COLUMN ONE : Smog War Faces Hazy Prospects : The Southland is unlikely to meet its clean-air goals by 2010, the target date. Observers point fingers at the AQMD, the agency overseeing the effort, for being too optimistic and too willing to compromise.

Two years after approval of a far-reaching strategy to restore blue skies to the smoggy South Coast Air Basin by the year 2010, there is a growing consensus among environmentalists, business executives, government officials and air quality regulators themselves that the goal cannot be met.

Despite some early successes, they say it will be highly unlikely that federal clean air standards can be achieved by the deadline because of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s uneven performance since 1989 and the formidable political pressures and technological challenges the district still faces.

“I don’t think we’ll have healthful air in our lifetime unless there’s a much more aggressive program by the AQMD,” said Jan Chatten-Brown, president of the Coalition for Clean Air, a private environmental advocacy group.

“(The AQMD) won’t do it. I think that’s pretty safe to say,” predicted Doug Henderson, executive director of the Western States Petroleum Assn., which represents oil companies and associated industries.

Echoing those viewpoints, AQMD Chairman Norton Younglove for the first time concedes, “I think what we’ll do probably is come very close rather than meet (the deadline).”

Prospects seemed far brighter when the AQMD--established by the state Legislature in 1977 to regulate air quality in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties--announced its battle plan to clean the smog-stained skies.

The district pledged a new kind of war on smog, one that would move beyond the traditional regulatory targets--smokestack industries and automobile tailpipes--to involve commuters, small businesses and high technology as never before. Cities and counties would be held accountable for minimizing the smog-inducing effects of growth and development.

Clean electric cars would replace polluting gasoline and diesel vehicles. State-of-the-art smog control equipment--much of it yet to be invented--would make industries cleaner than ever. Consumer products would be reformulated to spew out fewer smog-forming chemicals.

Fading Optimism

But optimism over the plan faded for a number of reasons:

* Environmentalists say the AQMD has too easily compromised with polluters to water down new air pollution controls.

* The California Energy Commission says the plan’s success was based partly on “extremely optimistic” estimates of future energy conservation advances.

* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and environmentalists sharply question the plan’s assumption that up to 80% of commuters will abandon their cars in favor of car-pooling, mass transit, shorter workweeks and telecommuting. “The 80% goal is very heroic. That’s saying it rather kindly,” Deputy EPA Regional Administrator John C. Wise said. That view is shared privately by some staffers with the Southern California Assn. of Governments--which developed the figure and co-wrote parts of the plan.

* State and federal air pollution authorities warn that a raft of new smog rules drafted by the AQMD to implement the plan could be far less effective in cutting emissions than intended because they are confusing and poorly written.

* Business interests contend that the AQMD’s clean-air goal relies heavily on unproven technological advances such as smog-free vehicles and ultra-low polluting paints and solvents.

* Relations are strained between the AQMD and local governments on which the AQMD depends for 15% of smog reductions envisioned by the plan. Less than half of the 142 cities and counties in the 6,600-square-mile basin have a definite plan for fulfilling their obligations.

Faced with such concerns, AQMD officials recently began talking about a 2010 deadline--three years later than the original target date established in 1987. Optimistically, they now predict that air quality still will improve significantly--even if the later deadline is not met.

“You’re going to see air that by L.A. standards is unbelievably good before the year 2000,” said AQMD planning director Barry R. Wallerstein.

Compared to the eye-stinging smog sieges of a decade ago, there already are fewer days when the air violates federal limits for ozone, the health-threatening pollutant that contributes to respiratory disease and reduces lung capacity and the body’s ability to ward off disease. The violations that do occur are shorter and less severe.

Some Successes

On the technological front, there have been some promising developments.

Several oil companies have introduced cleaner-burning gasolines. General Motors and Ford are poised to start building several thousand electric cars in a few years. Tailpipe emission standards approved by the state Air Resources Board are expected to lead to new generations of low-polluting cars that will hit the road in mid-1994.

Southern California Edison Co. earlier this month announced a breakthrough that could lead to cheap, pollution-free photovoltaic cells that could be installed on new homes and could cut electric bills by a third.

