Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
104 There were two main challenges to this project. The first was to conduct an analysis to provide states with general guidance on developing robust strategies to address uncer- tain but possibly significant shifts in transportation energy sources and vehicle technologies in the coming decades. The second was to structure the findings such that they could be adapted to the distinct needs of each state. Up to this point in the report, the focus has been mainly on the first of these challenges. Steps in the analysis were to develop plausible transportation and energy futures; to dis- cern how these futures might affect state DOTs given their roles, mandates, funding, and operations; to identify and assess strategies that states might pursue to mitigate adverse impacts associated with certain plausible futures or to proactively shape a more sustainable energy future; and to develop a framework for robust long-range planning that encompasses: â¢ Near-term strategies to mitigate highly probable impacts, â¢ Deferred strategies to mitigate uncertain impacts that can be triggered by signposts, â¢ Near-term hedging strategies with long lead times to miti- gate uncertain impacts, and â¢ Near-term shaping strategies aimed at promoting a more sustainable future. In setting up the analysis, the researchers included elements that would subsequently assist states in tailoring the general planning framework to meet their own contextual needs. It is to this latter question that the discussion now turns. From the perspective of identifying suitable strategies for a given state, such factors as whether a state is home to major metropolitan areas, whether it includes major ports or trade corridors, and whether it is subject to significant popula- tion growth pressure may in some cases be highly relevant. Another important consideration is how voters within a state prioritize potentially competing policy objectives. Some strat- egies aimed at environmental goals, for example, could entail near-term economic costs. Whether a state would choose to pursue such actions hinges on the electorateâs relative prioriti- zation of these goals. A final question relates to the stateâs abil- ity to overcome certain barriers associated with the various strategies. Some strategies involve significant financial costs, for example, and would be more challenging to pursue in a state already facing budget shortfalls. The detailed strategy assessmentsâdeveloped in Appendices I, J, K, L, and M and summarized in the tables in Chapter 7âhave been structured to provide insight on such questions. The remainder of this chapter is divided into four sections. The first of these outlines a general sequence of steps or decisions that a state could follow in order to assemble a state-specific strategic long-range plan based on the robust planning framework outlined in the last chapter. In short, this process entails selecting a set of strategies for near-term action, a set of strategies that can be safely deferred, and a set of signposts to be monitored in order to trigger deferred strategies when and if needed. The second section then enumerates various options for states to tailor plans to meet their own contextual needs and policy preferences. These include choosing from different strat- egies to address a specific objective, choosing to omit cer- tain strategies that would be less relevant within a given state (e.g., congestion pricing would be less useful in a largely rural state), choosing whether to defer strategies aimed at uncertain impacts, choosing whether to pursue higher-risk hedging and shaping strategies, and choosing to alter the assumed set of specific policies that would be implemented in order to pursue a given strategy. The third section outlines steps that state DOT planners could follow, if viewed as helpful, to expand the analysis and consider other future outcomes of interest that were beyond the scope of this study. For example, planners might wish to consider how the potential introduction and adoption of autonomous vehicles, alongside changes in fuels and vehicle technologies, could affect DOTs in the coming decades. The outlined steps also offer a general template for how states C H A P T E R 9 Developing State-Specific Plans
105 might incorporate the principles of robust decision making in other long-range planning exercises. The final section observes that many of the strategies dis- cussed in this study, including a large share of those described as âmost promising,â may require enabling legislation, typi- cally at the state level but in some cases at the federal level. This suggests that DOTs may find it useful to develop con- tingency plans in case certain preferred strategies fail to gain legislative support. 9.1 Translating the Framework into a Strategic Long-Range Plan As noted previously, the framework developed in the previ- ous chapter was designed to help state DOTs craft robust long- range strategic plans that include: (a) strategies to pursue in the near term, (b) strategies that can be safely deferred until more information about how the future is unfolding becomes avail- able, and (c) signposts that can be monitored in future years to determine if certain plausible futures are becoming more or less likely, which can in turn trigger the implementation of deferred strategies. A logical sequence of steps that state DOTs can follow to develop a plan with these elements is as follows: 1. Determine the preferred set of strategies for addressing revenue shortfalls and reducing DOT costs. (Revenue challenges are seen as likely in all of the plausible futures considered in this study, while finding efficient ways to reduce DOT costs should be generally beneficial regard- less of how the future unfolds.) Add selected strategies to the plan for near-term action. 