Yesterday, we found out via Inside Climate News and Brad Johnson over at Grist that the environmental impact statement the State Department just released on the Keystone XL pipeline was written by a private consulting firm being paid by the pipeline’s owner.

This obviously raises concerns about conflicts of interest with the report itself, but it also highlights the problems with turning government work and analysis over to private firms with possible financial ties to other private entities who may be affected by that work and analysis — a phenomenon that’s been underway since the 1990s.

State’s report, which found that the pipeline was “unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands,” and will “not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects,” was written by Environmental Resources Management (ERM). Several years ago, Cardno Entrix, another private consultancy, was contracted by TransCanada to handle the State Department’s initial draft of the environmental impact statement, the Department’s hearings on the pipeline, and even its Keystone XL website.

As Johnson reported, ERM was paid “an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada” for the assessment:

The documents from the ERM-TransCanada agreement are on the State Department’s website, but payment amounts and other clients and past work of ERM are redacted. In the contract documents, ERM partner Steven J. Koster certifies that his company has no conflicts of interest. He also certifies that ERM has no business relationship with TransCanada or “any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work” (notwithstanding the impact statement contract itself). In a cover letter, Koster promises State Department NEPA Coordinator Genevieve Walker that ERM understands “the need for an efficient and expedited process to meet the demands of the desired project schedule.”

An investigation by Inside Climate News finds that ERM’s report draws from work done by other oil industry contractors, Ensys Energy and ICF International.

According to State’s report, the department “directed the preparation,” but the project’s manager is the only government official actually listed on the cover page.

Inside Climate News reported Ensys has worked with ExxonMobil, BP and Koch Industries, though Ensys president Martin Tallet emphasized the consulting firm has also worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the World Bank. “We don’t do advocacy,” Tallett told Inside Climate News, pointing out that EnSys employees acted as expert witnesses for various state water agencies and against the oil industry in court cases on groundwater contamination from MBTE, a gasoline additive. “If we were the pet of government agencies or oil companies, the other side wouldn’t come to us.” ICF International declined to comment on the Keystone report.

According to both David Driesen, a law professor at Syracuse University and a former attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Joel A. Mintz, a law professor at Florida’s Nova Southeastern University, conflicts of interest can be difficult to avoid in practice, whatever the official statements:

Read more

By Andrew Light, Mari Hernandez, and Adam James, via the Center for American Progress. Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of this issue brief.

In the past several years, small groups of some of the world’s largest carbon polluters have joined forces to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as part of their overall efforts to slow the pace of dangerous global warming. These efforts include the G20 leaders’ 2009 pledge to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies; the launch of a number of efforts on clean energy cooperation through the global Clean Energy Ministerial starting in 2010; and the creation of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants a year ago, which started with six nations and has now grown to 27 countries plus the European Union.

Following on these efforts, we propose that the 17 parties in the Major Economies Forum, the U.S.-led coalition of the world’s largest carbon emitters, set a target of generating 40 percent of their electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2035 — what we call the “40×35” target.

Our analysis shows that meeting this target is not only highly feasible but, if met, would also reduce these countries’ cumulative CO2 emissions by approximately 6.4 gigatons — 6,398 million metric tons — by 2035. While there are other kinds of renewable energy targets that would result in greater emissions reductions — for example, targets that exclude hydroelectricity or nuclear power — we argue that the 40 percent all-inclusive zero-carbon target is more politically feasible and also sufficiently ambitious to be worth pursuing. Achieving this target would be a significant contribution to meeting the global goal of the international climate negotiations of stabilizing temperature increases caused by climate change at 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels by the end of this century.

As we will show, projections for a zero-carbon electricity mix for many of the parties of the Major Economies Forum by 2035 are already quite high — some nations are already headed beyond the 40 percent target on a business-as-usual pathway. So far, however, none of these countries has made a documented commitment for achieving any energy goals beyond 2030.

The existence of a set target among the Major Economies Forum parties would help protect projected emissions reductions from backsliding due to changes in fuel costs, currently unforeseen policy changes in these countries as governments change, and other unanticipated consequences. A common target by these developed and developing countries could galvanize the range of national-level policies already in place, and increase the ambition of all parties to hit the target. More importantly, these countries could make a common commitment along with an agreement to share best practices to expand the renewable electricity sector, cooperate on technology development and deployment, and strengthen existing bilateral agreements between parties that support these ends.

We will also demonstrate that pairing such a zero-carbon electricity target with an energy efficiency goal would be incredibly beneficial. First, incorporating energy efficiency from the beginning in countries that are likely to see a surge in electricity demand over the coming years will create more sustainable smart energy systems in those countries. Second, reducing total energy demand means that each investment in new, zero-carbon generation counts for more in terms of total emissions reductions. Demand reduction will enable many countries to more easily hit this zero-carbon target.

In this issue brief we present the rationale for pursuing emissions reductions through the Major Economies Forum, our analysis on a range of target scenarios as applied to the forum parties, and our recommendation for action.

Read more