Scribd Logo

Language

Learn more
UploadRead free for 30 days

Entering the Energy and Environment Policy Frontier

Uploaded by

The Wilson Center
2K views83 pages

Description:

A new report from Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar Nik Nanos explores the changing energy landscape in the United States and Canada and identifies energy policy risks and opportunities. Using original public opinion research, in-depth interviews with experts and advocacy groups, and analysis of secondary data, Nanos suggests that the government should not pick energy winners and losers, but encourage competition among energy sources. Furthermore, Nanos finds that decentralized sub-national environmental policy making, gridlock in Congress, and potential uncertainty in recoverable energy resources should result in greater caution in favoring one policy over another. "We already have a strongly linked electricity grid and Canada has abundant zero carbon power that can be used in the United States. The two countries have a rich history of environmental cooperation." "Both countries are simultaneously going backwards-- Canada with the tar sands and the United States with fracking. These problems are getting in the way of politics, causing countries to backpedal."

Copyright:

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Flag for inappropriate content
2K views83 pages

Entering the Energy and Environment Policy Frontier

Uploaded by

The Wilson Center

Description:

A new report from Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar Nik Nanos explores the changing energy landscape in the United States and Canada and identifies energy policy risks and opportunities. Using original public opinion research, in-depth interviews with experts and advocacy groups, and analysis of secondary data, Nanos suggests that the government should not pick energy winners and losers, but encourage competition among energy sources. Furthermore, Nanos finds that decentralized sub-national environmental policy making, gridlock in Congress, and potential uncertainty in recoverable energy resources should result in greater caution in favoring one policy over another. "We already have a strongly linked electricity grid and Canada has abundant zero carbon power that can be used in the United States. The two countries have a rich history of environmental cooperation." "Both countries are simultaneously going backwards-- Canada with the tar sands and the United States with fracking. These problems are getting in the way of politics, causing countries to backpedal."

Copyright:

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Flag for inappropriate content

Related titles

of 83

ENTERING THEENERGY&ENVIRONMENT Baseline Baseline Research POLICY FRONTIER Baseline Research

ONTARIO Client Name MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Client Name


Anexaminationoftheintersection ofpublicopinionandpublicpolicy

Research

byNikNanos
PublicPolicyScholar Woodrow Wilson International Center2010-101 forScholars Summary Report Project Research Associate Professor Nanos Report Project 20XX-XXX StateUniversity of20XX-XXX NewYork,(Buffalo) Nanos Report Project

STUDY NAME Client Month 2010 Nanos Research Report Project 20XX-XXX

PREFACE

July2013 Thisresearchwasconductedaspartofascholarin residenceprogramattheWoodrowWilsonInternational CenterforScholarsinWashington,DC,betweenJanuary andMay2013. NikNanosisa2013PublicPolicyScholarattheWilson Center,aresearchassociateprofessorattheState UniversityofNewYorkatBuffalo,andtheChairmanofthe NanosResearchGroupofCompanies. Thefindingsandobservationsarebasedonaseriesof sources.Theserangedfromelitekeyconsultation interviewswithavarietyofstakeholdersintheUnited States,statisticaldatainthepublicdomainonenergy, mediaclippings,andoriginalpublicopinionresearch amongAmericansandCanadiansonenergyissues. TheopinionsexpressedinthisdocumentarethoseofNik Nanos.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|1

TABLEOFCONTENTS
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 ABOUT THIS PAPER .............................................................................................................................. 4 WHAT WAS HEARD THROUGH THE PROJECT ............................................................................. 5 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 7 2.0CONSIDERATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE PROPOSITIONS ............................... 9
2.1DecentralizedPolicyMaking......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2Winners,LosersandEnergyChoices............................................................................................................ 10 2.3ANationalCarbonPolicyDialogue............................................................................................................... 11

3.0 DECENTRALIZED POLICY FRONTIER ..................................................................................... 12 4.0 PUBLIC OPINION THE U.S. AND CANADIAN POLICY ENVIRONMENT ....................... 14 5.0 PUBLIC OPINION ENERGY POLICY DIRECTION AND PRIORITIES.............................. 17
5.1ReducingGHGEmissionsandOilImports..................................................................................................... 17 5.2ViewsonCooperationonEnergyPolicyandEnvironmentalStandards........................................................ 18 5.3PerceptionsonEnergySources.................................................................................................................... 21 5.4EnergyPolicies............................................................................................................................................ 22 5.5EnergyChoices............................................................................................................................................ 23

6.0 PUBLIC OPINION VIEWS ON KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ................................................... 24 7.0 KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE MEDIA ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 26 8.0 ELITE OUTREACH ......................................................................................................................... 29 ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|2


8.1EnergyPolicyCooperation........................................................................................................................... 29 8.2PolicyOpportunitiesforU.S.EnergyPolicyMakingwithCanada.................................................................. 29 8.3PolicyChallengesforU.S.EnergyPolicyMakingwithCanada....................................................................... 30 8.4PolicyOpportunitiesforU.S.EnergyPolicyMakingwithMexico.................................................................. 31 8.5PolicyChallengesforU.S.EnergyPolicyMakingwithMexico....................................................................... 31 8.6ImpactofCanadaDiversifyingOilandNaturalGasExportstoAsia............................................................... 31 8.7ProjectingEnergyTrendsintotheFuture..................................................................................................... 32 8.8OpportunitiesandChallengesforEnergySelfsufficiencyintheUnitedStates.............................................. 32

9.0 OIL DEMAND AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ................................................................ 34 10.0 RENEWABLES, SHALE GAS AND DIGGING INTO THE PROJECTIONS ......................... 36
10.1ProjectionsataGlance.............................................................................................................................. 37 10.2ObservationsRelatedtoGrowth................................................................................................................ 38 10.3TheUncertaintyofLongTermProjections................................................................................................. 38 10.4MeasurementUncertainty......................................................................................................................... 39

11.0 PATH FORWARD ........................................................................................................................ 42


AppendixA:ProjectMethodology AppendixB:UnitedStatesandCanadaPublicOpinionSurveysStatisticalTables AppendixC:UnitedStatesandCanadaPublicOpinionSurveysQuestionnaire AppendixD:EliteInterviewDiscussionGuide AppendixE:CalculationsonPetroleumProductsTransportedbyTrain

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|3

ABOUTTHISPAPER

frontier
thepartofacountrythatbordersanother country;boundary;border. thelimitofknowledgeorthemostadvanced achievementin aparticularfield:thefrontiers ofphysics,anouterlimitinafieldofendeavor, especiallyoneinwhichtheopportunitiesfor researchanddevelopment havenotbeen exploited.

Thegamechangerinenergypolicy wasthediscoveryofnewshalegas insignificantabundancetoreshape theenergylandscape.Although coinedbysomeastheharbingerof anenergyrevolution,therealityis that,likeallrevolutions,thejourney mayyieldadestinationdifferent thanmanysupposed.

Untilquiterecently,thepossibilityofenergyindependenceintheUnitedStateswasdeemed remoteandseeminglyunattainable.ThelongstandingbeliefintheUnitedStateswasthatthe UnitedStateswouldcontinuetorelyonkeyNorthAmericanenergypartners,suchasCanada andMexico,aswellastheMiddleEast.Evenwiththedependencenarrative,pressuresto reducegreenhousegasemissionsplacedagrowingfocusondevelopingrenewableenergy sources,reducingenergydemand,andloweringrelianceonfossilfuelsforenergygeneration. Theenergyfuturelookeddependentonthefluctuatingandoftenexpensivepriceofcrudeoil andtheincreasingloudercallsforreducedgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions.Agamechangerin energypolicywasthediscoveryofnewshalegasinsufficientabundancetoreshapetheenergy frontier,coupledwithtechnologicaladvancementstoextracttheresource. ThispaperseekstoexplorethechangingenergylandscapeintheUnitedStatesandCanadaand toidentifyenergypolicyrisksandopportunities. Thispaperisbasedonthefollowingsources: Originalpublicopinionresearchcomprisedofindependentnationalsamplesof opinionofAmericansandCanadians. Eliteindepthinterviewswith13experts,advocacygroups,andthemediainthe UnitedStates. Ananalysisofsecondarydata,includingmediacoverageintheUnitedStates, projectionsonsourcesofenergy,andrailtraffic.

AdetailedmethodologyforthisprojectisincludedinAppendixA.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|4

WHATWASHEARDTHROUGHTHEPROJECT

Therearetwovisionsfortheworld relianceonoilandgas,orbecoming theSaudiArabiaofwindand sunshine.Wecanmoveineither direction. Politicsistheprimarychallenge.The Obamaadministrationneedstosee beyondtheimmediatechallenges. Furthermore,Keystoneisarelatively smallpartofthewholepicture,butit willpoliticallypoisonbroaderenergy relations,whetherapprovedornot.

Wealreadyhaveastronglylinked electricitygridandCanadahas abundantzerocarbonpowerthat canbeusedintheU.S..Thetwo countrieshavearichhistoryof environmentalcooperation. Keystonehasthepotentialto changetheU.S./Canadaenergy relationship.Canadiansarentgreat attellingtheirstoryinregardsto energy.Theirbiggestproblemis thattheydontbrag. Thechallengeisthethoughtless resistancetoenergyprojectsofall kindsthosethatoppose KeystoneXLnotbecauseofany environmentalconsequencesbut becausetheyopposeoiland kneejerkreactionstoany proposalsthatproducemore energysuchaswind.

Bothcountriesaresimultaneously goingbackwardsCanadawiththe tarsandsandtheU.S.withfracking. Theseproblemsaregettinginthe wayofpolitics,causingcountriesto backpedal. ClosercooperationwithMexico wouldleadtoeconomicbenefitsfor NorthAmerica,makeMexicoaricher country,andinturnwouldhelpsolve severalsocialproblems.

Energyisfunctionofphysicsand physicsdoesntrespectmanmade boundaries.Intelligentenergypolicy isacontinentalevent.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|5

Theprincipalconceptadvancedinthispaperisthat thegovernmentshouldnotpickenergywinnersand losersbutfocusonencouragingcompetitionamong energysourceswithinacommonenvironmental standard.Alsoofnote,decentralizedsubnational environmentalpolicymaking,gridlockinCongress, andpotentialuncertaintyintermsofthescopeof recoverableenergyresourcesshouldresultingreater cautioninfavouringoneenergysourceoveranother. Promotinginvestmentinavarietyoftechnologiesto recoverandproduceenergyinanenvironmentally responsiblemannerwilllikelybestminimizethelong termenergyandenvironmentalpolicyrisks. Theresearchalsosuggeststhatacomfortable majorityofAmericanssupportapprovalofthe KeystoneXLpipeline. NikNanos

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|6

1.0EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Thispaperproposesthattherearethreeelementstoconsiderindevelopingapathforwardfor energyandenvironmentalpolicymaking: CertainstatesandprovincesintheUnitedStatesandCanadaaretakingan increasinglyproactiveapproachtoenergyandenvironmentpolicy.Thisisfosteringa decentralizedadoptionoradaptationofenergyorenvironmentalpoliciesas opposedtonationtonationsummitdecisionmaking.Thisisaresultofthedemand foractionatthestateorprovinciallevelandthegridlockinCongress. Thelongtermprojectionsonfutureenergyneedsarevulnerabletoanumberof uncertaintiesthatrangefromtechnologicalunknowns,whichcouldchangethe energylandscape,toenvironmentallegislationyettobeenacted.Inthisuncertain future,governmentsshouldnotfocusonpickingwinnersandlosersbuton encouraginginvestmentinenergytechnologysoavarietyofenergysourcescan competetosetenvironmentalstandardswithinamarketcontext. Evenwithdecentralizedstatedrivenpolicymaking,achievingobjectivesforthe environmentwillbedifficultunlessaframeworkforaNationalCarbonPolicyis created.ConsideringtheintegrationbetweentheAmericanandCanadian economies,thenationalgovernmentsneedtotakearoleinstartinganational dialoguethatlinksacarbonpolicytoenvironmentalgoals.

Principal Findings
IncreasinglydecentralizedpolicymakingAlthoughstatessuchasCaliforniahavetraditionally ledontheenvironmentalpolicyfront,thegridlockinCongress,hasfurtherpropelledstateand provincialenvironmentalpolicyactivitywithmuchofthedialogueonenvironmentaland energyissuestakingplaceatthestateandprovinciallevel.Thispolicyenvironmentisone whichcreatesclustersofsubnationalpoliciesandcoalitionsofstatesandprovinceswith commonsetsofenvironmentalobjectives. RelianceonoilfromoutsideofNorthAmericaThepublicopinionsuggeststhatappetiteto reducerelianceonforeignoilfromoutsideofNorthAmericatrumpstheprioritytoreduce GHG.AlthoughreducingGHGremainsimportantforbothAmericansandCanadians,theneed forenergysecurity,especiallyamongAmericans,isexceptionallystrong. AppetiteforpolicycooperationSurveydataindicatethatthereisasignificantopenness amongAmericansandCanadianstocooperateonbothenergyandenvironmentalissues. Likewise,amajorityoftheindividualswhoparticipatedintheeliteoutreachbelievedthat greatercooperationonenergyandenvironmentalpolicybetweentheUnitedStatesand Canadawasnecessary. ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|7

Renewablesandenergywinners/losersEncouragingrenewableenergysourceshasavery highlevelofimportanceinthegeneralpopulationbutmajoritieswouldstillsupport encouragingnaturalgas,oil,andcoaliftheymetgovernmentenvironmentaltargets.This suggeststhatthepublicismoreoutcome(environment)orientedthanfocusedonpicking winnersandlosers. KeystoneXLPipelineThereexistssignificantpublicsupportfortheapprovaloftheKeystone XLPipelineinboththeUnitedStatesandCanada,butthepositiveimpressionscoresarelower thansupportforapproval.Thepublicdoesnotnecessarilyembracetheprojectbutbelievesit shouldbeapproved. ExaminingthemediacoverageAmediaanalysisof1,046articles,editorials,andletterstothe editorsinmajormediaoutletsintheUnitedStatesoverthepastfouryearsontheKeystoneXL Pipelineindicatesthatthecoveragerelatedtoithasbeenmarginallynegativebutbalanced. TheNewYorkTimeswasnoticeablymorelikelytohaveamediaitemthatleftanegativerather thanapositiveimpressionoftheKeystoneXLPipeline. TheUncertaintyofEnergyProjectionsAreviewofdatafromtheU.S.GeologicalSurvey, whichunderpinsmanyofthemodelsthathavelongtermenergyprojections,showsthatthere aresignificantrangesofestimatesattheassessmentunitlevelfornewervintagesofnaturalgas discoveries.Addinguncertaintiesrelatedtofutureunknowntechnologicaldevelopmentsin extractionoryettobeenactedenvironmentallegislationthatmayimpactenergydemandor thestateoftheeconomyandenergydemand,oneshouldexercisecautionintheverylong termenergyforecastsandinmakingpolicydecisionstopickwinnersandlosersforenergy sources. WillitmovebypipelineorrailRailtrafficdatafromthefirst12weeksof2013indicatethat whileU.S.railtrafficisuponepercentoverall,railtrafficforpetroleumproductsisup57.3% overthepastyear.Anestimatedadditional1,284railcarsadayareneededtomove petroleumproductsintheUnitedStatesandCanadacomparedto2011.Assumingthefirst quartertrendof2013continues,atrainstretchingfromWinnipegtoHoustonwith467,000rail carswouldberequiredtocarryaoneyearsupplyoftheadditionalpetroleumproducts transportedbyrail.Itisclearthatthedemandforoilcoupledwiththestateofpipeline infrastructurehasresultedinanincreasedvolumeofoilbeingtransportedbyrail. ThesearetheprincipalresearchfindingsofthestudyconductedbyNikNanosaspartofa scholarinresidenceprogramsupportedbytheWoodrowWilsonInternationalCenterfor Scholars.Tofollowisthedetailedanalysisandthedatauponwhichthefindingswerebased.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|8

2.0 CONSIDERATIONSANDOPPORTUNITIESOFTHEPROPOSITIONS
AnexaminationofthepublicopinionintheUnitedStatesandCanada,expertsandkey stakeholdersintheUnitedStates,anddatainthepublicdomainsuggestsanumberkey conclusions. Thethreekeypropositionsareintendedtoaddtothedialogueonthefutureofenergyandits relationtotheenvironmentinNorthAmerica.

2.1 Decentralized Policy Making


AlthoughthereisanappetiteamongcitizensandexpertsfordevelopingaUnitedStates CanadaEnergyandEnvironmentalFramework,thisFrameworkwouldbedifficulttoachieve becauseofthepoliticalcontext.Recently,decentralizedpolicymakinghasbeendrivenby statesandprovincesratherthanbynationalgovernments.Thisfluidenvironmenthasbeen exacerbatedbygridlockinCongress.Evenwithobstaclestonationalsolutions,energyandits environmentalimpacttranscendborders.However,thereexistsapublicwilltomoveforward.
Considerations

Thereexistsalackofpublicunderstandingofthecomplexityofenergyandenergy issuesandtherolesthatbothCanadaandMexicoplayasenergypartnerswiththe UnitedStates. Thereisaperceivedmisalignmentbetweentheenvironmentalprioritiesofthe ObamaadministrationandthefocusoftheHarpergovernmentonoilsands development. Negotiatingabinationalframeworkforenergyandtheenvironmentwillbedifficult. Moreover,itsratificationbytheU.S.CongressandpotentiallytheCanadian Parliamentisnotguaranteed.Likewise,entrenchedpoliticalinterests(proandanti fossilfuel)viewpolicydecisionsasazerosumgame. Stateandprovincialjurisdictionsarelikelytolooktoeachotherratherthantotheir federalgovernmenttoadvanceenergyandenvironmentalpolicy.

The Reality

Thesupplyofenergycouldbeasignificanteconomicfactorinenhancingthe competitivenessofNorthAmericanenterprisesglobally.Concurrently,therewill likelybecontinuedpublicdemandtoreducegreenhousegasemissions.Energy markets,includingtheeconomiesinNorthAmerica,alreadytranscendbordersand aresubnationalintermsofpolicymakingandmarketbehaviour.Therealready

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|9

existsnationalcooperationonahostofothercommoninterests,butmanypolicies onenergyandtheenvironmentaredrivenatthestateandprovinciallevel.

2.2 Winners, Losers and Energy Choices


Somearguethatthecountryshouldmovetoalowcarboneconomyinordertohelpmanage theimpactofcarbonfuelsontheenvironment,whileothersarguethatweneedtodevelopthe energyresourceswehavetopromoteprosperity.Ifaneconomicallyandenvironmentally responsibleeconomyisthegoal,governmentsshouldavoidpickingwinnersandlosersto minimizerisk. Environmentaltargetscanbeset,andenergysourcesregardlessofwhethertheyare renewables,fossil,hydroornuclearshouldcompete.Inthisparadigm,technologyand competitionarethekeystomanaginggreenhousegasemissionsandachievingenvironmental targetswithinacompetitivemarket.
Considerations

Technologicalbreakthroughsandlegislativechangeswillsignificantlyimpactthe energyandenvironmentlandscapeinthefuture. Itisdifficultformodelsattemptingtoproject20and30yearsintothefuturetotake intoaccountthetechnologicalbreakthroughsandlegislativechanges.Likewise, pickingwinnersandlosersbysourceofenergyratherthanbyoutput(beit environmentaloreconomic)mayalsoberisky. Shorttermpoliticizedenergypolicydecisionsonspecificprojectsmaypotentiallybe counterproductiveintermsoftheenvironmentalimpact,suchastheinfrastructure tradeoffbetweenmovingoilbypipelineorothermodesoftransportation. Mediaorganizationsmayengageineditorialcampaignsagainstorinfavourof specificenergysourcesinsteadoffocusingonthenetenvironmentalimpact.Inthis case,thesimplificationofthedebatewheresomeenergysourcesareframedas goodandothersbadshiftsawayfromafocusoneconomicandenvironmental outcomes. Consumersareweddedtothestatusquo.Changeoccursreactivelyasaresultof energyorenvironmentalshocks. PublicoppositionandNIMBYism(notinmybackyard)toanyenergyproject, renewableornonrenewable,maybeasignificantfactortoanyprojectregardlessof thesourceofenergy.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|10


The Reality

Onecanexpect,atsomepoint,adisruptivetechnologytoaltertheenergyand environmentallandscape.Ifthedestinationofeconomicallyandenvironmentally sustainableenergysolutionsismoreimportantthanthejourneywherethereisa tendencytopickenergywinnersandlosers,theobjectiveshouldbetoencourage investmentintechnologyforadiversityofenergysources,bothnonfossilandfossil, toworktowardsprovidingeconomicallyfeasibleandenvironmentallyresponsible energysolutions.Thefocusshouldbeontheendresult,notpickingenergywinners andlosers.

2.3 A National Carbon Policy Dialogue


ThefactthattherearesignificantpoliticalhurdlestohavingaUnitedStatesCanadaenergyand environmentalpolicyalignmentshouldnotdetractfrombeginningadialogue.Analternative firststepwouldbetofocusoncreatingaUnitedStatesCanadaframeworkforaNational CarbonPolicyonenergyandtheenvironment.AcommonframeworkwithsharedUnited StatesCanadaobjectiveswillhelpbothcountriesachieveenvironmentalgoalswhileatthe sametimecreatinggreatercertaintyinmakinginvestmentsinanarrayofenergysourcesto meetfutureneeds.TheintegratedeconomiesoftheUnitedStatesandCanadarequireaco ordinatedapproachtoinvestinenergyrelatedtechnologyandenergygeneration.
Considerations

Althoughstatesandprovinceswillcontinuetoproactivelydrivebothenvironmental andenergypolicies,thereremainsarolefortherespectivefederalgovernmentto engageandhelpguidepolicymakingtowardsalignednationalobjectives. Thecurrentpoliticalenvironmentisrestrictiveandshouldnotprecludeadialogue onaNationalCarbonPolicy.Thispotentialdialogueoncarbonrepresentsakey elementforbothmeetenvironmentalobjectivesandalsopromoteeconomic prosperity.

The Reality

Atsomepoint,aframeworkforaNationalCarbonPolicyintheUnitedStatesand Canadawillbeputforward.Beginningthatdialoguesooner,ratherthanlater,could helpcreateprofilefortheenergypartnershipthatexistsbetweentheUnitedStates andCanada.ThefirststepistoacknowledgeandpromotethefactintheUnited StatesthatCanadaisAmericasmostimportantandreliableenergypartnerandto usethatasasteppingstoneforapoliticalcarbonpolicyandtheenvironment dialogue.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|11

3.0DECENTRALIZEDPOLICYFRONTIER
Intermsofenvironmentalpolicy,wemaybe seeingashifttomoreofadecentralized policymakingframeworkforthenearfuture. Thekeyhallmarkoftheexpectedpolicy environmentistheadoptionoradaptation ofpoliciesatthesubnationallevel(state andprovince).Themostcommonparadigm ofthepastwasanationtonation centralizedmodelsuchastheAirQuality AgreementbetweentheUnitedStatesand Canada.Applyingadecentralizedframework toenvironmentalpolicydevelopmentin NorthAmericaprovidesaglimpseofwhat couldbeexpectedinthefutureforthis policyareawhichisbothnationaland state/provincialinitsgovernance. Manyofthepasttransnational environmentalpolicieshavebeenthe productoftraditionalpolicymakingdecision processesinwhichleadersandgovernments meet,negotiate,andratifypolicies.For Sources:TheEconomist(November24,2012),The example,discussionsonacidrainbetween SacramentoBee(April26,2013) theUnitedStatesandCanadawereinitiated in1986bythenCanadianPrimeMinisterBrianMulroneythroughtalkswithU.S.President RonaldReagan.ThesediscussionsculminatedintheAirQualityAgreement,alsoknownasthe AcidRainTreaty,signedin1991byMulroneyandReaganssuccessor,PresidentGeorgeH.W. Bush1.Inthisprocess,inadditiontotheappetiteofpoliticalleaderstoadvancetheissue,there wasapoliticalandlegislativeenvironmenttoenablethosepolicychanges. Intodayspoliticalenvironment,thelevelofpartisanshipinboththeUnitedStatesandCanada isquitehigh.ThisisparticularlytrueintheUnitedStates.Grippedinabudgetsequestration fever,whichnegativelycolorsthepoliticalandlegislativecontext,issuesthatonthesurface seemtohavebroadpublicsupportaregridlockedinCongress.InCanada,althoughthelevelof politicalpartisanshipisalsoquitehigh,theparliamentarymajorityoftheHarpergovernment doesallowittoenablelegislationitidentifiesasapriority.Inthissituation,thetraditional summitmodelofpolicymakingismoreproblematic,becausealthoughthepoliticalwillof leadersmayberesolute,theabilitytoenableisweakened. Theprocessofadvancingenvironmentalpolicyonthesummitmodel,suchasthatthatcreated intheAcidRainTreaty,isdifficultpoliticallyintermsofthedifferentlegislativeprioritiesinthe UnitedStatesandCanada,therisksrelatedtothenegotiationandratificationprocess, indeterminateintermsoftime,andcomplexbecauseoftheroleofstate/provincial ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|12

governmentsinenvironmentalpolicyanddifferentnationallegislativeprioritiesintheUnited StatesandCanada. Anexampleofthissubnationaldecentralizationistheincreasinglyimportantrolethatthe StateofCaliforniahasplayedonenvironmentalissues.Someobservershavedubbedthisthe Californiaeffect,wherestatepolicyinnovationfallsoutsideofitsjurisdiction2.TheStateof Californiahasadvancedpoliciesonfuelstandardswhichwereadoptednationallyandhavehad abroaderimpactoutsideofCalifornia.InApril2013,aformalagreementbetweentheStateof CaliforniaandtheProvinceofQuebectolinkcapandtradeprogramswasannouncedwiththe intentionofexpandingthisagreementtoAustralia,theNortheastoftheUnitedStates,andthe EuropeanUnion3.Inthisapproach,jurisdictionshaveopensourcelikepolicyadoptionfor environmentalpolicyincontrastwithmoretraditionalmodelssuchasthoseusedfortheKyoto Accord,whichincludecomplexinternationalnegotiations. Throughthecourseoftheeliteconsultations,acommonthreadofopinionrelatedtothelimits ofthepoliticalsituationtodeliverenergyandenvironmentalpoliciesatthenationallevel becauseofaseriesoffactorsrangingfrompartisanshipthroughtothevestedinterestsofthe keyenergyandenvironmentalstakeholders.Movementsamongsomekeystatesandprovinces tovigorouslyengageinenvironmentalandenergypoliciesislikelyaresponsenotonlytothe politicallandscape,butalsototheviewthattraditionalnationalandglobalsummitdriven initiativeshavenotbeeneffective. Movingforward,decentralizedmovements,asopposedtocentrallydrivensolutions,maytake onevengreaterimportanceinenvironmentalpolicymaking.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|13

4.0PublicOpiniontheU.S.andCanadianPolicyEnvironment
Areviewofthepublicopinionenvironmentsuggeststhatcitizensaresupportiveofgreater U.S.Canadacooperationintermsofbothenergyandenvironmentalpolicies.Likewise, althoughsomeenergysourceshavemuchmorefavourableimpressionsthanothers,applyinga commonenvironmentalstandardtoallenergysourcesandallowingthemtocompetewould likelybeembracedbybothAmericansandCanadiansasdemonstratedinthepublicopinion research. Policyisnotcreatedinavacuum.Itislargelytheresultofacombinationoffactors,including governmentpriorities,publicopinion,andcompetingpolicydemands.Aspartofthisstudy, U.S.andCanadianpolicymaps,whichvisuallydisplaythepolicylandscapeon15policyissues, werecreated(Exhibits1and2).BypollingthepublicintheUnitedStatesandCanada,wewere abletodeterminecitizenspriorities(usingascaleof1to10,where1wasnotatallimportant and10wasveryimportant)andalsohowconfidentornotconfidenttheywereineachnations abilitytofindsolutions(forthemap,notconfidentwasassignedavalueof1andconfident wasassignedavalueof4).Fifteenpolicyareaswererotatedandtestedaspartofthepolicy mappingprocedure,including: managingthepressuresofanagingpopulation; furtherprotectingourenvironment; havingtradepoliciesthatencourageinvestment; encouragingAmerican/Canadianculture; beingenergyselfsufficient; ensuringAmericans/Canadianshaveahighstandardofliving; investinginoureducationsystem; keepingourhealthcaresystemstrong; creatingjobs; preservingsocialprograms; balancinggovernmentbudgets; investingininfrastructure,suchasroadsandbridges; ensuringsafecommunities; assertingAmericas/Canadasroleininternationalaffairs;and, protectingourborders.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|14

Exhibit1
USPolicyConfidencevsImportanceMap
3.1

(Source:Nanos,n=1,007Americans,April2013)
Infrastructure

Confidence(1=notconfident,4=confident)

2.9

Environment Preservingsocialprograms EncouragingAmerican America's rolein culture int'laffairs Tradepoliciesthat encourageinvestment Ensuringhighliving standards Ensuringsafecommunities Investingineducation Energyselfsufficiency Managingagingpopulation Borderprotection Creatingjobs Keepinghealthcaresystem strong

2.7

2.5

2.3

2.1 Balancedbudgets 1.9 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

Importance(1=notatallimportant,10=veryimportant)

Exhibit2
CanadaPolicy ConfidencevsImportanceMap
3.1

(Source:Nanos,n=1,007Canadians,April2013)
Energyselfsufficiency

Confidence(1=notconfident,4=confident)

3.0

2.9

2.8 Borderprotection 2.7 Tradepoliciesthat encourageinvestment Ensuringsafecommunities Investingineducation Infrastructure Ensuringhighliving standards Creatingjobs

2.6

2.5

Canada'srolein int'laffairs

2.4

2.3

Keepinghealthcaresystem EncouragingCdnculture strong Preservingsocialprograms Environment Balancedbudgets Managingagingpopulation 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

2.2

Importance(1=notatallimportant,10=veryimportant)

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|15

Thepurposeofthesurveyresearchandthesubsequentcreationofthemapwasto contextualizeenergyandenvironmentalpolicyprioritieswithinabroaderpolicyframework. Themapsillustratethreekeypoints: TheEnvironmentAmericansaremuchmoreconfidentthanCanadiansthatasa nation,theycanfindsolutionstofurtherprotecttheenvironment.Ontheother hand,Americanshavealowlevelofconfidenceinthegovernmentscapabilityto balancethebudget.AmericansandCanadiansratedenergyselfsufficiencyequally importanttoinvestingineducationandkeepingthehealthcaresystemstrong. EnergySelfsufficiencyCanadiansaremuchmoreconfidentthanAmericansin theircountrysabilitytobeenergyselfsufficient.Second,Canadiansidentified keepingthehealthcaresystemstrongasthemostimportantpolicyissue.Canadians aremuchlessconfidentthanAmericansontheircountrysabilitytoprotectthe environment. OverallConfidenceAtthetimethesurveywasconducted,Americanswere generallymoreconfidentthanCanadiansontheircountrysabilitytofindsolutions topolicychallenges.TheresponsesofAmericansandCanadianscanbevisualizedin theclustersonthemaps.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|16

5.0PUBLICOPINIONENERGYPOLICYDIRECTIONANDPRIORITIES
IdentifyingtheprioritiesandconfidenceinfindingsolutionsamongbothAmericansand CanadiansenabledustounderstandthecontextintheUnitedStatesandCanadaforenergy andtheenvironmentpolicymaking.Itwouldbefairtosaythatwhenonetestsonpriorities individually,mostaredeemedimportantbythepublic.Examiningviewsintermsofaforced choicemodel4oftwoprioritiesprovidesabetterunderstandingofthetradeoffsbetween reducingGHGandreducingrelianceonoilfromoutsideofNorthAmerica.Broadlyspeaking, ourexplorationofpolicyprioritiesfocusedonperceptionsrelatedtoenergyandtothe environment.Althoughthetermenergysecurityhasbeenusedinotherstudies,wedidnot usethatterminthequestionnairebecausewecouldnotguaranteethatrespondentswould interpretthemeaningofenergysecurityconsistently.Ratherthanusethetermenergy security,wepresentedrespondentswithspecificpolicyoptionsandtestedAmericansand Canadiansviewsonthesedetailedpolicyoptions.

