Other States Check Out California Smog Test Deal

California’s compromise with the federal government on revamping its Smog Check program has touched off a rebellious debate in state capitols across the nation, with many officials hoping to strike similar special deals on how cars are inspected for excessive exhaust emissions.

From Georgia to Nevada, several legislatures and governors have suspended their own plans and are hurriedly evaluating California’s. Although many are concluding that copying it would be too costly, several are preparing to negotiate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their own versions of California’s Smog Check compromise.

“I’ve been in this position for 13 years, and I’ve not seen a backlash on an issue like I have on this one. It was as if a tremendous shot was heard across the country,” said William Becker, director of a Washington organization of state and local air pollution regulators.

“EPA must now give other states the opportunity to pursue the same deal that they are giving California,” he said. “Legislatures and other officials in state government are asking fair questions: ‘What does all this mean for us and why should we break our necks and move forward when it is unclear what the EPA’s policy is?’ ”

Under the federal Clean Air Act, 22 states with serious air pollution must launch tougher inspection and maintenance programs for vehicles by Jan. 1.

The faceoff between the states and the EPA focuses on the location and thoroughness of the tests. The EPA ordered most states to create centralized, test-only centers that operate under a state contract and perform more rigorous inspections on all cars and light trucks. But California legislators balked, saying that approach would hurt the state’s 9,000 private repair shops and service stations that currently conduct smog checks.

After lengthy negotiations, the Legislature forged a compromise with the EPA earlier this month and passed a package of bills that is awaiting Gov. Pete Wilson’s signature.

Under the agreement, 15% of all cars in California in 1995 would be sent to the special test-only centers; the others would continue to go to regular service stations. The state also would start a multimillion-dollar experiment with sensing devices along roadsides and other means of targeting gross polluters and cracking down on fraud among mechanics.

If those alternatives fail to clean up enough cars, 30% of all California vehicles in 1996 will go to special centers. Because each vehicle is tested every other year, that means 60% of all California cars--equivalent to the percentage believed to be heavy polluters--would undergo the more rigorous tests from then on.

Under the plan, the 15% of cars targeted initially will be culled from large fleets such as rental cars and taxicabs, cars with missing emissions-control devices, gross polluting vehicles and cars selected randomly.

Leaders of several other states--angry with the EPA because it rejected their efforts to compromise--said they will try to negotiate new agreements. Nevada Gov. Bob Miller dispatched a team to San Francisco on Wednesday to meet with the EPA’s regional administrator.

“There are areas (of the California deal) that look as though they could have a positive application in the state of Nevada,” said Richard Urey, Miller’s press secretary.

Many states, however, are finding elements of California’s hybrid program unappealing, mostly because they fear it will be more costly for motorists and more complex for government.

“This will be hard to replicate in other states. They may flirt with it, they may look at it, but when they actually examine it, I think they won’t find it attractive,” said John White, a Sacramento lobbyist for the Sierra Club.

Harold Reheis, Georgia’s environmental director, said his state will not adopt California’s plan because “it will be very costly to car owners and will shift a heavy cost burden to lower income people.” Instead, Reheis said Georgia will work on its own compromise.

The EPA estimates that California motorists will pay $50 or more for a smog inspection, up from their current $32 average. Nationally, the average will run $20 for motorists in states operating new test-only centers. No limit was put on the amount of money a California motorist must spend to repair a car that is considered a gross polluter.

“I think many outside of California would argue that this is not a good deal for the California consumer--that it is unnecessarily expensive, and is much tougher in many respects than the standard,” Becker said.

But Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), the chief architect of the compromise, said other states are making hasty judgments based on false assumptions. He disputed the EPA’s estimate of $50 or more per test, saying: “We honestly don’t know how much it will cost.”

Katz called the program “a reasonable alternative” for California because it will clean up the air, retain jobs at service stations and be more convenient for motorists than the EPA’s version.

“The volume of cars in California is much greater than it is in Georgia, which will bring the price down in California,” Katz said. “The states where you have more dense populations and a larger number of vehicles will find this kind of program more attractive.”

Denise Graveline, an EPA spokeswoman in Washington, said that even though many states have asked to talk to the agency, none so far have asked to revise their inspection programs.

If they do, she said, “we have to wait to see what they are asking for. Every state is looking at what every other state is doing, but every state wants something different.”

EPA officials have insisted that smog tests be separated from repairs because they believe the current system of allowing mechanics to do both is riddled with fraud and leaves smog-belching cars unfixed.

Initially, most states started complying with the EPA’s order reluctantly, after the agency threatened to freeze their highway funds and impose other economic sanctions. But even as they signed contracts to set up inspection systems, many were eyeing the wrestling match between the EPA and California.

In a December letter, Pennsylvania Acting Gov. Mark S. Singel warned EPA Administrator Carol Browner that if California is granted a special deal “not only will Pennsylvania’s Legislature rescind our (program), but in my opinion, they will not take any federal Clean Air Act requirements seriously.” Other state officials and Congress members sent similar warnings.

Graveline, however, emphasized that the EPA has not budged from its bottom line--that California’s hybrid program must achieve the Clean Air Act’s mandate or be abandoned in 1996. “They can use alternatives, but they have to prove to us they can meet the equivalent of taking 60% of the dirtiest cars off the road,” she said.

Becker, who says a tougher inspection and repair program is the best and cheapest way to clear the nation’s skies, worries that the new programs may be delayed.

“The California deal has come at a very inopportune time,” he said, “given the fact that most states proceeded ahead in the past few months in good faith. It came right in the middle when states were purchasing land and letting contracts--making the final decisions to implement their programs.”