The Keystone XL Pipeline would transport Canadian oil sands crude extracted in Alberta, Canada, and crude produced from the Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. There is also concern over how much crude oil, or petroleum products refined from Keystone XL crude, would be exported overseas. The Keystone XL Pipeline Project would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipeline and associated facilities linking Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, NE. Rail transport capacity has also been expanding. Issuance of a Presidential Permit requires a State Department determination that the project would serve the "national interest." Consideration of Environmental Impacts Under NEPA

As part of its Presidential Permit application review, the State Department must identify and consider environmental impacts within the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Analysis in an EIS is intended to inform the NID process. With the release of the final EIS for the Keystone XL pipeline project, the State Department stated that it would consider many factors, including the proposal's potential effect on energy security; environmental and cultural resources; the economy; and foreign policy. In accordance with that Executive Order, those agencies had 90 days to provide their views to the State Department. (Those stakeholders are given an opportunity to comment on the project during the NEPA process.) With the Nebraska case decided, the State Department asked the cooperating federal agencies to submit their input regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline by February 2, 2015. Since then, the State Department has not committed to a time frame to issue its decision. Legislative Efforts to Change Permitting Authority33

In light of what they perceive as excessive delays in the State Department's review of permit application for Keystone XL, some in Congress have sought alternative means to support the pipeline's development. 28 ) would all directly approve Keystone XL and put an end to any further environmental review under NEPA or other federal environmental statutes. On January 29, 2015, the Senate passed the renamed Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act ( S. 1 ), as amended, by a vote of 62 to 36. The bill was passed in the House on February 11 by a vote of 270 to 152. S. 1 was sent to President Obama on February 24 th and vetoed by the President the same day. The Senate attempted to override the President's veto on March 4, however the override measure failed by a vote of 62 to 37. No further action on S. 1 was taken in the House. The Final EIS finds:
the GHG emissions released during the construction period for the project would be approximately 0.24 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO 2 e) due to land use changes, electricity use, and fuels for construction vehicles (equivalent to 0.004% of U.S. annual GHG emissions) ; the GHG emissions released during normal operations would be approximately 1.44 MMTCO 2 e/year due to electricity use for pumping stations, fuels for maintenance and inspection vehicles, and fugitive emissions (equivalent to 0.2% of U.S. annual GHG emissions); the total, or gross, life-cycle GHG emissions (i.e., the aggregate GHG emissions released by all activities from the extraction of the resource to the refining, transportation, and end-use combustion of refined fuels) attributable to the oil sands crude transported through the proposed pipeline would be approximately 147 to 168 MMTCO 2 e per year (equivalent to 2.2% to 2.6% of U.S. annual GHG emissions); the incremental, or net, life-cycle GHG emissions (i.e., GHG emissions over-and-above those from the crude oils expected to be displaced in U.S. refineries) is estimated to be 1.3 to 27.4 MMTCO 2 e per year (equivalent to 0.02% to 0.4% of U.S. annual GHG emissions); but according to the State Department's market analysis, "approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios." Issues with the Pipeline Route Across Nebraska

During the national interest determination period for the 2008 Presidential Permit application, it became clear that changes to Nebraska law would require the selection of a pipeline route that would avoid the Sand Hills region of Nebraska. The legitimacy of this permitting authority has been addressed by federal courts.
TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day. Because it would cross the Canadian-U.S. border, Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department based on a determination that the pipeline would "serve the national interest." To make its national interest determination (NID), the department considers potential effects on energy security; environmental and cultural resources; the economy; foreign policy, and other factors. Effects on environmental and cultural resources are determined by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NID process also provides for public comment and requires the State Department to consult with specific federal agencies.
TransCanada originally applied for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008. Since then various issues have affected the completion of both the NEPA and NID processes for the project. In particular, during the NID process for the 2008 application, concerns over environmental impacts in the Sand Hills of Nebraska led the state to enact new requirements that would change the pipeline route. Facing a 60-day decision deadline imposed by Congress, the State Department denied the 2008 permit application on the grounds that it lacked information about the new Nebraska route. In May 2012, TransCanada submitted a new application with a modified route through Nebraska, thus beginning a new NEPA and NID process.
With the release of the final EIS for the new pipeline route in January 2014, the State Department began the current NID process. Public comment on the project, allowed under the Executive Order, ended on March 2014. Federal agency comment on the project was interrupted by state court action in Nebraska, but this litigation was resolved. The department subsequently told federal agencies to provide their input by February 2, 2015. The State Department has not committed to a deadline for issuing its final NID or making a Presidential Permit decision.
Development of Keystone XL has been controversial. Proponents base their arguments primarily on increasing the diversity of the U.S. petroleum supply and economic benefits, especially jobs. Pipeline opposition stems in part from concern regarding the greenhouse gas emissions from the development of Canadian oil sands, continued U.S. dependency on fossil fuels, and the risk of a potential release of heavy crude. There is also debate about how much Keystone XL crude oil, or petroleum products refined from it, would be exported overseas. Relations between the U.S. and Canadian governments have also been an issue. With the fate of Keystone XL uncertain, Canadian oil producers have pursued other shipment options, including other pipelines and rail.
In light of what some consider excessive delays in the State Department's permit review, Congress has sought other means to support development of the pipeline. In the 114th Congress, the most significant legislative proposal has been the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act (S. 1), which would have directly approved Keystone XL and put an end to any further review under federal environmental statutes. On January 29, 2015, the Senate passed S. 1 by a vote of 62 to 36. On February 11, the House passed S. 1 by a vote of 270 to 152. The bill was sent to President Obama on February 24th and vetoed the same day. The Senate attempted to override the President's veto on March 4; however; the override measure failed by a vote of 62 to 37. No further action on S. 1 was taken in the House.