5.1 Reducing GHG Emissions and Oil Imports


PublicopinionresearchshowsthatbothAmericansandCanadiansfavorreducingrelianceon importingoilfromoutsideofNorthAmericaoverreducingGHGemissions.Americanswere twiceaslikelytopreferlessrelianceonoilimportsasapriority(63percent)thanreducingGHG (30percent).Theseviewsaregenerallyconsistentacrossmostdemographicsubpopulations. ConsideringCanadasvastenergyresources,itisnotsurprisingthatfewerCanadiansidentified relianceonoilfromoutsideofNorthAmericaasaconcern.TheonlyregioninNorthAmerica
Exhibit3 Question:Whatismoreimportanttoyou,reducinggreenhousegasesorhavingNorthAmericafreefromimportingoiloutsideofNorth America?

Canada

38%

55%

8%

US

30%

63%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Reducing green house gases Having North America free from importing oil outside of North America Unsure

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|17

thatdeviatedfromthistrendwasQuebec.AmongthesubsampleofQuebecers,53percent identifiedreducingGHGemissionsasapriority,comparedto39percentthatidentified reducingrelianceonimportedoilasapriority.ThisstudysfindingsonQuebecareconsistent withotherpublicopinionresearchonenvironmentalissuesconductedinthatprovince,which suggestagreaterfocusontheenvironmentasanissueinQuebeccomparedtomanyother regions.ThisislikelyaresultofQuebecsrelianceonrenewablehydroelectricenergy.For example,accordingtotheGovernmentofQuebec,97percentofalltheelectricitytheprovince producesisgreenelectricity5.

5.2 Views on Co-operation on Energy Policy and Environmental Standards


Consistentwiththefindingsoftheeliteoutreach,respondentsindicatedtheirdesireforgreater cooperationwithinNorthAmericaintheareasofenergyandtheenvironment.Thedesirefor energycooperationishigherintheUnitedStatesthaninCanada,andinfact,manyAmericans wanttoseetheUnitedStatesworkmorecloselywithCanadaonallenergyrelatedissues(86 percent).Incontrast,justundersevenoutoftenCanadians(69percent)wouldliketosee closercooperationwiththeUnitedStatesonenergyrelatedissues.Still,inbothcountries, respondentsindicatedtheirdesirefortheUnitedStatesandCanadatobecloseenergy partners.
Exhibit4 Thinkingofthefuturedirectionofenergypolicy,woulditbeyourpreferencefortheretobeclosercooperationorless cooperationwithAmerica/Canadaasanenergypartner

AlthoughtheappetiteforenergycooperationwithMexicoissignificantinboththeUnited StatesandCanada,thelevelislowerthanfortheUnitedStatesCanadapartnership(86percent ofU.S.respondentsindicatedadesireforCloserCooperationwithCanada,butonly60percent ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|18

ofU.S.respondentsindicatedtheirdesireforCloserCooperationwithMexico;CanadaCloser CooperationwiththeUnitedStates69percent,CloserCooperationwithMexico47percent). Anumberoftheindividualsintheeliteinterviewsbelievedthatgreatercooperationbetween theUnitedStatesandCanadaonenergyissueswouldbeachievablebutthatthereare structuralobstaclestoaddingMexicoasanenergypartnerintheshortterm.Theobstacles theyidentifiedincludetheneedfortheMexicanenergysectortoreformandfortheMexican governmenttosetapossiblenewpathforMexicosstateownedpetroleumcompany,PEMEX. BothAmericansandCanadiansalsothoughthavingcommonenvironmentalstandardsbetween countrieswasquiteimportant.Inasimilarpatterntotheenergycooperationresults,thelevel ofintensityofimportanceofcooperationbetweentheUnitedStatesandCanadawashigherin theUSandalsohigherthantheintensityofimportanceofcooperationbetweentheUnited States,Canada,andMexico.

Exhibit5 Thinkingofthefuturedirectionofenergypolicy,woulditbeyourpreferencefortheretobeclosercooperationorless cooperationwithMexicoasanenergypartner

Canada

47%

27%

26%

US

60%

31%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Closer cooperation

Less cooperation

Unsure

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|19

Exhibit6 Arethefollowingimportant,somewhatimportant,somewhat unimportantorunimportanttoyou:

Having common environmental standards between Canada and the US (US)

64%

22%

3% 9%

3%

Having common environmental standards between Canada and the US (Can)

42%

36%

12%

7% 3%

Having common environmental standards between Canada, Mexico, and the US (US)

57%

24%

5% 11% 4%

Having common environmental standards between Canada, Mexico, and the US (Can) 0% Important Somewhat important

38%

37%

12%

9% 4%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Somewhat unimportant Unimportant Unsure

FactoringrespondentsinboththeUnitedStatesandCanadawhobelieveditwaseither importantorsomewhatimportant,verystrongproportionsofthepopulaceseecooperationas animportantelementoftheenvironmentalpolicymix. Thesurveyopinionwasconsistentwiththeelitefeedback.Issuessuchasproximityofthethree markets,currenttradealignmentthroughtheNAFTA,andpositivepotentialspillovereffectsof strengthenedtiesamongthethreecountriespointtoanopportunitytoexploreamoreco ordinatedenergyandenvironmentalframeworkforNorthAmerica.Manyoftheexpertsnoted thateachcountryisnotamonolithicenergymarketbutaseriesofenergymarketswith differentneedsthusnecessitatingcrossnationalandsubregionalstrategiestooptimize energy.Likewise,environmentalconcerns,suchasacidrain,wereseenascommonissues requiringabiormultinationalresponse. Duringtheeliteconsultations,anumberofindividualsindicatedthatbettercountrytocountry policydevelopmentonbothenergyandenvironmentalissueswouldhaveapositiveimpacton environmentalpolicyoutcomesandwouldbenefittheNorthAmericaneconomy. Basedonpublicopinionandtheeliteoutreach,itisnotinconceivablethatCanadaandthe UnitedStatesmightconsiderdevelopingacommonframeworktotackleenergyand environmentalpriorities.Onceestablished,thesebilateralpoliciescouldbeextendedto includeMexico,afterthereisgreatercertaintyonthefutureconfigurationofPEMEX.This transition/developmentwouldbeakintofreetradediscussionswheretheCanadaU.S.Free TradeAgreementwasestablishedfirstandthenevolvedintotheNorthAmericanFreeTrade Agreement,whichincludedMexico. ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|20

5.3 Perceptions on Energy Sources


Althoughthepurposeofthestudywasnottoexamineindetailtheenergymixofthefuture, oneofitsobjectiveswastogetasenseofhowthepublicfeltaboutanarrayofenergysources. Thestudyidentifiedrenewablesasacentralpartofthepublicenergynarrative,aswellasthe publicsperceptionoftherelationshipbetweencoalandnaturalgas.Combiningtheviewsof AmericansandCanadianswhosaidencouragingrenewableswasimportantorsomewhat importantsuggestedthattheappetiteforencouragingrenewablesisquitestrong.Thiswas especiallytrueintheUnitedStates,moresothaninCanada(83percentofAmericanssaid encouragingrenewableswasimportantorsomewhatimportant,comparedto75percentof Canadians).Similarly,viewsonencouragingnaturalgasratherthancoalreceivedpositivebut notasintenseimportancescores.Ofnote,amajorityofCanadiansandAmericansstillthought thatencouragingcoalandnuclearwasimportantorsomewhatimportant. IntheUnitedStatesthereisaclearandsignificantpublicappetitetoencouragerenewable energy,suchaswind,solar,andhydropower.Thepublicwouldsupportstrategiesthatfavor renewableenergyaspartofabroaderlongtermenergyplan.

Exhibit7 Arethefollowingimportant,somewhatimportant,somewhatunimportantor unimportanttoyou[ROTATE]:

Encouraging the use of more renewable energy, such as wind, solar and hydro power (US)

70%

13%

4% 12% 2%

Encouraging the use of more renewable energy, such as wind, solar and hydro power (Can)

51%

24%

10%

13%

3%

Using more natural gas rather than coal (US)

58%

25%

4% 7%

6%

Using more natural gas rather than coal (Can)

50%

31%

9% 6% 5%

Encouraging the use of nuclear energy (US)

36%

26%

9%

22%

8%

Encouraging the use of nuclear energy (Can)

24%

31%

15%

21%

10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Important

Somewhat important

Somewhat unimportant

Unimportant

Unsure

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|21

5.4 Energy Policies


Inadditiontoensuringastablesupplyofenergyandeliminatingtherelianceofoilfromoutside ofNorthAmerica,Americansidentifiedhavinglowerenergypricesasimportant.Newtaxeson fossilfuelshadthelowestlevelofimportanceonthepolicygrid,althoughAmericanswere morelikelytobelieveitwasimportantcomparedtoCanadians(UnitedStates Important/somewhatimportant:48percent;CanadaImportant/somewhatimportant:38 percent).MostotherproposalsincludingreducingGHG,reducingtheuseoffossilfuels,and introducingtougheremissionscontrolsforvehicleswereidentifiedasimportantorsomewhat importantpoliciesforaclearmajorityofthepopulationsinboththeUnitedStatesandCanada. Beyondensuringastablesupplyofenergy,reducingrelianceonoilfromoutsideofNorth America,andhavinglowenergyprices,itisclearthatnewtaxesonfossilfuelswouldbemet withresistancebysome.Significantly,Americanswouldmorelikelyacceptnewtaxescompared toCanadians.
Exhibit8 Arethefollowingimportant,somewhatimportant,somewhatunimportantor unimportanttoyou[ROTATE]:
Ensuring a stable supply of energy (US) Ensuring a stable supply of energy (Can) Trying to eliminate reliance on oil from outside of North America (US) Trying to eliminate reliance on oil from outside of North America (Can) Having the lowest energy prices possible (US) Having the lowest energy prices possible (Can) Reducing green house gases (US) Reducing green house gases (Can) Getting the people to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas (US) Getting the people to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas (Can) Getting businesses to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas (US) Getting businesses to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas (Can) Introducing tougher emission controls for vehicles (US) Introducing tougher emission controls for vehicles (Can) Having new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline, heating oil and natural gas to reduce their use and green house gases (US) Having new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline, heating oil and natural gas to reduce their use and green house gases (Can) 15% 32% 27% 23% 40% Unimportant 21% 40% 49% 37% 9% 21% 60% Unsure 37% 55% 36% 21% 6% 17% 38% 36% 80% 50% 56% 47% 55% 36% 24% 27% 24% 60% 73% 62% 70% 27% 22% 28% 18% 14% 88% 27% 16% 1% 1% 10%0% 6% 3% 4% 6%3% 2% 3% 2% 6% 5% 4%2% 7% 2% 5% 4%

5% 11% 9% 6% 16% 5% 12% 20% 14%

12% 3% 9% 2% 13% 3% 10% 2% 4%

11% 3% 5% 5% 100%

Important

Somewhat important

0% 20% Somewhat unimportant

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|22

5.5 Energy Choices


Inordertoexploretheconceptofchoicesbetweenfossilbasedenergysources,aseriesof possiblescenarioswastestedamongrespondentsintheUnitedStatesandCanada.The purposeofthisapproachwastomeasureopennessorresistancetodifferentfossilfueloptions basedonapossibleassociationwiththefossilfuelmeetinggovernmenttargetsforGHG emissions(nospecifictargetsweretestedbecauseofthecomplexityoftheissue).Amajorityof Americanssupportedthecontinueduseofallfossilfuelsifsuchfuelsmetgovernmenttargets forreducingGHGemissions.Naturalgashadthehighestlevelofsupport,andalthoughcoalhad thelowestcomparativelevel,63percentofAmericanssaidtheywouldsupportorsomewhat supporttheuseofcoalintheUnitedStatesifitmetgovernmenttargetsforGHGemissions. ThemajorityofCanadianrespondentswerealsosupportiveofnaturalgasifitmetgovernment targetsforGHG,butthepercentageofCanadianswhoencouragedtheusecoalwas50percent infavourand40percentagainst,with10percentunsure. Basedonthepublicopinion,onecansurmisethatamajorityofthepublicislikelymorefocused ontheabilityofanenergysourcetomeetaparticularenvironmentalstandardratherthan pickingwinnersandloserswherespecificsourcesofenergyareactivelydiscouraged.

Exhibit9 Wouldyousupport,somewhatsupport,somewhatoppose oropposethefollowing:

If natural gas met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of natural gas (US) If natural gas met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of natural gas (Can) If oil met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of oil (US) If oil met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of oil (Can) If coal met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of coal (US) If coal met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of coal (Can)

61%

23%

6% 7% 3%

50%

33%

4%8% 6%

44%

25%

7% 14% 10%

33%

34%

13%

9% 12%

42%

21%

10%

20%

8%

22%

28%

19%

21%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Oppose Unsure

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|23

6.0PUBLICOPINIONVIEWSONKEYSTONEXLPIPELINE
ExaminingtheviewsofAmericansandCanadiansontheKeystoneXLPipelinesuggeststhatthe pipelineitselfhasasignificantlevelofawarenessinbothcountries.Theawarenessofthe pipelineinCanadaislikelyaresultoftheeffortsofbothenvironmentalistsandvarious Canadiangovernments,includingprovincialandfederallyelectedofficials,tocreateavisible profileontheprojectinCanadaandintheUnitedStates.AstheObamaadministration deliberateswhethertoapprovethepipeline,Canadianofficialsareespeciallykeentoadvance publicopinionintheUnitedStatesinfavoroftheKeystoneXLPipeline.
Exhibit 10 Question: Have you heard or not heard of the Keystone Pipeline project which is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and bitumen from the Alberta oil sands in Canada to the United States?

