Legal Options to Stop the Revival of Keystone XL Pipeline

Abstract

The construction and operation of the international pipeline well-known as Keystone XL would potentially contribute to the “game over of climate”. With a focus on combating climate change, the Obama Administration denied the permit application for the Keystone XL. After Trump took presidency, Keystone XL was revived as a result of the administration’s energy dominance policies. Indigenous activists joined by environmental groups have been resisting the revival. This article explores legal options to stop the revival of Keystone XL, consisting of legislative, regulatory and judicial actions at both federal and state levels within the U.S., and legal responses at the international level.

Notes

1 TransCanada is now known as TC Energy. See Nia Williams, Pipeline Company TransCanada Changes Name To TC Energy, Reuters, May 3, 2019, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-transcanada-results/pipeline-company-transcanada-changes-name-to-tc-energy-idUSKCN1S911H

2 TransCanada, Application for Presidential Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline Project, September 19, 2008, available at https://2012-keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/181769.pdf.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 See e.g. Grant Clark, Andrew Harris, Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Project is So Controversial, Bloomberg, November 9, 2018, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-09/why-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-is-controversial-quicktake.

6 Id.

7 Jonathan Ramseur, et al., Oil Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline: Background and Selected Environmental Issues, Congress Research Service, April 14, 2014, available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42611.pdf.

8 Id.

9 See David Sassoon, EPA Slams State Department on Proposed Oil Pipeline, Inside Climate News, July 27, 2010, available at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20100727/epa-slams-state-department-proposed-oil-pipeline.

10 James Hansen, Game Over for the Climate, New York Times, May 9, 2012, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0; see also James Hansen, Obama’s Tar Sand Trap, The Guardian, February 18, 2009, available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/17/barack-obama-canada-climate-change.

11 Press Statement, Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Determination, State Department, November 6, 2015, available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249249.htm.

12 The White House, President Trump Takes Action to Expedite Priority Energy and Infrastructure Projects, January 24, 2017, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-takes-action-expedite-priority-energy-infrastructure-projects/.

13 E.O. 11423, Providing for the performance of certain functions heretofore performed by the President with respect to certain facilities constructed and maintained on the borders of the United States, August 16, 1968.

14 E.O. 13337, Issuance of Permits With Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land Transportation Crossings on the International Boundaries of the United States, April 30, 2004.

15 The White House, 2019 Memorandum, April 10, 2019, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/order-issuance-permits-respect-facilities-land-transportation-crossings-international-boundaries-united-states/.

16 Id. Sec. 2(i).

17 Section 1(b), E.O. 11423; Section 1(g), E.O. 13337.

18 State Department, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to Conduct Scoping Meetings and Notice of Floodplain and Wetland Involvement and to Initiate Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Proposed TransCanada Keystone Xl Pipeline, January 29, 2009, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/01/28/E9-1828/notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-and-to-conduct-scoping-meetings-and.

19 State Department, Denial of the Keystone XL Pipeline Application, January 18, 2012, available at http://www.cq.com/pdf/govdoc-4012555.

20 Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 501, Pub. L. No. 112–78.

21 State Department, supra note 19.

22 TransCanada, Application for Presidential Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline Project, May 4, 2012, available at https://2012-keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/189504.pdf.

23 State Department, 2014 FSEIS, January 2014, available at https://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm.

24 Id. Parts 4.14-5.

25 State Department, Keystone XL Pipeline Permit Determination, November 5, 2015, available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249249.htm.

26 TransCanada, Application for Presidential Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline Project, January 26, 2017, available at https://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/267737.pdf.

27 The White House, Presidential Memorandum Regarding Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, January 24, 2017, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-regarding-construction-keystone-xl-pipeline/.

28 State Department, Record of Decision and National Interest Determination, March 23, 2017, available at https://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/269323.pdf.

29 E.g. Complaint, Northern Plains Resource Council v. Shannon, CV 17-31-GF-BMM, May 24, 2017, available at http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2017/20170524_docket-417-cv-00031_complaint-1.pdf.

