Breathing Easier in the Future : Smog: Gasoline, despite its ‘dirty’ reputation, may be a ‘clean’ fuel of the future--if politicians and regulators don’t stand in the way.

The California Air Resources Board’s Dec. 14 announcement had a definitive ring to it. Starting in 1994, auto-emission standards aimed at cleaning up new-car exhaust by 2000 would be phased in. I don’t question that objective. But I wonder if the route through this technological twilight zone will be as clearly marked as the state’s planners seem to assume.

The board’s proposed standards are reasonable--up to a point. The current standard of hydrocarbon emissions for new autos would be tightened, from .4 grams per mile to .125 in 1994. By 1997, it would be .075. These standards, though tough, may be technologically feasible with clean fuels and advanced engines.

After that, the board’s plan veers into the realm of the unknown by calling for hydrocarbon emissions not to exceed .04 grams per mile by 2000. That goal is unreachable by any known combination of fuel and engine development or, at any rate, by any new fuel/vehicle system the consumer will deem practical enough to buy and use.

In the clean-air debate, gasoline is invariably dismissed as too dirty to be considered a “clean” fuel of the future. Newer forms of transportation fuel--methanol and electricity--are seen as better fitting tomorrow’s environmental needs. But until methanol and other alternatives are put into large-scale use, we can’t know what kind of environmental impact they will have or, for that matter, how to ensure their supply.

By contrast, we know a lot about conventional gasoline--how to provide the performance the public wants at a price they want to pay. We know where to get it, if the price is right. Furthermore, gasoline will likely be the only fuel that this nation can seriously count on to meet the bulk of its transportation needs through the 1990s. In the United States, there are 130 million gasoline-powered cars. There are no plants to produce huge quantities of alternative fuels.

The real question, then, is not whether gasoline can be replaced--we don’t think it can--but whether the emission levels of the internal-combustion engine can be reduced to satisfy the Air Resources Board. We think that can be done, at least at the beginning of the board’s program.

Why? The success of a “reformulated” gasoline called EC-1, introduced by Arco last September in Southern California, holds out the promise of even greater progress in developing a cleaner burning fuel.

The EC-1 (Emission Control-1) recipe does several things: It eliminates lead, reduces vapor pressure, cuts the sulfur and aromatics--chiefly benzene--and replaces them with alkylates and oxygenates. The resulting mixture burns measurably cleaner in older cars and trucks that do not have catalytic converters. If all such vehicles in the Los Angeles Basin switched to EC-1, air pollutants would be cut by at least 350 tons a day.

This past session of Congress, Arco introduced the idea of reformulated gasoline. Before then, reformulated gasoline was not part of President Bush’s clean-air package. But after we announced EC-1 and local government officials confirmed the accuracy of our research and test findings, it became one of the President’s and Congress’ clean-fuel options. It is also an option included in the Air Resources Board program.

We hope to convert all our gasoline lines--both regular and premium unleaded--into “emission control” fuels. The capital commitment would be $2 billion over the next five years.

But the real issue is whether reformulated gasoline will make a significant difference for newer vehicles with advanced engineering and catalytic converters. The news here is good. Preliminary Arco studies indicate that tailpipe hydrocarbon emissions in these cars are cut by 12%, carbon monoxide by 22% and nitrogen oxides by 3%. That is potentially a major reduction in air pollution.

This promising result may be frustrated, however, if legislation currently before Congress and regulations being considered by the Air Quality District are adopted. These would severely limit permits for refining modifications by declaring them to be potentially unacceptable “new sources” of pollution, even though the changes may result in cleaner-burning fuels. These proposals would also make it difficult, if not impossible, to construct other alternative-fuel plants.

California leads the nation in searching for clean-air solutions. Its continued success depends on innovative research and new-product development. All possible options must be considered. Reformulated gasoline is one. It should be available to every driver in California as a practical step toward cleaner air for all.