Canada

92%

6% 3%

US

75%

25%

1%

0%

20%

40% Heard Not heard

60% Unsure

80%

100%

Exhibit 11 Question: Do you have a positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or negative view of the Keystone Pipeline project? (Aware only)

Canada

32%

28%

19%

15%

6%

US

44%

26%

10%

14%

6%

0% Positive

20%

40%

60% Somewhat negative

80% Negative

100% Unsure

Somewhat positive

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|24

ItisalsoclearthatthepipelinesvisibilityintheUnitedStatesislargelyduetosignificantmedia coverage,includingthepipelinesprominenceduringthemostrecentpresidentialelection cyclewhenadecisionwaspostponed. AnexaminationoftheotheropinionsexploredaspartofthestudyindicatesthatAmericans weretwiceaslikelytoplacereducingdependenceonoilfromoutsideofNorthAmericaasa moreimportantpolicypriority(63percent)thanreducingGHGemissions(30percent)ina directtradeoff(i.e.choosedirectlybetweenthetwopossiblepriorities)situation.However, whentestedindependently,reducingGHGwasconsideredimportantorsomewhatimportant byalmosteightinten(78percent)Americans,whiletryingtoeliminaterelianceonoilfrom outsideofNorthAmericawasconsideredimportantorsomewhatimportantbynineinten Americans(90percent).AlthoughreducingGHGisimportanttoAmericans,whenfacedwitha choicebetweenreducingGHGemissionsorlesseningdependenceonoilfromoutsideofNorth America,Americanswouldprefertoreducedependenceonexternalsourcesofoil. ImpressionsmeasuredinthepublicopinioninbothCanadaandtheUnitedStateswereless positivethansupportforthepipeline.ThisresultsuggeststhatAmericansandCanadiansmay notbeembracingtheprojectproactively,butgenerallyseeitasnecessaryintermsofenergy securitypriorities.
Exhibit 12 Question: Based on what you have heard about the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline between Canada and the US, do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the US government approving the project? (Aware only)

Canada

45%

23%

15%

13%

5%

US

52%

22%

7%

14%

5%

0% Support

20%

40%

60% Somewhat oppose

80% Oppose

100% Unsure

Somewhat support

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|25

7.0KEYSTONEXLPIPELINEMEDIAANALYSIS
Themediaanalysisandpublicopinionresearchbothsuggestthatthereexistsconsiderable awarenessoftheKeystoneXLpipelineintheUnitedStates.Thenewspapercoveragewasonly marginallynegative,withtheexceptionofonemajormediaorganizationthatwasconsistently negative.Thekeyconclusionisthatthemediacoverageofthepipelinehasnotbeen overwhelminglynegative. Aspartofthestudy,weanalyzed1,046itemsinthetopnewspapersbycirculationinthe UnitedStates.ThesearchparametersforthemediaanalysisincludedthekeywordsKeystone andpipelinefortheperiodofthefirstObamaadministrationthroughApril1,2013.Eachof theitemswasreadandcategorizedintermsofrelevance(onascaleof1to5,where1waslow relevanceand5washighrelevance)andalsointermsofimpressionoftheKeystoneXLPipeline (onascaleof1to5,where1wasnegativeimpressionand5waspositiveimpression). Overthecourseofthelastfouryears,therehavebeen483millionmediaimpressions(reachin themarketplacebasedonthecirculationofnewspaperorganisations)and1,046items(articles, editorials,opinionpieces,letterstotheeditors,etc.)relatedtotheKeystoneXLPipelineproject intheUnitedStatesamongmajorAmericannewspapers.Thisestimateexcludestelevisionand radiocoverageofthepipeline.Overall,amajorityoftheitemsexaminedwereprimarily focusedontheKeystoneXLPipeline,withahighdegreeofrelevancetotheissue.Theabsolute numberofitemsintheanalysisshowthatthemediaimpressionsweremarginallymorelikelyto projectanegativeorsomewhatnegativeimpression(31.0percentwererateda1and2onthe 5pointscale)ratherthanapositiveimpression(25.6percentwasa4or5onthe5pointscale).
Exhibit13 RelevanceofNewspaperItemsreferringtoKeystoneXLPipeline
Cumulative Percent 14.1 24.0 33.9 43.1 100.0

Frequency Value Low relevance 2 3 4 High relevance Total 148 103 104 96 595 1046

Percent 14.1 9.8 9.9 9.2 56.9 100.0

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|26

Exhibit14 Positive/NegativeImpressionsofKeystoneXLPipelineamongNewspaperItems
Cumulative Percent 11.7 31.0 74.5 86.4 100.0

Frequency Value Negative impression 2 3 4 Positive impression Total 122 202 455 125 142 1046

Percent 11.7 19.3 43.5 12.0 13.6 100.0

Exhibit15 Positive/NegativeImpressionsofKeystoneXLPipelineamongNewspaperItems KeystoneXLMediaImpressions PositiveMediaImpressions NeutralMediaImpressions NegativeMediaImpressions TotalMediaImpressions NetImpactofMediaImpressions Impressions 95,869,541 224,533,005 (163,080,745) 483,483,291 (67,211,204) Percent 19.8% 46.4% 33.7% 100.0%

Onceonefactorsthemediaimpressionsoftherespectivenewspaperorganizations(Exhibit15), however,theimpactbecomesmorenoticeablynegative.Overall,therewerealmost483million mediaimpressionsintheUnitedStatesonKeystoneXLPipelineduringtheanalysisperiod,with 34percentofthenewspaperimpressionsbeingnegativeand20percentofthereachpositive. Readersshouldalsonotethatoneimportantnewspaperorganizationhadadisproportionate impactontheKeystoneXLPipelinenarrativeinthenewspaperimpressionanalysis.Thenet impactofitemsfromtheNewYorkTimesresultedin53millionnetnegativemedia impressions.Thissingleorganizationrepresented79percentofthenetnegativeimpressionsin theUnitedStatesnewspapermarketplaceonanaggregatedbasis.Likewise,fortheperiodin theanalysis,theNewYorkTimeswasestimatedtohaveapproximatelythreetimesgreater likelihoodtohaveanegativeratherthanapositivearticleontheKeystoneXLPipeline(see Exhibit15:38percentnegativeimpressioncomparedto13percentpositiveimpression).This suggeststhat,excludingtheNewYorkTimes,coverageoftheKeystoneXLPipelinehas generallybeenbalancedbetweenpositiveandnegativestories(onlyanetnegativefivepercent differentialasopposedtoanegative14pointdifferentialbetweenpositiveandnegative impressions).

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|27

Exhibit16 NewYorkTimesMediaImpressionsofKeystoneXLPipelineNewspaperItems withaComparisonoftheAggregatedImpressionswithouttheNewYorkTimesItems KeystoneXLMediaImpressions PositiveMediaImpressions NeutralMediaImpressions NegativeMediaImpressions TotalMediaImpressions NetImpactofMediaImpressions ImpressionsNYT 25,821,840 101,673,495 (79,079,385) 206,574,720 (53,257,545.00) Percent 12.5% 49.2% 38.3% 100.0% Netw/oNYT 70,047,701 122,859,510 84,001,360 276,908,571 (13,953,659) Percent 25.3% 44.4% 30.3%

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|28

8.0ELITEOUTREACH
Aspartoftheresearchstudy,aseriesofeliteinterviews,whichaddressedenergyissuesthat relatedtoCanadaandMexico,wereconductedwithindividualsintheenergyandenvironment sectorsintheUnitedStates.Theeliteoutreachincludedadvocacygroups,associations,experts, andthemedia.Theeliteinterviewswereconductedeitherinpersonorbyphone.Thepurpose oftheinterviewswastoprovidecontextfortheenergypolicyresearchandtohelpgather informationsourcesforthestudyarea.Theanalysisofthe13indepthelitestakeholder outreachinterviewsshouldbeconsideredqualitativeinnatureandcannotbeprojectedtoany group(seeAppendixDfortheEliteOutreachDiscussionGuide). Theindividualsthatsharedtheirviewsaspartoftheeliteoutreachgenerallyreinforcedthe needforgreatercooperationbetweentheUnitedStatesandCanadaonbothenergyand environmentalpolicies.Therewassignificantconcernrelatedtotheabilitytodevelopbi nationalsolutionsbecauseofthecurrentpoliticalenvironmentintheUnitedStates.

8.1 Energy Policy Cooperation


WhenaskedaboutthefuturedirectionofenergypolicyintheUnitedStates,themajorityof individualsconsultedexpressedtheviewthattheUnitedStatesshouldhavecloserco operationwithbothCanadaandMexicoonenergyissues.Theindividualsbelievedthatthe benefitsofgreatercooperationoutweighedtherisks,andapotentialhemisphericenergy securityandenvironmentalframeworkorstrategy.Theyalsobelievedthatmultilateral cooperationcouldbenefittheUS,Canada,andMexico.Alreadyeconomicpartnersthroughthe NAFTA,thethreecountriescouldworktogetheronenergyandenvironmentissues.Individuals fromtheeliteconsultationsidentifiedtwofactorspositiverelationswithbothMexicoand Canada,andthecloseproximityofenergyresourcestoUSmarketsasopportunitiestoengage incontinentalenvironmentalpriorities.

8.2 Policy Opportunities for U.S. Energy Policy Making with Canada
TheelitestakeholdershaddiverseandsometimesconflictingviewsofU.S.energypolicywith respecttoCanada,thoughtherewereanumberofsignificantcommonalitiesofopinion. Whetheronewasanenvironmentaladvocate,industryassociationrepresentative,or environmentorexpert,thekeyconsensusisthattheUnitedStatesandCanadahavetowork morecloselyonenergyandenvironmentalpolicy.Theelitestakeholdersgenerallybelieved thatthecurrentpolicycontextdidnotyieldoptimalenergyorenvironmentalpolicyoutcomes. Thecommonthreadsofeliteopinionincluded: 1. CooperationTheUnitedStatesandCanadaneedtoembracepoliciesthat promotegreaterNorthAmericancooperationonenergyandenvironmentalissues inordertopromoteinvestmentinenergyinfrastructureandtoachieve environmentalobjectives.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|29

2. SmartGridAnumberofexpertspointedtotheneedtofurtherpromoteaNorth Americanelectricitysmartgridtoallowthemovementofelectricityacrossthe borderswhilerealizingthatNorthAmericaisaseriesofregionalenergymarkets withdifferentneeds,energycapabilities,andpriorities. 3. CooperationonEnvironmentalObjectivesTheUnitedStatesandCanadahavea richhistoryofenvironmentalcooperationinmanyareas,suchasacidrain,andthe twocountriesoughttoextendthiscooperationtoenergyandenvironmentpolicy frameworks.

8.3 Policy Challenges for U.S. Energy Policy Making with Canada
ElitestakeholdersidentifiedanumberofchallengesfacingtheUnitedStatesandCanadaonco ordinatingenergypolicy.Manyofthesechallengesstemfromthelackofacoordinatedpolicy frameworkbetweenthetwocountriesonenergyandtheenvironment.Otherchallengesare rootedinthedomesticpoliticalsituationineachcountry.Thesechallengesincluded: 1. Theperceivedmisalignmentofnationalobjectivesinenergyandtheenvironment betweentheObamaadministrationandtheHarpergovernment. 2. Thebeliefthatproactivestateandprovincialgovernmentsareshapingenergyand environmentalpolicyduetoweakfederalpoliticalleadershipintheUnitedStates andCanadaresultinginpolicyadhockery. 3. PublicfailuretothinkofCanadaasAmericasmostimportantenergypartner. 4. LackofknowledgeintheUnitedStatesofCanadasenvironmentalrecord. 5. Ingeneral,theconcernthattheAmericanpublicseesCanadaashavingavested interestinfossilfuelswithoilsandsdevelopmentasthesignatureCanadianenergy initiativeinthepublicdomain.Likewise,theAmericanpublicisgenerallyunawareof Canadasdiversifiedportfolioofenergysources,includingCanadassignificant renewablehydroelectriccapacity. Therewasdisagreementamongtheelitestakeholdersonahandfulofissues.Anumberofthe participantsintheeliteconsultationidentifiedtheneedtoreduceNorthAmericascarbon footprint.OtherrespondentsbelievethattheKeystoneXLPipelineeithercondemnedthe UnitedStatestocontinuedrelianceoncarbonfuels,orwasnecessaryaspartofAmericaslong termenergyfuture.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|30

8.4 Policy Opportunities for U.S. Energy Policy Making with Mexico
WhilemanyindividualsintheeliteoutreachviewedjointUnitedStatesCanadaenergypolicyas opportunitiesforpolicyalignment,thesesamerespondentsviewedjointUnitedStatesMexico policyintermsofinvestmentopportunities. 1. ManyeliterespondentsexpectMexicosenergysectortobereformedandpredict thatthesereformswillpavethewayforinvestmentandtechnologytransfer opportunitiesfortheUnitedStates,whichwillpromoteMexicaneconomicgrowth. 2. TheUnitedStateshasaninterestinthesuccessfulreformofMexicosenergysector becauseastrongerMexicoleadstogreaterstabilityintheUnitedStatesMexico relationship. 3. ThereisarangeofenergyopportunitiesfortheUnitedStatestoexplorewith Mexico.TheseopportunitiesincludesupportingMexicosenergyconservationand efficiency,anddevelopingsolar,shalegas,andrefiningcapacitiesinMexico.

8.5 Policy Challenges for U.S. Energy Policy Making with Mexico
PolicychallengesrelatedtoU.S.energypolicyvisvisMexicoweregenerallyaddressedin termsofstructuralobstacles,domesticpoliticalissues,andMexicanU.S.politicallegacyissues accordingtotheindividualsthatparticipatedintheeliteoutreach. 1. ThestructureoftheMexicanenergyindustry,includingconstitutionallimitations andresistancetochange,wereoftencitedbytheelitestakeholdersaschallengesto energypolicymaking. 2. StakeholdersalsonotedthecomplexityoftheU.S.Mexicanrelationshipintermsof immigration,bordersecurityissues,andU.S.foreigninvestmentasbeingkey challengestobemanaged. 3. TheU.S.publicneedstobetterunderstandtheroleofMexicoasaU.S.energy partner. 4. ThereneedstobegreateralignmentoftheenvironmentalpoliciesbetweenMexico andtheUnitedStates.

