EPA Questions Finding of Limited Climate Impact of Keystone XL

Agency says the drop in oil prices should be given ‘additional weight’ as the State Department considers whether approving Keystone would drive up carbon emissions.

US President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, October 24, 2013. The President renewed his call for Congress to pass sweeping immigration reform.
National Journal
Feb. 3, 2015, 7:02 a.m.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday said the collapse in oil prices has cast doubt on the State Department’s conclusion that building the Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline would not cause a big boost in greenhouse-gas emissions.

EPA’s comments, in a Feb. 2 letter to State made public today, are an important twist in the battle over Keystone, because President Obama has said he will not approve the pipeline if it would “significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

The letter arrives as Congress, despite a veto threat, is preparing to send a bill to President Obama’s desk next week that mandates federal approval of TransCanada’s $8 billion project. The State Department’s six-year review of Keystone is ongoing.

A State Department analysis last year concluded that not building the proposed pipeline would have little effect on climate change because carbon-intensive oil-sands development would grow with or without Keystone. Oil-sands companies could increase the use of railways to move their growing production to market, even though it’s more costly, State noted.

However, State’s study also included what the authors called an unlikely scenario: a major, sustained price drop could indeed curtail the growth of oil-sands development without Keystone, at least if other major pipeline projects don’t go forward, either.

EPA’s new letter urges State to give this analysis of the effects of lower prices “additional weight” in light of recent oil market tumult. Oil prices have fallen by 50 percent in the last seven months.

The agency’s letter notes that oil has been trading in the $50-a-barrel range and cites State’s forecast that sustained oil prices in the $65-$75 range, coupled with the higher cost of transporting crude by rail versus pipelines, could have a substantial effect on oil-sands production levels.

Green groups battling Keystone, which would bring oil-sands crude from Alberta through the U.S. to Gulf Coast refineries, seized on the letter to argue that Obama should reject the pipeline.

“[EPA’s] knife-sharp comments make clear that despite the State Department’s relentless spin, Keystone is a climate disaster by any realistic assessment. The president’s got every nail he needs to finally close the coffin on this boondoggle,” said Bill McKibben, founder of the climate advocacy group 350.org.

The American Petroleum Institute, a major oil industry lobbying group, attacked EPA’s letter, calling it a “political play” to disrupt the project.

“Keystone XL was put forward when oil was less than $40 a barrel, so price has little impact on the project. American refiners want it; American producers want to get their oil to those Gulf Coast refineries, and we believe Americans would rather get a large portion of the 8 to 9 million barrels they import each and every day from Canada rather than Venezuela or the Middle East,” said Louis Finkel, the group’s executive vice president.

EPA’s letter on State’s environmental analysis is part of broader input State is receiving from federal agencies on Keystone.

EPA and seven other departments faced a Monday deadline to submit separate comments to State to inform its decision on whether Keystone is in the “national interest,” although the final call will come from Obama.

Secretary of State John Kerry, in a joint appearance with foreign ministers from Canada and Mexico over the weekend, declined to provide a time line for making a decision.

What We're Following See More »
POLIQUIN STILL CHALLENGING RANKED-CHOICE VOTING
Poliquin Loses in Maine's 2nd District
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Democrat Jared Golden has defeated Maine Rep. Bruce Poliquin in the nation’s first use of ranked-choice voting for a congressional race, according to state election officials. The Democrat won just over 50 percent of the vote in round one of ranked-choice voting, meaning he’ll be the next congressman from the 2nd District unless Poliquin’s legal challenges to the voting system prevail. A Golden win in the 2nd District, which President Donald Trump carried in 2016, mean Democrats have picked up 35 seats in the House."

Source:
IF SHE AGREES TO RULES REFORMS
Republicans Could Back Pelosi in Speaker Vote
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) said he and some other Republicans are committed to backing Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for Speaker if she agrees to enact a package of rule reforms. Reed, co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said the growing frustration with gridlock, polarization and a top-heavy leadership approach in Congress are the reasons why several members in his party are willing to supply Pelosi with some Speaker votes in exchange for extracting an overhaul of the House rules." The caucus wants to fast-track any legislation with support of two-thirds of members, and require a supermajority to pass any legislation brought up under a closed rule.

Source:
FOUR TWEETS OVER THREE HOURS
Trump Lashes Out at Mueller Investigation
22 hours ago
THE LATEST
COULD MEMBERS PICK THEIR OWN CHAIRS?
House GOP May Change Method for Committee Assignments
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"House Republicans on Thursday will consider changes to their internal conference rules, with several amendments targeting the process for selecting committee leaders. The biggest proposed change comes from Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher, who wants committee members to be able to choose their own chairmen or ranking members," rather than leadership or the steering committee.

Source:
COULD IMPACT RESULTS IN MAINE DISTRICT
Judge to Rule Thursday on Ranked-Choice Voting
1 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login