Coalition Calls for County to Collect Emissions Fees

An improbable alliance of environmentalists, dry cleaners and service-station operators on Wednesday assailed the county supervisors’ indecision on a proposed pollution-emissions fee that would make big polluters pay the bulk of the county’s air-monitoring costs.

The group argued that the county’s 12 largest polluters generate a third of all air pollution but pay only 10% of the fees collected for monitoring. Small businesses produce less than half the pollution and pay 87% of the fees, the group said.

Yet the supervisors have balked at a proposal to alter that formula as a way of funding the financially strapped Air Pollution Control District. Their failure to decide on the budget has forced the district to seek a loan to cover its payroll until June 30.

“We have to ask, who do the supervisors work for?” said Jonathan Wiltshire, representing one of more than a dozen environmental groups represented at a press conference Wednesday. He asked, do they work for the citizens that elect them or the industries that lobby them?

The press conference, aimed at pressuring the supervisors, was sponsored by the San Diego Clean Air Coalition, whose members include the Sierra Club, Environmental Health Coalition, Audubon Society, League of Women Voters and about 10 other organizations.

But also present in the group that gathered outside the Air Pollution Control District’s Kearny Mesa office was Howard Wainscott, trustee of the Southern California (Gasoline) Dealers Assn. and Wayne Terry of the San Diego Dry Cleaners Assn.

Wainscott and Terry said they have come around to supporting the emissions-fee plan, which was recommended by the district’s staff. It is one of four proposals aimed at replacing $400,000 that the supervisors no longer want to pay out of the county general fund.

Under the fee plan, polluters would be charged in proportion to the amount of pollutants they emit. The coalition says a fee system is the most equitable way of generating income and would encourage industries to cut their pollution.

Industry officials have countered that the fee would be an illegal “pollution tax” and have suggested that they would challenge it in the courts. They have recommended that the supervisors raise the cost of the permits the district requires for the operation of pollution control devices. Permit fees are based on the time it takes to inspect a facility.

Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and Ventura counties all fund air-pollution monitoring out of emissions fees similar to those proposed by the coalition, said Paul Sidhu, the district’s deputy director.

The supervisors have been unable to decide among the alternatives. Twice recently they have postponed a planned vote on the proposals. Last week, Supervisor Susan Golding came up with yet another alternative--get car and truck owners to fund the district.

On Wednesday, Ruth Duemler of the coalition dismissed Golding’s idea, pointing out that the state regulates pollution from vehicles and the counties handle stationary sources. She argued that Golding’s idea “has only delayed the budget dilemma.”

Duemler also faulted the composition of the advisory board that makes recommendations on the budget and rules of the district. She said the board is dominated by the industries the district regulates. She argued that industry representatives should not vote.

“To have the ‘dirty dozen’ organize and hire an attorney to accompany them to advisory meetings is unreasonable,” she said. “We request that the makeup of the board be revised and that industry be given a non-voting status.”

Duemler brandished a placard titled “The Dirty Dozen” listing the county’s 12 largest air polluters, according to district figures. Leading the list was San Diego Gas & Electric Co., emitting more than 9,000 tons of pollutants a year.

Among the others on the placard were Kelco, a kelp processor; General Dynamics Corp. and Rohr Industries Inc.

Others at the press conference suggested that opponents of the emissions fee want simply to whittle away the strength of the Air Pollution Control District at a time when, they said, growth in San Diego and new environmental rules demand more vigilant monitoring.

San Diego’s topography and meteorology give the area a greater potential for serious air pollution than Los Angeles, said Jay Powell of the Sierra Club. He argued that emissions fees would force industries to look for alternatives to polluting.

He also argued that if the city moves ahead with its proposed SANDER trash-to-energy plant, the district will be severely strapped in its efforts to monitor the large amounts of widely varied pollutants expected to emerge from its stack.