You should celebrate the Nebraska Public Service Commission's decision Monday to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

While the ruling authorizes a different route to the one Keystone directors had sought, this was the last major regulatory hurdle standing in the way of the oil pipeline's construction. By more efficiently pumping millions of barrels oil into the U.S. energy market, Keystone will bring new jobs and lower energy bills.

Although there are debates over the number of jobs Keystone will create, there's no doubt that the number will be in the thousands and that the wages paid will be high. If you care about human opportunity you should care about these jobs. You should also welcome the fact that these jobs won't be taxpayer subsidized like many in the green energy sector.

More importantly, by offering a new route for the supply of oil to U.S. refineries, Keystone will also provide a marginal but important benefit towards lower energy bills. It's economics 101: if you can get an energy source to the refinery and to American consumers at lower cost, the purchase price for that energy will decline.

Of course, Keystone is just the tip of the iceberg. As I've explained, the investment in new energy infrastructure and extraction technologies is lowering energy bills. And albeit indirectly, America's booming energy industry is leading states like Saudi Arabia to finally embrace reforms to their civil society and energy economies. That's a double win for U.S. domestic and foreign policy interests.

On the flip side, when liberals claim Keystone and conventional energy investment is immoral, they are being utterly hypocritical.

After all, the data shows that Democratic-led schemes such as the Clean Power Plan — which mandates renewable energy quotas -- dramatically increase energy bills for American families when compared to pro-energy schemes. And when you consider that all Americans regardless of income level need energy to power their lives, it becomes clear that the CPP's cost premiums are also inherently income-regressive.

This economic morality argument is that which green energy campaigners cannot overcome.

That said, hypocrisy is at the heart of the liberal argument on energy policy. Want a few other examples?

Liberals claim to support investment towards job creation, but oppose massive investment schemes like Keystone.

Liberals claim Trump is letting down America's closest foreign partners, but apparently care nothing for Canadian interests in seeing Keystone constructed.

Liberals claim that conservative energy policies are bad for the environment, but ignore the fact that technologies like fracking offer far more sustainable (I.E. not economy destroying) carbon-reduction potential than the Paris accord Ponzi schemes endorsed by China and Germany.

Liberals claim to favor safety in energy supply, but oppose the greater safety that projects like Keystone XL offer in moving oil from trains to pipelines. Remember, the State Department's own report into Keystone XL found that it offered the most environmentally-safe option of any, including the current supply network.

Ultimately, this isn't complicated. Monday's decision is good news.