United States of America: Buy American policy for pipeline projects

Measure #13107 | Published 25 Jan 2017 ▲

Description

On January 24, 2017 President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders and presidential memoranda to expedite high-priority energy and infrastructure projects. These include approving the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada and approvals for the remaining portions of the Dakota Access Pipeline from North Dakota, both of which had been blocked for environmental reasons by the Obama administration.
 
This order was accompanied by a memo from the president to the secretary of commerce directing him to follow a strict Buy American policy. The memo provided in relevant part that the secretary is to develop "in consultation with all relevant executive departments and agencies" a plan "under which all new pipelines, as well as retrofitted, repaired, or expanded pipelines, inside the borders of the United States, including portions of pipelines, use materials and equipment produced in the United States, to the maximum extent possible and to the extent permitted by law. The Secretary shall submit the plan to the President within 180 days of the date of this memorandum." Press reports subsequently indicated that the Keystone pipeline may not actually fall within the scope of this order insofar as construction had already begun on it.
 
The Department of Commerce followed up on March 16, 2017 by publishing a request for comments on the implementation of this order. It seeks information to enhance its understanding of current pipeline construction technology and requirements; potential advances in pipeline technology; domestic and foreign supply chain for pipeline materials; and all other information considered pertinent to the development of Commerce’s domestic sourcing plan.

Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:

Question Result
Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations?
Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered?
Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government?
Was such evidence identified?
Is such evidence publicly available?
Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives?
Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken?
Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory?
Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation?

Implementing Jurisdiction:

Affected Trading Partners:

Measure type:

Affected Sectors:

Affected Tariff Lines:

(mouse over for more info)

Date Discovered:

Implemented: No

Date of inception:

GTA Evaluation: Amber

Government Response:

Glossary of trade terms