Clean-Fuel Program Goals Now Appear Unattainable

Evidence is mounting that regional air quality officials have set unattainable goals for replacing millions of gasoline- and diesel-fueled cars, trucks and buses over the next 10 years with vehicles that run on cleaner fuels.

The clean-fuels program is a cornerstone of a visionary strategy to bring the smoggy South Coast Air Basin into compliance with federal clean air standards by the year 2000. Forty percent of passenger cars, 70% of heavy-duty trucks and 100% of transit buses would be powered by methanol, electricity or other alternative fuels by that date.

But technological and commercial problems are calling into question whether those targets can be reached on time. For the first time, some officials of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the state Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission are beginning to question the 10-year deadline.

Failure to meet the clean-vehicles deadline a decade away does not in itself mean that the AQMD will fall short of its overall goal to bring the four-county South Coast Air Basin into compliance with federal clean air standards by the year 2007. The broad plan proposes tough new controls on air pollution from factories, motor vehicles and consumer products like paint and aerosol sprays.

But mounting concerns about the clean-fuels deadline point up the herculean task faced by the AQMD in transforming the basin’s highly complex transportation and fuel-supply system.

“It’s not clear how (meeting the 10-year fuel deadline is) going to happen,” state Air Resources Board spokesman Bill Sessa said. “There’s no question that methanol has a role to play. But we have to question that it can be done by a certain time.”

AQMD Executive Officer James M. Lents insisted Wednesday that the 2000 deadline can be achieved.

“I don’t say that’s out of the question at all at this stage. We’d be premature to declare it can’t be done before we even get out of the starting blocks,” Lents said.

But his view is not widely shared even within his own organization.

“That (10-year goal) would seem to be an overestimate. Based on the numbers we’ve seen, that probably is overly ambitious,” said AQMD chief scientist Alan Lloyd, a strong supporter of the clean-fuels program.

“I think it’s going to be a very steep mountain to climb. . . ,” state Energy Commission Chairman Charles R. Imbrecht said. “If there is any hope of getting to the South Coast numbers, it would undoubtedly require full mandates.”

Developments here are being closely watched throughout the country by other cities plagued by urban air pollution. What happens here is widely viewed as a forerunner of efforts elsewhere.

Methanol-powered vehicles spew out far less soot and particulate matter, which reduce visibility, and nitrogen oxides, which are one of two major ingredients of photochemical smog. Both pollutants are major causes of human respiratory illness.

The state Air Resources Board, which must still ratify the sweeping air quality management plan approved by the AQMD in March, is expected to spell out additional steps to be taken if the district’s clean air goals are to be met.

A number of factors are contributing to the reassessment:

- Oil companies have equipped only a handful of service stations to sell methanol fuel. Arco and Chevron USA pledged to the California Energy Commission last year that they would each install up to 25 methanol pumps by the end of this year. So far, Arco has installed 10 and Chevron eight, with two additional Chevron pumps in the planning stage. Oil companies blame automobile makers for not turning out cars that use methanol. But auto makers say they are reluctant to build alternative-fueled vehicles if the fuel is not available--producing a Catch-22 dilemma.

- Auto makers said there is no way that production of flexible-fueled cars--which can run on either methanol or gasoline--will begin before 1995. To meet the clean-fuel deadline, nine out of every 10 cars sold between 1995 and 2000 in the Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties would have to run on methanol or some other alternative fuel.

- Pressures are building in Washington to persuade the Bush Administration to roll back the federal government’s 1991 emission standard for transit buses, a major force in speeding the production of methanol buses, which are smokeless and virtually odorless. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has administrative authority to delay the standard, has not ruled out the possibility.

Although the state Air Resources Board, which adopted the same standard before the EPA, said it would continue to enforce the rule in California, a federal rollback could still have an impact here by making it more difficult for bus manufacturers to obtain methanol engines from out-of-state suppliers.

- Three of four counties in the basin have a $1 motor vehicle surcharge authorized by the state Legislature to fund the district’s $6-million clean-fuels program, which underwrites the cost of demonstration programs to speed the commercialization of clean-fuel technology. Only Riverside County supervisors have approved the surcharge. Lents said the failure of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino county supervisors to act threatens the program.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is the apparent decision by major auto makers not to begin production of cars that can run on both methanol and gasoline until at least 1995. The production delay comes despite federal incentives to produce the cars earlier in exchange for the privilege of building bigger gas-guzzling cars without penalty.

Ford and General Motors officials told The Times that there is no way that production of methanol-powered cars will begin before 1995.

“We’re talking six to eight years if the conditions are right before we can begin production,” said Harvey Klein, manager of Ford’s flexible fuels vehicle program.

Gerald J. Barnes, manager of international emissions regulations for General Motors Corp., agreed, adding that GM has set no production date.

“A number of things could change that,” Barnes added. “If we were forced to provide vehicles because of a regulatory mandate . . . we would still have some lead-time problems but we probably would put some more effort into the products.”

If cars capable of running on methanol and gasoline are not available until at least 1995, there would be only five years at best to replace 2.9 million passenger vehicles--40% of the total--with cleaner-fueled versions by the year 2000.

Replacing 1.3 million or 70% of heavy-duty diesel trucks with cleaner-burning engines appears equally formidable, even if fuel additives prove successful in allowing existing diesels to burn methanol with a few engine modifications.

Some of the reluctance by transit agencies to buy methanol buses stems from experiences like those reported in Riverside.

The Riverside Transit Agency compared the maintenance time required for three diesel buses and three methanol-powered buses during March. The methanol buses were down for repairs for 510.5 hours, compared to only 1.5 hours for the diesels, the agency reported. But Detroit Diesel Corp., which manufactured the methanol engines, disputed the comparison, saying that not all of the problems with the methanol buses could be attributed to its unique fuel system.

Despite the discouraging maintenance statistics from Riverside, both the AQMD and the state Air Resources Board said they were confident that a new generation of methanol buses would prove to be far less trouble.

Beginning later this month--nine months behind schedule--the Southern California Rapid Transit District will take delivery on the first of 30 methanol buses, the first such production-line coaches ever built, as part of a $1.87-million, two-year “real world” test. Previous methanol buses have been hand-built experimental prototypes.

Methanol fuel costs are expected to be twice as high as diesel. Generally, fuel costs represent 2% of a transit district’s budget. That percentage would jump to at least 4% if buses ran on methanol.

Still, air quality officials believe cleaner-burning fuels are worth the cost. They note that gasoline prices have increased 25% in the last month in the wake of the grounding of the tanker Exxon Valdez and other market factors.

Methanol enthusiasts say the fuel gives cars superior performance. A third of Californians now pay 15 cents to 20 cents more for high-octane premium gasoline to get better performance. Methanol has a higher octane rating than premium unleaded gasoline.

Claudia Barker, an energy commission spokeswoman, said she recently drove a GM Corsica on methanol fuel from Sacramento to San Francisco.

“I could not believe the driving, the handling, the maneuverability,” she said. “You were cruising above the speed limit before you knew it.” Methanol has long been used in race cars.