Nebraska's GOP governor yesterday summoned state legislators to a special session that could end in an attempted rerouting of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, pushing the incendiary project and its emboldened environmentalist opponents higher on the agenda for the state's hotly contested 2012 Senate race.

Gov. Dave Heineman's call to debate the viability of forcing TransCanada Corp., the XL link's Alberta-based sponsor, to move its pipeline away from the sensitive Nebraska Sandhills region, follows a crescendo of grass-roots-driven resistance to the existing route. But that frequently bipartisan pushback so far has failed to seep into the Republican primary race for the right to challenge vulnerable Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) -- a political free pass that could expire during the special session.

"This is sending shock waves through state senators' offices right now as well as, I'm sure, sending a lot of mixed messages to the Republican Senate candidates," said Jane Kleeb, executive director of the anti-pipeline progressive advocacy group Bold Nebraska, in an interview yesterday.

"I think they were all hoping Gov. Heineman would continue to play this on both sides of the fence so they could continue to play both sides of the fence."

Of the three leading GOP contenders to face the two-term incumbent, only former state Attorney General Don Stenberg has openly stated opposition to routing the 1,700-mile pipeline through the locally prized Sandhills. The other Republicans, current Attorney General Jon Bruning and state Sen. Deb Fischer, have not taken a definitive position on the route concerns that Heineman cited in announcing the Nov. 1 special session of the unicameral Legislature.

"Many Nebraskans, like myself, support the pipeline, but we are opposed to the route," the Republican governor, who did not earn Bruning's endorsement in his 2006 primary race against then-Rep. Tom Osborne (R-Neb.), said at a news conference yesterday. "We ask, why would you risk an oil spill or leak over the [Ogallala] Aquifer when TransCanada already has a route on the eastern side of Nebraska?"

TransCanada and its allied Keystone XL backers counter that changing the pipeline route after a three-year environmental analysis culminated in a finding of little major impact from the Sandhills path would flout the federal laws that governed the process. Even Heineman acknowledged in his special session remarks that the state might not find "a legal and constitutional solution to the challenges we face," TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard noted yesterday.

"By asking us to reroute, what people are asking us to do is ignore the rules we are required to follow, ignore the various reviews conducted under federal laws, which are specific to the route," Howard said in a statement that also echoed Nebraska legislative Speaker Mike Flood in warning of a high cost to taxpayers from the attempt to clear rerouting legislation before year's end.

Regardless of the outcome, however, the move for a special session aligns with Nelson's public avowals that only Nebraska officials could exert sufficient authority over the XL line's route. "The ball is in his court on the location, and I think he's running out of time," Nelson said of Heineman last month (Greenwire, Sept. 7).

Bipartisan alliance

Among the group of state legislators who have pressed for a special session on the pipeline are Democratic state Sen. Ken Haar and Republican state Sen. Tony Fulton, both of whom represent parts of the Lincoln area. Their unconventional alignment underscores the peculiarity of pipeline fault lines in the Cornhusker State.

"I don't want to intimate that it's completely nonpartisan here, because that would be naive to say," Fulton explained in an interview, describing himself as in favor of securing the Canadian oil sands crude and the union jobs that Keystone XL would provide.

Fulton demurred when asked if national Republican lawmakers -- who have thrown their weight behind the pipeline -- would understand the opposition, which he explained as resting on a classically conservative states' rights approach.

"I'm not willing to sit here and let Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a foreign national company tell Nebraskans what to do with their land," he said. "There's something profoundly un-American about that."

Haar, for his part, did not shy away from billing the Nebraskan rerouting effort as apolitical. "This is not a partisan issue, let's put it that way," he said. "It didn't develop and it isn't going to end up that way."

As for the drawing power of an endorsement from the GOP Senate hopefuls, Haar waxed pragmatically about the one candidate who could help him pass a rerouting bill in the special session that is expected to last at least a week.

"Bruning can't vote -- Senator Fischer can," he said. "So when all is said and done, I'd like her vote to get this passed."

Another Republican without a vote on routing legislation, Nelson's in-state Senate colleague Mike Johanns, appeared skeptical about the viability of a state legislative intervention during a conference call with Nebraska reporters last month.

"Let's say that that certification power is granted to the governor of Montana ... and the governor of Montana says, 'No, I don't want that pipeline in my state -- take it to North Dakota,'" Johanns said.

"And the governor of North Dakota says, 'Wait a second here, I don't want that pipeline, take it to Minnesota.' ... I just don't think you can void the operation of the commerce clause in that way."

Nelson's and Bruning's offices did not return a request for comment on the special session announcement in time for publication.