High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
HENRY
A. WAXMAN,
CALIFORNIACHAIRMAN
JOE
BARTON, TEXAS
RANKING
MEMBER
ONE
HUNDREDELEVENTH CONGRESS
@onqrtßß
of
tüe
Mníttù
Ststrø
Tþ
oust
o
t
lß¿pr
*mtutíbeø
COMMITTEEON
ENERGY
AND
COMMERCE
2125
Raveunru
House
Orp¡ce
BurrorrucWnsHrrucroru,
DC
2051 5-611 5
lVajority
(202)
225-2927
lVlinority
(202)
225-3641
July
02,2010
The Honorable
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton
Secretary
of
State
U.S.
Department
of
State
Hary
S.
Truman
Building
2201
C
Street,
NW
'Washington,
DC
20520Dear
Madam
Secretary:
I
am
writing
to
inform
youof my
concernsabout
the
proposedKeystone
XL
pipeline
to transportheavy crude
oil
from
the
Canadiantar
sands
in Alberta to
the
Gulf
Coast.
The
State
Department's
decisionon whether to
permitthispipeline
represents
a
critical
choiceabout
America's
energy
future.
This
pipeline
is
a
multi-billion
dollar
investment
to
expandour reliance onthe
dirtiest
source
of
transportation
fuel currently
available.While
I
strongly
supportthe President's
efforts to
move
America to
a
cleanenergyeconomy,
I
am
concerned
that theKeystone
XL
pipelinewould
be
a
step
in
the
wrong direction.
I
am
alsoconcerned
that the
State
Department
has
failed
Io
analyze the
most
significantenvironmental
impacts
ofthis
decision,
as
required
by law,
and
is conducting the
permitting
process
in
a
mannerthat lacks transparency
and
limits
the
ability
of
otherrelevant
agencies
to
participate.The President
has delegated
the
authoritytopermit
transboundary
pipeline
projectstothe
State
Departmentpursuant
to Executive
Orders11423
and13337,
which
require
a
finding
that aprojeci
is
in
the
national
interest.l
Prior to making
the
national
interest determination,
the
NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act
requires
the
State
Departmenttoprepare
an
environmentalimpact
statement
that
assesses
impactsonthe environmentthat
would
result
from
a
project
andevaluates
alternativesthat
would
avoid
or
minimize
adverse
environmental
effects.'
rExec.
Order11423,33
Fed. Reg.
11741
(Aug.16,
1968);Exec.
Order13337,69
Fed. Reg.
25299
(Apr.
30,
2004).
2
NationalEnvironmentalPolicy
Act
of
1969,
Pub.
L.
No.
94-83;Department
of
State,
Keystone
XL
Oil
PipelineProject
Draft
EIS(DEIS)
(April
16,2010),1-1.
The Honorable
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton
July
02,2010
Page2
Keystone
XL
is
a
$7
billion
pipeline
that
would
transportup
to
900,000banels/day
"
(bpd)
oftar
sands
crude
oil
almost2,000
milesfrom Alberta
to refineries
in
the
Gulf
Coast.'This
pipelinewouldroughly
doublethe
quantityof
tar
sands
fuelcurrently
beingimported,
and
in conjunction
withtwo
previouslypermitted
tar
sands
pipelines that
are
notyet
in
full
operation-Keystone
and
Alberta
Clipper-would
more than
triple
the
quantity of
tar
sands
fuel
importedto the
United
States.a
The
cumulativeeffectof
the
threetar
sands
pipelines
would
be
to
increase
tar
sands
imports
to
over
3
million
barrelsper
day.
To
process
this
large
increase
in
tar
sands
imports,
U.S.refineries
will
invest
billionsof
dollarsmore
in refinery
upgrades.5
My
concern
is
thatthis
projectwould
have
a
major
adverse
impact
on
thecarbon
intensityof
U.S.transportation
fuel.
The
problem
is that
oil
can be
extracted
from
the
tar
sands
onlyby
usingthree timesthe energyrequired
to
produce
a
barrelof
conventional
oil.
Studiesestimate
thatshiftingto
tar
sands
fuel
increases
lifecycle
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
up
to
37Yo
compared
to
thebaseline
fuel supply.6
Based
on
a
mid-rangeestimate
of
the
impacts,increasingthe
use
of tar
sands
fuel to
over
3
million
barrelsper
day
would
increase
lifecycle
greenhousegas
emissions
for
transportation
in
the
United
States
by
an
amount
,orrg-hly
equivalent
toãdding
18
million
pus.trg.t
vehiclesto theroads.TThe combined
effect
3
TransCanada
Keystone
Pipeline,
L.P.,
Applicationof
TransCanada
Keystone
Pipeline,
L.P.
for
a
PresidentialPermitAuthorizing
the
Construction,Operation,
and
Maintenance
of
PipelineFacilities
for
the
Importationof
Crude
Oil
to
be
Located
at the
United-States-Canada
Border,
7-9(Sept.
19,
2008).
a
In2}}g,the
United
States
importedapproximately
950,000bpd
of tar
sands
oil
CERA,
The
Role
of Canadian
Oil
Sands
in
US
Oil
Supply,g
(2010).