2. For each of the less certain impacts identified in the studyâ including worsening traffic congestion, more vehicle crashes and fatalities, greater difficulty meeting air quality standards, increased pressure to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and greater demand for non-automotive travel modesâselect the preferred strategies for mitigating the impact. Additionally, consider whether the issue is already viewed as a problem within the state that merits near-term action or if instead it is possible to wait and see whether the problem will emerge or worsen in future years. a. For any of the uncertain impacts that are already viewed as problems that merit attention within the state, add the corresponding strategies to the set of near-term actions. b. For any of the uncertain impacts that are not yet viewed as problems within the state, add any of the preferred strategies that have relatively short lead times to the set of actions that can be safely deferred. Addition- ally, specify the signposts that should be monitored in future years to determine if and when to implement the deferred strategies for a given mitigation objec- tive (see the prior chapter for examples of the types of signposts that states might choose). 3. Consider whether to implement any of the mitigation strate- gies with longer lead timesânotably road expansion, goods movement investments, land use reforms, and investments in intelligent transportation systemsâas a hedge against uncertain future impacts. Add selected strategies from this group to the set of planned near-term actions. 4. Consider whether to implement any of the strategies aimed at shaping future energy outcomesâsuch as pricing vehi- cles, pricing fuels, alternative-fuel mandates, state produc- tion and distribution of alternative fuels, and agency energy efficiency and use of alternative fuelsâwith the aim of pro- moting a sustainable energy future. Add any selected strate- gies from this group to the set of planned near-term actions. 9.2 Tailoring a Plan for State-Specific Needs Proceeding through the steps just outlined, there are many opportunities for state DOTs to tailor the resulting plans to meet their own needs. Options include selecting strategies to address specific mitigation or shaping objectives, omitting certain strategies that would be less relevant in a given state, deferring strategies intended to address uncertain impacts, adopting higher-risk hedging and shaping strategies, and altering the policies chosen to implement a given strategy. 9.2.1 Selecting Strategies to Address an Objective As discussed in the preceding chapter, the research team developed a logic for ranking the strategies that could be employed to address a given mitigation or shaping goal in up to four categories: most-promising strategies, higher-impact optional strategies, lower-impact optional strategies, and fallback strategies. Based on the analysis conducted for this study, a strategic plan would ideally include at least a subset of the most-promising strategies, and could be further comple- mented with some of the higher- or lower-impact optional strategies. Fallback strategies, as a general rule, do not per- form as well for most policy goals of interest but could still be preferable to taking no action at all. In sorting through the potential strategies for addressing a particular objective within a state, several elements of the detailed strategy assessmentsâdeveloped in Appendices I through M and summarized in Chapter 7âshould be espe- cially helpful: â¢ Effectiveness in supporting the specific mitigation or shaping objective. The strategy assessments conducted for this study considered whether a given strategy could be expected to exert a significantly positive effect, a moder- ately positive effect, or no appreciable effect in addressing
106 each of the mitigation and shaping objectives of interest. In selecting strategies to address a given objective, states would ideally choose at least one strategy rated as having a significantly positive effect (though such strategies may also face higher barriers). â¢ Broader effects on the economy, environment and pub- lic health, and equity. The assessments also examined how strategies could affectâpositively or negativelyâthe broader social goals of economic growth and efficiency, environ- ment and public health, and equity. While some strategies can be expected to perform well for all of these goals, others present more mixed results. For example, carbon pricing is rated as being significantly positive for environment and public health but could possibly, depending on implemen- tation details, have negative implications for equity. In such cases, planners may find it helpful to compare the expected performance of different strategies for these broad social objectives against the relative policy preferences of a stateâs population and elected officials. Some states, for example, might focus on strategies that perform particularly well for the economy; others might prefer to emphasize strategies with stronger environmental or equity effects. â¢ Implementation barriers. Finally, the strategy assessments considered the nature and degree of potential implementa- tion barriers for each of the strategies, including financial cost, public support, technical risk, the need for enabling legislation, and the need for institutional restructuring. Such barriers could certainly influence the feasibility of pursuing different strategies in different states. For exam- ple, states with major funding shortfalls would find it more challenging to adopt strategies entailing high financial costs, while states with a pronounced philosophical pref- erence among the electorate for smaller government could find it difficult to pursue strategies that pose high public acceptance barriers, many of which involve significant gov- ernment intervention. 