30 D. Mon. Order, Indigenous Environmental Network v. State Department, CV-17-29-GF-BMM, CV 17-31-GF-BMM, November 8, 2018, available at http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20181108_docket-417-cv-00029_order-1.pdf.

31 9th Cir. Order, Indigenous Environmental Network v. State Department, CV-17-29-GF-BMM, CV 17-31-GF-BMM, March 15, 2019, available at http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2019/20190315_docket-18-36068_order.pdf.

32 The White House, Presidential Permit, March 23, 2019, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-permit/.

33 2019 Memorandum, see supra note 15.

34 2014 FSEIS, see supra note 23, at Section 1.5.

35 Id. at Section 1.5.2.

36 Council on Environmental Quality Executive Office of the President, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 (2005).

37 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C).

38 See Richard Lazarus, The National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Reappraisal and A Peek Behind the Curtains, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 100: 1507, 1515 (2012); Silvia L. Serpe, Reviewability of Environmental Impact Statements on Legislative Proposals After Franklin v. Massachusetts, Cornell Law Review, Volume 80 (1995).

39 Id.

40 5 U.S.C. § 551.

41 5 U.S.C. § 702.

42 5 U.S.C. § 704; see also Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990).

43 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

44 Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800-01 (1992).

45 D. Mon. Order, Indigenous Environmental Network v. State Department, CV-17-29-GF-BMM, November 22, 2017, available at http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2017/20171122_docket-417-cv-00029_order.pdf.

46 NRDC v. State Department, 658 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C.2009); Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate v. State Department, 659 F. Supp.2d 1071 (D.S.D.2009); White Earth Nation v. Kerry, 2015 WL 8483278 (D. Minn. 2015).

47 659 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1078 (D.S.D. 2009). The Keystone Pipeline System is proposed by TransCanada in 2006, for which the State Department issued a Presidential Permit in March 2008. Keystone XL is an extension to the Keystone Pipeline System.

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 Section 1(i) of the E.O. 13337 provides that “[t]he Secretary of State shall issue or deny the permit in accordance with the proposed determination unless, within 15 days after notification …, an official required to be consulted … shall notify the Secretary of State that he or she disagrees with the Secretary’s proposed determination and requests the Secretary to refer the application to the President. In the event of such a request, the Secretary of State shall consult with any such requesting official and, if necessary, shall refer the application, together with statements of the views of any official involved, to the President for consideration and a final decision.”

52 659 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1078 (D.S.D. 2009).

53 689 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Minn. 2010).

54 Id.

55 Id.

56 Id.

57 Id.

58 2014 WL 1289444 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

59 D. Mon. Order, supra note 45, at p.14.

60 The 2017 Memorandum issued by President Trump requires that the State Department should (1) reach “a final permitting determination” within 60 days of TransCanada’s submission of the permit application, and (2) maximally consider the final supplemental EIS issued in January 2014 regarding Keystone XL to satisfy the relevant laws including NEPA.

61 9th Cir. Order, see supra note 31.

62 22 C.F.R. Section 161.7(c).

63 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500.

64 See 40 C.F.R. §§1505.1 and 1507.3.

65 22 C.F.R. Part 161.

66 Vann, et al., Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline: Legal issues, Congressional Research Service, January 23, 2012, available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42124.pdf.

67 Id.

68 Complaint, supra note 29.

69 D. Mon. Order, supra note 30.

70 Neela Banerjee, Midwest Flooding Exposes Another Oil Pipeline Risk – On Keystone XL’s Route, Inside Climate News, May 16, 2019, available at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16052019/keystone-xl-pipeline-spill-risk-river-flooding-sandy-soil-nebraska-route; see also Courtney Lindwall, Battered by Floods, Nebraskans Worry About Pipeline Spills, NRDC, May 28, 2019, available at https://www.nrdc.org/stories/battered-floods-nebraskans-worry-about-pipeline-spills.

71 Id.

72 Id.

73 Id.

74 USGCRP 2018, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II, U.S. Global Change Research Program, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018, Chapter 2, “National Topics – Our Changing Climate”, available at https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.

