    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    STRENGTHENING AMERICAN ENERGY: A REVIEW
                          OF PIPELINE SAFETY POLICY
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 22, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-34

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                  __________

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-637 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida, Vice          PAUL TONKO, New York
        Chairman                         YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  RAUL RUIZ, California
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
                             Subcommittee on Energy

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas, Vice     KATHY CASTOR, Florida
        Chairman                           Ranking Member
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 KEVIN MULLIN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 PAUL TONKO, New York
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas                  officio)
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Florida, opening statement.....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    16

                                   Witnesses

    Andrew J. Black, President and Chief Executive Officer, Liquid
      Energy Pipeline Association....................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   124
    Sarah C. Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer, GPA
      Midstream Association..........................................    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Bill Caram, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety Trust............    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   126
    Jim Moriarty, Executive Vice President, General Counsel,
      Corporate Secretary, and Chief Policy and Risk Officer,
      Chesapeake Utilities Corporation...............................    47
        Prepared statement...........................................    49
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   129

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   103
    Letter from Erin Kurilla, Vice President of Advocacy and
      Operations, American Public Gas Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et
      al.............................................................   104
    Letter of July 22, 2025, from Robin Rorick, Vice President,
      Midstream, American Petroleum Institute, to Mr. Guthrie, et al.   108
    Complaint of April 22, 2025, United States v. Panhandle Eastern
      Pipe Line Company, L.P., District Court for the Northern
      District of Texas, Dallas Division.............................   115

       STRENGTHENING AMERICAN ENERGY: A REVIEW OF PIPELINE SAFETY POLICY

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m. in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Latta
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Latta, Weber, Palmer,
    Allen, Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, Fry, Lee,
    Rulli, Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio), Castor
    (subcommittee ranking member), Peters, Menendez, Mullin,
    McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, Fletcher,
    Ocasio-Cortez, Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Clara
    Cargile, Professional Staff Member; Andrew Furman, Professional
    Staff Member; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
    Calvin Huggins, Clerk, Energy; Megan Jackson, Staff Director;
    Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Chief
    Counsel; Ben Mullaney, Press Secretary; Chris Sarley, Member
    Services/Stakeholder Director; Peter Spencer, Senior
    Professional Staff Member, Energy; Matt VanHyfte,
    Communications Director; Jane Vickers, Press Assistant; Perry
    Hamilton, Minority Member Services and Outreach Manager;
    La'Zale Johnson, Minority Intern; Kristopher Pittard, Minority
    Professional Staff Member; Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew
    Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach, and
    Member Services; and Tuley Wright, Minority Staff Director,
    Energy.
        Mr. Latta. The Chair calls the Subcommittee on Energy to
    order, and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        And welcome to today's hearing, ``Strengthening American
    Energy: A Review of Pipeline Safety Policy.'' And I want to
    thank our witnesses for participating today.
        We will examine the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
    Administration's--PHMSA--pipeline safety program. PHMSA is a
    Department of Transportation agency tasked with developing and
    enforcing Federal safety regulations for the Nation's onshore
    pipeline infrastructure and the transportation of hazardous
    materials. The witnesses before us represent different segments
    of PHMSA's regulated community and can provide important
    perspectives on the reauthorization of PHMSA.
        Pipelines are the safest and most efficient mode of
    transportation for oil, natural gas, liquid energy products,
    and hazardous materials, and they play an instrumental role in
    delivering the products that drive our Nation's economy
    forward. The agency has about 3.3 million miles of pipelines
    under its purview. In order to ensure these pipelines are
    operated in a safe and reliable manner, PHMSA partners and
    coordinates with States to administer pipeline safety programs
    and inspect infrastructure within a State's boundaries.
        PHMSA was last authorized in Protecting Our Infrastructure,
    Pipelines, and Enhancing Safety Act, the PIPES Act of 2020,
    through fiscal year 2023. It is my belief that we can work in a
    bipartisan fashion in this Congress with our House and Senate
    colleagues to reauthorize PHMSA to continue carrying out its
    mission and associated duties. This subcommittee has a
    responsibility to ensure PHMSA maintains a strong focus on
    safety and operates within its statutory authorities.
        The PIPES Act of 2020 included several statutorily mandated
    rulemakings that never fully got out of the gate under the
    previous administration. Today the subcommittee will examine
    implementation of the PIPES Act to ensure that PHMSA is on
    track to carry out congressional intent in a cost effective and
    workable manner.
        Additionally, the subcommittee will examine new challenges
    and opportunities for pipeline safety. For example, the
    replacement of aging infrastructure must be a top priority for
    PHMSA, States, and pipeline operators, but it presents costs
    and operational challenges. Especially as energy demand is
    projected to increase significantly in the immediate future,
    the upgrading of our natural gas network must be prioritized to
    ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other
    important energy sources and products.
        While substantial progress has been made in replacing aging
    pipes, there's still work to be done. I look forward to the--
    hearing from our witnesses on how PHMSA can help address the
    remaining 1 percent of the iron distribution pipes.
        American innovations and net--new technologies like
    artificial intelligence technology also present opportunities
    to bolster the quality of risk assessments and advance safety
    towards our collective goal of zero incidents. However, these
    technologies will also pose challenges to information and
    operational security. It is important that PHMSA
    reauthorization gives the agencies the tools needed to have an
    effective approach for the opportunities and challenges ahead.
        In his confirmation hearing last week, Paul Roberti,
    President Trump's nominee for PHMSA Administrator, committed to
    pursuing opportunities to utilize new, cost-effective
    technology to enhance safety. The subcommittee hopes to
    collaborate with PHMSA and pipeline operators in this endeavor.
        As we look at the reauthorization that must prioritize the
    improvements of the agency's core responsibility, which is
    safety. I am concerned that the previous administration
    advanced extraneous priorities and set safety onto the side.
    However, President Trump's administration has recommitted to
    this critical mission, and I believe this committee can produce
    a reauthorization that maintains safety as a cornerstone of
    pipeline safety--of the pipeline safety program.
        Pipelines are imperative to public safety and the energy
    security of our Nation. I look forward to hearing from the
    pipeline operators today as we build on American energy
    leadership.
        And I want to thank again our witnesses for being here
    today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. And I yield back and at this time recognize the
    gentlelady who--the--from the 14th District of Florida, who is
    the vice--or, I am sorry, the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
    morning, everyone.
        Today's hearing is an important reminder of the role of
    this committee, of ensuring the safety of the public and our
    energy infrastructure.
        Congress created the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    Safety Administration in 2004, and we charged it with ensuring
    the safety of nearly 3.3 million miles of pipelines across the
    country.
        Now, pipelines can be dangerous. There are many hundreds of
    pipeline safety incidents every year, many that result in death
    and injury. That is why PHMSA's work in setting safety
    standards and inspecting interstate pipelines is critical. For
    years, Democrats have been focused on ensuring that PHMSA has
    adequate resources and a strong professional workforce.
        After a number of deadly accidents and the growing
    magnitude of aged, leaky, and unsafe pipelines, Congress passed
    the PIPES Act of 2020 to improve the safety of gas gathering
    lines and pipelines while also addressing wasteful and
    dangerous methane gas leakages. Congress followed on in 2021 in
    the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and allocated $1
    billion over 5 years for natural gas distribution,
    infrastructure safety, and modernization grants to help replace
    leak-prone pipelines.
        I noticed in your opening, Mr. Chairman, you said the Trump
    administration is very committed to safety. Oh, no. To the
    contrary, the Trump administration has halted those safety and
    modernization grants earlier this year. But multiple lawsuits
    were filed by States, nonprofits, and local communities
    challenging the freeze. And on April 17 a Federal judge ordered
    the Trump administration to reinstate funding, ruling that the
    freeze was arbitrary and capricious, and violated the law. The
    Department of Energy and EPA were required to resume
    disbursement of already awarded safety grant funds.
        The Trump administration also is failing to follow through
    on other pipeline safety initiatives, even though the Congress
    has been clear that we expect PHMSA to conduct robust reviews
    of pipeline maintenance and operation plans. When Congress
    reauthorized PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety in the
    bipartisan PIPES Act, we required PHMSA to consider protection
    of the environment when reviewing proposed safety rules,
    including methane pollution leak detection. The former
    administration completed a final leak detection rule, but
    President Trump arbitrarily demanded that PHMSA withdraw it.
        That is not smart. Climate risk, cost, and harms are
    growing in severity, and PHMSA's work is only becoming more
    important. Climate-fueled extreme weather events can cause
    pipeline leaks and explosions, especially in high-risk States
    like Texas and Louisiana.
        We must ensure that all impacts are considered in siting,
    design, repair, and maintenance of oil and gas infrastructure,
    including pipelines. Unfortunately, rather than follow the law
    mandated by Congress, the Trump administration's PHMSA is
    taking a laissez faire approach to pipeline safety, and this is
    dangerous and costly.
        To add insult to injury, the Trump administration has
    gutted PHMSA over the past 7 months. Enforcement actions by the
    agency are at record lows, just 5 cases in the first 3 months
    of this year, compared to 66 cases during the same time period
    in 2017. And get this: More than half of the agency's senior
    leadership has left.
        We are seeing this kind of sabotage over and over again
    from the Trump administration, and it is really putting
    Americans at risk. For example, my neighbors back home in
    Florida are less safe this hurricane season because of cuts at
    the National Weather Service. They have ended vital satellite
    forecasting initiatives and have left offices understaffed.
        At FERC, the President has asked the existing Chair, who he
    appointed the first time around, to resign early and then
    nominated a new chair who doesn't have any energy background.
    These actions jeopardize FERC independence and make our energy
    systems less safe.
        At the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, President Trump has
    fired a safety commissioner and pushed Executive orders that
    threaten NRC independence. And just last week, Trump fired
    nearly every member of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review
    Board. So at every opportunity that--Trump is cutting corners
    with safety, and undermining energy independent--agency
    independence.
        And folks, this is not normal, and I urge my Republican
    colleagues on this committee to stand up to this reckless
    gutting of independent agency experts and abdication of the
    laws that keep us safe. Americans want safe and affordable
    energy, but we know we are going to be grappling with the
    higher costs of the Big, Ugly Bill. I hope we can talk a little
    bit about that today.
        Mr. Chairman, hope springs eternal. Nevertheless, this
    could be the start of a good bipartisan dialog to reauthorize
    pipeline safety and address some of the issues in this
    committee.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Castor. So thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired,
    and the Chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee,
    the gentleman from Kentucky's 2nd District, for 5 minutes for
    an opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chairman Latta, and thank you to
    our witnesses for being here today. We appreciate it.
        Pipelines are critical to the safe transportation and
    distribution of oil, natural gas, and other energy products,
    along with hazardous liquid products. As demand for energy is
    projected to skyrocket over the next decade, we must ensure our
    Nation's pipeline safety laws are ready to meet the moment.
        The Energy and Commerce Committee plans an important--plays
    an important role in the reauthorizing of Pipeline and
    Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's, PHMSA, pipeline
    safety program. Under the new leadership of Chair Latta and
    myself, I hope we can work in a bipartisan manner. As my friend
    from Florida said, we will work to do that in this effort.
        PHMSA oversees the U.S. energy pipeline network of over 3.3
    million miles of onshore pipelines. To accomplish this task,
    PHMSA partners with States to ensure the entire network is
    safely operated and maintained. According to a 2019 PHMSA
    report, pipelines delivered 180 million gallons of energy per
    safety incident, while trucks delivered only 55 million gallons
    of safety incident, and trains only--trucks 55, States--trains
    only 50.
        Over the last 20 years, serious pipeline incidents have
    been reduced by approximately 34 percent. To continue this
    downward trend, PHMSA must operate within its statutory
    authority and maintain its focus on public safety.
    Unfortunately, under the previous administration PHMSA strayed
    from this core responsibility, focusing more on environmental
    agendas than safety. The current PHMSA has a busy docket,
    promulgating and finalizing statutory-mandated regulations,
    updating regulations that are decades old, and refocusing the
    agency on its essential mission.
        Today's hearing will provide an important foundation the
    committee--as the committee examines the status of outstanding
    rulemaking from the PIPES Act of 2020, ways to close penalty
    loopholes for pipeline vandalism, opportunities to streamline
    processes, and the role emerging technologies can play in
    mitigating risk and increasing efficiencies across the pipeline
    system.
        I believe a major consideration for the future of pipeline
    safety is ensuring adequate capacity is available. As operators
    work to replace aging infrastructure, we must have capacity
    available to take pipelines temporarily offline for upgrades
    and repairs while still meeting the needs of American
    consumers.
        Pipelines are essential to the energy security of our
    country. I look forward to working with Chair Latta and Ranking
    Members Pallone and Castor to strengthen our Nation's pipeline
    network.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Guthrie. And thank you, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And seeing
    if the ranking member of the full committee is here--OK.
        Well, at this time what we will do, we will informally pass
    on the ranker's opening statement and go right to our witnesses
    today. But this concludes the Member opening statements, and
    the Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to the committee
    rules, all Members' opening statements will be made part of the
    record.
        We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
    and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Each
    witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement,
    followed by a round of questions from the Members.
        Our witnesses for today are Mr. Andrew Black, the president
    and CEO at the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association; Ms. Sarah
    Miller, president and CEO at GPA Midstream; Mr. Bill Caram, the
    executive director of Pipeline Safety Trust; and Mr. Jim
    Moriarty, the executive vice president and general counsel at
    the Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.
        And again, as I mentioned, the Chair appreciates all of our
    witnesses appearing before us today, and you will each be given
    5 minutes for an opening statement.
        And just a quick update on our mics here, that you have to
    pull them up close so they can hear you. Press the button, and
    hopefully you will see a little light come on. Sometimes it is
    kind of difficult to see.
        Oh, and you know what? Before we do, since we formerly
    passed on the ranker, we will hear from the ranker first and
    then go right to the witnesses. So the gentleman from New
    Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I came right up from
    the other hearing, but I guess they are all happening too
    quickly. Let me see what I have here.
        It has been 661 days since the last pipeline safety
    reauthorization expired, so I am glad we are here today because
    there is a lot to talk about.
        Pipeline safety risks are just as prevalent as ever. But
    since President Trump took office, enforcement actions against
    pipeline operators by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    Safety Administration, or PHMSA, have fallen off a cliff. In
    fact, it has been so long since we have had a hearing, I
    haven't used the word PHMSA much. It is not because pipelines
    have somehow magically gotten safer since January 20, but
    instead it is because the Trump administration is once again
    prioritizing profits for their favorite industries over the
    safety of the American people. And that is why Trump is--
    forcing out the public servants that helped to keep our
    pipelines safe is so wrong.
        Nearly all of PHMSA's top staff have left the agency, and
    dozens of employees have either been forced out or been paid to
    leave. And the Trump administration is simply letting the
    agency bleed out talent that was vital to keeping Americans
    safe.
        And the Trump administration isn't just haphazardly
    enforcing law at PHMSA. Sometimes it is not following the law
    at all. The last reauthorization signed by President Trump
    required that PHMSA issue a final rule improving leak detection
    in gas pipelines. PHMSA finalized that rule in January, in the
    final days of the Biden administration, but the Trump
    administration clawed it back from the printer before it could
    even be published. It did the same thing with the proposed rule
    on the safety for carbon dioxide pipelines which was required
    by pipeline safety legislation over a decade ago.
        So PHMSA has even ignored basic transparency requirements
    that it publish monthly updates on its progress on finalizing
    rules and regulations required by law. All of this is clear
    that the Trump administration has no interest in following the
    law, and that is why it is so important that this committee
    worked together on pipeline safety reauthorization not just
    across the aisle here, but with our colleagues on the House
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate
    Commerce Committee.
        We must ensure that pipelines are safe and that the
    administration and pipeline operators are following the law. If
    Republicans want to pass a pipeline safety reauthorization
    package this Congress, I would urge them not to follow the
    process that committee Republicans used last Congress.
    Committee Republicans insisted on a legislative hearing and
    markup on a bipartisan bill that cut authorized funding levels
    by nearly 20 percent and had several poison-pill provisions
    completely unrelated to safety. They also refused to engage
    with the Transportation Committee on compromise legislation
    and, as a result, never even moved a bill to the floor.
        In short, Republicans should not follow that same playbook.
    As we look to reauthorize the pipeline safety program, it is
    important that we focus on safety. Committee Republicans should
    not try to gut bipartisan programs we established in our last
    bill. It is also critical that we give PHMSA the resources and
    tools we know it needs to keep us all safe.
        So finally, because this is our first Energy Subcommittee
    hearing since Republicans passed their Big, Ugly Bill, I wanted
    to briefly talk about the harm that that bill will cause
    American families.
        We heard testimony from countless Republican witnesses
    throughout the first half of this year begging Republicans not
    to cut vital tax incentives for clean energy or energy
    affordability programs from the Inflation Reduction Act. They
    also pleaded with Republicans to stay away from cutting the
    efforts by the Loan Program Office to keep our energy
    competitive, especially looking at nuclear power. And
    Republicans ignored all of these experts' pleas.
        And now, as a result, power bills for American families
    will rise by up to $400 per year, reliability will be
    undermined, the risk of blackouts will go up, and the climate
    crisis will get worse.
        So Republicans' dangerous energy agenda is basically
    pickpocketing working families to give handouts to the rich,
    including the big oil and gas corporations who are among the
    only ones that stand to benefit from it.
