[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICA'S ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE:
AUTHORIZING PIPELINE SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-62
[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
64-179 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..................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Witness
Paul J. Roberti, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, Department of Transportation............ 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answers to submitted questions............................... 99
Legislation
Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Pipeline Safety Authorization Act
of 2026 \1\
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 72
Letter of March 4, 2026, from Andrew Lu, Vice President, Safety,
Operations & Engineering, American Gas Association, to Mr.
Latta and Ms. Castor........................................... 73
Letter of March 3, 2026, from Stuart Saulters, Vice President,
Federal Affairs, GPA Midstream Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et
al............................................................. 76
Statement of Distribution Contractors Association, March 4, 2026. 79
Letter of March 4, 2026, from American Society of Civil
Engineers, et al., to Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Pallone.............. 81
Letter of March 4, 2026, from Tim Wagner, Executive Director,
American Pipeline Contractors Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et
al............................................................. 82
Letter of March 4, 2026, from Sarah K. Magruder Lyle, Executive
Director, Damage Prevention Action Center, to Mr. Guthrie, et
al............................................................. 85
Letter of March 4, 2026, from Tim Wagner, Executive Director,
Power & Communication Contractors Association, to Mr. Guthrie,
et al.......................................................... 87
Order of June 30, 2025, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
Department of the Treasury, Federal Register, Vol. 90, No. 123,
31 CFR Chapter X, Part 1010, Pages 2777 to 2783................ 90
Letter of March 3, 2026, from Bill Caram, Executive Director,
Pipeline Safety Trust, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Castor............. 97
----------
\1\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20260304/119016/
BILLS-119HR----------ih.pdf.
AMERICA'S ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE: AUTHORIZING PIPELINE SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2026
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Latta, Palmer, Allen,
Balderson, Pfluger, Harshbarger, Miller-Meeks, Bentz, Fry,
Evans, Goldman, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio), Castor
(subcommittee ranking member), Peters, Menendez, Mullin,
McClellan, DeGette, Matsui, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, Fletcher,
Auchincloss, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Joyce.
Staff present: Andrew Furman, Professional Staff Member,
Energy; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
Annabelle Huffman, Clerk, Health; Calvin Huggins, Policy
Analyst, Energy; Megan Jackson, Staff Director; AT Johnson,
Special Advisor; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; Mary
Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy; Sarah Meier, Counsel and
Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben Mullaney,
Press Secretary; Lillian Noland, Staff Assistant; Seth
Ricketts, Clerk, Energy and Environment; Peter Spencer, Senior
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Timothy Trimble, Staff
Assistant; Jane Vickers, Press Assistant; Tiffany Guarascio,
Minority Staff Director; Jackson Hall, 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; Hannah Treger,
Minority Staff Assistant; Kyle Wolf, Minority Press Intern; and
Tuley Wright, Minority Staff Director, Energy.
Mr. Latta. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to
order. 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
Again, good morning and welcome to today's Energy
Subcommittee hearing to discuss legislation authorizing the
Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration's
Pipeline Safety Program.
We welcome our witness, the Honorable Paul Roberti, the
Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration, or PHMSA, and thank him for appearing before us
today. Your perspective will inform our legislative effort and
update us on the Administration's priorities for maintaining
the safety of America's pipeline infrastructure and enabling
the safe expansion of it.
It is good to have a Senate-confirmed Administrator leading
this vital safety agency after the record-long vacancy under
the Biden-Harris administration.
PHMSA is an agency under the U.S. Department of
Transportation, DOT, that develops and enforces Federal safety
regulations for the Nation's pipeline infrastructure and the
transportation of hazardous materials. PHMSA works closely with
industry and pipeline operators to ensure the safe delivery of
the Nation's most abundant energy resources, from natural gas
and crude oil to propane, jet fuel, gasoline, and other refined
petroleum products.
States also play an essential role in carrying out PHMSA's
Pipeline Safety Program, acting as boots on the ground to help
inspect and oversee the safety of over 3.3 million miles of
both liquid and gas pipelines in PHMSA's jurisdiction. In fact,
States inspect and enforce the pipeline safety regulations for
85 percent of the infrastructure under PHMSA's safety
authority.
Pipelines continue to be the safest and most efficient mode
of transport for the energy of American families, and our
economy depends on it.
Reliable, affordable natural gas makes up almost half of
our country's resource mix for power generation, and more than
half of the American families run on natural gas to heat their
homes, cook their food, and power their lives. Pipeline
infrastructure in this country is essential to ensure the safe
delivery of energy to fuel our country.
To advance PHMSA's mission to oversee the safety of our
pipeline infrastructure, we will review the discussion draft
before us today, and that draft legislation before us today
focuses on safety, exactly as Congress originally intended with
PHMSA's mission. This discussion draft reauthorizes PHMSA for 5
years, enabling PHMSA to continue modernizing and enhancing its
pipeline safety program.
The draft would codify several important provisions to
improve the efficiency and safety of the agency. For example,
the bill would remove duplicative regulations that do not
improve safety, clarify the PHMSA's cost-benefit analysis
focuses on safety and not antienergy agendas, reduces red tape
so special permit programs can efficiently focus on pertinent
safety requirements, strengthen penalties for pipeline safety
violations that impair pipeline operations, establish a
voluntary information-sharing program to advance good safety
products among pipeline operators, and ensure State damage-
prevention programs adopt best practices to reduce the leading
cause of pipeline damage incidents.
The United States' energy system is at a turning point. We
are witnessing unprecedented energy demand not seen in decades,
and demand is only expected to increase over the next several
years, of which we have heard from almost probably every
witness that we have had before us saying that we need more
energy.
Safe, efficient deployment and oversight of our gas and
liquid pipeline system is key to providing reliable energy and
power to American families. For too long, sound pipeline safety
policy has been hijacked by the environmental left, intent on
stymieing the pipeline expansion and limiting its massive
benefits to our Nation.
I look forward to working with PHMSA's pipeline operators
and relevant stakeholders to make sure the pipeline safety
program is efficient, predictable, and focused on safety
priorities that promote confidence and enable the safe
expansion of our pipeline system.
I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to advance legislation that provides for durable and
focused safety oversight appropriate to the pipeline
infrastructure.
Again, we want to thank you, Administrator Roberti, for
being with us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And, with that, I yield back, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's 14th District, 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 welcome to
Administrator Roberti.
Colleagues, pipeline safety should be a bipartisan priority
for this committee. It should be easy to agree that pipeline
safety requires adequate resources. It requires a robust
professional workforce and a regulator willing to do its job to
keep Americans safe.
Congress has proved that we can deliver on those goals, and
we have done it in a bipartisan way. We passed the PIPES Act of
2020 to address methane pollution and improve safety standards
for gas-gathering lines and other pipeline segments. We
followed that in 2021 with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
which allocated $1 billion over 5 years for grants to help
replace leak-prone gas pipelines.
Today's hearing should be about building on those
successes. Unfortunately, as with so many bills our Republican
colleagues have decided to bring through this committee, you
are just not living up to your responsibility to our hard-
working neighbors back home. Because it appears, based upon the
work product from the Republican side of the aisle, that you
are not serious about pipeline safety.
You have allowed the office--PHMSA's Office of Pipeline
Safety authorization to lapse for over 2\1/2\ years. Meanwhile,
the Senate Commerce Committee passed a bipartisan PHMSA
reauthorization bill. The House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee passed a bipartisan bill. But,
unfortunately, the Energy and Commerce Republicans have decided
to write a bill without Democratic input which only reflects
the priorities of oil and gas polluters. This is not how we
craft serious, durable policy.
Colleagues, PHMSA needs reform, such as new authorities to
regulate emerging technology like hydrogen and carbon dioxide
pipelines. These are industries that Republicans say they
support, but the bill is silent. It doesn't authorize any
studies or rulemakings that would help us make these industries
safer.
PHMSA also needs resources, but this bill authorizes nearly
$200 million per year less than the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has passed.
PHMSA needs staff, which is why the House T&I bill
authorizes an increase in the number of employees with certain
subject-matter expertise. The Energy and Commerce Committee
bill does nothing for workforce development.
It also is silent while the Trump administration has cut
the number of employees at PHMSA by 14 percent--or they have
declined, anyway. Nearly all of PHMSA's senior career staff
chose to leave rather than endorse the administration's
actions.
PHMSA also needs congressional oversight, particularly now.
Pipeline safety enforcement was cut in half in 2025. PHMSA
should hold dangerous actors accountable by increasing maximum
penalties for breaking the law, but this still does nothing to
strengthen enforcement.
Just last week, the President stood before Congress and
claimed that he has rapidly ended high prices. That is not
true, and our hard-working neighbors back home know this very
well. Electricity prices are up 13 percent on average but much
higher in many places. The average U.S. household paid $116
more in their electricity bills last year compared to the year
before. Many are paying more.
Since Trump took office, utilities have proposed rate hikes
of at least $92 billion, as illegal tariffs have cost hard-
working Americans thousands of dollars. And, amidst all of this
pain, the administration is trying to gut energy assistance and
disaster relief programs.
And, now, based upon the war in Iraq, the future is very
uncertain for the cost of energy. It looks like, again, the
average working American and businesses that rely on consistent
energy are going to be paying more. All of that is going to
continue this affordability squeeze that I know my folks back
home can't afford. None of it lowers costs, and none of this
keeps Americans safe.
Once again, the President is proving he has no solutions to
real problems of hard-working families. If they are looking in
the Energy and Commerce Committee, their time is probably
better spent elsewhere.
But hope springs eternal. I really encourage my Republican
colleagues to work with us to develop a real PHMSA
reauthorization bill that protects the American people, not
just oil and gas interests.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Castor. Thanks, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the
full committee chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
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, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Administrator
Roberti, for being here. My good friend from Florida used a
term I was about to use: ``Hope springs eternal.''
This is a discussion draft, and so there are opportunities
for us to do this in a bipartisan way. We hope that we can. I
would note there are a couple of provisions that were not
included in our discussion draft because there were some
concerns from the minority for them if they were included. So,
hopefully, that is a signal that we want to do this in good
faith, and we want to work together, and hopefully we can get
to a solution.
So I would say look to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Hopefully, we can work together to find common ground, but it
has to be common ground. It can't be just one way or the other.
So we appreciate that, and hope does spring eternal that we can
work together.
We are not working up next week. The discussion draft is
before us, and hopefully the opportunity to come up with a
bipartisan solution because I believe, if we can do it, they
are more stable, and it gives people more certainty. So we will
continue to work in that direction.
So PHMSA's pipeline safety program promotes safe delivery
of more than two-thirds of our Nation's energy products to
market through its regulations and oversight and partnership
with State safety programs. As we consider today's pipeline
safety discussion draft and the work and priorities of PHMSA,
we should not lose focus on the central role of pipelines.
The energy supplied through pipelines is the safest and
most affordable form of fuel transport. It is vital for keeping
our lights on, for heating our homes, and for making many of
the products our modern society relies upon.
Pipeline infrastructure networks include about 2.4 million
miles of natural gas lines serving 74 million American homes
and businesses, and there are a half a million miles of oil and
natural gas transmission lines in the related storage
infrastructure, which serves communities, manufacturers,
refiners, and transportation sector.
The recent winter storm Fern clearly demonstrated the
benefits of this essential infrastructure. People had the gas
they needed to heat their homes during one of the largest cold-
weather emergencies in years, and natural-gas-fired power
generators had the supplies to produce the power needed when
demand reached its peak.
This was lifesaving performance made possible by the
pipeline transmission and storage network that is designed to
deliver the fuels Americans need when they need it.
We need a regulatory system designed to serve the
lifesaving value of a safe and efficient pipeline
infrastructure, and we need to expand capacity to expand the
benefits of energy. More capacity means lower prices.
The discussion of the draft today provides a great
opportunity to meet what should be a bipartisan goal of
expanding the safe delivery of affordable, reliable energy. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to provide the tools
and guidance this administration needs to get this done right.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes of
questions--or, I'm sorry, for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
We are here today to discuss the Republican proposal to
reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration's pipeline safety activities more than 2 years
after the last authorization, the PIPES Act of 2020, expired.
It is disappointing to me that Republicans are, once again,
choosing to go it alone on this reauthorization, because
bipartisan cooperation is necessary to get any reauthorization
across the finish line, and that is exactly the approach that
both the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
the Senate Commerce Committee have taken: working together in
producing bipartisan bills.
It is also troubling that Republicans are choosing a
partisan path when you look at how the Trump administration has
weakened and radically altered PHMSA's pipeline safety program
over the last year. Enforcement activities have fallen off a
cliff. The number of pipeline enforcement cases opened last
year was roughly half of the average during the prior 4 years.
And instead of focusing on safety in the first weeks of the
Trump administration, PHMSA withdrew two ready-to-be-finalized
safety rules required by law and has yet to reissue them.
PHMSA staffing is also a major issue, with a 14 percent
reduction and nearly all of its senior career staff choosing to
leave. So, even if the administration were to suddenly
recognize the importance of keeping our pipelines safe, it is
unclear to me if PHMSA has the resources and staff necessary to
aggressively enforce our Nation's pipeline safety laws.
So, Administrator Roberti, I was, frankly, hopeful that,
with your confirmation, the bleeding and disorder of PHMSA
would stop, but unfortunately that has not been the case. In
recent months, PHMSA has been engaged in a bogus audit of
grants given to the Pipeline Safety Trust, the Nation's only
nonprofit dedicated to pipeline safety.
For months, PHMSA suspended reimbursements to the Pipeline
Safety Trust and now is only allowing the resumption of the
grant on the condition that it not be used to compensate the
trust's executive director, who testified before this committee
last year on pipeline safety.
To me, this looks a lot like retaliation against the only
organization working to shine a light on the Trump
administration's dangerous PHMSA agenda, and it is unacceptable
and cannot happen again.
You also recently issued a memo indicating that PHMSA would
waive enforcing pipeline safety rules for pipelines helping
Trump's so-called energy dominance agenda. And, Administrator
Roberti, PHMSA does not have the authority to selectively
enforce our Nation's laws based on whether the President thinks
a pipeline is important or not.
So let me now turn to the discussion draft before us today.
This draft represents a marked improvement over the version
that committee Republicans proposed last Congress. It no longer
contains a number of provisions that Democrats had identified
as poison pills and were completely unrelated to pipeline
safety.
