I pretty much agree with Tom, except that I will yell longer and louder about the misguided people that forced this change. The word "arsenic" scared a lot of people but the copper is probably as dangerous. We spent a lot of money and will spend a lot more getting rid of lead and copper can react basically the same in people that get enough of it. Look that up in your periodic table!
There was a study in Florida about the effects of CCA and it was totally discredited but it seems to persist longer than a lot of chemicals.
I would love to stock up on something that I knew really would do the same job but I would have to have a treating chamber to make effective use of CCA Napthalate. The cheapest CCA treated wood was just soaked in the stuff and sold as "treated to rejection". The next best was wood that had been checked to have 40% retention, which was fine for most usage. The best and most expensive was treated to 60% retention. You got what you paid for, but you could not get to the 2 top categories without pressure treatment.
My guess is that right now, the lumber sellers will "make us pay" for their research and for changing their treating tanks over to the new material. Like with anything new, I guess, there will be learning curves and operators that are always looking to make a bigger buck. The retailer is probably as subject to being gouged as the rest of us. I think that in a year or 2, as we learn the techniques of the new material, the prices will be down near the prices for CCA treated wood over the last several years.
Sorry for the diatribe but this is a "hot button" issue with me. I live in this environment too and the people that pushed for the change didn't do us any favors, in my opinion. The last I knew, rotted wood took up landfill space too.