A day after announcing her opposition to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, Hillary Clinton unveiled a more comprehensive agenda for the US energy infrastructure that seeks to transform the US into “the clean energy superpower of the 21st century”.



The Democratic presidential candidate detailed her proposals on Wednesday in both a blogpost on Medium and a fact sheet distributed by Clinton’s campaign.

Clinton’s plan calls for the existing energy infrastructure in the US to be modernized through a series of steps, such as repairing or replacing oil and gas pipelines that are outdated and risk both oil and methane leaks and other hazardous accidents.

The flaws highlighted by Clinton in the country’s energy infrastructure, including pipeline spills, rail car explosions, and the exposure to cyber-attacks, mirror the findings of the first-ever quadrennial energy review conducted by the Obama administration and released in April.

In addition to exposing the vulnerabilities in energy transmission, storage and distribution infrastructure, the review produced recommendations that included accelerating pipeline replacement, enhancing maintenance programs for natural gas distribution systems, and developing a more modern electric grid.

Clinton said her plan would invest in “grid security and resilience”, and create a threat assessment team to protect against cyber-attack through improved coordination.

Citing challenges that extend across the borders of Canada and Mexico, Clinton also said she would immediately begin negotiations with both nations, if elected president, to forge a North American climate compact with the purpose of producing shared targets and accountability measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut energy costs.

Such a pact, Clinton wrote, would ensure that “all three countries demonstrate a commitment to climate action,” as well as “[create] certainty for investors and confidence in the future of our climate, so we can all marshal resources equal to the challenges we face.”

Environmental activists broadly approved of Clinton’s plan, while welcoming the series of recent steps taken by the former secretary of state with respect to energy policy – such as her opposition to Keystone.



Climatologist Michael Mann, director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, described Clinton’s plan as “very good overall” while singling out her emphasis on building upon the successes of the Obama administration – namely the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, known as the clean power plan.

He also praised her outlined commitment to incentivizing clean energy, pricing carbon emissions, and working with international partners in a coordinated effort to lower carbon emissions.

Mann nonetheless maintained that Clinton’s plan was “somewhat conservative” with respect to fossil fuel subsidies.



“Clinton indicates that she is open to the additional leasing of public lands to fossil fuel companies, which – given the cheap nature of those leases – is effectively a subsidy to fossil fuel interests,” he said, while acknowledging that Clinton said she wanted to ensure “taxpayers get a fair deal”.



“The devil is in the details here,” Mann said. “A fair deal would mean charging fossil fuel companies for the damage that is being done by the additional burning of fossil fuels in the form of climate change and its costly impact. Even the fossil fuel industry estimates that to be least $60 per ton of carbon burned.”



Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice-president of government affairs of the left-leaning League of Conservation Voters, said she was pleased with what Clinton had offered thus far and is optimistic about what is yet to come.



“Overall, we’re increasingly excited about her leadership on clean energy and climate change,” she said.



Clinton’s new plan, her opposition to both Keystone and Arctic drilling, as well as the renewable energy proposal she rolled out in July, Sittenfeld said, were all evidence of a ramp-up that placed the Democratic frontrunner squarely at odds with her Republicans opponents.

“If you think about the fact that protecting the environment used to be such a source of bipartisan agreement and now pretty much every single Republican candidate for president wants to permanently block the clean power plan … climate deniers are running rampant amongst the Republicans running for president,” she said. “It’s pretty disgraceful, unfortunately.”

Environmental groups were especially jubilant on Tuesday, when Clinton finally made clear that she opposed the controversial Keystone pipeline – after months of declining to take a position.

“I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is, a distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change, and unfortunately from my perspective one that interferes with our ability to move forward to deal with all the other issues,” Clinton said during a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa. “Therefore, I oppose it. And I oppose It because I don’t think it’s in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change.”



She elaborated on her stance in the Medium post Wednesday, writing: “We shouldn’t be building a pipeline dedicated to moving North America’s dirtiest fuel through our communities .”



The Keystone announcement earned immediate rebukes from Clinton’s Republican rivals – such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who accused Clinton of favoring “environmental extremists over US jobs”.



Reviews have suggested the hotly debated pipeline would not, in fact, result in a job-creating bonanza.

The State Department estimated that only 35 permanent positions would be created, while jobs for roughly 3,900 workers required to build the pipeline would last for just a year. Estimates have also varied dramatically for the indirect jobs that Keystone might add, and been lowered amid a drop in oil prices that has reduced the economic viability of further tar sands expansion.



Among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Marco Rubio is one of the few to lay out his own energy agenda. The Florida senator pledged earlier this month to immediately block the Obama administration’s rules on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also advocated for lifting a federal ban on crude oil exports.

Clinton said last week she would support reversing the 40-year ban only if there were concessions from the oil and gas industry toward cleaner energy.

“I’m not against it under all circumstances but I have not yet seen any legislation introduced that would strike the right balance, in my perspective,” Clinton told reporters in New Hampshire.