Ride-sharing is increasing. A survey of 74 major firms complying with the AQMD’s ride-sharing rule found that the program resulted in 81,000 fewer round trips daily.

But these efforts, although encouraging, fall short of what ultimately will be needed.

Consider the problem:

Last year, the four-county region violated the federal ozone standard 137 days, far outdistancing the 17 days of violations reported by the second-smoggiest major urban area in the country--New York/New Jersey.

Population pressures could make things worse. In the next 17 years, the basin’s population of 12 million is expected to grow by 37%--enough new people to fill the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth.

“It compounds a problem beyond our wildest imagination,” said Wise of the EPA. The burgeoning population will bring a 47% increase in jobs and housing, a 35% jump in motor vehicles and a 40% increase in trips.

In the last two years alone, the number of miles driven actually increased 13%--but the plan envisions mileage rolled back to 1984 levels by 2010.

Miscalculations

To meet the deadline, every man, woman and child would have to produce 87% less pollution than individuals do today, partly to compensate for population growth.

Clearly, the district miscalculated when it drafted its clean-air plan two years ago.

In 1989, it said all cars would be electric-powered by 2010. Now, it believes only 17% will be electric.

The AQMD underestimated smog-forming reactive organic gases by 10%--somewhat akin to overlooking the emissions from every big diesel truck and small and medium-size gasoline truck in the basin. The district failed to take emissions from automobile refinishing shops and oil refinery tanks into account.

It underestimated by a third emissions of microscopic dust and chemical particles that cause the brown haze on smoggy days, and its prediction of a 30% savings in energy conservation through reduced use of electricity and natural gas was wildly off the mark. Instead, it expects only a 15% savings by residential and commercial users and 5% by industry by 2010.

One district official admitted that the AQMD exaggerated the benefits of new smog controls. “There are probably overestimations in (hoped-for) emission reductions. . . . We won’t meet the standard by 2010,” the executive said.

In some cases, said the AQMD, better computer models not initially available produced the later, more reliable figures. In other instances, the district admitted it either failed to consult experts or simply overlooked polluters.

There have been other problems. The state Air Resources Board has ordered the AQMD to rewrite new smog rules that were poorly drafted the first time around. “We’re kicking them back hand over fist,” said a ranking official of the state board, which must sign off on the rules.

For instance, a major new smog rule adopted last year covering power-plant boilers was ordered rewritten because it would not cut smog enough and could not be enforced.

The AQMD insists that most problems with rules were insignificant drafting errors. Executive officer James M. Lents dismissed the criticism as a “gross exaggeration.” In any case, 48 additional smog controls proposed this year should help close the gap. Unexpected benefits like cleaner-burning gasoline also will help.

The district can hope for technological miracles.

The AQMD’s Office of Technology Advancement has budgeted $6.82 million in matching funds to finance private industry research into better and cheaper ways to control smog, ranging from low-pollution water heaters to converting diesel buses to run on cleaner-burning methanol.

Just as important to the district’s success, however, will be its ability to forge alliances that can withstand the inevitable political and economic pressures ahead.

Clearly, the AQMD has a legal mandate to lead the fight for better air. But if it imposes too great a burden on businesses or individuals, its leadership could be jeopardized.

So far, the AQMD’s response has been uneven when someone objects to its proposals.

At times, AQMD officials act as crusaders, flailing away at what Lents calls “powerful economic interests” that put “profit over public health.” At other times, they bob and weave to accommodate big business.

Gladys Meade, environmental health director of the American Lung Assn. of California, calls such behavior “almost schizophrenic.”

Before Lents took over the district in 1987, relations with business were hardly antagonistic. In fact, environmentalists and lawmakers criticized the AQMD for having a cozy relationship with polluters and for its lax enforcement of smog rules.

State Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside) held numerous hearings on the AQMD’s performance. The Air Resources Board, which oversees the AQMD, issued a stinging report on the district’s failings in 1987.

Attorney Robert Wyman, who represents a variety of businesses before the AQMD, said the legislative hearings were “political pressure in its explicit form.” The hearings, which spanned three years, stiffened the district’s backbone and resulted in new authority for the AQMD.

