![]() Without new action from Congress, the Biden administration cannot stonewall development forever, but regulatory tricks and delay tactics can be expected. However, moving forward with a leasing program for the coastal plain is congressionally mandated under current law. The order does not revoke these leases, but the Biden administration is signaling a clear intent to hold up any efforts at development. The Trump administration earlier this year completed a first round of leasing in the coastal plain. ![]() The Biden administration also announced a moratorium on leasing activity in the coastal plain of Alaska pending a new environmental review. Thus this decision does not have on-the-ground effects right now. While the Trump administration did rescind that withdrawal, low oil prices and the difficulties of offshore development in the Arctic resulted in no new activity during his term. The Biden administration has reinstated the Obama administration’s withdrawal of offshore development off the north coast of Alaska. The third set of actions with near-term effects impact oil and gas development in Alaska. The administration clearly intends to use the Paris Agreement as a justification for its harmful climate policies, and there remains the danger that activist judges will use the agreement as a backdoor means to impose climate regulations that cannot pass Congress. As a signaling effort, though, it cannot be ignored. The immediate practical effect of this action is nil, the treaty is non-binding and in any case the Biden administration has announced no new commitments under the treaty. The Biden administration appears ready to continue the Obama administration’s fiction that the Paris Agreement is not a treaty requiring Senate ratification. There is a 30-day waiting period to rejoin, which means the US will rejoin on February 19th. The decision is thus mostly symbolic, though the 1,000 or more job losses already announced and the greater demand for Venezuelan heavy crude are very real effects.Īnother order with near-term effect is the decision to rejoin the Paris Agreement, the non-binding international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. ![]() Perhaps ironically, considering the objections to the pipeline were environmental, rail transportation results in greater greenhouse gas emissions and a higher risk of spills or accidents (from crashes and derailments) compared to pipelines. Rather than traveling through the pipeline, Canadian production will have to travel by rail coming into the US. Despite crowing by various environmental pressure groups, the permit revocation also will not have an effect on oil production from Canada. The permit revocation does not affect the parts of the pipeline that are already constructed and operating. Because the permit is purely presidential, rather than any agency action, it is not required to go through any formal process. The action with the most immediate result is the revocation of the Keystone XL permit to cross the US-Canada border. Most headlines have focused on the Keystone XL pipeline decision and rejoining the Paris agreement, but other actions will over time have a more widespread impact. ![]() On January 20th, immediately following being sworn in, the Biden administration announced a slew of executive actions, several involving energy and environmental policy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |