Smoggy Politics

This is the season of hot air in Sacramento, and more than a little of it is being expended on a proposed new air-pollution-control device that would be required on all new automobiles sold in California beginning with 1991 models. The proposal is aimed at reducing hydrocarbon emissions that escape while filling up at the gas pump. This is a commendable goal, because hydrocarbons are an important ingredient of ozone and controlling ozone is at the heart of the smog problem in the South Coast Air Basin.

There is considerable question, however, whether the legislation sponsored by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) will result in a meaningful reduction of ozone emissions. In spite of that, there may be some justification for passing the bill into law now, if a suitable compromise can be reached. If those statements sound confusing and contradictory, it is understandable. Consider, for instance, the fact that key officials of the South Coast Air Quality Management District support the bill to require the installation of an on-board gasoline-vapor-recovery system while experts at the California Air Resources Board privately oppose it.

Consider also that some critics believe that the legislative battle really has very little to do with air quality in California, but rather is a ploy by convenience-store owners in other states to avoid having to install special vapor-recovery sleeves on the nozzles of their gasoline pumps--those bulky, pleated and unpopular tubes that have been in use in Southern California since 1974. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency already has taken steps to require installation of the on-board vapor-recovery system throughout the country, thus presumably obviating the need for the special nozzles. The convenience-store owners fear that the EPA will not follow through with the rule, but could not back down if the California Legislature had required the in-auto system on California autos.

By the way, the Brown legislation also would require the use of these nozzles throughout California for the first time beginning in 1989, although the state air board already has issued such an order. The primary reason for requiring the nozzles in rural areas is not the ozone problem, but to protect gas pumpers from exposure to benzene, which is considered a carcinogen.

On the ozone question, autos now are equipped with a vapor-recovery canister that catches evaporated gasoline emanating from the auto itself during extremely hot days. The Brown bill would require the installation of a larger canister that also would capture vapors escaping during fueling at the gas pump. The vapors would be routed into the fuel system and burned with the regular fuel supply.

But critics contend that the fueling vapor-recovery system would be redundant because urban California already requires the special nozzles. It would take up to 20 years before a majority of autos in the state had the devices. There might even be an increase in escaping vapors because back pressure caused by the new device in the auto would force fumes out of a service station’s underground storage tank. This problem, however, could be corrected by a new type of valve. Further, the EPA also is proposing new controls on the refining of gasoline to reduce the chemicals that result in ozone pollution.

Brown supporters claim that California should do everything that it can to reduce air pollution, and that the nozzles do not catch all the vapors. Oil companies support the bill; auto makers oppose it. But one expert says that the whole bill may be a sham because the legislation stipulates that the new device would not be required if it cost more than $35. This official insists that the new on-board vapor canister is certain to cost more than $35--probably in the range of $80 or $90. Ultimately the EPA rule would require the new canisters in all autos, anyway.

The two sides are working on a compromise that would give the Air Resources Board the authority to deal with the vapor problem. They are heartily encouraged to do so. Otherwise this legislation would better be left for more coherent study in the cool days of the next session.