Keystone XL still awaiting Nebraska Supreme Court ruling

Nebraska's Supreme Court has yet to settle the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline with a decision over whether state lawmakers were right to clear the way for the controversial project.

The timing of the decision is unclear, after the court did not issue a ruling Friday as expected.

Many analysts had expected word to come before state lawmakers convene for their next session in the first full week of January.

At issue are a few narrow legal questions, but the ruling by the seven-judge panel could either clear a bureaucratic hurdle or send theTransCanadaCorp plan into a logistical tailspin after more than five years of delay.

Following are some possible legal outcomes:

Ways that Keystone loses

• Uphold a ruling in Thompson v. Heineman, CI 12-2060.
• A state court faulted Republican Governor Dave Heineman for shepherding the 2012 legislation that cleared the way for the pipeline route. The judge said that work was typically left to the state's Public Services Commission.
• If the top court endorses the lower judge's ruling, TransCanada may have to begin a new bureaucratic odyssey with the PSC that would likely last at least seven months, maybe more.
• If the PSC alters the route, the U.S. State Department would likely undertake a further review of impacts, adding more months to the process.

Ways that Keystone can win

• Overturn the lower court decision.
• The Supreme Court may decide that Heineman had the power to approve a Keystone XL route, which would remove one of the last meaningful challenges to the project.
• But President Barack Obama has said he will have the final word on the proposed Canada-to-Texas project. An end to the Nebraska dispute would clear the way for a White House decision.

Other possible rulings

• The court may broadly endorse Heineman's authority to support a pipeline route but challenge the 2012 moves on technical grounds and ask the Legislature to take up the issue again.
• The Nebraska PSC typically regulates "common carrier" projects like pipelines, but the court could decide that Keystone is an exception, clouding the rules to right of way across private property.
• Heineman has argued that Keystone foes do not have standing to challenge the project since it is not yet clear how landowners could be affected. If the judges agree, the dispute could live on in a fresh challenge.