{
  "id": "IN10825",
  "type": "CRS Insight",
  "typeId": "INSIGHTS",
  "number": "IN10825",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 575706,
      "date": "2017-11-21",
      "retrieved": "2019-05-03T16:15:52.470515",
      "title": "Keystone XL Pipeline: Recent Developments",
      "summary": "Introduction\nTransCanada\u2019s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska (Figure 1). On November 20, 2017, the Nebraska Public Service Commission (PSC) approved the \u201calternative mainline\u201d route for the Nebraska segment of Keystone XL which would co-locate some of the new pipeline with the company\u2019s existing Keystone (Mainline) Pipeline. This route differs from the siting that TransCanada originally proposed (Figure 2, \u201cpreferred route\u201d). Due to the PSC\u2019s decision, Keystone XL may require additional federal authorizations and revision of existing ones, among other consequences, increasing the regulatory and economic uncertainty around the pipeline\u2019s construction.\nFigure 1. Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Route\n/\nSource: CRS with data from S&P Global Platts and Esri Data & Maps, November 2017.\nKeystone XL has been controversial. Proponents base their support primarily on energy security (increasing U.S. oil supply from a neighboring ally) and economic grounds, especially job creation. Some opposition is based on objections to potential increased greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts from oil production and use, while other opponents raise concerns about possible oil spills and other local impacts from pipeline construction. There also is debate about how much Keystone XL crude oil, or fuels refined from it, would be exported overseas. Congress has acted in the past to influence approval of the pipeline and remains interested in its development. Some opponents view the Nebraska PSC\u2019s decision as a new opportunity to affect the federal approvals it requires.\nRoute Approval\nKeystone XL needs approval from state regulators for its overall route within U.S. borders. TransCanada already had siting approvals from Montana and South Dakota\u2014the other states it traverses\u2014but still required eminent domain authority from Nebraska. The Nebraska PSC\u2019s approval confers that authority. The PSC\u2019s regulatory review excluded safety issues. Environmental considerations were separately addressed\u2014for the original route\u2014in an environmental approval by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the governor. The new route may require the DEQ to reevaluate the project. Canada\u2019s National Energy Board approved the Canadian portion of the pipeline in 2010.\nFigure 2.Keystone XL Alternative Mainline Route \n/\nSource: Adapted from TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P., In the Matter of the Application of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P for Route Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Pursuant to the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act, February 16, 2017, Fig. 2.2-2.\nFederal Approvals\nAlthough no U.S. federal authority regulates the siting of Keystone XL as a whole, construction of specific segments requires federal consultations and approvals under various statutes. Most federal approvals for Keystone XL have been issued, but agency decisions on certain authorizations are pending and may be affected by an altered route in Nebraska. \nState Department\nKeystone XL requires a Presidential Permit because it would cross an international border. On March 23, 2017, the U.S. State Department issued a Presidential Permit for the proposed border facilities of the pipeline. Although the Presidential Permit is in force, it faces a legal challenge on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative Procedure Act grounds. Because the State Department\u2019s 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) evaluated the entire Keystone XL project, an alternative route in Nebraska could require reconsideration of this permit.\nArmy Corps of Engineers\nTransCanada must obtain authorizations from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) before constructing Keystone XL segments that may affect federally regulated waters and wetlands. For the original route, the Corps has provided verifications for Keystone XL\u2019s construction using Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 at all but one regulated segment; the pending verification is for a Missouri River crossing near the Corps-operated Fort Peck Dam and spillway in Montana. If the Corps concludes that the pipeline would neither harm the Corps project nor injure the public, the agency would be expected to grant TransCanada a \u201cSection 408 permission\u201d related to the Fort Peck project (which may occur as soon as December 2017), as well as the NWP 12 verification for the Missouri River water crossing near Fort Peck. Segments of Keystone XL\u2019s alternative mainline route in Nebraska may require additional Corps authorizations.\nBureau of Land Management\nThe Keystone XL Pipeline would cross 45 miles of federal land in the vicinity of the Montana border and Fort Peck Dam. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, the pipeline requires rights-of-way (ROW) for these segments from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The agency has not granted TransCanada the necessary rights-of-way in Montana. Its decision to do so would be contingent upon the Section 408 review by the Corps (as the other affected federal land management agency). BLM may grant the rights-of-way within 60 days of a favorable Section 408 review, although BLM rights-of-way for Keystone XL are being challenged preemptively in the litigation cited above. It is unclear if changes to the route in Nebraska would directly affect BLM\u2019s decision regarding ROW in Montana. However, any change to the Presidential Permit could have implications for BLM\u2019s process because BLM has adopted the State Department\u2019s FSEIS as a valid NEPA document for its own Record of Decision.\nEconomic Viability\nThe Keystone XL Pipeline was initially proposed when U.S. crude oil prices exceeded $100 per barrel. However, due in large part to U.S. oil production growth, prices have fallen to around $50 per barrel. This price drop has reduced near-term projections for growth in Canadian oil sands crude supplies\u2014which are costly to produce. These lowered projections have caused some analysts to question the economic viability of Keystone XL. However, Canadian oil producers maintain that additional pipeline capacity will still be in demand. TransCanada also has stated that it expects \u201ccommercial support for the pipeline to be substantially similar\u201d to when Keystone XL was first proposed, although it has not publicly committed to build it. Additional costs and delays due to regulatory compliance (and litigation) and construction along the alternative mainline route in Nebraska may affect TransCanada\u2019s investment decision.",
      "type": "CRS Insight",
      "typeId": "INSIGHTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IN10825",
          "sha1": "e14acbe53d1036c6df2c8a71079067862a08840a",
          "filename": "files/20171121_IN10825_e14acbe53d1036c6df2c8a71079067862a08840a.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=IN/ASPX/IN10825_files&id=/1.png": "files/20171121_IN10825_images_9c7dbcadfef4f704dd41e0c43a1684e0c1ade59e.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=IN/ASPX/IN10825_files&id=/0.png": "files/20171121_IN10825_images_3915f682200fe60af4155dd936d9632276c98e50.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/IN10825",
          "sha1": "d6f256bddc19d9e821767191ce4425c027edd8bf",
          "filename": "files/20171121_IN10825_d6f256bddc19d9e821767191ce4425c027edd8bf.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4780,
          "name": "Energy & Natural Resources Trade & Economics"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4812,
          "name": "Fossil Energy"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4813,
          "name": "International Energy & Natural Resource Issues"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4814,
          "name": "Environmental Review & Policy"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "CRS Insights",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}