Republicans would face long odds on any legislation prodding the Obama administration into a pre-Election Day decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline -- but that doesn't mean GOP lawmakers have ruled it out.

As the company behind the $7 billion Canada-to-U.S. oil link sought Nebraska state legislators' go-ahead for a plan to move the project out of the ecologically vulnerable Sand Hills region, Republicans yesterday questioned the State Department's continued commitment to a timetable for reviewing alternative routes that would leave the pipeline in limbo until after President Obama's re-election bid.

"We need fossil fuels for decades to come, and we need jobs," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), adding that he is "very suspicious" of the estimated early-2013 end date for State's environmental review of new routes for the pipeline.

House Republicans earlier this week said they are weighing a potential bill aimed at moving up State's timeframe, particularly in light of Nebraska officials' estimates that a state-level environmental impact statement on a new route could be done within nine months (E&E Daily, Nov. 15). Graham said he would consider introducing an upper-chamber counterpart to such a measure, if it materialized.

One of the strongest critics of the Sand Hills route, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), also opened the door to nudging State legislatively.

"Now that they have agreed to move away from the aquifer and the Sand Hills, it seems to me that process should be able to move along much quicker than the Obama people are saying," Johanns said yesterday.

At the root of GOP frustration with last week's delay from State is the elation it sparked among environmentalists who have long fought to kill Keystone XL and viewed the fresh Nebraska study as a means to slowly choke off support for the project from Alberta-based TransCanada Corp. But TransCanada's surprising endorsement of a rerouting it once called unworkable suggests that the company has no intention of giving up on the project, ensuring that the pipeline will remain a hot-button environmental issue for both parties heading into the 2012 election.

A Senate appropriations bill that includes funding for the Energy and State departments, while currently in limbo, could provide pipeline proponents a quick opening to force lawmakers on record through an amendment.

"It's going to be very hard trying to get past a presidential veto or get something through a Democratic Senate, but again, there may be some value in getting people on the record on this," Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters yesterday.

"If there's a way that we can get this thing back on track," Thune added of his GOP colleagues, "there would be a high level of interest in doing that."

Alberta Premier Alison Redford visited Capitol Hill on Monday to talk up the economic value of the Canadian oil sands crude that Keystone XL would carry to the tune of half-a-million-plus barrels per day if approved. She met with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Rep. Gene Green of Texas as well as Republicans, but one politically pivotal member of the president's party did not buy into GOP enthusiasm for speeding up State's process.

The new State review "needs to go at the speed that is necessary to do the job," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told reporters yesterday. "You don't want it to be a study that is rushed."

State spokesman Mark Toner reiterated the administration's lack of interest in changing its timeline for evaluating Keystone XL routes in a briefing yesterday.

Republicans such as Graham and Thune are joined by conservative Democrats such as Nelson in hailing the pipeline as a vital spur for oil imports from a secure ally in Canada as well as a job creator. Among the senators who have criticized the project as a high-emissions drag on future clean energy development are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Reporters Hannah Northey and Manuel Quinones contributed.