Delegation Urges President-elect Biden not to Cancel Keystone XL Pipeline

Delegation Urges President-elect Biden not to Cancel Keystone XL Pipeline

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) today urged President-elect Biden not to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline and the regional economic investment it will drive to South Dakota.

“As you begin your term, we know you will face many calls to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, which for too many has become a symbol of America’s energy past,” the delegation wrote. “We implore you to recognize the potential for this modern infrastructure project to serve as a model for how America can rebuild and update our energy sector. We hope you will take this opportunity to set the tone for your term by defending American jobs and infrastructure.”

Full text of the letter below:

Dear President-elect Biden:

We write to you in the spirit of collaboration you espoused in your election campaign.  While we will undoubtedly have policy disagreements, we hope to work constructively toward mutually shared goals, including economic growth and energy security.  It is for this reason that we write to urge you reconsider your reported plans to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline of today is not the same project first reviewed by the Obama administration.  In fact, pipeline operator TC Energy has, like much of America’s energy sector, adapted to address the associated environmental, social, and governmental (ESG) considerations of the project.  We believe these significant changes in the project merit due consideration by your administration and should not be dismissed out of hand.  Rather, the updated proposal for the Keystone XL pipeline should be upheld as an example of how American industry, especially in the context of revitalizing critical infrastructure, may approach ESG efforts to build a more reliable and resilient energy future.

Specifically, TC Energy has committed to operate Keystone XL with net-zero emissions, pledging to invest $1.7 billion to produce 1.6 gigawatts of renewable energy.  This would rank TC Energy among the highest corporate backers of renewable energy purchases, directly supporting your agenda to bolster green energy investments in the U.S.  We should encourage such private investment, which is driven by the market, not mandate, and will otherwise reserve federal funds for other necessary investments.

Additionally, the Keystone XL pipeline will support approximately 10,000 jobs over the course of its construction.  Approximately 2,000 workers are already on the job.  As America works to rebuild its economy after nearly one year of battling the COVID-19 pandemic, we can ill-afford to cancel such stable employment, nor overlook the $2.2 billion in wages it will provide.  Notably, the project would be constructed with U.S. steel and support over $3 billion in contracts with suppliers and contractors through 2021, underscoring the broader economic benefit of its construction.

The completion of the Keystone XL pipeline would also yield a significant economic impact in South Dakota, especially through a portion of the $100 million in property taxes the project will generate annually.  These revenues will be reinvested in our schools, rural communities, and local infrastructure.

Lastly, the Keystone XL pipeline fits into a broader discussion about how we can modernize our energy sector.  As you know, we cannot transition away from oil and gasoline overnight, regardless of the ambitions of some to do so.  Thus, it is incumbent on policy makers to engage in a realistic discussions about energy security and how to seize opportunities to cut emissions in a sensible way.  The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline is such an opportunity, as modern pipelines are inherently cleaner—and safer—with the added benefit of deepening our economic ties to Canada.  As you know, Prime Minister Trudeau supports the pipeline, including it in Canada’s clean energy roadmap.  While America has made great strides toward energy independence, we should be hesitant to dismiss opportunities to strengthen bilateral opportunities with our close trading partner and ally.  It bears noting that emissions from Canadian oil production have been cut by approximately one third in the last two decades, again reflecting that Keystone XL and the energy sector at-large have changed significantly since this project was first contemplated.

As you begin your term, we know you will face many calls to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, which for too many has become a symbol of America’s energy past.  We implore you to recognize the potential for this modern infrastructure project to serve as a model for how America can rebuild and update our energy sector.  We hope you will take this opportunity to set the tone for your term by defending American jobs and infrastructure.

Sincerely,

###

23 thoughts on “Delegation Urges President-elect Biden not to Cancel Keystone XL Pipeline”

  1. Perhaps South Dakota’s delegation should have been more aggressive at pursuing an investigation on the alleged election fraud. This is just tip of the ice berg that is coming our way the next four years.

