On Thursday August 16th, a U.S. federal judge in Montana issued a blog to TransCanada Corp by requiring the State Department to conduct an environmental assessment on the company’s mainline alternative route through Nebraska for the Keystone XL pipeline.
According to the ruling, the new assessment and updated environmental impact statement are necessary because an alternative route through Nebraska was approved by the Nebraska Public Utilities Commission, rather than the desired route initially proposed by the company, had not yet been properly studied.
The decision comes as the Canadian pipeline company had planned to start preliminary work on the XL project this fall, which would transport over 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Course. The new ruling, however, I creating new uncertainties about that construction timeline.
As noted by Brian Jorde, who along with our legal team at Domina Law Group is representing landowners opposed to the pipeline in an appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court:
“What we have here is really another potential nail in the coffin, which is a supplemental (Environmental Impact Statement), and if there are any findings in that supplemental EIS that would modify the allegedly approved mainline alternative route, then that could affect the approval.”
Oral arguments over the alternative pipeline route, in which our firm intents to argue the approval of Keystone XL on the basis that the state’s utilities commission did not have authority to consider alternative routes, are scheduled for this fall. Jorde states that a decision on the case will be made by the end of the year.