Soon, business leaders were criticizing Lents as an air quality “zealot.” One oil industry executive said the AQMD boss appeared to be “on a mission from God.”

Chafing under increasingly stringent smog controls, businesses of all sizes have joined with labor unions to challenge AQMD proposals as too costly. The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce spearheaded a drive to require the AQMD to give more weight to the socioeconomic costs of its regulations.

All this has left AQMD officials chastened--and decidedly more pragmatic.

“I think the district, given enough pressure and enough encouragement and enough push here and there, will move back from some positions they have taken,” chamber president Ray Remy said.

Although admitting he has to “compromise some,” Lents said the concessions do not affect long-range objectives.

Back-Room Deal?

Nowhere was the AQMD’s dilemma in balancing competing interests more evident than in its handling of the power-plant boiler rule last year.

The Southern California Edison Co. complained that the rule would cost it nearly $1 billion over 20 years.

To win Edison’s support, Lents and utility executives met secretly to forge a compromise even as they waged a noisy argument in public. In the end, Edison was given more time to comply, cutting its compliance costs by $300 million--and Lents won the utility’s backing of the 20-year clean-air strategy.

But the Air Resources Board calculated that the compromise would achieve a third less emission reductions and ordered it rewritten.

“This was definitely a back-room deal,” charged Chatten-Brown of the clean-air coalition.

The Edison compromise set the tone for later agreements with other industries.

Confronted by intense lobbying, the district watered down controls on toxic air pollutants and extended concessions to the aerospace industry on the use of certain paints and coatings. Faced with protests from car rental agencies, it delayed a rule requiring fleet operators to purchase cars that run on cleaner-burning alternative fuels.

Even so, the district has pushed through a number of innovative smog controls, including pollution limits on all new or expanding businesses in the basin. The controls require these firms to reduce not only the pollution they produce but some percentage of what is caused by others. To do that, they can either pay for controls placed on other polluters or purchase so-called emission credits from companies that cut smog more than required.

In some other areas, the AQMD has little or no authority to regulate the source of pollution and must rely on cooperation from other agencies.

Strained Relations

About 15% of all emission reductions depend on cities and counties. Another 30% depend on the cooperation of the Air Resources Board, which is responsible for regulating motor vehicle emissions and consumer products ranging from hair sprays to household cleaners.

The AQMD’s relations with local and state agencies have been tense.

“It’s not all sweetness and light. There are strains and we try to work them out,” said Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

“The concern is local control, especially as it relates to land use. That has a direct impact on quality of life and tax-base issues in each community,” said Burbank Mayor Tom Flavin, a frequent critic of the district.

The AQMD says the concerns are groundless. “Those people who were ready to pounce and jump on us for usurping local government are totally misreading the agency,” Lents insists.

Nonetheless, Los Angeles County and the California Building Industry Assn. persuaded Sen. Cecil N. Green (D-Norwalk) to introduce legislation this year that would strip the AQMD and other air quality districts of their authority to deny emission permits to new housing developments, regional shopping centers, airports and stadiums unless they meet air quality regulations.

Environmentalists said the district should have been doing more to build its political bridges.

“They haven’t done enough to court the local political Establishment,” said Veronica Kun of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Former Santa Monica City Council member Christine Reed observed, “(AQMD officials) have this attitude: ‘We have the power. We have the will. And we’re going to do it.’ You could make a rap song out of it.”

City Planning

Fewer than half of the 142 cities and counties in the basin take air quality into account in their planning, primarily because of limited funds and staff. The record could improve, however, for two reasons.

First, the Legislature last year approved a $4 surcharge on motor vehicle registration renewal fees to finance local governments’ air quality planning costs. The fee will raise $5 million this year and, when fully implemented, $10 million four years from now.

Second, there is concern that the AQMD will impose its own constraints on local actions if cities fail to act. Until now, the AQMD has limited its intervention in local planning decisions to offering advice on some local developments.