9.2.2 Omitting Strategies Based on State Context In addition to the factors just discussed, the strategy assess- ments developed for this study also considered whether a strategy would be generally applicable in any state or would instead be most helpful only in certain contexts. During the course of assessing the strategies, three contextual factors that might limit the utility of certain strategies emerged. Specif- ically, some strategies would mainly be applicable in states with large metropolitan areas, some would be most helpful in states experiencing rapid growth, and some would offer the greatest benefits in states with major port complexes or trade corridors. Table 9.1 lists all of the strategies that are likely to be more helpful in some states than others based on these contextual factors. In Table 9.1, strategies with a bullet in a given column prom- ise greater benefits in states that have the corresponding contex- tual trait. As a corollary, the expected benefits of implementing one of these strategies in a state that does not have the trait are likely to be lower. So, for example, public transit investments would likely yield greater returns in states with large metro- politan areas than in states that are largely rural. Based on this reasoning, states that do not have one or more of the contextual traits listed previously might understand- ably choose not to include strategies with a bullet in the cor- responding columns within their long-range strategic plans. Two caveats, though, should be noted. First, the traits are not binary in nature but rather involve a continuum. All states, for example, have at least some urbanized areas and some level of goods movement. There is thus a role for the sub- jective judgment of decision makers in determining whether these strategies would be valuable to pursue within their states depending on where they fall along the relevant continuums. Second, many of these strategies could still provide benefits even in states that do not have the corresponding contextual Table 9.1. Strategies offering greater benefits in certain contexts. Strategies Most Helpful in States With: Major Metro Areas Rapid Growth Major Ports or Trade Corridors Beneficiary fees Increased use of private capital Goods movement Congestion pricing TSM&O Public transportation Land use Note: TSM&O = transportation system management and operations. Contextual qualifications are based on the strategy assessments developed in Appendices I through M and summarized in Table 7.7.
107 In considering whether to adopt higher-risk hedging and shaping strategies, planners may find it helpful to contrast the potential regret of failing to implement a strategy that would have been very useful with the potential regret of implementing a strategy that proves to be either unnecessary or unsuccessful. Relevant factors in this deliberation include the anticipated effects of a strategy in addressing specific mitigation or shaping objectives; the expected performance of a strategy for broader social goals related to the economy, environment and public health, and equity; and the type and degree of barriers associated with a strategy. For greater insight into the potential regret associated with failing to implement a strategy that would have proven help- ful, it is useful to examine the foregone benefits that the strat- egy could have offered in the context of mitigating uncertain impacts or supporting different energy-shaping objectives. Table 9.2 lists all of the strategies from the study that might be implemented in the context of hedging against uncertain future impacts or shaping future energy outcomes and sum- marizes their anticipated effects for relevant mitigation and shaping objectives. Note that in the context of this discussion, the anticipated effects on mitigation goals are most relevant for the potential hedging strategies, while the shaping goals are most relevant for the potential shaping strategies. As indicated in the table, however, both sets of strategies could address mitigation as well as shaping objectives. This suggests that there could be important ancillary benefits from choosing to implement any of the hedging or shaping strategies. In terms of the potential regret associated with implement- ing a hedging or shaping strategy that proves to be either unneeded or unsuccessful, it is useful to consider in turn the expected performance with respect to the broader social goals of economy, environment and public health, and equity along with the anticipated barriers to implementation, as summa- rized in Table 9.3. Much of the regret in this case will relate to the required effort and financial investment directed to the strategy, as reflected in the assessment of barriers. The level of regret may be mitigated to some extent, however, if the strategy performs well for the broader social goals of interest. 