[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]