Nebraska regulators have approved a route for TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline through the state, removing a big regulatory obstacle for the long-delayed project. The 3-2 vote by the Nebraska Public Service Commission helps clear the way for the pipeline linking Canada’s Alberta oil sands to refineries in the US. The commission’s approval was not for TransCanada’s most preferred route, but for a more costly alternative that would add 8km of pipeline, an extra pumping station and additional transmission lines. The decision did not consider the company’s previous safety violations, notes DeSmogBlog. The new route would circumvent more of the state’s ecologically delicate Sandhills region, reports the Washington Post. The decision opens up new questions about how the project will proceed, says the New York Times. In its submissions, TransCanada had portrayed the alternative route as unworkable, and state and federal officials said it was unclear if the route required any additional permits that the preferred route already had. The decision drew tempered reactions both from opponents of the project and TransCanada, which was noncommittal about its path forward. “As a result of today’s decision, we will conduct a careful review of the Public Service Commission’s ruling while assessing how the decision would impact the cost and schedule of the project,” Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. TransCanada first filed for federal government approval of Keystone XL in 2008, notes the Financial Times, and it was rejected by President Barack Obama in 2015, before the decision was reversed by President Donald Trump in March. The latest approval is likely to be immediately challenged by Native American and environmental groups that claim the pipeline endangers water supplies and will worsen climate change, says the Guardian. And two federal agencies still need to approve permits for Keystone XL, says The Hill. Even with the approval, the $8bn project is still not ready to be built since TransCanada is gauging the economics of the huge investment, says Politico. The story has been covered widely in the US media, including InsideClimate News, Ars Technica, Grist and Think Progress.

British Gas owner Centrica is to scrap its standard variable tariff for new customers from April, and other energy companies are expected to follow suit. Centrica said it would drop its tariff by the end of March next year and replace it with a 12-month “emergency” default rate for those customers who failed to switch to a better deal, says the Times. Similar announcements have already been announced by both E.On and Scottish Power, notes the BBC. Centrica’s CEO, Iain Conn, insisted that the proposals were unrelated to the threat of price controls, but “it was difficult not to see them in that context,” writes Timesdeputy business editor, Robin Pagnamenta. Conn told the Telegraph that the Government knew the supplier was about to reveal “broad and definitive plans” to tackle the number of customers failing to engage with the energy market. “I was disappointed that Theresa May announced her price cap because we were about to disclose a lot of this,” he said. Conn also hinted that he hoped legislation could be avoided if all suppliers followed suit by restructuring the rate plans, says the Financial Times. “If everyone removed default tariffs . . . I would think it must have an influence on the government’s intention to put in a price control,” Conn said. The overhaul of British Gas tariffs was accompanied by a call by Centrica to remove “green” and other policy costs from household bills, says the FT. Centrica believes the costs of subsidising renewable energy generation and schemes such as the £11bn government programme to install smart meters should instead be met from general taxation. If they do remain on bills, Centrica argues that all 60 UK suppliers should have to contribute, regardless of their size. “We think this non-level playing field between suppliers is going to be a real problem going forward especially if this price cap comes in,” Conn said. The Daily Mail leads with these costs on its page two story, with the headline “£200 more on all British Gas bills to fund green switch”. The Independent and City A.M. also have the story.

The melting Antarctic glacier that is currently adding most to sea level rise may be more resilient to change than previously thought, new research suggests. A new series of radar images reveal that the Pine Island Glacier is sitting on a rugged rock bed populated by big hills, tall cliffs and deep scour marks. These features are likely to slow the ice body’s retreat as the climate warms, the researchers say. “Where the bed is flat – that’s where we will see major retreat,” lead author Dr Rob Bingham told the BBC. “But where we see these large hills and these other rough features – that’s where we may see the retreat slowed if not stemmed.”

Albatrosses have suffered a major decline in numbers over the past three decades as a result of careless fishing practices and El Niño events, a new study suggests. Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey have been running a long-term tagging and monitoring study on Bird Island, a 4km-long stretch of land on the western fringes of South Georgia in the South Atlantic. Breeding pairs of the wandering, black-browed and grey-headed albatrosses have all declined since the 1980s – some almost by half. El Niño events mean less food is available, so the birds switch to feeding on discards behind fishing vessels, increasing the number being caught up in fishing lines.

“At present, there is a damaging lack of transparency” over the funding of “the necessary switch to clean energy,” says an FT editorial. “The true cost of UK policies to support green energy is hotly contested,” the FT notes, “A great deal depends on the timeframe selected, how one accounts for the carbon tax and whether one factors in renewable energy’s impact in lowering wholesale prices”. The recent review by economist Dieter Helm found that “UK households in fact pay less than the European average for energy — and less on taxes and levies”, the FT says, but “green subsidies are significant and they have been higher than initially forecast”. “At a time when poorer households are struggling…it will not be surprising if they begrudge paying for decarbonisation policies. Nor is it surprising that energy suppliers resent being blamed for high prices when the government has failed to regularly quantify and explain the impact of its green policies on household bills.” “If the government is to win public support for the essential transition to cleaner energy, it must begin with greater transparency over the costs of its policies, the FT concludes: “Only then can it justify the costs and determine the fairest way to meet them”.

“The message from experts is unequivocal – there is no upside to the UK leaving the Euratom treaty,” writes Labour MEP Clare Moody in the Guardian. “Euratom, among other things, provides safeguarding inspections for all civil nuclear sites in the UK.” Moody points out. “Should the UK fail to have its [replacement] safeguarding regime in place by March 2019, nuclear trade would halt,” Moody warns. “This is not an exaggeration of the problem, or political point-scoring. Put simply, if we don’t have our safeguarding regime in place, our nuclear industry will face major, potentially dangerous, disruptions.” Leaving Euratom at the same time as leaving the European Union is not necessary, she argues. “Euratom is a separate treaty to our EU membership and it is time the government treated it as such, rather than claiming the two are inextricably intertwined.”

“From an EU perspective, COP23 has, If anything, kicked the opportunity to deal with climate change well and truly down the road.” writes independent MEP Diane James for City A.M. The EU “has taken a step backwards and entered into talks to link its carbon market to those of California and China, meaning that EU power and industrial firms will be able to import carbon credits from both California and China” says James. Prices in the EU system are already flat, she argues, because of an oversupply of credits in the market. “The Chinese carbon market is set for launch by the end of this year, and if the early years of the European system are anything to go by, will be chronically oversupplied.” “This will mean that Chinese industrials and power companies will be able to export their carbon credits to the EU for cash, creating another extended period of low prices, which will subsidise fossil fuel consumption in the EU and hand China billions in subsidies,” James says.