‘Big Green’ Seen Costing L.A. Big Bucks

Proposition 128, the sweeping environmental initiative on the November ballot, could cost the city of Los Angeles $6 billion or more to implement if approved by voters, according to a report by the city’s chief legislative analyst.

The report, obtained by The Times, said the preliminary estimates are “likely to understate the actual cost” of complying over the next 15 to 20 years with the initiative’s requirements to clean up smog-producing Department of Water and Power plants.

The study is one of the few independent estimates of the potential costs of the initiative, labeled “Big Green” by its proponents, and is likely to add new fuel to the emotional debate over the financial impact of the measure.

Opponents of Proposition 128 have estimated its total cost to California taxpayers at $6 billion to $12 billion, with the cost to business and industry many billions of dollars more.

But supporters of the ballot measure say those estimates are wildly inflated and they insist there will be no negative financial impact if Proposition 128 is approved.

The report by William McCarley, chief legislative analyst for the city of Los Angeles, said that other city departments such as Sanitation, General Services, Street Maintenance, Harbor and Airports also would likely face significant costs in complying with the measure.

If the estimates prove accurate, the expenditures could lead to significant increases in water, power and sewer rates, city officials said.

The exact price tag is difficult to determine and is subject to widely differing interpretations and assumptions on how the initiative would be implemented and enforced, McCarley said. But he added that one thing is certain: The final cost “will have lots of zeros, commas and a dollar sign out front . . . it’s going to cost a hell of a lot.”

Cliff Gladstein of the Yes on Big Green committee called the DWP cost estimates “crazy” and said they are based on improbable assumptions. “They are taking the worst-case scenario,” he said. “It’s possible utilities will not be affected at all,” said Gladstein.

After the legislative analyst’s initial report was produced in April, the city’s new Department of Environmental Affairs was ordered to conduct a more complete study that is scheduled to be completed by Sept. 26.

Lilian Kawasaki, general manager of the Environmental Affairs Department, said she still does not have final figures from several of the most important departments, including DWP, Sanitation and Engineering. Other departments, she said, expect a minimal impact or found the effects of Big Green too difficult to quantify, Kawasaki said.

Dan Waters, acting general manager of the DWP, said the final results will not be that much different from the April report by the legislative analyst.

The DWP’s latest analysis “will lower the numbers a little, but they are still of the same magnitude,” said Waters. “We’re still well into the billions,” he said.

McCarley agreed that the potential costs would remain high. “I would not expect the departments to reduce their numbers,” McCarley said.

John Stodder, Mayor Tom Bradley’s chief aide on environmental matters, questioned the accuracy of the high estimates.

“Some department’s are laying out doomsday scenarios,” said Stodder. “Department heads are likely to give the worst possible scenario. That’s what they do with any new regulation,” Stodder said.

“But if it passes, they’ll find a way to make it work,” he said.

Bradley, who has become more active on environmental issues in recent months, has not yet taken a position on Big Green, while awaiting the Department of Environmental Affairs study, Stodder said.

But the mayor “is in harmony” with the major provisions of the initiative, Stodder said. The City Council is considering a resolution to support the measure, but that act is also being delayed by the pending report.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors already is on record in opposition to Big Green, as is the Metropolitan Water District and a host of business groups including some major utilities.

The measure is sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) and is supported by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and many other politicians and environmental groups.

Big Green is a comprehensive measure that would attempt to regulate pollution, toxic emissions, water quality and ensure preservation of natural resources. It also would control use of pesticides on food crops and establish an office of a state environmental advocate. The measure would ban use of known cancer-causing chemicals and require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Most of the cost to the DWP is for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Those fumes are believed to contribute to global warming and other environmental damage. To reduce emissions, many of the DWP’s power plants would have to be retrofitted to burn cleaner fuels and capture more pollutants.

Stodder, of the mayor’s office, said the impact of the measure would depend on “how it is implemented, how it is interpreted, and it depends on how it is enforced.”

And, Stodder said, if Big Green does not pass, there will still be new costs for environmental cleanups that are expected to be ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

“A lot of Big Green may be mandated anyway,” said Stodder.

But Waters, of the DWP, said that his department’s analysis factors out the overlapping regulations. The multibillion-dollar price tag the DWP is placing on Big Green is exclusive of any other requirements, he said.