State Department: Clinton might not personally make pipeline decision

October 11, 2011

The Hill

By Ben Geman

A senior State Department official has shed some light on the State Department’s review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would bring crude oil from Canada’s oil sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries.

Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones said Friday that it remains unclear whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will personally make the decision on whether to approve TransCanada Corp.’s proposed $7 billion, 1,700-mile project.

“[T]his decision was delegated to the Secretary by the President, and it’s her choice to delegate it to a couple of other people within the Department. She has not made that decision yet as to if she would delegate it or make the decision herself,” Jones, the assistant secretary of State for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, said at a briefing Friday.

The distinction is significant, given the accusations of green groups that the department is biased toward TransCanada in the ongoing review. In particular, they’re attacking friendly exchanges between a State official and Paul Elliot, the Clinton 2008 campaign aide who now lobbies for TransCanada.

Jones said “past relationships are not of importance” and asserted that the review has been balanced, emphasizing her meetings with environmental groups, representatives of Canada’s First Nations and other parties.

She said State is “not leaning in any one direction at this point.” The department hopes to make a final decision by the end of the year.

Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute are lobbying in favor of the project. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said at a press conference Friday that the pipeline — which would carry hundreds of thousands of barrels daily — would enhance U.S. energy security, create 20,000 jobs and operate under strict safety standards.

Environmental groups, which have called the jobs estimates inflated, oppose the pipeline due to greenhouse gas emissions, forest damage and other impacts from from oil sands projects, as well as the prospect of pipeline spills that could contaminate farmland and drinking water in states along the route.

<- Go Back