Obama Set to Speed Up Approval of Tar Sands Pipeline

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 by Common Dreams
Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas, section likely to be quickly approved

Although President Obama denied a permit for the main Keystone XL pipeline from Canada's tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico in January, it is expected that he will announce on Thursday on a visit to Cushing, Oklahoma, a plan to speed up the permit for the southern section of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands crude from Cushing to Port Arthur, Texas.

Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity said today, “Keystone XL may be a boon to Big Oil companies in the exporting business but those profits will come at a stiff price for our land, water, wildlife and climate.” “Building Keystone XL in pieces doesn’t make it any less dangerous.”

* * *

CNN: Obama to fast track southern half of Keystone XL Pipeline

President Barack Obama plans to announce in Cushing, Oklahoma Thursday that his administration will expedite the permit for the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline, a source familiar with the president's announcement tells CNN.

* * *

The Texas Tribune: Obama to talk about Keystone XL pipeline in Oklahoma this week

A White House official confirmed Tuesday that the president on Thursday will "reiterate his administration's commitment to expediting the construction of a pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf of Mexico, relieving a bottleneck of oil and bringing domestic resources to market."

* * *

Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian/UK:
On two-day energy tour, US president is expected to hasten building of southern section of tar sands line out of Canada

Barack Obama is expected to speed up approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on Thursday after taking to the road with what the White House is billing as an "all of the above" energy tour. 

Obama's planned visit to the oil hub of Cushing, Oklahoma, on day two of the energy tour has raised expectations he will speed up approval of the southern US-only segment of the pipeline, running from the town to Port Arthur, Texas. 

The approval, which would infuriate environmental groups, could allow construction on that portion to begin before November's presidential elections instead of next year. 

Obama's tour starts with a visit to the country's biggest operating solar farm in Boulder City, Nevada. The White House said in a statement: "The president will highlight his administration's focus on diversifying our energy portfolio, including expanding renewable energy from sources like wind and solar, which thanks in part to investments made by this administration is set to double in the president's first term." 

But the visit seemed a detour on a trip apparently solidly focused on fossil fuels and the price of gas at the pump. 

Obama has been under nonstop attack from Republicans for rising petrol prices, which now stand at well over $4 (£2.50) for a US gallon in some parts of the country, and for his decision in January to halt the pipeline because of a section running through an ecologically sensitive part of Nebraska. 

On the campaign trail, Newt Gingrich has said he would cut gas prices to $2.50 if he is elected president, and Mitt Romney has taken to demanding Obama sack his energy secretary, Steven Chu, the interior secretary, Ken Salazar, and his Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Lisa Jackson. Gingrich calls the three the "gas hike trio". 

But Obama's forthcoming speech at a pipe yard owned by TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the project to pump crude from the tar sands of Alberta, was seen as a strong signal that the pipeline – at least, the portion running from Cushing to Port Arthur, Texas – is back on track. 

The White House said last month it would allow the southern portion, which requires no State Department approval, to go ahead. It was not immediately clear how Obama would push the process along further. 

TransCanada has said it will go ahead with the Cushing-Port Arthur segment of the pipeline as soon it gets the go-ahead from the army corps of engineers. 

The White House said in a statement Obama's visiting Cushing was intended to show his commitment to "improving and supporting the infrastructure that helps us leverage our domestic resources, while also ensuring these projects are developed in a safe and responsible way". 

It continued: "This includes a pipeline that will transport oil from Cushing to the Gulf of Mexico, which will help address the bottleneck of oil that has resulted in large part from increased domestic oil production in the midwest." 

Fast-tracking a portion of the pipeline would be a huge disappointment for a broad coalition of activists who have campaigned against the project, framing it as a test of Obama's green credentials.

* * *

Bill McKibben: Mr. Obama Goes to Cushing, OK

Amidst the many environmental disappointments of the Obama administration -- the fizzled Copenhagen conference, the opening of vast swathes of the Arctic to drilling and huge stretches of federal land across the northern Plains to coal-mining, the failure to work for climate legislation in the Senate, the shameful blocking of regulations to control ozone -- the president has done one somewhat brave thing. He responded to the largest outpouring of environmental enthusiasm so far this millennium and denied a permit for the main Keystone XL pipe from Canada's tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. 

Cynics said he did so just to avoid disappointing young people before the election, and pointed out that he invited pipeline proponent Transcanada to reapply for the permit. It's hard not to wonder if those cynics might be right, now that he's going to Oklahoma to laud the southern half of the project just as Transcanada executives have requested. 

True, the most critical part of the pipeline still can't be built -- thanks to Obama and 42 Democratic Senators, the connection to Canada remains blocked, and hence that remains a great victory for the people who rallied so fiercely all fall. But the sense grows that Obama may be setting us up for a bitter disappointment -- that his real allegiance is to the carbon barons.

* * *

Center for Biological Diversity: Obama Trumpets Dirty Fuel Pipeline That Will Allow Global Export of Tar Sands Oil, Worsen Climate Crisis

“The Gulf Coast leg would add to the fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when we critically need to transition away from fossil fuels in order to avoid climate catastrophe,” said Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Just like Keystone I, the Gulf Coast leg of Keystone XL will spill, polluting land and water and ruining important habitat for endangered species like the whooping crane, piping plover, American burying beetle, interior least tern, and Arkansas River shiner.” 

“The president’s support for this pipeline is troubling,” said Greenwald. “Keystone XL may be a boon to Big Oil companies in the exporting business but those profits will come at a stiff price for our land, water, wildlife and climate.” 

“The American people have spoken clearly against this project,” said Greenwald. “Building Keystone XL in pieces doesn’t make it any less dangerous.”

Big Energy Firms Blocking Solar Power in South

Big Energy Firms Blocking Solar Power in South
By Matthew Cardinale

ATLANTA, Georgia, Mar 31, 2010 (IPS) - As citizens, businesses and non-profit organisations seek to transition to cleaner power sources like solar and wind, some big energy firms whose business models rely on polluting sources are standing in the way.

In Georgia, the energy company Georgia Power has lobbied for favourable public policies at the Public Service Commission (PSC) and State legislature that are making it difficult for the state's residents to transition to solar power.

IPS learned that the Dekalb County school system wanted to put solar panels on their schools, but could not do it because of state policies like the Territorial Electric Service Act of 1973 which gives Georgia Power a monopoly over the purchase of energy.

"In Georgia, we have about a dozen state policies preventing creation of solar energy," James Marlow, vice chair of the Georgia Solar Energy Association, told IPS. "One of those is the Territorial Act."

"If you're looking at a school, one of the common ways [of setting up solar panels] is using a power purchase agreement or PPA," Marlow said.

Typically, one of the biggest obstacles for businesses and organisations to switch to solar energy is the initial cost of obtaining and installing the panels. A PPA allows a school system, for example, to obtain the panels for no cost from a solar installation company which finances the panels.

Then, the school can purchase the energy from the solar installation company, which would own the panels, for a 20-year period. Marlow said that a PPA client typically pays for the panels after the first five years and then saves money on energy for the next 15, all the while avoiding the use of dirty energy.

However, because of Georgia's Territorial Act, individuals, organisations, and businesses with solar panels can only sell their energy to Georgia Power. This means they cannot enter a PPA with a solar installation company and may have difficulty affording the panels in the first place.

Other states like Colorado have taken a different approach to encourage the use of solar panels. They charge all energy customers 50 cents a month, a very low amount, to support the purchase of solar energy from producers.

According to the Morning News, the Tennessee Valley Authority has enrolled 13,000 green-power customers and has no cap on the annual amount of green energy it will buy from producers. Florida Power & Light "is building three solar facilities that combined will generate 110 megawatts of electricity... Duke Energy in North Carolina plans to invest 50 million in rooftop installations."

To be sure, Georgia Power is only following the regulations established by the legislature and PSC. However, they lobbied for those policies to be enacted in the first place, Marlow said.

"At this point, the utilities are opposed to solar and they're not working to foster its development," Marlow said.

In addition to regulatory tricks, there are more direct ways in which big energy companies like Georgia Power are blocking solar and wind power.

"They are trying to block clean energy by trying to flood the market with cheap, dirty energy," said Erin Glynn, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, referring to companies attempting to build two new coal plants and two new nuclear reactors in Georgia alone. As previously reported by IPS, numerous coal and nuclear plants are in planning stages throughout the U.S. South.

"If you build these giant power plants, there will be no demand for clean energy. The clean technologies are here today. People have solar panels. The companies are blocking the market," Glynn said.

Big energy companies are lobbying at the state and national levels to prevent public policies from shifting towards renewable energy production as well. Georgia Power's parent company, Southern Company, employed 63 lobbyists to fight the recent federal clean energy bill.

A recent report from the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) shows that many big utility companies employed two dozen or more lobbyists to oppose the clean energy bill, while Southern Company had far more lobbyists than any other company.

"We feel it's very important to educate our legislators, and we continue to work with Congress to further address the issues we see as critical to our ability to provide affordable, reliable energy," Southern Company spokeswoman Terri Cohilas told CPI.

Southern Company argues that pursuing renewable energy or taking steps to address carbon dioxide's recent classification as a pollutant will drive up the cost of energy to consumers. However, Marlow believes that dirty and clean energy are quickly approaching "cost parity," and he said there are indirect costs of dirty energy such as high asthma rates near coal plants.

Twenty-nine states have a renewable portfolio standard, which requires that a certain percentage of the state's energy will be renewable by a certain date.

"California and Colorado will require 30 percent comes from renewable by 2020," Marlow said. "North Carolina requires 12 percent. Georgia has no requirement. North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that has a renewable portfolio standard."