“That’s the gorilla in the closet,” said Anne Baker, environmental planning director with the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

Some environmentalists say that, at minimum, the district should do more to influence decisions in such crucial areas as transportation planning, which significantly affects air quality.

“Even in situations where they ought to have a seat at the table . . . I don’t see the AQMD down at the Los Angeles Transportation Commission and the RTD raising questions and concerns,” said Mary Nichols, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Just as the AQMD’s relations strained, there was a notable lack of communication with state agencies as the plan was drafted.

State energy commission chairman Charles M. Imbrecht said that because the district virtually ignored his commission and the state Public Utilities Commission in creating its energy scenarios, it erred in calculating air quality gains from energy conservation.

“The AQMD has not worked as collaboratively as well as they might,” Imbrecht said. He added that cooperation has since improved.

Although the state air board and the AQMD have collaborated closely on rules, senior Air Resources Board officials have been miffed at the district for “hyping” its own accomplishments while minimizing their role in pushing through the world’s toughest automobile smog controls and limits on smog-forming emissions from consumer products.

Effect on Businesses

In an effort to build support, the district recently organized an intergovernmental council to improve communication with city halls and formed other committees to consult with business representatives, environmentalists and other government agencies. Two staffers were hired as full-time liaisons with local government.

Meanwhile, just as its efforts with those groups are intensifying, the AQMD must increase its dealings with two other constituencies that until now have been virtually untouched by air quality regulation--small businesses and individual citizens.

About 60,000 small businesses will be affected by future smog-fighting rules.

Professional gardeners already have protested limits on dust-stirring leaf blowers. Restaurants have complained about requirements for filters and other equipment to capture emissions from their grills. Service station owners will likely fight plans for a tougher Smog Check program that would require expensive new testing equipment.

“The impact of these rules on small business--and by definition this means in large part minority business--has got to be dealt with,” AQMD board member Larry Berg said.

Some AQMD supporters worry that the district has come off as a heavy with small businesses, which typically lack the money, staff and expertise to deal with the bureaucracy.

So far, no one can agree on the effects of air quality rules on businesses in the basin. Furniture makers and auto repainters, for example, have complained that air-pollution controls are driving them away. But by most accounts, the few that have left cited labor costs as the deciding factor.

With all of this opposition, the AQMD does have one important ally in the fight--a public concerned about dirty air.

“They still enjoy a lot of political support, and they enjoy it because of the fact that people want clean air. Most politicians are savvy enough to understand that,” said Imbrecht of the energy commission.

But as smog controls become more stringent, maintaining goodwill may be more difficult.

For example, a move last year by Los Angeles County to charge its workers monthly parking fees ranging from $55 to $225 for lots that once were free sparked demonstrations. One employee union has made the controversy a rallying cry in upcoming contract negotiations.

“Californians have shown a willingness not to incinerate in their back yards. They’re willing to pay more for unleaded gas. But one thing people in L.A. have not been willing to do is substantially change their lifestyles,” warns Joel S. Moskowitz, a Los Angeles attorney whose firm represents a wide range of businesses in disputes with the AQMD.

Keeping air quality at the top of the public agenda may not be easy.

Other problems facing Southern California demand attention, among them crime, traffic congestion and population growth.

“Is air quality the overriding public policy issue in Southern California?” asks Pisano of the Southern California Assn. of Governments. “I think that’s a real fundamental policy issue.”

If the region’s priorities shift, the AQMD will have to be far more innovative in keeping the basin headed toward clean air.

The AQMD has signaled a willingness to do so. Its latest plan revision raises the prospect of a radical shift from traditional controls on polluters to a highly flexible system that relies on market incentives. Under the proposal, businesses could either reduce their own emissions or buy credits from other firms that have reduced pollution more than required.

Strongly backed by leading oil, aerospace, utility and communications businesses, the idea is attracting widespread attention from environmentalists and academics.

Though promising, it is also fraught with problems. Not least among them, environmentalists caution, is how a market incentive program would be monitored and enforced to assure that reductions were actually realized.

Whether air in the four-county basin can be cleaned by the beginning of the next century will take resolve and imagination--and no small amount of luck.

