TransCanada to file 2 legal challenges to Keystone rejection

[webfact]

TransCanada to file 2 legal challenges to Keystone rejection
By JUAN A. LOZANO

HOUSTON (AP) — The Canadian company that proposed the Keystone XL oil pipeline on Wednesday filed a lawsuit over the U.S. government's rejection of the project and announced it plans to file a second legal challenge that will seek more than $15 billion in damages.

TransCanada filed a federal lawsuit in Houston alleging President Barack Obama's decision in November to kill the pipeline exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution.

The company also announced it will submit a separate petition seeking the billions in damages, alleging the U.S. breached its obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In November, Obama quashed the pipeline, declaring it would have undercut U.S. efforts to clinch a global climate change deal at the center of his environmental legacy. The president said he agreed with a State Department conclusion that Keystone wouldn't advance U.S. national interests.

"TransCanada has been unjustly deprived of the value of its multi-billion dollar investment by the U.S. Administration's action," TransCanada said in a statement. "As the administration candidly admitted, its decision was not based on the merits of the project. Rather, the denial was a symbolic gesture based on speculation about the (false) perceptions of the international community regarding the administration's leadership on climate change."

In its lawsuit, TransCanada alleges Obama's decision exceeded his powers as president and infringed upon Congress' power under the Constitution to regulate interstate and international commerce.

The White House and the State Department both declined to comment on the lawsuit or the NAFTA challenge.

The lawsuit does not seek any monetary damages but asks for a ruling that the denial of the pipeline permit was without legal merit and that the federal government officials named in the lawsuit not be allowed to enforce Obama's decision to not proceed with the pipeline. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are: Secretary of State John Kerry; U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson; and Secretary of the Department of Interior Sally Jewell.

TransCanada said it plans to submit a separate petition that alleges the U.S. breached four articles under NAFTA — which governs trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico — that provide financial protections for all Canadian investors.

"The denial was based on politics, not the merits of the application," attorneys for TransCanada said in a notice they filed with the State Department on Wednesday that the company will submit a claim of arbitration under NAFTA and ask for more than $15 billion in damages.

TransCanada first applied for Keystone permits in September 2008 — shortly before Obama was elected. As envisioned, Keystone would snake from Canada's tar sands through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, then connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to specialized refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

Most pipelines wait roughly a year and a half for permits to cross the U.S. border, but Keystone's review dragged on more than 5 times as long as average, according to an Associated Press analysis.

Republicans, Canadian politicians and the energy industry argued the pipeline would create thousands of jobs and inject billions into the economy. But Democrats and environmental groups latched onto Keystone as just the type of project that must be phased out if the world is to seriously combat climate change.
___

Associated Press reporter Josh Lederman contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-07

[LukKrueng]

So if it would have "advance U.S. national interests" the hell with the "global climate change deal" ???

[chilli42]

I am Canadian and I hope this never gets approved. The US does not need it and Canadians don't want it.

[bark]

I am Canadian and I hope this never gets approved. The US does not need it and Canadians don't want it.

Yea right. They don't want jobs ? You must be one of the Newfie Canadians; that live on welfare and or employment benefits ?

Or they don't want to pay 50 % in taxes on the money paid out for the jobs.

[RaoulDuke]

Further proof of how disastrous free-trade agreements are. Private companies can sue entire governments when they do not bend over and take it in the name of profits that do not even benefit the country.

As far as jobs, a few thousand temporary construction jobs, followed by a permanent loss of all the current jobs involving the transport of this oil hardly adds up as a win for anyone other than the oil companies, which would see much higher profit margins and much lower labor costs. How many permanent jobs do you think it requires to monitor a pipeline, especially with current technology.

If you really want to see a surge in construction jobs, why don't you get behind something that will actually benefit all of the people, such as improving the decrepit and outdated infrastructure from coast to coast.

[NeverSure]

Canada: You are going about this in the wrong way and by far the hard and long way.

File for a declaratory judgment on each issue. Don't file complex lawsuits each spanning several issues. This way you go straight to a judge and then straight to appeals by any party.

"A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal)."

LINK

You're welcome. I charge $1,000 an hour or any portion of an hour.

Edited January 7, 2016 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

Further reading for anyone who is interested.

In the US, only a judge can state what the law is. The judge directs the courtroom via the law.

The jury can't rule what the law is, but can only rule on the veracity of facts that are presented. The jury is actually called "The finder of fact" as it determines what the true facts are in the case.

This separation gives a judge the full authority to state what the law is, and thus the power of the declaratory judgment. Simply file a brief asking the court to judge - declare - what the law is in a certain case and walk away with a binding court order.

Cheers.

That will be another $1,000 please, LOL.

[connda]

The only reason the Canadian gov wants to build the pipeline across the US is that they don't want to risk polluting their own ecosystem in case of a leak between the oil fields and British Columbia. Screw them. Mess up the US ecosystem instead? Why not? Fracking has already made the ground water non-potable, so what's the diff? <head shake> It's all about the Anglo-Saxon oil companies wanting to make excessive profits on the back of the US public. 2:1 that the US judicial system caves in favor of the corporations.

Edited January 8, 2016 by connda

[connda]

Further proof of how disastrous free-trade agreements are. Private companies can sue entire governments when they do not bend over and take it in the name of profits that do not even benefit the country.

As far as jobs, a few thousand temporary construction jobs, followed by a permanent loss of all the current jobs involving the transport of this oil hardly adds up as a win for anyone other than the oil companies, which would see much higher profit margins and much lower labor costs. How many permanent jobs do you think it requires to monitor a pipeline, especially with current technology.

If you really want to see a surge in construction jobs, why don't you get behind something that will actually benefit all of the people, such as improving the decrepit and outdated infrastructure from coast to coast.

At least one TV member understands the implications.