    1. I fear you’re correct: Biden-Harris may neglect this plea. Reality: unless the US abandons hydrocarbons, the pipeline is vital. Alternatives? Truck or train. Statistically, both are worse. Follow the science: per gallon/ mile transmitted, pipelines are greener than 18 wheelers and safer than diesel locomotives. Now, if you believe we can set aside fossil fuels by 2022, then sure: No pipeline. No gas stations. No traffic. No pollution. The best of all possible worlds! But if you believe our national transition from hydrocarbons will entail 15+ years, then a pipeline is our most eco-friendly option.

  2. Just another example of SD leadership not listening to their constituents! Why would we promote another country building a pipeline through our heartland with no benefit to the land owners? We were not consulted prior to Canada having eminent domain on our property, we were told that it was going to happen. The local counties are building approaches and roads for Trans Canada but have limited funds to maintain the roads we have. We have nothing in place to assure us that out roads will be maintained while Trans Canada carries tons of equipment and materials over them. Meanwhile we ignore that fossil fuels are becoming a thing of the past! Maybe Mike Rounds has an EB5 deal with Canada!

    1. Anonymous at 9:57: if the oil is not transported by pipeline it will be transported by rail. Not roads.
      The oil companies can afford to pay more than agricultural producers to move their products.
      It’s simple math: if rail lines are carrying oil they put economic pressure on other users trying to move things like grain, ethanol, corn syrup etc.
      Keeping transportation costs low for agricultural products is important to South Dakotans.

      Pipelines aren’t about whether or not fossil fuels will be used. They are going to be used. The pipelines are about the transportation of fossil fuels.

      1. Several good points made. If we’ll need oil for the next decade, then we’ll need to refine it. Ergo, we need to move it from the extraction site to the refinery, (or construct more refineries). To move crude oil, we can use trucks, trains, pipelines, or ships. Each involves economic and ecologic costs. Here — assuming lifespan > 15 years — a pipeline is the best option. Rail is second best. I’m excited about safer, greeener trucks and trains but (1) that tech will take years to implement at scale & (2) we have other cargoes to move (grain, ethanol, etc.).

    2. I’m a constituent and I support it; maybe they just aren’t listening to you and you’re sore about it.

  3. I’m afraid that message will fall on deaf ears. The Harris/Obiden administration has made it clear they don’t care about middle class Americans.

  4. Their are just acting on orders from their donors. They only know how to fight for the people who enrich them. Gross

  5. Gee, maybe Thune, Rounds and Johnson should have supported Trump more in his campaign, or even a little bit. Now they give lip service to us by showing concern about the pipeline. Hypocrites!

  6. I should have included George Bush, McCain and some other Republicans who publicly endorsed Biden and threw away their supposed Republican ideals to do so. Evidently they are all inhabitants of the Washington swamp.

  7. Thune and Rounds——————–ya don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, and you can’t convince President Harris to do good for the USA.

      1. God didn’t make the comment, anonymous 10:07 did.

        I’m taking it you think Kommielaw Harris wants to see America prosper; if you do, you are wrong.

    1. Cliff, that’s right. Because Buffet owns the trains.
      The pipeline isn’t about whether or not we should use petroleum products, it’s about who is going to make money transporting them.

  8. With one stroke of the pen, Biden will torque off the Canadians, about 24,000 people who will lose their jobs, several unions, refiners and the people who will watch their price of gas increase. Genius!

  9. Oil will be shipped west now instead of South. Canada will add value to is crude through China instead of the USA. The oil will continue to flow, just in a different direction. China is busy locking up resources, (steel, energy & food).

  10. This letter is supposed to impress us? Our congressional delegation stood by and watched our national electoral system begin to decline into 3rd-world status and did nothing but utter sanctimonious platitudes. Now they think they deserve plaudits for lobbing spitballs from the sidelines.

  11. And what did pseudo-president buyden do……..he cancelled the permits and gave the finger to the SD delegation. By remaining silent over the last two months this is what you three have essentially approved.

Comments are closed.