8.6 Impact of Canada Diversifying Oil and Natural Gas Exports to Asia
AmajorityofelitestakeholdersbelievedthatCanadiandiversificationofexportsinoiland naturalgastoAsiawouldhaveanimpactonU.S.energypolicy.Opinionamongtheexperts, advocacygroups,andmediaincludedintheoutreachwasmixedastowhethertheimpact wouldbepositiveornegative. ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|31

WhenaskedthesamequestionontheimpactofCanadianenergydiversificationonU.S. environmentalpolicy,however,elitestakeholdersweretwiceaslikelytosaythatCanadian energydiversificationtoAsianmarketswouldnothaveanimpactonU.S.environmentalpolicy. ElitestakeholdersgenerallybelievedthattheUnitedStatesisonaparticularenvironmental policypath,irrespectiveofCanadianenergymarketpriorities,butthatchangesinCanadian energypolicyprioritieswouldmorelikelyhaveadirectimpactonU.S.energypolicydecisions.

8.7 Projecting Energy Trends into the Future


ElitestakeholdersweregenerallydividedintermsofconfidenceintheInternationalEnergy Agencys(IEA)projectionsthattheUnitedStatescouldbeanetoilexporterby2030andanet exporterofnaturalgasby20206.ThelackofconsensusovertheIEAprojectionsrangedfrom viewsthattheIEAhasagoodtrackrecord,toviewsthattheIEAiseithertoooptimisticortoo pessimistic. WhenaskedaboutthelongtermmixofenergysourcesintheUnitedStates,mostelite stakeholdersconsultedbelievedthatfossilfuelswouldcontinuetodominatethemixbutwould diminishintotalenergysourceshare.Manycouchedtheirviewsintermsofincremental changes,forexample,morerenewableenergyandlesscoalenergy.Theexceptionwasnatural gas,whichwasrecognizedbyanumberofindividualsastheenergysourcewiththegreatest positiveornegativechanges.

8.8 Opportunities and Challenges for Energy Self-sufficiency in the United States
ElitestakeholderswereoptimisticaboutthefutureofenergyintheUnitedStates.Forthose moreinclinedtorenewableenergysuchaswindorsolar,therewasasenseofoptimismthatin thelongrun,renewableenergysourcescouldbeaviableandimportantpartoftheenergymix. Otherelitestakeholdersbelievedthattechnologywouldenablegreaterdevelopmentofshale gasanddomesticoil.Regardless,mostelitestakeholdersacknowledgedthatshalegasand shaleoilwouldhaveanimportantimpactontheconventionalenergypicture.Asoneelite stakeholdersaid,Therearetwovisionsoftheworldrelianceonoilandgas,orbecomingthe SaudiArabiaofwindandsunshine.Wecanmoveineitherdirection.Anumberofthose consultedexpectedmovementforwardonboththerenewableandcarbonfronts. Manyofthechallengestoachievingenergyselfsufficiencycitedbyelitestakeholderswere politicalinnature: 1. Energyisnotwellunderstoodbythepublic.Thereisstrongrhetoriconallsidesof theissue. 2. Theinfluenceofthefossilfuellobbyonthepoliticalsystemwasseenasanobstacle tochange.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|32

3. Oneindividualsaid,thethoughtlessresistancetoenergyprojectsofallkinds, fossilfuelorrenewablepropelledbythenotinmybackyardsyndrome,isa significantproblem.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|33

9.0OILDEMANDANDTRANSPORTATIONIMPACT
Anotherindicatoroftheshortterminfrastructureneedsoftheenergysectorarethedata relatedtoU.S.andCanadianRailTraffic.AccordingtotheAssociationofAmericanRailroads, althoughtotalU.S.railtrafficisup1.0percentforthefirst12weeksof2013(endingMarch23, 2013),railtrafficforpetroleumandpetroleumproductsiscumulativelyup57.3percentinthe UnitedStates.Likewise,railtrafficinCanadaforpetroleumandpetroleumproductsisup29.7 percent(seeExhibits16and17)forthefirsttwelveweeksof2013. Exhibit17

Exhibit18

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|34

Currentoilpipelineinfrastructuremaynotbeabletomeetdemandasindicatedbyincreasing petroleumproducttransportationbyrail. IfthetrendintheincreaseofU.S.andCanadianrailtrafficforpetroleumandpetroleum productsmaintainsitscurrentpacefortherestof2013,itwouldresultinanestimated additional468,000railcarloadsofpetroleumproductsin2013comparedto2011. Factoringanaveragerailtankerlength,these468,000railcarswouldcreateatrainof petroleumproductsstretchingfromWinnipeginthenorthtoHoustoninthesouth.Forthe firstquarterof2013comparedto2011,anadditional1,284extrarailcarswererequiredeach daytotransportpetroleumproductsintheUnitedStatesandCanada(SeeAppendixERail TrafficEstimatesforPetroleumandPetroleumProducts). Theconclusionisthat,factoringmarketdemandforpetroleumproductsandthestateof currentenergytransportationinfrastructure,anincreasingvolumeofpetroleumproductsare beingmovedbyrail. Ontheonehand,itcouldbearguedthatrejectingtheKeystoneXLPipelinewillnothavea majorimpactonthemovementofoilbetweentheUnitedStatesandCanadabecauseof marketdemandandtheabilitytomoveoilbyrail.Ontheotherhand,onecouldalsoarguethat thepipelineonlyenablesgreateraccesstotheU.S.marketandthattheOilSandsbitumenwill stillhavetocompeteinthemarketplace.TheapprovalorrejectionoftheKeystoneXLPipeline maynotnecessarilydelivertheoutcomeshopedforbybothitsadvocatesanddetractors.
Exhibit19 EstimatedLengthofTrainRequiredtoCarryAdditionalPetroleumProductsin2013comparedto2011 (Oneyearsupply)

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|35

10.0RENEWABLES,SHALEGASANDDIGGINGINTOTHEPROJECTIONS
Theexpertsintheeliteconsultation,byasmallmargin,hadconfidenceintheInternational EnergyAgencyinthe2013WorldEnergyOutlookprojections7.AccordingtotheIEAprojections theUnitedStatescould,inthefuture,becometheworldstopproducerofoilandnaturalgas, andpossiblybecomeanetnaturalgasexporterby2022andanetoilexporterby2030. However,anumberexpressedconcernaboutthereliabilityofestimatesoncefactorswere takenintoconsideration,suchaspossiblefutureregulation,yettobedevelopedtechnology andthestrengthoftheU.S.economy. Thetwinpillarsofgrowingrenewableenergy sourcesandnewlydiscoveredshalegashave alteredtheenergylandscapefromoneof ingrainedperceptionsofenergydependenceto oneofenergyopportunity. Acentralpartoftheenergytransformation narrativehasalsoincludedtheembraceof renewableenergysuchaswind,solarand geothermal.Muchoftheappetiteforrenewable energyprojectshasbeenfueledbythedesirefor whatsomecallalowcarboneconomy. Thediscoveryofsignificantamountsofshalegasin theUnitedStatesandaroundtheworldisoneof thekeytriggersinthelandscapeofchange.Many factorsincludingtheabundantsupplyofshale gasanditsproximitytomarketsintheUnited Statesallpropelanarrativeofenergy transformationintheUnitedStates.
Sources:NBCNews(September26,2012),CNBC Althoughrenewableenergysourcesandnaturalgas (March9,2013) havebeentoutedaspositivemovestowardenergy independence,bothhavealsoincitedsomecontroversy.Forshalegasdevelopment,concerns relatedtothefrackingprocess,includingitsimpactonwaterandthespeculationthatthe processmaybelinkedtoearthquakes,havebeenapartoftheemergingpublicshalegas narrative.Likewise,evenforrenewableenergysourcessuchaswind,claimsaboutthepossible negativehealthimpactsonresidentswholivenearwindfarmshavealsodampenedthe generallypositivenarrativeonrenewableenergy.

Settingasidetheissuesrelatedtotheenergycreationprocess,anexaminationoftheestimates relatedtothelongtermenergyoutlooksuggestthatthereareaseriesofuncertaintiesinthe projectionsthatmeritgreaterattention.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|36

10.1 Projections at a Glance


ListedbelowareprojectionsfromtheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)overthe pastdecade.Exhibits20and22aretheprojectionsfromthe2003EIAEnergyOutlookReport andExhibits19and21aretheprojectionsfromthe2013EIAEnergyOutlookReport.Thereare aseriesofkeyobservationswithpolicyimplications,whichareoutlinedbelow. Exhibit20 Exhibit21

Exhibit22

Exhibit23

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|37

10.2 Observations Related to Growth


ConsumptionGrowthProjectionsAdjustedProjectionsonU.S.annualenergy consumptiongrowthhasbeenadjusteddownwardfrom1.5percentin20038to0.3 percentin20139bytheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministration. ImportanceofConsumptionPromotinglessconsumptionofenergyisakeyfactor inthefutureenergylandscape,especiallywhenoneconsidersthepolicyobjectives ofreducingGHGemissionsandachievingenergyselfsufficiency. RenewableEnergyGrowthRenewableenergysourceshaveundergonesignificant growthsince1980.In2010,renewablesrepresented8percentofU.S.primary energyconsumption,butevenby2040,itisestimatedthattheywillcompriseonly 11percentofprimaryenergyconsumptionintheUnitedStates. RenewableEnergyImpactCategorygrowthforrenewableenergyisstrong,buta significantabsoluteshareofrenewableenergysourceswouldrequiremajorpolicy, market,ortechnologicalchangestohaveameaningfulimpactontheenergymix.

10.3 The Uncertainty of Long-Term Projections


Projectingenergyconsumptionandproduction20or30yearsintothefutureisachallenging endeavorunderanycircumstance.Althoughdataareusuallypubliclypresentedinthemedia asafixednumberintermsoftheprojections,theU.S.EnergyInformationAdministration presentsfiguresintermsoflowandhigheconomicgrowthestimateswithareference number10.Likewise,theNationalEnergyModelingSystemisamarketbasedapproachsubject toregulationsandstandards11andislimitedinitsabilityfactorthefuturepotentialimpactsof technologicalchangesonresourceextractionproduction,oryettobeenabledfederalorstate legislation.Thereareaseriesofanticipateduncertaintiesrelatedtomanyofthelongterm projectionsinthepublicdomain. EconomicUncertaintiesAdjustmentstoassumptionsrelatedtoeconomicgrowth haveasignificantcompoundingeffectonlongtermprojections.Likewise,modelingfor unforeseeableevents,suchastherecessionof2008orapotentialeconomicrecovery,is difficult. PolicyUncertaintiesOnecanassume,allthingsbeingequal,thatthepolicylandscape relatedtoenergyandtheenvironmentmayonlychangeincrementallyforthepurposes ofthelongtermmodeling.Policychanges,however,canhaveanimpacton consumptionandproduction.Forexample,theintroductionoftoughervehicle emissionsstandardsintheUnitedStateshasbeenasignificantfactorininfluencing consumption.Likewise,futurefederalandstatepoliciesthatencouragechangesto

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|38

eitherenergygenerationorvehicleemissionscouldhaveamaterialimpacton projections. ExplorationandTechnologicalUncertaintiesThediscoveryorabilitytorecover significantshalegasandoilthroughnewtechnologyhasanimpactontheenergy market.Asrecentlyasadecadeago,thescopeoftheshalegasrecoverablewas unknown.Thesetechnologicaldiscoveriescanhaveasignificantimpactonprojections.

Togethertheseuncertaintiesunderscorethatlongtermprojectionsaresubjecttoasignificant numberofexternalvariablesthataredifficulttomanage.

10.4 Measurement Uncertainty


Themethodologyforprojectionspresentsanothersignificantuncertaintyinprojectingfuture energyproduction.Whereasmorematuresourcesofenergyhavefairlyrobustmeasurement, thevariationinmeasurementofshaleandconventionalgas,forexample,pointstoakeyissue relatedtothefocusofanaverageestimate. TheU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)initsregularNationalAssessmentofOilandGasResources reportsestimatesforindividualassessmentunitssuchasSouthernAlaska,SanJuanBasin,and theMontanaThrustBelt.Ofnote,theUSGSreportsprojectionsforindividualassessmentunits betweena95and5percentprobabilityrangeaswellasthemean(average)value.An examinationofUSGSindividualassessmentunitsforconventionalgassuggeststhatthereis likelyagreatervarianceofestimatesinmanyofthemorerecentgasdiscoveries. Exhibit24 ExaminationofRangeofEstimatesforConventionalGasof U.S.GeologicalSurveyAssessmentUnits

ConventionalGas* ProvinceNumberandName Vintage Potential Rangefor Conventional Gas (trillionsof cubicfeet) 0.97 268.6 107.6 Potential Rangefor Conventional Gasin Multiples (F05F95)

(trillionsofcubicfeet) F95** F05** Mean *** 0.40 40.7 6.75 1.37 309.3 114.36 0.84 153.28 52.84

Uncertainty Factoring Multiples

28 4749 1b

CentralMontana GulfCoast NorthSlope,NPRA

1995 2012 2010

3.4 7.5 16.9

Low Medium High

*Conventionalgasincludesnonassociatedandassociateddissolvedgasresources. **95and5percentprobabilityrange. ***Mean/averagecalculationsbytheUSGSarenotbasedonaperfectlynormaldistributionandhavebeenadjustedbasedonthe historicalexperienceoftheUSGS.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|39

Exhibit24illustratesthepotentialrangeofresourcesinindividualUSGSassessmentunits.For example,theNorthSlopeNRPAassessmentunitinAlaskahasanestimatedmeanof conventionalgasofapproximately52.84trillioncubicfeet,buttherangecouldbeaslowas 6.75trillioncubicfeetorashighas114.36trillioncubicfeet(atotalrangeof107.6trillioncubic feetofconventionalgas),amultiplewherethehighestimateisalmost17timesthatofthelow estimate.TheNorthSlopeNPRAisayoungervintage(2010)thantheCentralMontanaUSGS assessmentunit(1995).Onecanseethatthepotentialrangeistighterandthepotential variancebasedinmultiplesismuchlowerinthe1995vintageCentralMontanaassessmentunit (only3.4timesthatofthehighestimate). AlookattheundiscoveredgasintheEastCoastMesozoicBasinalsoillustratestherangeof estimates.Forexample,accordingtotheUSGSAssessmentofUndiscoveredOilandGas ResourcesoftheEastCoastMesozoicBasinsofthePiedmont,BlueRidgeThrustBelt,Atlantic CoastPlain,andNewEnglandProvinces(2011),theSouthNewarkBasinreportsamean estimateof876billioncubicfeetofgas;however,therangeisbetween363billioncubicfeet and1,698billioncubicfeetarangeof1,335billioncubicfeetoramultiple4.6timesbetween thelowandhighestimates. Exhibit25 USGeologicalSurveyEstimatesforEastCoastMesozoicBasin(2011)

Theuncertaintyrelatedtomeasurementissuesforthenewervintageassessmentareasforgas willbesettledovertime.Cautionshouldbeexercisedintermsofpolicymakingconcerning assumptionsonconventionalandunconventionalgasestimatesthatarebasedonmean calculations,which,ineffect,isarangeofvaryingmagnitudes. AlthoughtheUSGSfocusesonindividualassessmentunits,theseestimatesarethebuilding blocksforthelongtermenergyforecastscreatedbyotheragenciesandorganizationsthattend ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|40

toreportonvariancesrelatedtohighandloweconomicgrowthvariances,asopposedtothe probabilityranges.Thelimitsofmodelingforlongtermhorizons,astheyrelatetoyettobe designedorenabledenvironmentallegislationorchangesinpublicopinion,underliethe uncertaintyintermsofthelongtermprojections.Itshouldberecognizedthatthemodelingis stillthebestalternativeinanimperfectworld;however,limitationsshouldberecognized.A focusonashortertermoutlookcanbettermanagethesenonmeasurementuncertainties. Onecouldask,whatisthepolicyimpactofmeasurementlimitations?Themodelingand estimatesforenergybytheirdesignareincrementalinnaturebasedoncurrentknowns (federalandstatepolicy,thehealthoftheeconomy,discoveries,andtodaystechnologies) becauseitisdifficulttofactorunknowns.Onedoesnotknowwhetherlongerterm incrementalprojectionsinfluencepolicymakerstoleantowardincrementalpolicydecisions.It isknown,however,thatnewenvironmentalpolicydecisionsatthefederalandstatelevelcan haveasignificantimpactonthelongtermprojectionsandbehaviorrelatedtoconsumption andproduction.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|41

11.0PathForward
Thispaperhasthreecentralconclusionsdrawnfromtheinputoftheeliteconsultations,the U.S.andCanadianpublicopinion,andareviewofthedatainthepublicdomain.

