Nebraska

front line on XL

===

5 267 ELECTION DENIER

LINCOLN — Nebraska’s Republican primary for secretary of state saw a significant upset Tuesday, as Omaha businessman Scott Petersen beat incumbent Bob Evnen late Tuesday.

As of 11:55 p.m., Petersen led Evnen statewide by more than 16,000 votes, or 55% to Evnen’s 45%. Early results showed a tight race, but Petersen gradually increased his lead as the night progressed.

Throughout his campaign, Petersen largely criticized Evnen’s handling of the state’s elections systems, particularly in vote counting. He has questioned whether the ballot-counting machines the state uses can access the internet and be hacked, has argued that voting by mail should be restricted to only special circumstances and promised to conduct full hand counts of races.

“People having confidence in election systems is a big deal,” Petersen told the Examiner on Tuesday. “And I didn’t think Secretary Evnen was doing enough to give them confidence, so that’s why we ran.”

Most voting experts have found hand counting less reliable, costlier and more time-consuming than counting by machine. The Texas Tribune and VoteBeat reported that a hand count of ballots in a rural central Texas county during the 2024 Republican primary took nearly 24 hours and involved 200 people.

Evnen spent much of the run-up to the primary describing Nebraska’s elections system as the “gold standard.” He recently conducted a “transparency tour” across multiple counties advocating for the accuracy testing of Nebraska’s ballot-counting machines.

Like other election officials in conservative-led states, Evnen has faced a push from some populist parts of the GOP for additional election security measures promoted by President Donald Trump since his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden. Theirs is a national framing questioning the electoral process that many election experts warn has undermined public trust.

Evnen overcame two primary challengers in 2022 from candidates who claimed widespread fraud cost Trump the 2020 election. But a majority of GOP primary voters that year supported his two opponents. He won because they split the votes against him.

This time, Petersen consolidated them.

Petersen secured the endorsements of at least 18 county Republican parties, and has ties to the new-look Nebraska Republican Party that helped overthrow a leadership team aligned with then-Gov. Pete Ricketts, now a U.S. senator.

Evnen had a lengthy list of endorsements from Republican elected officials in the state, including from Ricketts and Nebraska U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith from the state’s largely rural 3rd Congressional District.

In a campaign statement Wednesday morning, Evnen said, “It’s been the honor of a lifetime to serve the great state of Nebraska as your Secretary of State, and I’m proud of all the great work our team accomplished these past eight years.”

He said he looked forward to serving out the remainder of his term and that he would “work to ensure a seamless transition following the general election.”

The secretary of state’s primary race was heated. Petersen attacked Evnen and his job performance on social media. Evnen had to walk a political tightrope: defending his office’s work and acknowledging the election security concerns of some GOP primary voters.

While Evnen told KMTV that he was committed to running a positive campaign, Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., vocally backed Evnen and criticized Petersen. Bacon called Petersen, the “President of the TinFoil Hat Club” for his criticisms of Nebraska’s election integrity and voting systems.

Petersen now faces the winner of the Democratic primary, school nutrition director Sarah Slattery, in November’s general election. Slattery said she was “overwhelmed with gratitude” for her win Tuesday, and said she was prepared to face Petersen in the fall.

“No matter what, we’re going to have somebody else in office come next year,” Slattery said.

Leading up to Election Day, Slattery said she heard rumblings that Petersen was polling well against Evnen. She suspects that Evnen questioning the validity of a pair of citizen-led medical cannabis petitions hurt him in the polls, considering that the ballot initiatives passed with 71% of the vote in 2024.

Compared to Evnen, Slattery said, Petersen has been more vocal about his party affiliation, which could help or hurt him come November.

Gubernatorial, AG, statewide results

In another pair of primaries, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen and Democrat Lynne Walz, a former state senator from Fremont, easily advanced to this fall’s general election. Rick Beard won the Legal Marijuana NOW Party’s nomination over James Charvat III.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, a Republican, advanced unopposed, as did Democratic AG candidate Jocelyn Brasher.

State Treasurer Joey Spellerberg advanced unopposed. The Pillen appointee will face Democrat Daniel Ebers, who also faced no challenger.

Republican State Auditor Mike Foley advanced unopposed for what would be his fourth nonconsecutive term. No one else filed to run.

Separately, Republican Dennis McCann and Democrat Wendy DeBoer, a state senator, both advanced unopposed from their primaries in an Omaha-based race for a seat on the Nebraska Public Service Commission.

don bacon nebraska bail?

'Betrayed': GOP rep torched after hospital in his district shuts down due to Medicaid cuts

Pesticide use and cancer risk rise together across America’s heartland - Investigate Midwest

A direct correlation can be difficult to determine, as cancer development times can range from months to decades. Overlaying cancer rates onto a map, however, highlights the nation’s top crop and vegetable growing regions, where pesticide use is highest.

The Midwestern states of Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska and Missouri — leading corn-growing states — had the highest rates, while rates were also high in California and Florida, high fruit-growing states.

OKLA PREEMPT LAW FAIL?

---}:

---

an 6 25

An editorial published Sunday by Omaha World Herald, a Nebraska-based newspaper, argued that President Donald Trump's tariffs hurt the state's economy, saying that Nebraska’s entrepreneurs and shoppers thrive without trade obstacles imposed by the government.

It maintained that they need minimal restrictions on trade — whether within the country or across borders — as well as a steady and predictable economic environment, which encourages businesses to plan ahead and expand.

The newspaper noted that when governments, whether foreign or domestic, impose trade obstacles, they tend to cause more problems than they solve.

The editorial endorsed Rep. Don Bacon's (R-N.E.) comments in a recent interview to the newspaper in which he said, "Free trade gives you the best products at the best prices in the most efficient manner."

IFrame Content

"The U.S. government, in the wake of President Donald Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs, has put up new trade barriers andcreated a chaotic, impossible-to-predict economic landscape where high-stakes national policies change by the day and sometimes by the hour, keeping businesses guessing and stifling innovation," the newspaper said.

"The government's approach to tariffs has been a good deal more onthe rails in recent weeks, thanks to the Trump administration's decisions to roll back some of its most extreme tariffs, and to exempt a host of products from many of the tariffs still in place," the editorial argues.

"Still, the level of tariffs in place — including a baseline 10% tariff on goods imported from virtually every country on Earth — is a weight on the shoulders of Nebraska businesses and consumers."

The editorial further suggested that, overall, the international trade court's decision against the tariffs is likely a positive development for Nebraska’s businesses, farmers, and consumers.

While the ruling doesn’t prevent the U.S. government from imposing tariffs, the newspaper noted, it does block the use of a weak emergency justification to introduce drastic and abrupt policy shifts.

"Here's to hoping that the ruling, coupled with pressure from financial markets and at least somepressure from Congress, helps put U.S. trade policy on a stable path that benefits Nebraskans," the editorial said.

---

standup guy

an 9 24

Nebraska is among the few states in the U.S. that splits its electoral votes, and the area around Omaha — which has one electoral vote — has been leaning Democrat in recent years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has been urging Nebraska to abandon that system and switch to a winner-take-all format.

But Nebraska State Sen. Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat turned Republican, is, according to the New York Times, pushing back against the proposal.

READ MORE:[Trump is 'losing women voters' badly — here's why it may get even worse

In an official statement on Monday, September 23, McDonnell said, "In recent weeks, a conversation around whether to change how we allocate our Electoral College votes has returned to the forefront. I respect the desire of some of my colleagues to have this discussion, and I have taken time to listen carefully to Nebraskans and national leaders on both sides of the issue. After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change."

McDonnell, according to the Times, said he told Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, "I will not change my long-held position and will oppose any attempted changes to our Electoral College system before the 2024 election."

The Nebraska Examiner's Aaron Sanderford notes that "McDonnell's no on winner-take-all leaves Republicans in Nebraska's officially nonpartisan legislature with no path to overcoming a promised filibuster unless a Democrat or nonpartisan senator defects."

"Part of the GOP urgency is wrapped in national polling that shows a close race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee," Sanderford reports. "Some political observers have argued the 2nd District could break a 269-269 Electoral College tie. Few Democrats were surprised that the fate of winner-take-all largely swung on McDonnell, a former Omaha fire union president who switched to the GOP this spring after facing political pushback from Democrats for backing abortion restrictions."

Sanderford adds, "Several said the abortion debate should have shown Republicans that McDonnell is largely immovable once he has made a controversial position clear. McDonnell said when he switched parties that he would not support winner-take-all. Others said he did what helped him most politically.

READ MORE:[Harris sees 'largest favorability increase for any politician' since Bush post-9/11: report

an 9 24

All power to the people': Nebraskans to vote on dueling abortion ballot measures

---

an 11 23

lINCOLN — The first Nebraska Republican Party fundraiser of 2024 features former television reporter, U.S. Senate candidate and election denier Kari Lake of Arizona. She visits Omaha on Jan. 5, the eve of the third anniversary of the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Lake, a Republican who lost her 2022 gubernatorial election to Democrat Katie Hobbs in Arizona, is running a 2024 race against Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party in December. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., is running as well.

Like a man she calls her political muse, former President Donald Trump, Lake denies losing her race. Lake rose to national prominence by embracing Trump’s rejection of his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden. She sharply criticized Republicans who acknowledged his defeat.

She is visiting Nebraska during an Iowa campaign trip for Trump. Her event is the latest push to excite the base by new leadership of the Nebraska GOP, which in July 2022 ousted a team loyal to then-Gov. Pete Ricketts. The new team includes similarly Trump-focused Republicans.

Party spokeswoman Dawn Liphardt said Nebraska conservatives are interested in Republicans retaking the Senate and are interested in Arizona’s race. She called Lake “a strong speaker” who will “get Republicans excited” about the 2024 elections locally, which include two Senate races.

Lake is well-liked among some conservatives for aggressively critiquing members of the press and for her loyalty to Trump and his populist approach to politics. Like him, she emphasizes border security.

The Nebraska GOP announced the event by email, selling $50 general admission tickets, $25 tickets for booster club members, $600 for a book signing with Lake, and a $10,000-per-person VIP event before the candidate speaks at 7 p.m. at CHI Center Omaha.

‘Doubling down’

Nebraska Republican Party Chairman Eric Underwood speaks as former GOP gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster and former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway listen in August 2023 in Norfolk, Neb. (Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)

Nebraska Democratic Party chair Jane Kleeb said the Lake fundraiser shows the Nebraska GOP “doubling down with their election denying and reproductive rights denying strategy.”

That, Kleeb said, risks turning off voters and flipping more seats the Democrats’ way.

GOP-led Nebraska is no swing state. Trump won the state easily in 2020, beating Biden in two of the state’s three congressional districts. But Trump lost an Electoral College vote to Biden in the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District.

Nebraska, like Maine, awards a single electoral vote to the presidential popular vote winners in each of the state’s three congressional districts. The Nebraska Legislature has been discussing moving back to winner-take-all elections.

Omaha-area state senators and voters have pushed back against such proposals, arguing that the state benefits economically from the spending by both presidential campaigns competing for the electoral vote that might prove vital in a close race.

Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Cate Folsom for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com. Follow Nebraska Examiner on Facebook and Twitter.

---

https://www.alternet.org/nebraska-republican-great-replacement-theory/

an 920

battle of Omaha has begun: analysis

Daily Kos September 20, 2020

Way back in April, which is like 237 years ago in COVID time, I wrote about the importance of Omaha, Nebraska, this presidential season. I came up with four plausible 269-269 Electoral…

819 ew

A Nebraska court has granted a victory to the owner of the Keystone XL pipeline, removing one of the last major challenges in the project's way.

The state's Supreme Court on Friday ruled unanimously that the state's Public Service Commission had acted in the public interest in approving an alternate route for the pipeline in November 2017. Challengers to the project say that the approval of an alternate route did not include appropriate input from landowners and tribes, who filed a motion with environmental groups to intervene.

"The Nebraska decision to approve the KXL route is not a surprise, but we had hoped they would be courageous to protect the earth, water, and wishes of the indigenous people and our allies," Yankton Sioux member Faith Spotted Eagle said in a statement released by 350.

...

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/gop-lawmaker-who-blasted-partys-link-to-white-supremacy-faces-backlash-from-fellow-republicans

Monday, following a weekend of horrific mass shootings, one of which was directly inspired by hatred of Mexicans, Nebraska state Sen. John McCollister, a self-described “lifelong Republican,” issued a sharp rebuke against his party for giving quarter to nativism and white nationalism.

Now, he is facing immediate backlash, with his own party calling on him to leave the GOP:...

state lawmaker is warning the University of Nebraska that if it hires its first Vice Chancellor of Diversity and Inclusion, "White Christian conservative males" and "White professors" will suffer.

On his official Nebraska State Legislature page Republican Sen. Steve Erdman published a column called, "Straight Talk From Steve." In his lengthy diatribe he chastises University officials for even considering hiring a diversity director "when they are eliminating vital sports programs" at one campus.

Senator Erdman claims that "every word spoken by White Christian conservative males at the school will be excruciatingly scrutinized against the backdrop of the new Vice Chancellor’sextremist progressive worldview." To be clear, no candidate has been named, so Erdman believes that anyone focused on diversity and inclusion holds an "extremist progressive worldview."

By way of example, Erdman offers that "any student who dares to suggest that marriage should be defined as the union between a man and a woman will quickly find himself being beaten down by a torrent of LGBTQ complaints followed by psycho-analysis and reprogramming. If the student doesn’t understand the underlying reasons for his stereo-typical beliefs, one will be provided for him."

Sen. Erdman works to ensure his racist and homophobic diatribe isn't viewed as racist or homophobic.

"While nobody I know advocates for racial, gender or sexual orientation discrimination, we should still ask why NU needs a Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion, if not to impose favoritism upon these groups," he writes.

And he calls ensuring diversity and inclusion, "Favoring people by way of their genitalia, the color of their skin, and their sexual orientation."

Erdman tells The Washington Post, “I have black friends and I have Hispanic friends, but I don’t look at them as black and Hispanic, I look at them as American.”

This is far from the first time Erdman has entered public debate with the desire to push back against what he sees as progressive views. Or, as he recently said, "to defend the young people who are conservative."

https://www.alternet.org/after-spending-big-reinstate-death-penalty-nebraska-gov-brushes-aside-popes-call-push-forward-plan

After Spending Big to Reinstate Death Penalty, Nebraska Gov. Brushes Aside Pope's Call to Push Forward With Plan for 'Experimental Execution'

"Will Catholic [Gov. Pete Ricketts], who spends a lot of time talking about his 'pro-life values,' heed the words of Pope Francis by cancelling the experimental execution scheduled for August 14 in Nebraska?" asks Sister Helen Prejean

https://www.unicornriot.ninja/2016/nebraska-supplied-state-troopers-surveillance-aircraft-north-dakota-emac/

no doc link, pix

Nebraska Supplied State Troopers, Surveillance Aircraft to North Dakota Under EMAC

DECEMBER 8, 2016

Morton County, ND – Documents acquired through a series of public records requests shine light on ongoing out-of-state law enforcement assistance to the Morton County Sheriff and the state of North Dakota in their militarized police operations to protect construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

As we have previously reported, the state of emergency declared by North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple in August enabled Governors of other states, such as Wisconsin, to voluntarily activate their state’s emergency management agencies under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) to recruit police and sheriffs in their state to be deployed against #NoDAPL water protectors in North Dakota.

Emails sent in early October show Nebraska state officials discussing sending officers and resources from the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) to Morton County under EMAC. On the morning of October 12, Brent Curtis, an administrative assistant at the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) wrote in an email to his colleagues,

“Please see the EMAC request from North Dakota below. They are requesting 40 LEOs to assist with a pipeline protest (“civil unrest”). I just received a call from their POC, Geneva, asking if Nebraska would be able to at least partially fill this request for 40 LEOs.“

Attached to Curtis’ October 12 email is a form entitled “Resource Request #1102-RR-5265” which was originally by Geneva Anderson, an administrator at North Dakota’s Department of Emergency Services. The form requests “40 Sworn Law Enforcement Officers“. Much of the form is redacted, but some of it reads:

“Officers will be assisting in a situation involving civil unrest and criminal activities related to opposition of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project, primarily in southern Morton County in North Dakota. Officers will be assigned to perform one of the following duties within the Quick Response Force (QRF).[REDACTED]“

Towards the end of the form, the field “Safety Concerns/Remarks” is filled in with “Civil disobedience situation“.

Another email, sent on October 17 by NEMA administrative assistant Terri Kattes, hints at an informal discussion between the North Dakota Highway Patrol and the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) preceding NSP’s deployment to Morton County.

“Just received a call from Greg Wilz, North Dakota HLS Director. Would lIke to discuss the possibility of an EMAC request for some HP support to assist with protests. He understands there has been some discussions between the two HPs and there may be some interest but wants to discuss before formalizing any request.“

Greg Wilz, Homeland Security Division Director at the North Dakota Department of Emergency Services, appears to be one of the main North Dakota officials responsible for coordinating bringing out-of-state law enforcement to Morton County under EMAC.

North Dakota Homeland Security Division Director Greg Wilz

Several EMAC documents we have reviewed for other upcoming stories bear Wilz’s signature.

More emails sent later that week show conversations between Nebraska Emergency Management administrators and Director Wilz, as well as Sgt. Shannon Henke of the North Dakota Highway Patrol, about requesting an aircraft and a pilot from Nebraska State Patrol. (Sgt. Henke is also the author of an affidavit used as grounds for a felony warrant issued against drone pilot Aaron Turgeon, aka Prolific the Rapper, in retaliation for video journalists using drones to record DAPL private security activities.)

A document included in the EMAC emails we received formally requests that Nebraska provide North Dakota with

“Nebraska State Patrol’s fixed wing aircraft to assist with the DAPL incident occurring in North Dakota. Cessna fixed-wing 206..and any other equipment they feel is necessary to assist in both day and night flight operations. Aircraft would be on a weekly rotating basis with other aviation resources…“

Further emails between emergency management officials in North Dakota and Nebraska show an agreement for Nebraska to lend a Cessna T206 aircraft as well as a Bell 407 helicopter, in rotating one-week shifts.

Doucments found on Muckrock by Melissa Hill show an EMAC request from North Dakota for Nebraska State Patrol aircraft for a “total of 14 days“.

The “Aviation Support” page on the Nebraska State Patrol website boasts of the surveillance capabilities of their aircraft, and specifically mentions the models which have been deployed in North Dakota.

Nebraska State Patrol aircraft. Image source: Nebraska State Patrol

NSP’s website clearly outlines the surveillance capabilities of their Bell 407 helicopter and Cessna T206 airplane which have been deployed to North Dakota:

“The Bell 407 helicopter is a turbine powered, seven place helicopter with excellent performance and lift capabilities. The Bell 407 you see below is outfitted withForward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and a 30,000,000 candle power spotlight. The helicopter and the pilots operating it are also Night Vision Goggle (NVG) certified. The State Patrol’s Bell 407 has the capability of transmitting live video from its externally mounted thermal and day light video camera to mobile receivers on the ground. This exceptional capability provides incident commanders on the ground an aerial view to better manage any critical situation.” – Nebraska State Patrol website

flooding-018

img_2656

“The Cessna Turbo Stationair with the Garmin G1000 avionics panel is a fully IFR capable, technologically advanced aircraft with significant payload capability. Two of the three State Patrol Stationair aircraft are equipped with provisions to allow FLIR and video down-link capability. All are equipped with additional wing tip mounted fuel tanks to allow for extended endurance of up to 8 hours. That additional endurance is ideal during surveillance operations or assignments with extended transit times.” – Nebraska State Patrol website

A video featured on NSP’s page shows shots of the Bell 407 helicopter flying surveillance missions as a metal riff plays, interspersed with footage of militarized SWAT team activity including the use of attack dogs and armored vehicles.

