whether it's the nearby plants being built east of Waco or the one proposed as far away as Abilene, the wind carries coal plant pollution north to the Dallas-Fort Worth area and will only exacerbate our ability to reach attainment."
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is currently in non-attainment of required federal clean air standards, as is Houston and the Beaumont-Port Arthur area. Austin, San Antonio and the north east Texas area have early action compacts and are near non-attainment. New federal air quality standards coming this Fall (70 ppb)will mean that several additional regions of Texas will go into non-attainment.
Many states around the nation have dropped plans for coal plants, letting Texas run far ahead in a horrible lonely lead in the opposition direction. With Michigan trailing at only 4 proposed new coal plants, Texas has the largest number still moving in various stages of permitting - contested case hearings, appeal, and construction. With the grotesque rate of acceptance of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), a whole army of new coal plants could go online next year emitting their enormous tonnage of pollution as they rev up to a full-throttled, smog-spewing, global warming, lung-clogging, nerve-shattering, mind-numbing, and heart-stopping blast of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, and carbon dioxide. See the fact sheet list of the proposed coal plants in Texas and the gory truth on their cumulative emissions numbers.
Human Health Impacts http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/press/newsreleases/HealthImpactsfromTexasCoalPlantPollution.pdf
Corpus Christi cardiologist, Dr. Greg Silverstein said, "In Corpus Christi, we already experience twice as much asthma as the state average. If the Las Brisas petcoke plant is allowed to go forward with the huge annual emissions of smog and smoke in their permit application, we
will see a significant increase of even more asthma in Corpus Christi and the surrounding towns. I am concerned about my patients and all the people of Corpus Christi."
Coke is regulated similarly to coal and it emits the same nasty pollutants. See just what effects coal and coke plants have on human physiology in the attached Fact Sheet.
Coastal Bend doctors of the Nueces County Medical Society and the Tri-County San Patricio-Aransas-Refugio Medical Society passed resolutions opposing the permitting of the hilariously-named Las Brisas (the Breezes) coke plant. Corpus Christi citizens from all walks of life united across class, Hispanic and Anglos, men, women, children, and the elderly crowded into a room that couldn't contain their opposition at last February's preliminary hearing in which a large number of individuals and organizations including the Clean Economy Coalition and the Sierra Club received 'standing' for a contested case hearing which began today, Monday, November 2.
Clean Energy Solutions and Green Jobs on the brighter side of the Dark Ages
"There are many reasons to oppose coal plants - they cost too much, make people sick, contribute to global warming, and use enormous amounts of water," said Eva Hernandez, Regional Organizer for Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. "Another reason is that they are a huge dangerous diversion from the clean power and green jobs economy that Texas is so perfectly suited for and already leading."
Roll Beyond Coal is a project of Sierra Club's Climate Recovery Partnership and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. In Texas, Sierra Club is fighting to stop new coal plants and clean up and phase out old coal plants. Sierra Club's environmental partners include our 14 Regional Sierra Club groups, lawyers on the Texas contested case hearings the Environmental Integrity Project, running buddies Sierra Student Coalition, Public Citizen, and a cast of dozens of awesome Texas organizations.
Slide show with photos from all rallies coming soon! Stay tuned to Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club on Burnt Orange Report!
In 2009, "It is a literally a matter of one or two parts per billion..." County Commissioner Karen Hubner, recently mapped out ozone nonattainment's economic impacts to Austinites, saying: "The implications are huge and will cost taxpayers a lot of money."
Commissioner Huber explains,
"First, going into nonattainment would subject us to a slew of new rules and regulations that could hang over our heads for up to 20 years after we return to air quality compliance. These regulations would create a lag effect on everything, from higher energy bills for households to creation of new businesses, as well as more expensive transportation projects (that you finance).
Second, "Nonattainment would require us to cede local control of transportation projects to state and federal oversight regulations. Conforming to their regulations would create longer construction times and higher construction costs.
Third, "... our businesses could be subject to much harsher oversight than they currently enjoy... Nonattainment regulations would subject power plants to higher emissions standards, resulting in higher electricity bills. Gasoline might have to be reformulated before it can be used to fuel our vehicles, and your car would be required to pass stringent emissions testing."
