TransCanada challenges Keystone XL denial

Five studies and 17,000 pages of scientific analysis by the U.S. State Department concluded that Keystone XL would not significantly contribute to climate change, and would have minimal impact to the environment. Despite this, on November 6, 2015, Keystone XL was denied.

Arbitrary and Unjustified


The U.S. Administration acknowledged the decision was based on the perceptions by the international community about U.S. leadership on climate change. TransCanada followed every Federal and State process over a protracted seven-year review period and Keystone XL passed every economic, environmental and geopolitical test. The U.S. administration’s decision was arbitrary and unjustified.

Our Response

On January 6, 2016, TransCanada announced legal action under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and also initiated Constitutional litigation against the U.S. Administration.

Related Readings

United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Keystone XL denial challenge detailed

Why is TransCanada taking legal action in response to the U.S. Administration’s decision to deny a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline? K
Gavel with U.S. Constitution in the background

TransCanada challenges Keystone XL denial

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest summed up the past seven years accurately when he said during an early November 2015 press briefing “I would

Presidential Permit denial: A disappointing choice

On November 6, 2015, President Obama chose to deny the required presidential permit for Keystone XL. In light of this decision we will review our opti
Keystone XL has now been in review for more than seven years.

Celebrating 5 years and 1 billion barrels on the Keystone Pipeline System

When Gary Westphal received word back in 2007 that TransCanada was planning to build a pump station in Butler County, Nebraska to support the original

Learn more at the Keystone Blog

"When it came to the Keystone XL pipeline perceptions and symbolism trumped facts and reality. That may be acceptable in politics, but it's unacceptable when using (abusing) constitutional regulatory authority."

- U.S. Chamber of Commerce