Posted on 02/17/2014 5:15:01 AM PST by thackney
Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have thousands of dollars invested in direct competitors to the company looking to build the pipeline, public records show.
A recent environmental assessment by the State Department was seen as a step toward the pipeline’s approval, but Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) remains opposed to its construction.
“In my view, there is now enough evidence to conclude that construction of this pipeline is not in America’s long-term interest,” Kaine said in a statement on the review.
The freshman Democrat has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Kinder Morgan is looking to build a pipeline that would directly compete with Keystone.
Kinder Morgan is considering expanding its Canadian pipeline infrastructure with an expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which carries oil sands crude from Alberta to refineries and export terminals on Canada’s west coast.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
It’s an easier question to answer if you just follow the money from Warren Buffett.
Who got money from Buffett?
Buffett is the ONLY reason the pipeline doesn’t go through.
It’s funny - he’s trying to rewrite history so that Vanderbilt wins, not Rockefeller. Rockefeller built pipelines in order to break his dependency on the railroads for shipping oil.
Buffett’s just taking us all back to the century previous to this is all. Expect more train accidents.
Executive Order (EO) 13337 delegates to the Department of State (the Department) the authority to receive applications for Presidential permits for cross-border facilities and outlines a process for the Department to determine whether granting such permits would be in the national interest. On November 10, 2011, the Department concluded that it required more information before a determination could be made regarding the Keystone XL pipeline application for a Presidential permit. The time period provided in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 is not adequate for the Department to conduct the necessary analysis to gain the additional information.
The Department therefore recommended that the President determine that the permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments) be denied and that he determine the Keystone XL pipeline, as presented and analyzed at this time, does not serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation and made that determination on January 18, 2012.
from the April 1, 2013 issue of the National Law Journal
http://www.pipelinelaw.com/files/2014/02/After_Keystone_A_question_of_presidential_permits.pdf
As the name suggests, presidential permits are a creation of the executive branch alone, with no
legislative authorization and limited judicial review to date. Presidential permits are intended to
provide executive branch review of trans-border facilities and commercial activities between the
United States and either Canada or Mexico. No statute authorizes their creation or use, and few
regulations govern their review or issuance.
...
In 1968, permitting authority for oil pipelines, among other facilities, was officially delegated to the State Department under President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11,423 and amended by another executive order in 1994 to include requirements to consult with various federal departments. In 2004, an executive order by President George W. Bush established the State Department’s procedures for reviewing presidential permit applications for oil pipelines. Those procedures include referral of the application and request for consulting agency reviews within 90 days and directions to approve those applications that serve the national interest.
The State Department is currently responsible for issuing presidential permits for oil pipelines, -while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issues such permits for natural gas pipelines, and the Department of Energy (DOE) issues presidential permits for electric transmission lines. Both FERC and DOE have promulgated regulations governing their presidential permit process.
Section 1. (i)
The Secretary of State shall issue or deny the permit in accordance with the proposed determination...
Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have **thousands of dollars** invested in direct competitors.
How much do they earn a year? and wouldn’t that fall into the insider trading ranks?.
Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues
The executive branch has exercised permitting authority over the construction and operation of “pipelines, conveyor belts, and similar facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products” and other products at least since the promulgation of Executive Order 11423 in 1968.
Executive Order 13337 amended this authority and the procedures associated with the review, but did not substantially alter the exercise of authority or the delegation to the Secretary in E.O. 11423.
However, the source of the executive branch’s permitting authority is not entirely clear from the text of these Executive Orders. Generally, powers exercised by the executive branch are authorized by legislation or are inherent presidential powers based in the Constitution. E.O. 11423 makes no mention of any authority, and E.O. 13337 refers only to the “Constitution and the Laws of the United States of America, including Section 301 of title 3, United States Code.”
Section 301 simply provides that the President is empowered to delegate authority to the head of any department or agency of the executive branch. The legitimacy of this permitting authority has been addressed by federal courts. In Sisseton v. United States Department of State , the plaintiff Tribes filed suit and asked the court to suspend or revoke the Presidential Permit issued under E.O. 13337 for the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline.
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they would be unable to prove their injury could be redressed by a favorable decision.
The court determined that even if the plaintiff’s injury could be redressed, “the President would be free to disregard the court’s judgment,” as the case concerned the President’s “inherent Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy,” as opposed to statutory authority granted to the President by Congress.
The court further found that even if the Tribes had standing, the issuance of the Presidential Permit was a presidential action, not an agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The court stated that the authority to regulate the cross-border pipeline lies with either Congress or the President.
The court found that “Congress has failed to create a federal regulatory scheme for the construction of oil pipelines, and has delegated this authority to the states. Therefore, the President has the sole authority to allow oil pipeline border crossings under his inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs.”
