White House rejects Keystone XL pipeline
-
From left, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., take part in a news conference Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
Share with others:
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, denouncing a "rushed and arbitrary deadline" set by congressional Republicans, announced Wednesday that he was rejecting a Canadian firm's application for a permit to build and operate the Keystone XL pipeline, a massive project that would have stretched from Canada's oil sands to refineries in Texas.
Mr. Obama said a Feb. 21 deadline set by Congress as part of the two-month payroll tax-cut extension had made it impossible to do an adequate review of the project proposed by TransCanada, but he left open the door to the possibility that a new proposal might pass regulatory muster.
"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Mr. Obama said in a statement.
This is the second time the Obama administration has tried to deflect political pressure over the $7 billion, 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which last year sparked debate over U.S. energy and environmental policy. At one point, about 12,000 people demonstrated outside the White House against the project, while the oil industry, construction unions and Canadian government all lobbied in favor of it.
The decision Wednesday and the language that Mr. Obama used made clear that the White House, far from pushing off a political issue until after the election, as it once hoped, was fully engaged in a battle with pipeline proponents. Mr. Obama defended his administration's record on energy security, while pledging to protect the "health and safety" of Americans.
While the current Keystone XL permit application is dead, the pipeline might not be. The administration will allow Trans-Canada to reapply for a permit after it develops an alternate route around the sensitive habitat of Nebraska's Sandhills.
TransCanada's chief executive, Russ Girling, issued a statement saying the company would reapply and expected that "a new application would be processed in an expedited manner," so the pipeline could be carrying crude by late 2014. "While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL," he said.
Kerri-Ann Jones, the State Department assistant secretary in the bureau of oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, said that while "we would be able to draw on the information that's out there," if TransCanada files "a new application, it will trigger a new process."
The administration's move did nothing to delay a debate that could help define the campaign fight between Republicans and Democrats. Environmental groups have lobbied against the project, arguing that oil sands extraction -- a process more akin to strip mining than oil drilling -- is so energy intensive that it contributes to climate change. They also assert that the pipeline could leak, possibly endangering the giant Ogallala aquifer that provides drinking and irrigation water in much of the Great Plains.
Pipeline supporters say it would create jobs and enhance U.S. energy security by increasing reliance on a friendly neighbor. Canada, the largest source of U.S. crude oil imports, already exports oil to the United States from the Alberta oil sands through other pipelines. The Keystone XL, able to carry about 500,000 barrels a day, would enable Canada to expand output.
"This is not the end of the fight," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a news conference. "Republicans in Congress will continue to push this because it's good for our country, and it's good for our economy, and it's good for the American people, especially those who are looking for work."
The House Energy and Commerce Committee said it would hold a hearing next Wednesday, inviting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to attend and explain the permitting decision.
Western Pennsylvania lawmakers issued statements against the president's action.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said, "President Obama has been trying to campaign against a do-nothing Congress, but he is the one who is impeding job creation adn economic growth. ..."
Similarly, Pennsylvania Reps. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, Mark Critz, D-Johnstown, and Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, all decried the potential lost jobs and "immense implications to our country's domestic energy, economic and national security needs," as Mr. Critz put it. Mr. Murphy called upon Congress to overturn Mr. Obama's decision.
But other congressional Democrats rallied around the president. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, "Today, the Obama administration rejected a dirty and dangerous tar sands oil pipeline, refusing to be bullied by the oil industry."
Republican presidential candidates wasted no time. Even before the formal announcement, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, his party's primary front-runner, in a statement accused Mr. Obama of putting "politics ahead of sound policy." Mr. Romney added, "He seems to have confused the national interest with his own interest in pleasing the environmentalists in his political base."
Similarly, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, another Republican contender, said, "Today's decision ... is but another capitulation to the radical environmental fringe, and, in turn, putting our national security and economy at risk."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, also in the GOP contest, called the Obama decision "stupid," saying it would cost thousands of construction jobs, jeopardize energy security and undermine the country's international alliances.
The pipeline, which requires a federal permit from the State Department because it crosses an international border, had been under review for more than three years.
In early November, the administration delayed making that determination about the pipeline on the grounds that it needed to avoid crossing sensitive terrain in Nebraska's Sandhills region. Officials then predicted that the process of rerouting the pipeline and subsequent environmental review would extend the permitting process into early 2013.
The jobs issue has been a major point of contention. Ads taken out by supporters say the pipeline would create 20,000 jobs. In fact, TransCanada's Mr. Girling has said Keystone XL would create 20,000 "job-years" -- including 13,000 for direct construction and 7,000 among supply manufacturers. But construction would last two years, and the actual number of construction workers employed each year would total only 6,500, Mr. Girling has said. Moreover, TransCanada has already spent $1.9 billion buying pipeline parts, which would reduce the number of supply chain jobs created in the future.
Correction/Clarification: (Published January 21, 2012) An article Thursday on the Obama administration's Keystone XL pipeline permit rejection misidentified the party affiliation of Rep. Tim Murphy of Upper St. Clair, one of several Western Pennsylvania congressmen who voiced opposition to the decision. He is a Republican. ??????
First Published January 19, 2012 12:00 am