9.2.5 Selecting Alternate Policies in Pursuing a Strategic Direction The strategies examined in this study, as discussed in Chapter 7, have been constructed from small sets of policies that share similar aims and approaches. In order to evaluate each of the strategies, the research team needed to make cer- tain assumptions about which of the component policies a state would implement in pursuing the strategy. As a general rule, the team assumed that states would be fairly aggressive in selecting specific policies to maximize the benefits of the traits. Therefore, a state that is already motivated to pursue a given strategy need not abort the plan simply because it does not have major metropolitan areas, is not growing rapidly, or does not have as much goods movement activity as some other states. Decision makers should be aware, though, that the benefits of the strategy may be fewer in comparison to other states that do have the indicated contextual traits. 9.2.3 Deferring Strategies to Mitigate Uncertain Impacts As already noted, several of the potential impacts for state DOTs identified in this report are associated with some plausi- ble futures but not with others. States might therefore choose to defer efforts to address these impacts until it becomes clearerâbased on the monitoring of signpostsâthat they will emerge as problems that need to be addressed. That said, some of the uncertain future impacts may already be viewed as problems meriting near-term action in some states. For example, while some of the plausible futures could lead to worsening traffic congestion, the problem is already quite severe in most states with large metropolitan areas. Like- wise, voters in some states may already be pressuring their elected officials and state agencies to take meaningful action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Based on their own situations, then, states may choose to either defer strategies intended to address potential impacts characterized as uncertain or take action in the near term if the underlying issues are already viewed as problematic. In cases where states choose to defer action, two caveats bear repeating. First, states will only be able to defer strategies with relatively short lead times. (Strategies with longer lead times would need to be implemented in the near term as hedging actions, as discussed next.) Second, to ensure that the abil- ity exists to implement deferred strategies when it becomes apparent that they will be needed, states should develop sign- posts to be monitored on an ongoing basis. 9.2.4 Pursuing Higher-Risk Hedging and Shaping Strategies As described in the previous chapter, strategies imple- mented in the near term to increase DOT revenue or reduce DOT costs along with deferred strategies to address uncertain future impacts can be characterized as posing a relatively low chance of regret. In contrast, both hedging strategies (that is, strategies with long lead times implemented in the near term to address uncertain future impacts) and strategies aimed at shaping a sustainable energy future entail a higher degree of risk. Hedging strategies, due to their long lead times, must be implemented before it is clear that they will be helpful, while shaping strategies may prove to be unsuccessful or superfluous.
Table 9.2. Effectiveness of hedging and shaping strategies for specific objectives. Strategies Mitigating Uncertain Impacts Shaping Goals TC TS AQ GHG ATM OC LCF CT Near-term hedging strategies to mitigate uncertain impacts Road expansion Goods movement ITSs Land use Near-term shaping strategies to promote a sustainable energy future Fuel taxes Public transportation Land use As above As above Vehicle feebates Carbon pricing Fuel mandates and programs Fuel production and distribution Agency energy use Note: TC = mitigating traffic congestion, TS = improving traffic safety, AQ = improving air quality, GHG = mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, ATM = improving alternative transportation modes, OC = reducing oil consumption, LCF = promoting the adoption of lower-carbon alternative fuels, CT = reducing the energy cost of travel, and ITSs = intelligent transportation systems. The list of potential hedging and shaping strategies is based on information presented in Table 8.7; ratings are based on the assessments developed in Appendices I through M and summarized in Tables 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4. Key: = Highly Effective = Moderately Effective Blank = Not Applicable Shaded = Uncertain Table 9.3. General performance and barriers for hedging and shaping strategies. Key: = Highly Positive = Highly Negative/Major Barrier = Neutral = Moderately Positive = Moderately Negative/Modest Barrier Shaded = Uncertain Strategies Broad Policy Goals Implementation Barriers Econ E/PH As above As above Equity PS FC TR EL IR Near-term hedging strategies to address uncertain impacts Road expansion Goods movement ITSs Land use Near-term shaping strategies to promote a sustainable energy future Fuel taxes Public transportation Land use Vehicle feebates Carbon pricing Fuel mandates and programs Fuel production and distribution Agency energy use Note: Econ = economic growth, E/PH = environment and public health, PS = public support, FC = financial cost, TR = technical risk, EL = enabling legislation, IR = institutional restructuring , and ITSs = intelligent transportation systems. The list of potential hedging and shaping strategies is based on information presented in Table 8.7; ratings are based on the assessments developed in Appendices I through M and summarized in Tables 7.5 and 7.6.