If the region fails, the federal Clean Air Act empowers the EPA to impose its own clean-air plan on the basin, a plan that could be far more Draconian than the AQMD’s.

To get the job done, both critics and supporters say, the AQMD must convince competing interests--environmentalists, organized labor, businesses and other government agencies--that the sacrifices are worth it. The district must offer not only a vision for the future, but a plan that is realistic enough to be believed, tough enough to be effective and politically shrewd enough not to alienate the public or drive businesses out of the region.

“It’s not an easy process,” Lents said. “It’s going to take significant changes. We’ve never kidded people about that. It’s going to take all of our wits. . . . If we have anything to do with it, we will.”

BACKGROUND

The AQMD enforces federal, state and regional air pollution laws in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The district regulates all stationary pollution sources while the state Air Resources Board regulates motor vehicle smog. The AQMD oversees “direct” pollution sources such as oil refineries and power plants, and “indirect” sources such as regional shopping centers that may not pollute themselves, but attract motor vehicles that do. The AQMD may deny operating permits to direct polluters but has far less power over indirect sources. Thus far, the AQMD has limited itself to advising cities and counties on how development affects air quality to convince local officials to voluntarily reduce the impact. But the district could adopt tougher procedures if voluntary measures fail. Already, the AQMD strictly regulates businesses employing more than 100 workers, requiring them to offer employees incentives to use public transit or share rides.

THE DANGERS OF MAN-MADE OZONE

* Number of Air Standard Violations per Year

Of all the air pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin, ozone is the most worrisome. While at high altitudes ozone protects life on the planet from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, at lower altitudes it is a health-threatening air pollutant. It contributes to respiratory illness, reduced lung capacity, and can impede the body’s immune system. It is especially troublesome for young children, the elderly, and sensitive people of all ages. Ozone also damages trees, crops and building materials. Peak ozone levels the South Coast Air Basin are the highest in the nation.

10 urban areas in the U.S. with the most days per year in violation of the federal health standard for ozone pollution. Annual average for the 1987-89 reporting period.

1. South Coast Air Basin: 137.5 days

2. Bakersfield: 44.2 days

3. Fresno: 24.3 days

4. New York-New Jersey: 17.4 days

5. Sacramento: 15.8 days

6. Chicago: 13.0 days

7. San Diego: 12.3 days

8. Houston-Galveston: 12.2 days

9. Baltimore: 10.7 days

10. Boston: 10.0 days

* What Is Ozone?

Ozone is a colorless, sharp-smelling, highly reactive gas that is the main component of smog. It is formed by a chemical reaction of two principal air pollutants--nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases--in the presence of sunlight. The pollutant reaches peak levels mid-afternoon and is usually carried inland by sea breezes. Ozone levels in the Los Angeles Basin are sometimes three times higher than the federal standard. An inversion layer of warm air traps ozone in the basin.

* South Coast Air Basin

Ozone pollution is a problem in most major urban areas. But the South Coast Air Basin has the worst problem in America. Over the years, ozone pollution has gone down, but peak levels (see chart) are still the highest in the nation--three times over than the federal standard. The basin also exceeds the standard an average of 137 days a year, more than any other region. Map below shows the number of days a year sections of the basin exceeded the federal ozone standard.

* Smog Alerts in the South Coast Basin

Here are the number of days each year that the South Coast Air Basin had first- and second-stage smog alerts and the number of days state and federal standards were violated.

* State standard: .09 ppm

* Federal standard: .12 ppm

* First stage smog alert: .20 ppm

* Second stage smog alert: .35 ppm

* Third stage smog alert: .50 ppm

ppm=part per million

1st stage 2nd stage Days exceeding Days exceeding Year alerts alerts federal standards state standard 1976 102 7 194 237 1977 121 11 208 242 1978 116 23 187 217 1979 120 17 191 226 1980 101 15 167 210 1981 99 5 180 222 1982 63 2 149 191 1983 84 3 152 190 1984 97 0 173 207 1985 83 7 158 206 1986 79 1 164 217 1987 66 0 160 196 1988 77 1 178 216 1989 54 0 157 211 1990 41 0 130 180

Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Southern California Assn. of Governments and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

AQMD’S ROAD AHEAD

The plans, key obstacles and key players in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s quest to clean Southern California’s air: THE AQMD GOALS

The South Coast Air Quality Basin will not meet federal clean air standards for various pollutants as early as proposed in 1989. Here are the new target dates.

