Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.43.136 with SMTP id r130csp122657lfr; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:13:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.90.65 with SMTP id bu1mr632442wib.0.1440709980677; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <prvs=368119420c=gordon.giffin@dentons.com> Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-197.mimecast.com (eu-smtp-delivery-197.mimecast.com. [146.101.78.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fh2si939833wic.121.2015.08.27.14.13.00 for <john.podesta@gmail.com> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of prvs=368119420c=gordon.giffin@dentons.com designates 146.101.78.197 as permitted sender) client-ip=146.101.78.197; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of prvs=368119420c=gordon.giffin@dentons.com designates 146.101.78.197 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=prvs=368119420c=gordon.giffin@dentons.com Subject: Re: Thoughts Received: from MGEDGE02.mckennalong.com (mgedge02.mckennalong.com [65.97.57.53]) (Using TLS) by eu-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-17-lUiwUcSkQKOWMgIEzJfAwQ-1; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 22:12:58 +0100 X-WSS-ID: 0NTREXG-02-0K7-02 X-M-MSG: Received: from ATLMAILFE2.firm.local (unknown [10.11.100.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by MGEDGE02.mckennalong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C3A31A846C for <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ATLMB03.firm.local ([fe80::b8c3:3fbe:fe00:279d]) by ATLMAILFE2.firm.local ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:12:55 -0400 From: "Giffin, Gordon" <gordon.giffin@dentons.com> To: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> Thread-Topic: Thoughts Thread-Index: AdDhCZFAkH3n2Rl5TWKAMKbAefWBygAJGesA//++Vk4= Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 21:12:54 +0000 Message-ID: <5E39B2B8-2397-492B-B4C1-606859AD1F83@dentons.com> References: <8F3107DD-59C9-4988-9BD4-9D95C85AF08B@dentons.com>,<CAE6FiQ_MPQAXjYq7yhUNw2DuCa8eX2o_d4+5frV24MKsmCP=qQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAE6FiQ_MPQAXjYq7yhUNw2DuCa8eX2o_d4+5frV24MKsmCP=qQ@mail.gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: lUiwUcSkQKOWMgIEzJfAwQ-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I look forward to it. I note that my spell check changed Trans Canada to Tr= ansport-that must have been confusing. Gordon D Giffin [http://logo.us.dentons.com/logo.png] Gordon D. Giffin Partner D +1 404 527 4020<tel:+1%20404%20527%204020> | US Internal 74020 gordon.giffin@dentons.com<mailto:gordon.giffin@dentons.com> Bio<http://www.dentons.com/ch.aspx?email=3Dgordon.giffin@dentons.com&action= =3Dbiolink> | Website<http://www.dentons.com/> Assistant: Moira French +1 404 527 4051<tel:+1%20404%20527%204051>| Courtne= y Bean +1 202 496 7882<tel:+1%20202%20496%207882> | Lynn Gilleo +1 212 905 = 8311<tel:+1%20212%20905%208311> Dentons US LLP 303 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 5300, Atlanta, GA 30308<x-apple-data-detecto= rs://5/1> Salans FMC SNR Denton McKenna Long Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide thro= ugh its member firms and affiliates. This email may be confidential and pro= tected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosur= e, copying, distribution and use are prohibited; please notify us immediate= ly and delete this copy from your system. Please see dentons.com<http://www= .dentons.com/> for Legal Notices. On Aug 27, 2015, at 5:08 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:jo= hn.podesta@gmail.com>> wrote: Let's talk on the 3rd On Aug 27, 2015 4:47 PM, "Giffin, Gordon" <gordon.giffin@dentons.com<mailto= :gordon.giffin@dentons.com>> wrote: I note from the press accounts that Sec. Clinton may be considering a more = direct statement on the pending permit application for the KXL pipeline. I = have a few thoughts to share for your consideration. I want to point out th= at I have no professional relationship with the developer of the pipeline s= o these are my thoughts based on my view that an integrated North American = energy/environment policy is in the interests of all three countries and ou= r citizens. (I have done work for Transport-Canada in the past but do not h= ave a current relationship). - as you probably know there is a federal election campaign ongoing in Cana= da. The election is October 19. It would be prudent, I believe wearing my f= ormer ambassador hat, to avoid being seen to take a position on a high prof= ile issue that could be argued to be intervention in that election. Clearly= that would not be her intent but it could be the result. That doesn't mean= don't take a position but it may mean wait until the election is past - there is little doubt that our economy will continue to rely on fossil fu= els for some time into the future. If that is correct then the question is = how is the most responsible way for the US to do so. Pipelines are unquesti= onably safer and less damaging to the environment modes of transport for oi= l than rail. Sourcing oil from Canada is unquestionably better for the US f= rom an environmental, security and economic point of view (much of the mate= rial and contractors in the Alberta oil patch are US companies) than gettin= g it from Venezuela or Africa or the Middle East (we still import a substan= tial percentage of our oil daily). - the newly elected government of Alberta is a left of center party that ca= mpaigned on sensitivity to climate change. They have already acted to raise= the levy on carbon (they don't call it a tax) and are looking to accelerat= e the closer of coal fired electric generating plants (which are on a sched= ule to close over the next 8-10 years due to federal policy). - there are so many geo-political and economic positives for North America = to have the incremental pipeline capacity, if the reason to be skeptical is= climate change (although Canadian policy is pretty good via-a-vis the alte= rnatives) rather than declaring categorical opposition at this stage why no= t consider indicating conditions (realistic) under which a pipeline would b= e acceptable. Those conditions would include all the domestic state and lo= cal approvals and potentially some additional policies in Alberta (or actua= l performance) that demonstrates incremental gig improvement-say an additio= nal 10% reduction in intensity around production. - bottom line, as you know from years of discussion I believe this is impor= tant to how we work together in North America. I also believe there is a re= asoned way to approach this that addresses the legitimate interests of most= stakeholders. The kind of approach I am outlining should show concern for = the environment while also demonstrating appreciation for the economic and = security considerations. This way Labor and Environmental groups achieve so= mething. I am more than willing to help think this through further if it is= worthwhile - I will be in NY for the Sept 3 meeting so perhaps we can chat. Gordon D. Giffin