Wilson Sends Mixed Signals on Electric Cars : Air: Environmentalists are concerned he will bow to pressure and no longer back ‘zero-emission’ vehicles. Aides say governor has only called for a ‘technical’ review.

Gov. Pete Wilson has recommended a new study of electric car technology, sending more jitters through the state’s environmental community that he may bow to presidential politics and back away from a pledge to mandate the clean air vehicles.

Wilson has been under intense pressure to oppose the electric car from fellow Republican governors in states that are key to the GOP presidential primary. Last month, four of Wilson’s Midwestern colleagues signed a letter urging the governor to block California’s requirement for a “zero-emission” vehicle in dealer showrooms by 1998.

Wilson responded last week, telling Michigan Gov. John Engler in a letter obtained by The Times that California’s air quality is so bad that the state has no choice except to pursue production of an electric car. He also rejected the Midwestern governors’ proposal that California join them in exploring technology for a low-emission vehicle instead.

But Wilson has also sent mixed signals, increasing fears among environmentalists and electric car developers by calling for another study of the matter.

“There is growing concern that Wilson’s presidential campaign may be fueling a change in approach,” said Joe Caves, legislative advocate for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I’m not persuaded at this point that he plans to eliminate the [zero-emission vehicle] mandate on some sort of political grounds, but he is sending at least some mixed signals.”

State officials conducted a review of the technology last year and reaffirmed their commitment to the 1998 electric car deadline. They have also continued to hold hearings on developing technologies, despite a concern that continued uncertainty could jeopardize investments in electric car research.

Wilson aides said there are new developments that need to be considered. As a result, they said, Wilson recommended another “technical review” in a recent letter to one of the biggest boosters of his presidential campaign, Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld.

Earlier this year, Weld suggested that Massachusetts and California conduct a joint review of electric car technology because both states have similar vehicle mandates. Wilson agreed in an April 25 letter, saying: “There are many questions about consumer acceptance, cost and market sustainability of the electric vehicles that will be the first generation of [zero-emission vehicles] made for sale in California.”

Wilson aides emphasized that the governor is committed to meeting California’s strict clean air goals by 2010, the deadline set by Congress. They also said he remains committed to the electric car mandate unless it is proved to be infeasible or an alternative technology can be developed that would achieve the same goals on the same schedule.

“If the state moves forward blindly and ends up pushing a product on the market that consumers lose confidence in, the long-term costs for everyone, including the investors, will be higher,” said Paul Kranhold, spokesman for the governor.

It is hard to overstate the political pressure Wilson faces as California approaches the 1998 deadline, when it will require 2% of the cars offered for sale by major car makers to be classified as “zero emission,” a standard met today only by electric cars.

The pressure has been significantly compounded by Wilson’s campaign for President because the electric car mandate has not been nearly as controversial in California as in the Midwest. Republican governors in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin warned Wilson last month that the electric car is not technically practical and that its production will cost jobs in their states.

Those four states will play a major role in selecting the Republican presidential nominee next year because they have scheduled their primaries on the same day--Feb. 19.

Wilson said in a letter responding to the governors that he is optimistic that American car makers can produce a commercially successful electric car. He also said California continues to search for alternatives.

“If other strategies or tactics are presented that will ensure that California will meet its air quality goals . . . I am confident the California Air Resources Board will introduce them into the mix of options,” Wilson wrote.

Car makers have also stepped up their pressure on the governor recently, believing that this is their last chance to avoid the mandate before they would have to begin building assembly plants to meet a 1998 deadline.

In a recent confidential memo, the American Automobile Manufacturer’s Assn. prepared for a California public relations blitz “to create a climate in which the state’s mandate . . . can be repealed.” The March 24 letter said the “challenge” is to counter recent surveys showing that a majority of Californians believe electric cars are a “workable and practical means of reducing air pollution.”

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) acknowledged that the pressure on Wilson “is probably pretty intense.” But he warned that Wilson could jeopardize California’s environmental plans if research is stalled by uncertainty about the state’s direction.

“The governor needs to show some guts,” Katz said. “This is a critical time . . . and I think the governor needs to restate his commitment to the [zero-emission vehicle] standard . . . even if it is not politically popular.”