The US Department of State is delaying its decision on a controversial pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Texas. In a statement issued today, it said that it needed more time to review the environmental implications, especially those in Nebraska. Vermont's congressional delegation has been opposed to the pipeline, which would bring "tar sands" oil into the United States for refining.
Representative Peter Welch (D-VT) issued the below statement following the announcement by the State Department that it will delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
‘The State Department today raised the correct concerns, but reached the wrong conclusion. The catastrophic environmental risks of this proposed pipeline dictate the project be rejected, not delayed. I look forward to a swift and thorough investigation by the inspector general into the State Department’s review process.’
Welch led efforts in the House demanding an investigation into whether conflicts of interest tainted the State Department’s process for reviewing the proposed crude oil pipeline. On Monday, the State Department Inspector General agreed to open an investigation.
US Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also commented: ‘While this is a sign that the State Department has been listening during the comment period, there are many problems with this pipeline, and the tar sands project behind it, that go far beyond the particular route it would take. This pollution-ridden project and its path through our country should not go forward at all. The environmental harm and risks that are inseparable from this project far outweigh any benefits, and I hope the Administration will pull the plug on an inherently bad idea."
Vermont Governor Shumlin said in a statement: ‘The State Department’s announcement to delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough. Our nation should be moving away from our dependency on fossil fuels, not building a pipeline without adequate knowledge of the project’s environmental impacts. I will continue to urge the Administration to reject this project.’
State Department statement reads in part:
"Since 2008, the Department has been conducting a transparent, thorough and rigorous review of TransCanada’s application for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project. As a result of this process, particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Department has determined it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska.
"As part of the National Interest Determination process, the State Department held a public comment period, including public meetings in the six potentially affected states and Washington, D.C., to increase the opportunity for public comments. During this time, the Department also received input from state, local, and tribal officials. We received comments on a wide range of issues including the proposed project’s impact on jobs, pipeline safety, health concerns, the societal impact of the project, the oil extraction in Canada, and the proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, which was one of the most common issues raised. The comments were consistent with the information in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) about the unique combination of characteristics in the Sand Hills (which includes a high concentration of wetlands of special concern, a sensitive ecosystem, and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater) and provided additional context and information about those characteristics. The concern about the proposed route’s impact on the Sand Hills of Nebraska has increased significantly over time, and has resulted in the Nebraska legislature convening a special session to consider the issue.
"State law primarily governs routes for interstate petroleum pipelines; however, Nebraska currently has no such law or regulatory framework authorizing state or local authorities to determine where a pipeline goes. Taken together with the national concern about the pipeline’s route, the Department has determined it is necessary to examine in-depth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills in Nebraska in order to move forward with a National Interest Determination for the Presidential Permit.
"Based on the Department’s experience with pipeline project reviews and the time typically required for environmental reviews of similar scope by other agencies, it is reasonable to expect that this process including a public comment period on a supplement to the final EIS consistent with NEPA could be completed as early as the first quarter of 2013. After obtaining the additional information, the Department would determine, in consultation with the eight other agencies identified in the Executive Order, whether the proposed pipeline was in the national interest, considering all of the relevant issues together. Among the relevant issues that would be considered are environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy."
US Department of State. 11.10.2011