The House passed legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline Wednesday. The bill now goes to the White House, where it is expected to meet President Obama’s veto pen.
The 270-152 vote was short of the two-thirds needed to override a veto. Twenty-nine Democrats voted for approval. One Republican, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, voted against it.
The Senate, which would vote first on a veto override, is four votes shy of the 67 lawmakers it would need. Supporters of the $8 billion Canada-to-Texas pipeline think they can find the support, but Democratic leaders are convinced their members won’t budge.
Asked whether the upper chamber might attempt a veto override, Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said, “We very well may. … But that decision hasn’t been made yet.”
The House also plans an override attempt, said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton.
“To finish it,” the Michigan Republican said of the override attempt.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell implored Obama to reconsider his veto threat. The pipeline’s backers have touted the 42,100 direct and indirect jobs the State Department said it would create during its two-year construction phase.
“The Keystone jobs bill is just common sense,” the Kentucky Republican said Wednesday. “That’s why this bipartisan legislation already passed the Senate with support from both parties. That’s why labor unions support it.”
Some of the pipeline’s backers think they can wrap the legislation into a broader energy or spending bill the president might sign. Hoeven mentioned the federal highway reauthorization bill as a potential vehicle.
But Obama has been dismissive of Keystone XL in recent public comments. He has downplayed the jobs aspect, as the State Department said Keystone XL would create 35 permanent jobs, and echoed arguments by environmental groups that the oil sands it would transport are destined for export.
Obama has said he would reject the project if it “exacerbates the problem of carbon pollution.” The State Department in its environmental review said it wouldn’t significantly affect the climate.
The Environmental Protection Agency, however, suggested in comments last week that the agency should take a closer look at whether Keystone XL would be a linchpin to oil sands growth, and the greenhouse gas emissions they produce, with low oil prices. The State Department, at the time of its analysis, said oil below $75 per barrel was unlikely. Crude is currently fetching about $50 per barrel, less than half its June value.
Russ Girling, chief executive of Keystone XL builder TransCanada Corp., slammed the EPA comments in a Wednesday letter to Secretary of State John Kerry.
He called the EPA’s comparison of emissions from oil sands to reference crude varieties selective, as he said a better comparison would have been to the carbon intensity of the heavier crude Keystone XL would displace.
“This is an insignificant amount compared to U.S. domestic and global emissions, representing between 0.019 percent to 0.28 percent of U.S. domestic emissions,” Girling said of projected Keystone XL-driven emissions.
