Senate Revolt Predicted to Bolster Clean Air Bill : Environment: Both Wilson and Cranston say they will seek to restore provisions deleted by negotiators. They admit they face an uphill fight.

Maintaining that the nation’s dirtiest cities need tougher pollution controls, a group of dissenting senators led by California’s Pete Wilson and Alan Cranston said Friday they will introduce legislation to restore some of the stringent provisions deleted from the compromise clean air bill crafted by Senate and White House negotiators earlier this week.

The senators conceded they may face an uphill fight, given an agreement by the White House and the Senate leadership to oppose any attempts to alter the key elements of the bipartisan compromise announced on Thursday.

But Wilson, announcing plans to introduce an amendment to strengthen the bill’s clean fuels program, said there were “a great many senators who will join us in this” and predicted that a floor revolt against the compromise will have “considerable” support.

“The overwhelming majority of senators are not committed to what they (the negotiators) accomplished,” said Cranston, adding that a broad coalition of Western, Northeastern and Midwestern senators was likely to support changes in the bill.

Any serious attempt to challenge the clean air accord would put Wilson, the Republican candidate for governor of California, on another of his occasional collision courses with the White House. Wilson recently incurred the wrath of White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu when he voted to override a presidential veto of a measure that would have placed severe restrictions on the joint development of a fighter plane with Japan.

It would also represent a slap in the face to Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), who invested enormous amounts of both time and prestige in crafting a compromise that bridges the deep regional and ideological divisions that for the past 10 years have prevented clean air legislation from coming to the Senate floor.

“This has really been Mitchell’s show from the beginning. He worked extremely hard on this, to the point where it has become his first major test as majority leader,” a Senate staffer close to the clean air talks said.

In agreeing to some of the changes sought by the Administration, Mitchell and the Senate subcommittee that drafted the bill neutralized the threat of a filibuster that would have been mounted by a loose coalition of Republicans and Democrats representing the auto, oil and coal-mining industries, among other business interests. They also eliminated the threat of a veto by President Bush, who believed the Senate bill would cost too much to implement.

To accommodate the conflicting interests, the negotiators drafted complex formulas to reduce automobile emissions, regulate the release of toxic chemicals and lower the emission of acid-rain causing sulfur dioxide by coal-burning utilities.

Also included in the bill is an alternative fuels program that would mandate the development and use of automotive fuels at least three times as clean as conventional gasoline in Los Angeles and eight other urban areas that have the worst smog problems in the country.

Defending it as the best deal than can pass the Senate, Mitchell said the compromise “dramatically expands clean air laws in the most cost-effective manner.”

Specifically, the bill would:

--Lower the emissions of smog-causing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides from automobile tailpipes by 22% and 60% respectively over a three-year period beginning in 1993, with a second round of 50% emission cuts taking effect in 2003 if 12 or more cities with serious pollution problems have not met federal clean air standards by the end of 2001.

--Require industries to control the emissions of 191 toxic chemicals with the “best available technology,” taking cost into account, by 1997, with the National Academy of Sciences to assess the remaining risks to health and the need for further controls after that date.

--Require Midwestern utilities to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons by the year 2000, with a cap at 1980 levels after that, with some relaxation of the restrictions and extra “pollution credits” for utilities that use specific cleanup technologies or lower emissions below the required level.

--Mandate the use of reformulated gasoline in nine cities with the worst smog by 1995, but allow California to proceed with its own, much stricter alternative fuels program.

Wilson’s clean fuels amendment would allow other states to immediately adopt the so-called “California-New York Alternative” based on a California program that requires the production of 150,000 clean-fuel vehicles in 1994, 300,000 in 1995 and 400,000 in 1996. Any of various alternative fuels could be used as long as they meet emissions standards twice as strict as those required in the Senate bill for conventionally fueled cars.

Besides Wilson and Cranston, other senators supporting the amendment include Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo.), Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), two dissident members of the Senate subcommittee that wrote the bill, are also expected to support the measure.

Lautenberg and Lieberman, who refused to support the compromise, plan to introduce amendments to strengthen the automobile and air toxics provisions of the bill.

A Wilson aide said the senator was unsure whether the Senate leadership would regard the alternative fuels proposal as a “killer amendment” aimed at cracking the compromise, which is so delicately crafted that it could all fall apart if any of its components is changed. If that turns out to be the case, then Mitchell and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) will muster their forces to defeat it.

However, other sources said there were already indications that the compromise may be starting to crumble because of dissatisfaction with the bill among a number of senators.

“The two leaders seem to think that the hard part is over, but in truth it may only just be beginning,” one Senate aide said.

UNDER FIRE: THE CLEAN AIR COMPROMISE

Although criticized by environmentalists as too weak to help Los Angeles and other badly polluted urban areas clean up their air, the compromise crafted by Senate and White House negotiators substantially strengthens current clean air laws. Here is a comparison: AUTOMOTIVE EMISSIONS: Current Law: Restricts automobile tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, the precursers of urban smog, to 0.41 gram per mile (gpm) for hydrocarbons and 1.0 gpm for nitrogen oxides (NOx). Senate/White House Compromise: Reduces hydrocarbon emissions to .25 gpm and NOx emissions to .4 gpm by 1995, with further reductions of 50% for both pollutants in the year 2003 if 12 or more cities currently classified as having “serious” pollution problems are not in attainment by the end of 2001. ALTERNATIVE FUELS: Current Law: No provision for alternative fuels in current law. Senate/White House Compromise: Requires reformulated gasoline or similarly clean fuels to be used in cars sold in nine cities with the worst smog by 1994. Similar regulations would also apply to fleet vehicles, starting in 1995. ACID RAIN: Current Law: No provisions for acid rain control currently in effect. Senate/White House Compromise: Requires 107 polluting utilities in the Midwest and Southeast to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons in the year 2000, when emission levels would be capped at 1980 levels. Utilities also would cut NOx emissions by 4 million tons by 2005.

An”allowance” system would let utilities reducing emissions below the required levels sell “pollution credits” to others. Special incentives would also be granted to utilities to use clean coal technology known as “scrubbers.” AIR TOXICS: Current Law: Imposes controls on the emissions of seven chemicals classified as toxic, but enforcement has been lax. Senate/White House Compromise: Requires industry to use best available technology, taking cost into account, to control emissions of 191 air toxics by 1997.

EPA could impose additional health-based standards after that, depending on the results of a risk assessment study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences.