Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (“Keystone”) requests the Court advance the
above-captioned case for oral argument pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-111(B)(3) and for
expedited treatment. Pursuant to Supreme Court rule, Keystone incorporates by reference the
showing attached hereto, which sets forth the reasons the case should be advanced for oral
argument. Keystone requests the oral argument be set for the earliest availability with the
I hereby certify that on July 18, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was served by email to the
individuals and entities listed below:
2
Karen Jarecki Brad S Jolly & Associates Domina Law Group PC LLO
6112 Bedford Ave Brad S Jolly Brian F Jorde
Omaha, NE 68104 15355 Gadsen Dr 2425 S 144th Street
tenbuckstwo@yahoo.com Brighton, CO 80603 Omaha, NE 68144
bsj@bsjlawfirm.com bjorde@dominalaw.com
Dave Polson
Jana Osborn James Douglas Osborn
4923 Valley Street
1112 Meadowlark 43110 879th Rd
Omaha, NE 68106
Alliance, NE 69301 Ainsworth, NE 69210
honk@cox.net
janajearyb@gmail.com Jdosborn3@yahoo.com
3
Oil Change International
Sandra Slaymaker Susan Soriente
Lorne Stockman
102 E 3rd St #2 1110 Rockhurst Drive
714 G St., SE Suite 202
Atkinson, NE 68713 Lincoln, NE 68510
Washington, DC 20003
sandyslaymaker@gmail.com ssoriente@gmail.com
lorne@priceofoil.org
4
Nichole U. Mulcahy
Matthew John Effken
Public Service Commission Public Service Commission
Ross Eisenberg 300 The Atrium
300 The Atrium
733 10th Street, NW, Ste 700 1200 N Street
1200 N Street
Washington, DC 20001 PO Box 94927
PO Box 94927
Ross.e.eisenberg@nam.org
Lincoln, NE 68508 Lincoln, NE 68508
Matt.effken@nebraska.gov Nichole.mulcahy@nebraska.gov
5
IN THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT
its Motion to Advance For Oral Argument and For Expedited Treatment pursuant to Neb. Ct. R.
App. P. § 2-111(B)(3).
This appeal involves the Public Service Commission’s approval of a route for a major oil
pipeline in accordance with the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act (“MOPSA”). The appeal also
involves issues regarding the constitutionality of MOPSA. The major oil pipeline at issue is the
Keystone XL pipeline, which is a project to be located within the United States and Canada,
estate interests within two years of the receipt of an order approving an application under
MOPSA. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 57-1101. Under Nebraska law, an attempt to negotiate by the
pipeline company with the owner of the property right(s) at issue must occur before an eminent
domain proceeding is commenced. Neb. Rev. Sat. § 76-704. A project of the size and scope of
the Keystone XL pipeline requires considerable time to negotiate with all of the owners of
property rights. The majority of the real estate interests at issue will be easements, which allow
the property owner to continue to use the property following construction. In some instances, the
negotiation may involve multiple meetings between the pipeline company and the property
owner.
The Appellants and Cross-Appellants seek to invalidate provisions of Nebraska law (i.e.
MOPSA) and the PSC’s actions taken pursuant to that law. A segment of owners of property
rights are unwilling to engage in meaningful negotiations while this case and the challenges to
MOPSA are pending. Due to the time limits mandated by MOPSA, the time available to acquire
property rights is already relatively short. Keystone, therefore, requests that the case be