Tar sands being extracted
There is confusion about the Obama administration's stance on legislation being proposed—and sure to pass—in Congress to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
Some people have taken a briefing statement by White House press secretary Josh Earnest that President Obama would veto that legislation to mean a rejection of the pipeline. That's mistaken.
As I have noted on more than one occasion, many encouraging comments by Obama dating back to his climate speech in June 2013 indicate that he may very well reject a permit to build the pipeline. The process by which approval or rejection is decided is delegated under the 2004 Executive Order 13337, which is an updated version of the 1968 Executive Order 11423. Those orders delegate authority for approving international pipelines (tunnels, drawbridges and conveyor belts) with the State Department. Ultimately, of course, that authority is the president's.
What the Senate and House have sought to do on a number of occasions, starting in late 2011, is transfer that authority for approving Keystone XL from the executive branch to Congress.
Obama has said many times, starting in January 2012 when he rejected a congressional move to get him to short-circuit the half-century-old process, that he won't allow this transfer. Again in November, the last time there was a vote on legislation to approve Keystone XL, he said, "My position hasn’t changed, that this is a process that is supposed to be followed."
Tuesday's news about the veto threat of the proposed legislation is certainly welcome. But, in and of itself, vetoing this bill will not be the same as stamping a big "NO" on the application that TransCanada has submitted to build the northern leg of Keystone XL. (The southern leg is already complete.)
Head below the fold, where the confusion will be cleared up.
The confusion was cleared up by Earnest, as reported by Kate Sheppard:
As for the principal reason for the veto, Earnest said it had more to do with procedure than policy, though the White House objected to both aspects.
"The concern that we have right now is principally on the idea that this piece of legislation would undermine what has traditionally been, and is, a well-established administrative process to determine whether or not this project is in the national interest," he said. "The fact is, a complete evaluation of that project can’t be completed until this legal dispute about the route of the pipeline has been settled and we know what the final route of the pipeline actually looks like."
The administration, he said, was withholding "broader judgment on the project itself," although he added that "you can note our skepticism about some of the claims made by the most enthusiastic advocates of the pipeline."
Withholding "judgment on the project itself." To reiterate then, Obama's veto would not be a rejection of Keystone XL, only of the process Congress is trying to upend. And since he has stopped Congress from forcing his hand on this issue before, in January 2012, there's no reason to believe that this marks some new stance on his part. He's been completely consistent in the matter all along.
It may very well be true that Obama will ultimately not approve a permit for TransCanada to build the pipeline. Hallelujah if that turns out to be the case. It's what tens of thousands of people—many of them getting arrested to make their point—have been working toward for five years. It's the smart move in a world afflicted by greenhouse-gas-induced climate change.
But today's veto-threat news, good as it is, was not unexpected. And when the veto happens, it will not yet mark the final chapter in the Keystone XL story.