4 ms·

There is no mention in the article about the previous permit being revoked by the court for being illegal.

by invisible 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Could you supply some specifics/citations for the previous permit being revoked for being illegal?
- invisible 5y ago
  Sure. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-keystone-xl-pipeline-on-hold-pending-further-environmental-study https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-keystone... Edit (add NEPA info): https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act#NEPA https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...
  - kokanator 5y ago
    It doesn't say it is illegal rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as necessary. >In Thursday's ruling, Morris wrote that the State Department's analysis of potential environmental effects fell short of a "hard look" on the effects of current oil prices on the viability of Keystone, cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources and potential oil spills.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > It doesn't say it is illegal Yes it does. > rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as necessary. It was revoked because it was illegally issued (in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and thr Administrative Procedure Act) because the analysis was not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for issuing it.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... Section 6 doesn't say any of that. (b) talks about an exhaustive review, but it just says it would be bad for the climate and economy. The text is the same in the Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01...
        zerocrates 5y ago
        The previous permit was revoked by a court due to NEPA issues. Then-President Trump subsequently issued a permit himself using his presidential power: this one didn't require a NEPA environmental review because neither NEPA nor the APA apply to actions by the President. The whole thing is a little wonky because both the older and newer ones are "presidential" permits, but since the State Department had actually issued the prior one, the APA and NEPA applied. The permit President Biden revoked was Trump's replacement one.
        maxerickson 5y ago
        So was the permit Trump issued illegal? Or was it just "crass" and not what people are used to? (I'm not supporting it, I'm curious as to how much of the process is really specified in law an how much of it relies on norms.)
        zerocrates 5y ago
        His permit wasn't illegal, just not through the usual processes. It's very on-brand for him in a variety of ways. This permit system arises from a series of executive orders that normally delegate authority to the State Department. By hooking in the State Department, the NEPA environmental review requirements (which apply to Federal agencies) get triggered. While the Obama administration likely purposely slow-rolled many of these permits (including Keystone XL's) before ultimately denying them, the Trump administration as a matter of policy fast-tracked them for approval and also invited new applications where things had been previously denied. Keystone XL was one of these re-applications. Trump's State Department did an environmental review, mostly relying on earlier work, and quickly issued the permit. The administration later lost in court with the court saying the review was insufficient. They probably could have done another one and just reissued it that way: courts saying "do more NEPA," agencies taking a long time to come to the same conclusion, and the result simply being delayed is not uncommon in these kinds of reviews. But environmental impact statements take a long time, and instead of doing that they just had the President personally issue the permit and thereby sidestep the requirement to do the review at all.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

There is no mention in the article about the previous permit being revoked by the court for being illegal.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Could you supply some specifics/citations for the previous permit being revoked for being illegal?

invisible 5y ago
Sure. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-keystone-xl-pipeline-on-hold-pending-further-environmental-study https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-keystone... Edit (add NEPA info): https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act#NEPA https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-...
- kokanator 5y ago
  It doesn't say it is illegal rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as necessary. >In Thursday's ruling, Morris wrote that the State Department's analysis of potential environmental effects fell short of a "hard look" on the effects of current oil prices on the viability of Keystone, cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources and potential oil spills.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It doesn't say it is illegal Yes it does. > rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as necessary. It was revoked because it was illegally issued (in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and thr Administrative Procedure Act) because the analysis was not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for issuing it.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... Section 6 doesn't say any of that. (b) talks about an exhaustive review, but it just says it would be bad for the climate and economy. The text is the same in the Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01...
      - zerocrates 5y ago
        The previous permit was revoked by a court due to NEPA issues. Then-President Trump subsequently issued a permit himself using his presidential power: this one didn't require a NEPA environmental review because neither NEPA nor the APA apply to actions by the President. The whole thing is a little wonky because both the older and newer ones are "presidential" permits, but since the State Department had actually issued the prior one, the APA and NEPA applied. The permit President Biden revoked was Trump's replacement one.
        maxerickson 5y ago
        So was the permit Trump issued illegal? Or was it just "crass" and not what people are used to? (I'm not supporting it, I'm curious as to how much of the process is really specified in law an how much of it relies on norms.)
        zerocrates 5y ago
        His permit wasn't illegal, just not through the usual processes. It's very on-brand for him in a variety of ways. This permit system arises from a series of executive orders that normally delegate authority to the State Department. By hooking in the State Department, the NEPA environmental review requirements (which apply to Federal agencies) get triggered. While the Obama administration likely purposely slow-rolled many of these permits (including Keystone XL's) before ultimately denying them, the Trump administration as a matter of policy fast-tracked them for approval and also invited new applications where things had been previously denied. Keystone XL was one of these re-applications. Trump's State Department did an environmental review, mostly relying on earlier work, and quickly issued the permit. The administration later lost in court with the court saying the review was insufficient. They probably could have done another one and just reissued it that way: courts saying "do more NEPA," agencies taking a long time to come to the same conclusion, and the result simply being delayed is not uncommon in these kinds of reviews. But environmental impact statements take a long time, and instead of doing that they just had the President personally issue the permit and thereby sidestep the requirement to do the review at all.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]