109 fuels, growth in passenger vehicle travel, and future federal energy and climate policyâthat are either directly or indirectly linked to transportation fuels and vehicle technologies. Sec- ond, the research team developed a range of plausible future outcomes for these factors that can be viewed as at least rea- sonably probable based on current trends and expected inter- actions with other variables. In contrast, the team did not as a general rule include extreme or catastrophic scenarios that, while possible, are not generally viewed as likely for planning purposes. So, for example, the future travel scenarios did not include an outcome in which a future pandemic causes a major loss of population, triggering in turn significant reductions in overall travel, even though such an outcome could occur. Still, it is possible that the scenarios developed for this report omit potential future outcomes of a less dire nature that states might wish to consider in developing long-range strategies. Alternatively, states might wish to expand the analysis to encom- pass future scenarios involving factors that are not directly or indirectly linked to evolving energy use. For example, the pos- sible emergence of autonomous vehicles in future years could have a profound effect on travel choices but was not considered to be within the scope of this study. To identify and incorporate additional future scenarios within the context of the robust decision-making framework employed here, an appropriate sequence of analysis would be as follows: 1. Specify scenarios. Briefly identify and describe the addi- tional factors and scenarios to include in the analysis. 2. Identify impacts. Consider whether these scenarios would create any additional negative impacts for state DOTs and whether the impacts are likely in all futures or just in cer- tain futures. 3. Identify and assess relevant strategies. Examine whether the additional impacts would motivate the adoption of additional strategic directions not included in this study. If so, develop and assess the strategies using the criteria identified in Chapter 7. 4. Identify additional near-term actions. Evaluate whether the inclusion of additional scenarios suggests the need for near-term action. This could include strategies aimed at addressing newly identified impacts that appear likely across all futures. It could also include strategies with long lead times that might be useful as a hedge against potential impacts that may unfold. 5. Identify actions that can be deferred until better infor- mation becomes available. For newly identified impacts that only occur with certain futures, specify the set of strat- egies that would be employed to address the impact should the need arise. Also, identify signpostsâthat is, evidence that the impact appears highly likelyâthat would be used to trigger the strategies. broader strategy, even if the choices faced higher barriers. In other words, the idea was to develop a clearer understand- ing of the maximum benefits for states that fully embrace the strategic direction. In tailoring the results of this study, how- ever, decision makers might alter the mix of policies within a strategy given the needs of and constraints within their own states. It should be stressed, however, that changing the mix of policies within a strategy could alter the profile of benefits and barriers associated with that strategy. This can be illustrated with a more concrete example. The strategy of congestion pricing encompasses HOT or express lanes, congestion-priced facilities, cordon congestion tolls, network-wide congestion pricing, and variable parking pric- ing. From these options, the team assumed that a state would pursue the goal of establishing one or two priced lanes on all congested freeways, even in cases where this would require the conversion of general-purpose lanes to priced lanesâa concept that would surely face significant public acceptance challenges. As an alternative to this assumption, a state might instead choose to apply congestion pricing only on newly built lanes or on converted HOV lanes, as is often done now. This would reduce public acceptance challenges, but would also greatly limit the share of facilities that could feature congestion-priced lanes. As such, the aggregate congestion- reduction benefits as well as the resulting revenue stream would be much reduced in comparison to the assumed policy of developing priced lanes on all congested facilities. In short, decision makers may find it appropriate to mod- ify the assumed mix of policies for some of strategies to better meet their stateâs needs, but they should be aware that the strategy assessments conducted for this study may no longer be valid as a result of such modifications. 9.3 Considering Additional Future Outcomes of Interest In the course of this study, the research team endeavored to develop a reasonably comprehensive spectrum of plausible long-range scenarios for energy use within the transportation sectorâthe principal focus area for the studyâalong with future travel trends and evolving federal policies on energy, climate, and transportation funding. However, given the many interactions between transportation, energy, the built environment, the economy, social and demographic trends, technological innovation, and shifting policy attitudes and perspectives, along with the ever-present potential for wholly unanticipated events or developments, it would be quite chal- lenging to encompass all plausible futures. In wrestling with this concern, the researchers chose to adopt two guiding criteria in developing the scenarios. First, given the scope of the report, the scenarios focused on factorsâsuch as the price of oil, growth in the market share for alternative
