As scholars and practitioners working in the Policy Analysis field and the  STEM specialties (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), we  of the Center for Evaluation of Science in Policy use our expertise in evaluating governmental and commercial documents to determine if they are based on foundations of current knowledge and methodologies of those disciplines along with a deep understanding of how the policy intersects with social and cultural networks.

In passing S. 1, "To Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline," the Senate has made a bold move. While we may admire bravery, it should be noted that such acts are only effective when accompanied by a deep understanding of how the policy effects energy, economics, the environment, civil rights, and other areas. Otherwise, such measures are likely to be poorly directed. Like running ‘boldly’ through a park with a blindfold on, or ‘boldly’ throwing darts in the dark. We are more likely to hurt ourselves or hurt our friends. We are not likely to hit the desired target or to reach our intended goal. Instead, we can only reap unanticipated consequences.

In reviewing S. 1, there are about two pages dedicated to approving the pipeline. There is another page discussing the importance of taxing all forms of bitumen and derived oil to support the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. There is even a mention that climate change is "real." These, I'm sure we would all agree, are sensible.

However, the other 30 pages of the bill are dedicated to regulations on the energy efficiency of some schools and commercial buildings. There is a substantial discussion on water heaters. These issues are only distantly related to the pipeline. In short, S. 1 does not provide any reasonable, rational, scientific, or evidentiary basis why the KXL pipeline should be approved.

In order to gain a deeper sense of the Congressional understanding, we evaluated HR 4286, "American Energy Renaissance Act of 2014," 113th Congress (2013-2014) because it contains a more substantive presentation of the pipeline and the related energy policy. Our analysis shows that that bill and its implied policies are weak. That is to say, it is logically unsound and internally inconsistent.

From our White Paper: Structural IPA evaluation of HR 4286: A SciPolicy Watchdog White Paper.

"… this bill [HR 4286] has only about a seven percent chance of attaining its stated goals. Or, to put it another way, the bill has about a 93% chance of provoking unanticipated consequences. HR 4286 has a vast scope with significant implication for energy, economics, the environment, civil rights, and other areas. Given the large scope of the bill, it seems reasonable to [believe] that the unanticipated consequences will be of much greater scope than the expected results."

To conclude, we must emphasize that our efforts here are not as partisan participants in the struggle for or against the pipeline. Rather, we are acting as scientists and scholars striving to support our elected officials. Our goal is to provide innovative insights to help you [Congress] make the best decisions possible.

Franklin D. Nash, MD, President
Steven E. Wallis, PhD
Bernadette Wright, PhD
admin@scipolicy.org
www.scipolicy.org