Back in January, I blogged about TransCanada taking legal action under NAFTA‐related to the rejection of its Keystone XL pipeline permit application. It is now being reported that TransCanada has taken the next step in the process. This is from Canada’s Financial Post:
TransCanada Corp. made good late Friday on its threat to challenge President Barack Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, filing a request for arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to recoup US$15 billion in damages from the U.S. government.
…
In the 42‐page document, TransCanada claims the U.S. government “ultimately denied Keystone’s application, not because of any concerns over the merits of the pipeline, but because President Obama wanted to prove his administration’s environmental credentials to a vocal activist constituency that asserted that the pipeline would lead to increased production and consumption of crude oil and, therefore, significantly increased greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.”
TransCanada further claims that the U.S. administration knew “those assertions were false” and that in fact, “the State Department had issued five environmental impact statements between 2008 and 2015, all of which concluded that the Keystone XL Pipeline would not result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. The State Department reiterated that conclusion for a sixth time when it denied Keystone’s second application in November 2015.”
As I noted in January, these cases take a long time:
Keep in mind, also, that these investment cases are not quick. We’ll have a new president long before the NAFTA case is completed. If the new president is a Republican, he/she will likely approve Keystone (if TransCanada files a new application). That should end the NAFTA lawsuit (although TransCanada could still claim damages from the delay). If it’s President Clinton/Sanders, though, who both oppose Keystone, we could see a ruling in the case.
Let me amend one aspect of this, however, to take into account Donald Trump. Trump says he would approve Keystone, but only under some absurd conditions:
Donald Trump’s vow to resuscitate the Keystone XL oil pipeline in exchange for a share of its profits has a glaring problem: It risks running afoul of laws against government takings of private property. And even supporters of the project warn that it risks hurting relations with Canada, the nation’s No. 1 oil supplier.
The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly pledged to revive the Canada‐to‐Texas pipeline, a long‐standing cause for Republicans in Congress, but Trump has brought a twist. He wants U.S. taxpayers to get a slice of the project’s revenue.
“I want it built, but I want a piece of the profits,” Trump said May 26 before delivering an energy speech to an oil‐industry audience in North Dakota. “That’s how we’re going to make our country rich again.”
Trump’s suggestion of taking “a piece of the profits” would likely mean that TransCanada’s claim will go ahead, but with a slightly different factual and legal basis.