So far, North Dakota has incurred $287,000 in expenses to be repaid to Nebraska,the Omaha World-Herald reported on November 30. On November 21st, Nebraska residents delivered a petition with over 29,000 signatures asking Governor Pete Rickettsto cease providing law enforcement to put down Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Several of the emails we received from open records request also showed messages of protest being registered against Nebraska assistance to North Dakota.

One EMAC request sent from North Dakota lists a “demobilization date” of January 22, 2017, but a Public Information Officer from the Nebraska State Patrol told us that all Nebraska law enforcement had been withdrawn from North Dakota “by Thanksgiving.”

The Nebraska EMAC emails we received included four different request forms with varying deployment dates. They are as follows:

40 Sworn Law Enforcement Officers – October 16-November 7 2016

Helicopter Aviation assets w/pilots and associated crew – October 23-November 21 2016 (1, 2)

URGENT – AVAILABILITY of Sworn Law Enforcement Officers over the next 60 days November 20 2016- January 22 2017

Read the emails below or download the PDF at this link.

You can also read the Nebraska EMAC documents found by Melissa Hill on the Muckrock request page.

Unicorn Riot will continue to regularly provide direct updates about resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Follow our media on Twitter, Facebook, and our website for more information.

8/17

https://www.ecowatch.com/keystone-xl-hearing-2469081732.html

The Nebraska Public Service Commission (NPSC)—the Republican-dominated state board deciding the fate of TransCanada's long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline—have barred experts and homeowners from testifying over potential spills or whether the tar sands pipeline is even necessary during final hearings next week.

The Omaha World-Herald reports that former Lancaster County District Judge Karen Flowers, who was hired by NPSC to conduct the hearings, issued more than 30 rulings based on objections filed by TransCanada.

She ruled that issues such as safety or if the U.S. even needs Canadian oil are out of the commission's scope of authority.

"The (Nebraska Major Oil Pipeline) Siting Act specifically prohibits the commission from considering safety considerations, including the risk of spills and leaks," Flowers wrote in her ruling.

Nebraska law requires the NPSC to approve a pipeline construction application if it is "in the public interest." The commission—made up of four Republicans and one Democrat—will mainly consider issues that impact the local economy such as jobs and revenues.

Pipeline opponent Oil Change International spoke out against the hearing officer's ruling, as it bars the testimony of 15 outside experts and more than 25 landowners.

For instance, the decision barred the planned testimony of Lorne Stockman, senior research analyst at Oil Change International. Stockman's testimony, which was submitted ahead of the hearings and thus part of the official record, would have stressed how changing market conditions and realities in the tar sands industry negates the need for Keystone XL pipeline.

"There is simply no need for the Keystone XL pipeline based on the current market conditions, which even TransCanada has admitted," he said, noting recent statements by TransCanada representatives who have cast doubt in finding sufficient shippers to fill the pipeline.

"Those conditions," Lockman [sic, cf maine]continued, "include an end to growth in the tar sands sector and stagnant global oil demand, headwinds that look set to end the reckless proliferation of tar sands pipelines. Given all of the risks to Nebraskans inherent in the building and operation of this pipeline, the fact that there's no compelling need to build it should be a critical element of the commission's deliberations."

"My testimony exposes that the Keystone XL pipeline is not only a disaster for our climate and communities, but also that TransCanada has no business case to it to be built in the first place. It's no wonder they don't want me to testify," Lockman concluded.

Bold Nebraska founder Jane Kleeb, a prominent critic of the Keystone XL project, said legal action against the NPSC's decision to bar expert and landowner testimonies could be necessary.

"They're headed for a very tough court fight," Kleeb told the World-Herald.

A recent Bloomberg report highlighted how during the hearings, Keystone opponents will focus on the issue of eminent domain, which Republicans traditionally oppose in favor of landowner property rights. Keystone proponents, meanwhile, will focus on job creation, which the GOP also supports.

TransCanada's proposed pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil from Canada into the U.S. daily.

How Nebraska Took Its Energy Out of Corporate Hands and Made It Affordable for Everyone

Thomas Hanna / YES! Magazine

http://www.alternet.org/environment/ethanol-producing-states-file-supreme-court-brief-challenging-california-fuel-standards

Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) is the largest electric utility in the state of Nebraska, serving all or parts of 91 (of 93) counties. It was formed on January 1, 1970, when Consumers Public Power District,Platte Valley Public Power and Irrigation District (PVPPID) and Nebraska Public Power System merged to become Nebraska Public Power District. NPPD's predecessors were created through the efforts of the Nebraska legislature and financial agent Guy L. Myers as part of a system where all the investor-owned utilities operating in the state of Nebraska (Nebraska Power Co., Central Power Co., Southern Nebraska Power Co., et al.) were condemned and their properties turned over to 'public power districts' being created at the time (early 1940s). NPPD is a public corporation and political subdivision of the state of Nebraska. The utility is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors, who are popularly elected from NPPD's chartered territory.

Remember this story out of North Carolina in 2012?

To briefly recap, GOP lawmakers in North Carolina have a new solution to rising sea levels, caused by global warming: scrap the scientific evidence pointing to rising sea levels.

A state-appointed science panel warned officials that sea levels will rise 39 inches over the next century and that North Carolina needs to prepare. Under a GOP plan, officials would be prohibited from relying on the scientific evidence, and would instead have to use a historical model to set expectations. North Carolina would prepare for only 8 inches of sea level increase, since that’s what happened over the last century.

Or how about this one from Virginia?

Virginia’s legislature commissioned a $50,000 study to determine the impacts of climate change on the state’s shores. To greenlight the project, they omitted words like “climate change” and “sea level rise” from the study’s description itself. According to the House of Delegates sponsor of the study, these are “liberal code words,” even though they are noncontroversial in the climate science community.

Instead of using climate change, sea level rise, and global warming, the study uses terms like “coastal resiliency” and “recurrent flooding.” Republican State Delegate Chris Stolle, who steered the legislation, cut “sea level rise” from the draft. Stolle has also said the “jury’s still out” on humans’ impact on global warming.

Or this one from Nebraska?

A study on the impact of climate change on Nebraska, recently approved by the state, may not be carried out – because its own scientists are refusing to be a part of it.

