{ "id": "R43415", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43415", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 460232, "date": "2017-04-05", "retrieved": "2017-08-22T15:14:11.252100", "title": "Keystone XL: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement", "summary": "On March 23, 2017, the State Department issued a Presidential Permit for the border facilities of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, having determined that issuing the permit \u201cwould serve the national interest.\u201d The Department announced that the Record of Decision and National Interest Determination for the Presidential Permit \u201cis informed by\u201d the 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). It cites no new documentation aside from fresh communications with the Canadian pipeline company. \nState Department Assessment\nThe State Department released the FEIS on January 31, 2014, to inform the project\u2019s national interest determination. Among the various environmental impacts analyzed, the FEIS estimates GHG emissions that would be attributable to both the approval and the denial of the permit application for the project. The FEIS finds that\nthe direct and indirect GHG emissions released during the construction period for the project would be approximately 0.24 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents (MMTCO2e) due to land use changes, electricity use, and fuels for construction vehicles (this estimate is comparable to 0.004% of U.S. annual GHG emissions); \nthe direct and indirect GHG emissions released during normal operations would be approximately 1.44 MMTCO2e/year due to electricity use for pumping stations, fuels for maintenance and inspection vehicles, and fugitive emissions (this estimate is comparable to 0.02% of U.S. annual GHG emissions);\nthe total, or \u201cgross,\u201d life-cycle GHG emissions (i.e., the aggregate GHG emissions released by all activities from the extraction of the resource to the refining, transportation, and end-use combustion of refined fuels) attributable to the oil sands crudes transported through the proposed pipeline would be approximately 147 to 168 MMTCO2e per year (this estimate is comparable to 2.2%-2.6% of U.S. annual GHG emissions);\nthe incremental, or \u201cnet,\u201d life-cycle GHG emissions (i.e., life-cycle GHG emissions over and above those from the crude oils expected to be displaced in U.S. refineries) are estimated to be 1.3 to 27.4 MMTCO2e per year (this estimate is comparable to 0.02%-0.4% of U.S. annual GHG emissions); but \naccording to the State Department\u2019s market analysis, \u201capproval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios.\u201d\nMany oil industry stakeholders, the Canadian and Albertan governments, and proponents of the project have supported the analysis as presented in the FEIS. 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, other stakeholders have questioned several of the conclusions in the FEIS and argue that the project may have greater climate change impacts than projected, depending upon the assumptions selected from the range of scenarios considered in the FEIS. These assumptions include projections for global market conditions, crude oil prices, rail transport costs, new project costs, refinery inputs, and carbon regulatory policies in the United States or Canada.\nCongressional Attention\nMembers of Congress remain divided on the merits of the project, as many have expressed support for the potential energy security and economic benefits, while others have reservations about its potential health and environmental impacts. Though Congress, to date, has had no direct role in permitting the pipeline\u2019s construction, it has oversight stemming from federal environmental statutes that govern the review.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43415", "sha1": "7df830b96d5d15ee086a608bf290af123ffd8540", "filename": "files/20170405_R43415_7df830b96d5d15ee086a608bf290af123ffd8540.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R43415_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170405_R43415_images_73deba1fe80bb2236d42c6d7f780fb20018a3023.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43415", "sha1": "70fe3712b808dd3c18b732e994ea17ce2dfa465c", "filename": "files/20170405_R43415_70fe3712b808dd3c18b732e994ea17ce2dfa465c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 436651, "date": "2014-12-30", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:40:32.609941", "title": "Keystone XL: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessments in the Final 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 climate change. During his speech, the President made reference to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project\u2014a pipeline that would transport crude oil derived from Canadian oil sands deposits in Alberta to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. He stated that an evaluation of the proposed pipeline\u2019s impacts on climate change would be \u201ccritical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.\u201d\nState Department Assessment\nThe State Department released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on January 31, 2014, to inform the project\u2019s national interest determination. Among the various environmental impacts analyzed, the FEIS estimates GHG emissions that would be attributable to both the approval and the denial of the permit application for the project. The FEIS finds that\nthe direct and indirect GHG emissions released during the construction period for the project would be approximately 0.24 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents (MMTCO2e) due to land use changes, electricity use, and fuels for construction vehicles (this estimate is comparable to 0.004% of U.S. annual GHG emissions); \nthe direct and indirect GHG emissions released during normal operations would be approximately 1.44 MMTCO2e/year due to electricity use for pumping stations, fuels for maintenance and inspection vehicles, and fugitive emissions (this estimate is comparable to 0.02% of U.S. annual GHG emissions);\nthe total, or \u201cgross,\u201d life-cycle GHG emissions (i.e., the aggregate GHG emissions released by all activities from the extraction of the resource to the refining, transportation, and end-use combustion of refined fuels) attributable to the oil sands crudes transported through the proposed pipeline would be approximately 147 to 168 MMTCO2e per year (this estimate is comparable to 2.2%-2.6% of U.S. annual GHG emissions);\nthe incremental, or \u201cnet,\u201d life-cycle GHG emissions (i.e., life-cycle GHG emissions over and above those from the crude oils expected to be displaced in U.S. refineries) are estimated to be 1.3 to 27.4 MMTCO2e per year (this estimate is comparable to 0.02%-0.4% of U.S. annual GHG emissions); but \naccording to the State Department\u2019s market analysis, \u201capproval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios.\u201d\nMany oil industry stakeholders, the Canadian and Albertan governments, and proponents of the project have supported the analysis as presented in the FEIS. 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, other stakeholders have questioned several of the conclusions in the FEIS and argue that the project may have greater climate change impacts than projected, depending upon the assumptions selected from the range of scenarios considered in the FEIS. These assumptions include projections for global market conditions, crude oil prices, rail transport costs, new project costs, refinery inputs, and carbon regulatory policies in the United States or Canada.\nCongressional Attention\nMembers of Congress remain divided on the merits of the project, as many have expressed support for the potential energy security and economic benefits, while others have reservations about its potential health and environmental impacts. Though Congress, to date, has had no direct role in permitting the pipeline\u2019s construction, it has oversight stemming from federal environmental statutes that govern the review. Further, Congress may seek to influence the State Department\u2019s process or to assert direct congressional authority over approval through new legislation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43415", "sha1": "ecb3486cc5c5bdd71fa29ca1512519c1ab5c61b8", "filename": "files/20141230_R43415_ecb3486cc5c5bdd71fa29ca1512519c1ab5c61b8.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43415", "sha1": "727b4665c03a07b956fbba9bd8597fa51e4a1f75", "filename": "files/20141230_R43415_727b4665c03a07b956fbba9bd8597fa51e4a1f75.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462713/", "id": "R43415_2014Mar07", "date": "2014-03-07", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Keystone XL: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement", "summary": "This report examines the findings and methodology of the State Department's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline project, which analyses the potential Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in regards to the construction, upkeep, and operation of the pipeline.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140307_R43415_8403b36565e9c204d6ca689dae093092ccf693de.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140307_R43415_8403b36565e9c204d6ca689dae093092ccf693de.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Energy", "name": "Energy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Air pollution", "name": "Air pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Greenhouse gases", "name": "Greenhouse gases" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Carbon dioxide", "name": "Carbon dioxide" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Transportation", "name": "Transportation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Pipelines", "name": "Pipelines" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Petroleum pipelines", "name": "Petroleum pipelines" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }