![\"opposes](\"https:\/\/www.reefrelieffounders.com\/drilling\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/opposes-kx.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPhotograph by Julia Schmalz\/Bloomberg<\/p>\n
Steyer discusses his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline during an interview in Washington
\n(Updates with response from U.S. Department of State\u2019s Office of the Inspector General in the seventh paragraph.)<\/p>\n
Three weeks back, when we last checked in on the lively, sometimes absurd fight over the Keystone XL pipeline, opponents of the project had just raised alarm about undisclosed conflicts of interest between ERM (ERM:LN), a U.K.-based company the U.S. State Department has relied on to assess the potential environmental impact of the proposed line, and TransCanada (TRP), the company that wants to build it. Previous conflict of interest allegations about the Keystone XL had led to congressional complaints and an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General. The new disclosures raised the prospect that the project might be further delayed by a new ethics inquiry.<\/p>\n
Since then the saga has featured still more twists, including:<\/p>\n
\u2022 President Obama chuckling (per the New York Times) as he low-balled the number of construction jobs the pipeline might create;<\/p>\n
\u2022 revelations that a dozen or more state and federal Republican lawmakers apparently sent letters endorsing the pipeline that had been written by fossil fuel lobbyists;<\/p>\n
\u2022 TransCanada\u2019s announcement of a longer, 1,864-mile, $12 billion pipeline that, if completed, would certainly make good on the company\u2019s name, and make the Keystone XL look more like the Keystone XS; and,<\/p>\n
\u2022 Claims by the Washington-based Checks and Balances Project that a new U.S. government special investigation is underway over ERM.<\/p>\n
As you\u2019d expect, proponents of the pipeline were quick to dismiss the conflict-of-interest charges as a transparent ploy to derail the pipeline\u2019s approval process. Guilty as charged, says Friends of the Earth\u2019s Ross Hammond. His nonprofit engaged in opposition research, as it is called during election campaigns, to turn up the evidence that ERM had worked with TransCanada on projects that it had failed to disclose to the U.S. State Department.<\/p>\n
Calling the conflict-of-interest charges tactical, however, doesn\u2019t mean they lack merit. Here, (PDF), for example, is a 2010 document, cached online, in which ERM lists TransCanada as a client. Does this prove that ERM has been biased toward TransCanada in its Keystone assessment? No. But unless this document is a forgery, ERM appears not to have disclosed all it should have to the U.S. government. (ERM declined to comment.)<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Keystone XL environmental review lost all credibility when ERM lied to taxpayers about what it was up to,\u201d says Tom Steyer, president of NextGen Climate Action. \u201cERM\u2019s hubris deprives the State Department and the public of the unbiased information they need. A large group of Americans will support Secretary Kerry if he insists on doing the review in a clean, straightforward way\u2014this time, with an honest contractor.\u201d<\/p>\n
The State Department maintains that it has the situation well under control. \u201cThe selected contractor works directly with and under the sole direction of the Department of State while the applicant pays for the work,\u201d says State official Jennifer Psaki.<\/p>\n
Steyer, a semi-retired hedge fund billionaire, is a financial supporter of President Obama, and it\u2019s not hard to imagine that Steyer encouraged Obama to nix Keystone\u2019s development during the president\u2019s most recent visit to Steyer\u2019s home. (Could Steyer be where Obama got his low jobs-created number? Hard to say. Obama\u2019s Keystone remarks have become political sport\u2014\u201dKremlinology,\u201d even; the Washington Post\u2019s WonkBlog did terrific work fact-checking his figures).<\/p>\n
The Office of the Inspector General confirms that it has \u201cinitiated an inquiry\u201d into the ERM conflict of interest complaints, and whether or not that goes anywhere, the Keystone faces a second, straight-talking judge in Gina McCarthy, the new Environmental Protection Agency chief. Whether the pipeline proceeds is ultimately up to the President. But the EPA has a role to play: It is reviewing the environmental impact studies that contractors such as ERM have conducted.<\/p>\n
When asked about Keystone XL recently, McCarthy first jokingly got up to leave, rather than be put on the spot. Then she replied that the EPA would strive to be \u201can honest commenter\u201d on the XL plans. Up to now, that honesty (PDF) has been bracing, as the EPA has called the Keystone environmental impact statements insufficient and inadequate not once, but three times.
\nWieners (@bradwieners) is an executive editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
http:\/\/www.businessweek.com\/articles\/2013-08-02\/calling-all-keystone-xl-cops-the-pipeline-hits-more-snags Photograph by Julia Schmalz\/Bloomberg Steyer discusses his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline during an interview in Washington (Updates with response from U.S. Department of State\u2019s Office of the Inspector General in the seventh paragraph.) Three weeks back, when we last checked in on the lively, sometimes absurd fight over the Keystone XL pipeline, … Continue reading Bloomberg Policy & Politics: Calling All Keystone (XL) Cops! The Pipeline Hits More Snags<\/span>