Energy Policy, Oil, State Department

The Keystone XL Pipeline: More Debate and Delay?

The debate and delay surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline project proposed to be built by TransCanada Corp. continue.  When the State Department released its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“FSEIS”) regarding the pipeline project on January 31, 2014 raising no significant environmental concerns related to the project (see our previous post), there was discussion about there being no more excuses for the President to delay approval.  Since then, a Nebraska court ruling affecting the pipeline’s path and additional research regarding the impact of the pipeline may have provided ammunition for those seeking to further delay the project.

On February 19, 2014, a Nebraska court overturned as unconstitutional the state law and Governor’s decision under which the pipeline had been approved to pass through the state, arguably in violation of landowners’ rights.  The Nebraska court held that the Nebraska Public Service Commission was the proper agency to decide the matter.  I noted in interviews for Law360 and The Washington Times, that the Nebraska decision could give the Obama Administration an excuse for delay: “it provides enough doubt that the State Department could put off any opinion until the morass in Nebraska is addressed.”  You can read more about my perspective on the impact of this decision in the Law360 article and Washington Times article.   On March 3, 2014, a report by The Carbon Tracker Initiative was released, challenging the State Department’s conclusions in the FSEIS regarding the significance of the impact of the pipeline on oil sands production.  An article on the report notes that “The Carbon Tracker’s interpretation is worth considering, if only because the State Department’s FEIS used the group’s methodology from previous studies in its own evaluation of the pipeline’s production implications, though the government arrived at different conclusions. (See footnote 154 in the market analysis section of the FEIS, which cites its work.)”  The 30-day public comment period on the State Department’s FSEIS closed on March 7th.  Public comments are posted at, Docket ID: DOS-2014-0003.

Despite the potential for further delay, proponents of the pipeline continue to push the administration for action.  On February 26, 2014, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton issued a Response to the State Department Inspector General’s Report regarding potential conflicts of interest in the environmental assessments of the Keystone XL pipeline, noting that “[w]hile the State Department is not guilty of bias in their review, this administration is surely guilty of foot-dragging and delaying construction of Keystone XL….It’s time for President Obama to put politics aside once and for all and put people to work building the pipeline in this so-called year of action.”  In an interview posted March 5th, Russ Girling, CEO of TransCanada, responded to criticism of the project and expressed confidence that the pipeline will be built:  “As things sit right now we do have an approved route in Nebraska. … seen as environmentally sound through five environmental reviews by the federal government  and through the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality…. We’ll eventually get through that process. It’s just a matter of determining what is the legal process for us to have it reviewed.”

Brian Heslin

About Brian Heslin

Brian Heslin represents energy companies in regulatory proceedings at the state and federal level. In addition, he provides advice on busines and strategic planning, upstream natural gas supply and capacity negotiation, compliance and other related services.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the Energy Interdependency Blog!

The landscape of the energy industry is rapidly changing, with a focus on the development of clean, domestic energy sources and a secure, reliable energy infrastructure driving significant changes in the interdependency of energy industry segments and an increase in government regulation. Continued growth in the domestic production of oil and natural gas has positioned the U.S. to be an energy exporter in the global market and will have a marked impact on the course of the industry’s development.

The Moore & Van Allen Energy Interdependency Blog seeks to inform companies navigating the domestic and global energy markets by providing leading-edge insight on issues critical to energy interdependency and developments in energy policy, regulation, and related litigation.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Brian Heslin:  View Brian Heslin's Bio View Brian Heslin's LinkedIn profileFollow @BrianHeslin on Twitter
  • Mindy Vervais:  View Mindy Vervais’ Bio View Mindy Vervais’ LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog Via Email

    Follow MVA


    Blog Topics


    Our Energy Practice

    Headquartered in the burgeoning energy hub of Charlotte, NC, Moore & Van Allen has an extensive energy practice that is national and international in scope. Our energy team is composed of highly-skilled attorneys from a cross-section of legal disciplines with a thorough understanding of the complex technologies, transactions, and regulations inherent to the energy industry and its various segments, including natural gas & LNG, electricity, oil, water & sewer, telecommunications, and alternative energy & green technology.

    We leverage our significant experience to guide our clients successfully through the intricacies of their businesses, from marketing, compliance counseling, and project development, to project finance, federal and state regulation, investigations and litigation. We proudly and successfully serve companies throughout the nation, including the largest natural gas and electric companies in the Carolinas. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA Energy Team.


    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.

    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)