The two methods of sulfur emissions reduction most often mentioned--using low-sulfur coal or installing scrubbers--both carry unseen but heavy baggage, political and economic. Utility spokesmen in states that produce high-sulfur coal say they cannot afford to ignore regulatory commissions sensitive to miners and their unions. And under the 1970 Clean Air Act, state governors can stop utilities from using out-of-state coal.

Economic considerations make scrubbers an unattractive option. A typical scrubber costs about a third of the price of a new coal-burning power plant, and uses 5 to 8 percent of the plant's electrical output. In addition, most scrubbers themselves produce an undesirable pollutant: calcium sulfite.

The last plan proposed by EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus would have reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 3.4 million tons (less than a third of the environmentalists demands) at a cost of $1.5 to $2.5 billion. Budget Director David Stockman says that even such a modest program is too expensive. He flippantly charges that such a plan would cost taxpayers "$5000 a fish."

Some Congressmen have meanwhile gone ahead on the issue. A bill co-sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman and Gerald Sikorski spreads the burden of paying for emissions reductions. Under the plan, a 1 cent per kilowatt tax would be levied nationwide on utility customers. The $2 billion raised by the tax would be used to subsidize scrubbers for the dirtiest Midwestern power plants. Tax revenues would finance nearly 90 percent of the cost of the scrubbers, which could reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by about 40 percent in 10 years' time.

But acid rain legislation has thus far been blocked by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan. He and other Midwestern congressmen contend that most bills would unfairly require their constituents to foot the bill for reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions.

Dingell has been myopically intransigent on this matter, and it's time that he started compromising. For one thing, Congress will eventually have to address the acid rain problem anyway. But more important, a consensus on the issue among Democrats could prove an asset at the polls this fall.

The Waxman bill--or something like it--probably provides the best hope for a bipartisan acid rain plan. It wisely minimizes conflict between regions and interest groups by fairly spreading the burden of reducing sulfur-dioxide emissions.

Utilities favor a tax on fossil fuels, as car exhausts are partly implicated in acid rain. The proposal might be a good addition to a compromise, "spread the burden" plan.

BUT THE CHIEF obstacle to an acid rain bill is currently the Reagan Administration. By systematically ignoring the acid rain, the Administration has fumbled one of its few opportunities for favorable publicity on the environmental front. The results are in and Reagan can no longer legitimately plead ignorance on the issue. Any more foot dragging is an insult to anyone concerned with America's natural resources, and to out northern neighbor.