Decentralized policy making for energy and the environment. The challenge for energy and environmental policy making is that issues do not respect borders, and the current level of partisanship can be an obstacle to moving forward. In this policy environment, governments increasingly adopt or adapt the policies of others building policy coalitions rather than lookingtocentralisednationtonationsolutions. Energysourcesshouldcompetetoenvironmentaltargets. There is risk in picking winners and losers on 20 and 30 year projections that cannot factor for technological change or yet to be introduced environmental legislation. However, government can play a role in encouraging and investing in technological innovation for a diversity of energy sources. Withthisapproach,differentenergysourceswouldcompeteto yieldthebestmarketandenvironmentaloutcomes.

BeginadialoguetosupportaUnitedStatesCanadaNationalCarbonPolicy. Building a framework for a carbon policy is a key opportunity for energy and environmentalpolicymaking. This is especially true because of the policy interests and jurisdictional roles of states/provinces and federal governments on energy and the environment. Even with the limitations of the current political atmosphere in Congress and increasingly active at the state and provincial levels of government, a National Carbon PolicydialoguebetweentheUnitedStatesandCanadawillneedtotakeplace.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|42

Appendix A
Project Methodology

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|43

Project Methodology
Amultifacetedresearchstrategywasadministeredforthispaper.Itincludedexamining researchinthepublicdomaininthefieldofenergyfromsourcesrangingfromtheU.S. GeologicalSurveyandtheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministrationtotheInternationalEnergy Agency. Theresearchwasnotsponsoredorfundedbyanyorganizationorcompany,butshouldbe consideredpartofanindependentscholarinresidenceprogramwiththeWoodrowWilson InternationalCenterforScholars.ThecostsforthequantitativestudiesweredonatedbyNanos AmericaandtheNanosResearchCorporationinCanada. Therewerethreemaintracksfortheresearch: PublicopinioninCanadaandtheUnitedStates; MediaanalysisintheUnitedStates.;and, KeyinformantopinionintheUnitedStates.

U.S. Public Opinion Survey


AnationalrandomtelephonesurveywascompletedbetweenMarch28andApril7,2013,of 1,007Americanadults.TheRDD(randomdigitdialled)sampleincludedacombinationofland lineandcelllinenumbersinordertoensurethehighestlevelofsamplecoverageforthestudy. TheresearchwascompletedinaccordancewiththeStandardsoftheAmericanAssociationfor PublicOpinionResearchandtheMarketingResearchandIntelligenceAssociationofCanada. NikNanosisamemberofbothorganizations. Arandomsurveyof1,007Americansisaccurate3.1percentagepoints,plusorminus,19times outof20. Withinthesamplinguniverse,potentialrespondentswererandomlyselectedtoparticipatein thestudy.Allselectedmembersofthesamplinguniversewhowerenotavailablewerecalled backfive(5)times.Percentagesmaynotaddupto100duetorounding. Tenpercentofthefieldworkwasmonitoredaspartoftheprojectsqualityanddataintegrity procedures.Validationandtestingofkeydemographiccohortsindicatethatthesampleprofiles wererepresentativeofthepopulationswithinacceptablemarginsofstatisticalaccuracy.The datawereweightedbyageandeducationusingthelatestavailablecensusdatatoensurethey wererepresentativeoftheU.S.population. Thesamequestionnaire(seeAppendixC)wasadministeredtobothAmericansandCanadians toallowforalevelofcomparabilityinthedata,althoughadjustedforeachaudience.

Canadian Public Opinion Survey


AnationalrandomsurveywascompletedbetweenApril6and9,2013,of1,013Canadian adults.RespondentswererecruitedbylivetelephoneagentsusinganRDD(randomdigit ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|44

dialled)sample,whichincludedacombinationoflandlineandcelllinenumbersinorderto ensurethehighestlevelofsamplecoverageforthestudy.Oncerecruited,theywereaddedto theNanosRDDCrowdsourcesampleandcompletedanonlinequestionnaireinEnglishor French.TheresearchwascompletedinaccordancewiththeStandardsoftheAmerican AssociationforPublicOpinionResearchandtheMarketingResearchandIntelligence AssociationofCanada.NikNanosisamemberofbothorganizations. Arandomsurveyof1,013Canadiansisaccurate3.1percentagepoints,plusorminus,19times outof20. Tenpercentofthefieldworkwasvalidatedbytelephoneaspartofthefirmsqualityanddata integrityprocedures.Validationandtestingofkeydemographiccohortsindicatethatthe sampleprofileswererepresentativeofthepopulationswithinacceptablemarginsofstatistical accuracy.Thedatawereweightedbyageandeducationusingthelatestavailablecensusdata toensuretheywererepresentativeoftheCanadianpopulation. Thesamequestionnaire(seeAppendixC)wasadministeredtobothAmericansandCanadians toallowforalevelofcomparabilityinthedata.

Media Analysis
Amediaanalysisof1,046itemsinAmericas50majornewspapersincludingnewsarticles, editorials,andletterstotheeditor,wasconductedaspartofthisstudy.Readersshouldnote thatthe1,046articlesdonotrepresentasample,butacompilationofallnewspaperitemsin theNexisarchiverelatedtotheKeystoneXLPipelinefromthebeginningofthefirstObama mandatetoApril1,2013.ThesourceforthearticleswastheNexisdatabaseandthesearch termparametersincludedKeystoneandpipeline. EachitemwasreadandassessedintermsofrelevancetotheKeystoneXLPipelineandwhether itleftapositiveornegativeimpressionoftheKeystoneXLPipeline.Inbothcases,afivepoint scalewasusedbyaninternanalysttoassesstheindividualitem.Forpurposesoftheanalysis, theimpressionsweregivenascoreof1and2foranegativeorsomewhatnegativeimpression anda4or5forapositiveorsomewhatpositiveimpression.A3onthe5pointimpression scalewasconsideredneutral. Inadditiontotheassessment,circulationnumberswerecollectedforallofthetop50 newspaperorganizationsfromtheAllianceforAuditedMediafortheperiodstartingatthe commencementofthefirstObamaadministrationandendingSeptember30,2012usingan averageweekdaypaidcirculationforthenewspaperorganizationinordertogaugethemedia reachofanitem.Fortheestimationmodel,2012wasusedasthebaseyearforthemedia impressionsassumingtheimpressionsbyamediaoutletwasregularlystablefortheperiod. Onceeachofthe1,046werecodedandlinkedtocirculationfigures,theresultswere statisticallyorganizedandcalculationswerepreparedtoestimatethemediaimpressions. Mediaimpressionswerecalculatedasfollows:ifanitemwasdeemednegative,themedia impressionsforthatnewspaperorganizationwouldbeaddedtothenegativecolumnaspartof thetotalnumberofnegativemediaimpressions.Netimpactisthedifferencebetweenpositive andnegativemediaimpressions. ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|45

Elite Stakeholder Interviews


Aseriesofoneononeelitestakeholderinterviewswasadministeredbytheseniorresearcher andtheinterneitherinpersonorbytelephone,subjecttotheavailabilityofthetarget.Allof theeliteinterviewswereamongindividualsbasedintheUnitedStateswhowereprimarily eitherexpertsintheirfieldorpartofanadvocacygrouporassociation.The13eliteinterviews includedexpertsandbothenergyandenvironmentalgroupsorassociationstoensurea representationofadiversityofperspectives(sevenexperts,fouradvocacygroups,andtwo individualsinthemedia). Thefindingsoftheeliteinterviewsshouldbeconsideredqualitativeinnatureandcannotbe projectedtoeliteaudiencesintheUnitedStates.Theirpurposeistohelpprovidecontextfor thequantitativesurveysandmediaanalysisandalsotohelpsupporttheexaminationof possibleresearchlinesofinquiryfromtheperspectiveoftheresearcher. Individualsintheeliteinterviewsweretoldthattheirviewsandidentitywouldremain confidentialinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedbestpracticesforresearchandalsoto ensurethatforthrightanddetailedopinionswouldbesharedaspartofthisstudy.Pleaserefer toAppendixDforthediscussionguidethatwasadministeredfortheeliteinterviews.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|46

Statistical Tables United States and Canada Public Opinion Surveys


Appendix B

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|47

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT


For each of the challenges, please rate their importance to you on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is very important in terms of Americas/Canadas future. [Randomize]

Question 1 - Managing the pressures of an aging population Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.63 8.00 Not at all important Percentage .2 2.1 2 Percentage .4 1.2 3 Percentage 1.1 1.2 4 Percentage 1.0 1.1 5 Percentage 3.9 7.4 6 Percentage 2.8 6.2 7 Percentage 8.3 11.9 8 Percentage 20.3 21.3 9 Percentage 18.9 10.6 Very important Percentage 40.9 34.2 Unsure Percentage 2.1 2.8

Question 2 - Further protecting our environment Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 7.96 7.76 Not at all important Percentage 1.4 2.8 2 Percentage 1.1 2.7 3 Percentage 2.7 1.9 4 Percentage 3.3 2.1 5 Percentage 6.8 12.3 6 Percentage 6.5 5.2 7 Percentage 13.4 8.6 8 Percentage 13.7 16.6 9 Percentage 14.4 9.3 Very important Percentage 35.9 38.1 Unsure Percentage .8 .5

Question 3 - Having trade policies that encourage investment Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.25 7.25 Not at all important Percentage .3 3.1 2 Percentage 1.3 1.8 3 Percentage .9 2.1 4 Percentage .7 2.7 5 Percentage 4.7 14.5 6 Percentage 5.4 6.9 7 Percentage 11.2 13.8 8 Percentage 24.5 19.4 9 Percentage 19.0 6.9 Very important Percentage 29.4 23.3 Unsure Percentage 2.7 5.5

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 1 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 4 - Encouraging American/Canadian culture Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 7.25 7.21 Not at all important Percentage 4.9 4.1 2 Percentage 2.3 2.8 3 Percentage 3.7 3.0 4 Percentage 2.9 2.4 5 Percentage 7.9 14.8 6 Percentage 10.2 6.7 7 Percentage 13.9 11.2 8 Percentage 14.8 16.6 9 Percentage 11.6 5.7 Very important Percentage 25.6 28.6 Unsure Percentage 2.2 4.1

Question 5 - Being energy self sufficient Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.55 8.31 Not at all important Percentage .8 1.8 2 Percentage .3 1.6 3 Percentage .7 .8 4 Percentage .8 1.3 5 Percentage 3.2 6.2 6 Percentage 6.1 4.8 7 Percentage 9.8 9.4 8 Percentage 18.1 18.2 9 Percentage 17.0 10.3 Very important Percentage 41.7 44.6 Unsure Percentage 1.4 .8

Question 6 - Ensuring Americans/Canadians have a high standard of living Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.25 7.55 Not at all important Percentage .6 2.9 2 Percentage .4 1.9 3 Percentage .9 3.1 4 Percentage .9 2.6 5 Percentage 3.9 11.0 6 Percentage 6.4 6.5 7 Percentage 15.2 11.6 8 Percentage 21.3 19.2 9 Percentage 19.6 8.6 Very important Percentage 29.6 31.1 Unsure Percentage 1.2 1.5

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 2 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 7 - Investing in our education system Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.67 8.40 Not at all important Percentage 1.4 4.0 2 Percentage .4 1.2 3 Percentage .3 1.4 4 Percentage .1 1.4 5 Percentage 2.3 5.5 6 Percentage 5.4 3.7 7 Percentage 8.8 6.1 8 Percentage 16.3 12.2 9 Percentage 20.6 10.2 Very important Percentage 43.0 53.6 Unsure Percentage 1.4 .8

Question 8 - Keeping our healthcare system strong Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 9.10 8.35 Not at all important Percentage .2 3.3 2 Percentage .4 1.3 3 Percentage .2 1.3 4 Percentage .3 2.3 5 Percentage 1.5 5.5 6 Percentage 3.9 2.2 7 Percentage 5.0 7.5 8 Percentage 13.0 14.6 9 Percentage 15.4 10.5 Very important Percentage 58.2 49.4 Unsure Percentage 1.8 2.2

Question 9 - Creating jobs Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.74 8.70 Not at all important Percentage 1.0 3.1 2 Percentage .3 1.0 3 Percentage .4 1.1 4 Percentage 1.2 1.2 5 Percentage 2.6 3.4 6 Percentage 4.6 2.8 7 Percentage 7.4 4.9 8 Percentage 13.7 12.1 9 Percentage 22.0 11.0 Very important Percentage 45.7 58.7 Unsure Percentage 1.1 .6

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 3 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 10 - Preserving social programs Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 7.77 6.85 Not at all important Percentage 2.0 5.7 2 Percentage 1.2 2.8 3 Percentage 3.8 3.1 4 Percentage 2.9 4.7 5 Percentage 7.6 14.2 6 Percentage 6.4 8.3 7 Percentage 15.3 11.4 8 Percentage 13.4 18.2 9 Percentage 13.4 6.6 Very important Percentage 33.0 21.9 Unsure Percentage 1.0 2.9

Question 11 - Balancing government budgets Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.41 8.40 Not at all important Percentage 1.0 3.4 2 Percentage .6 1.1 3 Percentage 1.7 1.3 4 Percentage 1.6 1.5 5 Percentage 3.0 6.7 6 Percentage 7.5 3.2 7 Percentage 11.4 6.0 8 Percentage 14.7 12.7 9 Percentage 12.6 9.3 Very important Percentage 44.2 52.8 Unsure Percentage 1.7 2.0

Question 12 - Investing in infrastructure such as roads and bridges Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.57 7.76 Not at all important Percentage .5 2.1 2 Percentage .5 1.1 3 Percentage 1.0 1.8 4 Percentage .3 2.0 5 Percentage 2.1 10.4 6 Percentage 4.5 6.9 7 Percentage 10.6 12.3 8 Percentage 24.0 21.6 9 Percentage 16.1 9.5 Very important Percentage 39.2 31.2 Unsure Percentage 1.3 1.0

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 4 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 13 - Ensuring safe communities Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 8.37 8.49 Not at all important Percentage .3 2.1 2 Percentage .7 .4 3 Percentage 1.0 1.5 4 Percentage 1.7 1.5 5 Percentage 3.9 5.9 6 Percentage 6.3 3.4 7 Percentage 15.0 7.2 8 Percentage 14.2 15.5 9 Percentage 17.1 11.3 Very important Percentage 38.6 49.9 Unsure Percentage 1.1 1.2

