Auto-Emission Bill OKd, Sent to Davis

A measure that would make California the first state to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases narrowly cleared the Legislature on Monday, setting up a political quandary for Gov. Gray Davis, who must choose between the environmental groups and business interests on opposing sides of the issue.

The bill by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) has major national repercussions.

Its goal is to reduce the release of carbon dioxide and other gases suspected of causing global warming. But its net effect would be tougher fuel efficiency requirements for automobiles and trucks sold in California, because the easiest known way to reduce the emissions is to build cars that burn less fossil fuels.

“We all know that the impacts of global warming are real,” Pavley told the Assembly, citing studies that show that the Sierra snowpack, the concentration of snowfall that melts during the summer and feeds the state’s streams, is shrinking because of the phenomenon.

Pavley’s bill, AB 1493, does not state how emissions should be reduced in automobiles and trucks. Rather, it directs the California Air Resources Board to come up with regulations that “achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases” by 2005. The new standards would apply to vehicles from model year 2009 onward.

The legislation states that the air board must balance the call for maximum reduction with concerns over costs, and cannot ban SUVs or any type of vehicle. Nonetheless, its lack of specificity concerns the auto industry, which asserts that the bill could lead to the outlawing of trucks and minivans and raise costs on all vehicles sold in the state.

Environmentalists suffered a major defeat in Washington earlier this year when Congress rejected tougher federal fuel efficiency standards amid strong opposition from a coalition that included automakers, oil companies and organized labor. But with passage of the California law, environmentalists might win an equally important victory in what amounts to a rematch against those same groups.

California is the only state empowered under federal law to pass stronger air pollution standards than those set by the federal government. Other states can then choose California’s standards, but cannot be the first to surpass those set by the federal government. Thus, passage of a California law eventually could spark changes in the design of automobiles sold across the country.

Despite strong Republican opposition, the bill cleared the Assembly on a 41-30 vote Monday, three days after narrowly passing the Senate.

Environmentalists hailed the bill’s passage, saying that it will send a message to lawmakers in Washington. Once again, they said, California is leading the way on automobile regulation, the way it did with catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline.

“Californians refuse to sacrifice their children on the altar to oil industry profits,” said Russell Long of the Bluewater Network, one of the bill’s sponsors. “There is nothing sacred about fossil fuel.”

Davis spokeswoman Hilary McLean said the governor has not taken a position on the measure, which he must sign or veto within 30 days. His Republican opponent in this November’s gubernatorial election, businessman Bill Simon, has criticized the legislation, calling it an assault on consumers’ right to drive sport-utility vehicles or other cars of their choice.

A spokesman for the coalition opposing the measure said the group will lobby Davis for a veto.

Sensing the importance of the California emissions bill, both sides involved in the Washington fuel standards debate moved their campaigns to California this spring--and once again, business interests initially appeared to be winning.

An earlier Pavley bill on the same subject, AB 1058, foundered in the Assembly for months after opponents began waging a sophisticated advertising campaign that warned California consumers of tax increases and asserted that they could soon be bounced from their beloved SUVs into flimsy, unsafe vehicles. The pitchman for many of the ads was Cal Worthington, a folksy car dealer whose own corny commercials made him a bit of a California cult hero.

Supporters called the campaign wildly misleading, noting that the tax increases it hinted at had no basis in fact. But several lawmakers who had voted for the bill earlier changed their positions amid the opposition assault, which resulted in thousands of calls and e-mails to legislators’ offices.

“The only thing that’s been sneaky has been the hot air and noxious gases emitted by opponents of this legislation,” said Assemblyman Dario Frommer (D-Glendale).

Recently, environmentalists struck back. Lawmakers and others began receiving recorded messages from actor Paul Newman urging passage of the emissions measure. Supporters enlisted Richie Ross, one of the state’s most powerful political consultants, to help orchestrate a counter-campaign in the state Capitol.

On Friday, Pavley and fellow Democrats amended another bill to address the charges raised in the opposition campaign and to deal with concerns of lawmakers by giving the Legislature the ability to review the air board’s recommendations before they take effect.

A day later, as lawmakers were meeting over the weekend to pass the state budget, Senate Leader John Burton (D-San Francisco) quickly shepherded the new bill through the upper house.

On Monday, it was hastily approved by an Assembly committee and then by the lower house--part of what some supporters said was a calculated move to get the bill on Davis’ desk before opponents could launch new commercials against it. Republicans, who hold just 30 of the Assembly’s 80 seats, objected to the content of the legislation and the tactics used to pass it. Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Arcadia) railed against what he called the “hypocrisy” of Democrats who supported the measure and proceeded to detail the cars they drive, Chevy Suburbans and Jeep Cherokees among them.

“The public was just not aware. I guess we see this once again as an example of the way we do business in this Legislature,” said Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster).

“This is not the way we should be doing business, in the dead of night--on the weekend.”