| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Senate Planning to Keystone The One |
| 2012-02-02 |
| Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., joined by 43 other Republican senators and one Democrat, introduced a bill Monday to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, despite President Obama's nixing of the idea last week. The Congressional Research Service found that, under the Constitution's commerce clause, Congress is in charge of such stuff as the Keystone pipeline, said Ryan Bernstein, (deputy chief of staff and legal counsel for Hoeven). Going back to President Grant in the 1870s, presidents have asserted an executive power to determine if commercial projects moving across the nation's borders are warranted, if the states fail to act, Bernstein said. Back then it was telegraph cables laid on the ocean's floor. Since 1968, there has been a more explicit process requiring the State Department to sign off on such a pipeline coming in from another country, Bernstein said. So Hillary flexed her mighty muscles, and - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recommended to Obama he reject the pipeline idea, and he did. Just so he could blame her, if the fires get too hot. But Hoeven and other senators decided to make this about first principles -- as far as separation of powers comes in, anyway -- and commissioned the Congressional Research Service to study what Congress' prerogatives might be. The bill introduced Monday would allow Nebraska "to take all the time it needs," to determine the best route for the Keystone XL pipeline, he said. Meanwhile, TransCanada can begin building the pipeline from either or both ends. It could become useful before completion, by helping drain the over-supply of petroleum at the legendary Cushing, Okla., terminals, to the Gulf, Bernstein said. I'd like to see Obama's face if that got started. Just a little piece over here, and another little piece over there.... No permits required! Until the last few 'little pieces'. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, promised a similar bill would pass in the House. Bernstein said the bill, if passed, should be "a very interesting" challenge to Obama's exercise of executive power in such matters. We could be living in "interesting times". |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #3 Generaly, Glenmore, you are correct. Legally, there are limitations, and if you avoid involving the US government, you can get off easier. In 1991, there was a proposal to build a $6 billion high-speed rail project in Texas. An EIS was not required, (no Federal money), but I agreed that it would be madness to try to avoid it - it was just too big. Southwest Airlines would've gone to the mat to assure an EIS was performed. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2012-02-02 14:09 |
| #2 Most of the route for the pipeline already has the completed EIS. |
| Posted by: tipover 2012-02-02 14:06 |
| #1 Pretty much anything you do now requires Gov't approval of an Environmental Impact Statement; that would presumably include any individual Keystone segments. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-02-02 12:46 |