However, any pipeline safety reauthorization must
strengthen PHMSA's core safety and enforcement
responsibilities, especially in light of an administration that
seems unwilling to do so. And on that count this Republican
bill falls short.
The bill fails to reauthorize a few provisions from the
PIPES Act, including tag grants and damage prevention programs
that are vital to communities. It also fails to formally
authorize the continuation of the successful Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law program to replace aging, unsafe
distribution pipelines across the Nation.
The draft bill attempts to roll back a requirement from the
2020 law that PHMSA consider environmental harms and does
nothing to push PHMSA to finalize safety rules for carbon
dioxide pipelines and methane leak detection. And, finally, the
bill does nothing to enhance PHMSA's ability to fight back
against companies flouting its safety rules and regulations.
That is not to say the bill is all bad. I support the
establishment of a voluntary information-sharing system, and I
also think that pushing States to adopt best practices for
their one-call excavation programs is a good idea. But the bad
in this discussion draft outweighs the good.
Committee Republicans should learn the lessons of the
partisan approach they took last Congress and not repeat the
same mistakes. There is ample time to negotiate and alter the
bill before a markup, and I am hopeful we can get to a
bipartisan product just like the other two committees have
done.
If we can't, then we risk further delaying reauthorization
of PHMSA's critical pipeline safety authorities, and I don't
think that is acceptable, and I don't believe Republicans do
either.
So, Chairman Latta, let's work in a bipartisan fashion so
we can produce a bill that keeps the American people safe. I
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
And this now concludes Member opening statements. The Chair
reminds Members that, pursuant to the committee rules, all
Members' opening statements will be made part of the record.
Again, we want to thank our witness for joining us today
and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Our
witness will have an opportunity to give an opening statement,
followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witness
today is Administrator Paul J. Roberti, the pipeline and
hazardous material safety--from the Safety Administration.
And, before recognizing you, just some quick housekeeping.
If you pull that mic up to you close, we would appreciate that.
And also, with the lights, you will have 5 minutes. At 4
minutes, it will be green, 1 minute when yellow, and at red,
time's up.
So we appreciate you being here today, and at this time you
are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Roberti. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Make sure that mic is on there. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF PAUL J. ROBERTI, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify on the
reauthorization of the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration's
Pipeline Safety Program.
I appreciate the subcommittee's support for PHMSA's vital
work for ensuring the safety of our Nation's vast energy
transportation network.
Safety drives everything we do at DOT and PHMSA. Our goal
is a zero future--zero-incident future for the Nation's network
of over 3.3 million miles of pipelines transporting oil, gas,
and other energy products all across the country. A modern,
safe, reliable transportation network is critical to ensuring
American homes and businesses always have access to the energy
needed to power daily life.
PHMSA's pipeline safety program has three key elements:
updating or developing new regulations, policies, and guidance
for operators; using our inspection enforcement process to hold
pipeline operators accountable; and supporting research into
new and promising technologies. Each of these three elements is
critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of our pipeline
network, which is more important than ever as the Nation
experiences an energy renaissance propelled by innovative
production technologies and growing global demand for U.S.
energy.
Under Secretary Duffy's leadership, the PHMSA team has been
hard at work unleashing American energy and delivering on
President Trump's America First agenda. PHMSA is operating more
efficiently and effectively than ever before, initiating more
pro-growth, pro-safety rulemakings in the first year of this
administration than in the previous 4 years combined.
Our regulatory agenda has been heavily focused on
modernizing regulations and eliminating unnecessary and
outdated requirements that do not advance safety. Many of
PHMSA's regulations have not been updated in decades, and last
year we initiated several concurrent efforts to update key
sections of our code to enhance safety and encourage continued
industry innovation.
At the same time, PHMSA has revamped its enforcement
program to ensure the process is fair while continuing to hold
operators accountable. PHMSA announced new inspection
enforcement priorities for the agency last year, a first-of-
its-kind effort that recently led to the issuance of the
highest proposed civil administrative penalty in the agency's
history. The agency is also deploying its investigators earlier
and more often to ensure that we are onsite when incidents
occur.
PHMSA remains laser focused on safety, which is why we have
also redirected the agency's research and development program
to focus on projects that will improve the safety of our
existing infrastructure and to keep it operating safely for
years to come.
PHMSA's most recent pipeline safety authorization expired
in 2023. While the agency has continued to operate since then,
we appreciate the subcommittee's attention to extending our
authorization using a streamlined approach. PHMSA is continuing
to work to complete several outstanding mandates from past
reauthorizations, and your bill will allow us to focus on
advancing those priorities without adding to the agency's
backlog.
The committee's proposed approach introduces important
statutory reforms aligned with the administration's efforts to
modernize the agency, such as reforms to our special permit
program.
I have been a public servant most of my career, and I am
honored to return to PHMSA as Administrator after 4 years in
which the agency's top post was left vacant. Having served as
both a State utility regulator and as PHMSA's chief counsel, I
know how critical the agency's work is to ensuring public
safety, and I am grateful that President Trump has prioritized
returning the agency to its core safety mission.
Today's PHMSA is more efficient, effective, and responsive
than ever before. I am grateful to the dedicated PHMSA staff
for their hard work keeping the American people safe and
ensuring affordable domestic energy is available where it is
needed.
In closing, thank you, again, Chairman Latta, Ranking
Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee for holding this
hearing and for the opportunity to share my vision for a modern
PHMSA. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberti follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony,
and we will now move into the question-answer portion of our
hearing, and I will begin the questioning and recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roberti, we often discuss affordability. Will
increasing pipeline infrastructure help drive down energy
prices?
Mr. Roberti. I'm sorry?
Mr. Latta. We often discuss affordability. Will increasing
pipeline infrastructure help drive down energy prices?
Mr. Roberti. Absolutely, Chairman. The Nation's pipeline
network remains the envy of the world. The amount of energy
that moves safely to propel our economy and our way of life is
really--it is an incredible story. That infrastructure is
critical.
We are not a permitting agency, but to the extent that the
Nation will need more energy--and we know that to be the case--
then the safest way to move that energy to homes and businesses
and to power plants that support the electric grid is through
pipelines.
Mr. Latta. As a regulator, you have a key role in enabling
the safe expansion of the pipeline infrastructure. What are
your priorities in terms of expanding our pipeline
infrastructure in a safe manner?
Mr. Roberti. So our priorities are to breed trust in the
safety of the transportation network. It is to be an effective,
streamlined, respected regulator to ensure that the code, on
the one hand, the regulations, which are in this book here, are
modernized, that they are clear, that they are up to date, that
they take advantage of, that they reflect the engineering and
technologies of today and not from decades ago.
And, on the other hand, I think it would fall into three
categories: compliance, enforcement, and accountability. The
industry needs to be held accountable to run their operations
safely, and I am highly, highly committed to that.
Mr. Latta. You mentioned something. You talk about
modernization of the regulations and also being clear. You
know, that word ``clear,'' when you talk about the Federal
Government, could also be kind of muddy.
So what do we need to do on those regulations to make sure
they are clear for people across the country?
Mr. Roberti. So that is a really good question. One of the
efforts I bring--and my entire leadership team are folks that
have been in the Federal Government before, so we come back
with an understanding of how the Government works. When we
write regulations, less words are more. We need to be very,
very clear about what these regulations do so that we have
transparency and a full understanding by the industry of what
they need to do. So having clear regulations is one piece of
it.