        Now, I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, this pipeline
    safety issue is very important to me. We had an incident many
    years ago when I was in Congress. We had a major explosion in
    our district. Certainly in New Jersey we are all very concerned
    about pipeline safety. And we--you know, and so I just think
    that, you know, ignoring all this and just cutting all the
    people, and getting all the--getting rid of all the people that
    work there, it is just a terrible thing.
        I don't understand why pipeline safety can't be bipartisan.
    It always was in the past. Maybe I am old-fashioned and, you
    know, nothing is bipartisan anymore. But the bottom line is
    this really should be. I mean, people care about it, and we
    should care about it, as well.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time. And at this time, again, we will go
    back to our witnesses.
        And as I mentioned, just pull the mic up close. Press that
    button, and you will see that when you hit the 4-minute mark it
    will go yellow with the lights up front, which means you have a
    minute to conclude your statement, and the red is at 5 minutes.
        So with that, Mr. Black, you are recognized for 5 minutes
    for your opening statement.

     STATEMENTS OF ANDREW J. BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER, LIQUID ENERGY PIPELINE ASSOCIATION; SARAH C. MILLER,
         PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GPA MIDSTREAM
     ASSOCIATION; BILL CARAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PIPELINE SAFETY
      TRUST; AND JIM MORIARTY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL
        COUNSEL, CORPORATE SECRETARY, AND CHIEF POLICY AND RISK
               OFFICER, CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES CORPORATION

                      STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BLACK

        Mr. Black. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member. I am Andy
    Black, president and CEO of the Liquid Energy Pipeline
    Association. We have over 50 member companies delivering over
    20 billion barrels annually across a nearly 230,000-mile
    network of pipelines.
        America is blessed with abundant energy supplies. Expanding
    American energy production will send new supply to market and
    pressure prices downward.
        The Energy and Commerce Committee has an important role in
    ensuring our pipeline network is safe, allowing us to
    confidently expand our energy infrastructure.
        Liquid energy pipelines deliver transportation fuels like
    gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that families, commuters,
    businesses, and travelers use to drive and fly where they need
    to go. Pipelines deliver feed stocks like crude oil, ethane,
    and butane to make everything from plastics to pharmaceuticals,
    cosmetics, paints, fabrics, and fuels. Rural home and
    agricultural fuels like propane delivered by pipeline before
    traveling locally by truck heat rural homes and farms, dry
    crops after harvest, and keep livestock barns warm throughout
    the winter.
        As this committee considers the role of pipeline
    infrastructure and what changes to make to Federal pipeline
    safety laws, it is important to remember that pipelines are the
    safest way to deliver energy. More than 99.999 percent of crude
    oil and petroleum products delivered by pipeline reaches its
    destination safely. A report prepared for Congress--to Congress
    by PHMSA found that pipelines were 13 times safer than both
    trains and trucks. Current pipeline incident statistics also
    show pipeline safety is improving further. According to
    publicly available PHMSA data, total liquid pipeline incidents
    are down 13 percent over the last 5 years. Incidents impacting
    people and the environment are also down 13 percent over the
    last 5 years. And when comparing incidents to volume delivered,
    the decrease is even more striking, with liquid pipeline
    incidents per barrel delivered down 33 percent over those 5
    years.
        These safety metrics are available in the Pipeline
    Performance Report and Pipeline Excellence Strategic Plan. In
    this report you can see how the liquid pipeline industry is
    addressing key challenges like corrosion, leak detection, and
    geohazards. You can see how operators are improving pipeline
    safety by harnessing new technologies, artificial intelligence,
    safety management systems, and recommended practices.
        Declining pipeline incidents over the last 5 years supports
    a measured approach to reauthorizing pipeline safety laws
    without major changes or mandates. LEPA does believe there is a
    role for Congress to encourage PHMSA to leverage technology for
    pipeline safety, support American energy development through
    safe pipelines, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
    PHMSA programs.
        Congress can do more to modernize pipeline safety programs.
    Key parts of PHMSA's safety regulations are over 20 years old
    and do not reflect the latest advances in safety, technology,
    or know-how. High-tech analytic tools like an MRI or an
    ultrasound you find in the doctor's office are available for
    pipeline safety. Analytic methods like machine learning and
    artificial intelligence can help operators digest data to show
    when a pipeline might be leaking or when it might need
    maintenance.
        This administration is off to a good start, promoting long-
    needed reforms to PHMSA. PHMSA has announced changes that will
    improve transparency and issued several notices on important
    proposals. PHMSA announced regulatory actions to improve
    special permits, update incident reporting thresholds, and
    integrate remote sensing technologies for monitoring rights-of-
    way patrols. LEPA believes Congress can make some of these
    reforms permanent and provide the agency additional personnel
    with STEM expertise and pipeline operations experience.
        Six of the specific pipeline safety reauthorization
    provisions LEPA would welcome include: reform PHMSA's special
    permit program permanently to impose decision deadlines and
    limit unrelated requirements; strengthen penalties for pipeline
    safety violations that impair operational facilities or damaged
    construction sites; fulfill the 2020 congressional mandate of a
    safety program for idled pipelines; reauthorize without
    extraneous conditions a technology demonstration pilot program;
    authorize a voluntary information-sharing program to convene
    stakeholders to collaborate on safety initiatives similar to
    FAA's successful program; and authorize risk-based inspections
    of in-service breakout tanks to reduce unnecessary greenhouse
    and air pollutant emissions, worker safety threats, and
    hazardous waste. More recommendations are listed in my written
    testimony.
        Thank you again for the committee's support of pipeline
    energy infrastructure and the opportunity to testify you--
    before you today on the benefits of pipelines, including their
    safety. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And Ms. Miller, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF SARAH C. MILLER

        Ms. Miller. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today on behalf of GPA Midstream Association. My name
    is Sarah Miller, and I serve as the president and CEO of GPA
    Midstream, an organization that has represented the U.S.
    midstream energy sector since 1921.
        Safety of employees, contractors, and communities is the
    highest priority for GPA Midstream member companies. Our nearly
    50 corporate members are responsible for the safe and efficient
    gathering, processing, transporting, and marketing of natural
    gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, and refined products. Our
    members directly employ over 57,000 individuals and indirectly
    support more than 600,000 jobs across the U.S. economy. In 2023
    GPA Midstream members contributed over $206 billion in economic
    impact, operating more than 506,000 miles of pipeline and over
    365 natural gas processing facilities.
        Our members are an invisible link between raw natural gas
    and crude oil produced at the wellhead and distribution of
    products to consumers for heating, electricity production,
    transportation, steelmaking, fertilizer production, plastics,
    high-tech devices, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and much more.
        The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that
    U.S. production and consumption of natural gas and petroleum,
    which includes NGLs, will remain strong through at least 2050.
    Similarly, Rice University's Baker Institute projects natural
    gas and crude will sustain a steady share of the global energy
    mix also through 2050. That is to say that it remains essential
    to continue our focus on pipeline safety for existing and new
    pipeline infrastructure to assure we can meet energy demands in
    the U.S. and around the world.
        GPA Midstream members support reauthorization of PHMSA's
    pipeline safety programs, with the goal to ensure pipelines
    remain the safest method for transporting affordable, reliable,
    and sustainable energy while also facilitating innovation and
    efficiency. We seek legislative and regulatory predictability
    and certainty to enable prudent investment decisions for the
    benefit of communities and investors alike. Our members
    advocate many goals for the reauthorization of PHMSA's pipeline
    safety program, including several reflected in this committee's
    bill from the last congressional session.
        Specifically, our members appreciate improved due process
    enforcement--in enforcement matters, reform of the special
    permit program, strengthening penalties for those who damage
    infrastructure, and the recognition of opportunity for
    innovation and alternative technologies. Today I offer three
    recommendations especially meaningful to our members.
        First, we urge elimination of duplicative oversight of in-
    plant plant gas piping. Hazardous liquid in-plant gas piping--I
    am sorry. Hazardous liquid in-plant piping is exempt by law
    from PHMSA's regulation, but the regulation of in-plant--of gas
    in-plant piping is not. In-plant piping is within the
    jurisdiction of other robust safety programs such as OSHA's
    Process Management Standards. Aligning the treatment of gas and
    liquid and in-plant piping would eliminate regulatory
    redundancy without compromising safety.
        We are grateful to PHMSA for recognizing such redundancy
    and issuing a notice to proposed rulemaking to codify an
    exception for in-plant piping systems into the gas pipeline
    safety regulations. We also seek legislative certainty for the
    elimination of such redundancy.
        Second, in recent years there have been more rulemakings
    aimed at gathering pipelines. The physical and commercial
    operations of gathering pipelines can differ greatly from
    transmission pipelines. Therefore, we request the Gas Pipeline
    Advisory Committee facilitate greater input from gathering
    pipeline operators for more effective gathering pipeline safety
    regulations.
        Third, we encourage the use of more performance-based
    measures and less prescriptive regulations to achieve safety
    goals. Performance-based measures consider relevant operating
    conditions and assess risks to achieve meaningful safety
    priorities. Performance-based measures will also facilitate a
    longer-term reauthorization period for PHMSA's programs, as
    they allow for evolving technological advancement and best
    practices proven by time and experience to achieve safety.
        In conclusion, GPA Midstream is committed to working with
    Congress and PHMSA to ensure the continued safety and
    reliability of our Nation's energy infrastructure. We
    appreciate your leadership on this important issue and stand
    ready to serve as a resource as you move forward with
    reauthorization.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your opening
    statement.
        Mr. Caram, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF BILL CARAM

        Mr. Caram. Good morning, Chair, Ranking Member, and members
    of the subcommittee. I am Bill Caram, executive director of the
    Pipeline Safety Trust, which was created after the 1999 Olympic
    pipeline tragedy in Bellingham, Washington, that killed three
    boys. We serve as an independent national watchdog over the
    pipeline industry and its regulators.
        On average, a significant pipeline incident occurs every 32
    hours in America, nearly one every day. Since this
    subcommittee's last pipeline safety hearing last year, in
    January 2024, 18 people have been killed and 45 hospitalized
    from pipeline incidents. The past 2 years have been the
    deadliest in nearly 15 years, with 30 deaths, including a 5-
    year-old in Missouri, a 15-year-old in Utah, and an 82-year-old
    pastor's wife in Mississippi. Our shared goal of zero incidents
    feels unreachable when we haven't yet been able to prevent
    these tragic deaths.
        Looking at pipeline safety metrics over the last 10 years
    or longer doesn't show that we are making progress. The number
    of significant incidents each year remains frustratingly flat.
    Other metrics, such as incidents impacting people or the
    environment, display a slight downward trend, so slight that
    statisticians would say could easily be due to chance rather
    than actual improvement. And while we did make meaningful
    progress on fatalities in the previous decade, the last decade
    shows a slight upward trend, though like other metrics not
    statistically significant.
        Pipeline failures don't just kill and injure people and
    damage ecological areas; they cost billions and disrupt energy
    supplies. Over the last 10 years, pipeline incidents have been
    reported by operators to cost over $6 billion. Incidents on
    pipelines such as Colonial's refined products pipeline that
    supplies the East Coast with 45 percent of its liquid energy
    have put critical energy reliability at risk.
        But the same solutions that save lives and protect our
    environment also strengthen our economy and energy security.
    Making a meaningful difference on pipeline safety will require
    three elements: improved regulations, effective enforcement,
    and widespread adoption of pipeline safety management systems,
    or PSMS.
        In many cases, Congress has hamstrung PHMSA from developing
    effective regulations. Provisions in the pipeline safety
    statute like the extra burdensome cost benefit requirement and
    the nonapplication clause make it extremely difficult for PHMSA
    to develop lifesaving regulations.
        Despite these limitations, there are ways to make a
    meaningful difference on pipeline safety. For example, as
    recently recommended by the NTSB, natural gas alarms or methane
    detectors would undoubtedly save lives. Incidents in Japan have
    declined by 90 percent alongside the adoption of these alarms.
        Another idea is fire shut-off valves. These simple devices
    automatically close when exposed to heat, preventing gas from
    fueling house fires. They are inexpensive, maintenance-free,
    and easily installed.
        We need modernized regulations for carbon dioxide and
    hydrogen blended pipelines. Congress has incentivized this
    infrastructure without addressing the regulatory and research
    gaps that put communities on the front lines of significant
    safety risks. This year marks 5 years since the Denbury carbon
    dioxide pipeline failure in Satartia, Mississippi, that sent
    nearly 50 people to the hospital. That harrowing night laid
    bare many of the risks and regulatory shortfalls with these
    pipelines.
        Increasing authorized resources to PHMSA is also necessary.
    Not only has the agency been chronically underfunded, but the
    additional miles of jurisdictional pipe and the potential
    build-out of carbon dioxide and hydrogen pipelines demands an
    increase in resources from Congress both to the agency and,
    just as significantly, to the State programs.
        But even the best regulations are meaningless without
    robust enforcement. Recently, enforcement case initiations have
    declined drastically, down nearly 65 percent compared to this
    point in the first Trump administration. According to a recent
    PHMSA report to Congress on the adoption of PSMS, or Pipeline
    Safety Management Systems, among gas distribution operators,
    while most pipeline mileage is owned by operators committed to
    PSMS, only half of all operators have made this commitment. To
    improve safety we need industrywide adoption: all systems, all
    operators, large and small.
        As you discuss how to move forward on authorizing PHMSA's
    pipeline safety program and make improvements to the law, I
    implore you to think of the empty seats at dinner tables across
    the country because of pipeline failures. Eighteen dinner
    tables are missing someone just since last year's pipeline
    safety hearing alone. Please ensure PHMSA meets its
    responsibility to the American people. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Caram follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your opening
    statement.
        And Mr. Moriarty, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF JIM MORIARTY

        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Latta,
    Ranking Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee. I am
    Jim Moriarty, executive vice president and general counsel of
    Chesapeake Utilities Corporation. I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today.
        We are a diversified energy delivery company headquartered
    in Delaware, with service offerings that include natural gas
    gathering, transmission, and distribution, as well as propane,
    mobile compressed natural gas services, and electricity
    generation and distribution. Our company has operated for more
    than 160 years and today owns and operates assets in 9 States,
    serving over 440,000 customers with over 1,200 dedicated
    employees.
        Natural gas infrastructure plays an integral role in the
    national security and economic sovereignty of our country, and
    the demand for this domestic resource will only increase in the
    coming years. As a key part of this Nation's pipeline
    infrastructure, our subsidiaries distribute natural gas to more
    than 330,000 customers through over 9,000 miles of pipeline. We
    also operate over 700 miles of transmission pipelines, a
    liquefied natural gas storage facility, and a renewable gas
    transportation fleet.
        Across the country, varying local and State mandates have
    created a complex and patchwork regulatory landscape that
    complicates planning, increases cost, and ultimately affects
    consumer choice and pipeline safety. A unified Federal approach
    modeled after laws already enacted in 27 States that protect
    the customer's right to choose natural gas as their primary
    energy source would provide clarity, prevent regulatory
    fragmentation, and ensure that safe, reliable, and affordable
    domestic energy remains accessible to all Americans.
        Natural gas utility distribution pipelines are the final
    critical link in the delivery chain as we engage daily with
    American families, communities, and businesses, as well as
    State authorities who oversee pipeline safety today. We strive
    to make life better for the communities in which we live and
    serve. Accordingly, pipeline safety is and must be our number-
    one priority. For these reasons we are focused on continually
    enhancing our culture of operational safety and risk
    mitigation.
        Every year our company, like many others, invests in our
    pipeline systems, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
    enhance safety, reliability, and accessibility. For example,
    our distribution system has been modernized by eliminating
    cast-iron and bare steel. Across our service areas we are
    performing advanced leak detection and incorporating a variety
    of new and innovative technologies to consistently prevent
    safety incidents.
        Chesapeake Utilities and other natural gas distribution
    companies support the following principles in the upcoming
    pipeline safety reauthorization legislation.
        First, streamline processes to meet energy demands on
    schedule by ensuring policies reflect the growing need for
    natural gas and the critical role that pipeline infrastructure
    plays.
        Two, limit safety incidents, property damage, and
    environmental impacts caused by unintended excavation damages.
        Three, strengthen criminal penalties on those who sabotage
    or intentionally damage pipeline facilities.
        Four, identify emerging technologies that improve safety.
        Five, study safe operations for natural gas and hydrogen
    blending and distribution systems.
        And six, establish a 5-year reauthorization period so that
    PHMSA and the industry have sufficient time to complete and
    assess improvements.
        Our industry has proved we can expand natural gas delivery
    while also improving safety. Doing so enables us to continue to
    meet the needs of our customers and the communities that we
    proudly serve by delivering safe, affordable, and reliable
    domestic energy so that no one is left behind.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moriarty follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your opening
    statement, and that will conclude our opening statements from
    our witnesses. And again, I want to thank you all for being
    with us today. And at this time I will recognize myself for 5
    minutes to our--questions to our witnesses.
        Ms. Miller, do you believe that PHMSA's primary mission as
    a regulator should be safety?
        Ms. Miller. I do.
        Mr. Latta. And would you explain why pipelines have a net
    positive effect on the environment?
        Ms. Miller. Well, as you've heard from other witnesses--and
    first I should say thank you, Chairman, for the question--but
    as you have heard from other witnesses as well, pipelines are
    the cleanest and safest way to move energy. The demand for
    affordable, reliable, and safe, sustainable energy sources is
    growing, and natural gas is abundant in the United States. So
    with appropriate regulatory policy, natural gas can--and the
    pipelines that the midstream operators design, install, and
    operate can be the way that safe, affordable, reliable energy
    is delivered to the communities that need it.
