The Continuing Saga of the Keystone XL Pipeline

May 17, 2013

Reading Time : 1 min

EPA concluded by rating the draft EIS as “not contain[ing] sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided to fully protect the environment . . . .” EPA Comments at 6 & Enclosure. The adverb “fully,” which appears twice in EPA’s conclusion, highlights the problem. From Webster's, to Random House, to American Heritage, the word “fully” means “totally or completely,” “to the greatest degree or extent,” “entirely or wholly.” In the context of such subjective goals as “environmental impact that should be avoided” and “protect the environment,” such a standard is either impossible to fulfill or is divorced from common understanding.

Since September 19, 2008, when TransCanada applied to the State Department for a Presidential Permit, the environmental impacts of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline have been assessed, revised, supplemented and debated. This process has no doubt produced improvements in the protective measures required of TransCanada and reduced the potential for threats to human health and the environment. But, like all human endeavors, it cannot achieve perfection. Yet, a process that continuously seeks more and more information and study so that impacts are “fully” assessed and the environment “fully” protected, hastens the day on which TransCanada concludes that its resources are better invested in other projects.

The issues EPA raises in its comments involve legitimate practical considerations concerning the specific terms to be included in a final permit. The comments also acknowledge the uncertainty inherently involved in attempting to compare greenhouse gas impacts of the specific project under review with the virtually limitless alternatives means for developing the Alberta oil sands. None of the comments, however, identifies issues sufficient to alter the conclusions in the draft EIS. Further delay demonstrates only the need for Congress to seriously consider reform of the permitting process.


1 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/nyregion/justice-denied-bronx-court-system-mired-in-delays.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Share This Insight

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.