The other side of it is, I think, to make sure the industry
knows where we are targeting our enforcement, and our
reprioritization of our enforcement in the last year has sent a
clear message to industry of where we are going to target our
enforcement so that they can focus on those areas of their
system, because we are going to be coming out and inspecting in
areas such as integrity management programs, activities in high
consequence areas. And, especially if an incident or accident
occurs, we are going to be there, and we are going to
investigate it, and we are going to make sure that the code was
complied with.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
PHMSA is responsible for not only developing the safety
regulation but also enforcing it. You just were mentioning
that. Explain how you are prioritizing enforcement to ensure
the most significant safety concerns are always addressed.
Mr. Roberti. Yes, so, historically, PHMSA inspectors went
out, and typically they would be, you know, citing everything
and anything. And the reassessment of the enforcement program
was to focus on areas where safety would be most impacted. So,
again, as I mentioned, high consequence areas, control rooms,
and leak detection; knowing when a leak is occurring so that it
can be addressed immediately; accidents and incidents, avoiding
accidents and incidents; excavation damage, which I know is the
subject of this bill.
Areas where we are seeing the greatest impacts to safety
and impacts on the environment is where we are prioritizing
enforcement. That sends a clear message to industry where they
should devote their resources because that is where we are
going to be looking.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. My time has almost expired, and
I will submit my other questions, written questions to you. And
I will yield back.
And, at this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida,
the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for
questions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Administrator.
Mr. Roberti. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration's Pipeline Safety Program oversees the safety of
3.3 million miles of oil, gas, and other pipelines that stretch
across the country. For most Americans, it is out of sight, out
of mind, which means that the responsibility of your agency is
particularly important to ensure the safety of the American
public and our businesses.
Over the last 10 years, there have been an average of over
620 pipeline safety incidents each year, resulting in an
average of 43 injuries and 11 deaths, and these numbers,
unfortunately, are climbing every year. Last April, a pipeline
explosion in Missouri killed a 5-year-old child. Meanwhile, in
January 2024, an explosion from a natural gas line in Fort
Worth, Texas, injured 21 people.
I heard you answer to the chairman, and I know you said in
your Senate confirmation hearing that safety is going to be
your top priority. Is that right?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. Yes, absolutely. The mission is safety.
Ms. Castor. Yes. It is very concerning that since 2024 the
number of employees at PHMSA has decreased by more than 14
percent.
Aren't you concerned with the ability of your agency to
keep folks safe when you are losing many of the experts that
should be tasked to do that?
Mr. Roberti. So you are correct, we have lost some staff.
But those--if you look in the broader context, when I was chief
counsel just a few years ago, the agency's budget and the
staffing was--I mean, the budget was almost double.
So where we are today, all of the administration's efforts
to reduce workforce did not touch critical safety workers. So
the inspection and enforcement divisions have seen not big
reductions. And we are hiring. We are working to hire there.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Administrator, I hear what you are saying,
but we are also watching what you are doing, and we understand
that pipeline safety enforcement was cut in half in 2025. So it
is not computing there. You know, the actual results rather
than the rhetoric is what the Congress is focused on.
Mr. Administrator, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
created PHMSA's first-ever infrastructure grant program,
designating $1 billion in grant funding to repair,
rehabilitate, and replace gas distribution pipelines. The
grants were wildly popular. Hundreds of communities across 29
States were able to take advantage of these grants, including
one across the bay from where I am in Clearwater, Florida.
Do you believe that the Congress should fully fund and
authorize that important initiative?
Mr. Roberti. Well, I know that free money is always wildly
popular, and let me place that in context. The grant program
focused on publicly owned gas systems. Investor-owned gas
systems were not part of the grant program.
So I come from Rhode Island to serve my--as I said when I
got confirmed, I came from Rhode Island to serve my Nation. In
my State, with an investor-owned utility, we have made
investments in efforts to replace cast iron, bare steel, and
high-risk infrastructure over the course of 20 years.
So the big issue for Congress--and we will implement
whatever program effectively that you decide to fund, but the
big issue is an equity issue. Should States that are paying for
the repayment of aged and leak-prone pipelines, which they have
an obligation to do, which we need regulators, economic
regulators in those States to require capital programs to
systematically replace aged infrastructure--should those States
that are doing it now bail out States that haven't done it----
Ms. Castor. So is your answer a no, you don't support
reauthorization of that very popular grant program to repair,
rehabilitate, and replace gas distribution pipelines?
Mr. Roberti. I just raised the equity issue, but if the
Congress in its wisdom decides to continue that program----
Ms. Castor. If safety is your overriding--you said safety
is your overriding concern, and you do not support--or would
you support it with changes? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Roberti. I support--the regulations require all
operators to make investments and to address leak-prone, high-
risk infrastructure, and whether or not the taxpayers pay for
it or those utilities do what all other utilities are doing
across the country, particularly in States where they don't
have publicly owned gas systems, you know, you get to the same
place. It is just a question of who pays for it.
Ms. Castor. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the
chair of the full committee, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Administrator Roberti, for being here.
I want to build off your comments in your testimony about
operating more effectively than ever, initiating more pro-
growth, pro-safety rulemakings.
So our pipeline system, with its life-enhancing and
lifesaving energy delivery, is essential to a strong and safe
society. So my questions are: How do you see your safety
priorities enabling the safe expansion of pipelines and not
unnecessarily limiting their benefits?
And how should we incorporate that vision for not
unnecessarily limiting benefits of pipelines into our
discussion draft? We want to make sure we are safe, safe first
and foremost, but also not limiting.
Mr. Roberti. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
We are not a permitting agency. Decisions about whether
pipes get permitted are either with the Federal Government, if
it is interstate, and with the States. But the extent those
pipelines exist, we are going to make sure that our rules in
terms of the specifications for the design, the construction
are clear, that they are enforced, that the pipelines are
operated safely in accordance with our code, and to basically
not be distracted.
One of the observations I have had when you look at prior
reauthorizations is that there are so many reports and efforts
that seem to become a distraction to the agency to focus on its
core duty to inspect and enforce compliance with the code. So I
think that, in some sense, in my view, as a Federal agency,
less is more.
Instead of more mandates and more studies and more--looking
for opportunities for fuel conversions that may be, you know,
futuristic technologies, we need to focus on what I think is
the bread and butter of this agency, which is compliance,
enforcement, accountability, modernizing the code, and dealing
with the outstanding congressional mandates that Congress has
put upon the agency.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you have any examples of, like, proposals
or anything that might distract you from being able to do what
you think is the core mission, which we think is ensuring the
people have safe pipelines?
Mr. Roberti. Well, one of the big, giant differences from
the last administration to this administration was not the
distraction of converting the agency into more of an
environmental regulator, focused on long-term effects on
climate change rather than focused on what is really the pure
safety mission of maintaining and keeping the product in the
pipe.
So we are looking for, you know, real impacts on safety,
real impacts on the environment, discharges of oil into rivers
or fields. That is where the core safety mission lies. And so,
when we try to expand--when the last administration expanded
the agency to do many of these things that were really outside
the scope and more in the realm of an environmental regulator,
I believe that it diluted and distracted the agency and its
workforce from that core mission of safety.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thanks. You know, unfortunately we have to
have enforcement action sometimes, and it is good that you are
there.
So you talk about publishing enforcement priorities. How
does publishing enforcement priorities and related data help to
deter unsafe operations?
Mr. Roberti. Well, our hope is that, by telling operators
where we are going to be focusing, they are going to be more
diligent and put more resources into those efforts. Leak
detection, integrity management, and high-consequence areas,
excavation damage prevention, which is predominantly done by
our State partners, but those are key areas where we want to--
and certainly avoiding incidents and accidents.
You know, the number of incidents and accidents, that is
always going to be a warning. We are trying to achieve a zero-
incident future. Pipelines are, by far, the safest mode of
transportation, but one fatality or one major accident is one
too many, in my opinion.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thanks.
So you talk about State damage prevention programs. What
are your thoughts on the importance of those programs? And
would this provision help remove the largest cause of pipeline
incidents?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. So, when you look at the number of
incidents in 2025--when you look at the incidents, there were
25 fatalities. Eighty percent of those lie within the
jurisdiction of our State partners where we don't have primary
jurisdiction, but we use our State partners because those are
the local gas companies. So 80 percent of the 25 were within
States and local utilities. Of that, 30 to 40 percent are
related to excavation damage.
So one of the highest public safety impacts is in this area
of excavation damage, and I believe that these----
Mr. Latta. I'm sorry. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
Administrator Roberti, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, I am concerned about the reduction in pipeline
safety enforcement activity of PHMSA last year, and according
to your own data, last year PHMSA opened roughly half as many
enforcement cases than it did, on average, during the Biden
administration. And, as of Monday, PHMSA has only opened 10
enforcement cases this year.
Now, during your confirmation hearing and also today, you
stated that you wanted to assure the public that pipelines are
safe, but I think PHMSA's actions speak louder than your words,
frankly.
So let me ask you: Why did enforcement decline so
dramatically last year? And can you commit that the amount of
enforcement cases PHMSA initiates will rebound to typical
levels this year?
Mr. Roberti. Yes, so many of the numbers in the period of
time that you are referring to were before I came on as
administrator.
Mr. Pallone. I realize that.
Mr. Roberti. I have--within this agency, if you ask
anybody, they will--if you ask anybody in this agency what I
talk about, they will know the three words I talk about:
compliance, enforcement, accountability.
Mr. Pallone. Right, but what I'm asking you is----
Mr. Roberti. And I think, in the last few months, you've
seen that. The highest administrative penalty that we rendered
at the close of the year for $9 million for an operator that
spilled a significant amount of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, we
took action. That was at my direction.
Mr. Pallone. No, I appreciate that.
Mr. Roberti. And I expect that that--I expect, Chairman,
that--I expect that that will continue.
Mr. Pallone. I just want to be sure--and I am not asking
for a specific number, but I just want your commitment that
PHMSA will rebound in terms of the number of enforcement cases.
In general, there will be a rebound to typical levels, you
know. That is all. Can you say yes or no?
Mr. Roberti. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Roberti. I do expect that to rebound. And I would note
that, for 2025, the level of fines, actually, was the highest
in the history of the entire agency.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Roberti. Because of those late-year activities.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks.
Now,I also wanted to discuss a notice of limited
enforcement discretion that PHMSA published in January, and my
concern is that this is essentially a blanket waiver of all
safety rules for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines in order to
address what I consider the President's phony energy emergency.
So let me ask you: Why should Americans have trust in the
safety of pipelines if you are announcing that pipelines that
benefit the President politically won't be subject to safety
standards? Because that is how I look at this notice of limited
enforcement discretion.
Mr. Roberti. No, I appreciate your question and your
concern. That effort can only happen, an operator can only
achieve enforcement discretion with a demonstration that safety
will not be undermined.
Mr. Pallone. How do they do that?
Mr. Roberti. We will ensure we will look at the
circumstances in which the operator has stated that there is an
emergency. Now, remember, we are talking about a situation
where there may be an energy emergency where the ability to
move product may mean the difference between whether a
community is able to heat their homes at night.
So there are corresponding safety and reliability issues
that would be taken into consideration here, but if we are not
satisfied that enforcement discretion or a special permit is
appropriate because it will undermine safety, that permit will
not be issued.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Roberti. And any time we find that, we find evidence
that--or we have a concern about safety, we will revoke that.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I appreciate that.
Let me just ask you one more question: Has PHMSA done an
analysis of the financial benefit pipeline operators will gain
from the waiver we just discussed?
Mr. Roberti. From that waiver, no. I don't expect it to be
used unless there are serious exigencies that warrant a strong
public need to assist communities because of a deprivation of
energy supply where we need to find ways--similar to, if there
is a major storm or hurricane, we may, on the hazmat side,
waive hours of service requirements in order to get product to
gas stations or heating oil to homes. It is in that context. It
would have to be a----
Mr. Pallone. OK. I mean, my concern--and I am not going to
ask you anything more--my concern is that this waiver
jeopardizes safety and, essentially, pads the profits of
pipeline companies of--you know, at a time when energy bills
are skyrocketing.
But I appreciate your response. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's
Sixth District for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Roberti, the U.S. officially initiated its
departure from the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which helped drive the Biden administration's
climate agenda. Does this reduce spending on enforcement in the
climate area, in this area that could be used more effectively
for other priorities?
Mr. Roberti. I missed the end of the question. I am sorry.
Mr. Palmer. I will try to speak better English. I am from
the South.
Does this reduce spending in that area? Enforcement on the
Biden climate agenda, does that free up funding that could be
used more effectively for other priorities?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. I do think that the expansive focus on
things beyond direct impacts----
Mr. Palmer. It doesn't mean that you are negating any
responsibility for taking care of the environment and safety
issues?
Mr. Roberti. No. No, not at all.
Mr. Palmer. OK.
Let me ask you something else: How important is private
investment for improving the Nation's network of pipelines? And
do we need new pipelines to replace old ones to meet the
Nation's energy needs?
Mr. Roberti. Well, that is a great question. I mean, the
beauty of the American system of--the network of pipelines that
we rely on, for the most part, is funded by private capital
because we have regulatory institutes----
Mr. Palmer. Private investment is very important.
Mr. Roberti. Extremely important.
Mr. Palmer. Let me ask you this----
Mr. Roberti. I think it is the best way.
Mr. Palmer. We need additional pipelines. We are going to
have to have a major increase in investment energy and process
refining critical minerals, rare earth elements. Are you
concerned that the Keystone XL reversal signals to the private
market that another pipeline project or another major project
could be canceled as a political act even after years of work
and major sunk costs?
Mr. Roberti. Well, to the extent that the Presidential
permits--one administration can--there is a clause in each
Presidential permit that allows it to be rescinded. It is not
good policy to do that.
Mr. Palmer. Well, that should cause private investors to be
concerned. It will increase the cost of pipeline because----
Mr. Roberti. Absolutely. Yes, it will.
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Because of the risk mitigation
that you would have to look into.
Are you--is PHMSA coordinating with other agencies to
ensure reliable pipeline cybersecurity?
Mr. Roberti. Yes, we do. We have a memoranda of agreement
with the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation
Security Administration. We work closely with FERC. We will
engage with our DOE partners and get briefings from the FBI and
so forth.
Mr. Palmer. Do you have any jurisdictional conflicts at the
Federal or State level?
Mr. Roberti. The jurisdiction really resides in CISA at the
Homeland Security Department and in TSA, but being that we have
so many inspectors that are out in the field and in control
rooms, we try to coordinate with them so that we can help
assist in achieving their ends.
Mr. Palmer. Let me ask you, PHMSA has been mandated by
Congress to complete the idle pipeline rulemaking as part of
the 2020 reauthorization. Pipeline operators need regulatory
certainty from PHMSA for situations where they suspend normal
service on pipeline systems due to changes in market conditions
in which the status of the pipelines is neither active nor
abandoned.
The current PHMSA PIPES Act 2020 chart, which tracks the
progress of pipeline safety rulemakings, projects publication
of a notice of proposed rulemaking on idle pipelines by
February 26 of 2027.
Could you provide an update on implementation of the idle
pipeline rulemaking?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. So I am very aware. That is one of our
mandates. Our teams are working on it. We hope to advance that
to an NPRM by fall, and I think there are good reasons to do
so.
Mr. Palmer. It is going to be very important that we have
this, again, because of the emerging energy needs that we need
and I think in terms of upgrading and expanding the network of
pipelines across the country.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
50th District for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing on pipeline safety.
My local utility, San Diego Gas and Electric, manages over
16,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. Those pipelines are a
critical component of our energy infrastructure. They help keep
the lights on for us and, similarly, for millions of Americans
across the country.
And every witness before the Energy Subcommittee has been
clear this year: We need more of everything, whether it is
transmission, pipelines, renewables, or gas. And that is why
ensuring that this infrastructure is safe and appropriately
regulated is critical both for the safety of our communities
and for the long-term competitiveness of the natural gas and
pipeline industry.
Unfortunately, the regulatory pendulum swing, especially
when it comes to pipeline regulation, can stand in the way, and
at the EPA the Obama administration issued methane control
rules. Trump repealed them. Biden put them back. And now Trump
is repealing them again.
And we are seeing that, at PHMSA, specifically regarding
standards for pipeline leakage and safety standards, we had the
bipartisan PIPES Act of 2020, which was signed into law by
President Trump. It mandated that these rules be updated and
finalized within a set amount of time. Unfortunately, the Biden
administration delayed. They blew past that deadline, and they
only issued rules on their way out the door. The Trump
administration then promptly and without explanation declined
to finalize them.
So that enforcement ambiguity, combined with the drop of
the enforcement that Mr. Pallone talked about, is leaving
industries and communities with some uncertainty. That is why I
introduced a bill with Representative Carter of Louisiana and
Senator Lujan which would codify the draft rule and modernize
decades-old standards for gas pipeline leak detection and
repair.
The bill would not disallow future updates to the rule or
discourage future innovation, but it provides regulatory
certainty for industry to make sure there are durable rules
that they can follow. Updated rules are estimated to deliver up
to $1.5 billion in net benefits to industry and consumers while
eliminating up to half a million metric tons of methane
emissions.
And I would just pause to say that, with regard to methane
emissions, it is a serious environmental concern, sure, but it
is also a customer demand issue. The reason that so much
innovation has happened around methane in the United States is
not because of government regulation but because of consumer
demand from places like Korea, Japan, and the EU that want
clean gas. And American gas is cleaner because of that consumer
demand. We should be proud of that, and we should be calling it
out.
But addressing the fugitive emissions from oil and gas
operations is one of the most effective ways to protect public
health while keeping America's energy sector globally
competitive.
So, Mr. Roberti, does PHMSA intend to issue and finalize an
updated leak detection and repair rule?
Mr. Roberti. We do. That is on the list of mandates. When
this administration came in, that was a--it was a proposed
rule. It had not been submitted to the Federal Register. Across
all departments of government, all of those rules were pulled
back for further examination. We are examining that. I want to
get these mandates done. I intend to. That is on our list.
Mr. Peters. Do you have a sense of your timing for that?
Mr. Roberti. That one, it is probably not this year. But,
you know, it is something we want to--we definitely want to
address.
Mr. Peters. So the majority's draft that we are discussing
today would disallow the administration from considering the
environmental benefits of issuing pipeline safety standards,
including leak detection and repair.
Can you explain what environmental benefits PHMSA does
consider when it updates standards? And how do you balance
between economic safety and environmental benefits of rules?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. So, you know, you could--I mean, in the
academia world, you could make all sorts of arguments on the
nexus to the environment, the nexus to safety. But, at some
point, you draw limits about where is the proper nexus for the
execution of the agency's mission. And our view is, yes, we
don't want methane leaking out of any pipes.
You know, containment of all products that are moving
through pipes--it is essential that we have containment, but as
we address how to implement the rule, we want to be sensitive
to available technologies. What is cost-effective? I would say,
at the top of it, leaks and high-consequence areas are critical
that they not exist, that they be detected because public
safety is at risk.
Leaks of our liquid pipelines where there is a potential
leak to a river or into the environment, those are high
priority.
But I think this administration's policies, it is much
less--it is a tenuous link to the climate change.
Mr. Peters. I am going to run out of time, but I would just
say that maintaining protection against leaks has environmental
benefits, and I hope this doesn't scare you all from doing it.
And I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia's
12th District for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, for holding this
important hearing to discuss pipeline safety reauthorization
legislation.
This is not only a national security issue; it is a serious
economic issue. For example, we have got wells capped because
we have gas. We can't burn it off, and we need to get in the
pipeline. And, plus, we just had the coldest winter in recent
memory that I can recall.
And, because of the past policies, the war on fossil fuel,
you know, everything is driven to electric generation, and now
we have all of this gas that is much more efficient. In fact,
heat pumps don't work when it gets below 30 degrees. So you are
sitting there using strip heat 90 percent of the time to heat
your home, and that is not efficient at all.
But we have got to get this done, and, you know, I want to
thank you for your efforts in making sure that we move forward
and dominate in this energy production.
Building up our pipeline capacity is critical to delivering
this affordable energy to our constituents across the country,
and, obviously, pipeline safety is critical, and we want to do
everything we can to make sure that we are doing the right
thing environmentally and otherwise. Like you said, there is
this nexus, like, to what extremes do you go to and that sort
of thing, and, obviously, safety is important.
With this in mind, Administrator Roberti, can you describe
the important role of a cost-benefit when considering these
regulations that are imposed on you?
Mr. Roberti. Thank you for the question.
The cost-benefit analysis, if you look at any regulation--
and all good public policy must look at technical
considerations, economic considerations, and the benefits--
there must be--a cost-benefit analysis, is what I think is
fundamental to good government, to good regulation.
So these requirements stem all the way back to a
Presidential Executive order still in place today from prior
Presidents. I think it is Executive Order 12886, I think is the
number, which drives the use and requirement that executive
agencies use cost-benefit analyses. So they are good.
Now, there is an overlay in the PIPELINE Safety Act. Either
way, we are doing that as, I think, an essential component of
developing regulations that make an appropriate balance between
the cost and the benefits.
Mr. Allen. Well, there is a lot of concern about
affordability, particularly since we had such--you know, if you
were born after 1982, you never saw inflation in this country
until the Biden administration took over. So, you know,
affordability is critical to our people.
