TransCanada Unveils Revised Keystone XL Route

By September 5, 2012Energy

Today, TransCanada Corporation formally proposed a new route for its Keystone XL Pipeline project, one that avoids Nebraska’s Sandhills region.  This means the clock is once again ticking on Keystone XL’s environmental review process. From day one, the Keystone XL Pipeline has meant jobs, economic growth and energy security for manufacturers in the U.S. – consumers of one-third of our nation’s energy supply.

If you recall, TransCanada first applied for a Presidential Permit in September 2008.  After three years of rigorous environmental review–by far the most detailed and comprehensive environmental review ever conducted for a cross-border pipeline–the company was told that federal regulators needed more time examine its environmental impacts.  TransCanada lived with that decision, re-routed the project and and re-filed its application.

One thing is immediately obvious from a review of today’s application: TransCanada is intent on avoiding any potential environmental impacts raised by regulators and the public.  Not only does the new route avoid the areas NDEQ suggested avoiding but also additional areas commenters identified as vulnerable.

So let’s get on with it.  It has now been four years since TransCanada first applied for its permit.  The Keystone XL Pipeline is a clear job creator that would improve the nation’s energy security.  NAM hopes this latest round of permitting is completed quickly and efficiently, allowing the project to move forward.

Ross Eisenberg

Ross Eisenberg

Ross Eisenberg is vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Mr. Eisenberg oversees the NAM’s energy and environmental policy work and has expertise on issues ranging from energy production and use to air and water quality, climate change, energy efficiency and environmental regulation. He is a key voice for manufacturing on Capitol Hill, at federal agencies and across all forms of media.
Ross Eisenberg

Leave a Reply