Chair of Energy and Commerce Committee says tar sands pipeline "step in the wrong direction" in letter to Secretary Clinton

Today, the powerful Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and lead architect of the House’s climate legislation, Congressman Henry Waxman, weighed in on the Keystone XL pipeline in a letter to the State Department Secretary, Hillary Clinton, declaring that building the pipeline “would be a step in the wrong direction” and stating later in his letter that “this pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel.” This dirty, high-carbon fuel is derived from tar sands, which are found in Alberta, Canada, underlying an area in the Boreal forest, wetlands, and peatlands about the size of Florida. The extraction, shipping, and refining of the tar sands into a usable product is already devastating the environment in both Canada, and the U.S., and is increasing climate change pollution at a time when we need to be stepping away from dirty fuels and moving towards clean energy solutions.

The Chairman wrote two letters, one a shorter letter to the Secretary, and another to the office receiving input on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed pipeline. The public comment period on the DEIS closed on July 2nd, the same day the Chairman sent his letters.

In his letters, the Chairman stated that the DEIS on the pipeline was seriously flawed, in particular in its failure to fully analyze what the Chairman called “the most significant environmental impact” – the pollution from producing tar sands bitumen by strip mining and drilling Canada’s Boreal forest.

The Keystone XL pipeline would push up to 900,000 barrels a day of gooey bitumen 2,000 miles from Alberta, Canada to Texas under high pressure, roughly doubling the amount of tar sands oil coming in to the U.S. Keystone XL would be the third dedicated tar sands pipeline, along with the Keystone and Alberta Clipper. These two pipelines were approved in 2008 and 2009.

In his multi-pronged letters, the Chairman made numerous points to underscore his concern that approving the pipeline would undermine the President’s clean energy policy. He stated that the pipeline would:

• Increase the importation of tar sands oil to 3 million barrels a day, which would add global warming pollution equivalent to putting 18 million more cars on the road
• Wipe away up to two-thirds the reduction in pollution from the President’s recently announced fuel efficiency standards for cars by 2020
• Drive massive new investments in energy that is dirtier than what we use now
• Increase the release of global warming pollution through the loss of boreal forest and peatland, as well as through the release of methane from the vast tailings ponds that are created to remove the bitumen from the peat
• Cause other damage “such as destruction of the boreal forest ecosystem, extensive water pollution, air pollution, habitat loss, and effects on species, including migratory birds”

 Syncrude and Suncor Tar Sands Operations in Alberta, Canada. Photo Credit: David Dodge, The Pembina Institute.

But much of his concern was focused on the inadequacy of the process to garner input and do solid analysis of the pipeline’s impacts. He also focused on the impact that approving the pipeline would have on U.S. leverage with Canada to reduce its pollution from greenhouse gases as we become more dependent on this dirty fuel source. 

Under an Executive Order for pipelines crossing international borders, the State Department is required to conduct what is called a National Interest Determination. Additionally, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the State Department must produce both a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement, which are critical in making an accurate determination about whether or not the project is in the national interest. The Executive Order makes it clear that multiple agencies are meant to have input on the determination, and even gives the power to agencies to refer the decision to the President. The Chairman raised concerns about both the EIS process and the National Interest Determination, including:

• The DEIS ignores the global warming impact of the project contrary to long standing guidance by the President’s White House Council on Environmental Quality, which is responsible for NEPA, which governs our EIS process
• The State Department should carry out a Supplemental EIS that addresses the full environmental impacts, including a full life-cycle assessment of the global warming pollution from tar sands extraction through to combustion, and allow the public to comment on the Supplemental EIS
• The State Department should make sure that agencies have the benefit of a final EIS before being asked to weigh in on the National Interest Determination and should make the criteria for this determination public
• The State Department considering tar sands production emissions not to be a U.S. concern outside of international treaty negotiations “ignores the reality of the situation” in which Canada is unlikely to meet its global warming goals due to growth in the tar sands.

His letters come on the heels of another letter sent last week from 50 members of Congress expressing similar concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline and the DEIS and National Interest Determination process. And these letters join a groundswell of concern about this pipeline. On June 8, 250 of the nation’s most prominent high tech leaders signed a letter to the Secretary. Over the past two months, hundreds of residents along the pipeline route have raised questions and expressed concerns at hearings on the pipeline permit. 

If our 21st century energy policy looks like the BP oil disaster in the Gulf and a trebling of tar sands oil pushed through the Keystone, Clipper and Keystone XL pipelines, we are indeed in deep trouble.

Let’s hope Chairman Waxman’s letters turn this around and get us back on track to realize the 21st century clean energy economy so often touted by our President.

Comments