Crypto miner seeks to export US electricity for Canadian servers

In what has been called "a maiden effort by an energy-hungry cryptocurrency-mining industry to import electricity from the United States to Canada to meet its significant power demands", a Canadian company has applied to the U.S. Department of Energy for authority to export power from the U.S. into Canada to power blockchain-related computer servers -- but a nonprofit advocacy group has warned that federal approval of this "first-ever application to export power by a cryptocurrency miner" may result in a rush of similar applications.

Under U.S. federal law, the Department of Energy regulates exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country, which require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act. On May 21, 2020, DMG Blockchain Solutions Inc. filed an application with the U.S. Department of Energy, seeking authority under the Federal Power Act to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada for a term of five years.

According to the website dmgblockchain.com, "DMG is a diversified cryptocurrency and blockchain platform company that is focused on the two primary opportunities in the sector – mining public blockchains and applying permissioned blockchain technology. DMG focuses on mining bitcoin, providing hosting services for industrial mining clients, earning revenues from block rewards and transaction fees, developing data analytics and forensic software products, working with auditors, law firms, and law enforcement to provide technical expertise, DMG’s permissioned blockchain technology is focused on developing enterprise software for the supply chain management of controlled products."

DMG's application to the Department of Energy describes the company as "a consumer of power, whose primary business is to host servers whose primary function is to ensure the security of public blockchains as well as other high-performance computing applications." DMG's application notes, "This business requires large amounts of power, which DMG is currently consuming approximately 15 megawatts on a steady load basis and has plans to grow to up to 60 megawatts in the next year with potentially larger amounts in the future as DMG may add new facilities." The application requests DOE export authorization over any of a long list of cross-border transmission facilities with Presidential Permits, in states including Maine, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, and Washington.

But at least one entity has weighed in to urge the Department of Energy to proceed with caution, as it considers this request to export electricity to power foreign blockchain servers and computers. A Motion to Intervene and Comment filed with the Department of Energy on June 25, 2020, by watchdog organization Public Citizen, Inc. frames that organization's concern:

Despite cryptocurrency mining’s status as a relatively immature industry, its alarming power consumption footprint raises concerns about its sustainability and suitability in localized power markets, resulting in moratoria on new cryptocurrency mining operations issued by select U.S. utility districts and government agencies.

Citing language in Section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act requiring applications to export electricity to neither “impair the sufficiency of electric supply within the United States” nor “impede the coordination in the public interest of facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission", Public Citizen commented:

Cryptocurrency mining is extraordinarily energy-intensive and can lead to major strains on local U.S. power supplies. At the same time, the process of mining is designed in a manner that wastes the overwhelming majority of the energy it consumes. U.S. cryptocurrency miners are struggling to meet their own power demands. This appears to be the first-ever application to export power by a cryptocurrency miner, and approval may result in a rush of similar applications.

Public Citizen's comments assert that this "maiden effort by an energy-hungry cryptocurrency-mining industry to import electricity from the United States to Canada to meet its significant power demands... raises serious, potentially fatal concerns under section 202(e)." Public Citizen concludes that the Department should proceed with extreme caution and "likely should deny the application or, if granting it, place conditions on it."

The pending export authorization proceeding before the U.S. Department of Energy is OE Docket No. EA-482, DMG Blockchain Solutions Inc. Application To Export Electric Energy.

PNGTS applies for Westbrook XPress Phase I pipeline project

An interstate natural gas pipeline system bringing gas from eastern Canada into Maine has asked U.S. regulators for approvals necessary for a project that would marginally increase the system's capacity to bring gas to Maine and the New England market.

At issue is Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS), a pipeline that spans New England from the Canadian border to pipeline connections in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Its facilities include 142 miles of wholly-owned mainline from an interconnection with Trans-Québec & Maritimes Pipeline Inc. at the U.S./Canada border to Westbrook, Maine plus two laterals, as well as 101 miles of mainline from Westbrook to Dracut, Massachusets, which PNGTS owns jointly with another interstate pipeline, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. PNGTS operates pursuant to a number of federal approvals, including a certificate issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a Presidential Permit authorizing its facilities for importing gas from (or exporting gas to) Canada.