        I would note that the U.S. Energy Information
    Administration has reported that natural gas results in fewer
    emissions for--than using coal or petroleum products to deliver
    the same energy. Therefore, when you use natural gas through
    pipelines in place of coal or other petroleum products, you are
    actually enabling communities worldwide to have reliable,
    affordable energy sources to enable a higher-quality standard
    of living safely.
        And our members--on top of all that, our members are
    prioritizing safety, and they are looking for ways to ensure
    that their pipelines do not have leaks, lost or emitted gas--
    lost gas is actually lost profit, lost value for our members,
    so they are not only incentivized to ensure that natural gas
    pipelines are operated safely, but they also deliver an
    environmental benefit because it is the right thing to do, but
    also because they are financially incentivized to ensure that
    that product stays in the pipe.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Moriarty, 40 percent of electric generation in the
    United States comes from natural gas. Electricity demand in the
    United States is projected to increase more than 25 percent in
    the next 5 years, in part because of the race for AI and the
    offshoring of manufacturing. That means we are going to need
    more natural gas, which will require significant infrastructure
    build-out, including the expansion of pipeline infrastructure.
    Could you elaborate on how pipeline constraints impact and
    ultimately jeopardize safety?
        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        States that allow prompt regulatory recovery of the costs
    for the replacement and relocation of pipelines will accelerate
    the upgrading of aging infrastructure. We have these regulatory
    mechanisms in Florida and in Maryland and Delaware.
        Also, excavation damage is the primary source of
    distribution pipeline incidents, and hampers operations and
    efforts to upgrade aging infrastructure. States that have
    strong excavation damage prevention programs and enforcement
    typically experienced lower rates of damage to distribution
    pipelines.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Black, the PIPES Act of 2020 recognized the value of
    using new technologies to bolster both efficiency and safety.
    However, DOE's implementation of the program had many
    nonstatutory requirements that ultimately deterred
    participation. Would you elaborate on what some of those
    nonstatutory hurdles were and are?
        Mr. Black. Thank you for your leadership on this issue in
    the 2020 PIPES Act and in last Congress' bill, and we hope that
    we can continue to work on this issue.
        The technology demonstration pilot program gives us an
    opportunity to demonstrate how new technologies can improve
    pipeline safety. PHMSA went beyond the safeguards that Congress
    suggested and required technology pilot program applicants to
    use a special permit process and to put those before a NEPA
    review, none of which had ever been done for similar types of
    applications like that, so nobody used it.
        Mr. Latta. Could you--just pardon for the interruption. Why
    would they do that if they had never done it before?
        Mr. Black. It confounded us. I don't know.
        Mr. Latta. But, you know, there is another kind of a theme
    that went through. Why aren't we prosecuting these cases?
    Because obviously, we need to hire penalties for, you know,
    attacks on pipelines. What is happening out there?
        If I could maybe just--I got 36 seconds left, but are we
    not prosecuting? Or what is happening in these cases out there?
        Mr. Black. Well, there are criminal penalties in Federal
    pipeline safety law for damaging or destroying pipelines, but
    we have incidents that don't lead to immedi]ate damage or
    discovery that fall under loopholes. So we think you need to
    address issues like valve turning that can cause pressure
    buildups, or torching pipelines, or shooting high-powered
    rifles through pipelines, all of which have happened. We would
    like to work with you to close those loopholes and deter
    attacks against pipelines.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And my time has
    expired, and I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the
    ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Caram, you highlight the erosion of the commitment to
    pipeline safety in your--throughout your testimony, and that
    includes the professional workforce at PHMSA. Is that right?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, we have heard of retirements at PHMSA.
        Ms. Castor. And that--I understand that the Community
    Liaison department, which engages members of the public, has
    gone from 13 employees to just 3 people who are now responsible
    for engaging the entire country. Can you explain to us what the
    real-world impacts of the reduction in professional expert
    workforce at PHMSA means for the safety of the public?
        Mr. Caram. Sure, thank you for the question.
        Unfortunately, we don't know fully. We haven't heard
    official word out of PHMSA as exactly the extent of the
    retirements and the reductions in force. So we are going off of
    what has been reported in the media or what is available on
    their website, which hasn't been fully updated. But we have
    noticed that the Community Liaison department went from, as you
    mentioned, 13 down to 3, and that includes the manager of the
    department, and that is 3 people in charge of, you know, public
    engagement with members of the public across the entire country
    who live among and alongside the over 3 million miles of
    pipeline, more miles of pipeline than paved roads, which I hope
    is obvious that is not nearly enough.
        And we have also heard, you know, most of the leadership
    staff is gone. That is a lot of years of experience that has
    been drained out. We have also heard a lot of staff from the
    standards and rulemaking team is--has retired, as well.
        Ms. Castor. I am also very concerned with the escalating
    costs and risk driven by the heating planet and climate change.
    In June the National Transportation Safety Board issued a final
    report on the 1-point-million-gallon pipeline oil spill in the
    Gulf of Mexico in 2023, which caused $30 million in damage. In
    the report the NTSB specified that it was the result of land
    movement related to hurricane activity.
        And this is fresh in my mind because I saw significant
    damage to energy infrastructure following Hurricanes Helene and
    Milton in the Tampa Bay area.
        Does PHMSA currently have any regulations or guidelines,
    Mr. Caram, for pipeline safety related to extreme weather
    events, flooding, and more intense hurricanes?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for that question. So we call all
    of those geohazards, these geologic threats to pipeline
    integrity, and they can be a result of extreme weather events.
    And in addition to hurricanes we have seen pipeline failures
    after large rainfall, you know, of historic levels and things
    like that.
        There is nothing specific in PHMSA regulations----
        Ms. Castor. Well, what can----
        Mr. Caram [continuing]. About geohazards.
        Ms. Castor. What can Congress do if we are going to update
    regulations to better incorporate climate resilience practices?
        Mr. Caram. Mandate that PHMSA adopt geohazard-specific
    regulations. There is industry guidance out there, there's best
    practices by operators, and a lot to go on to start writing
    those regulations now.
        Ms. Castor. There are also a few elephants in the room
    right now when it comes to pipeline safety, and one of them is
    the hatchet that the administration is taking to just basic
    funding of pipeline safety and PHMSA. Round this, your
    testimony, out. What are--what can we anticipate at PHMSA in
    regard to the safety of the public if these kind of draconian
    cuts, the work of professional experts and then their overall
    budget, is enacted into law?
        Mr. Caram. Well, PHMSA is already an underresourced,
    understaffed agency before this. And it was--it is really an
    all-hands-on-deck, committed to safety, so it is really hard to
    imagine cuts not impacting their ability to be an effective
    safety regulator.
        These--the types of results that we would expect to see
    from these cuts and lower of--and lowering of enforcement and
    regulatory activity are--I would imagine will be long term. I
    don't think you will see an overnight change. But if we were to
    see a change, unfortunately, I think it is long term, and we
    will be seeing it----
        Ms. Castor. In the statistics that you highlighted early to
    say, well, maybe--we really haven't seen a significant
    improvement in reduction in deaths and injuries.
        Is that likely to continue if we are not able to properly
    fund and support pipeline safety across America?
        Mr. Caram. I hope that is not the case, but I do believe
    that a strong, effective regulator is what keeps pipelines--is
    part of what keeps pipelines safe. And lacking that, I worry
    about the results.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
    expired, and the Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
    committee for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and sorry for popping up
    and down. We have another hearing going on downstairs.
        So, Mr. Black, I will first ask you this: How does PHMSA
    enforcement act as a deterrent to unsafe operations?
        Mr. Black. We are glad that this PHMSA has said that its
    top enforcement priority is pipeline safety, not other topics.
    And our country needs confidence in our pipeline network and in
    our pipeline safety oversight.
        Enforcement acts as a deterrent against unsafe operations,
    and so pipeline operators are expecting that PHMSA is enforcing
    pipeline safety rules for the betterment of safety.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, because we need confidence because I have
    had in my area I know--if you look at a map of pipelines,
    people would be just shocked how many pipelines we have. But
    whenever there is a new movement forward, there is always a big
    public relations campaign against the pipeline about safety. So
    we need confidence in it so people will know.
        And then when you tell people, you know, there are
    pipelines everywhere, and they don't realize that, but that has
    kind of become a new thing to keep us from moving energy
    around, is that people are--pipelines. And we absolutely want
    them to be safe and people have to confidence in that. So
    thanks.
        So Ms. Miller, when PHMSA rulemakings go beyond the
    appropriate or statutory-mandated scope, how does that impact
    an operator's ability to prioritize safety?
        Ms. Miller. Thank you for the question, Chairman Guthrie.
        Operators will comply with PHMSA's regulations. And so when
    PHMSA's rules regulate matters other than to achieve safety
    priorities, that means that resources that alternatively could
    have been devoted to those safety priorities are spent in other
    ways. And this issue is not only relevant to the operators, but
    it is also relevant to PHMSA resources.
        We appreciate that Congress mandates PHMSA's scope of
    responsibility and that the 2004 authorizing statute for PHMSA
    made clear that safety was to be its highest priority. And we
    welcome, to the extent that there is any ambiguity about that
    priority, that Congress can reaffirm PHMSA's focus on safety.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Mr. Moriarty, what are the barriers to addressing the
    remaining distribution lines that need to be upgraded?
        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you very much, Chairman Guthrie, for
    the question.
        In our view, pipeline infrastructure is the safest means
    for transporting energy, and more must be built to meet the
    growing demand. Just one example is our Ohio subsidiary worked
    very closely with AEP to build--it is called Aspire Energy
    Express--to construct a new intrastate pipeline in central Ohio
    to support an on-site electric power generation at a new fuel
    facility center serving a data center.
        We continue to work on solutions to these problems. We work
    closely with our elected representatives in each of our
    regulatory agencies to address concerns. In our view, everybody
    is welcome to the table to raise any issues they have. But what
    we are asking for is just prompt, fair, and balanced
    consideration, and then issuance of regulations so that we all
    can comply with those.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
        So, Mr. Black, how can pipeline operators use AI and other
    technologies like smart pigs to improve safety throughout their
    operations?
        Mr. Black. We are really excited about----
        Mr. Guthrie. The smart pigs?
        Mr. Black. Yes, and how it can improve pipeline safety.
        Mr. Guthrie. Explain a smart pig.
        Mr. Latta. Well, you might--your mic there.
        Mr. Black. There we go.
        Mr. Latta. There we go.
        Mr. Guthrie. Explain a smart pig, as well.
        Mr. Black. A smart pig is a pipeline inspection device that
    travels on the inside of a pipeline, pushed by the liquid
    product, collecting information. It collects terabytes of data
    about the inside of a pipeline. So AI could use--could be used
    to process that information to help identify more issues before
    they become problems.
        Similarly, pipeline operations have pumps, valves, and
    sensors along the long linear pipeline, and that creates
    operations data that AI and machine learning might help us tp
    find a pinhole leak that those sensors otherwise can't develop.
        And so support for R&D among the pipeline industry at
    places like the Pipeline Research Council International is
    happening right now by pipelines to try and benefit from AI.
    And a way Congress can help is to reauthorize the Pipeline
    Safety Technology Demonstration Program that Chairman Latta
    asked me about. That will help us test those technologies and
    show PHMSA how it should safely improve its regulations to
    benefit safety.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        So Ms. Miller, do you also agree that this AI or
    technology--if you find leaks that are otherwise too small to
    be detected, how would that improve safety?
        Ms. Miller. Thank you. Yes, I would echo what Mr. Black
    just highlighted. Our members are using AI today to be able to
    sort through large quantities of data to be able to identify
    trends and solve operational challenges. We believe that AI can
    inform risk assessment to help operators identify and repair--I
    am sorry, identify and manage first pipeline anomalies before
    they become leaks, and then also prioritize repairs in order to
    address those that pose the highest risk first.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
        Ms. Miller. We would encourage----
        Mr. Guthrie. My time is expired, he is about to gavel me
    down. So I want to thank you for your answer.
        And I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back,
    and the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta. As I mentioned in
    my opening statement, I am concerned about a number of actions
    the Trump administration has taken at PHMSA in its first 6
    months. And one of those was calling back a leak detection rule
    finalized in the last days of the Biden administration.
        And I want to be clear: The rule was finalized and done,
    but the Trump administration instructed the Federal Register
    not to publish the rule and has since clawed it back. So I just
    want to point out that some of--to some of our newer Members
    that this rule was required by a bipartisan law that President
    Trump himself signed. That law required that PHMSA put forward
    a final rule within a year of enactment, and 4 years after the
    law was signed President Trump prevented the rule from being
    finalized.
        So Mr. Caram, could you talk about the importance of the
    leak detection rule? Did it have buy-in from industry and
    public stakeholders? Did the Trump administration's decision
    make us safer?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for the question.
        That rule was negotiated, discussed over 2 weeks of
    advisory committee meetings with multiple stakeholder groups--
    industry, public, and government. There were a lot of unanimous
    votes. Not all of the votes were unanimous, but many of them
    were. And I would say consensus was reached on the vast
    majority of the issues in leak detection and repair.
        And that rule was due, as you said, a year after. That
    would have been in December of 2021. So it is years overdue
    now. So it was really disappointing to see it pulled back from
    being published.
        Mr. Pallone. And what about my question about did that
    decision by the Trump administration make us safer?
        Mr. Caram. No, no, we continue to have incidents from known
    leaks. There are regulations on specifically what kind of
    equipment operators need to use, and the regulations around
    grading leaks as to how quickly they need to be repaired are
    vague. And it--that rule would have established those standards
    and, I believe, made pipelines safer.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. Now I want to turn to a
    potential priority for a pipeline safety reauthorization bill.
    As you pointed out in your written testimony, PHMSA's safety
    rules are subject to a duplicative cost benefit analysis over
    and beyond the one already required for all other Federal
    rules. And this isn't a hypothetical problem. GPA Midstream,
    one of the witnesses represented here today, has used this at
    the DC Circuit Court to kill pipeline safety rules, and I--and
    to me that is unacceptable.
        So Mr. Caram, would you talk about how this duplicative
    requirement harms public safety and whether Congress should
    look at removing this requirement in a reauthorization bill?
        Mr. Caram. As far as I am aware, PHMSA is the only safety
    agency with this statutory cost benefit requirement that is
    duplicative over the Executive order. It is difficult to do
    cost benefit on low-frequency, high-consequence failures like
    you see with pipelines, and it hamstrings firms from making
    real progress on safety.
        As you have mentioned, multiple rules over the last several
    years have been rolled back by the courts saying that PHMSA
    didn't fully justify the costs with benefits, and the benefits
    in many of these cases are human lives.
        Mr. Pallone. Oh, thank you. I just want to, you know,
    mention to my Republican colleagues because we keep--they keep
    talking about a bipartisan bill. But if we are really going to
    have a bipartisan bill on this issue, it has to be solely--and
    I stress solely--about increasing safety.
        You know, the committee Republicans' pipeline safety bill
    failed last Congress because it was not drafted, in my opinion,
    in a collaborative manner and included partisan provisions
    related to pipeline siting as opposed to safety. So that is--
    you know, it is not going to be bipartisan if it deals with
    siting and other issues other than safety.
        So I just hope we can see a more collaborative process this
    year, Mr. Chairman. And with that I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back the balance of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the
    vice chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Black, I am going to come back to you. I want to
    highlight a section of your written testimony addressing
    pipeline safety: ``A 2018 report prepared by PHMSA analyzing 10
    years of incident data found pipelines were 13 times safer than
    both trains and trucks, with pipelines experiencing 1 incident
    for every 720 million gallons, with rail incidents occurring
    every 50 million gallons delivered.'' Pipelines are the safest
    way to move this product. Agreed?
        Mr. Black. Absolutely.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, and then you also talked about an Obama
    administration analysis found rejecting a major pipeline and
    shipping the same crude oil by rail would increase the risk of
    oil release by over 800 times and barrels released by 2.6
    times. Very, very important information.
        The Keystone Pipeline would have come into my district, the
    Gulf Coast of Texas, over by Beaumont, Texas--Port Arthur, to
    be exact. We know that we can move product cleanly, and nobody
    wants--and I think in one of the other witness' testimony there
    was 18 or 30-something people killed in the last year, I think,
    if I recall that correctly, and that is so sad. Nobody wants
    that. Nobody is for that. I mean, everybody wants to do
    everything they can to prevent that. I mean, my gosh, we had a
    recent, you know, weather event in Texas where over 300 people
    lost their lives. It is always sad.
        So I would say that we want--if you looked at the traffic
    records of last year--and this is--by the way, this is NHTSA's
    information. Last year in 2024, 39,000 people lost their lives
    in traffic. Everybody hates that. Nobody wants that. Everybody
    wants to do as safe as they can, and that goes with pipelines.
    Would you agree?
        Mr. Black. Yes. Americans use liquid fuels every day. And
    if you cancel a pipeline, we are still going to use those
    fuels, they are going to move on to other modes that are less
    safe.
        Mr. Weber. Right, and let me go back to the Keystone
    Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline coming into my district would
    have carried 830,000 barrels of product a day.
        Mr. Black. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. If you do--if you divided that up into 18-
    wheelers, it is over 5,300 18-wheelers on the highway a day.
    What does that increase the chance of more and more people
    being killed on the highway? So nobody wants that. Obama shut
    down the Keystone Pipeline. Of course, President Trump got it
    back up and running and then Biden shut it down too.
        So I am going to go back to your report. You said pipelines
    are down 30 percent over the last 5 years, and they remain the
    safest method to move product. We are always striving to
    improve that record. How can Congress ensure that PHMSA is
    equipped to modernize its regulations in step with industry
    innovation without imposing restrictions that could hinder
    progress? How do we do that?
        Mr. Black. Well, several steps. One is to permanently
    reform the special permit program. As you know, there are so
    many different pipeline operating conditions and types of
    pipes. Sometimes PHMSA regulations are not one-size-fits-all
    for that pipe.
        Second is to reauthorize without bureaucratic problems the
    Pipeline Safety Technology Demonstration program that we were
    talking.
        And then to keep PHMSA focused on pipeline safety, and to
    fund--have everybody working on R&D to get us down to zero
    incidents.
        Mr. Weber. It is safe to say, isn't it, in your opinion,
    that nobody who works in the pipeline industry--or in the
    fossil fuel industry, for that matter--wants to go home from
    their job and find out that one of their relatives was killed
    on the highway? Nobody wants that. It is the same with pipeline
    safety. Everybody who works in the industry doesn't want
    anybody to be killed in that endeavor.
        Ms. Miller, I am going to come to you. My district along
    the Gulf Coast has three LNG export facilities--a fourth across
    the border in Louisiana--so we understand--the understanding is
    that PHMSA has been working to update regulations regarding the
    monitoring of LNG pipelines for corrosion, aligning them more
    closely with the risk-based industry standard--driven
    standards. Some estimates suggest these updates could save
    facilities millions of dollars annually.
        With growing investment in LNG export capacity increasing
    global demand for U.S. energy, how can commonsense updates help
    safety regulations?
        Very quickly. Turn your mic on.
        Ms. Miller. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, we do agree that performance-based or risk-based
    measures can help facilitate smarter safety regulation that
    actually achieves the outcomes that are desired. So we agree
    with you that performance-based measures facilitate safety.
        Mr. Weber. And you would agree that nobody wants nobody
    they know, no Americans, nobody killed on the highways and
    nobody killed by pipelines. You would agree with that.
        Ms. Miller. I totally agree with that.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, I--
        Ms. Miller. Safety is first.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of this time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
    Jersey's 8th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for
    calling this hearing today, but I want to provide context for
    what is happening in Congress this week, what is happening
    outside the committee's doors.
        The speaker has announced that we are going to have
    canceled votes this week. He is limiting the legislative action
    that can be taken on the floor. And I think most Americans
    would want to know why. Why would we limit the things that we
    can do to further the interests of our constituents? What would
    that issue be?
        And the issue that has broken the Republican Party is their
    refusal to vote on the release of the Epstein files. Of all the
    things that we have to deal with as a country, the reason we
    can't do our work here is because Republicans refuse to deal
    with the Epstein files and the transparency that they promised
    the American people. The Republican Party is so broken that
    they refuse to hold this administration accountable or let us
    do our jobs to vote on legislation. But we are sitting here
    pretending that it is business as usual in this hearing room
    this morning, when we know that is not the case.
        Let me also remind folks back home that just last month
    Republicans passed their highly partisan reconciliation
    package, which included provisions to bypass the Clean Water
    Act and erode States' rights to protect our constituents from
    polluting pipelines and a giveaway to fossil fuel companies. So
    at the same time that they are making it easier for fossil fuel
    companies to build pipelines in States and districts that don't
    want them, they are making it harder for Americans to access
    health care through Medicaid, through the ACA, by adding
    additional red tape.
        So, easier for fossil fuel companies, harder for average
    Americans who are potentially dealing with long-term
    disabilities. The absolute lack of accountability is
    astounding.
        Last year, the House Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee put together and approved a truly bipartisan bill
    that would have reauthorized PHMSA pipeline safety programs for
    the next 4 years, giving families in all of our communities
    peace of mind that our pipelines are safe. Unfortunately, last
    year, instead of coming to the table, Energy and Commerce
    Republicans offered a bill that authorized significantly less
    than what we approved on T&I to the tune of $80 million less
    per year. In fact, the Republican Energy and Commerce bill
    would have cut activities that keep our communities safe by 18
    percent from the 2020 authorization levels.
        Mr. Caram, can you briefly touch on what a cut like this
    would mean for pipeline safety for all of our constituents?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for that.
        Inflation--since the last pipeline authorization, the PIPES
    Act of 2020, inflation has been over 20 percent. So an increase
    of anything less than 20 percent in this reauthorization would
    be a cut in funding. On top of that, there is new jurisdiction
    for PHMSA in gathering lines and the potential build-out of
    CO2 and hydrogen pipelines, all of which would
    require more funding. So a cut below the 2020 authorization
    would be quite drastic.
        Mr. Menendez. That would make it more difficult for hiring
    and retaining the experts that we need to coordinate critical
    elements of our pipeline safety programs. Is that correct?
        Mr. Caram. That is correct.
        Mr. Menendez. And with the ongoing layoffs and buy-outs, we
    know that that is going to have an impact on pipeline safety
    programs. Is that correct?
        Mr. Caram. I believe so. I am looking forward to hearing
    more about what is happening there.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes, because we now have even less staff in
    an already understaffed agency that is responsible for keeping
    all of our families safe from the dangers of neglected
    pipelines. Republicans are proposing to cut an already
    underresourced agency, all while they are actively passing
    legislation and pushing for more pipelines. So less staff, less
    funding, and more work to do.
        It is highly concerning to me that the Trump administration
    is turning a blind eye to bad behavior by fossil fuel companies
    while they are actively hamstringing the agency responsible for
    holding these companies accountable and keeping us all safe.
    And Republicans in Congress are enabling it by cutting
    resources for PHMSA and adding to their workload.
        Would you say that the Republican approach to safety is
    making Americans less safe or more safe?
        Mr. Caram. I would say cuts to PHMSA would make Americans
    less safe.
        Mr. Menendez. Correct. And we know that the T&I has a bill
    that would actually make--a bipartisan bill that would provide
    the resources needed. But again, this committee, the
    Republicans on this committee, chose to go a different route
    and not act in a truly bipartisan way.
        This is all problematic because Democrats on this committee
    want to deal with the challenges that we have in this country,
    want to do it in a thoughtful, bipartisan, bicameral way. We
    were able to do that on T&I, so it is not impossible. People
    think that we can't do these things in a bipartisan way. We
    absolutely can. T&I has shown us the way. This committee needs
    to follow T&I's lead to get those things done for the American
    people, to keep our constituents safe.
        I hope that is the work that we can do in this Congress,
    but apparently we won't be able to do it because Republicans
    refuse to release the Epstein files.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's
    12th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here today. My first question is for Ms. Miller.
        Thank you for being here. In your testimony you state that
    in-plant piping regulation by PHMSA is duplicative to the
    safety programs under the jurisdiction of OSHA. Can you
    elaborate on the requirements in-plant pipes must comply with
    under OSHA's process safety management standards?
        Ms. Miller. Thank you for the question.
        I appreciate--we do appreciate this committee's
    consideration of the opportunity to bring legislative certainty
    to eliminating the duplication. So OSHA's pipeline safety
    management system does have requirements that include, for
    example, making sure that we have written operation--written
    operating procedures for covered processes, for maintaining
    integrity, for managing change.
        We would note that PHMSA itself has acknowledged that the
    OSHA safety management imposed on gas in-plant piping is of a
    similar quality to what PHMSA itself would be requiring, and
    the duplication of that effort brings--it is cumbersome, it
    brings not only duplicated demand for resources, but there can
    be inconsistencies.
        I would highlight, for example, one of the things is that
    we have inspectors from each of the agencies who are reviewing
    our operations. And when they do so, they come with different
    experience, different subject matter expertise. So the OSHA
    inspectors have familiarity with inspecting in-plants, for
    example, in refineries. The PHMSA inspectors have more
    experience inspecting interstate transmission lines, for
    example, and so that the opportunity to have--engage with a
    regulator who has more experience with in-plant piping brings
    more consistency and efficient use of resources that can be
    applied to other safety matters.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Can you discuss the challenges
    your members have in ensuring safe operations when two
    different Federal regulators are overseeing the same piping?
        Ms. Miller. Thank you. I would repeat, then, that it is the
    complication of having two potentially inconsistent sets of
    requirements, standing up two programs to be able to achieve
    similar safety-desired outcomes but through different means
    with different types of inspections, different requirements,
    which is just a drain on resources and can be inconsistent or
    contradictory.
        Mr. Balderson. Would you say this conflict and regulatory
    overlap like in the case of in-plant pipes make it more
    confusing and challenging to maintain safe operations for GPA
    Midstream members?
        Ms. Miller. I would.
        Mr. Balderson. You also wrote in your testimony that PHMSA
    is rightfully taking action with the recent notice of proposed
    rulemaking----
        Tough position here, I can't see.
        Proposed rulemaking to alleviate this regulatory
    uncertainty regarding in-plant gas piping. Would you agree
    that, while the agency's proposal is welcome and necessary,
    Congress can and should still act to remedy this issue with a
    statutory fix to provide certainty for industry now and into
    the future?
        Ms. Miller. Absolutely, yes. The notice of proposed
    rulemaking from PHMSA is a great start, but we would appreciate
    Congress making that permanent. Our members appreciate
    legislative predictability and certainty so they can plan for
    long-term operations.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Ms. Miller.
        Mr. Black--and I want to be--I have a minute and 23--follow
    up with you. Last Congress this committee passed a strong
    pipeline safety reauthorization that strengthened penalties on
    individuals that damage, destroy, or impair the operation of
    pipeline facilities. I have heard from a number of pipeline
    workers and operators in my district who have strong concerns
    about worker safety due to an increase in attacks and vandalism
    on pipelines over the last several years.
        Mr. Black, can you discuss why it is so important for
    Congress to choose loopholes and strengthen penalties on
    individuals that attack pipelines?
        And a followup: Would doing so help protect the safety and
    security of your members, employees, and pipeline workers?
        Mr. Black. Actions that tamper with the pipeline risk
    hurting of the people who live nearby, the perpetrators
    themselves, and the environment. We have seen people cutting
    through chains to turn valves, shooting pipeline components
    before they are installed, and shooting a high--you know, using
    a blowtorch on pipelines.
        There is--Congress said no--criminal penalties in pipeline
    safety law for damaging and destroying, but there is a
    loophole. If you tamper with a pipeline but you don't
    immediately damage or destroy it, it is not covered by the
    Federal pipeline safety laws. If you cover that, if you take
    that action to close that loophole, you will protect the
    environment and the workforce around those, and we would
    encourage you to do that in your reauthorization.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's 4th
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member
    Castor, for holding this very important hearing.
        In recent years we have seen several pipeline incidents in
    Virginia that underscore the importance of the pipeline safety
    program. Communities across the Commonwealth have long raised
    concerns about the Mountain Valley Pipeline, from construction
    activities contaminating drinking water to the risk of corroded
    pipes failing. These fears were sustained when in 2024 a
    section of the pipeline failed during hydro testing, a process
    that uses pressurized water to check pipe integrity.
        And in the summer of 2023 a TC Energy natural gas pipeline
    in the Shenandoah Valley exploded, likely due to cracking in
    the pipe.
        In each of these cases, PHMSA has had critical
    responsibilities conducting testing during construction,
    investigating pipeline failures, and imposing corrective
    action. As this committee takes on reauthorization of the
    pipeline safety program, we must ensure that PHMSA has the
    personnel and resources it needs to carry out its vital
    responsibilities and keep our communities safe. So I am glad
    that Ranking Member Castor asked questions on that point.
        The Mountain Valley Pipeline cuts through the Jefferson
    National Forest and crosses hundreds of waterways and wetlands.
    And since the start of the project, there have been around
    1,500 reported pollution incidents impacting rivers, streams,
    and drinking water supply. During construction and testing of
    the Mountain Valley Pipeline, we heard that farmers and
    landowners were seeking more communication and engagement from
    PHMSA around the risks to their land and water resources, which
    I think is just as important a safety concern that we should
    all be worried about.
        So Mr. Caram, I appreciate the Pipeline Safety Trust's work
    to make pipeline safety information more readily available and
    accessible to the public. And in addition to addressing the
    reckless workforce cuts that we have seen, how would you
    recommend that PHMSA improve its efforts to prevent pollution
    incidents and better engage community members?
        Mr. Caram. Thank you for the question.
        I think it comes back to strong regulations and effective
    enforcement in pipeline safety management systems in order to
    limit these incidents. And really, all three need to work
    together. There's lots of room for improvement on all three,
    and I hope the committee is looking to take that on.
        As far as community engagement, you know, the Pipeline
    Safety Trust has really believed that an Office of Public
    Engagement at PHMSA would be a big improvement. Public
    engagement hasn't been a strength of the agency historically,
    but they have made improvements in recent years. But I hate to
    see how going from 13 employees down to 3 is going to backpedal
    that progress that they have made.
        Ms. McClellan. I agree with that.
        Community members and environmental groups have long raised
    concerns about potential corrosion issues in the Mountain
    Valley Pipeline in particular, which has been laying in fields,
    exposed to the elements for years before all permit approvals
    were forced through in the 2023 debt ceiling bill.
        Corrosion is also a growing issue for pipelines in coastal
    areas, where rising sea levels and saltwater intrusion,
    exacerbated by climate change, are speeding up pipe
    degradation.
        So, Mr. Caram, as we look at reauthorizing this pipeline
    safety program, what additional authorities or resources does
    PHMSA need to better address corrosion control to ensure
    pipeline safety?
        Mr. Caram. So there's two main defenses against corrosion.
    One is coding. That is really the first line of defense. And
    when coding fails, the second line of defense is cathodic
    protection. PHMSA has made some improvements to the cathodic
    protection on natural gas transmission pipelines recently, and
    we look forward to seeing how those are impacted--how those
    impact failures and effects of corrosion.
        But there aren't specific regulations on the condition of
    coding. They are pretty vague, and they leave a lot up to the
    operator's judgment. The consent order we saw with Mountain
    Valley Pipeline put some prescriptions on what coding--tests
    coding needs to pass and things like that, and those would make
    a great addition to the regulations for all pipelines.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you. And I don't have time for you to
    answer my last question, but for the record--because we also
    need to worry about cybersecurity--and I would be curious to--
    Mr. Caram, to know if you think that PHMSA and DHS--CISA in
    particular--are still well equipped to monitor and combat
    growing cyber threats to pipelines. And if you could submit
    that for the record, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Caram. Thank you.
        Ms. McClellan. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired,
    and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's 6th
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I will allow you to answer that question from Ms.
    McClellan. That is in line with some of my questions.
        Mr. Caram. Well, I will say that cybersecurity is not
    really in the wheelhouse of pipeline safety for our
    organization. It is more of a reliability issue. So we don't
    really dig into the weeds on it.
        The way we have approached it is the integrity management
    program for high-consequence areas requires an operator to
    identify all potential threats against the pipeline, create a
    plan to mitigate against those threats, and implement that
    plan. And cybersecurity threats should be considered one of
    those threats, and PHMSA could adopt some specific standards
    within integrity management.
        To the rest of your question, as far as agency
    coordination, is beyond my expertise.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Black, I would like for you to take a shot
    at that question, as well.
        But back in 2021 we had a ransomware attack on the Colonial
    Pipeline, which was in my district, and there have been
    multiple attacks at various healthcare facilities around the
    country. And as more pipeline networks enter--become part of
    that equation, the threat of another attack is very much a real
    possibility, whether it is a fuel line like the Colonial
    Pipeline or other pipelines. Can you address what--where you
    think we are in terms of protecting our pipelines from cyber
    attacks and what we need to do to protect them?
        Mr. Black. I am glad to address both. Cybersecurity is very
    important to pipelines.
        Like any Fortune 500 company, pipeline operators need to
    maintain safeguards to protect their commercial systems and
    their operational systems. They will do that in concert with
    the Transportation Security Administration, working with them
    on cyber directives.
        I believe you asked about CISA reauthorization. LEPA
    supports reauthorization of CISA. That will give pipeline
    operators the opportunity, a safe place to work with
    governments to talk about threats. It is quite important that
    PHMSA coordinate with those--with cybersecurity expertise to
    make sure that anything that PHMSA does is in concert with what
    they know about how to do cybersecurity for pipelines, which--
    quickly evolving technologies and threats. Very important.
        Mr. Palmer. So are you hearing much on that from industry?
        Mr. Black. Every day we know there are attempts to breach--
    of breaches. I participate in classified briefings from
    government. We must always have our guard on pipeline safety.
    Thankfully, there are recommended practices. There are
    interactions with government and experts to try and improve
    that. We can never be--stop our vigilance.
        Mr. Palmer. Do you feel like PHMSA is weighing in on this
    properly, they are doing their part? Or is there--do we need to
    be doing more?
        Mr. Black. PHMSA is not key on cybersecurity, and I think
    that is OK. We will work with CISA and with TSA. We need PHMSA
    to make sure they are talking with them. Many of these
    briefings, PHMSA is a part of those. That coordination should
    be done right to make sure there is not conflicts and
    overlapping and pipeline operators being told to do two
    different things. We need to make sure we are doing that right.
        Mr. Palmer. Do we know if these are just--in the ransomware
    attack situation with Colonial Pipeline, that was just some
    people trying to extort money. But do we have a nation state
    involved in this, or people who are being given safe harbors?
    We know they are in China and Russia and other places to launch
    these attacks. Is there any----
        Mr. Black. Generally, yes. And I know there is people I can
    encourage you to talk to in government that can help you more.
    But we must be vigilant and must be working on this well
    every----
        Mr. Palmer. Yes, my concern about this transcends the
    pipelines. I mean, it is the critical infrastructure across the
    country that could be subject to a cyber attack, whether it is
    a ransomware attack or, you know, from a state-sponsored
    terrorist group.
        I mean, it could be anything, and I think that our grid, in
    its totality, not just the power grid but the entire totality
    of the grid, whether it is pipelines or power, we have got to
    make this a very serious issue, not--a top priority----
        Mr. Black. We Americans----
        Mr. Palmer [continuing]. For protecting----
        Mr. Black [continuing]. Use all these forms of energy every
    day, and we can't afford to have something down from a cyber
    incident. You are absolutely right. Thank you for paying
    attention to that.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I appreciate your response.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Colorado's 1st District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    all the witnesses.
        Mr. Black, I am peering around here to you. You just said
    we should always have the eye on pipeline safety, and you were
    talking about cyber. But I am assuming you mean in every
    respect pipeline safety is really critical for this country. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Black. I am making sure you are looking at me,
    Congresswoman.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Black. Yes, of course. Pipeline safety is our goal.
        Ms. DeGette. And Ms. Miller, I assume you would agree with
    that too.
        Mr. Caram?
        Ms. Miller. I would agree, as well.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Caram?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, I agree.
        Ms. DeGette. And Mr. Moriarty?
        Mr. Moriarty. Yes, I do.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes, it is sort of a fundamental. As we are
    transporting more material through pipelines and many of them
    aging because of the administration's emphasis on oil and gas
    development, we need to make sure that our pipelines are safe.
    We need to figure out a way, preferably in a bipartisan way, to
    do that statutorily. And that is what we are talking about here
    today.
        But I was recently reading an article in The Wall Street
    Journal, and it talked about how the number of violation
    reviews has dropped by 95 percent in the first 4 months of this
    President Trump's second term, compared to the same period
    under President Biden, and at number--and a 93 percent drop
    compared to Donald Trump's first term.
        And at the same time, the President has said that he
    doesn't want enforcement in a lot of these areas. And so I am--
    and so--and also, of course, then there is DOGE unceremoniously
    just having these layoffs across government, which we don't
    really know how many of those people were laid off, I don't
    think, at PHMSA. But given the dramatic drop of open reviews of
    safety violations, I am not sure that that means that there
    aren't violations. It just, I think, means that there aren't
    reviews.
        So Mr. Caram, I want to ask you, isn't it true that
    significant pipeline incidents have not decreased over the past
    20 years?
        Mr. Caram. That is true.
        Ms. DeGette. So let's talk about the Keystone Pipeline leak
    in Kansas, which was just 3 years ago, the largest offshore oil
    spill in almost a decade, and the third major spill in 5 years.
    That was quite serious, is that right?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, that was a lot of oil.
        Ms. DeGette. A lot of oil. And then last year a pipeline in
    Louisiana leaked for almost 2 hours because there were no
    pipeline operators on site, and the monitoring equipment
    malfunctioned. So that meant many residents weren't even
    notified of the leak. That was also pretty serious, wasn't it?
        Mr. Caram. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. And are there other examples of leaks that we
    are seeing that are just happening right now?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, you can look at the NTSB open investigation
    docket and see lots of examples of what the NTSB is
    investigating. Also their recently closed. There was a million-
    gallon spill off the coast of Louisiana that they just
    completed their investigation of, and unfortunately there is
    many, many stories.
        Ms. DeGette. So reducing the number--so the fact there is
    fewer safety violations, that doesn't mean necessarily there is
    that many--95 percent fewer leaks.
        Mr. Caram. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. So before the Trump administration took over,
    PHMSA was already deemed to be understaffed and underfunded. Is
    that right?
        Mr. Caram. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. And then, since President Trump took office,
    more than half of the senior executive roles at PHMSA are empty
    due to a hiring freeze and buy-out offers from DOGE. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Caram. As far as I know, it is.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. And now the Trump administration's recent
    budget request would keep PHMSA's funding completely flat, and
    is $16 million less than the Biden administration's last
    proposed budget. Is that your understanding?
        Mr. Caram. I have not looked at the President's budget.
        Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, so if we have flat or reduced
    staffing, what risk is that going to pose to public safety, do
    you think?
        Mr. Caram. Well, I believe that PHMSA was already an
    underresourced, understaffed agency, given the huge charge that
    they have on pipeline safety and the 3 million miles of
    pipeline. We wanted to see significant increases to that
    funding. And seeing flat or reduced funding, I can't imagine
    how that won't----
        Ms. DeGette. So will that----
        Mr. Caram [continuing]. Impact safety.
        Ms. DeGette [continuing]. Help with inspections, safety
    inspections?
        Mr. Caram. We would like to see that, an--
        Ms. DeGette. No, no, I mean----
        Mr. Caram [continuing]. Increase in funding.
        Ms. DeGette [continuing]. Would the decreased funding help
    with increasing safety inspections?
        Mr. Caram. No. My understanding is the reductions in force,
    the inspectors were protected from those reductions in force,
    and they were not allowed to participate in that program, but
    we haven't seen any numbers on that.
        But I will say that, beyond just inspectors, the entire
    agency is dedicated to safety, and they support inspectors.
    They support regulations and enforcement. And so any
    reduction----
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Texas's 11th District, 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some
    questions that I will get to, but does anybody have any
    thoughts on this last discussion we just heard, that safety
    incidents are out of control, or want to push back on anything?
        Mr. Black?
        Mr. Black. Sure, I will cover enforcement. I divide this
    year into two chapters. Before PHMSA introduced Office of Chief
    Counsel memos adopting mandates from Congress in the 2020 Act--
    since then I understand enforcement numbers are more similar.
    Before then, even when numbers were lower, the quality was high
    in terms of responding to the major incidents. On two lines
    they issued corrective action orders, and the industry supports
    PHMSA being an effective regulator.
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes, OK.
        Ms. Miller. I would just echo that our members do encourage
    that we have a strong and well-informed, well-resourced
    regulator for the--but not only the safety, but also make sure
    that we have predictable expectations for our operations.
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes, but reasonable----
        Ms. Miller. Correct.
        Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. Being the key word, yes, thank
    you. OK. And Ms. Miller, I will stick with you and I will start
    with the gas gathering rule. And as you are aware, this
    significantly expanded PHMSA's jurisdiction, bringing more than
    400,000 additional miles of gathering lines under Federal
    oversight. And they are located in districts like mine in the
    Permian Basin, where there is a heavy presence of production
    there, and very important.
        And the scope of implementation of this rule could have
    major implications for how the gathering systems are built and
    operated going forward, so we want to get this right. We want
    to be reasonable, and safety is important. It is a major
    concern, and there are other concerns, as well.
        But from your perspective, what implementation challenges
    are operators currently facing on the ground?
        And how can PHMSA better distinguish between high-risk and
    then lower-risk areas? Again, reasonable in the way
    governments--which is not always the way it is done, but----
        Ms. Miller. No, I appreciate that question very much.
        Yes, we do very much value the opportunity to have risk-
    based assessment of safety concerns. There--just because, for
    example, a pipeline may have--two different pipelines may have
    a similar diameter or similar pressure, there are other
    circumstances to consider in order to make sure that we are
    assessing what the risk is appropriately, including, for
    example, proximity to populations, length of pipeline.
        One of the things I also wanted to make sure that this
    subcommittee is familiar with is the difference between--the
    differences that exist between gathering pipelines and
    transmission pipelines, not only physically but commercially.
    So it is important to remember that the interstate pipelines
    are subject to regulated rates with uniform tariffs versus
    gathering pipelines are subject to market-based, negotiated
    compensation and negotiated commercial terms. So very different
    application.
        Mr. Pfluger. I am sorry that more of my colleagues aren't
    here to hear that. And we always take trips down there, and we
    do point out the difference in the Permian Basin of gathering
    systems versus the larger pipelines, interstate type.
        And just real quickly--and I want to get to Mr. Moriarty--
    but having frequent GPAC meetings and ensuring participation
    from stakeholders, what is the importance of that and how does
    that help PHMSA regulate?
        Ms. Miller. We really appreciate the GPAC process. We think
    it helps bring more informed regulation, which therefore is
    more likely to be implementable. And we want to encourage that
    that GPAC process also include more insights from gathering
    operators when it is regulating as it is more--as PHMSA is more
    often regulating gathering now.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you.
        Just I had--Mr. Moriarty, I had some things I was going to
    say, but let me just get right to the question. In your view,
    is there any realistic path to a reliable grid without natural
    gas playing a role as the backbone--the backbone?
        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you, Congressman. No, there is not.
        Mr. Pfluger. And would you agree that, if we are going to
    meet the rising demand while also keeping the lights on, that
    we need to get serious about modernizing and expanding our
    natural gas infrastructure? And give us your thoughts on that.
        Mr. Moriarty. Yes, I would agree with that. Natural gas
    pipelines are the safest way to move the energy that this
    Nation needs. And there is ever more demand for energy across
    our service territories, which is the United States. And to
    meet those demands, we need to construct and safely operate
    pipelines, as well as LNG storage facilities.
        Mr. Pfluger. Where did the negativity come from in this
    country towards pipelines? Like, I mean, what--how did we get
    here?
        Mr. Moriarty. Well, I don't know. At Chesapeake Utilities--
    and that is what I can speak of--we take very seriously our
    obligations to the communities we serve. And those communities
    are where we live and where we work.
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes.
        Mr. Moriarty. So if an issue is raised with us, we
    immediately study it and address it. So I am not quite sure
    what is happening elsewhere.
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes. Science and math. They are the safest
    form of transportation and transmission. And they keep the
    lights on.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and
    he yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Massachusetts's 4th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the
    witnesses being here today.
        I do want to start off by echoing the comments from my
    colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. Like him, I sat on the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last Congress. The
    difference in process on pipeline safety reauthorization
    between what I saw there and what has been described about this
    committee's process last year could not be more different.
        On T&I it was a bipartisan bill. Not everyone got
    everything they wanted, but everyone got something, and we were
    able to move the ball on safety. And it just seems like that is
    the opposite of what happened here last year. I really hope
    this time is different, because there is a lot of areas where
    we can move the ball forward in a bipartisan way.
        Mr. Caram, did the Pipeline Safety Trust think that there
    were serious issues with the partisan bill that E&C Republicans
    put forward last year?
        Mr. Caram. There were--as mentioned earlier, there were
    several provisions in the bill that had nothing to do with
    pipeline safety, like permitting reform, gas stove protections,
    and CCS well permitting that really don't have anything to do
    with pipeline safety.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Black, you had said earlier that your
    constituency wants--industry wants predictable regulation. Is
    that right?
        Mr. Black. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Do you think that when items that are
    unrelated to the core issue of pipeline safety and that have a
    strongly polarized and partisan bent to them are added to
    pipeline safety bills, does that make the overall product more
    or less predictable?
        Mr. Black. Well, we support Congress reauthorizing the
    pipeline safety laws. We supported the T&I bill and the Energy
    and Commerce bill. In the end, we want good policies enacted.
    It is up to you all to--how to do it.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Right. But if the policies enacted are
    done on a partisan basis, does that inspire more or less
    confidence in the industry that they can count on those
    regulations over a generational time span? Because you are
    making long-term capital investments, right? So having the
    goalpost move on you, not helpful.
        Mr. Black. I mean, I understand your question. We wanted
    Congress to act on reauthorization last time. We had
    priorities. We haven't achieved them. We would like you to do
    it now, whatever that takes.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And Mr. Caram, I assume you didn't think
    it was perfect, but did the Pipeline Safety Trust think that
    the bipartisan T&I bill was closer to the mark than the
    partisan E&C bill?
        Mr. Caram. Yes. There were some good provisions in there.
    We didn't think it went far enough to make a real meaningful
    difference on pipeline safety, but there were really good
    provisions that we supported and support.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And did you want to weigh in on that, Mr.
    Black?
        Mr. Black. We supported both bills.
        Mr. Auchincloss. You supported both bills, but they were
    very different bills. So was there elements of T&I or E&C that
    you thought were particularly productive?
        Mr. Black. I am trying to remember. There were things that
    were in Energy and Commerce that weren't in T&I, and we were
    hoping that that would get reconciled if there was one big bill
    going to the floor.
        We--you know, bipartisan action is necessary to make a law.
    How you start, again, is up to you all. Our goal is smart
    public policies that are improving safety.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Bipartisan action is necessary to make a
    law.
        Mr. Black. Sure.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Agreed. I want to be positive today, talk
    about some of the important things to include in the pipeline
    safety package, rather than just the process that I didn't
    think was productive.
        One point that has come across in multiple testimonies is
    that some States could stand to improve their programs to
    prevent third-party excavation damages. Mr. Caram, could you
    talk a little bit about what changes States can make to those
    programs and how PHMSA and Congress could play a role?
        Mr. Caram. Sure. I think that is an area where all four
    witnesses agree on the improvements to be made. The Common
    Ground Alliance has a set of best practices for State programs,
    and some States implement all of those best practices and
    others don't. And having those as the baseline for all States,
    I think, would make a big improvement on damage prevention.
        Things like exemptions to 811----
        Mr. Auchincloss. Yes.
        Mr. Caram [continuing]. Certain States allow certain
    municipalities not to have to call 811, for example, and not
    allowing that would be great.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Does anybody want to weigh in on that?
        Mr. Black. All these industries are going to support
    improved damage prevention. There are provisions, I believe,
    that were in the T&I bill last time--I can't remember about
    Energy and Commerce--to move forward damage prevention, and we
    would support those.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Yes, the T&I bill had some good stuff in
    there.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's 1st
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    the witnesses for being here today.
        Can you see me for that big chair?
        Ms. Miller, as Ranking Member Pallone stated, GPA
    successfully argued that some PHMSA regulations have not been
    cost effective. But how important is cost-effective regulation
    for operators as you prioritize safety?
        Ms. Miller. We believe cost benefit analysis that is part
    of the PHMSA regulation rulemaking process is very important.
    We want to make sure that we are able to prioritize the
    highest-value safety priorities and also make sure that
    regulation is implementable, that there is technology actually
    available in order to achieve those goals.
        The process now for the implementation of rules which
    provides for input from the GPAC process but also from the
    public ensures that there is a more informed regulation that is
    more likely to be executed.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Was the leak detection and repair rule
    finalized by the previous administration workable for
    operators?
        And did it align with the congressional intent of the PIPES
    Act of 2020?
        Ms. Miller. We do not believe that it did. We do support
    leak detection and repair technologies being implemented in
    accordance with Congress' mandate.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. All right. You know, there is an
    increasing threat to pipeline safety, as we all know, from bad
    actors that wish to cause harm to pipelines and surrounding
    communities. In 2022 there was a movie entitled, ``How to Blow
    Up a Pipeline,'' and it was portrayed by a group of teenagers
    trying to blow up an oil pipeline to protest climate change.
        Mr. Black, what measures have operators taken to prevent
    bad actors disrupting pipelines and jeopardizing public safety?
        Mr. Black. It was so sad to see a movie that was glorifying
    attacks on pipelines. I remember at the time us encouraging
    Federal actors to put out bulletins to be looking for copycat
    activities on that. Thankfully, I am not aware of anything that
    happened because of that movie.
        Congress can help by closing loopholes and make it clear
    that, if you just turn a valve or damage a pipeline component--
    you think you are not hurting anything--you could be leading to
    a pressure buildup or a rupture later that hurts yourself,
    people, and the environment.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, absolutely.
        Ms. Miller, how can Congress ensure that pipeline
    permitting timelines are predictable and not subject to
    unnecessary delays in litigation?
        Ms. Miller. Well, we would appreciate Congress' attention
    to that. We do think that the permitting for pipelines which
    are essential to be--to deliver natural gas to the communities
    that need it is very important. And there is an opportunity to
    make sure that that is a balanced process that reflects not
    only the need to have access to energy but also safety and
    environmental protections. And we believe that is possible.
        We also believe that that is very important, an important
    priority for our operators across the industry.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Mr. Moriarty, as the U.S. expands
    hydrogen pipeline networks, what unique safety and regulatory
    challenges do these fuels represent?
        And how should PHMSA's mandate evolve to address them?
        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you very much for the question. It is a
    very good question.
        We have been blending hydrogen with natural gas at a
    facility that we have in Florida. And we have blended up to 5
    percent, and it was not only inexpensive but also very good for
    the generation that was happening there. So we are we are
    bullish on the role of hydrogen.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Mr. Moriarty. What we are still studying, and I think the
    industry is studying, is how much blending can occur without
    challenging the integrity of those pipelines.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Mr. Moriarty. Our interstate pipeline infrastructure is the
    envy of the world. I mean, we are able to deliver energy and so
    many others, you know, to the people here in the country as
    well as to the industry. So we see further study on that as
    helpful as you consider PHMSA's reauthorization.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. Thank you, sir. And with that, Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Excellent. Thank you. I wasn't expecting to
    be up so soon. I am usually the very last, so I guess it pays
    to stick around.
        Well, thank you all for being here. I appreciate you
    lending your expertise to this very, very important subject. I
    have been a pipeline proponent for many years. I spent 12 years
    as a utility regulator and permitted a lot of pipelines myself
    in the State of North Dakota, so I want to talk a little bit
    about the State role first.