75 2014 FSEIS, see supra note 23, at Appendix B.

76 Id.

77 Id.

78 2019 Memorandum, see supra note 15, Section 2(i).

79 Id, at Section 2(g).

80 D. Mon. Order, see supra note 45, at p.14.

81 2019 Memorandum, see supra note 15, Section 2(j).

82 Sec. 161.9(m), 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500.

83 30 U.S.C. § 185.

84 2014 FSEIS, supra note 23, at Section 1.5.

85 Id.

86 40 C.F.R. § 1508.5.

87 40 C.F.R. § 1506.3.

88 TransCanada, You Have Questions, We Have Answers, available at https://www.keystone-xl.com/kxl-101/faqs/

89 2014 FSEIS, supra note 23, at Section 1.5.

90 Id.

91 See Talli Nauman, Trump’s Unflagging Interest in Pipeline Construction – Lawsuits by Tribes Follow Latest Pipeline Push, Native Sun News, April 18, 2019, available at https://intercontinentalcry.org/trumps-unflagging-interest-in-pipeline-construction/.

92 2014 FSEIS, supra note 23, at Section 1.5.2.

93 Complaint, supra note 29.

94 Id.

95 D. Mon. Order, supra note 45.

96 D. Mon. Order, supra note 30.

97 See NRDC v. State Department, 658 F. Supp. 2d 105, 109, 111 (D.D.C.2009); Sierra Club v. Clinton, 698 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1162-63 (D. Minn. 2010); Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate v. State Department, 659 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1081-82 (D.S.D. 2009).

98 698 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Minn. 2010).

99 Id. at 1163.

100 Id.; see also Vann et al., supra note 66, at 7–10.

101 Sierra Club, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 1163.

102 Joan Campau, Presidential Permitting for Pipelines: Constitutionality and Reviewability, 8 Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L. 273, (2018).

103 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Indigenous Environmental Network v. Trump, 4:19-cv-00028, April 5, 2019, available at https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/04/08/document_ew_04.pdf.

104 U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, providing that “[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; …”

105 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, supra note 103, at para. 4.

106 Id. at para. 3.

107 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, providing that the Congress shall have the power “[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes”.

108 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, supra note 93, at para. 5–8.

109 Id.

110 Vann, et al., see supra note 66.

111 Article 11, 2019 Permit.

112 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 637.

113 Courtlistener, Indigenous Environmental Network v. Trump, available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14908432/indigenous-environmental-network-v-trump/.

114 D. Mon. Order, see supra note 30.

115 Vann, et al., see supra note 66.

116 Id.

117 Id. Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112–78.

118 State Department, see supra note 19.

119 Joan Campau, see supra note 102, at 283; see also Linda Luther, Paul Parfomak, Presidential Permit Review for Cross-Border Pipelines and Electric Transmission, Congressional Research Service, April 19, 2017.

120 Id.

121 Luther & Parfomak, supra note 119, at 16; Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, Now We Can Get Congress Going, Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2014.

122 Luther & Parfomak, supra note 119, at 16; Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, S.1, 114^th Cong. § 2 (2015).

123 Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, S.1, 114^th Cong. § 2 (2015).

124 The White House, Veto Message to the Senate: S.1, Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, February 24, 2015, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/24/veto-message-senate-s-1-keystone-xl-pipeline-approval-act.

125 Summary of S.1 (114^th): Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, GovTrack, available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1/summary.

126 Joan Campau, supra note 102, 284; see also Vann. et al., supra note 66.

127 Luther & Parfomak, supra note 119; see also Vann. et al., supra note 66.

128 See John C. Duncan, Jr., A Critical Consideration of Executive Orders, Glimmerings of Autopoiesis in the Executive Role, 35 Vr. L. Rev. 333, 338 (2010); Tara L. Branum, President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders in Modern-Day America, 28 J. LEGIS. 1 (2002).