On December 21, PNGTS applied to the Commission for authorization for Phase I its "Westbrook Xpress Project," which would increase the certificated capacity on the northern portion of its system from Pittsburg, New Hampshire, to Westbrook, Maine, by 42.482 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d), effective November 1, 2019. The pipeline's application includes both public materials and materials that are protected against public disclosure as "controlled unclassified information", including privileged information and "critical energy infrastructure information."

In the public materials, PNGTS describes continued increased demand for natural gas: "Growing demand for natural gas for space heating, industrial processes and electric generation is driving a commensurate demand for incremental pipeline deliverability from abundant North American supply basins." PNGTS says its Westbrook XPress project "will provide access to, and allow for the transportation of, natural gas supplies from key North American supply basins such as Marcellus, Utica, and others" via Canadian pipelines. The company describes its Westbrook Xpress project is "a solution to meet this growing demand in areas of North America that have some of the highest residential gas prices in the winter." It envisions two distinct phases of the project: Phase I with an incremental 42.482 million cubic feet per day of certificated capacity, with an anticipated Phase II to bring an incremental 62.989 million cubic feet per day of capacity.

The Commission has docketed PNGTS's application for Phase I of the Westbrook XPress project as Docket No. CP19-32, and has issued public notice of the opportunity to intervene or comment through 5:00 pm Eastern Time on January 29, 2019.

Cross-border infrastructure and presidential permits

A recent report casts doubt on whether proposed federal legislation would actually accelerate decisions on the siting of cross-border energy infrastructure.

Cross-border pipelines and electric transmission lines play an important role in the North American energy industry.  Under U.S. law, cross-border energy infrastructure projects require a presidential permit and a finding of consistency with the national interest.  Executive orders give the State Department jurisdiction over cross-border oil pipelines, the Department of Energy jurisdiction over electric transmission lines, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over natural gas pipelines. 

Recent projects like the Keystone XL pipeline have focused attention on the presidential permit process, as that project's presidential permit application has remained pending for years.  Some have raised questions about the scope of agency review and perceived differences in the approaches taken by the State Department, Energy Department, and FERC.

As a result, several members of Congress have proposed legislation designed to accelerate the permitting process.  These bills include:

• the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act (S. 1): passed in Congress but vetoed by President Obama
• the American Energy Renaissance Act of 2015 (S. 791 and H.R. 1487)
• the North American Energy Infrastructure Act (S. 1228)

These bills take various approaches, including limiting agency jurisdiction over cross-border energy infrastructure or the scope of agency review, or setting strict deadlines for agency action following completion of environmental review.

Could federal legislation like this speed up the process for reviewing proposed cross-border pipeline and electric transmission projects?  A recent report by the Congressional Research Service suggests that overall timelines for project review are driven by the scope of the environmental review process, not by delays following that environmental review or agency idiosyncrasies.

In particular, the report found that agency review is "driven largely by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)", which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts before acting.  Moreover, the report notes that the same NEPA requirements apply to all three:

Faced with Presidential Permit applications for energy projects of similar physical scope, the agencies appear to perform NEPA reviews of similar proportion. Very short, smaller projects are generally reviewed more narrowly and quickly, whereas multi-state projects of large capacity are subject to more expansive environmental review and tend to face much greater public scrutiny and comment—regardless of which agency has jurisdiction. 

The report also found that NEPA review is the key driver of overall permitting decision timelines:

As long as agencies apply NEPA to Presidential Permitting decisions, changes to the delineation of, or jurisdiction over, the border-crossing portion of large projects for permitting purposes may not change the scope of project environmental review. The imposition of decision deadlines on the permitting agencies after NEPA review is complete, either for national interest or public interest determination, could provide greater process certainty to stakeholders. However, the overall project review would still be contingent on the completion of NEPA review. Thus, the effects of legislative proposals to change cross-border infrastructure permitting on the review or approval of future border crossing energy infrastructure projects are open to debate. 

