In the House, It's Peterson vs. Climate Bill

By STEPHEN POWER

WASHINGTON -- The fate of the leading proposal to curb U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions is in the hands of Rep. Collin Peterson, a Marlboro-smoking free spirit who scoffs at warnings about climate change and says the Environmental Protection Agency is "in bed with" corporations opposed to the ethanol industry.
Getty Images
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D., Minn.) says "something's going to have to change" in the climate bill for it to pass.
Mr. Peterson -- a Minnesota Democrat whose chairmanship of the House Agriculture Committee gives him sway over Farm Belt lawmakers -- has forced Democratic Party leaders to slow their drive to pass climate legislation and to consider amending it in ways that some environmentalists worry will lessen its effectiveness.
Mr. Peterson on Friday asked White House officials and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to intervene in negotiations between him and the climate bill's main sponsor, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.). "I'm getting tired of going around in circles," Mr. Peterson told reporters.
Mr. Waxman has said he is "very close" to an agreement with Mr. Peterson that would clear the way for a vote on the legislation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) said the House is unlikely to take up climate legislation this week.
The resistance to the climate bill from Mr. Peterson and other farm-state Democrats has exposed divisions within the majority party over whether Congress should attempt such far-reaching and potentially costly environmental legislation at the same time it is trying to overhaul the U.S. health-care system.
Mr. Peterson, who was first elected to Congress in 1990, wants the party's leaders to soften the climate bill's impact on coal-burning power plants, scale back existing regulation of ethanol, and make other changes that, if adopted, could steer huge sums of money to farmers who engage in environmentally friendly practices.
With Republicans expected to oppose the measure en masse, the votes of Farm Belt Democrats are critical to the House climate bill's future. But some of the changes Mr. Peterson wants could make it less palatable to Democrats who are more liberal.
Mr. Peterson wants the climate measure changed to allow coal-burning power plants to get free of charge more of the permits they will be required to hold in order to generate carbon dioxide.
Mr. Peterson, who represents a rural district where 10% of the population lives in poverty, says the bill's current formula for allocating free permits would result in some states getting more permits than needed, while leaving electricity users in districts such as his facing higher energy costs.
"If they want to pass [legislation], something's going to have to change," Mr. Peterson says.
An accountant by training with a well-creased face and a fondness for cowboy boots, Mr. Peterson shows little enthusiasm for passing climate legislation. After the administration released a report last week by government scientists warning of increased heat, pests, water shortages, disease and other impacts of climate change on crop and livestock production, Mr. Peterson laughed and said farmers in his district would welcome warmer temperatures after a recent cold spell.
"They're going to be able to grow more corn," he said.
Mr. Peterson has a testy relationship with environmentalists. In May, he accused the EPA of being "in bed with the oil industry" after the agency proposed rules that could undercut the perceived climate-protection value of growing corn to make ethanol in the U.S. by counting the increased greenhouse gas emissions that would occur overseas when farmers or governments clear land to grow food in response to higher food prices.
Mr. Peterson is pushing an amendment to the climate bill that would eliminate a requirement under the law for the EPA to measure such overseas emissions, and he wants the Agriculture Department -- rather than the EPA -- to decide what kinds of agricultural practices will qualify as "offsets," activities that avoid or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The legislation would allow businesses to pay farmers to engage in activities like injecting the soil with seed rather than plowing the ground and causing the release of carbon. The Energy Information Administration has estimated that the market for such agricultural activities could be worth as much as $24 billion annually. A recent EPA analysis suggested the market could be much smaller.—Ian Talley contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com