Landowners and Bold Nebraska’s Jane Kleeb at the conclusion of the Keystone XL intervenor hearings before the Nebraska Public Service Commission on Aug. 10, 2017. (Photo: Alex Matzke)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 25, 2017

Contact:
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska, 402-705-3622, jane@boldnebraska.org
Mark Hefflinger, Bold Nebraska, mark@boldnebraska.org

Landowners, Tribes and Environmental Groups Confident Nebraska Public Service Commission Will Reject Keystone XL as Not in the Public Interest

Opponents submitted final reply briefs on Monday as PSC docket closes

Lincoln, NE — Landowners, Tribes, Bold Alliance and other pipeline opponents said on Monday that they are confident that the Nebraska Public Service Commission will reject TransCanada’s permit application for its proposed Keystone XL pipeline as not in the public interest.

With attorneys’ final reply briefs filed today in the PSC’s intervenor proceedings, all evidence and arguments have now been made, and the PSC now has until Nov. 23 to render a decision to reject or approve the permit, or set a conditional approval that places stipulations on TransCanada, such as mandating the company re-route KXL near its existing Keystone 1 pipeline in the eastern part of the state.

(Click here to download the full reply brief from Bold Alliance & Sierra Club)

The five PSC Commissioners are now tasked with examining all the evidence presented during four days of intervenor proceedings in August; oral testimony from four day-long public hearings along the pipeline route that were stacked with pipeline opponents; and nearly 500,000 written comments submitted by pipeline opponents.

“We are confident the Nebraska Public Service Commission will follow the law and rule in favor of citizens over a foreign oil corporation. Landowners and Tribal Nations are prepared to take our case through the courts in order to defend property rights, Sovereign rights and water,” said Jane Kleeb, president of Bold Alliance.

# # #

Bold Alliance & Sierra Club Reply Brief

Landowners Final Reply Brief re: Keystone XL