Under new management, the US Senate will make the Keystone XL pipeline its first order of business in 2015 and energy in general a focus of continuing attention. Those subjects do need work. Open questions are whether Republicans understand the depth of the conflict and are prepared to argue their positions at all levels.
Mitch McConnell, the incoming majority leader from Kentucky, promises to start the new Senate's work with a bill calling for approval of the Keystone XL border crossing. The Republican-controlled House has passed several Keystone-approval bills, none of which stood a chance of advancing in a Senate dominated by Democrats. Both houses of Congress probably will pass approval legislation now.
Showdown looms
Less certain is whether the measure can win the two-thirds vote needed to override President Barack Obama's certain veto. The border crossing is a legislative issue because Obama refuses to issue the requisite permit. In December he signaled yet again his refusal to act, arguing-indefensibly-that the pipeline would benefit Canadian oil producers but not American consumers. A showdown looms.
McConnell also will give priority to his party's effort to curb the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory crackdown on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants fueled by fossil energy. The EPA's first regulation, requiring costly emission-mitigation technology for new plants, essentially cemented a trend by foreclosing construction of coal-fired plants. In mid-2014, EPA required emission cuts, varying state by state, from existing plants. The move has evoked warnings of leaping electricity prices and threats to grid reliability.
To the oil and gas industry, these can seem like discrete issues, one of which threatens solid hydrocarbons in a manner that promises to increase demand for the gaseous variety. But that view overlooks the deeper conflict, which if not addressed will haunt issues of more direct consequence for the industry, such as removing the ban on exports of crude oil.
The fundamental fight is about climate change, once called global warming. It propels every political issue involving energy these days. And it's existential. Climate change activists are driven by the economically fanciful vision of a world free of hydrocarbon energy. They won't be impressed by cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that oil, gas, and coal producers make voluntarily-which are, in fact, impressive. They want the government to discourage production and use of fossil energy any and every way possible and have organized themselves well to do the job. Their pressure explains Obama's stonewalling of Keystone XL. And they essentially run EPA.
Representatives of Congress and the oil and gas industry who doubt environmental regulation has been hijacked by activists first should study how many EPA officials come from pressure groups like the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council. The Energy & Environment Legal Institute published a useful report on the subject last September. Doubters then should examine the history of EPA's Clean Power Plan addressing emissions from existing power plants. The regulation's essentials came from an NRDC policy blueprint published in March 2013: "Closing the Power Plant Carbon Pollution Loophole." And anyone questioning the extent of the activist agenda should note the response to EPA's Clean Power Plan by NRDC Pres. Frances Beinecke, who asserted the measure wasn't "a green light" to replace coal with gas in power generation. "These standards," she wrote in a blog post, "can and should help reduce our country's dependence on all fossil fuels."
Activist motivation
Reducing "dependence on all fossil fuels" motivates activist positions on every energy issue. This is the only way to explain why the international segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would advance US interests, including relations with Canada, in many ways, has waited 6 years for a permit it never will receive from Obama.
Lawmakers need to understand everything they confront when they pursue economically rational policies on energy and the environment. And they must be willing to fight at every level of the conflict.