The Keystone XL Pipeline Project, as proposed, would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska through a pipeline crossing an international border. Various environmental and citizen groups have challenged the project. Whether it will be allowed to proceed now depends on issuance of a “presidential permit.” Before Keystone, presidential permits were virtually unknown to the general public. This article will present some background on presidential permits and discuss how the Keystone experience may influence the presidential permit process in the future. 

TransCanada Corp. initially proposed the Keystone Project in 2005. The Canadian National Energy Board first approved the Canadian portion of the project in September 2007. Public opposition in the United States, however, caused the owners of the project to change the proposed pipeline route to avoid the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills region. With that change of route, the state of Nebraska conducted a supplemental environmental review and approved the project in January 2013. 

Proponents argue the project will help reduce U.S. reliance on sources of energy outside of North America, that oil sands occur naturally and are no more environmentally harmful than traditional oil sources, and that newly constructed pipelines are safer than older pipelines. Project opponents argue that the Canadian oil sands present a unique risk of environmental harm, that the proposed pipeline route will result in damage to sensitive areas, and that climate change is the critical issue for review. 

The Obama administration postponed its decision on the presidential permit during the 2012 election year by calling for a federal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The U.S. State Department recently issued its SEIS for public comment. See 78 Fed. Reg. 15,011, 15,012 (March 8, 2013). The SEIS concludes that the route will not cause significant environmental harm when compared with other alternatives, but reserves for the president the ultimate decision on whether to issue a presidential permit that will “serve the national interests.”