Keystone
will
carry up
to
590,000bpd
of bitumen,
and
AlbertaClipper
will
carry up
to
800,000
bpd.
Department
of
State,
Keystone
Pipeline
Project
(online
at:
http://www.keystonepipeline.state.gov/clientsite/keystone.nsf?Open);
Enbridge,
AlbertaClipper,online
at:
http://www.enbridge-expansion.com/expansion/main.aspx?id:1218.t
E.g.,theMotiva
refinery,
owned
byRoyalDutch
Shell
andSaudi
Aramco,
is undertaking
a
$7
billion
projectto double
capacity
to
600,000bpd
and
allow
processing
of
heavier
crudes.
In
Texas,Oil
Sands
Firms
Fightfor
Their Share,The Globe
and
Mail
(Nov.
6,
2009).
Thedraft
EIS
cites
multiple
planned
refinery
expansions
andupgrades
in
the
Gulf
Coast
to
increase
bitumen
and
heavy
oil
refining
capacity.DEIS at
l-6.
6
Mui
et
al,
GHGEmissionFactors
for
High
Carbon
IntensityCrude
Oils,
NRDC
(June
2010)(surveyingresults
fromfive
studies
compared
to
2005 baseline).
7
See
U.S.EPA,
Greenhouse
Gas
Equivølencies
Calculator
(online
at:
www.
epa.
gov/rdee/energy-resources/calculator.html).
2
TheHonorable
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton
JuIy
02,2010
Page
3
of
the
three
tar
sands
pipelines
would
be
to
erase
roughlytwo-thirds
oftheglobal
warming
pollution
reductionsthatthe
Administration'shistoricmotorvehicle
standards
would
achieve
in2020.'
I
am
also concerned
that theEIS
for
this
project fails to
discussthese
global
warming
impacts,
which
are
themost
significant
environmental
problem
associated
with
the
project'e
I
am
submitting
separately
more detailedcomments
on
the
EIS.
Inbrief,
the
State
Department's
position
that
it
need
not consider
such
impactsis contrary
to
longstandingguidance
from
the
Council
on
EnvironmentalQuality,
as
well
as
a
recent
districtcourtdecision.r0As
a
matter
of
goodgovernment,
it
makes
little
sense
toprepare
an
EIS, which
has
the
solepurpose
of
ensuringthat thegovernment
understands
the
environmental
impacts
of
a
proposed action,
that
excludesconsideration
of
the
primary
environmental
impact.I
urgetheDepartment
to
prepare
a
supplemental
EIS
that
addresses
the
full
environmental
impacts
of
the Keystone
XL
pipeline,
using
a
lifecycle
greenhouse
gas
emissionsanalysis
prepared
by the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
theDepartment
of
Energy
and
allow
for
public
comment
on
thatsupplementalEIS.
Finally,
I
am
troubled
by the
process
that the
State
Department
appears
to
be
following
for
the
national
interest
determination.E.O.
13337
recognizesthat
these
complex
decisions
involve
matters
within
the expertise
of
multiple
federal
agencies,and
it
providesspecifiedfederal
agencies
90
days
to
comment
on
the
application."
But in
thisproceeding, the
State
Department
started
the
clock
for
agency
commentsonJune
16,2010.
This
means
that
agencies
must
provideviews
onwhetherthe
project is in
thenationalinterest
without
the
iriformation
on
the
project's
environmentalimpãcts
that
shouldbe
discussed
in
the
final
EIS.12
8
See
U.S.
EPA
and
U.S.DOT,
LighfDury
VehicleGreenhouse
Gas
EmissionStandards
and
CorporateAverage
Fuel
Economy Standards;
Final
Rule,Table
III'F.I-1,
(May
7,2010)
(online
at
www.
ep
a.
gov
otaqlclimate/re
gulations.htm)'
e
The
EIS
does address
the
much
smaller
quantity
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
associated
with
constructing
and
operating
the
pipeline,
and
briefly
and
inadequately
considers
the
additional
greenhouse
gas
emissionsthatmayresult
from rehnery
operationsin
the
United
States,
but
èxcludes
all
greenhouse
gas
emissionsthat
will
occur
in
Canada
as
a
result
of
increased
productionoftar
sands
for
exportthroughthe
pipeline.
10
Council
on
EnvironmentalQuality,Council
on
EnvironmentalQuality
Guidance
on
NEPA
Analyses
þr
TransboundaryImpacts
(July
1,
1997);Government
of
the
Province
of
Manitoba
v.
Salazar,-
F.Supp.
2d-,2010
WL
744113
(D.D.C.)
(Mar.
5,2010).
rrExec.
Order
13337,$
1(c),69
Fed.
Reg.25299
(Apr'
30,2004).
lt
The comment
period
onthe
DEIS
closes July
2,2070,
and
the
State
Department
would
likely
needseveral
months
to
respond
to
comments
and
finalize
the
EIS,
while
agency
comments
on
the
national
interestdetermination
are
due September
15, 2010.
J
Add a Comment