Political jockeying over the environmental and economic impact of a proposed $7 billion U.S.-Canada oil pipeline is set to intensify today as House members consider draft legislation aimed at pressing the Obama administration to rule on the Keystone XL project before Nov. 1.

If granted a permit by the State Department, the pipeline would nearly double U.S. imports of crude from the Canadian oil sands, where reserves are projected as second in the world after Saudi Arabia. Republicans tout that supply as a boon to consumers whipsawed by high gas prices and dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but liberal Democrats and green groups slam the pipeline as too risky.

That today's Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing is designated a part of the House Republicans' "American Energy Initiative," a broad energy policymaking effort launched in March, signals the ascension of Keystone XL as a top-tier issue for the GOP majority. For many of its members, the planned pipeline's potential to generate thousands of jobs and new product for U.S. refineries makes it a valuable supplement to the expanded domestic production they seek.

"With continued global unrest and vulnerabilities to our supply chain, it's just common sense to pursue reliable and affordable energy in North America," said Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.). "Our northern neighbor and close ally Canada has vast resources just waiting to be tapped and transported here to the U.S. if only we would finally move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline.

"Increased access to Canadian oil sands will create thousands of jobs and provide us with an abundant, safe, and secure energy supply, which is key to reducing prices at the pump. We need to act soon as China is very interested in pursuing the same resources -- if we don't say yes soon, China will lock it up."

Draft legislation released Thursday by the Energy and Commerce panel aims to speed resolution of the administration's two-year-long weighing of a permit for the pipeline. That "certainty in agency decision-making," as a committee memo on the bill puts it, would be achieved by designating the secretary of Energy to shepherd the process to a conclusion no later than 30 days after the State Department finalizes its environmental impact statement.

The stakes for a final decision, according to the memo, are significant: the State Department estimates that its final environmental review can be concluded by December, but the pipeline's sponsor "has stated that it cannot continue its planned project" if administration approval is not granted this year.

Pros and cons

Of the six witnesses set to testify today, all but one is in favor of starting construction on the 1,700-mile-plus XL pipeline, which would augment the existing Keystone system in shipping oil-sands crude to the United States.

In addition to the national-security upside of stronger trade ties to Canada, the pipeline's job-creation prospects feature prominently in the prepared testimony of pro-Keystone XL witnesses.

"Upgrades to refineries to process Alberta oil in the U.S. creates new jobs for construction workers, trades people, engineers, and steel manufacturers," Murray Smith, a former Canadian energy minister, is set to tell lawmakers today. "Alberta oil delivers more economic value per barrel than any other barrel of oil imported into the U.S."

Another witness hails from the energy consulting firm IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), which last year released a report that found oil-sands crude generating 5 percent to 15 percent more on average in lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than conventional fuels now being processed in America (Greenwire, Dec. 8, 2010).

Testimony set for delivery today by IHS CERA's James Burkhard takes issue with the estimate of a 17 percent higher lifecycle emissions rate that the State Department used in its recent environmental review of Keystone XL.

The Obama administration's emissions data "assume that the GHG intensity of oil sands production is 1.5 times higher than the IHS CERA figure," Burkhard states in his prepared remarks, a number that he said "is outside the range of other studies" and "could be viewed as a mischaracterization of the GHG intensity of oil sands production."

The remarks of the lone witness critical of the pipeline project, the National Wildlife Federation's Jeremy Symons, were not publicly released as of yesterday. But his group is one of many environmental players in the capital that have invested considerable political capital and grassroots lobbying energy into beating back the pipeline.

That effort has at times become a personal faceoff between greens and Upton, whose district was among those hit last year by an estimated 800,000-gallon spill of oil-sands crude linked to a pipeline rupture.

"Chairman Upton does not need to look any farther than his back yard to see the impacts of tar sands oil pipelines," Friends of the Earth fuel campaigner Alex Moore said via email last week. "Fast-tracking the review of this pipeline is a dangerous proposition."

Koch-related charges

The environmental effects of Keystone XL are not the only concerns Democrats are likely to raise today. The top Democrat on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, joined subpanel ranking member Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) on Friday in questioning whether energy giant Koch Industries could profit from the pipeline's approval.

In a letter to GOP committee leaders, Waxman and Rush cited media reports of the company's links to the process of extracting Canadian oil sands resources. The duo noted that Koch representatives had avowed "'no financial interest' in the pipeline" but wrote that the company also refused to provide details about its links to oil-sands crude production.

"We do not presume that Koch's representations are inaccurate," Waxman and Rush added in their letter. "But we were dismayed by the company's lack of candor in responding to staff's questions and believe additional inquiry is warranted."

The Democratic request met with cutting pushback from Energy and Commerce Republicans. A GOP committee aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to address the issue candidly, dismissed the letter as "a transparently political stunt that has absolutely nothing to do with the real issues at stake -- lowering gas prices, jobs and energy security."

"Waxman's decision to question a single company rather than looking at the broader effects for the energy sector, U.S. workers and families reveals his blatant disregard for the 7 in 10 Americans who are struggling to fill up at the pump," the aide added.

Philip Ellender, president of government affairs for Koch Companies Public Sector LLC, said in a Friday statement that it "neither supports nor opposes the Keystone pipeline project and, as we made clear to the congressman's staff, we have no financial interest in the project."

"Given these facts," Ellender added, "we are confused about why Koch is being singled out and inserted into these discussions."

Schedule: The hearing is today at 3 p.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

Witnesses: Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board Chairman Dan McFadyen; Alex Pourbaix, president of energy and oil pipelines at TransCanada Corp.; James Burkhard, managing director of global oil at IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; Murray Smith & Associates President Murray Smith; Stephen Kelly, assistant general president of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters; and Jeremy Symons, senior vice president for conservation and education at the National Wildlife Federation.