It's unclear how the Congressional Research Service report will affect pending legislation.  Likely more influential may be any final action by the State Department on the Keystone XL project's application for a presidential permit.  Nevertheless, interest in cross-border energy trade will likely continue to grow.

Transmission line for Canadian imports advances

A proposed high-voltage direct current transmission line designed to import Canadian power into the New England grid has received a favorable environmental recommendation from the U.S. Department of Energy. 

The New England Clean Power Link is a high-voltage, direct-current transmission project proposed by TDI New England, a subsidiary of private transmission developer Transmission Developers Inc. and ultimately part of the Blackstone Group.

Designed to feed the New England market with up to 1,000 megawatts of electricity, the proposed $1.2 billion New England Clean Power Link project would feature two parallel cables approximately 5” in diameter, operating at a voltage of approximately 300 to 320 kV.  These HVDC lines would run about 154 miles.  Originating at a DC converter station in Quebec, the U.S. portion of the line would start at the international border in Alburgh, Vermont.  It would run beneath the bottom sediments of Lake Champlain for about 98 miles, then turn east and run over land (but underground, mostly under roadway rights-of-way and railway beds) to a terminal converter station in Ludlow, Vermont, where the power could flow onto the New England grid.

Federal law requires most infrastructure development for international trade in energy to apply for and receive a Presidential Permit before the project may be built.  TDI New England applied for the presidential permit in May 2014, and applied to the state of Vermont for permits in December 2014.

As part of the Presidential Permit process, the federal National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA requires the U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate the potential environmental impacts in the United Statesof the proposed action and the range of reasonable alternatives.  In this case, the proposed federal action is the issuance of a Presidential permit to the applicant, Champlain VT, LLC, doing business as TDI - New England, to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a new electric transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in northern Vermont.

On June 3, the Department of Energy released its final draft Environmental Impact Statement or EIS for the New England Clean Power Link.  In that document, the Department found relatively minimal and short-term adverse environmental impacts from project construction, operation and maintenance. 

Once notice of the draft EIS is published in the Federal Register, the public will have 60 days to comment on its analysis.  The Department will also hold public informational meetings in Vermont regarding the project.  According to the EIS, TDI New England expects permitting will continue through mid-2016, with construction and in-service dates as early as 2018 and 2019 respectively.

Meanwhile, TDI is simultaneously pursuing other HVDC transmission lines from Canada into the Northeastern US, most notably the Champlain-Hudson Power Express -- another HVDC line beneath Lake Champlain but continuing on overland and under the Hudson River to a converter station in New York City.   The Champlain-Hudson Power Express won a Presidential Permit in 2014.

Developer applies to VT for Clean Power Link transmission line

A proposed electric transmission line from Quebec into New England took a step forward this week, as the developer of the New England Clean Power Link applied to Vermont regulators for key project approvals.

Transmission Developers Inc. subsidiary TDI New England has proposed the New England Clean Power Link to bring Canadian hydropower and other electricity to the renewable-hungry New England market.  With an estimated project cost of $1.2 billion, the 1000-megawatt high-voltage direct-current transmission line would run under Lake Champlain and underground to a converter station in Ludlow, Vermont, near where it would connect to the existing electric grid owned by Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO).

Under Vermont law, the state Public Service Board regulates many aspects of the electric grid.  Section 248 of Title 30 of Vermont's statutes requires companies to obtain approval from the Board before beginning site preparation or construction of electric transmission facilities, electric generation facilities and certain gas pipelines within Vermont.  For facilities like the proposed transmission line, that Board approval comes in the form of a Certificate of Public Good. 

On December 8, 2014, TDI subsidiary Champlain VT, LLC d/b/a TDI New England applied to the Board for a Certificate of Public Good for the project.  TDI's petition notes that the project "would contribute to meeting State and regional energy and sustainability goals and result in millions of tons/year in reduced greenhouse gas emissions by replacing electricity generated by fossil fuels," and that running cables under the lake and underground avoids adverse impacts from above-ground installations.  Other benefits touted by TDI include economic development (with about $1.5 billion in claimed economic benefits to Vermont and the entire region over the project's 40-year life), improved electric reliability and fuel diversity, and help in mitigating the impacts of the anticipated loss of the Vermont Yankee nuclear station and other major power plants.

TDI's proposal includes components specifically designed to yield local community benefits and thus to cultivate local support for the project.  These components include creating $122 million in funds to improve Lake Champlain's water quality, habitat, and recreational values, plus another $40 million for Vermont's Clean Energy Development Fund.

TDI's project now comes before the Vermont Public Service Board for review.  The project also needs a presidential permit issued by the U.S. Department of Energy to cross the international boundary, as well as a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for impacts to water resources.

At the same time, another transmission line has been proposed under Lake Champlain, namely the $2.2 billion Champlain Hudson Power Express meant to connect Quebec to New York City.

US Presidential Permits for cross-border infrastructure

As the U.S.'s international trade in energy grows, so too has interest in the process for securing a federally required approval known as a Presidential Permit.

A marker shows the route of a natural gas pipeline in Utah.

The construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure that crosses the U.S.'s border with Mexico or Canada -- think pipelines, transmission lines, and bridges -- generally requires prior authorization by the federal government in the form of a Presidential Permit.  How you obtain a Presidential Permit depends on the type of facilities in question, as permits may be issued by several federal agencies under different legal authorities.

Presidential permits for oil, petroleum products, and other liquids pipelines have been issued by the U.S. State Department since since the promulgation of Executive Order 11423 in 1968.  Executive Order 11423 provided that, except with respect to cross-border permits for electric energy facilities, natural gas facilities, and submarine facilities:

The Secretary of State is hereby designated and empowered to receive all applications for permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance, at the borders of the United States, of: (i) pipelines, conveyor belts, and similar facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, minerals, or other products to or from a foreign country; (ii) facilities for the exportation or importation of water or sewage to or from a foreign country; (iii) monorails, aerial cable cars, aerial tramways and similar facilities for the transportation of persons or things, or both, to or from a foreign country; and (iv) bridges, to the extent that congressional authorization is not required.

The State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources Office of Energy Diplomacy receives and processes permit applications for liquid product pipelines, including water and petroleum products.  The standard by which the Secretary of State reviews applications for presidential permits is prescribed by an executive order issued in 2004.  Executive Order 13337 directs the Secretary of State to authorize those border crossing facilities that the Secretary has determined would “serve the national interest."

By contrast, cross-border natural gas pipelines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, while electric transmission infrastructure is regulated by the Department of Energy.  Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act requires any person desiring to export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or to import any natural gas from a foreign country to the United States to obtain an order from the Federal Power Commission authorizing it to do so.   Section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act requires any person desiring to transmit any electric energy from the United States to a foreign country to obtain an order from the Federal Power Commission authorizing it to do so.

Executive Order 10485 designated the FERC's predecessor agency, the Federal Power Commission, to receive applications for natural gas and electricity facilities.  When the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 eliminated the Federal Power Commission, it shifted most of the FPC's responsibilities to the FERC, but Section 402(f) of that act specifically reserved import/export permitting functions for the Department of Energy.  For facilities governed by the Department of Energy, the Presidential Permit process is governed by Part 205 of the Department's rules.  In 2006, the Department delegated its authority to issue Presidential Permits for natural gas pipeline border crossings to FERC, via DOE Delegation Order No. 00-004.00A.

Infrastructure projects subject to the Presidential Permit process range widely in type, scope, and controversy, from the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the proposed Champlain Hudson Express high-voltage direct current electric transmission line.

Feds approve Quebec-to-NY power line

A proposed electric transmission line connecting Quebec to New York will receive a key federal approval, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.  The Energy Department's decision to issue a Presidential permit to Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. focuses attention on the nation's international trade in electricity, and may suggest increased reliance on power imports.

Pursuant to two Executive Orders -- EO 10485 (September 9, 1953), as amended by EO 12038 (February 7, 1978) -- no electricity transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. border without first obtaining a Presidential permit from the Department of Energy.  In 2010, Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. applied to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 1,000-megawatt (MW), high-voltage direct current (HVDC) merchant electric power transmission system across the U.S./Canada border.

As currently envisioned, the Champlain Hudson Power Express project would cross the U.S./Canada border near the town of Champlain in northeastern New York State.  From there, the line would extend southward about 336 miles to the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Rainey substation in Queens, New York.  Notably, the aquatic portions of the transmission line would primarily be buried in sediments of Lake Champlain and the Hudson, Harlem, and East rivers, while the terrestrial portions of the line would be buried within existing roadway and railroad rights-of-way.

The Department may issue or amend a permit if it determines that the permit is in the public interest and after obtaining favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense.  In making this determination, DOE considers factors including the proposed project's potential impacts on the environment and electricity reliability.

In the case of the Champlain Hudson Power Express, the Department of Energy's record of decision states that its decision to grant the Presidential permit was based on "consideration of the potential environmental impacts, impacts on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and the favorable recommendations of the U.S. Departments of State and Defense."  With the Presidential permit in hand, the project developer will be one step closer to success -- but additional steps remain, including both securing regulatory approvals and completing the commercial arrangements necessary for project development.

If the project is built, New York consumers may soon have increased access to electricity generated from Canadian hydropower and other resources across their northern border.  Will the U.S. soon import more power from Canada?  If so, how much, and at what cost?  How will market forces and regulatory agendas combine to affect Canadian exports of electricity to the U.S.?

Northern Pass transmission line faces public hearings

A proposed high-voltage transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border in northern New Hampshire faces a series of public hearings this month.  The Northern Pass transmission line would provide an additional tie between Hydro-Quebec's electric grid and the New England grid, and would expand U.S. imports of electricity from Canada.

The project is proposed by Northern Pass Transmission LLC, an entity jointly owned by NU Transmission Ventures, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northeast Utilities, a publicly held public utility holding company, and NSTAR Transmission Ventures, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of NSTAR, a publicly held public utility holding company.

The project includes a high-voltage direct current or HVDC transmission line capable of transmitting up to 1,200 megawatts of power from Canada to the U.S. or from the U.S. to Canada.  45 miles of line would connect the northern HVDC converter terminal in Québec to the U.S.-Canada border into New Hampshire.  The line would extend south from the international border approximately 140 miles to an HVDC converter terminal that would be constructed in the city of Franklin, NH. 

Federal law governs the import and export of electricity.  To construct, operate, maintain, or connect an electric transmission facility crossing the borders of the United States, Northern Pass must first obtain a Presidential permit issued by the U.S. Department of Energy.  Under the National Environmental Policy Act, this approval requires the Department of Energy to consider the environmental impacts of granting the permit.

Since its unveiling in 2011, the Northern Pass project has provoked controversy.  The public has voiced concerns over the environmental and economic impacts of large-scale Canadian hydropower, the risk of private property being seized by the developer through eminent domain, and a route through New Hampshire's White Mountain National Forest and nearby mountains and woodlands.  In response, Northern Pass retooled its route, triggering a need to revise the project's environmental impact statement.  As part of that process, the Department of Energy has scheduled four additional scoping meetings in New Hampshire:

• Concord, NH, Grappone Conference Center, 70 Constitution Avenue, Monday, September 23, 2013, 6-9 p.m.;
• Plymouth, NH, Plymouth State University, Silver Center for the Arts, Hanaway Theater, 17 High Street, Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 5-8 p.m.;
• Whitefield, NH, Mountain View Grand Resort; Spa, Presidential Room, 101 Mountain View Road, Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 5-8 p.m.; and
• West Stewartstown, NH, The Outback Pub at The Spa Restaurant, 869 Washington Street, Thursday, September 26, 2013, 5-8 p.m.