Question 14 - Asserting America's/Canada's role in international affairs Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 7.47 6.39 Not at all important Percentage 2.2 6.1 2 Percentage 1.5 3.1 3 Percentage 1.7 5.4 4 Percentage 2.5 4.6 5 Percentage 7.8 18.0 6 Percentage 13.4 8.8 7 Percentage 14.3 13.0 8 Percentage 18.4 15.8 9 Percentage 13.1 6.9 Very important Percentage 21.8 14.6 Unsure Percentage 3.2 3.5

Question 15 - Protecting our borders Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Mean 7.78 8.04 Not at all important Percentage 1.0 3.0 2 Percentage 2.0 2.3 3 Percentage 2.8 2.8 4 Percentage 2.7 2.6 5 Percentage 8.8 6.9 6 Percentage 9.2 5.8 7 Percentage 11.9 8.5 8 Percentage 14.8 11.0 9 Percentage 12.3 8.5 Very important Percentage 33.0 47.5 Unsure Percentage 1.5 1.1

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 5 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT


For each of the challenges, are you confident, somewhat confident, somewhat not confident or not confident in our ability as a nation to find solutions? [Randomize]

Question 16 - Managing the pressures of an aging population Somewhat confident Percentage 33.4 37.4 Somewhat not confident Percentage 39.9 12.8 Not confident Percentage 18.8 24.7

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 4.5 22.9

Unsure Percentage 3.4 2.3

Question 17 - Further protecting our environment Somewhat confident Percentage 35.4 35.4 Somewhat not confident Percentage 28.3 10.0 Not confident Percentage 22.2 16.9

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 8.2 35.4

Unsure Percentage 5.9 2.3

Question 18 - Having trade policies that encourage investment Somewhat confident Percentage 48.3 38.6 Somewhat not confident Percentage 26.1 11.5 Not confident Percentage 8.9 22.7

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 11.2 22.5

Unsure Percentage 5.5 4.7

Question 19 - Encouraging American/Canadian culture Somewhat confident Percentage 33.6 Somewhat not confident Percentage 26.7 Not confident Percentage 21.5

Total Responses Country Canada 1013

Confident Percentage 10.9

Unsure Percentage 7.2

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 6 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT


USA 1007 29.2 33.8 9.2 22.0 5.8

Question 20 - Being energy self sufficient Somewhat confident Percentage 38.1 32.2 Somewhat not confident Percentage 13.6 10.6 Not confident Percentage 8.7 24.8

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 35.8 31.2

Unsure Percentage 3.9 1.2

Question 21 - Ensuring Americans/Canadians have a high standard of living Somewhat confident Percentage 37.6 33.2 Somewhat not confident Percentage 32.3 12.7 Not confident Percentage 16.0 27.4

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 9.4 25.0

Unsure Percentage 4.8 1.7

Question 22 - Investing in our education system Somewhat confident Percentage 42.4 31.2 Somewhat not confident Percentage 30.3 10.9 Not confident Percentage 12.3 21.5

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 11.2 34.5

Unsure Percentage 3.8 1.9

Question 23 - Keeping our healthcare system strong Somewhat confident Percentage 37.0 Somewhat not confident Percentage 32.0 Not confident Percentage 19.2

Total Responses Country Canada 1013

Confident Percentage 8.2

Unsure Percentage 3.6

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 7 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT


USA 1007 25.0 27.0 13.0 33.1 1.9

Question 24 - Creating jobs Somewhat confident Percentage 39.0 32.1 Somewhat not confident Percentage 32.8 11.6 Not confident Percentage 15.3 29.1

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 8.5 25.7

Unsure Percentage 4.3 1.5

Question 25 - Preserving social programs Somewhat confident Percentage 36.1 40.1 Somewhat not confident Percentage 33.6 9.3 Not confident Percentage 18.2 19.4

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 6.9 27.9

Unsure Percentage 5.1 3.3

Question 26 - Balancing government budgets Somewhat confident Percentage 30.9 19.2 Somewhat not confident Percentage 31.3 14.3 Not confident Percentage 25.0 49.9

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 9.3 14.5

Unsure Percentage 3.4 2.0

Question 27 - Investing in infrastructure such as roads and bridges Somewhat confident Somewhat not confident Not confident

Total

Confident

Unsure

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 8 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Percentage 12.9 33.0

Percentage 37.5 39.0

Percentage 32.6 9.8

Percentage 14.2 15.7

Percentage 2.8 2.5

Question 28 - Ensuring safe communities Somewhat confident Percentage 45.6 39.7 Somewhat not confident Percentage 26.8 7.7 Not confident Percentage 10.8 19.2

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 12.9 31.5

Unsure Percentage 3.9 1.9

Question 29 - Asserting America's/Canada's role in international affairs Somewhat confident Percentage 38.5 34.6 Somewhat not confident Percentage 25.8 8.2 Not confident Percentage 18.2 22.4

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 12.6 30.5

Unsure Percentage 4.9 4.3

Question 30 - Protecting our borders Somewhat confident Percentage 45.2 28.9 Somewhat not confident Percentage 24.6 10.2 Not confident Percentage 10.2 30.6

Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Confident Percentage 15.6 28.0

Unsure Percentage 4.4 2.3

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 9 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 31 - Overall would you say the current national political environment leads to positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or negative policy outcomes? Somewhat positive Somewhat negative

Total

Positive

Negative

Unsure

Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Percentage 13.1 9.6

Percentage 29.1 24.4

Percentage 24.7 25.3

Percentage 27.4 37.8

Percentage 5.7 2.9

Would you say that the current national political environment leads to positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or negative policy outcomes in the following policy areas [RANDOMIZE]?

Question 32 - Energy policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 13.2 17.0 Somewhat positive Percentage 31.3 35.1 Somewhat negative Percentage 28.2 19.2 Negative Percentage 19.7 25.1 Unsure Percentage 7.6 3.5

Question 33 - Health policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 7.2 15.1 Somewhat positive Percentage 32.8 28.0 Somewhat negative Percentage 39.6 19.7 Negative Percentage 14.5 33.7 Unsure Percentage 5.9 3.4

Question 34 - Trade policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 14.2 14.0 Somewhat positive Percentage 38.1 34.1 Somewhat negative Percentage 27.1 18.2 Negative Percentage 12.0 25.4 Unsure Percentage 8.6 8.3

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 10 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 35 - Foreign policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 12.1 14.6 Somewhat positive Percentage 33.4 33.2 Somewhat negative Percentage 24.2 19.6 Negative Percentage 18.9 28.0 Unsure Percentage 11.4 4.5

Question 36 - Defense policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 10.7 22.3 Somewhat positive Percentage 34.3 31.1 Somewhat negative Percentage 27.1 17.5 Negative Percentage 18.3 25.2 Unsure Percentage 9.6 3.9

Question 37 - Environmental policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 5.1 17.1 Somewhat positive Percentage 31.8 37.7 Somewhat negative Percentage 24.0 18.7 Negative Percentage 32.9 22.6 Unsure Percentage 6.2 4.0

Question 38 - Tax policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 11.2 9.3 Somewhat positive Percentage 29.2 19.8 Somewhat negative Percentage 32.9 24.8 Negative Percentage 20.6 41.9 Unsure Percentage 6.1 4.2

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 11 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 39 - Government spending policy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Positive Percentage 7.5 8.2 Somewhat positive Percentage 21.3 14.6 Somewhat negative Percentage 33.4 20.6 Negative Percentage 31.1 53.5 Unsure Percentage 6.6 3.1

Our next few questions are about energy issues.

Question 40 - Thinking about the future direction of energy policy, do you think the best course of action is [ROTATE] to develop a continental energy strategy which ensures the supply of energy for Canada and the US or a strategy which focuses on exporting energy? A continental energy strategy which ensure the supply of energy for Canada and the US

Total

A strategy which focuses on exporting energy

Unsure

Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Percentage 66.3 76.2

Percentage 15.7 13.1

Percentage 18.0 10.7

Question 41 - Have you heard or not heard of the Keystone Pipeline project which is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the Alberta oil sands in Canada to the United States?

Total

Heard

Not heard

Unsure

Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Percentage 91.6 74.8

Percentage 5.5 24.5

Percentage 2.9 .7

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 12 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 42 - Do you have a positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or negative view of the Keystone Pipeline project? Total Responses Country Canada USA 928 754 Positive Percentage 32.1 44.1 Somewhat positive Percentage 28.0 25.9 Somewhat negative Percentage 18.8 9.5 Negative Percentage 14.9 14.2 Unsure Percentage 6.2 6.2

Question 43 - Based on what you have heard about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline between Canada and the US, do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the US government approving the project? Somewhat support Somewhat oppose

Total

Support

Oppose

Unsure

Responses Country Canada USA 928 754

Percentage 44.8 52.3

Percentage 22.7 22.1

Percentage 14.5 7.3

Percentage 12.6 13.7

Percentage 5.3 4.7

Are the following important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant or unimportant to you:

Question 44 - Ensuring a stable supply of energy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 60.4 88.0 Somewhat important Percentage 26.5 9.5 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 6.2 .2 Unimportant Percentage 3.1 1.1 Unsure Percentage 3.9 1.2

Question 45 - Having the lowest energy prices possible Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 49.9 70.4 Somewhat important Percentage 27.4 18.3 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 13.6 5.4 Unimportant Percentage 7.0 4.2 Unsure Percentage 2.1 1.8

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 13 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 46 - Reducing green house gases Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 47.1 56.3 Somewhat important Percentage 26.5 22.1 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 9.0 5.1 Unimportant Percentage 13.9 11.3 Unsure Percentage 3.5 5.2

Question 47 - Trying to eliminate reliance on oil from outside North America Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 62.1 73.2 Somewhat important Percentage 27.9 16.3 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 5.6 1.6 Unimportant Percentage 1.8 5.7 Unsure Percentage 2.6 3.2

Question 48 - Getting the people to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 37.1 54.6 Somewhat important Percentage 35.7 23.6 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 15.8 6.4 Unimportant Percentage 9.4 12.4 Unsure Percentage 1.9 3.0

Question 49 - Getting businesses to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 39.9 54.8 Somewhat important Percentage 36.4 24.2 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 11.5 4.8 Unimportant Percentage 10.3 13.4 Unsure Percentage 2.0 2.7

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 14 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 15 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 50 - Using more natural gas rather than coal Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 50.0 57.7 Somewhat important Percentage 31.3 25.2 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 8.5 4.1 Unimportant Percentage 5.5 6.9 Unsure Percentage 4.7 6.1

Question 51 - Having common environmental standards between Canada and the US Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 42.1 63.8 Somewhat important Percentage 35.7 21.6 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 11.8 2.9 Unimportant Percentage 7.4 8.6 Unsure Percentage 3.0 3.2

Question 52 - Having common environmental standards between Canada, Mexico and the US Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 37.7 57.0 Somewhat important Percentage 37.2 23.8 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 11.7 5.0 Unimportant Percentage 9.4 10.5 Unsure Percentage 4.1 3.7

Question 53 - Having new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline, heating oil and natural gas to reduce their use and green house gases Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 14.8 27.2 Somewhat important Percentage 23.2 20.8 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 21.4 9.2 Unimportant Percentage 35.5 38.1 Unsure Percentage 5.1 4.7

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 16 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 54 - Introducing tougher emission controls for vehicles Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 32.4 48.8 Somewhat important Percentage 36.8 21.3 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 17.2 6.4 Unimportant Percentage 11.1 19.8 Unsure Percentage 2.5 3.8

Question 55 - Encouraging the use of more renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydro power Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 50.7 69.6 Somewhat important Percentage 23.8 13.3 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 9.8 3.5 Unimportant Percentage 12.8 11.8 Unsure Percentage 2.8 1.8

Question 56 - Encouraging the use of nuclear energy Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Important Percentage 23.6 35.5 Somewhat important Percentage 30.5 25.8 Somewhat unimportant Percentage 15.2 9.4 Unimportant Percentage 21.0 21.7 Unsure Percentage 9.7 7.6

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 17 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 57 - What is more important to you, reducing green house gases or having North America free from importing oil from outside of North America? Having North America free from importing oil from outside of North America

Total

Reducing green house gases

Unsure

Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Percentage 37.5 30.0

Percentage 55.1 63.3

Percentage 7.5 6.8

Would you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the following:

Question 58 - If oil met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of oil Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Support Percentage 32.6 44.0 Somewhat support Percentage 33.5 24.9 Somewhat oppose Percentage 13.1 6.8 Oppose Percentage 9.3 14.4 Unsure Percentage 11.5 9.8

Question 59 - If coal met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of coal Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Support Percentage 21.5 42.1 Somewhat support Percentage 28.3 20.9 Somewhat oppose Percentage 18.9 9.5 Oppose Percentage 20.7 20.0 Unsure Percentage 10.5 7.6

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 18 - DRAFT

2013-04 STAT SHEET - DRAFT

Question 60 - If natural gas met government targets for green house gas emissions, encouraging the use of natural gas Total Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007 Support Percentage 50.2 60.7 Somewhat support Percentage 32.5 22.6 Somewhat oppose Percentage 5.6 3.2 Oppose Percentage 3.8 6.1 Unsure Percentage 7.9 7.4

Question 61 - Thinking of the future direction of energy policy, would it be your preference for there to be closer cooperation or less cooperation with Canada/the US as an energy partner? Closer cooperation Less cooperation

Total

Unsure

Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Percentage 69.1 85.7

Percentage 18.6 7.9

Percentage 12.3 6.4

Question 62 - Thinking of the future direction of energy policy, would it be your preference for there to be closer cooperation or less cooperation with Mexico as an energy partner? Closer cooperation Less cooperation

Total

Unsure

Responses Country Canada USA 1013 1007

Percentage 47.2 59.8

Percentage 26.5 31.2

Percentage 26.2 9.0

National random telephone survey of 1,007 Americans conducted between March 28th and April 7th, and of 1,013 Canadians conducted between April 6th and 9th, 2013. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,007 Americans and of 1,013 Canadians is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Page 19 - DRAFT

Questionnaire United States and Canada Public Opinion Surveys


Appendix C

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|48

WW 2013-03
For each of the challenges, please rate their importance to you on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all important and 10 is very important in terms of Americas/Canadas future: [RANDOMIZE] Rating 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Managing the pressures of an aging population Further protecting our environment Having trade policies that encourage investment Encouraging American/Canadian culture Being energy self sufficient Ensuring Americans/Canadians have a high standard of living Investing in our education system Keeping our healthcare system strong Creating jobs Preserving social programs Balancing government budgets Investing in infrastructure such as roads and bridges Ensuring safe communities Asserting Americas/Canadas role in international affairs Protecting our borders

For each of the challenges, are you confident, somewhat confident, somewhat not confident, or not confident in our ability as a nation to find solutions: [RANDOMIZE] 16. Managing the pressures of an aging population Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 17. Further protecting our environment Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 18. Having trade policies that encourage investment Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 19. Encouraging American/Canadian culture Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted]