The President could delegate his permitting authority to the U.S. Department of State, but delegation did not transform the permit’s issuance into an agency action reviewable under the APA.
In Sierra Club v. Clinton , the plaintiff Sierra Club challenged the Secretary’s decision to issue a Presidential Permit authorizing the Alberta Clipper pipeline. Among the plaintiff’s claims was an allegation that issuance of the permit was unconstitutional because the President had no authority to issue the permits referenced in E.O. 13337 (in this case, for the importation of crude oil from Canada via pipeline).
The defendant responded that the authority to issue Presidential Permits for these border-crossing facilities “does not derive from a delegation of congressional authority ... but rather from the President’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and his authority as Commander in Chief.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota agreed, noting that the defendant’s assertion regarding the source of the President’s authority has been “well recognized” in a series of Attorney General opinions, as well as a 2009 judicial opinion.
The court also noted that these permits had been issued many times before and that “Congress has not attempted to exercise any exclusive authority over the permitting process. Congress’s inaction suggests that Congress has accepted the authority of the President to issue cross-border permits.”
Based on the historical recognition of the President’s authority to issue these permits and Congress’s implied approval through inaction, the court found the Presidential Permit requirement for border facilities constitutional.
Have the past Presidential pipeline border crossing permits been issued by the State Department, or by the President?
Do you mean who signed them or who approved them? There is a clearance process and it goes thru the WH, which has the final say. And something as controversial as the Keystone pipeline will be managed and directed from the WH. These are Presidential decisions, which is why the courts ruled that they are not subject to judicial review.
The court further found that even if the Tribes had standing, the issuance of the Presidential Permit was a presidential action, not an agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Again, I don't understand your point. John Kerry is going to make a recommendation to the WH, a recommendation that will be the product of an intra-agency review. But the WH, and only the WH, will decide the issue. The President can disregard the recommendation, if he so chooses. Of course, we know that the WH will have a major role in writing the State Department recommendation so that Obama has the cover he needs politically to make the call.
This is a political decision. There have been five different studies to string the process along. The State Department is the puppet and Obama is the puppeteer.
Dittos.
The State Department is the puppet and Obama is the puppeteer.
Isn’t that essentially what I said in post #16?
The Department therefore recommended that the President determine that the permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments) be denied and that he determine the Keystone XL pipeline, as presented and analyzed at this time, does not serve the national interest. The President concurred with the Department’s recommendation and made that determination on January 18, 2012.
The formal approval lies with the President. He determines the course of action.
I see, and have posted, several items from the State Department and from the Executive Order that directly contradicts that.
I see conflicting statements from the same sources. But the language of the executive order seems clear.
I have to wonder on this pipeline, at this time, both are trying to use the other as blame when the approval goes through.
They don't contradict what I posted. The State Department has been designated the lead agency to receive applications for Presidential permits and to coordinate review by the national security agencies.
I provided you with State Department report to Congress on the Keystone pipeline that clearly indicates that the State Department provides recommendations, but the President makes the determination.
The courts have determined that the President has the right to make these decisions stemming from his “inherent Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy,” as opposed to statutory authority granted to the President by Congress. "The President could delegate his permitting authority to the U.S. Department of State, but delegation did not transform the permit’s issuance into an agency action reviewable under the APA."
These cross-border permits are considered as part of national security, which means that the President as CIC can make such decisions rather than Congress. Do you dispute that the President makes the final determination? If not, then what is his role?
have to wonder on this pipeline, at this time, both are trying to use the other as blame when the approval goes through.
I assume by "both" you mean the State Department and the WH. I have a profound disagreement with your statement. The WH and the State Department are working together to execute whatever the President wants. Again, the State Department is the puppet and the President the puppeteer. The puppet doesn't do anything the puppeteer doesn't want it to do.
The Secretary of State has the authority to issue Presidential Permits for cross-border liquid (water as well as petroleum product) pipelines and other cross-border infrastructure.
http://www.state.gov/e/enr/applicant/index.htm
I see that as a clear statement; they have the authority.
I agree that on THIS pipeline, they have done a CYA recommendation, but that is not how the rules are written, nor has been done on past projects. But following the rules is not a strong point of this administration.
I suspect at this point, neither of us are going to convince they other. God Bless.
The only authority they have is what the WH gives them. They don't have the authority to make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline. The President has clearly arrogated that decision to himself.
I agree that on THIS pipeline, they have done a CYA recommendation, but that is not how the rules are written, nor has been done on past projects. But following the rules is not a strong point of this administration.
LOL. Please, it is not a CYA recommendation. The President will make the decision or non-decision. Whatever the State Department does is at the direction of the President. The State Department is not a free agent. It works for the President. Maybe you have more insight into how this process works since I only have 28 years working for the State Department and 36 years total as a federal employee.
I suspect at this point, neither of us are going to convince they other.
I confirm your observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.