view counter

EnergyEnvironmental group sues State Department for Keystone XL-related files

Published 14 June 2013

The Sierra Club has announced it is suing the State Department for files related to an environmental review draft of the Keystone XL pipeline. The group tried to gain access to the files through the Freedom of Information Act, but the request was denied, so the group filed the suit on Monday in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.

The Sierra Club has announced it is suing the State Department for files related to an environmental review draft of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The group tried to gain access to the files through the Freedom of Information Act, but the request was denied, so the group filed the suit on Monday in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.

The Hill reports that the Sierra Club argues the State Department is withholding documents on the consulting firm it hired to assess the pipeline.

The group believes the consulting firm has “financial ties to the pipeline company and the American Petroleum Institute, one of Keystone XL’s most active and vocal lobbyists.”

A report in the March issue of Mother Jones said the consulting firm, Environmental Resources Management, did work with TransCanada, the builder of the Keystone project, and the American Petroleum Institute (API), an oil industry advocacy group.

The State Department is finalizing its review of the Keystone XL project, and will then  issue a determination of national interest aspects of the pipeline project, which will help determine whether a cross border permit is awarded for the project.

Green groups have fought the project from the beginning citing its potential impact on the local environment, among other concerns. Several groups have urged Secretary of State John Kerry to  pay more attention to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) criticism of the environmental review.

The EPA says the State Department’s review was “insufficient,” and that the EPA had “environmental objections” to the review.

view counter
view counter