* Dec. 31, 2000 (Four-year delay): Nitrogen dioxide . Reduces visibility, lung capacity and contributes to acid fog and immune deficiencies. The four-county basin is the only area in the United States that does not meet the federal standard.

* Dec. 31, 2000 (Three-year delay): Carbon monoxide. Robs the blood of oxygen and can cause dizziness and fatigue. Motor vehicles are by far the biggest source. Levels in the basin are twice the federal and state standards.

* Dec. 31, 2010 (Three-year delay): Ozone. Reduces lung capacity, aggravates respiratory illness, impedes the human immune system and damages trees, crops and building material. This pollutant makes up 95% of the basin’s smog, and is formed in the presence of sunlight by emissions of nitrogen oxides, which are products of fuel combustion, and volatile organic compounds such as fumes from gasoline, paint and aerosol propellants. Ozone levels in the basin are nearly three times the federal standard.

THE ROADBLOCKS

Three key challenges facing AQMD .

* Commuters: Getting solo commuters to change their habits. There are doubts over SCAG’s estimate that 80% of commuters will opt for mass transit, car-pooling, shorter workweeks and telecommuting by 2010.

* Industry: Can be counted on to continue fighting new smog controls, which it often considers too costly.

* Local Governments: Growth and development are the lifeblood of cities and counties that want to broaden their tax base. But growth-induced air pollution is a big problem. So far, however, fewer than half of the basin’s 144 cities and counties have taken any steps to fight smog. They fear the AQMD wants to usurp local land use authority.

THE KEY PLAYERS

Here are the key players that shape the air pollution battle in the South Coast Air Basin:

* Environmentalists: Generally push for tougher controls. Often oppose attempts to compromise differences between the need for clean air and the cost borne by industry in complying with smog rules.

* Industry: Believes that some AQMD goals are illusory because they rely on unproven technological advances and pose unacceptable costs. Some business leaders warn of job and capital flight due to excessive regulations.

* Regulators: AQMD, state and federal regulators must by law bring the smoggy South Coast Air Basin into compliance with all federal and state clean air standards. The task is so daunting that they are adopting stringent new smog controls that push technology to its limits, and sometimes beyond. Small businesses never before regulated are also targeted for the first time, as are many consumer products.

* Local governments: Between them, cities and counties are expected to take steps to offset the growth-induced air pollution they create by approving new developments like regional shopping centers and residential tracts. Some local politicians are suspicious of the AQMD and worry that it will intrude on the last prerogative of cities and counties--control over land use.

AIR QUALITY AGENCIES

Key agencies in the air quality equation: * AQMD: The South Coast Air Quality Management District was established by the state Legislature in 1977, incorporating and expanding on the functions of the 30-year-old Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District and similar agencies in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The agency has an annual budget of $102 million and a staff of 1,113.

* ARB: The California Air Resources Board chiefly sets motor vehicle emission standards. California’s, the nation’s toughest, has been copied by several states. The ARB also monitors AQMD’s performance, and must approve the district’s clean air plan. It has an annual budget of $95 million and a staff of 800.

* SCAG: Southern California Assn. of Governments is a voluntary planning council composed of mayors, city council members and county supervisors from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial counties. Established in the mid-1960s, SCAG’s strength is its exhaustive research and analysis of detailed economic and demographic forecasts. Its findings are incorporated into long-range regional plans dealing with transportation, air and water quality, housing needs and growth management. It has little power to implement its findings.

* EPA: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, established in 1970 by Congress to address the nation’s environmental problems, must approve the AQMD’s clean air plan after it is reviewed and approved by the ARB. It has authority to impose additional controls on the basin if the regional plan falls short. The agency also conducts research on the effects of pollution and assists state and local environmental agencies.