Smog-Reduction Bill Runs Into Snag in Senate

Assembly-passed legislation aimed at reducing air pollution by 5% a year in the smoggiest regions of California ran into a wall of opposition in the Senate on Tuesday.

Supported by health, environmental and other clean air activists, the bill stalled in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee amid disputed claims by opponents that compliance could cost industry billions of dollars.

As a platoon of lobbyists for oil companies, utilities, manufacturers and other industries prepared to testify against his bill, Assemblyman Byron D. Sher (D-Palo Alto) conceded that he lacked enough votes on the committee for approval of the plan.

He did agree, however, to negotiate further with opponents in an attempt to reach a compromise by June 21 when the measure is scheduled for another hearing.

But Sher, whose bill has awaited action in the Senate committee since last summer when it cleared the Assembly, said he would not compromise at the expense of watering down the bill to the point where it no longer is strong.

Thrust of Bill

Some clean air advocates regard the Senate committee as a cemetery for smog bills.

The legislation would require the smoggiest regions of the state, including the South Coast Air Basin of Southern California, to comply as soon as “practicable” with current state clean air standards. Committee consultants said some state standards dealing with public health protection are stricter than federal standards.

To demonstrate progress at complying with the state standards, air quality districts would be required to produce a 5% reduction each year in emissions of air pollutants from various sources, including smokestacks, automobiles and varnishes.

If a district took all feasible actions but failed to meet the reduction level, the state Air Resources Board could lower the targeted level to 3% or exempt the district from compliance.

Bill Sessa, a spokesman for the state Air Resources Board, said that in the mid-1970s through early 1980s California reduced its overall emissions by 5% or more a year, mostly due to emission controls placed on automobiles.

He noted that the first whacks at smog are easier to make but that progress becomes slower as the fight continues. “I’m not saying it will be impossible, but a 5% emissions reduction will be a very tough thing to do,” Sessa said.

Torres Skeptical

Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles), regarded as the swing vote on the committee, repeatedly expressed skepticism that the legislation would accomplish a substantial improvement in air quality over current smog control efforts.

“How is it that as I’m driving 35 m.p.h. on the Hollywood Freeway I can’t see my district?” he asked. At another point, he challenged the effectiveness of enforcement provisions of the bill, asserting that he opposed “creation of another agency with no teeth in it.”

Representatives of the industry-oriented California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance charged that the bill would mandate the 5% reduction without providing a cost-effective method of cleaning up the air. They asserted that a recent congressional study concluded that the technology is not now available to accomplish such a reduction.

The council has maintained that the legislation would impose upon industry in the South Coast Basin costs of about $12 billion a year to further clean up the air. This figure was denied by the AQMD, which estimated costs at $800 million annually for the next 10 years.

Cost Factor

Sher said that in an effort to keep industry costs reasonable, he included a provision requiring the air management district to consider the cost-effectiveness of its proposed controls and to express it in terms of dollars for each reduced unit of pollution.

Supporters of the bill contended that it would enable California to intensify the battle against smog on its own instead of tempting the federal government to further establish clean air requirements for the state.