The discussion draft would--and, obviously, Congress has
done a lot to deal with regulation and looking at everything
and, like I said, the cost-benefit, what is it doing? And how
much does it cost? How much does it cost the American people?
Would you agree good policy should deemphasize non-U.S.
benefits given they can result in extra costs without
benefiting taxpayers?
Mr. Roberti. Did you say non-U.S.
Mr. Allen. Yeah.
Mr. Roberti. No, I wouldn't agree with that.
Mr. Allen. OK. All right.
During a previous subcommittee hearing, I mentioned the
need to reform the special permit program. How does this
discussion draft modernize this process so that we can expand
pipeline infrastructure projects while maintaining safety and
ensure the process is beneficial?
Mr. Roberti. Well, I know that the last administration had
tried to move the program forward, but did so and created a--
required a NEPA analysis, the National Environmental Policy
Act. And it was used as basically--it basically complicated
and--I think it was really unnecessary. It completely bogged
down that program, and it never went anywhere.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Roberti. And NEPA is--I mean, you know, I don't need to
tell you that there is a role for NEPA. But when you are
talking about existing infrastructure and you are talking about
using innovative technologies to advance safety and move
product, it is not something that I know that I would believe
NEPA is triggered.
And I have done my share of NEPA cases. I have argued them
in the U.S. courts of appeal. So I know a little bit about
this. But----
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. We have somewhat distorted the
role of NEPA----
Mr. Latta. And I am sorry, but----
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. In our process----
Mr. Latta [continuing]. The gentleman's time is up.
Mr. Allen. I yield back. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's
Eighth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
Pipelines are everywhere. They are buried under our
schools, recreational areas, drinking-water sources, and our
neighborhoods. When pipeline incidents happen, they happen in
our communities, where we live, where our kids go to school.
And they have serious, sometimes fatal consequences in our
communities. That is why pipeline safety is critical.
Last Congress, I discussed a 2020 CO2 pipeline
rupture in Mississippi which resulted in mass carbon dioxide
poisoning. Two hundred people were evacuated, and at least 45
people were hospitalized.
So the stakes of pipeline safety aren't hypothetical, they
are very real. And it is the responsibility of the Government
to protect our communities and prevent another accident like
this from happening again.
Mr. Roberti, your testimony highlights that, quote,
``safety'' drives everything you do at the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's Pipeline Safety
Program, and key elements of PHMSA's Pipeline Safety Program
include updating and developing regulations enforcement to hold
pipeline operators accountable.
Is that correct? Just yes or no.
Mr. Roberti. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
In January of last year, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking for CO2 pipelines in response to the 2020
accident we discussed earlier. This rule would have required
emergency responders to be trained on hazards specific to
CO2, expand PHMSA's jurisdiction to cover more
pipelines carrying CO2, and address other safety
issues that came out of the Mississippi accident.
But, Mr. Roberti, PHMSA withdrew this rule last year. Is
that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Roberti. It was not a rule. It was on the web--it never
went to the Federal Register, for whatever reason.
Mr. Menendez. So how would you describe it?
Mr. Roberti. So that was a----
Mr. Menendez. It was a safety precaution in response to the
2022 Mississippi accident that occurred.
Mr. Roberti. So the Satartia incident was a very serious
incident. That----
Mr. Menendez. And so what was----
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Is acknowledged.
Mr. Menendez [continuing]. Ihat was the response to it,
that you are saying is not a rule?
Mr. Roberti. On the--on the rule?
Mr. Menendez. You are saying it was not a rule, so I am
asking you, how would you describe it?
Mr. Roberti. How would I describe it? It was an effort to
develop a rule. It was never an actual rule that got posted in
the Federal Register. And like every administration----
Mr. Menendez. All right. So that initiative is no longer
being considered, yes or no?
Mr. Roberti. It is being considered, because it is a
mandate of Congress on the gaseous CO2 rules, and I
have committed to address all of the mandates of Congress. That
is a priority while I am here as Administrator.
But that rule went--the scope of that rule was far wider
and greater. In fact, if you look at Satartia----
Mr. Menendez. I want to have a long conversation, but I
have to move on. Because I do believe it is important
rulemaking, however you want to describe it, given the real-
life example that prompted PHMSA to initiate the rulemaking
process, which was already required from a 2011 pipeline safety
reauthorization that is now 15 years overdue.
Can you tell me what these plans are that you described to
take up this rulemaking? Are we going to see something
potentially in the next 6 months?
Mr. Roberti. I don't know that we will get to it in 6
months, but we are going to get to that, because it is a
mandate, and I have instructed my staff that I want to get all
the mandates done.
Mr. Menendez. All right. Please push it forward, right?
Because we have seen the consequences in places like
Mississippi, which colleagues across the aisle represent. It is
important to do.
Mr. Roberti. That Satartia incident, though--had that
operator complied with existing regulations under Part 195----
Mr. Menendez. Right, but the rulemaking was about----
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. It would have never happened.
Mr. Menendez [continuing]. How we prepare--how we prepare
when these accidents happen and making sure our emergency staff
is prepared for the unique dynamics of CO2
accidents.
Mr. Roberti. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. So I understand what you are saying, but the
response was about how do we train our first responders, which
is critically important and should be supplemented.
I have to move on.
Mr. Roberti. And they failed----
Mr. Menendez. I am sorry, I have to move on.
Mr. Roberti. All right.
Mr. Menendez. Your testimony also highlighted that
enforcement and holding pipeline operators accountable are also
key to PHMSA's mission. Is that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Roberti. I am sorry. I----
Mr. Menendez. Sure. In your testimony, it is highlighted
that enforcement and holding pipeline operators accountable are
also key to PHMSA's mission. Is that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Roberti. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Menendez. Because, according to a Politico article from
this January, the Trump administration has slashed pipeline
enforcement in 2025, bringing about half the average number of
cases as in previous years. PHMSA also announced it would cease
enforcement against any pipeline operators who claimed that
they had to violate safety standards to accommodate the
President's claimed, quote, ``energy emergency.''
That doesn't sound like it is in line with PHMSA's
commitment to holding pipeline operators accountable. It sounds
like just another way for pipeline operators to circumvent
safety regulations.
All this is on top of a 14 percent decrease in staffing
since President Trump took office. We have talked about that we
need more pipelines. We have less staff to make sure that
everything is done properly and safely.
So an already underresourced and understaffed agency
experienced a 14 percent drop in staffing levels, and the bill
we are considering today provides an even deeper funding cut to
this agency. These are the challenges that we have, with our
friends across the aisle.
We know that this can be done in a bipartisan way. Our
House T&I Committee has shown that we can do it. We should
follow their lead instead of making this a partisan pursuit in
furtherance of the President's failed policies.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The gentleman's time has expired, and he yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, thank you for being here.
I will give you the opportunity if you would like to finish
the discussion on the CO2 incident and finish that
as you were explaining.
Mr. Roberti. Well, you know, the Satartia incident I know
was a very serious incident, and we deployed investigators to
that incident, and it resulted in a $2.8 million fine because
of the failure of that operator to do what is already required
in Part 195 of our code, which covers liquid CO2
pipelines. And they failed to take into account the risks of
storms, erosion, geohazards. They failed in the execution of
their integrity management program responsibilities and also
the communication with emergency responders. And we held them
accountable with that fine.
