Lawmakers Seek to Stall Smog Plan : Environment: Three state legislators ask the Air Resources Board to delay requirement that oil companies must sell a minimum amount of cleaner fuels.

Declaring that the state Air Resources Board may be acting without authority, legislative leaders have urged the agency to delay key elements of a far-reaching plan to require a new generation of low-emission cars for California.

First unveiled in December, the program for low-emission vehicles and clean fuel would set the course for smog controls on California vehicles well into the 21st Century. It is a cornerstone of efforts by Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties to comply with federal clean air standards by 2007.

But, in virtually identical letters, Assembly Speaker Willie L. Brown Jr. (D-San Francisco), Assembly Republican Leader Ross Johnson of La Habra and state Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno urged the ARB to delay a major provision requiring oil companies to meet monthly sales quotas for alternative fuels that will be used to power future ultra-low-emission cars.

“The proposed regulations raise a series of major policy issues which we believe deserve legislative review,” the three legislators said in letters to ARB Chairwoman Jananne Sharpless.

Copies of the letters, two of which were dated Aug. 30 and one Aug. 31, were obtained Thursday by The Times. The ARB is scheduled to vote on the proposal Sept. 27 in Los Angeles.

The strongly worded letters came after extensive lobbying by Arco Products Co. President George H. Babikian. Arco confirmed Thursday that it drafted the letters signed by the lawmakers.

Sharpless’ office said she has not replied and has made no decision on whether to comply. The ARB staff has said it believes the board has authority to impose the fuel mandates without additional legislative approval. But the full Legislature has the power to change laws governing the clean-fuels program.

Environmentalists and regional air quality officials worry that a delay in the September vote could endanger the quota plan and spark further reassesment of the ARB’s program.

State Energy Commission chairman Charles R. Imbrecht called the sales quotas a “critical component” of the total package and said he advised Sharpless to “tough it out” and resist any legislative opposition.

James M. Lents, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said a short delay would not pose a problem. But he cautioned, “Unfortunately, an initial deferral can often lead to a permanent deferral. I think that would be a major setback.”

Basically, the low-emissions program amounts to putting on the books a new super-strict tailpipe emission standard. Cars would have to be twice as clean as the cleanest conventional-powered gasoline car on the road in 1994.

The ARB staff has acknowledged that there is no way that the new standard can be met with existing smog controls and conventional gasoline.

That means that automobile makers would have to build cars that either had advanced smog controls or ran on cleaner-burning alternative fuels, or some combination.

While the state would leave it up to the automobile industry and oil companies to meet the new standards in any way they could, Babikian said that as a practical matter, methanol is the only alternative to gasoline in the near future.

Oil companies would be required to sell whatever fuel was needed by the low-emission vehicles, such as methanol and compressed natural gas.

In their letters, the lawmakers listed concerns that have been raised over the last several weeks by Babikian. The letters, however, made no mention of Arco or its president.

Babikian met in Sacramento last month with a number of lawmakers, including Brown, as well as Gov. George Deukmejian and Sharpless.

Lawmakers wrote that they were “especially concerned” that oil companies would be required to meet a sales quota for clean fuels. That requirement would take effect in the South Coast Air Basin beginning in 1994, under the ARB proposal.

Arco argues that if drivers have a choice of fuels they will probably buy the cheapest. If methanol was more expensive, Babikian said, gasoline companies would have to raise the price of gasoline in order to subsidize a below-market price for methanol to make it competitive.

“To subsidize methanol in a secret, clandestine way, we think is wrong. . . . A lot of these fuels will have to be subsidized early on to get them started and I think our legislative leaders ought to be willing to do that instead of hiding the subsidy,” Babikian said.

ARB spokesman Bill Sessa said Thursday that the actual increase in gasoline prices would be less than one cent per gallon.

In their letters, the three lawmakers asked: “Should owners of existing gasoline-powered vehicles be forced to pay higher prices for gasoline in order to subsidize more expensive clean fuels. . . ?”

George Dunn, Arco’s manager of government relations and political affairs, said Thursday: “We’ve endorsed the general direction of the ARB regulations. They’ve done an extraordinary job in a very difficult field. But they’ve fallen prey, we think, to a bad idea.

“This is an important enough matter that we think there should be a public debate on the consequences of this decision.”

Several other issues were raised by the lawmakers:

* Should oil companies be required to sell specific quantities of clean fuels when the owners of flexible-fueled vehicles are not required to buy clean fuels?

* Should gasoline service stations be required to sell compressed natural gas, or do space limitations and the estimated cost of $270,000 per station make that impractical?

* Should flexible-fueled vehicles be considered “clean burning” even though they would be allowed to emit twice the quantity of ozone-forming pollutants when they burn conventional gasoline rather than clean-fuel alternatives?

* Should existing methanol pilot programs in the state be given more time to see if they work before the ARB mandates sales of specific types and volumes of fuel?