WW 2013-03
20. Being energy self sufficient Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 21. Ensuring Americans/Canadians have a high standard of living Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 22. Investing in our education system Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 23. Keeping our healthcare system strong Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 24. Creating jobs Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 25. Preserving social programs Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 26. Balancing government budgets Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 27. Investing in infrastructure such as roads and bridges Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 28. Ensuring safe communities Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted]

WW 2013-03
29. Asserting Americas/Canadas role in international affairs Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 30. Protecting our borders Confident ..................................... 1 Somewhat confident ................... 2 Somewhat not confident ............. 3 Not confident............................... 4 Dont know .................................. 77 [Unprompted] 31. Overall would you say the current national political environment leads to positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or negative policy outcomes? Positive ........................................ 1 Somewhat positive...................... 2 Somewhat negative..................... 3 Negative ...................................... 4 Dont know.................................. 77 [Unprompted] Would you say that the current national political environment leads to positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or negative policy outcomes in the following policy areas: [RANDOMIZE] Somewhat Somewhat Positive Positive Negative Negative Dont know Energy policy ............................ 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77 Health policy ............................. 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77 Trade policy .............................. 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77 Foreign policy ........................... 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77 Defense policy ........................... 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77 Environmental policy ............... 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77 Tax policy .................................. 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77 Government spending policy .. 1 .................. 2 ........................ 3 ........................... 4 ........................77

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

Our next few questions are about energy issues. 40. Thinking about the future direction of energy policy, do you think the best course of action is [ROTATE] to develop a continental energy strategy which ensures the supply of energy for Canada and the US or a strategy which focuses on exporting energy? A continental energy strategy which ensures the supply of energy for Canada and the US...... 1 A strategy which focuses on exporting energy .............................................................................. 2 Dont know ....................................................................................................................................... 77 [Unprompted] 41. Have you heard or not heard of the Keystone Pipeline project which is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the Alberta oil sands in Canada to the United States? Heard .......................................... 1 Not heard .................................... 2 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted]

WW 2013-03
42. Do you have a positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or negative view of the Keystone Pipeline project? Positive ....................................... 1 Somewhat positive ..................... 2 Somewhat negative .................... 3 Negative...................................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 43. Based on what you have heard about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline between Canada and the US, do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or oppose the US government approving the project? Support ....................................... 1 Somewhat support ..................... 2 Somewhat oppose ...................... 3 Oppose ........................................ 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] Are the following important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or unimportant to you: 44. Ensuring a stable supply of energy Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 45. Having the lowest energy prices possible Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 46. Reducing greenhouse gases Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 47. Trying to eliminate reliance on oil from outside North America Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 48. Getting the people to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil, and natural gas Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted]

WW 2013-03
49. Getting businesses to reduce their use of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal, oil, and natural gas Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 50. Using more natural gas rather than coal Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 51. Having common environmental standards between Canada and the US Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 52. Having common environmental standards between Canada, Mexico, and the US Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 53. Having new taxes on fossil fuels such as gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas to reduce their greenhouse gases Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 54. Introducing tougher emission controls for vehicles Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 55. Encouraging the use of more renewable energy such as wind, solar, and hydro power Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 56. Encouraging the use of nuclear energy Important .................................... 1 Somewhat important ................. 2 Somewhat unimportant ............. 3 Unimportant ............................... 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted]

WW 2013-03
57. What is more important to you, reducing greenhouse gases or having North America free from important oil from outside of North America? Reducing greenhouse gases ...................................................................................... 1 Having North America free from importing oil from outside of North America . 2 Dont know ................................................................................................................. 77 [Unprompted] Would you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or oppose the following: 58. If oil met government targets for greenhouse gas emissions encouraging the use of oil Support ....................................... 1 Somewhat support ..................... 2 Somewhat oppose ...................... 3 Oppose ........................................ 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 59. If coal met government targets for greenhouse gas emissions encouraging the use of coal Support ....................................... 1 Somewhat support ..................... 2 Somewhat oppose ...................... 3 Oppose ........................................ 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 60. If natural gas met government targets for greenhouse gas emissions encouraging the use of natural gas Support ....................................... 1 Somewhat support ..................... 2 Somewhat oppose ...................... 3 Oppose ........................................ 4 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 61. Thinking of the future direction of energy policy would it be your preference for there to be closer cooperation or less cooperation with Canada/the US as an energy partner? Closer cooperation ..................... 1 Less cooperation......................... 2 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted] 62. Thinking of the future direction of energy policy would it be your preference for there to be closer cooperation or less cooperation with Mexico as an energy partner? Closer cooperation ..................... 1 Less cooperation......................... 2 Dont know ................................. 77 [Unprompted]

Elite Interview Discussion Guide

Appendix D

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|49

February2013

Stakeholder Interviews
Thisstudyisabouttheintersectionofpublicopinionandpublicpolicyintermsofenergypolicy. Theprojectincludesananalysisofthepublicopinionenvironment,mediareporting,andalsothe viewsofkeystakeholdersinenergypolicyinCanadaandtheUnitedStates. Thisstudyisnotcommissionedbyanystakeholderandispartofmyscholarinresidenceproject withtheWoodrowWilsonInternationalCenterforScholars. Theviewsyousharewillremainconfidentialandaggregatedwithotherkeystakeholdersin ordertoconductananalysis. NikNanos PublicPolicyScholar,WilsonCenter ResearchAssociateProfessor,SUNY(Buffalo) nik.nanos@wilsoncenter.org Date: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________

Organization: _________________________________ Ourfirstfewquestionsareaboutpolicyformationandpublicopinion. Wouldyousaythatthecurrentnationalpoliticalenvironmentleadstopositive,somewhat positive,somewhatnegative,ornegativepolicyoutcomesintheUnitedStatesinthefollowing policyareas[RANDOMIZE]: Somewhat Somewhat Positive Positive Negative NegativeDK 1. Energypolicy....................................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77 2. Healthpolicy.....................................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77 3. Tradepolicy......................................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77 4. Foreignpolicy...................................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77 5. Defensepolicy..................................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77 6. Environmentalpolicy........................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77 7. TaxPolicy..........................................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77 8. GovernmentSpendingPolicy...........1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........77

WWW.WILSONCENTER.ORG

NANOSGUIDE

PAGE1

Stakeholder Interviews
Ournextcoupleofquestionsrelatetowhatshouldandwhatdoesinfluenceenergypublic policy. 9. Letsthinkaboutthemixofinfluencebetweenpublicopinionandpolicyexpertsonpolicy outcomesingeneral.Iftherewere100pointsintotaltoassigntotheinfluenceofpublic opinionandtheinfluenceofpolicyexperts,inthePERFECTWORLDwhatwouldthemixbe? InfluenceofPolicyExpertsinIdealWorld _____ forEnergyPolicy

InfluenceofPublicOpinioninIdealWorld _____ forEnergyPolicy Total 100

10. ThinkingofpoliticsandenergypolicytodayintheUS.Howwouldyouassignpointsinterms ofTHEREALWORLDbetweentheinfluenceofpolicyexpertsandpublicopinion. InfluenceofPolicyExpertsinReality InfluenceofPublicOpinioninReality Total _____ forEnergyPolicy _____forEnergyPolicy 100

OurnextfewquestionsrelatetotherelationshipwithCanadaand/orMexico 11. WhatarethekeyopportunitiesforenergypolicymakingfortheUSintermsofMexico. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 12. WhatarethekeychallengesforenergypolicymakingfortheUSintermsofMexico. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 13. WhatarethekeyopportunitiesforenergypolicymakingfortheUSintermsofCanada. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 14. WhatarethekeychallengesforenergypolicymakingfortheUSintermsofCanada. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

WWW.WILSONCENTER.ORG

NANOSGUIDE

PAGE2

Stakeholder Interviews
15. Thinkingofthefuturedirectionofenergypolicywoulditbeyourpreferencefortheretobe closercooperationorlesscooperationwithCanadaasanenergypartner. Closercooperation.............................................1 Lesscocooperation.............................................2 Unsure..................................................................77 16. Whydoyouhavethatopinion? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 17. Thinkingofthefuturedirectionofenergypolicywoulditbeyourpreferencefortheretobe closercooperationorlesscooperationwithMexicoasanenergypartner. Closercooperation.............................................1 Lesscocooperation.............................................2 Unsure..................................................................77 18. Whydoyouhavethatopinion? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 19. IfCanadastartedtosendmoreofitsoilandnaturalgasexportstoAsiaandothermarkets, doyouthinkitwouldhaveanimpactornoimpactonenergypolicyintheUS. Impact..................................................................1 Noimpact.............................................................2 Unsure..................................................................77 20. Wouldthatimpactbepositive,somewhatpositive,somewhatnegative,ornegativeon energypolicyintheUS. Positive.................................................................1 Somewhatpositive..............................................2 Somewhatnegative.............................................3 Negative...............................................................4 Unsure..................................................................77 21. IfCanadastartedtosendmoreofitsoilandnaturalgasexportstoAsiaandothermarkets, doyouthinkitwouldhaveanimpactornoimpactonenvironmentalpolicyintheUS. Impact..................................................................1 Noimpact.............................................................2 Unsure..................................................................77

WWW.WILSONCENTER.ORG

NANOSGUIDE

PAGE3

Stakeholder Interviews
22. Wouldthatimpactbepositive,somewhatpositive,somewhatnegative,ornegativeon environmentalpolicyintheUS. Positive.................................................................1 Somewhatpositive..............................................2 Somewhatnegative.............................................3 Negative...............................................................4 Unsure..................................................................77 Ournextfewquestionsareaboutenergyselfsufficiency. AccordingtotheInternationalEnergyAgency(IEA),theUnitedStatescouldinthefuture becometheworldstopproducerofoilandnaturalgas.Increasingdomesticproduction combinedwithdomesticenergyefficiencycouldleavethecountryallbut[energy]self sufficient.TheU.S.couldevenbecomeanetnaturalgasexporterby2022andanetoil exporterby2030. 23. AreyouconfidentornotconfidentinthoseIEAprojections? Confidentinprojections......................................1 Notconfidentinprojections................................2 Unsure..................................................................77 24. Whydoyouhavethatopinion? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 25. WhatarethekeyopportunitiesforenergyselfsufficiencyintheUS? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 26. WhatarethekeychallengesforenergyselfsufficiencyintheUS? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 27. WhatdoesthelongtermenergymixlooklikefortheUSintermsofsourcesofenergy? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

WWW.WILSONCENTER.ORG

NANOSGUIDE

PAGE4

Stakeholder Interviews
Ourlastfewquestionsistounderstandthesourcespeopleuseandkeycontactsintermsof energypolicy. 28. WhatarethekeywebsitesyouturntoforinformationonenergypolicyintheUS? Firstmention: _____________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________

Secondmention: _____________________ Thirdmention: Fourthmention: _____________________ _____________________

29. Whowouldbethekeylegislatorsandadministrationstaffleadingthedialogueonenergy policy: Firstmention: _____________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________

Secondmention: _____________________ Thirdmention: Fourthmention: _____________________ _____________________

30. Whowouldbethekeyreportersleadingthenewsreportingonenergypolicy: Firstmention: _____________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________

Secondmention: _____________________ Thirdmention: Fourthmention: _____________________ _____________________

31. Whoarethemostinfluentialassociationsengagedinthedialogueonenergypolicy: Firstmention: _____________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________ Info:__________________________

Secondmention: _____________________ Thirdmention: Fourthmention: _____________________ _____________________

WWW.WILSONCENTER.ORG

NANOSGUIDE

PAGE5

Calculations on Petroleum Products Transported by Rail


Appendix E

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|50

How many more rail carloads are transporting petroleum products in 2013 compared to 2011?
Estimationsonthelengthofthetrainrequiredtotransportadditionalpetroleumproductsin 2013usedtheAssociationofAmericanRailroads(AAR)datafortheUnitedStatesandCanada forthefirstquarterendingMarch23,2013andthefirstquarterendingMarch24,2011, respectively.Thesourcesdatatablesfortheincreaseinrailtrafficforpetroleumproductswere asfollowsandweredrawnfromtheAARwebsite: 2013RailStats(https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/FreightRail Traffic/Documents/20130328railtraffic.pdf) 2011RailStatshttps://www.aar.org/newsandevents/FreightRail Traffic/Documents/20120329railtraffic.pdf

Tofollowaretheassumptionsforthecalculations: actualadditionalU.S.railpetroleumproductscarloadfirst12weekscomparedto 201180,418railcarloads(U.S.2013,160,358lessU.S.2011,79,940) actualadditionalCDNrailpetroleumproductscarloadfirst12weekscomparedto 201127,469railcarloads(CDN2013,82,394less2011,54,925) actualadditionalU.S.andCDNrailpetroleumproductscarloadfirst12weeks comparedto2011107,887or1,284railcarloadsaday(U.S.2013,80,418plus CDN27,469=107,887morecarsover12weeksor1,284railcarloadsmoreaday) estimatedadditionalrailpetroleumproductscarloadannuallycomparedto2011 U.S.andCDN468,660(1,284railcarloadsmoreadayx365daysayear) standardsizeofarailcarload20feet feettoamile5280feet milesofadditionalrailcarloadstransportingpetroleumproductsin2013compared to20111,775miles(468,660additionalrailcarloadsforpetroleumproductsx20 feetpercarload5280feetpermile) estimateddistanceinmilesfromWinnipeg,CanadatoHouston,UnitedStates 1553miles theadditionalrailcarloadsin2013comparedto2011transportingpetroleum productscouldstretchfromWinnipeg,Canada,toHouston,UnitedStates,with approximately200milesorrailcarloadsleftover.

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOSPAGE|51


USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,USCanadaAirQualityAgreement, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/usca/index.htm(accessedAugust9,2013). 2 KathrynHarrison,MultilevelGovernanceandAmericanInfluenceonCanadianClimatePolicy,Zeitschriftfur KanadaStudien,no.32.2(2012),4564. 3 GrayDavisandJeanCharest,Viewpoints:California,Quebecjointotakeleadonclimatepolicy,TheSacramento BeeApril26,2013.http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/26/5372736/californiaquebecjointotake.html(accessed August9,2013). 4 Aforcedchoicemodelbetterfactorspossiblepolicytradeoffs.Respondentsmaydeemboththeenvironment andenergyimportantindividuallybutintroducingthemasachoicealsoprovidesabetterunderstandingofpublic opinionandthepublicpolicytradeoffs. 5 GovernmentofQuebec,CloseUponEnergy,http://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/english/energy/(accessedAugust9, 2013). 6 InternationalEnergyAssociation,NorthAmericaleadsshiftinglobalenergybalance,IEAsaysinlatestWorld EnergyOutlook.PressRelease,November12,2013. http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/november/name,33015,en.html(accessedAugust 9,2013). 7 InternationalEnergyAgency,WorldEnergyOutlookExecutiveSummary,2012. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf(accessedAugust9,2013). 8 UnitedStatesEnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2013,Washington,DC,2013. 9 UnitedStatesEnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2003,Washington,DC,2003,3. 10 UnitedStatesEnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2012,Washington,DC,2003,173. 11 UnitedStatesEnergyInformationAdministration.AnnualEnergyOutlook2012,Washington,DC,2003,215.
1

ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTPOLICYFRONTIERNANOS

Related Interests

Documents Similar To Entering the Energy and Environment Policy Frontier

More From The Wilson Center

Popular in Technology

Trending

Rate

Share