The problem, according to members of the governor-appointed Climate Assessment and Response Committee, is that the bill behind the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at “cyclical” climate change. In so doing, it completely leaves out human contributions to global warming.

Loopholes Speeding Keystone Route Through Nebraska Backfire on Gov., TransCanada

Two years ago, impatient advocates of the Keystone XL in Nebraska pushed through a series of hastily conceived laws to fast-track approval of the pipeline's route through that state.

Judge rules that Gov. Heineman’s attempt to approve the pipeline's reroute two years ago was unconstitutional, leaving the whole process under a cloud.

By John H. Cushman Jr., InsideClimate News

Feb 24, 2014

Two years ago, impatient advocates of the Keystone XL in Nebraska pushed through a series of hastily conceived laws to fast-track approval of the pipeline's route through that state.

Now it's clear that the legislative maneuvering has produced the exact opposite effect—threatening to delay a presidential decision even further and giving opponents more time to fight on.

On Feb. 19, Judge Stephanie Stacy of the Lancaster County District Court ruled that Gov. Dave Heineman's approval of the pipeline reroute by TransCanada, the project's builder, was executed under an unconstitutional statute he had signed into law in 2012, and "must be declared null and void."

The ruling has been seen as a slap at corporations' use of eminent domain powers to seize access to private land, and as a rejection of bills crafted to favor a single powerful special interest. But Judge Stacy's opinion makes clear that she did not intend it that way—nor as a verdict on the Keystone XL itself.

"The issues before this court have nothing to do with the merits of that pipeline," she wrote in her opening sentence. "Nor will the decision in this case resolve that debate."

Rather, she ruled that Nebraska had bungled badly when it chose to shift some powers of the state's Public Services Commission to oversee pipelines—a role established in the state constitution—to the state environmental agency, and ultimately to its governor.

The narrative of events outlined in her ruling traces what happened starting in late 2011, at a level of detail unfamiliar to all but those most steeped in the issue. It was then that lawmakers in Nebraska's unicameral legislature and in the U.S. Congress passed a series of amendments to grease the skids for the pipeline's approval.

In the end, the only law left standing was the law of unintended consequences.

The ruling is not necessarily a fatal blow to the Keystone XL. But TransCanada and the pipeline's supporters have had better days.

Since the verdict, the State Department, which has authority over approving transboundary pipelines, has not yet announced any change in its Keystone XL review schedule, which was already somewhat open-ended. Having published a final environmental impact statement on the pipeline at the end of January, the federal schedule called for 30 days of public and interagency comment, part of a 90-day consideration of whether the pipeline is in the national interest. Despite continuing pressure from Congress to act, there was no particular deadline for a decision by Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama, officials have said.

While Nebraska's attorney general said the state would appeal the judge's ruling, that could take months—as could any attempt to rewrite Nebraska's law again. A constitutionally proper review of TransCanada's existing proposal would also take months, and further delays could follow if the company has to mollify its opponents by modifying its proposed route again.

As things stand, it is hard to conceive of Kerry and Obama, both of whom seem ambivalent about the project, granting a permit for the pipeline to cross the Canada-U.S. border carrying tar sands fuel from Alberta to Texas without nailing down the stretch in Nebraska where local opposition is strongest. And that opposition, from landowners and conservationists alarmed by the risks of running a pipeline through delicate sandhills ecosystems and over a vulnerable aquifer, has only seemed to harden over the months and years of infighting.

Judge Stacy had nothing to say about all that.

"Decisions regarding the merits of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline are properly left to others," she demurred in her opinion

Playing Pipeline Politics

Stacy's ruling presents an object lesson in the risks of pipeline politics: a tortuous chronology of how politicians and interested parties have been going about the decision-making for the past few years.

The long-running debate began back in 2008, when TransCanada first applied for a permit for a pipeline.

But the jockeying for position that led to the Nebraska lawsuit,Thompson v. Heineman, began three years later, in November 2011. By then Hillary Clinton's State Department had completed its final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the originally proposed Keystone XL route, which crossed Nebraska from South Dakota to Kansas, passing through twelve counties, across the Sandhills region and the Ogallala aquifer. Following the department’s 2011 EIS, the prescribed next step, a determination whether the line was in the national interest, was well under way.

Despite mounting public opposition the pipeline was widely thought to be a shoo-in.

On Oct. 24, 2011, amid rising public protest, Gov. Heineman—who had declared himself against a route through the Sandhills—called a special session of the Nebraska legislature to write new pipeline siting legislation that ostensibly would exert more state leverage over this and any future pipeline routes.

The session began on Nov. 1. On Nov. 10, the State Department, taking notice of the shifting local landscape, announced it would delay its decision on TransCanada's permit application to await developments in Nebraska.

In a three-week session that ended on Nov. 22, Nebraska passed two new pipeline statutes, LB 1 and LB 4. The governor signed them on Nov. 23. They set up a strict new review process for future pipelines, under the state’s independent Public Services Commission. But they allowed TransCanada an expedited alternative because its application for a presidential permit was already under review in Washington. Instead of a more rigorous vetting by the PSC, the Keystone XL could get approval from the governor after passing muster with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ), which he controlled.

Dissecting the legislature's intent, Judge Stacy wrote that lawmakers had passed its first bill, LB 1, to put in place tough new mandatory reviews by the PSC of all future pipelines, as part of the agenc'’s constitutional mandate. But its second bill, LB 4, was clearly meant to let the Keystone XL be evaluated by NDEQ and the governor using an alternative review process.

In written comments filed with the State Department last year, a coalition of Nebraskan pipeline opponents recounted their reaction to passage of the new laws that left them angry and confused.

"Landowners immediately went to Nebraska Legislature Speaker [Mike] Flood’s office to gain clarity on how the Sandhills would be defined," they wrote. "TransCanada Vice President Robert Jones happened to be in Speaker Flood’s office as well, and surprisingly everyone was shuffled into a conference room. Speaker Flood suggested the landowners find some common ground with Robert Jones concerning the Sandhills." Flood, a conservative Republican known for brokering compromises, left office under term limits in 2013.

This time, the two sides would not be reconciled.

Instead, intense weeks of jockeying ensued in which Heineman's NDEQ, over the objections of landowners, redefined the formal boundaries of the Sandhills region on the map in a way that would make it seem easier for the pipeline to skirt around the sensitive lands. The proper boundaries of the Sandhills region remain in dispute to this day.

With state officials moving in TransCanada's direction, the outlook for the project was beginning to look rosier.

But then the Keystone XL’s proponents in the Congress decided to put their thumbs on the scale.

In a showdown over taxes and spending with President Obama, the House of Representatives on Dec. 13, 2011 and the Senate on Dec. 17 passed a bill extending a popular cut in payroll taxes for another year—and attached a provision demanding that Obama make a final decision on the Keystone line within 60 days. Unwilling to veto a tax bill he so fervently had sought, Obama signed the law.

The next month, on Jan. 18, 2012, Obama said that Congress had demanded that he act before he had enough information—including about fast-moving events in Nebraska, where the expedited review of the Keystone XL reroute was just gearing up. Obama denied the Keystone XL permit.

That changed the picture in a significant way, Judge Stacy explained in her opinion.

When the president denied the permit, "the practical impact was that if TransCanada reapplied for a presidential permit seeking approval of its Keystone XL pipeline route thorough Nebraska, the route would be subject to the PSC review process," she wrote.

Immediately recognizing the threat, the pipeline's supporters moved to rewrite the state's laws once again.

The day after Obama's rejection, on Jan. 19, 2012, State Sen. Jim Smith introduced yet another pipeline bill, LB 1161. "Unfortunately, we could not have anticipated the circumstances and the actions that occurred at the federal level that now jeopardize the agreements we reached last year," he said.

The new bill amended the previous two, LB 1 and LB 4. It eliminated the narrow loophole that let any pipeline avoid PCS review if it already had a permit pending. Written to cover TransCanada's pending case and no other, that provision was suddenly moot, because TransCanada's permit application had been nixed by Obama. But the new bill also widened the loophole by making it possible for any new pipeline application to skirt PCS and go through NDEQ instead. That would suit TransCanada's new circumstances.

Heineman signed LB 1161 into law on Apr. 17, 2012.

Post-LB 1161, All Is Under a Cloud

On the law's first day in force, Apr. 18, TransCanada submitted its initial documents for a rerouting through Nebraska. It handed the paperwork not to the PCS, but to NDEQ for evaluation. Now, both the pipeline and its path through the Nebraska bureaucracy would follow the traces on a new map.

On May 4, 2012, TransCanada applied once again for a presidential permit for the Keystone XL system's northern half, including the new Nebraska route. (The southern half, needing no presidential permit and blessed by Obama in a campaign photo-op that year, started delivering tar sands oil from Cushing, Okla. to the Gulf Coast this year.)

Three weeks later, following the instructions in Nebraska's new law, the State Department and the NDEQ signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to jointly conduct "a collaborative environmental analysis" of the new route's impacts, and to "ensure that the environmental review is thorough, efficient and adequate."

NDEQ published its draft environmental report in October 2012, and although it was criticized by pipeline opponents in the state, the draft remained little changed in its final version.

On Jan. 22, 2013, Governor Heineman wrote Obama and Clinton, who was closing out her term as Secretary of State, to say that he had accepted the NDEQ evaluation and approved the new route through Nebraska. The State Department, in turn, would lean on the Nebraska analysis in its own draft supplemental environmental impact statement on the new route, which was published in draft form in March 2013 and in final form in January 2014.

Like everything that Nebraska did since passage of LB 1161, these environmental assessments may now be under something of a cloud.

In striking down the governor’s approval of the rerouted pipeline route, Stacy wrote, she was not issuing an "indictment of the work done by NDEQ" in its environmental evaluation. However, she went on, any work done in obedience to an unconstitutional law, "no matter how carefully performed, cannot stand."

===-

icn: The coal industry's allies have launched pre-emptive strikes in Congress and the courts as they seek to abort the Obama administration's proposed regulations to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants may spew out.

It's no surprise that coal's political friends would fight hard against a rule that would effectively ban the building of new coal plants by requiring the industry to trap some of the fuel's CO2 for storage underground. Carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, they say, is unproven and unaffordable.

What's unusual, however, is how early they are trying to derail what is still only a draft rule. They want Congress to repeal the proposal or judges to reject it now, and they're unwilling to wait until the proposal jumps through the remaining procedural hoops and is issued in final form.

At stake is one of the most significant attempts to control a greenhouse gas ever offered under the Clean Air Act. It is a pillar of President Obama's climate action plan, which attempts to deal with climate change without having to deal with Congress.

The proposed regulation, announced in September by the Environmental Protection Agency, was published in the Federal Register on Jan. 8, kicking off two months of public comments that the agency must consider in detail before making it final.

No sooner was it published than Nebraska asked a federal judge to nullify it. Then Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the minority leader, declared that Congress should block it without waiting for the final draft.

These early challenges could significantly complicate the agency's political and procedural tasks as it tries to complete the rules this year. And EPA may be put on the defensive and under pressure to weaken the rule, which it wants to get in place without further delay.

GOP'S Legal Strategy

One of the latest and most powerful objections to the rule raised in the past few months by Republican Congressional leaders has already caused substantial hand-wringing during the Obama administration's internal deliberations. The rule's opponents assert that the agency violated Energy Policy Act of 2005, or EPAct, when it based its claim that CCS is a viable technology largely on recent pilot projects that were financed partly with government subsidies.

"The Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly prohibits EPA from considering certain federally funded projects when setting the standards," said Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who brought up the objection again at a hearing on Jan. 16. "And yet three such projects form the majority of EPA's discussion regarding new plants."

The agency says its finding that CCS is the most practical way available to reduce emissions from burning coal was more broadly based than that—and that it took into account CCS practices around the world and across several industries, as well as reviews of promising technologies and past experiences bringing novel pollution controls into common use. The proposal dwells at considerable length on precedents that the agency says support its approach.

"We're very comfortable with the standard that we proposed," Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator, said at the combative hearing.

Perhaps so, but the ever-expanding regulatory docket reveals some last-minute consternation at other agencies reviewing the EPA proposal. Indeed, McCarthy said at the hearing that her agency had pulled together more information to bolster its case and sent it that morning to the White House office that manages internal consultations among agencies on complex rules like this.

"Our understanding of the reading of the EPAct is that we can't solely make a determination on the basis of EPAct-funded facilities," she said, adding that it didn't consider only the government-funded projects. "There's … nothing in the law that precludes us from considering those in the context of a larger, more robust data set—which is what we are actually doing."

Lawyers for environmental groups have endorsed McCarthy's interpretation.

They say that while Congress didn't want the government to subsidize tests of an expensive new pollution control technology and then force an entire industry to adopt it, the law wasn't meant to rule out a new technology forever just because it received subsidies in its early development.

"That would be an absurd situation where the government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced technology and then we’re not allowed to use that technology to improve the environment," said Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council, testifying at the same hearing. "That would not make any sense."

Ultimately, the dispute over what Congress intended in 2005 may have to be settled in court. For one thing, the statutory passages in question occur more than once in the law, with slight variations each time.

D. Cameron Prell, a senior counsel on energy and environment at McGuireWoods LLP, said that the issue "may not be as big a legal issue" as Congressional Republicans think, but "it also may be a bigger deal" than most of the environmental groups admit.

Nebraska's Beef

Either way, the state of Nebraska, which gets more than two thirds of its electricity by burning cheap coal imported from next-door Wyoming, wasted no time asking a judge to rule on the dispute.

On Jan. 15, just a week after the EPA formally published its proposal, Nebraskaasked a Federal district court there to find that EPA’s approach indeed violated the 2005 law. It sought an order compelling the EPA to drop the notion of CCS as the cure for coal, and to withdraw its proposed rule without further ado.

Nebraska filed its challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, which ordinarily rules out any such appeal until there is a "final agency action," according to an analysis by Margaret E. Peloso, a climate and energy lawyer at Vinson & Elkins LLP. "Typically this means that the agency has completed its rulemaking process and issued a final rule."

She noted that a similar lawsuit, against the first draft of the EPA regulation, was dismissed in December 2012 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit "after the court concluded that the proposed rule did not constitute final agency action."

The Political Roadblocks

As the coal industry and its backers seek their day in court, they have powerful allies in Congress who are primed for a debate with significant political resonance.

At the hearing, Vitter fumed that the agency had been biding its time and would put its final decision off until after the mid-term elections, 10 months away.

"I believe these rules are still contrary to federal law," he said, "and I think the EPA's delay is designed to postpone controversial news during an election year and give the EPA more time to make excuses about why they're taking action beyond the scope of their legal authority."

McConnell, the longest serving Republican senator ever to represent coal-veined Kentucky, is already limbered up for a long bout.

On Jan. 16, he filed a resolution to repeal the proposed regulation under the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows Congress to overturn a rule within 60 days of its final effective date. This time, in a tactic just like Nevada's, he is arguing that Congress should act even before the rule is finalized. That has not been tried before.

McConnell, who has 41 co-sponsors, all Republican, turned to the non-partisan Governmental Accountability Office to see whether the law could be used by Congress in this case to overturn a regulation that's still in draft form. In a letter seeking an advisory opinion from the GAO, he noted that the section of the Clean Air Act being used by the EPA would apply the pollution controls to any new coal plant where construction began after the publication of the proposal.

In other words, no company can build a power plant without CCS while the EPA is tweaking the rule.

McConnell's claim is that the proposed rule therefore "immediately changes the legal landscape for anyone seeking to develop a fossil fuel powered plant." It's that immediate impact he wants to prevent....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shulman/got-science-nebraska-clim_b_4235258.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

l Dutcher, Nebraska's state climatologist, is an expert on climate change and a professor at the University of Nebraska. He's also a self-described conservative who is outraged that the state legislature and Nebraska's Republican governor are letting politics interfere with questions of science.

As Dutcher puts it, "After 25 years in my field, I've gotten to a point where I'm not afraid of the politics on this anymore. I say enough's enough. Let's stick to the science and let the political chips fall where they may."

A Compromised Study

Dutcher and his fellow climate scientists in Nebraska are standing up for science after the state legislature passed a misguided bill that commissions a climate change impacts study for the state but precludes the scientists writing it from addressing the role of human activity in causing global warming. The scientists say the bill's language compromises the study by design and that no credible scientist will agree to such terms.

Don Wilhite, former director of the School of Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, explains the issue simply: "To be of any use," he says, "a climate impact report has to look at the whole picture. The issue is one of science, not politics. In Nebraska, just as everywhere, we need the best information we can get about the changes we face."

No Help From the Governor

But some politicians in Nebraska clearly see the issue differently. State Sen. Beau McCoy, a Republican and candidate for governor in Nebraska, inserted the contested language into the bill during floor debate in the legislature, directing scientists to focus only on so-called "cyclical" climate change -- a term that has no legitimate scientific meaning. During the debate, McCoy reportedly said that the only climate study he would support was one that looked at "normal, cyclical change," adding: "I don't subscribe to global warming."

The bill's original sponsor, state Sen. Ken Haar, a Democrat, told reporters after the bill's passage that any analysis that rejected science and excluded the role of humans would make the state "look stupid." As Dutcher quips, "The way it currently stands, the legislation is basically meaningless unless they are looking for a report that explains the existence of the seasons."

The legislation in question directs a committee in the Governor's office to commission the climate study. Nebraska Governor Don Heineman, himself a Republican who has expressed skepticism about climate change, is unwilling to act on behalf of his state climatologist and the other climate scientists speaking out about the bill. Asked whether he would support them by calling for a more complete study on behalf of his state's citizens, the governor, through his spokesperson, Sue Roush, said only: "This decision was made by the legislature."

"Blatant Realities"

The current situation is particularly unfortunate, Dutcher says, because the citizens of Nebraska need information about their changing climate, especially the prospect of increased drought in the state. He says increasing temperatures in Nebraska's summer months are decreasing soil moisture, leading to increased irrigation demands that threaten to strain water resources in the region.

As Dutcher explains, "Here in Nebraska, we're very focused on issues of farming. And there's no question that humans are altering the climate. All our farmers recognize the changes -- they're planting longer seasons and more varieties, they're planting earlier, there's changing in the mean freeze date and an extended growing season. These are blatant realities."

"The way I see it," Dutcher says, "scientists like me who are employed by state universities have a job to do to give taxpayers the best information we can as a return on their investment in us. Good scientists know that this is not a political issue and we cannot be hamstrung by politics on either side of this issue. Regardless of your political views," Dutcher says, "we still have to figure out what we need to do to adequately prepare. That's why we need the best information science can provide."

Real Science, Real Answers

To get through the present political logjam, Wilhite and some other Nebraska climate scientists are working to broker a compromise in which the University of Nebraska agrees to underwrite a full climate impacts study for the state. But it remains unclear how the issue will be resolved. In the meantime, Dutcher and other climatologists in the state are standing strong and receiving praise from their colleagues for doing so.

One scientist applauding their stance is Gretchen Goldman, an atmospheric scientist and analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who monitors issues of political interference in science. "It is great to see these climatologists stand up against the intrusion of politics into their scientific field," Goldman says. "The fact that they are speaking out for their scientific principles in the face of such political pressure is brave and laudable. Their fellow scientists certainly stand with them."

For his part, Dutcher says the issue is clearcut. "We're scientists. Our job is to look at the data try to find the best results possible -- and to use that data to try to make models and predictions about what we can expect in the future," he says. "You can't bring politics into questions of science, no matter what."

Seth Shulman, Senior Staff Writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a veteran science journalist and author of six books whose work has appeared inThe Atlantic, Discover, Nature, Technology Review, Parade and many other publications. You can sign up to receive his monthly Got Science? column via email at the Union of Concerned Scientists website:www.ucsusa.org.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman's approval of a revised route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline puts the long-delayed project back in the hands of the federal government.

But don't look for a quick decision on the $7 billion project, which would carry oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast if allowed to move forward.

State Department officials said they do not expect to complete a review of the project before the end of March.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The company planning the disputed Keystone XL oil pipeline has proposed a new route through Nebraska that avoids the state's environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.

Calgary-based TransCanada submitted a series of proposed routes — including a preferred alternative — late Wednesday to Nebraska environmental officials.

The state has become a focus of concern for the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. President Barack Obama blocked the pipeline earlier this year, citing uncertainty over the Nebraska route, which would travel above an aquifer that provides water to eight...

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman fox: http://www.foxnews.com/topics/us/dave-heineman.htm signed a bill earlier this week that allows the state to proceed with its review of the proposed pipeline through his state, regardless of what happens at the federal level.

Obama said last month he will direct federal agencies to fast-track a segment of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas. The 485-mile line from Cushing, Okla., to refineries on Texas' Gulf coast would remove a critical bottleneck in the country's oil transportation system, as rising oil production has outgrown pipelines' capacity to deliver oil to refineries.

CMD Calls for Nebraska Ethics Investigation Over ALEC Keystone “Academy” Junket

by Nick Surgey [1] — July 3, 2013 - 8:44am

Topics: Front Groups [2], Energy [3], Environment [4]

Projects: ALEC Exposed [5]

[ Share this](http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F07%2F12164%2Fcmd-calls-nebraska-ethics-investigation-over-alec-keystone-%25E2%2580%259Cacademy%25E2%2580%259D-junket&linkname=CMD%20Calls%20for%20Nebraska%20Ethics%20Investigation%20Over%20ALEC%20Keystone%20%E2%80%9CAcademy%E2%80%9D%20Junket) [6]

Nebrasks State Senator Jim Smith

-- by Nick Surgey and Brendan Fischer

The Center for Media and Democracy filed a complaint[7]yesterday with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission alleging that Nebraska Senator Jim Smith, a major proponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, failed to disclose significant travel expenses paid for by the Government of Alberta, Canada during Smith's participation in an "Oil Sands Academy" organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The trip was sponsored by the operator of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada, which may raise additional concerns under the ethics and lobbying code.

Smith and nine other ALEC legislators participated in the “academy” sponsored by TransCanada in Alberta, Canada last October, where they were shepherded around oil extraction facilities and rubbed shoulders with oil industry lobbyists. The Government of Alberta even chartered a flight during the tour to fly the participants to tar sand operations, which reportedly cost around $1,500 per legislator.

But a review of Smith’s 2012 statement of financial interests [8] shows no record of the ALEC tour.

Smith Disclosed Nothing About the ALEC "Academy" in Ethics Filings

Under Nebraska law, Sen. Smith should have disclosed any gifts he received in 2012, including any gifts of travel, but he failed to report the Alberta government funded charter plane flights, or anything else he may have received on the trip. There is little evidence that Sen. Smith told his constituents anything at all about his participation in the "Oil Sands Academy."

But Sen. Smith has been exceptionally vocal when it comes to his support for the Keystone XL pipeline. Smith sponsored a 2012 Nebraska law that would – if it survives a continuing legal challenge – bypass the U.S. State Department and allow TransCanada to start building the Nebraska part of the pipeline right away, regardless of any future decision by the State Department. Smith is also the ALEC State Chair for Nebraska.

Documents obtained by CMD show that the total cost for chartering the flights to the tar sands came to $22,000 – or $1,466 per person – with part of this cost being paid for by the Alberta government, and the rest by another unnamed party. CMD alleges in its complaint that Sen. Smith should have disclosed the receipt of these gifts.

According to the Financial Times, [9] the Government of Alberta has recently hired a "who's who of lobbyists and communications professionals with links to the Obama administration – and to John Kerry in particular" to promote Keystone XL, and recently took out a half page ad in the New York Times calling for its approval. In addition to paying tens of thousands of dollars to shepherd Sen. Smith and other state legislators around the Canadian tar sands, the government of Alberta sent two of its own representatives on the ALEC tour.

"Nebraskans have a right to know if their legislators are being lobbied by foreign countries and foreign corporations," Jack Gould of Common Cause Nebraska told CMD. "When an issue as important as the XL pipeline is being studied, all lobbying activity should be visible."

Pipeline Operator TransCanada Sponsored ALEC "Academy"

As CMD reported [10], the ALEC "Oil Sands Academy" was a three-day endeavor that included tours of TransCanada’s facilities in Calgary, corporate-sponsored meals, and presentations from lobbyists. When ALEC invited legislators on the trip, it offered to pay for their lodging at the Westin Calgary, which reportedly cost $648.92 for two nights, and their airfare from the United States to Canada, which can cost hundreds of dollars more.

Documents obtained by CMD show Sen. Smith staying in the "ALEC room block,” but Sen. Smith told CMD that he funded his own lodging expenses and air travel to Canada.

The "sponsors" of the ALEC Academy included TransCanada and the oil-industry funded American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), which has lobbied for the pipeline’s approval by the U.S. State Department. ALEC Academy sponsorship costs $80,000; these sponsorship fees would presumably help fund legislators’ travel and lodging expenses.

It is not known whether Sen. Smith indirectly received any benefits as a result of TransCanada’s financial sponsorship of the trip. As a corporation that lobbies in Nebraska – in fact, as the corporation that has spent the most on lobbying in Nebraska over the past two years – it is prohibited from providing gifts to legislators that exceed $50 in any one month. CMD has asked the ethics board to investigate whether Sen. Smith accepted any impermissible gifts on the trip.

Senator Smith Gets by with a Little Help from TransCanada

Although it is not clear if Sen. Smith accepted anything from TransCanada on the ALEC oil sands tour, he has needed their help in the past. In February 2012, during hearings on Sen. Smith’s pro-Keystone XL bill, LB 1161, a TransCanada lobbyist came along to provide more than moral support.

"Sen. Smith could not answer fellow state senators’ questions about LB 1161," Bold Nebraska’s Executive Director Jane Kleeb told CMD, who suspects that TransCanada wrote the bill and Smith was merely doing their bidding. "Everyone in the hearing room knew exactly why Sen. Smith kept on referring the majority of questions he could not answer to TransCanada's lawyers."