The oil/gas export prohibition has a big loophole. It only applies to crude. There's no restriction on export of refined products. So those oil trains, once you get beyond replacment of Alaskan, import, and local oil sources for local/US consumption, are for export. Ditto crude pipelines, where available. The US is one of the largest gasoline exporters in the world now, and the additional oil trains (and Keystone Pipeline) support or are intended to support that kind of activity.

I would like to know where the %-cut number comes from, though. 72% seem really high for an area that already relies heavily on hydro (especially the Columbia River projects) and to some extent on nuke. While there are some coal (you mentioned that there's one left, for now, in WA - has a bulls-eye been painted on it yet?) and oil/diesel (cogen and peaking) plants around, they aren't a huge part of the power mix. OTOH, remember that it's % from 2005 for the proposed regulation; if there were more coal plants around then, the % from now is probably less.

And remember, for now it's a PROPOSED regulation. Given normal procedures (which EPA had better follow, to have a chance in court), it will take the better part of 2 years to make something final and survive at least the first round of lawsuits. Many changes are possible between now and then. Watch for the Federal Register publication (probably in a week or 2 after the announcement) to start a comment period, and feel free to make official comments at [www.regulations.gov].