Tough Pollution Law Expected to Pass : Air quality: The ordinance will require 88% emission reductions at two Southern California Edison power plants.

Ventura County’s toughest air-pollution regulation in history appears headed for adoption Tuesday, despite a year of lobbying, a veiled threat of a lawsuit and a public-relations campaign by the target of the law, Southern California Edison.

A poll of the county Board of Supervisors shows that, barring any startling revelations, the board will unanimously approve the new rule requiring Edison to cut pollutants by at least 88% from its two power plants in Oxnard.

Even an eleventh-hour counterproposal from Edison has not swayed the board from its 11-year path to eliminate most of the pollutants produced by the utility, which constitutes the largest single source of pollution in the county.

“To back off from this rule would send a message to folks that we’re not serious,” said Supervisor Susan K. Lacey. “We have to show that we are willing to make tough decisions to clean up the air.”

If the board stays the course, Tuesday’s action will be a milestone in the county’s efforts to reduce its level of ozone, the primary component of smog, environmentalists and health activists say. The county’s air quality is among the worst in the nation, failing federal health standards 55 days a year and the more stringent state standards 135 days a year.

“It is the single largest step that can be made to clean up the air in Ventura County,” said Jerry Harris, chairman of the American Lung Assn.’s clean air committee in Ventura County. “Ozone is a primary contributor to the lung problems we experience in the county.”

But the new regulation, known as Rule 59, will cost the second largest investor-owned utility in the nation about $210 million to outfit its Ormond Beach and Mandalay Bay power plants with equipment that works like catalytic converters on automobiles.

And on Tuesday, Edison plans to press the Board of Supervisors to accept its latest counterproposal, which would relax the regulation so the company could experiment with newer and cheaper air-pollution technology.

“We are asking the county to give us the opportunity to try advanced technology that will allow us to cut the cost in half,” said Mike Hertel, Edison’s manager of environmental affairs. “We are trying, as always, to keep electric rates as low as we can.”

Yet some air-quality officials consider the counterproposal a last-ditch effort to stall action. They like to point out that Edison has long opposed tighter restrictions on its pollutants and even sued the county over a similar regulation in 1980. The suit resulted in a decade-long delay of tough pollution controls.

They note that the cost of the new restrictions would amount to about 30 cents a month for the average electric bill when spread among Edison’s 4 million customers in Southern California. Supervisors say they believe most county ratepayers would agree that it is a small price to pay for cleaner air.

County officials had feared that Edison would sue if supervisors approved the regulation because of what they considered a veiled threat last September. But Hertel said last week that the power company will not sue the county over Rule 59. “We will abide by the decision of the board,” he said in an interview.

Nevertheless, Hertel said Edison will present its case on Tuesday for reducing emissions by 82%, rather than 88%, so the electric company can try a combination of new technology that would cost between $78 million and $178 million. Although the county disputes the concept, Edison says in the counterproposal that it can cut emissions an additional 4% by paying Ventura County companies to replace gasoline-powered engines with electric motors.

No matter what the technology, the aim is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, which combine with hydrocarbons in sunlight to create ozone.

Nitrogen oxides are a byproduct of power generation that occurs when natural gas or fuel oil is burned at high temperatures. The fuel heats water inside boilers, creating steam to spin the turbines. The turbines, in turn, power generators, which create electricity.

The four steam-generating boilers at Edison’s two Oxnard plants emit an average of 3,083 tons of nitrogen oxides each year. The county’s proposed regulation would require Edison to reduce that to 370 tons by 1996.

The regulation does not specify how Edison must reach that level. But, to date, the only known technology that can reduce emissions by 88% is what is known in the industry as selective catalytic reduction.

Hertel said Edison’s counterproposal would not only be cheaper but would reduce more pollution in the first four years than the regulation would require. He said the less expensive equipment Edison prefers can be installed more quickly.

Furthermore, he said, Edison’s proposal would come close to matching long-term reductions in pollutants.

But Edison’s proposal is unacceptable to the state Air Resources Board, which must approve all air-pollution district regulations before they become enforceable, board officials said.

“The Air Resources Board mandated 90% cuts,” said Bill Sessa, a board spokesman. “The Air Pollution Control District rule accomplishes that, and the Edison plan does not.”

Last week, Richard Baldwin, the county’s top air-pollution control official, recommended that supervisors reject the Edison counterproposal.

The power company’s counterproposal was its most recent attempt to weaken or delay Rule 59, Baldwin said.

