{ "id": "R43180", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43180", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 428653, "date": "2014-03-10", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T23:05:13.924034", "title": "Keystone XL: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessments in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement", "summary": "On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a national \u201cClimate Action Plan\u201d to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG), as well as to encourage adaptation to expected climate change. During his speech, the President made reference to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline and stated that an evaluation of the project\u2019s impacts on climate change would factor into the U.S. State Department\u2019s national interest determination. The State Department, in the March 2013 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline, reports estimates for both the direct (i.e., operational) and indirect (i.e., associated with crude oil production and use) GHG emissions that would be attributable to the proposed project. The DEIS finds that \u201cthe proposed Project would be responsible for incremental GHG emissions in the range of 0.07 ... 5.3 [million metric tons of CO2 equivalent] annually.\u201d These emissions would represent an increase of 0.001%-0.08% over the domestic GHG emissions totals of 6,822 MMTCO2e in 2010. The State Department bases its findings on the following conclusions: (1) approval or denial of the proposed pipeline is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area in the long term, (2) denial of the proposed pipeline is offset entirely by the expansion of new rail and pipeline infrastructure in North America in the long term, and (3) the cumulative impact of the proposed pipeline would be the additional oil sands production that would become economical given the marginal cost savings afforded by the project over non-pipeline transport.\nMany industry stakeholders, the Canadian and Albertan governments, and proponents of the proposed pipeline have generally supported the State Department\u2019s findings. They contend that the demand for the oil sands resource, as well as the economic incentives for producers and the Canadian governments, is too significant to dampen production. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among other stakeholders, has questioned several of the conclusions put forth by the DEIS and recommended that the State Department revisit the analysis. Opponents of the project argue that the Keystone XL Pipeline may have greater impacts than projected in the DEIS if certain State Department assumptions were to differ, including projections for global crude oil markets, rail transport costs, new project costs, refinery inputs, and carbon pricing policies. Members of Congress remain divided on the merits of the proposed project, as many have expressed support for the potential energy security and economic benefits, while others have expressed reservations about its potential environmental impacts. Though Congress, to date, has had no direct role in permitting the pipeline\u2019s construction, it may have oversight stemming from federal environmental statutes that govern the review. Further, Congress may seek to influence the State Department\u2019s permitting process or to assert direct congressional authority over approval through new legislation.\nOn January 31, 2014, the State Department released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which contained revised analysis and estimates. For a detailed review of these findings, see CRS Report R43415, Keystone XL: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, by Richard K. Lattanzio.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43180", "sha1": "b9a00f96b77bed70b2202b8c21aeec06ab7f42e1", "filename": "files/20140310_R43180_b9a00f96b77bed70b2202b8c21aeec06ab7f42e1.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43180", "sha1": "4e673dd935bb368f6b5bdcc9425287e0aa4f7db6", "filename": "files/20140310_R43180_4e673dd935bb368f6b5bdcc9425287e0aa4f7db6.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc227905/", "id": "R43180_2013Aug15", "date": "2013-08-15", "retrieved": "2013-11-05T18:07:05", "title": "Keystone XL: Assessing the Proposed Pipeline's Impacts on Greenhouse Gas Emissions", "summary": "This report provides background information regarding the Keystone XL pipeline proposal and the process required for federal approval. The report discusses the state department's GHG emissions assessment and provides concluding observations.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130815_R43180_f0416e193cec782b6568877c9501dbefcf289ca4.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130815_R43180_f0416e193cec782b6568877c9501dbefcf289ca4.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Petroleum industry", "name": "Petroleum industry" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Pipelines", "name": "Pipelines" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Petroleum pipelines", "name": "Petroleum pipelines" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }