Keystone XL pipeline: Could Congress bypass Obama to get it built?

The Keystone XL pipeline's fate hangs in the air, with some in Congress hoping to move forward without approval from the Obama Administration. New legislation for the Keystone XL pipeline proposes to do just that, but faces significant obstacles.

|
Danny Johnston/AP/File
Coated steel pipe is stored in Little Rock, Ark. Congress has previously tried to approve the Keystone XL pipeline by shifting permitting authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Congress.

The Keystone XL pipeline has idled in limbo since 2008 when TransCanada, a Canadian energy company, first sought presidential approval for the cross-border oil pipeline.

Now, some in the US House of Representatives are again hoping to move forward with the project, sans approval from either the White House or US State Department. The project requires a presidential permit because the proposed pipeline would straddle the US-Canada border.

The latest proposed workaround is the Northern Route Approval Act, which would mitigate potential legal challenges and effectively allow TransCanada to begin construction on the project without a presidential permit. The bill is a sign of continued frustration from Republicans who say the Obama Administration has dragged its feet on a job-creating, economy-stimulating infrastructure project.

While technically possible, such a bill faces significant obstacles. 

"In general Congress can override otherwise applicable permitting requirements," Jim McElfish, an attorney with the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, wrote in an email, "if it enacts legislation and the legislation is signed by the president." 

There's the rub. Legislation circumventing the need for presidential approval would, in the end, need the president's approval.

The instance may present further complexity, Mr. McElfish adds, because it involves diplomatic relations, an area where the executive tends to assert more inherent authority.

“We are wasting taxpayer dollars on a bill that is dead on arrival, will never make it in the Senate, and will never be signed by the president,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D) of Illinois during a Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, one of two simultaneous House hearings on the bill Tuesday.

It's not the first time Congress has tried to speed up permitting of the project. Previous attempts to shift the permitting authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Congress have failed.

In December 2011, Congress gave President Obama a 60-day deadline to decide the fate of the project. The next month the president rejected TransCanada's application on environmental concerns.

TransCanada altered their proposal and reapplied in May 2012. The new application's environmental review is undergoing a public comment period with a decision from the White House expected sometime in the coming months.

“I have no doubt in my mind that the president wants to delay this to the point where people forget about it," said Rep. Lee Terry (R) of Nebraska, the sponsor of the Northern Route Approval Act, during Tuesday's Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing. "But I tell you what, our energy security is too important, our jobs are too important to delay this any longer."

Critics counter that such a bill would serve as a rubber stamp for a project with disastrous environmental consequences and scant economic benefit. The Keystone XL pipeline, they say, would merely give TransCanada a route to access global oil markets and do little to enhance US energy security. 

The full House Energy and Commerce Committee is scheduled to vote on the bill Wednesday.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Keystone XL pipeline: Could Congress bypass Obama to get it built?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0416/Keystone-XL-pipeline-Could-Congress-bypass-Obama-to-get-it-built
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe