I was speaking with some colleagues recently and the cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline was mentioned. I got the sense that folks were not aware of the rationale for canceling the project. So I asked. Most people admitted to not knowing why the project had been canceled.

The Biden administration actually “canceled” it for the second time. Back in 2015 the project was “canceled” the first time when the Presidential Permit was denied by the Obama administration.

A presidential permit was required because the project crossed the international border between the United States and Canada. This was required to start the pipeline in the oil sands region of Canada and end the pipeline in Steele City, Kansas.

The Trump administration “un-canceled” the project when it issued the required Presidential Permit in March 2019.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden revoked the permit and published a short statement about why. Before reading any further, please take a moment to write down why you think the project was canceled.

X – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – – X

Here’s what President Biden said on January 20, 2021, regarding his decision to revoke the March 2019 Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline (emphasis added):

On March 29, 2019, the President granted to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. a Presidential permit (the “Permit”) to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities at the international border of the United States and Canada (the “Keystone XL pipeline”), subject to express conditions and potential revocation in the President’s sole discretion. The Permit is hereby revoked in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Permit.

In 2015, following an exhaustive review, the Department of State and the President determined that approving the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the U.S. national interest. That analysis, in addition to concluding that the significance of the proposed pipeline for our energy security and economy is limited, stressed that the United States must prioritize the development of a clean energy economy, which will in turn create good jobs. The analysis further concluded that approval of the proposed pipeline would undermine U.S. climate leadership by undercutting the credibility and influence of the United States in urging other countries to take ambitious climate action.

Climate change has had a growing effect on the U.S. economy, with climate-related costs increasing over the last 4 years. Extreme weather events and other climate-related effects have harmed the health, safety, and security of the American people and have increased the urgency for combatting climate change and accelerating the transition toward a clean energy economy. The world must be put on a sustainable climate pathway to protect Americans and the domestic economy from harmful climate impacts, and to create well-paying union jobs as part of the climate solution.

The Keystone XL pipeline disserves the U.S. national interest. The United States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be met with action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory. At home, we will combat the crisis with an ambitious plan to build back better, designed to both reduce harmful emissions and create good clean-energy jobs. Our domestic efforts must go hand in hand with U.S. diplomatic engagement. Because most greenhouse gas emissions originate beyond our borders, such engagement is more necessary and urgent than ever. The United States must be in a position to exercise vigorous climate leadership in order to achieve a significant increase in global climate action and put the world on a sustainable climate pathway. Leaving the Keystone XL pipeline permit in place would not be consistent with my Administration’s economic and climate imperatives.

X – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – – X

The documentation associated with the 2015 permit denial decision, which was delegated to the U. S. Secretary of State, includes a few important details as well:

The proposed project would facilitate transportation into our country of a particularly dirty source of fuel. The critical factor in my determination was this: moving forward with this project would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world in combatting climate change.

… it would facilitate the transportation to the United States of one of the dirtiest sources of fuel on the planet, the proposed project by itself is unlikely to significantly impact the level of crude extraction or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States.

The United States needs to prioritize the development of renewable energy opportunities and continue to transition to the kind of jobs that better utilize our skilled manufacturing base.

Decades of science prove beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity is a direct cause of the rising seas, increasing temperatures, and intensifying storms threatening our planet – and the window of opportunity for action to prevent the worst impacts of climate change is closing quickly. Today, the need for American leadership to combat climate change has never been greater, and we must answer the call.

The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves. Denying the Keystone XL pipeline is one of those tough choices – but it is the right decision, for America and the world.

X – – – – – – – – – – X – – – – – – – – – – X

So, in my view, the project was canceled to help reduce carbon emissions, which will help reduce future global warming and its adverse impacts. Is that what you thought?