Matheson sides with GOP on energy bill

For weeks, both supporters and critics of a new climate-change bill pushed advertising and phone-calling campaigns to pressure moderate Rep. Jim Matheson to use his swing vote to help their sides in committee. President Barack Obama even hosted him (and others) at the White House to discuss the bill.

In the end, Matheson was one of just four Democrats to oppose the landmark bill in committee late Thursday, and each of the four were from conservative, energy-producing states.

But the nearly 1,000-page bill passed anyway, 33-25, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The measure would impose dramatic cuts on greenhouse-gas emissions. It also would creates a cap-and-trade system requiring power plants, manufacturers and other polluters to buy emissions allowances from others to expand operations.

Matheson's vote likely disappoints environmental groups and Democratic officials. But it likely pleases tax watchdogs, utility companies, manufacturers, the oil industry and business groups.

After the vote, Matheson, a leader of moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats, said he still hopes improvements in the bill can be made as up to eight other committees consider it, so that he could vote for it in the full House. Meanwhile, he outlined problems he sees with it now, and why he opposed it.

"Our country faces two significant energy issues. First, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Second, we must address the issue of climate change. To meet these challenges, we need to implement policies that will encourage innovation of new technologies to provide better energy options," he said.

Matheson said the bill still falls short of those goals, although he said the committee did improve it.

"I continue to have concerns with regional income transfers that would result," he said, worrying that Utah electrical ratepayers may end up seeing higher rate hikes because of their greater dependence on coal-fired power than other places. "It is important that policy is fair to all regions of the country."

Another problem, he said, is "the bill's very aggressive (emissions) reduction target that assumes big technological leaps that may not happen. If the technology doesn't develop, there could be significant costs."

Also, he said, "federal fuels policy needs to be addressed. Our current policy of corn-based ethanol is flawed, and it should end. In its place, we should have a fuel standard that does not pick winners and losers."