110 require enabling state or federal legislation. (Entries shaded in light gray correspond to greater uncertainty.) As shown, only two of the 15 strategies listed in the table are viewed as unlikely to require either state or federal legisla- tion. Note, though, that for some of the strategies, the poten- tial need for legislation may not apply to all of the component policies. Many of the TDM policies, for example, such as sup- port for vanpools or the development of HOV lanes, might be implemented by state DOTs within their existing authority. However, the TDM strategy also assumes that a state would allow pay-as-you-drive insurance, and this could require enabling legislation in states that do not yet permit this type of auto insurance product. Even with that caveat, it is clear that without enabling leg- islation, state DOTs will not be able to rely on many of the most-promising strategies for overcoming challenges that they could face in the coming decades. Importantly, this holds for all of the strategies aimed at stabilizing or increas- ing revenue, and it also applies to some of the more powerful strategiesâcongestion pricing, vehicle feebates, and carbon pricing, for instanceâaimed at other objectives. Thus, while state DOT planners can employ the logic developed in this study to map out a long-range plan that identifies potential Note that this same general sequence of stepsâspecifying plausible futures, identifying impacts, identifying and assessing relevant strategies, identifying near-term actions, and identify- ing actions that can be deferredâcan be fruitfully applied to other long-range DOT planning efforts. Although labor inten- sive, the overall process is relatively straight forward, and the application of robust decision-making principles can be very helpful in developing plans that will perform well however the future unfolds. 9.4 Developing Contingency Plans While there are many strategies that could be highly effec- tive in helping state DOTs address the mitigation and shaping objectives identified in this study, a large share could require state, or even federal, legislation. This is especially true of strategies rated as most promising for one or more objectives, as shown in Table 9.4 In this table, all of the strategies rated as most promising for one or more of the mitigation and shaping objectives are listed in the left column. The center column denotes the objectives for which a strategy is rated as most promising, while the right column indicates whether the strategy could Table 9.4. Potential legislative requirements for most-promising strategies. Strategies Most Promising For: Required Legislation Tolls or mileage-based user fees RC Federal/state Fuel taxes RC/SE State Registration fees RC State Beneficiary fees RC State Greater efficiency RC State Goods movement TC/TS/RE Congestion pricing TC Federal/state ITSs TS Federal/state TSM&O TS State Traffic safety TS/AT TDM TC/RE/AT State Public transportation TC/AT State Land use RC/RE/AT/SE State Vehicle feebates RE/SE State Carbon pricing RE State Note: RC = increasing revenue and reducing cost, SE = shaping the energy future, TC = reducing traffic congestion, TS = improving traffic safety, RE = reducing emissions, AT = improving alternative transportation modes, ITSs = intelligent transportation systems, TSM&O = transportation system management and operations, and TDM = transportation demand management. The compiled list of most-promising strategies for different objectives is based on information presented in Table 8.7. The expectations for legislative requirements are based on the strategy assessments developed in Appendices I through M and summarized in Table 7.6, with entries shaded in light gray corresponding to a higher degree of uncertainty.
111 efficiency, ITSs, TSM&O, TDM, public transportation, and land useâinclude at least some policies that state DOTs could implement on their own. Another option would be to select backup strategies that could serve in place of preferred strategies if enabling legisla- tion is not passed. If DOTs are asked to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector but the legislature has not enacted policies involving vehicle feebates, carbon pricing, or low-carbon fuel standards, for example, DOTs might instead concentrate on improved energy efficiency and increased use of alternative fuels within agency operations and also explore the option of producing and distributing alter- native fuels within existing rights-of-way. While the backup strategies may not be as effective as the most-promising strat- egies, they still may be preferable to taking no action at all. challenges, promising sets of strategies to address the chal- lenges, and appropriate time frames for pursuing the strate- gies, the success of the plan will ultimately be contingent on the actions of legislators. Therefore, it would be judicious for state DOTs to develop backup plans for responding to challenges in the event that legislation to enable the most-promising strategies is not enacted. Two different options in this vein are possible. As noted previously, most of the strategies encompass multiple policies, not all of which are likely to require legislation. Thus, one backup option would be for a state DOT to implement a strategy by pursuing just the subset of policies for which it already has the necessary authority. Of the most-promising strategies listed previously that are judged as potentially requir- ing state or federal legislation, quite a fewâfor example, greater