        I recognize that--I have recognized the challenges at PHMSA
    in terms of staffing for years. One of the challenges is they
    don't operate a State inspection training program as
    effectively as they could to help get more State inspectors out
    there. It takes too long to certify these people.
        So what do you think they could be doing to help?
        And what are you guys focusing on in terms of encouraging
    PHMSA to use, like, remote training programs and really get the
    training system up to speed so that the State inspectors can
    hit the ground running sooner?
        Mr. Black, maybe you and Mr. Caram----
        Mr. Black. It is great to have you on the committee, given
    your role in North Dakota. Thank you, and welcome.
        State inspectors with quality experience and knowledge on
    pipeline inspections is very important. I have been to PHMSA's
    Training Center in Oklahoma City. And you're right, it is
    important to be able to expand the capacity of that training.
    It is in the industry's interest that anybody inspecting a
    pipeline is quality, knows what they are doing, and is working
    in concert with others. We would like to do that.
        We would like to also see States reduce damage prevention
    exemptions so that we can protect pipeline safety, and then to
    work in their inspections with PHMSA to make sure that they are
    not duplicative when PHMSA has approved a State to inspect
    interstate transmission.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. I would encourage you to encourage
    PHMSA to do online training for State inspectors, at least for
    some of the programs. They don't have to be present.
        Mr. Black. I will make that call today.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. If they could do that----
        Mr. Black. Thank you.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. Yes. Mr. Caram, any----
        Mr. Caram. Yes, I will echo Mr. Black's comment. I welcome
    your expertise and experience to the subcommittee, and I think
    the quality of your question really shows the--that expertise
    that you bring. And so thank you for it.
        It is a--you have identified a real issue with State
    programs. I think, in addition to how long training takes, I
    think, you know, increasing firms' ability to attract and
    retain talent--I know there is a lot of competition for these
    inspectors once they are trained to be, you know, paid more by
    the industry. And so giving PHMSA more--well, giving the State
    programs more flexibility under the PHMSA program in their
    ability to attract and retain through the funding and their
    agreements, I think, would go a long way in keeping that talent
    on the State programs longer.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK, very good. Thank you. I would also
    encourage you to make those comments to PHMSA.
        Mr. Caram. I will do so.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. The--I am curious about this demonstration
    program that was kind of choked off by the last administration.
        Mr. Black, I mean, everybody here has talked about the use
    of technology, and that is something that we can--should be
    able to agree on on a bipartisan manner. Let's use the
    technology for a better purpose.
        What do we need to do to reinvigorate this pilot program so
    we can test some of this stuff and get it in the field?
        Mr. Black. First, Congresswoman, reauthorize the program in
    this upcoming reauthorization. It lapsed. Nobody uses it. It
    was because PHMSA applied rules that you all didn't tell them
    to do. So tell them to do it without bureaucratic hurdles. I
    don't think they will apply the special permit process to it--
    or NEPA to these decisions, but show PHMSA the importance that
    you have in demonstrating new technologies and how they can
    improve pipeline safety.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK, very good. And then my last question
    will have to be quick.
        Our infrastructure is aging, but it is really, really hard
    for companies to build new pipelines. I mean, so this one goes
    to you, Mr. Caram. You have got kind of a bully pulpit to talk
    about these issues in terms of a public safety position, and
    talk about the value of pipelines in terms of being the safest
    method to transport a lot of these products.
        What are you doing to help educate the public about the
    need for replacing old, aging pipelines that are more prone to
    leaks with the new stuff to--and to help advocate for
    permitting processes that are certain and the construction of a
    new pipeline after that?
        Mr. Caram. Well, we don't necessarily see the, you know,
    permitting reform as part of our mission on pipeline safety.
    But we do advocate for, you know, the pipe replacement program
    that was in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and has been some
    draft legislation on this round of reauthorization. And we
    continue to support that program to replace that aging, leak-
    prone, problematic pipe.
        Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. I am over time, sorry. Thank you all, I
    appreciate----
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time----
        Mrs. Fedorchak. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. Has expired, and yields back, and
    the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 33rd
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and let me
    start by reaffirming, I think, what we all know to be true, and
    that pipeline safety is not a luxury, but it is a necessity.
    And we rely on over literally 3 million miles of pipeline to
    move energy and materials that power this country. It is very
    critical for keeping our houses cool and keeping them warm, and
    jobs.
        So I mean, it is important for everything, and that is why
    PHMSA's mission is so important and it is why this committee's
    work to reauthorize PHMSA is long overdue. I think that we have
    let the agency's authorities lapse, even as pipeline miles
    expand and aging infrastructure strains and new fuels like
    hydrogen and CO2 are finally starting to enter the
    system.
        And as a Texan, I know better than most how central
    pipelines are to American energy. They are efficient, they are
    economical, and they are essential. But they are also not
    infallible, and we have to look for ways that we can raise the
    bar on safety. With new energy demand surging, the country
    growing, things like hydrogen and CO2 infrastructure
    coming online, and extreme weather risks--and extreme--weather
    extremes increasing, the stakes really couldn't be higher.
        We need PHMSA to ensure that we have the tools, the staff,
    and the authority to really prioritize safety and reduce leaks
    and protect a lot of our communities, as well as we experience
    this growth and this new demand for energy.
        And so I think that what we really need to be asking
    ourselves is, How can we make real progress on pipeline safety
    without getting bogged down in partisanship, which is something
    that I have really stressed a lot on, being on the
    subcommittee? And so at the end of the day, this hearing is not
    just about policy, but it is really whether--about families can
    feel safe in their homes and businesses and whether or not we
    are going to have the energy that we needed.
        And so I wanted to ask Mr. Caram, your organization often
    works across stakeholder lines. And I wanted to ask, like, what
    are two or three practical, bipartisan steps this committee
    could take in reauthorization that would increase pipeline
    safety and community trust but still be workable for the
    industry?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you so much for that question. Two
    things come to mind, both of which I mentioned briefly.
        The first is in-home methane detectors or natural gas
    alarms. The NTSB has been recommending these devices for some
    time. There has been some disagreement as to whether that is
    really under PHMSA or a State program's jurisdiction, but I
    firmly believe that it is part of an operator's public
    awareness responsibilities and could be part of the public
    awareness regulations. And you know, this subcommittee could
    make that happen.
        We saw in Japan, when they adopted widespread use of
    natural gas alarms, we saw the incidents decreased by 90
    percent. I firmly believe that widespread adoption of natural
    gas alarms will make a meaningful difference quickly on
    fatalities from pipelines.
        And another would be fire shutoff valves, or thermally
    activated shutoff valves. These would help mitigate the damage
    from a fire in a building that could be made worse by the
    presence of gas service. They are very simple, inexpensive
    devices. I believe they cost $75. They are required in
    Massachusetts already, and have been for some time.
        A low melting point polymer keeps the valve open. When
    exposed to heat it automatically closes, and it would prevent
    gas from making that fire worse and fueling it. They don't
    require any ongoing maintenance, and they are very easy to
    install on existing service lines.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. I also wanted to ask you--we know that
    communities are more likely to push back on CO2 and
    hydrogen projects if they don't understand the risks or
    benefits. And we see--we now see this happening across the
    Midwest with the CO2 pipelines. What tools like
    mapping, early engagement, or postincident transparency can
    Congress support to build trust in these next-gen pipelines?
        Mr. Caram. I think the biggest piece of building trust for
    this type of pipeline is improving the regulations. There are
    glaring regulatory gaps. Certain types of CO2
    pipelines aren't covered by any minimum safety regulations. And
    the regulations that do apply, the pipelines that are covered
    by regulations, those regulations are--don't really address the
    unique physical properties and risks that CO2 pose.
        So I think the biggest thing that could be done for
    building trust in these pipelines is modernizing the
    regulations.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. No, that makes sense.
        And Mr. Chairman, as I get ready to close, I hope that too
    we can address this again to talk about how we can get the
    public more involved before something bad happens. Oftentimes
    something--it takes something really bad to happen before the
    public really gets engaged. We need to start looking at how we
    can get in front of a lot of these things and not just be
    responding to, you know, unfortunate situations.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired, and he yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Georgia's 12th District for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, and thank you for
    holding this important hearing to discuss policy on expanding
    our pipeline capacity. I want to thank the witnesses for being
    here to testify.
        Building up our pipeline capacity is critical to delivering
    affordable energy to our constituents across the country and
    our allies. We have heard from the witnesses that pipelines are
    the safest way to deliver energy. As we are working on
    modernizing the role of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    Safety Administration, or PHMSA, it is critical we ensure it
    works to enhance our pipeline infrastructure.
        Mr. Moriarty----
        Mr. Moriarty. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Allen. You work in the local distribution of natural
    gas. Could you expand on how you get gas safely into
    communities, and the need to build up pipeline capacity to
    deliver low-cost energy to consumers?
        Mr. Moriarty. Well, thank you very much for that question.
    I would like to answer it by an example.
        Somerset County in Maryland did not have access to natural
    gas. The county there was desperate to get new energy delivered
    because of the economic development that would occur and the
    increase in employment. We worked closely with the community as
    well as with the State, and we now built a pipeline into
    Somerset County. So for the first time they have access to
    natural gas, which has led to more building, more
    manufacturing, and more jobs.
        Mr. Allen. That is a great example, and thank you for that.
        Mr. Black and Ms. Miller, you both mentioned the need to
    reform the special permit program. Can you share how reforming
    this program will expand pipeline infrastructure projects?
        Mr. Black. The special permit program has been nearly
    broken by the application of unnecessary conditions that are
    unrelated to the waiver being requested, and they have taken
    too long. PHMSA should reform the special permit process, and
    Congress should tell them that they should.
        Decision delays--decision deadlines, excuse me--and no
    extraneous conditions, how will that help? They are--one-size-
    fits-all regulations can't possibly apply to all the different
    types of conditions, operations, pipe that is out there. If we
    reform the special permit process, get people using it, have
    regulations that are suited to that specific pipe, that
    contributes to unleashing energy because we can have the pipe
    that we need to go where we need it to go.
        Mr. Allen. OK, Ms. Miller?
        Ms. Miller. I would echo what Mr. Black said. We agree that
    not only does the special permit program offer that
    opportunity, but I would point out as well that performance-
    based measures and PHMSA pipeline safety programming can allow
    for the evolving technology in order for more fit-for-purpose
    solutions.
        Mr. Allen. OK. As a followup, how can PHMSA modernize the
    special permit process so operators can realize the intended
    benefits of the process?
        Mr. Miller? Ms. Miller, I am sorry.
        Ms. Miller. Thank you. I would actually--I defer to Mr.
    Black, who did such a nice job of describing the special permit
    program----
        Mr. Allen. OK.
        Ms. Miller [continuing]. And the opportunities for
    improving upon it. But we echo that there is an opportunity to
    allow for the fit-for-purpose solutions that bring better
    safety outcomes.
        Mr. Allen. OK. Mr. Black?
        Mr. Black. Congressman, no unrelated conditions. Deal with
    what the pipeline operator is requesting. Don't take this
    opportunity to impose something else. Do that through the
    regulatory process.
        Second, have a decision deadline so that permits get ruled
    on and we get these changes made.
        Mr. Allen. OK. All right. Ms. Miller, it is my
    understanding that you have some LNG members. I believe
    exporting LNG to our allies is key to our national security.
        Can you share how updating pipeline safety programs would
    be beneficial to our LNG exports?
        Ms. Miller. Having a greater supply available for export
    not only facilitates the export of that to our allies, but that
    also has environmental benefits because natural gas is a more
    environmentally friendly energy source. And energy demands, of
    course, are increasing around the world. Making that available
    across the world, our American natural gas around the world, it
    provides benefits for us all.
        Mr. Allen. Yes, and this is a great opportunity for us to
    maybe reverse the trade deficit issues and other things that,
    obviously, the President is working on. Would that be correct?
        Ms. Miller. I agree.
        Mr. Allen. Yes, OK. All right. Well, thank you so much
    for--to you all for being here today.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Washington's 8th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses.
        I want to start just by expressing how important pipeline
    safety is all over, but particularly in my home State. It has
    been about 26 years since the Olympic pipeline explosion in
    Bellingham, which is less than an hour from my district. And
    this tragedy killed three young people, injured eight more, and
    severely impacted the ecosystem and the nearby communities. And
    many of the safety protections and considerations currently in
    place stem from this tragedy. So I just wanted to remind us all
    why we are here and why PHMSA is so important.
        I would love to just turn to hydrogen, a fuel that
    Washington State is heavily investing in. Mr. Moriarty, in your
    testimony you discussed the role that your utility plays in the
    Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub. I was wondering if you could discuss
    the economic opportunities that this hub will bring to your
    region.
        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you for that question.
        There was a great deal of excitement when MACH2 was
    announced, which is our hydrogen hub in Delaware, Pennsylvania,
    New Jersey. Our role as a company was going to be to use our
    Safety Town, which is where we have built little houses and
    little facilities. And I say little, it is just--all the
    appliances that you would use are in there. And we use that to
    train our employees but also to train first responders.
        Our role at MACH2 was going to be to blend hydrogen into
    those energy sources to see how they reacted, and then to help
    train our folks and others to do that. So there was a great
    deal of excitement when it first started.
        Ms. Schrier. That is really cool, that MACH2 has Safety
    Town there to do practice and drills, and I think it all makes
    all of us feel better.
        We also were very excited about--and we are very excited
    about being a hydrogen hub in Washington State. In particular
    in Washington, where we have 70 percent of our power comes from
    hydropower, there it is clean hydrogen, which is particularly
    exciting. It is a way to store that excess energy.
        And it is one of the reasons I am so disappointed that this
    administration and House Republicans are undermining the
    efforts toward hydrogen, which is our--one of our important
    future fuels. When they deliberated about the One Big, Ugly
    Bill, they slashed tax credits for clean energy, including
    weakening the 45V clean hydrogen tax credit, which is crucial
    to get this nascent hydrogen industry off the ground. And both
    MACH2 and the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub may be on the
    chopping block, according to some leaked documents.
        I will also note that one of the largest hydrogen hubs is
    in Texas, and that these exist in red States and blue States
    and all over, and we need to be thinking about the future.
        For the purposes of this hearing and safety, I just wanted
    to discuss again the knowledge gaps that we still need to fill
    in, in terms of how to integrate hydrogen fuel into the
    existing pipeline systems and infrastructure through blending
    and later, hopefully, maybe even on its own. And these safety
    issues have not been fully discussed.
        Mr. Caram, it is good to see you again. We talked about
    some of these unknowns the last time you were here and why
    further studies are needed to evaluate what modifications are
    needed to existing infrastructure to be compatible with
    hydrogen. We didn't know a ton at the time. It has been about a
    year. We still haven't passed PHMSA reauthorization with a
    hydrogen blending study to address these safety concerns.
        And I was wondering if you could speak to the urgency of
    this, the consequences of not filling those knowledge gaps
    sooner rather than later.
        Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for the question.
        At this point operators do not need to report to anyone,
    including PHMSA or their State regulator, if they are blending
    hydrogen into their system, as long as it is below 50 percent.
    So we don't really know how urgent this is because we are not
    aware of how many operators are blending hydrogen into existing
    systems.
        I will say that the knowledge gaps and research gaps and
    regulatory gaps that we discussed last time are largely still
    present. There hasn't been a lot of progress made, as far as I
    know.
        Ms. Schrier. Well, I hope the way we discover the problems
    isn't through a catastrophe at Safety Town and figuring out
    where there are gaps in our knowledge and pipelines. So I want
    to thank you, and I will yield back unless you want to use
    those 6 seconds.
        You looked too eager to say something. No?
        OK, I will yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa's 1st District
    for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta and
    Ranking Member Castor, for holding this important hearing on
    pipeline safety.
        American energy dominance requires modern pipeline
    infrastructure and effective regulations that truly consider
    the cost benefit of additional bureaucratic barriers. These
    pipelines heat our homes and power our farms. They deliver
    energy affordably and safely across the country, making modern
    life possible. To think if we replaced every pipeline with a
    semi tractor trailer truck, tanker, or railcar, how much more
    safety would be put at risk?
        We need clear Federal standards, not 20-year-old rules that
    ignore modern technology and innovation. This isn't
    complicated. Focus on actual safety. Streamline permitting.
    American energy security depends on building the
    infrastructure, and that means smart, targeted policies, not
    one-size-fits-all mandates that threaten reliability and
    investment.
        And to your point, Mr. Moriarty, I have--since I have been
    in Congress, which was January 3, 2021--have been talking with
    two of my counties in southeast Iowa along the Mississippi
    River who desperately want more pipeline natural gas delivered
    to them, and it is absolutely affecting economic growth. And
    they have lost businesses relocating there because of this
    issue.
        Mr. Black, your members use advanced technologies for leak
    detection voluntarily. Why is flexibility important in allowing
    operators to deploy the right technology for their specific
    systems, rather than having a prospective mandate from the
    Federal Government?
        Mr. Black. Well, first, technology, Congresswoman. There
    are lots of different types of pipelines. There are ones that
    have many laterals and many injection points and takeoffs, and
    there are ones that just go one direction. It is important to
    have a leak detection program that reflects the characteristics
    of that system. If there are prescriptive regulations, first,
    those might become quickly obsolescent by advancing technology.
    Second, they might not reflect the unique characteristics of
    that pipeline.
        Right now PHMSA inspects pipeline operators, asks them
    about how they are approaching their pipeline system, and has
    that type of conversation. That is the way that it should be.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. So it is sort of like the Federal
    Government telling a farmer how much input, how much pesticide,
    fungicide, fertilizer, when to harvest, when to plant, not
    knowing when the corn is dry, when the ground is ready, how
    much rain they are expecting, and if there is flooding.
        Mr. Black. That sounds right.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Moriarty, Congress mandated a safety program for idled
    pipelines in 2020, but it hasn't been implemented. As an
    operator, what unique risks do idled pipelines pose, and why do
    we need Federal standards?
        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you for that question.
        Idle pipelines are wasted capacity that could be repurposed
    for other uses. We try to ensure that all the pipelines that we
    have are fully utilized and they are safe. I think when you
    idle a pipeline and it is not being used, you just raise the
    risks of safety with those pipelines.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Again for Mr. Moriarty, you describe
    sophisticated cybersecurity measures at Chesapeake. How can
    PHMSA support industry-led cybersecurity efforts without
    creating duplicative regulations with TSA and other agency
    requirements?
        Mr. Moriarty. Well, thank you very much.
        Cybersecurity is one of the top risks that face companies
    like ours. We have invested a great deal in a cyber team. We
    have one of the best in the country, and we are very, very
    proud of that. We have attacks daily from nation states and
    others. We have partners at the FBI and other places that we
    deal with where we share information.
        I think if PHMSA were to step in, we would want a holistic
    approach, because time is of the essence when you are dealing
    with a cyber event.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
        And Ms. Miller, CO2 has been used for enhanced
    oil recovery for decades, helping maximize domestic energy
    production. Can you explain how CO2 infrastructure
    supports traditional oil and gas operations and why it is
    important for American energy security?
        Ms. Miller. Thank you for that question.
        Actually, few of the GPA Midstream members currently
    operate or are planning to operate CO2 pipelines,
    but we recognize the importance of having the pipelines
    available to solve and support some of the environmental
    opportunities available in the industry.
        We do support strong pipeline safety for all pipelines,
    including CO2, and we would support PHMSA's process
    to establish those rules properly.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Are there risks associated with the
    CO2 pipeline versus other pipelines if proper safety
    protocols are put in place?
        Ms. Miller. I am not--I would have to follow up for you,
    but I would be happy to.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. All right. Thank you so much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from California's 15th District
    for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of
    our witnesses today. This is an incredibly important topic to
    my district.
        Fifteen years ago, a natural gas pipeline exploded in the
    Glenview neighborhood of San Bruno, just a few miles from my
    home in south San Francisco. Eyewitnesses said that the
    fireball shot over 1,000 feet into the air. The blast killed 8
    people, injured dozens more, and destroyed or damaged more than
    100 homes. The impact on the community was devastating and long
    lasting, and it is exactly why we need to get this right.
        An NTSB report concluded that ``no one knew whether the
    pipeline under San Bruno was safe. Not the utility, not the
    State regulators, and not the Federal regulators.'' They went
    on to call it a failure of the entire system, a system of
    checks and balances that should have prevented this disaster.
        So Mr. Caram, can you walk us through the root causes of
    the 2010 San Bruno explosion, specifically the organizational
    breakdowns and regulatory gaps that allowed such a catastrophe
    to occur?
        Mr. Caram. Well, I can do my best. It has been a little
    while since I have looked at that NTSB report. But seeing--I
    recognize we are coming up on 15 years in September, and my
    heart goes out to that community and your community.
        There was a section of pipe up there that I don't think a
    lot of operators would consider pipe. And because of the lack
    of initial testing standards, you know, requiring to pressure
    test that pipe, it was never allowed to fail under that hydro
    test to discover that it wasn't capable of handling that
    pressure of natural gas. A lot of that came from acquisitions
    and lack of record keeping through acquisitions from company to
    company.
        And so the NTSB report had a long list of recommendations
    on how operators could get to know their system to make sure
    that they would be able to identify if there were that kind of
    rogue pipe somewhere in their system susceptible to fail.
        And PHMSA has--it took a long time, but they have enacted a
    series of rulemakings in response to those recommendations, and
    there are some real improvements in those regulations that they
    have passed. Unfortunately, because of the nonapplication
    clause and cost benefit, not all of the NTSB recommendations
    were able to be implemented by PHMSA, some of those key
    recommendations.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that.
        So under the Trump administration, PHMSA's enforcement
    actions have dropped to record lows. And nearly all of the
    agency's senior career staff has left. The agency has also
    delayed publishing a rule on gas leaks.
        Instead of prioritizing safety, unfortunately, the
    administration has proposed slashing budget by $16 million and
    threatened to withhold funding from your organization, Mr.
    Caram, the Pipeline Safety Trust.
        So given all of that, my question is to you again, sir:
    What does Congress need to do to ensure that pipelines are
    actually safer today than they were 15 years ago?
        Mr. Caram. I think Congress serves a critical oversight
    role of authorizing the appropriate level of funding,
    appropriating that funding, and then overseeing how they are
    implementing the Pipeline Safety Act. Hearings such as this can
    do that. Hearings with PHMSA would be helpful, as well.
        Congress asked PHMSA to--in its oversight role asked PHMSA
    to produce a web chart showing its progress towards all of the
    mandates towards rulemaking and required that that be updated
    on a monthly basis. And I think that is a key piece of
    oversight. It is also key for members of the public to really
    see where those rulemakings are prioritized. And the last time
    I checked, that hadn't been updated since January.
        Mr. Mullin. I appreciate the renewed attention on this.
    Thank you all for your testimony.
        And with that I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    South Carolina's 7th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a fascinating
    hearing, and I really appreciate the witnesses for being here.
        I am struck a little bit by some of the commentary from the
    other side of the dais that there is a perceived lack of
    enforcement. Mr. Black, earlier with--in a dialog with Mr.
    Pfluger you talked about two different sessions, if you will.
        What did you mean by that? And could you expand upon that
    when it comes to enforcement?
        Mr. Black. A couple of months ago, PHMSA's Office of Chief
    Counsel issued publicly a guidance on how this administration
    is going to be enforcing pipeline safety. Congress in the 2020
    Act had said that more due process needed to be provided to
    respondents, and so that was part of it.
        Before that series of memos from the Chief Counsel, there
    were public reports that numbers were down. Since then, the
    numbers of enforcement activities are higher. I don't think it
    is the numbers that matter to me. We look at, is PHMSA on the
    case on major incidents? Do pipeline operators recognize that
    PHMSA is going to deter unsafe pipeline operations? Pipeline
    operators absolutely know that PHMSA has that authority, and
    they are not thinking that this is--they are recognizing that
    we still face enforcement potential from PHMSA.
        Mr. Fry. So you are not--maybe the Chicken Little exercise
    that we heard from the other side about the sky is falling,
    you--what you are saying is that you don't think that the
    current numbers substantiate that allegation.
        Mr. Black. Correct. And I am not sure if numbers are the
    right way to do it. On the Keystone there was an action, there
    was a quick corrective action order telling the pipeline
    operator change its operations until PHMSA approved it. That is
    the type of activity PHMSA is supposed to do.
        Mr. Fry. Mr. Black, who was the head of PHMSA under the
    Biden administration?
        Mr. Black. It was Tristan Brown, the Deputy Administrator.
    There was no confirmed administrator.
        Mr. Fry. Why is that?
        Mr. Black. We don't know. In my time, there had never been
    an administration that failed to nominate an Administrator.
        Mr. Fry. Well, I mean, we have all seen that the President,
    the former President, was kind of asleep at the wheel for most
    of his administration. So what you are saying is that there was
    no actual head. There was a Deputy Administrator, but no one
    that was nominated by the White House to be in the role.
        Mr. Black. Correct.
        Mr. Fry. Is that the same today, or is there an actual----
        Mr. Black. There is a nominee, Paul Roberti, from the
    President to be the Senate-confirmed head of PHMSA, and he had
    his confirmation hearing last week. And we hope he is adopted.
    We think it is better for PHMSA to have Senate-confirmed
    leadership to be able to work with the Congress.
        Mr. Fry. What is your understanding, Mr. Black, of the
    budget of PHMSA under the 2025 fiscal year? What do--do you
    know roughly what that number is?
        Mr. Black. No, but I understand that the President's budget
    request is the same as it was in the last year.
        Mr. Fry. Do you--would it--$280 million, does that sound
    about right----
        Mr. Black. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fry [continuing]. For fiscal year 2025?
        Mr. Black. Yes.
        Mr. Fry. How much of an increase do you think that that is
    from, say, fiscal year 2023?
        Mr. Black. I don't know.
        Mr. Fry. Seventy-three million dollars.
        Mr. Black. Right.
        Mr. Fry. So you have seen a dramatic--so when we talk about
    scaling back funding or saving the taxpayers money, this isn't
    a scenario where their budget has been flat for years and they
    are receiving a cut. In fact, they received a 50 percent
    increase just 2 years prior to that.
        So again, when we are talking about funding, I think it is
    important to understand the context of that funding and where
    these funding mechanisms came from. Do you agree?
        Mr. Black. Yes. If we think PHMSA should be focused on
    pipeline safety, should have qualified personnel with STEM
    experience and pipeline operations expertise, if it takes
    Congress giving PHMSA extra help, we are ready to have them do
    that. We want PHMSA to have the resources that it needs.
        Mr. Fry. To do the job of the original mission, perhaps.
        Mr. Black. Focus on pipeline safety, yes.
        Mr. Fry. Correct, not the other ancillary things. I mean,
    they have kind of become a de facto EPA, if you will, under at
    least the Biden administration.
        Mr. Black. The emphasis was not there, right? There were
    congressional mandates, say, on idled pipe that were just not
    issued during the last administration, and they bungled the
    implementation of the Pipeline Safety Technology Demonstration
    program. We hope that this PHMSA will be focused on the right
    things.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
        Ms. Miller, one example of PHMSA regulations not keeping
    pace with modern-day conditions is the class location
    regulations, which have been--which have not been updated in
    about 50 years.
        Do you agree that population changes around pipelines
    necessitate changes to existing laws? And would those changes
    enhance pipeline safety?
        Ms. Miller. We believe that they are opportunities to
    ensure that risk assessments, including cross location
    analysis, is done to ensure that the right priorities are--and
    resources are made available for the highest priority safety
    results. So yes.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you. PHMSA should also integrate efficiency
    and flexibility into the regulations to incentivize PHMSA to
    modernize. Would PHMSA integrating more integrity management
    principles into class location regulations elevate safety
    standards across more miles of pipelines?
        Ms. Miller. We believe it would. Performance-based measures
    across not only interstate pipelines but also for gathering and
    processing--I am sorry, gathering and local pipelines would
    matter, as well.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and
    the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California's 7th
    District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
    to thank the witnesses for being here today.
        Now, the safe operation of our Nation's pipelines should be
    an urgent priority for this committee, but it has now been
    almost 2 years since its authorization expired for the Pipeline
    and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
        PHMSA is crucial for protecting communities from deadly
    pipeline accidents, but Republicans on this committee clearly
    don't see this as a priority. Instead of working towards a
    commonsense reauthorization of PHMSA, Republicans wasted the
    last 2 years trying to force through an extreme partisan bill
    that would cut pipeline safety by 18 percent.
        Now, under President Trump, I am gravely concerned that
    pipeline safety has been caught in a broader Republican effort
    to roll back critical safety and pollution regulations across
    the Federal Government. As my colleagues have discussed,
    multiple senior officials at PHMSA resigned or having been
    pushed out of the agency. There has been a sharp decline, drop
    in the number of enforcement actions taken by PHMSA, and
    President Trump has rescinded critical pipeline safety rules.
        Now, Mr. Caram, I want to keep this very simple. Are these
    actions going to increase or decrease the likelihood of a
    deeply--pipeline disaster?
        Mr. Caram. Thank you for that.
        As I stated before, I believe strong regulations and
    effective enforcement are critical to pipeline safety, and
    actions that erode those, I fear, will hurt pipeline safety.
        Ms. Matsui. Exactly. Mr. Caram, this looks like a
    deliberate effort to cripple PHMSA's capacity to act as an
    effective safety regulator in order to benefit the oil and gas
    industry. Would you disagree?
        Mr. Caram. I can't speculate as to the motivations behind
    the actions.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. It is not just PHMSA. This is part of a
    pattern. EPA staff has been told not to enforce pollution
    rules. The Department of Energy has been ordered to stop
    enforcing efficiency standards. The Department of Labor has
    been ordered to stop enforcing antidiscrimination laws. This is
    a deliberate, coordinated effort to weaken the protections that
    keep us safe.
        Now, I want to focus on the new rule for carbon dioxide
    pipelines for a moment because I think it demonstrates this
    point. As you mentioned in your testimony, it has now been 5
    years since the CO2 pipeline disaster in Mississippi
    that sent 45 people to the hospital. PHMSA proposed new rules
    to prevent this disaster from happening again, but President
    Trump immediately withdrew the new rule just as new
    CO2 pipelines are being built across the country.
        Mr. Caram, can you briefly describe some of the unique
    challenges and concerns surrounding the carbon dioxide
    pipelines?
        Mr. Caram. Sure. So CO2 is an asphyxiate, and it
    is heavier than air, and it is usually transported in a
    pipeline in a dense phase. In the event of a pipeline rupture,
    large amounts of CO2 can escape from the pipeline,
    and it can move in long distances close to the ground in
    dangerous and even lethal concentrations. It is odorless. It
    can be invisible, making it really difficult to detect. So all
    of these unique physical properties really present unique risks
    relative to other types of pipelines and unique emergency
    response challenges, as well.
        Ms. Matsui. But how do the proposed--the new proposed rules
    for CO2 pipelines address these challenges?
        Mr. Caram. Well, it proposed new standards to ensure that
    ruptures would be less likely to occur, like stronger
    construction and design standards and real-time monitoring. It
    also made sure that all parts of the pipeline where a failure
    could affect a community would be subject to stricter safety
    standards, and it also made improvements to an operator's
    responsibility to ensure strong emergency response.
        Ms. Matsui. So does the President's decision to kill this
    rule make communities more safe or less safe?
        Mr. Caram. Well, if it is between finalizing the proposed
    rule or not modernizing the regulations, not modernizing the
    regulations makes----
        Ms. Matsui. So it would be less----
        Mr. Caram [continuing]. Makes communities less safe.
        Ms. Matsui. Less safe. Mr. Caram, without new safety rules,
    will we see another tragedy like the disaster in Mississippi?
        Mr. Caram. I certainly hope not. We will be relying on
    operators to follow voluntary industry standards instead of the
    law.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Let me just talk about hydrogen blending.
    Blending hydrogen into natural gas pipelines also prevents new
    safety concerns that need to be addressed. Mr. Caram, can you
    briefly describe some of the unique challenges and concerns
    with hydrogen blending?
        Mr. Caram. Sure----
        Mr. Latta. In about 5 seconds.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Caram. I am not sure I can do that in 5 seconds.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Mr. Latta. Could the lady submit the question to the
    witness?
        Ms. Matsui. I certainly could.
        Mr. Latta. In writing.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. Thank you. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's 15th District for 5
    minutes for questions.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses for being here with us today.
        As American demand for energy continues to grow, it is
    essential that our pipeline infrastructure is prepared to meet
    this need. Pipelines are critical for transporting oil, natural
    gas, and our other energy resources.
        My home State of Florida is a large producer of electricity
    and relies heavily on pipelines to deliver energy, so I
    appreciate your testimony and the discussion.
        Mr. Moriarty, I would like to return to something you said
    just a few moments ago. You mentioned that one of the top risks
    you perceived for pipeline safety is, in fact, cybersecurity.
    Would you share with us a bit more about the cyber threat
    landscape you are seeing and how you are partnering with
    Federal agencies like the FBI and CISA to meet that threat?
        Mr. Moriarty. Thank you very much for the question.
        I guess what I would say to start with is because of the
    cyber threat we took our SCADA system, which is responsible for
    the operation--safe operations of our systems, we took that off
    our corporate system and we put it into what we call a DMZ
    zone, which means nobody can get access to it. So even if there
    is a breach somewhere on our system, it won't get into the
    pipeline's safe operation.
        Every day we have threats. We have a scoreboard where we
    see threats coming in in real time. Most--because of the
    investments we have made, most of those are stopped before they
    become a real threat. However, if there is a threat, it is
    sequestered and then is studied by our team. And then we report
    that to the various authorities--the FBI and others--and we
    have briefings constantly with the Federal partners to help us
    address this.
        Ms. Lee. And Mr. Black, in your written testimony you
    recommended the authorization of a voluntary information-
    sharing program. In his confirmation hearing, PHMSA nominee
    Paul Roberti emphasized the importance of information sharing,
    specifically on cybersecurity.
        Would you share with us more your perspective on that
    subject?
        Mr. Black. We have a great opportunity to do for pipelines
    what FAA has done to improve safety in aviation. In the 2016
    pipeline reauthorization law, Congress said PHMSA should form a
    public advisory--an advisory committee to come up with
    recommendations on how to develop this type of program. That
    work has been done, and it is ready for Congress to help
    authorize it.
        The benefit would be that pipeline operators, safety
    advocates, and government could all talk about incidents and
    lessons in a safe space so we are not concerned about antitrust
    violations, we are not concerned about the information getting
    out into the wrong hands. It has really been successful in
    aviation, where pilots, machinists, anybody is able to get that
    information with the focus on improving pipeline safety.