In an episode that Baldwin saw as a delaying tactic, Edison officials sent him an internal memo dated Sept. 10, 1990. In it, an Edison lawyer wrote that the county should perform further studies to “avoid possible litigation” over the environmental study of the regulation.

Although Edison officials deny that the correspondence was intended as a threat to sue, Baldwin considered it such and forwarded it to the county counsel.

“They play hardball,” Baldwin said. “They are the toughest opponents that the Air Pollution Control District has.”

Baldwin said Edison has spent heavily to fight the regulation. “They turn loose resources that I cannot begin to dream about,” he said.

Edison has done elaborate computer models that its scientists contend show that nitrogen oxides from its plants do not contribute to Ventura County’s smog.

Baldwin said he cannot match the volume of Edison’s scientific studies. He must rely on the state and federal governments to foot the bill for the county’s computer work.

For the past several weeks, Edison has run radio advertisements touting its environmental programs. With a piano playing soft background music, a woman’s voice says, “For the past three decades, we’ve been engaged in innovative programs to improve air quality. And now we are participating with various county and state agencies who are looking at reducing emissions even further.”

The ads have irritated county air-pollution control officers who have been locked in tough negotiations with Edison managers.

“They are trying to sway public opinion,” said Keith Duval, manager of the county Air Pollution Control District’s rules development division. “They want the public to think that there is really no need for this rule, that Edison can take care of the problems itself.”

But Duval said Edison has a mixed environmental record. Before 1980, Edison’s two power plants released between 6,000 and 8,000 tons of nitrogen oxides in Ventura County every year, he said.

In 1980, the state Air Resources Board adopted rules requiring Edison to cut emissions by 90% in Ventura County and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which includes Los Angeles. Edison sued the state and the air-pollution districts. By 1982, Edison had negotiated a court-ordered settlement that required emissions to be reduced to 4,460 tons per year by 1990 in Ventura County.

“It took a court order to get Edison to reduce their emissions,” Duval said. Since the court order, Edison has reduced 1,500 tons of nitrogen oxides a year beyond what the court ordered, Duval said.

Five years ago, the county resumed its pursuit of a 90% cut in pollutants from the two Oxnard power plants.

All five county supervisors said last week in interviews that they will approve the regulation unless Edison offers new and persuasive arguments.

Supervisor Vicky Howard of Simi Valley, who represents the county’s smoggiest area, said Edison would have to bring a stronger package to the board on Tuesday to change her mind.

“I always have to vote in favor of clean air,” Howard said. “This is an opportunity for the biggest polluter in Ventura County to clean up the air.”

Supervisor Maria E. VanderKolk said she will pay careful attention to Edison’s pitch. “I’ll listen to the testimony,” VanderKolk said. “But the negotiations have been going on so long, I don’t think there is anything either side doesn’t already know about.”

Supervisor Maggie Erickson Kildee said she sees little opposition in the community to tighter pollution controls. “I haven’t had any calls from constituents saying lighten up,” said Erickson Kildee. “I have been getting calls that say, ‘Don’t compromise.’ ”

What is shaping up as an Edison defeat closely follows another disappointment for Edison. Last month, Edison lost its bid to merge with San Diego Gas & Electric, which would have made it the country’s biggest power company. The merger would also have added more than 2,000 tons of pollutants to the air in the first five years, as Edison increased electrical production in Oxnard to meet the power needs of fast-growing San Diego County.

State regulators surprised Edison by rejecting the proposed merger.

In the same week, Ventura County supervisors defeated an Edison-inspired suggestion by Supervisor John K. Flynn to postpone the vote on the regulation and “form a consensus group . . . to address the disputes involved.”

Flynn has now joined the board majority in supporting the regulation, known as Rule 59. “Rule 59 is the best shot we can give Edison,” he said.

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in Ventura County

Nitrogen oxides react with another gas in sunlight to create ozone, a major component of smog.

Total emissions (74.8 tons per day) Motor vehicles: 54.3% So. Calif. Edison power plants: 17.7% Oil refining and engines to pump oil from fields: 9.9% Aircraft, ships, trains, tractors and mobile equipment: 9.8% Industrial boilers, home water heaters: 8.3%

Emissions excluding motor vehicles (26.9 tons per day) So. Calif. Edison power plants: 49.2% Oil and gas production: 27.7% Industrial boilers, home water heaters: 23.1% Source: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 1987