New Juice for Electric Cars : Automobiles: Bloc of East Coast states backs in principal California’s rules for non-polluting vehicles.

Overriding the objections of the auto industry, a group of eastern states voted Tuesday to support California’s efforts to develop a market for electric cars as a means of reducing air pollution.

While the states and the District of Columbia refused to adopt California’s precise rules--which call for 2% of the cars sold in the state in 1998 to have zero emissions--they made it clear that electric autos should be a basic part of the nationwide effort to curtail pollutants spewing from car and truck tailpipes.

The vote by the Ozone Transport Commission was a setback for car companies, which have insisted they cannot build viable electric vehicles at a reasonable price.

“It appears to be the California standard, just under a different name,” William B. Winters, a spokesman for the American Automobile Manufacturers Assn., said after the vote. “We continue to believe there is a viable alternative,” he said, referring to the industry’s proposal to build more low-emission cars running on fuels such as natural gas.

Together, California and the states voting Tuesday are home to slightly more than 50% of the nation’s population--a vast potential market for electric cars. California is promoting electric cars as the centerpiece of a new manufacturing industry and because they operate without producing pollution--except at power plants.

“This shows California thinking is certainly in the mainstream,” said Diane Wittenberg, head of electric car activities for Southern California Edison, a key backer of electric car development.

The best electric cars available today can drive about 100 miles before needing a recharge, a process that takes up to eight hours, depending on the size of the vehicle.

The vote by the commission, with eight states and the District of Columbia in favor and four states opposed, was a formal recommendation to the federal Environmental Protection Agency to require “progressively cleaner standards” for automobile emissions.

The commission’s proposal would allow manufacturers to sell five categories of vehicles, ranked according to their volume of pollution. Beginning in 1999 at the latest, the average emissions of each car maker’s fleet would have to fall steadily. But manufacturers would be free to “choose any combination of vehicles”--including zero-emission electric cars--to meet the standards.

*

As recently as 10 days ago, the commission was considering a draft resolution that would have specifically adopted California’s detailed plan, including its 2% requirement and 1998 deadline for selling electric cars.

But several states objected.

“What is right for California may not be right for Connecticut or Maryland,” said Timothy R.E. Keeney, Connecticut’s commissioner of environmental protection and chairman of the committee that prepared the commission report. “Some governors felt the (California standard) was too restrictive.”

The commission has “the same emission goal” as California, but it allows for greater flexibility--including options for governors who want the opportunity to develop alternate auto technologies in their states. While the electric car “has to be a major player,” Keeney said, it could be less prominent in the Northeast than in California.

The EPA will now have nine months to consider the issue before producing final rules on low-emission vehicles. During that period, the agency will hold public hearings to grapple with what it means to build a “clean” car, said Mary Nichols, the EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation.

The auto industry has mounted a strong lobbying campaign against the California standards--including a proposal of its own in December to instead boost production of low-emission cars using alternative fuels such as natural gas. Critics say the industry’s approach would virtually foreclose the development of improved electric cars.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Administration has launched a “partnership” with the auto makers, centered on a $1-billion program to develop a new generation of cleaner, high-mileage cars.

Auto makers hope they can use the new relationship with Washington to circumvent the California standards. Tuesday’s resolution was approved by Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Opposed were Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Virginia.

New York and Massachusetts have adopted rules similar to the California standards, but those are being challenged in federal court by the auto industry.

*

The commission rejected a plank of California’s plan mandating the use of reformulated gasoline, which costs 10 to 15 cents a gallon more than conventional fuel. While the fuel is cleaner-burning, the oil industry says it is too costly to produce, and auto makers say it will require more expensive engines.

Because it has the nation’s most severe smog problem, California has been allowed under federal law to adopt clean-air standards stricter than those in force elsewhere in the nation.

Electric Highways

Some highlights of the recommendations to the EPA by the Ozone Transport Commission, which proposes clean-air standards for 12 northeastern states and the District of Columbia:

* States must begin implementing a low-emissions program in 1996 and require sales of cleaner cars and light trucks starting in 1999.

* Five categories of vehicles are allowed--including electric cars--for meeting emission standards.

* Starting with 1999 models, emissions must be reduced each year, with a reduction of nearly 50% by 2003.

* California’s reformulated gasoline standards are not endorsed.