        So if Congress can enact voluntary information-sharing
    systems similar to what the advisory committee done--did, we
    will be able to do that type of a program that the NTSB and
    others will be cheering us on.
        Ms. Lee. And I think it is important to explore something
    you just touched on, which is the concept of being able to
    share that kind of information in a safe space. Would you
    elaborate a little bit more on the types of things that can
    happen if we don't create an environment like that --for
    example, the information falling into the wrong hands--and how
    that can exacerbate a vulnerability?
        Or, you know, the other potential consequences you face if
    we don't have a clear framework for sharing that kind of risk
    or even breach or incident information.
        Mr. Black. So pipeline operators themselves maintain a lot
    of different programs for sharing information. We want to learn
    from an incident and get better across the entire industry.
        But there is a limitation right now in being able to have
    that discussion with government or to have the Pipeline Safety
    Trust in the room. You want pipeline operators to--and anybody
    in the industry to be able to contribute that information and
    understand that that is going to be considered confidentially,
    it is not going to be misused against you in enforcement. There
    should be enforcement cases going on, but nothing in here
    should invoke that so that we can do safety.
        Right now, government isn't allowed to be a part of those
    discussions right now because they would have to put that
    information out on the street if asked. It has been successful
    in aviation. Let's do it for pipelines.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the
    balance of her time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
    from New York's 20th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our
    panelists.
        While I hope we can reach consensus on a bipartisan
    pipeline safety reauthorization, I have my doubts because
    recent history has shown that Republicans never miss an
    opportunity to promote fossil fuel industry interests. And we
    failed to reach agreement on a bipartisan bill last Congress,
    unlike our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee, because Republicans couldn't help themselves but to
    include extraneous provisions intended to promote oil and gas.
        And that dedication to fossil fuels led President Trump and
    congressional Republicans to end critical tax credits for
    fossil fuels' biggest competitors: renewables in the
    electricity sector and EVs in the transportation sector. This
    happened despite the fact that numerous independent analyses
    found that the Republicans' proposal will raise America's
    energy bills by more than $100 annually in the near term,
    growing to more than $400 within a decade.
        So during our last markup of energy bills, members of the
    majority continue to invoke the Keystone XL Pipeline,
    suggesting that the Obama and Biden administrations killed
    jobs. But after the Big, Ugly Bill, it has become crystal clear
    who actually cares about American energy jobs. Don't take my
    word for it, listen to the people who construct both renewable
    and pipeline projects. North America's building trades unions
    call the Republicans' Big, Ugly Bill--and I quote--``the
    biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country.'' It
    is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000 Keystone XL
    Pipeline projects.
        So all of these years later, Republicans want to continue
    to relitigate Keystone while enacting a bill that will kill an
    estimated 1.75 million construction jobs, translating to $148
    billion in lost annual wages and benefits for American workers.
        But, Mr. Caram, I want to try to highlight a couple of
    issues at PHMSA that may affect its ability to ensure safe
    operations of pipeline infrastructure. Your testimony noted
    that insufficient resources have resulted in PHMSA lacking
    technical capabilities, causing the agency to be overly reliant
    on regulated entities' technical expertise to carry out its
    responsibilities. This is an extremely troubling trend being
    implemented across many agencies by the Trump administration.
        Starving important, lifesaving regulatory agencies of
    skilled personnel and resources is a surefire way to allow
    corporate entities to cut corners at the expense of everyday
    Americans and our collective public interests. We are seeing
    this playbook be executed right now as the Trump administration
    works to eliminate EPA's Office of Research and Development and
    lay off hundreds of chemists, toxicologists, and other
    scientists.
        And that is because these public servants produce
    independent science that regulated industries often don't like.
    Polluters want their regulators to be toothless, to rely upon
    them for science, and to lack the capacity to verify industry-
    produced studies, or enforce rules.
        So Mr. Caram, I think you might suggest that there has been
    an historic funding challenge at PHMSA, limiting its ability to
    be an effective, independent safety regulator.
        But do you have a sense of whether things will get better
    or worse if Congress further reduces PHMSA funding
    authorization levels as was proposed by committee Republicans
    just a few years ago?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, I would have to imagine they would get
    worse.
        Mr. Tonko. So I thank you for that, and I want to highlight
    another disturbing trend being advanced by the Trump
    administration and Republicans in Congress.
        Between the ongoing appropriations process and the Big,
    Ugly Bill, Federal budget cuts are pushing more and more costs
    onto State governments, which will require States to fill
    funding gaps or be forced to cut benefits and services.
        So, Mr. Caram, am I correct that States are partners in the
    effort to conduct inspections and oversight of pipelines?
        Mr. Caram. Yes. The vast majority of the pipeline mileage
    in this country are under State jurisdiction for inspections
    and enforcement.
        Mr. Tonko. And if that commitment by the Feds is reduced,
    what happens to the States?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, State programs, as we have heard throughout
    this hearing, are in need of that funding. They can get up to
    80 percent of their pipeline safety program reimbursed by
    Federal funds through that State grant program. And
    historically, they have not come close to that 80 percent.
        Mr. Tonko. So if States are unwilling or unable to cover
    more of the costs to be effective partners, will that make
    Americans more or less safe from potential pipeline risks?
        Mr. Caram. I would imagine safe--less safe.
        Mr. Tonko. Less safe, so not an outcome that we should all
    be working towards. So if we can avoid that, we should do our
    best to do so.
        With that, I thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's
    6th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Rulli. I am pretty loud. I will just speak.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My attention will be directed at
    Andy Black.
        I hope you are doing well today. So thank you for your
    support in liquid energy. I really appreciate that. My district
    really much relies on it. So several points of focus on how
    safe pipelines could actually make the Ohio 6th a better place
    to live is we are--now have a project of a cracker plant which
    will mimic the Monaca cracker plant, which is across the border
    in Pennsylvania.
        It is a $12.5 billion project. A lot of union jobs will be
    building that. It is very exciting. It is going to crack the
    gas into butane, propane, heavy gas, liquid gas, all kinds of
    exciting things.
        In the Ohio Senate I was instrumental in building three
    gas-powered generating plants. It was a thrill of mine. We
    right now have about $40 billion worth of potential investors
    that are going to come to the Ohio 6th, and we are going to
    build 6 or 7 more of these. And so what is going to happen is
    the Ohio Senate right now has Senate Bill 2, which is the
    energy bill, which is going to direct State money to coexist
    with Federal money as a united force to developing energy.
        Data centers are coming up, AI advancement centers are
    coming up, and general manufacturing is coming all along the
    Ohio River. Pipelines support this industry and sometimes run
    through the--our neighborhoods, and they need to be safe.
        One of the most exciting things is the evolution of the
    pipelines that I have seen in my career. And the development of
    what you call the smart pipeline, which I think most of the
    public is ignorant on--smart pipelines actually allow for a
    safer progress of moving gas around through these
    neighborhoods.
        The Liquid and Gas Pipeline Advisory Committees were
    created decades ago with the help of PHMSA on safety rulemaking
    and policy development. What is your personal perspective on
    the value of these advisory committees and their existence with
    safe pipelines?
        Mr. Black. Well, the project that you mentioned in Ohio and
    those in the Marcellus are great, wonderful examples to create
    jobs, to benefit, and to not have to take it all down to the
    Gulf Coast, right? So it is great for our country to have that
    flexibility.
        The advisory committees were created by Congress to make
    regulations better, right? Any proposal that PHMSA has needs to
    go to the gas or liquid or sometimes both, and that can make
    for a good exchange on helping people understand how a
    regulation should be modified to be more feasible, practical,
    economical.
        So it is good that we have those advisory committees, and
    we would look forward to future regulations going there.
        Mr. Rulli. I think that is really exciting. I think that
    making these committees even more strong is really what the
    exciting part is. Right now these committees are meeting four
    times a year. In your personal opinion, do you think that needs
    to happen more frequently?
        And what better ways can we put to have guardrails inside
    these committees to have more safety, more rulemaking, more
    compliance to industry so the industry becomes a safer process?
        Mr. Black. I know some of my gas colleagues believe it is
    important to have a certain number of advisory committees. To
    me, quality is more important than quantity. Let's make sure
    those advisory committee members are up to speed, not just on
    regulation but also on technological developments, so that
    everybody understands what the latest possibilities are. That
    may take more meetings.
        Mr. Rulli. Do you think it is possible that we could take
    the political bent away from these advisory committees so it
    could be more of a bipartisan approach where everyone's voice
    could actually be represented in the committee, and nobody
    would feel left out or threatened to be part of this process?
        Mr. Black. Yes, they are constructed that way, and they
    should be. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rulli. Well, I thank you so much for your thoughts on
    this.
        And with that, Chair, I yield my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields his time back,
    and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York's
    14th District for 5 minutes for questions.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Caram, I want to touch on something that you mentioned
    in your written testimony, which is that pipeline safety law
    currently prevents the Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety
    Administration, or PHMSA, which we are discussing today, from
    imposing safety regulations on existing pipelines. And that
    was, frankly, shocking to me. It means that it will be a
    monumental task to make the existing 3.3 million miles of
    pipelines in our communities safer.
        Can you talk about how this requirement prevents us from
    making the most dangerous pipelines in America safer?
        And should we look at altering that requirement in any
    reauthorization of PHMSA?
        Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for that question. The Pipeline
    Safety Act passed by Congress has a section in it, a provision,
    where it says that the design--any design, construction, or
    initial testing standards adopted by PHMSA cannot apply to
    existing pipelines, only new and replaced pipelines.
        So, you know, operational regulations and things like that
    can apply to existing pipelines, but those, you know, initial
    testing design and construction standards cannot. And what that
    means in practice is that PHMSA has been unable to make certain
    lifesaving regulatory changes, including those recommended by
    the NTSB after tragedies like San Bruno, like requiring rupture
    mitigation valves in high-consequence areas that we know would
    save lives.
        So in practice this permanently exempts about half of the
    Nation's pipelines from--and including those at the highest
    risk--from meeting critical modern safety standards.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Caram.
    And as you mentioned, it is important to highlight something
    that--you said half of pipelines in the U.S. are essentially
    blocked from having these additional safety standards for
    communities and workers on them--in--and being updated to be
    safer.
        Ms. Miller, you represent an association of pipeline
    companies. And I see here in your testimony that it states that
    your members ``appreciate improved due process'' for companies
    that violate the laws as a priority. I want to discuss the
    consequences for pipeline companies when they fail to follow
    the law and PHMSA's rules.
        Just over 5 years ago, an employee of Energy Transfer, a
    pipeline company and a member of your organization, was killed
    while conducting maintenance activities on a gas pipeline in
    Kansas. This employee was attempting to remove an object that
    had become stuck due to ice in a partly pressurized pipeline.
    Now, PHMSA's rules require operators to completely depressurize
    pipelines before working on them. But this worker was
    attempting to remove the object using a steel rod. When the
    object became dislodged, and due to remaining pressure in the
    pipeline--struck him in the abdomen and killed him.
        Now, Energy Transfer is in court, arguing that it should
    not be held to account for the fact that it did not follow
    PHMSA's rules. Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter
    into the record a complaint brought by the Attorney General in
    the Northern District Court of Texas.
        Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. This complaint states that ``PHMSA's
    investigation indicates that Energy Transfer failed to follow
    its manual of written procedures for conducting operations and
    maintenance activities at the border station in connection with
    this fatal incident.''
        Someone died. Now one of the biggest companies in the
    industry, Energy Transfer, is in court arguing that PHMSA
    shouldn't be able to hold any company that violates its rules
    responsible.
        Ms. Miller, you mentioned due process for companies that
    violate laws in your testimony as a priority. In your opinion,
    if a pipeline company does not follow the rules and a worker is
    killed, should PHMSA be able to hold that company responsible?
        Ms. Miller. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I
    would say that any specific questions about energy transfers
    and litigation, I would have to defer to them. But for GPA
    Midstream members, generally speaking, we do encourage that our
    members are able to rely on a strong enforcement protocol and
    that it is executed in a way that is transparent and complies
    with law, due process being part of that, to ensure that they
    are--that there are----
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I apologize. I only have 15 seconds
    left. Should PHMSA be able to hold the companies responsible?
        Ms. Miller. We do believe that PHMSA should be a strong
    enforcement agency and equitably apply its rules across the
    industry.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK, great. So they should be able to
    hold these companies responsible, and yet we are in an
    environment where the Trump administration and their
    enforcement actions against pipeline companies----
        Mr. Latta. I am sorry, the gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Sure, thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Colorado's 8th District for 5 minutes for
    questions.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member. Of course,
    also to our witnesses for coming.
        Again, you heard Colorado's 8th congressional district, so
    we have got 80 percent of the oil, 50 percent of the natural
    gas in Colorado. That is from the hole in the ground, through
    midstream, through--we have got the only refinery in Colorado,
    and then final distribution to the end users. And so a lot of
    that, obviously, happens through pipelines.
        And we know, you know, we have heard in the commentary
    today, pipelines--safest way to move this liquid energy around
    in terms of accidents.
        I want to make sure we also highlight the emissions. We had
    an incident in Colorado where some of our--some of that local
    distribution that relies on the pipelines went down during a
    really, really hard freeze. And so to backfill all of that
    energy that couldn't be transported via pipeline for a few
    months, it was thousands and thousands of trucks keeping the
    Denver metro area going in the dead of winter. We have talked,
    obviously, about the--you know, the wear and tear that that has
    on the roadway and traffic safety when you have that massive
    increase of vehicles.
        But I want to make sure that the emissions component of
    that isn't lost when we are talking about the climate and the
    fact that pipelines are, again, one of the lowest-emission
    sources--ways of moving some of this energy around. They
    alleviate that critical demand on our electrical infrastructure
    because backfilling, you know, in my area, all of the heat that
    comes from natural gas combustion, which is what heats a lot of
    homes in my area, backfilling that with electrical demand is
    incredibly difficult and challenging and costly to a lot of our
    consumers in Colorado.
        We have, unfortunately, seen a first-in-the-Nation
    mandated--a so-called beneficial electrification plan for a
    major utility in Colorado mandating that, even though they are
    not an electrical provider--they do natural gas distribution to
    customers--they have to have this so-called beneficial
    electrical plan, which is raising costs for consumers by
    dropping those heavyhanded mandates on consumers who want
    energy choice and want to be able to choose what works best for
    them, their family, and their budget.
        So my first question will be to Mr. Moriarty. Can you just
    talk a little bit about the impact to consumers and to
    consumers' pocketbooks from that utility perspective with the
    current program that we have of making sure that our pipelines
    are regulated, that, as we have heard, the safest way to move
    this energy around, but can we--can you talk a little bit about
    the impact to the customers if we were to take a different path
    and have more regulatory burden on pipelines?
        Mr. Moriarty. Well, thank you for that question.
        All the costs that go in to delivering energy are recovered
    from our customers through State commission rate proceedings.
    One way that we have avoided higher costs is to construct LNG
    storage facilities to meet peak day demand.
        So you were talking about freeze-offs. We would have an LNG
    storage facility that would be available. We have one in
    Florida, as well as one now we are building on Delmarva.
        Mr. Evans. Yes, thank you for that. And then the next
    question will be to Mr. Black.
        Obviously, pipeline safety, top of mind for everybody. We
    have talked a lot about it. And so I just want this to be our--
    I think our final thought for this hearing here. We need an
    empowered entity to step up and take action against bad actors
    that put the public safety at risk. And so that is why I was
    glad to see that PHMSA announced revisions to its pipeline
    safety enforcement actions last month to improve transparency
    and fairness.
        And so can you just comment on those changes, how they
    alter the enforcement dynamics for operators?
        And just talk a little bit about the evidentiary record
    process, as well.
        Mr. Black. Congress has recognized there are failings in
    how PHMSA has managed its administrative enforcement program.
    In the 2020 PIPES Act, Congress mandated that PHMSA improve its
    procedures, including making the case file available to a
    respondent in a case. Then PHMSA in the last administration
    failed to do that. It happened episodically sometimes, not
    others, and it wasn't really codified in regulations.
        And so PHMSA has--it now in the last month, as you say,
    improved that. It is a level playing field, and that is all
    pipeline operators are asking for--due process when PHMSA
    exerts its administrative enforcement program--because pipeline
    operators know that PHMSA needs to be active and deter unsafe
    operations, and give Congress and the American public
    confidence that they are on that case, making sure that we have
    a safe network.
        Mr. Evans. Well, with our final 24 seconds, I guess I will
    just close with I think we have heard safety is top of mind in
    this space. We have that record of safety. We have that record
    of being responsible toward the climate, because this is one of
    the lowest-emission ways to move energy around. It is cost
    effective for consumers. And then, in my district, this
    provides high-quality jobs for a high-quality workforce that
    maintain these pipelines.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Right on the button. Thank you very much.
        Seeing no further Members wishing to be recognized to ask
    questions to our witnesses, I want to thank you all for
    appearing before us for today.
        Members have additional written questions that may be for
    you, and I will remind Members that they have 10 business days
    to submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that
    the witness do their best to submit their response within 10
    business days upon the receipt of the questions.
        I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
    documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
        And without objection, that is so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Latta. And again I want to thank our witnesses.
        And Mr. Black, welcome back, having been a former staffer
    here on the committee.
        Also, this is the last hearing that we will have in this
    room until it is our--I guess we might say worked on. We have
    had a little bit of issues in this room through the years, but
    we really appreciate you being here.
        Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                [all]