Infrastructure deal would require study on job losses from Keystone’s end
Language in the bipartisan infrastructure deal released Sunday night would require the government to study how many job losses would be caused by the Biden administration’s revoking of a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline.
The language is one of several provisions won by Republicans in the legislation that could provide arguments to use against the administration’s climate policies.
The bill requires the government to conduct a study estimating direct or indirect job losses caused by revoking the pipeline’s authorization over a 10-year period. It would also analyze any associated increase in energy costs as a result of the executive order. The study must be completed 90 days after the bill becomes law.
Separately, the bill would require a full analysis of the “cradle to grave environmental impact” of electric vehicles to be completed within 120 days, and a separate study on the effect of “forced labor in China on the electric vehicle supply chain.”
The text also includes requirements for studies on the feasibility of a number of other environmental items, including solar panels on mine land, the use of nuclear power to reduce emissions and energy storage systems like electric vehicle batteries.
The White House and progressive allies have touted the bipartisan bill and a separate reconciliation measure as a vehicle to include major environmental initiatives, such as increased vehicle electrification and a civilian climate corps.
Just last week, Biden discussed the potential benefits of the corps on a call with western governors about wildfires in the region.
The language likely reflects GOP demands for the bill, but also echoes arguments made by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who is the chairman of the Senate energy panel and has been a key player on the talks.
The Keystone cancellation, one of Biden’s first acts as president, was widely criticized by Republicans and the energy industry but hailed by environmental activists. Biden has taken no such action on two other controversial pipelines, the Dakota Access pipeline and Line 3 of the Enbridge pipeline in Minnesota.