TransCanada filed an application with the U.S. State Department more than six years ago for a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline and it has been residing in bureaucratic purgatory ever since.
Twice the State Department — in 2011 and again this year — issued an environmental review concluding that the pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast would not materially boost carbon emissions since the tar-sands oil would be marketed with or without it. And yet the administration has refused to approve a permit, citing various reasons along the way. The current excuse is litigation in Nebraska over the project.
Unfortunately, a Senate vote on the Keystone pipeline, scheduled today, isn’t likely to accelerate the State Department’s ponderous pace, either — assuming supporters muster the necessary 60 votes. Although the House has already passed its Keystone bill, President Obama is likely to veto any legislation that reaches his desk.
That’s too bad. But the Senate vote is still important as a sign that Congress can act on issues when a fairly broad consensus exists — even if it isn’t shared by the executive branch or among environmental groups.
On Friday, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet became the 59th senator to anounce he’d vote for the project. This state’s other senator, Mark Udall, has opposed the pipeline before and presumably will again. Whether the bill will pass is not entirely clear.
Although the Keystone XL pipeline deserves approval, supporters should not pretend it is an economic panacea. Building the pipeline makes more sense than not building it, but tar-sands oil will get to market one way or the other, even if by more dangerous rail. Indeed, the CEO of Oklahoma-based Continental Resources, Harold Hamm, told Politico last week that the 1,700-mile pipeline is no longer relevant, adding that Congress should devote its attention to lifting the 1970s-era U.S. ban on exporting crude oil.
Hamm’s view isn’t universally shared, but it does suggest how futile the crusade to stop Keystone has been if the goal was to slow energy production, even in the tar sands. It’s long past time for the nation to get this controversy behind it and to move on to more important issues.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
