The Nebraska Supreme Court did not rule Friday on whether a 2012 law that fast-tracked a new route for the Keystone XL pipeline was constitutional.
Observers expect the state’s high court to rule soon, though that now won’t come until 2015. At issue is whether the state legislature, rather than utility regulators, has the right to approve infrastructure.
TransCanada Corp.’s alternate route was designed to avoid crossing the sensitive Sandhills region and much of the Ogallala Aquifer, a main source of drinking water. Local opponents to the pipeline have said that the new path would still pose environmental risks.
The Obama administration is waiting for the Nebraska Supreme Court decision before it restarts a federal review on the Canada-to-Texas project. The pipeline has been awaiting a cross-border permit from the State Department for more than six years.
If the court decides the law is constitutional, the Obama administration will continue an inter-agency review of the pipeline that will be used to determine whether building it is in the national interest. If the court rejects the law, TransCanada would need to get the Nebraska Public Service Commission to green light the route, which could take up to one year.
Supporters say Keystone XL will create 42,100 jobs during its two-year construction phase while strengthening energy security by getting oil sands from Canada, an ally. They’ve also pointed to a State Department environmental review that said the 1,700-mile pipeline wouldn’t significant affect climate change.
But environmental opponents contend Keystone XL is a linchpin for oil sands growth that would exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions, especially at current low oil prices because it costs less to get oil sands to market by pipeline rather than rail. They’ve also noted the project will create just 35 permanent jobs.