Thousands of stakeholders attended the first round of scoping meetings in 2011, overwhelmingly expressing concerns about the project and its route.  While Northern Pass has made some efforts to address and accommodate these concerns, many - like New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan - continue to express concerns about the project's potential impacts on the White Mountain National Forest, as well as on New Hampshire's economy, environment, natural resources, communities and people.  This month's events may draw similar attendance to those in 2011 - the New Hampshire Congressional delegation has asked the U.S. Department of Energy to move the West Stewartstown meeting to Colebrook to accomodate more seating.  Public testimony at this month's scoping sessions will shape the Department of Energy's environmental review process, and may affect whether and how the line is eventually developed.

Keystone XL pipeline supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline took a step forward this month, as the U.S. State Department released its evaluation of the project's potential environmental impacts.  The draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released on March 1, 2013 documents the State Department's analysis of the pipeline's impacts to environmental resources based on the currently proposed route.  The EIS is still preliminary, and is now subject to public comment.  Moreover, even a final EIS would not reach any conclusion as to whether the pipeline serves the national public interest, and the project would still need a presidential permit to ship oil across the US-Canadian border.  Nevertheless the draft EIS does suggest that any environmental impacts from the pipeline would be relatively minor.

The Keystone XL project is a proposed extension of an existing crude oil pipeline.  The $7 billion project would run from the Canadian province of Alberta to Texas, delivering Canadian crude to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.  The oil shipped on the pipeline would likely include so-called synthetic crude derived from Canada's oil sands or "tar sands" resources.

The draft EIS (available from the State Department's website) makes a series of findings about the project's potential environmental impacts, ranging from direct impacts along the pipeline's route to indirect impacts like further development of the Alberta oil sands.  As the State Department found in its earlier environmental review, the supplemental EIS found that the pipeline would not have significant impacts to any resources along the proposed project route.

Notably, the draft EIS found that Keystone XL would not be likely to substantially increase the rate of development of the oil sands, nor would it likely increase the volume of crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast.  For example, the draft found that denial of the pipeline's presidential permit would not mean a reduction in oil production in Western Canada or from the Bakken formation; rather, oil producers would resort to other transportation modes such as pipelines to British Columbia or even rail shipment of crude.  For similar reasons, the draft EIS found that the Keystone XL pipeline would not substantively change global greenhouse gas emissions.

Next steps for the Keystone XL project include a 45-day public comment period, after which the State Department will issue a final EIS.  Later this year, the State Department is expected to issue a so-called national interest determination, considering factors including foreign policy, economics, environmental concerns, and national security. This determination will involve consultation with other agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency.  The final decision whether to allow the pipeline falls to President Obama.

Presidential permits for cross-border energy facilities

Presidential permits for the import and export of energy resources across the United States' borders are critical to the development of cross-border energy facilities.

Millions of dollars of energy resources flow across the United States' borders every day.  Trade in energy resources with Canada and Mexico accounts for the bulk of these transactions.  Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the United States, providing about 20% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas imports according to the U.S. State Department.  Canada and the United States share an integrated electricity grid and provide all of each other's electricity imports.  Today and tomorrow, members and guests of the New England - Canada Business Council are meeting in Boston to discuss this close relationship.

Facilities spanning the border -- whether pipelines for oil or natural gas or transmission lines for electricity -- can only be built and operated once a federal approval called a "presidential permit" has been obtained.  Since a 1968 Executive Order, presidential permits have been issued by the State Department.  Presidential permits cover not only the facilities themselves, but also the commodities (oil, gas, electricity) transmitted over those facilities.

For example, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas will require a presidential permit.  In today's news, President Obama is reported as saying that he will be the one to make the final decision on whether TransCanada will obtain its permit.