View the Original .pdfThe 1-Minute Brief
What: A Presidential Permit was issued authorizing South Bow (USA) LP to operate and maintain an existing 30-inch pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canada border in Cavalier County, North Dakota. [Preamble] This action allows the transport of various hydrocarbons and petroleum products, such as crude oil and gasoline, but excludes natural gas. [Preamble] This new permit supersedes and revokes a previous one from 2020. [Preamble]
Money: The permit does not allocate any new federal spending. It places all financial responsibility on the permittee, South Bow (USA) LP, including the costs of acquiring land, indemnifying the U.S. government from any liability, and removing the pipeline facilities if the permit is terminated. [Article 3, Article 6]
Your Impact: For the average American, the direct impact is minimal. The permit ensures the continued operation of an existing pipeline, which contributes to the overall stability of the U.S. energy supply. This could indirectly affect fuel prices by ensuring a steady flow of crude oil and other petroleum products from Canada.
Status: This Presidential Permit was signed by the President on June 30, 2025, and is considered final. [IN WITNESS WHEREOF]
What's Actually in the Permit
This Presidential Permit grants South Bow (USA) LP, a subsidiary of a Canadian public company, the authority to operate and maintain the U.S. portion of an existing cross-border pipeline. [Preamble] The permit specifies the location, type of products allowed, and the conditions under which the company must operate. It revokes a permit issued for the same pipeline in 2020 and replaces it with this new authorization, which was sought by the company in an application on November 6, 2024. [Preamble]
Core Provisions:
- Authorization: Officially permits the operation and maintenance of a 30-inch diameter pipeline at the international border in Cavalier County, North Dakota. [Border facilities]
- Approved Products: Allows for the transport of all hydrocarbons and petroleum products, including crude oil, gasoline, and jet fuel, but specifically excludes natural gas regulated under the Natural Gas Act. [Preamble]
- Operational Flexibility: The permittee can change the daily throughput capacity and the directional flow of products without needing to amend the permit. [Article 1]
- Federal Oversight: The pipeline's operation is subject to inspection by federal, state, and local agencies and must comply with all applicable laws, including safety regulations from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. [Article 2]
- National Security Clause: The U.S. government reserves the right to take possession of the facilities if deemed necessary for national security, with the promise of providing "just and fair compensation" to the permittee. [Article 4]
- Liability: The permittee must hold harmless and indemnify the United States from any and all liability, including from environmental contamination. [Article 6]
Stated Purpose (from the Document):
The permit is explicitly granted to allow South Bow (USA) LP to operate and maintain its existing pipeline facilities at the border for the purpose of transporting hydrocarbons and petroleum products between the United States and Canada. [Preamble]
Key Facts:
Affected Sectors: Energy, Transportation, International Trade.
Timeline: The permit was signed on June 30, 2025, and is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on July 3, 2025. [IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FR Doc.]
Scope: The permit applies to the specific U.S. portion of the pipeline from the Canadian border to the first mainline shut-off valve in Cavalier County, North Dakota. [Border facilities]
The Backstory: How We Got Here
Timeline of Events:
Precursor and Application (2020-2024):
- July 29, 2020: A Presidential permit was initially issued, authorizing the pipeline's operation under a previous ownership or corporate structure. [Preamble]
- November 6, 2024: The current permittee, South Bow (USA) LP, submitted an application to amend its existing permit, leading to the current action. [Preamble] This followed a corporate restructuring where TC Energy spun off its liquids pipeline business to create South Bow Corporation.
Why Now? The Political Calculus:
- Corporate Restructuring: The primary driver for this new permit was the corporate change that created South Bow Corporation. The application was a necessary step to ensure the legal authority to operate the pipeline was held by the correct corporate entity.
- Energy Security: With ongoing global uncertainties, ensuring the stable flow of energy from a close ally like Canada is a key priority for any administration. Approving the permit for an existing pipeline is a low-controversy way to support this goal.
- Regulatory Process: The issuance of the permit is the culmination of a standard regulatory process following the company's 2024 application. It is less a new political decision and more the affirmation of an existing energy infrastructure relationship.
Your Real-World Impact
The Direct Answer: This action primarily affects the energy industry and has an indirect, though tangible, impact on consumers through the energy market.
What Could Change for You:
Potential Benefits:
- Stable Fuel Supply: Continued and potentially enhanced flow of Canadian crude oil and petroleum products helps ensure a reliable energy supply for U.S. refineries and consumers, which can help stabilize prices at the pump.
- Economic Activity: The pipeline's operation supports jobs in the energy sector, both in its direct operation and in related industries that process and distribute the transported products.
