Gateway to online athletic & arts events

SD history, online and interactive

Share your experience

Dakota Digest

Permitting continues for Keystone XL
Air Date: 11/19/2009

by Cory Klumper

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission continues its deliberations on the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The pipeline would transport oil from the Alberta tar sands to refineries on the gulf coast.

The Public Utilities Commission held hearings earlier this month as part of the permitting process for the new pipeline. The hearings included public input and testimony of experts. Dusty Johnson is a member of the commission. He says the process is similar for any big utility project.

“Generally how this process works is you’ll have somebody come in who wants to build something big, whether it’s a power plant or a wind farm or a pipeline. We call them the applicant,” says Johnson. “We don’t just take the applicant’s word for anything. They’ve got a vested interest in making sure that their project receives approval from the PUC. The PUC has an interest in making sure we get it right.”

Johnson says the PUC has some experts on staff. He says in situations where complex technical data is needed the commission hires expert witnesses. Johnson says the applicant is required to pay for these outside experts.
The commission heard three days of testimony including an evening of public comments on the project. Johnson says a decision is pending.

“At some point, probably in the next two months, the commissioners will put this case on an open meeting for a decision,” says Johnson. “The commissioners have not and will not be able to talk about this among themselves in any place other than in an open meeting. So we’ll go in a month or two and discuss our deliberations and determine what we should do.”

Johnson says the pipeline permitting process continues with numerous federal agencies. He says the Department of State leads the process because this is an international pipeline. Brian Dugan is an Energy Officer with the U-S Department of State. He says their main job is the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

“Almost all of the agencies requiring a permit also require some kind of environmental evaluation. Now the state department as the lead federal agency will be conducting an environmental impact statement on the entire pipeline route,” says Dugan. “Instead of everybody else duplicating that effort what we do is we share our process with them and they have access to it and can comment on what we’re doing.’

Dugan says his office will publish a draft environmental impact statement sometime in December. He says after that they will hold public meetings along the pipeline route.

“After that process has concluded we will then take all of those comments from the public and from the interagency, and from the state and local permitting agencies, and we will format that into a final EIS,” says Dugan. “Once we have that final EIS we will again publish that in the federal register and receive comments on it.”

Dugan says the XL pipeline faces the same permitting process as the original Keystone Pipeline currently under construction in Eastern South Dakota. He says President Obama hasn’t changed any rules and Congress hasn’t passed any new pipeline regulations.
Paul Blackburn is a lawyer for Plains Justice. He represents a group of landowners called Dakota Rural Action in the commission proceedings. Blackburn says the pipeline is not a public utility, so the landowners should be compensated for their burden.

“Dakota Rural Action’s position on pipelines is not to oppose them outright but rather to advocate that they be designed, built, and operated as safely and effectively as possible,  and that landowner private property rights be respected throughout the process,” says Blackburn.

Blackburn says things like responding to spills are very important for people who live or farm near the pipeline. He says the state doesn’t have enough resources to respond to the kind of spill this pipeline could create. Jeff Raugh is a spokesman for TransCanada. He says spill response is part of pipeline operation.

“We are required to be prepared to respond, to have equipment ready to respond, to take care of any spill, any leak from the pipeline,” says Raugh. “If we do not meet that criterion we cannot operate the pipeline. So that is absolutely our responsibility.”

Raugh says TransCanada is also responsible for cleaning up after construction. Dakota Rural Action attorney Paul Blackburn says some landowners along the eastern pipeline were not satisfied with TransCanada’s construction operations. Jeff Raugh says restoration continues on roads and part of the pipeline right-of way where the wet spring caused excessive damage.

“Where conditions were drier you see there are already crops growing on parts of the right-of-way that was constructed, even in 2009,” says Raugh. “We continue to work to complete our restoration activities and to ensure that landowners throughout South Dakota are satisfied with the work we have done.”

Raugh says another issue brought up by pipeline opponents is the eventual abandonment of more than 300 miles of steel. Paul Blackburn says other pipeline companies have left landowners in a bind. He says pipes eventually rust. This causes the potential for drainage issues, sinkholes, and other dangers. TransCanada officials say they plan on operating this pipeline for a long time, after that they will fill the pipe with inert gas to prevent rust. Raugh says the pipe can be re-used for something that may not yet exist.