Exhaust Legislation May Hit a Red Light

Legislation to make California the first state to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, a suspected cause of global warming, is foundering in the Assembly amid a lobbying and advertising blitz by automakers, car dealers, oil companies and organized labor.

The measure by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) has already cleared both houses by rail-thin margins and needs only final approval of the Assembly to reach the desk of Gov. Gray Davis. But to the dismay of the environmental groups behind the legislation, support is eroding, and the bill may now be defeated.

In a well-funded campaign of television, radio and newspaper ads, opponents have portrayed it as an un-American attempt to force soccer moms from their beloved SUVs into smaller, less safe vehicles that will hurt the economy and cost workers their jobs. Many of the commercials feature Cal Worthington, the colorful California car dealer whose offbeat television ads with his “dog Spot”--usually a tiger, elephant or some other beast--made him a cult figure.

The result has been a flood of calls, letters and e-mails to legislators from voters worried that their cars of choice could soon be endangered--and flip-flops from some Republican and Democratic legislators whose swing votes Pavley was counting on for victory.

“I’ve had a change of heart on this issue,” said Assemblyman Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach), a moderate who touts his environmental credentials and got 500 calls one week from angry constituents. “SUVs and light trucks are very popular in Southern California, and people don’t want to lose the ability to ride these vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that they are polluters and gas guzzlers.”

Environmentalists call the campaign wildly misleading, saying it features claims of tax increases and higher prices at the pump that have little basis in reality. But they say they have grown accustomed to scare tactics from the auto industry, which used similar arguments to fight California’s pioneering efforts to control air pollution with unleaded gasoline and catalytic converters, only to be proved wrong each time.

“I understood they were going to mobilize, but they really do a disservice to the democratic process by waging a campaign not based on facts,” Pavley said. “That millions of dollars by special interest groups can deceive and dupe people--if this is the message sent, that this is how to ... win at any cost, that’s a sad commentary.”

The Sacramento showdown mirrors--with good reason--the recent dispute in Washington over tougher federal fuel efficiency standards that resulted in a victory for automakers. The easiest known way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in cars is to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, so that would be the likely result of the California legislation.

“It really is an attempt to regulate fuel economy on new motor vehicles; make no bones about it,” said Ray Buttacavoli, a lobbyist for General Motors.

Thus, it has major national repercussions, not only because Californians buy more cars than anyone else and shape the automobile market, but because under federal law, only California can pass higher air pollution standards than those set in Washington. Other states can then choose California’s standards, but they cannot be the first to surpass those set by the federal government.

Faced with such restrictions, car dealers contend, automakers will restrict the number of models offered in California.

“All the Suburbans they don’t sell here they will sell in Texas, and there will be just as much emissions of CO2; only Californians will have less choice and more expensive cars,” said Peter Welch of the California Motor Car Dealers Assn.

Greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, do not directly form smog or otherwise imperil human health; in fact, they are some of the basic building blocks of life on the planet. But carbon dioxide absorbs heat from the sun, and as excessive amounts are released into the atmosphere from human activities such as burning fossil fuels, it helps form a warm blanket of air around the planet that leads to global warming, scientists believe.

Though that problem remains an abstraction to many, some scientists say it is beginning to have effects that are hitting home in California.

In perhaps the most serious example, research shows that the Sierra snowpack, the concentration of mountain snowfall that feeds the state’s reservoirs and trickles south as it melts during the summer, is becoming smaller because of global warming. That could eventually affect the supply of water to the state’s agricultural heartland and growing urban centers.

“People come to California because of the beauty of the environment, the oldest and tallest trees in the world, the scenic beaches with sea lions--and all those species are threatened by global warming,” said Peter Miller, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“It’s critical that California take leadership on this issue,” he added. “California has always been a leader in technology that not only benefits the state, but eventually the nation and the entire world.”

Pavley’s legislation, AB 1058, attempts to address the problem in sweeping fashion. Rather than stating how the emissions would be reduced in automobiles and trucks, 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 all vehicles from model year 2009 forward.

That hazy mandate frightens the auto industry. Though the measure balances its call for maximum reduction with assurances that the regulations should not outlaw any vehicle types, including sport utilities, or place uneconomical demands on car owners, opponents cite a recent report by the air board and the state’s Energy Commission as a peek into what the measure might bring.

The report on ways to reduce petroleum use mentioned raising gasoline taxes, reducing speed limits and taxing the number of miles traveled. None of those ideas is mentioned in Pavley’s bill, and in fact, the air board does not have the power to raise taxes. Nonetheless, they are the basis for the more sensational accusations in the opposition ad campaign.

Initially, “the proponents were able to debate the issue in the abstract: Global warming is a problem; we need to do something about it,” said Phil Isenberg, a former Sacramento mayor and legislator who is the spokesman for the opposition campaign. “They have proven far less effective on the technical questions of how this would actually work.”

The recent report, he added, “makes politicians nervous, because they see this is not only about taxes, but about the air board designing cars and everything that goes with that.”

With support from the Legislature’s leaders, Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson (D-Culver City) and state Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton (D-San Francisco), Pavley was able earlier this year to navigate past strong Republican opposition to get her measure through both houses.

But she appears to have hit a wall. Largely because of the high-pressure lobbying against her bill by the United Auto Workers union and others, the legislation has languished in the Assembly for two weeks. To pass, every bill in the Legislature must obtain a second, final approval from the house in which it originated.

Two moderate Republicans who voted for the measure in January, Orange County’s Harman and David Kelley of Idyllwild, have reversed their positions. So have two business-friendly Democrats: Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg and John Dutra of Fremont. Pavley had vowed to take up the bill last Thursday, but backed down as UAW representatives in union jackets patrolled the Capitol’s hallways. Without their votes, the measure--which received 42 votes the first time around--would fall short of the 41 needed for passage.

“I was never in love with the bill in the first place,” Canciamilla said, adding that he voted for the measure in January as a favor to Democratic leaders, but always made clear that he would reserve judgment until later. “This is simply pressure to get the automakers to build more hybrids, and if that is the case, they should just come at it clean.”

Some lawmakers privately say the fight over the measure, the most significant heard thus far this year in Sacramento, is proving to be a test of Wesson’s clout as speaker. But he plays down his powers, saying that the days of speakers twisting arms and bullying colleagues ended with the arrival of term limits.

“I think it’s important for California,” Wesson said. “But I am not Attila the Hun. This is a different office in a different time, and I think everyone has to be treated with respect.

“I personally don’t know if things can be ‘speakerized’ anymore.”