Possible Disruptions or Costs:
Short-term (1-2 years):
- There are no new direct costs or disruptions for the general public from this permit. The primary risks, such as those from potential leaks or spills, are localized to the pipeline's immediate vicinity and are the financial responsibility of the permittee. [Article 6]
Long-term:
- The continued operation of fossil fuel infrastructure runs counter to some long-term climate goals. The permit reinforces the country's reliance on hydrocarbons, which may have long-term environmental and economic consequences.
Who's Most Affected:
Primary Groups: South Bow Corporation, its employees, and industrial customers who rely on the pipeline for transporting products. Residents in Cavalier County, North Dakota, live with the direct presence of the infrastructure.
Secondary Groups: U.S. oil refineries, particularly in the Midwest, that process Canadian crude. American consumers are indirectly affected by the pipeline's contribution to the overall energy supply.
Regional Impact: The Upper Midwest region is the most direct beneficiary of the energy products transported through this and similar pipelines.
Bottom Line: This permit ensures an existing piece of the North American energy puzzle continues to function, which helps keep the lights on and fuel available, but it does not alter the nation's fundamental energy trajectory.
Where the Parties Stand
This is a Presidential Permit, an executive action, and not a bill debated in Congress. The party positions reflect their general philosophies on this type of project.
Republican Position: "Promoting Energy Independence"
Core Stance: Generally supports executive actions that facilitate the construction and operation of energy infrastructure, particularly pipelines for oil and gas.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ They would praise the action for strengthening U.S. energy security by ensuring a reliable supply from a friendly neighbor.
- ✓ It is seen as a positive step for the economy, supporting jobs and providing essential resources for American industry.
- ⚠️ They may express concern that the broader regulatory environment remains too burdensome for new energy projects.
Legislative Strategy: Not applicable for an executive permit, but their general strategy is to advocate for streamlined permitting processes for all energy infrastructure.
Democratic Position: "Balancing Energy Needs and Climate Goals"
Core Stance: The party holds a more diverse view, with some prioritizing the economic and security benefits while others focus on climate and environmental impacts.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ Many Democrats would support maintaining existing infrastructure to ensure stable energy prices for consumers and to support union jobs in the sector.
- ⚠️ The progressive wing of the party would express concern over any action that prolongs fossil fuel reliance, arguing it works against climate change goals.
- ✗ Environmental justice advocates would oppose the principle of such projects, citing local environmental risks and the global climate impact.
Legislative Strategy: Not applicable here, but their broader strategy involves negotiating for stronger environmental reviews and community benefit agreements in energy projects while heavily promoting investment in renewable energy.
Constitutional Check
The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional
Basis of Authority:
The President's authority to issue permits for cross-border pipelines is rooted in their constitutional power to conduct foreign policy and manage foreign commerce.
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties...[and] he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors..."
Constitutional Implications:
[Executive Authority]: Courts have long recognized the President's inherent authority over foreign affairs, which has been interpreted to include the permitting of infrastructure that crosses the nation's borders.
[Precedent]: This action follows a long line of precedents where Presidents from both parties have issued permits for cross-border pipelines, cables, and bridges.
[Federalism]: The permit is limited to the international border crossing. It explicitly states that the permittee must still acquire all necessary permits from state and local government entities, respecting the principles of federalism. [Article 2]
Potential Legal Challenges:
While the President's authority to issue the permit is well-established, legal challenges could still arise from third parties. Environmental groups could sue federal agencies over compliance with other laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Endangered Species Act, arguing that the environmental impact assessments related to the pipeline's operation are insufficient. The permit attempts to shield the U.S. government by making the permittee liable for any environmental contamination. [Article 6]
Your Action Options
Since this permit has already been signed, advocacy would focus on the administration's overall policy on energy infrastructure.
TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY
5-Minute Actions:
- Contact the White House: You can use the White House contact form to express support for policies that ensure a stable energy supply. "I am writing to support the President's decision on the South Bow pipeline permit and encourage similar actions to strengthen our energy partnership with Canada."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Join an Organization: Consider joining or donating to industry associations or advocacy groups that support robust energy infrastructure.
TO OPPOSE THIS POLICY
5-Minute Actions:
- Contact the White House: Use the White House contact form to express opposition to the expansion or continuation of fossil fuel projects. "I am writing to express my disappointment in the decision to issue a permit for the South Bow pipeline. I urge the administration to cease permitting new fossil fuel infrastructure and accelerate the transition to clean energy."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Join an Organization: Join or donate to national or local environmental organizations that advocate for clean energy and challenge fossil fuel projects in court and through public campaigns.