General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrans Canada to file $15 Billion NAFTA claim against US for Keystone XL rejection.
Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:21 PM - Edit history (2)
http://www.transcanada.com/news-releases-article.html?id=2014960&t=CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - Jan. 6, 2016) - TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP) (NYSE:TRP) (TransCanada) announced today it has filed a Notice of Intent to initiate a claim under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in response to the U.S. Administration's decision to deny a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline on the basis that the denial was arbitrary and unjustified.
This is how agreements like NAFTA and TPP can force Americans to pay foreign corporations for our own environmental laws and policies. Remember, TPP is just days away from it's vote under the fast track law and NOBODY in the media is talking about it.
UPDATE: Sorry misread the original press release. It's a $15 Billion claim. Not 2.9 billion.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/transcanada-files-lawsuit-over-keystone-pipeline-rejection/article28038526/
enough
(13,254 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)When they are not arguing in front of the IDRP that is. It is a corrupt corporate fantasy realized in these "trade agreements".
enough
(13,254 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)passing legislation protecting the environment and cobsumers
fleur-de-lisa
(14,624 posts). . . has filed a Notice of Intent to initiate a claim under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) . . .
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Trans-Canada might well have a winnable case.
pa28
(6,145 posts)With a settlement the US government can continue to say there have been no adverse ISDR rulings.
karynnj
(59,495 posts)using the oil could not be considered. The statement rejecting it - explicitly rejected that explaining that at current prices, it did make the difference.
Where they unfortunately might have a chance is because in 2011 - 2012, they were allowed to build the southern end and there were statements - including HRC's that it was likely to be approved. I wonder what if anything was said to TransCanada when they were permitted to do that Southern part.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)But I believe that President Obama also stated at one point that if it didn't significantly increase emissions, he would approve it.
karynnj
(59,495 posts)if the cost of getting it to the place where it would be processed was lower - it would fail his test.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)didn't come to the conclusion that emissions would be significantly increased.
If he wasn't going to abide by the report, he should have just said so from the beginning and denied it immediately.
Personally, I'm neutral - build it, don't build it, I couldn't care less. I just think if he knew he was going to deny it, which looks to be the case, he should have just done it right away.
karynnj
(59,495 posts)took a microeconomics course would ever agree to.
Note this study was put out when HRC was SoS and it was concluded in her final months -- but she argued that the review should be done by her successor. Clearly, HRC did not want it under her signature. John Kerry had a long history as an environmentalist and had voted against Keystone. He initiated a VERY long process to get comments on the report and had it reviewed by all relevant departments.
His conclusion last year was to reject it. (This was after Trudeau was elected and after the company asked the US to suspend action -- likely because they saw the writing on the wall. ) Part of the reason given was that they could not lead on climate change if they approved it. This was a big deal as Kerry played a very significant role in the historical Paris agreement ... and had more quietly played a big role in the 2007 Bali agreement where (in Congressional committees) he was thanked by the Bush administration.
However, the rejection also leaned on the rejection of Keystone by all the other departments.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)President Obama was never going to approve it under any circumstances. So why not just say that instead of dragging it out for years?
karynnj
(59,495 posts)that and stood behind the study - maybe in 2013 or 2014. Consider that before 2012, he agreed that the Southern part could go ahead. This was before Nebraska objected and the top part was rerouted because the original path was really really bad.
glinda
(14,807 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If he does not speak out against it, we will know he is of the talk liberal, but keep the monsters in the pit very well fed.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Not surprising, that was Harper. Trudeau could at least speak out against Trans-Canada but remaining silent would burnish his neoliberal credentials.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I sincerely hope the Bolc Quebecois, the First nations and a whole bunch of real leftists show him that, unlike American which settles for a certain former junior senator from New York, they can be real leftists.
Or, if they do not, than they better realize that they will become more and more like us every damned day. It would be like someone whose mom and dad died of Lung Cancer taking up chain smoking.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)Which was one of many reasons I voted NDP.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)His argument is that the XL path is shorter than the current keystone pipeline and so is a lower risk overall.
pampango
(24,692 posts)you've got no leg to stand on.
http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3439.htm
TransCanada says it has also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court in Texas asserting that President Barack Obama's decision to deny construction of Keystone XL exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution.
"The denial reflected an unprecedented exercise of presidential power and intruded on Congress's power under the Constitution to regulate interstate and international commerce," TransCanada said.
See the lawsuit documents that TransCanada filed here
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/transcanada-lawsuit-keystone-xl-pipeline-1.3392446
It is noteworthy that TransCanada chose to file a separate federal lawsuit in US Federal Court in Texas. Texas, huh? Looks like their lawyers are going to be quite busy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)isn't going to cut it.
http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm
former9thward
(31,923 posts)between the U.S. and Canada. Also the case involved a regulation passed by CA. This matter is a decision made by the Executive Branch. Apples and oranges on both counts.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Second point regarding Trans-Canada's claim the decision to block Keystone XL was "arbitrary and unjustified".
When Trans-Canada brings this before a NAFTA tribunal they'll cite the State Department's own report as evidence.
The report was favorable and here is what Trans-Canada said at the time.
Were very pleased with the release and about being able to move to this next stage of the process, said Russ Girling, chief executive of TransCanada. The case for the Keystone XL, in our view, is as strong as ever.
Contradictions like that make a case and Trans-Canada's multi-billion dollar claim will be decided and enforced by appointed figures in the WTO. I'm guessing the US will end up settling out of court.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There was no discriminatory, or corrupt, intent. The Obama decision was made transparently, for legitmate public policy reasons.
That means no recovery for TransCanada.
Their argument rests on the proposition that the US could not legally control its own border. It's a losing argument.
Takket
(21,526 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And the elected government will say "Oh well. The law is the law" forgetting that they were hired to write it, not surrender passively to it.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)play acting to give themselves plausible deniability while they give away taxpayer money to their corporate robber baron friends.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)I'm a fan and somehow I'd missed this one.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Didn't they withdraw it?
If so, doesn't that void their claim?
Luciferous
(6,077 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)All are designed and intended to screw over workers and destroy self governance.
None of the assholes who promoted or supported this bullshit should ever be elected to anything, ever.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Corporate greed pure and simple.
pa28
(6,145 posts)If oil was priced at $100 today we'd be discussing the administration's decision approve the project. Not it's rejection.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)be filed under TPP and it would be rammed through anyway. And given that the people at the TPP negotiating table are some of the same people filing the complaint over Keystone XL, I am sure that TPP contains strong provisions favoring Keystone XL.
Sure, it won't specifically mention Keystone XL. But it will be like one of those tax loopholes that is worded to appear broad and general, but upon close examination it only applies to one company, which also happens to be a big donor to the politician who inserted the provision.
I called this one a long time ago.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sigh