129 See U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, providing powers and responsibilities to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

130 John C. Duncan, Jr., supra note 128, citing Black’s Law Dictionary 651 (9^th ed. 2009); see also Lisa Soronen, Can President Trump Cancel President Obama’s “unconstitutional” Executive Orders? January 30, 2017, available at https://www.nlc.org/article/executive-orders-101.

131 J.B. Ruhl, James Salzman, Presidential Exit, 67 Duke L. J. 1729, 1732 (2018).

132 Sarah E. Light, Regulatory Horcruxes, 68 Duke L. J. 1647 (2018). The notion “horcruxes” is used as an analogy to “decentralization or fragmentation”, which operates as a means to protect against a centrally organized system.

133 2014 FSEIS, see supra note 23, at Sections 1.5.3 and 1.9. The relevant state laws mainly include the Montana Major Facility Siting Act, the South Dakoda Energy Conversion and Transmission Facilities Act, and the Nebraska Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act. Section 1.9 of the 2014 FSEIS contains a detailed list of permits required by the various state and local jurisdictions crossed by Keystone XL.

134 2014 FSEIS, see supra note 23, at Section 1.5.3.

135 Phil Mckenna, Keystone XL Wins Nebraska Approval, But the Oil Pipeline Fight Isn’t Over, Inside Climate News, November 21, 2017, available at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20112017/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-nebraska-transcanada-tar-sands-alternative-route; see also Mitch Smith, Nebraska Allows Keystone XL Pipeline, But Picks a Different Path, The New York Times, November 20, 2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/us/nebraska-pipeline-keystone-xl.html

136 Joshua Axelrod, Memos, Orders, Oh My! Trump Makes a Keystone XL Mess, NRDC, April 11, 2019, available at https://www.nrdc.org/experts/josh-axelrod/memos-orders-oh-my-trump-makes-keystone-mess.

137 The Associated Press, Court Tie-Up Blocks Keystone XL Pipeline Construction in ’19, Journal Star, May 4, 2019, available at https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/court-tie-up-blocks-keystone-xl-pipeline-construction-in/article_e5a25f13-e513-5897-9b37-9abaf029c03d.html.

138 Joshua Axelrod , see supra note 138.

139 NOI, TransCanada v. U.S. Government, January 6, 2016, available at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ITA%20LAW%207030.pdf.

140 Id.

141 Id.

142 TransCanada, TransCanada Receives Presidential Permit for Keystone XL, March 24, 2017, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8561.pdf; see also Order of the Secretary-General Taking Note of the Discontinuance of the Proceeding, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/21, March 24, 2017.

143 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Recognition of, or Withdrawal from, NAFTA: Context and Possible Consequences, Business Litigation Reports, April 2017, available at https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/publications/article-april-2017-renegotiation-of-or-withdrawal-from-nafta-context-and-possible-consequences/.

144 Legal Sidebar, Not Over Til It’s Over, Part 1: TransCanada to Seek $15 Billion in NAFTA Lawsuit Over Denial of Keystone XL Permit Request, CRS Regard & Analysis, January 19, 2016.

145 NOI, see supra note 139, para. 60.

146 Articles 1102, 1103, NAFTA.

147 See e.g. Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd., et al. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, paras. 116–167, January 12, 2011.

148 NOI, see supra note 139, para. 20.

149 Legal Sidebar, see supra note 144.

150 Article 1114, NAFTA, providing that “[n]othing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from adopting, maintaining or enforcing any measure otherwise consistent with this Chapter that it considers appropriate to ensure that investment activity in its territory is undertaken in a manner sensitive to environmental concerns.”

151 Clayton/Bilcon v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Case No. 2009-04, March 17, 2015.

152 Id. para. 450, 591.

153 Ted Hamilton, The Virtues of Uncertainty: Lessons from the Legal Battles Over the Keystone XL Pipeline, Vt. J. Envtl. L. 222, 247 (2016).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Qidi Zhang

Qidi Zhang obtained her LL.M. degree from Columbia Law School, and her LL.B. degree from Tsinghua University Law School in China. Qidi pursues her career in private practice, with a focus on cross-border dispute resolution. The views expressed in this article are those of the author’s and are independent of any of her prior or current positions.