So that is why we get into a debate. How much do the
regulations need to be--how many more words do you need in this
code for requiring conduct that is already clear?
And that is why I--that is why I believe enforcement and
accountability is the absolute top priority for this agency,
for me, for Secretary Duffy, and we are going to hold operators
accountable. Because, had they followed the code, that incident
should not have occurred.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. I appreciate that
response.
I will move on with my question.
The draft legislation we are discussing today includes
language clarifying that in-plant piping systems, which are
part of a larger refining and production facility, are
regulated by OSHA and PHMSA.
Administrator, last July your agency issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking to exempt in-plant piping systems. In the
notice, PHMSA recog--reorganized that applying overlapping
regulatory programs to in-plant piping systems often results in
uncertainty and compliance issues.
Can you discuss how this overlap can make it more
challenging for operators to maintain safe operations?
Mr. Roberti. Well, yes. So we have moved that rule. We see
that it is embedded in the draft bill here, and we think it is
a good thing. And I will tell you why. Because there was
ambiguity over the course of decades, who had jurisdiction.
One thing I have always seen in government--and to this
day, we still deal with this--you have multiple agencies. It is
good government for agencies to know their swim lanes and have
clarity for the industry on who regulates.
And so in-plant piping, OSHA, for the most part, does
refineries and on-premise piping like that. And we wanted to
clarify, kind of make it pretty clear, that this would be an
OSHA responsibility, they would handle that, and that way
operators know who is responsible for regulating.
Mr. Balderson. All right. Thank you.
PHMSA's notice of proposed rulemaking noted that OSHA's
regulatory programs provide an equivalent level of safety to
PHMSA. Would you agree with that assessment?
Mr. Roberti. I would. I have met with--I have had some
high-level meetings with OSHA to coordinate on their approach
to some of their regulatory methodologies, and they seem to be
very good.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
Lastly, can you provide an update on where the rulemaking
stands and when PHMSA may issue a final rule?
Mr. Roberti. On the in-plant piping?
Mr. Balderson. Yes.
Mr. Roberti. That is moving through. I don't know, as I sit
here right now, the precise timing, but we can get you that
information.
Mr. Balderson. I appreciate that.
Mr. Roberti. I would be glad to follow up.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you.
And I appreciate your attention--we have to be conscious of
our time here--appreciate your attention to supporting the safe
expansion of America's LNG export capacity.
At the direction of Congress, last year PHMSA issued an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to modernize Federal
standards for LNG facilities.
Following comments from the LNG industry and interested
parties, do you believe there is room for PHMSA to better
coordinate with FERC and the U.S. Coast Guard to prevent
conflicting or unnecessary regulatory requirements?
Mr. Roberti. Absolutely. As my prior example about having
appropriate swim lanes--it makes no sense, as the agency with
safety jurisdiction, to send inspectors out to inspect an LNG
facility, only to find out that FERC, after granting a permit,
has a whole team there doing the same thing for another week or
two.
Mr. Balderson. All right.
Mr. Roberti. So swim lanes are important. That is--it is
better government.
Mr. Balderson. All right.
I am only going to leave you 15 seconds here. And is this
an issue the National Center of Excellence for LNG Safety will
focus on in the future?
Mr. Roberti. That will be. I mean, that center, which we
are excited we are going to be opening later this spring, will
focus on knowledge management, best practices.
We are working closely--we are going to work closely with
FERC to figure out how--we have a memorandum of agreement with
FERC. I intend to meet with the Chairman of FERC to further----
Mr. Latta. And I am sorry----
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Discuss this.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's
Fourth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member
Castor, for this important hearing today.
PHMSA has the incredible responsibility of overseeing a
3.3-million-mile-long network of pipelines transporting oil,
natural gas, and hazardous chemicals such as ammonia and
hydrocarbons. Maintaining strong oversight of these chemicals,
highly volatile energy products, and the pipelines that
transport them across the Nation are an incredibly difficult
but vital task.
And that is why I am disappointed in the current
legislation as it stands. While the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee have
advanced bipartisan legislation geared towards maintaining
strong pipeline oversight and providing funding to continue
updating and maintaining aging pipeline infrastructure, this
committee has proposed legislation--the Republicans on this
committee have proposed legislation, with no bipartisan input,
that underfunds and degrades PHMSA's ability to carry out the
important task of overseeing America's pipelines.
Most notably, this legislation includes provisions that
strip requirements for PHMSA to consider environmental impacts
in its safety standards.
And this comes at a time when pipeline safety enforcement
has plummeted at an alarming level and was cut in half in 2025
alone.
Administrator Roberti, do you believe that community
engagement, support, and transparency are important in the
long-term success of a pipeline project, such as those your
agency oversees?
Mr. Roberti. We have our--we have our community liaisons.
They are very important. They do a good job. We rely on them
when an incident occurs. So yes, I do.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you. I agree that it is incredibly
important.
And yet this administration is cutting enforcement
activity, and the bill further attempts to strip PHMSA of its
ability to consider environmental impacts in issuing safety
standards. I fail to see how any pipeline project under this
administration or the parameters of the bill would garner any
meaningful support or trust from impacted communities. There is
no accountability. There is no guarantee that their
environmental and related safety concerns will be considered
for these massive projects.
And I suspect that it is our historically disadvantaged
communities that will continue to suffer those consequences. We
have seen that time and time again in Virginia, where the same
communities, mostly the ones that don't have the resources or
have had the historical power to fight back against these
projects, have been the ones that have been disproportionately
impacted by these projects and their environmental and public
health impacts. And I think that communities that have
historically borne disproportionate environmental and public
health burdens should not receive less oversight due to a lack
of political access or fewer resources.
So, Administrator, does PHMSA track inspections, incidents,
and enforcement outcomes in a manner that allows you to
demonstrate with evidence that safety oversight is being
applied consistently across communities, including those that
have been historically overburdened by such programs and
projects?
Mr. Roberti. So you raise an important area about
transparency on what we do.
When I came to this agency, I was chief counsel, but as I
return as Administrator one of the things I observed is that
our website is not user-friendly. It actually does not show you
the degree of work that our inspectors are doing out there.
Every time a pipeline ruptures and we send out teams and we
issue corrective action orders and there are remediation plans,
you cannot easily see all of the activity we are doing on
monitoring the remediation of these pipelines.
And that is something that is a high priority. We are
looking at our--we collect a lot of data, but when you go on
the website, it is not user-friendly.
I may not be so IT-literate on how to find things on a
website, but I think we can achieve great improvements. I want
the public, I want communities to know--when there is a
pipeline in their community and something goes wrong or they
are interested in it, I want them to be able to track the
progress of--or the situation and know exactly what PHMSA is
doing on their behalf. Because right now it doesn't look like--
it looks like a black hole.
Ms. McClellan. Well, I can tell you, it definitely does
look like a black hole.
And I can tell you, there are a significant number of
communities in Virginia over the past year--now that they are
aware of just how many pipeline assets are concentrated in
their communities, they are very concerned about the safety and
what the Federal Government and what your agency is doing to
keep them safe.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Tennessee's First District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Administrator.
According to the Common Ground Alliance, 2024 saw more than
170,000 reported damages to underground infrastructure. That
includes pipelines and water and electric utilities. And there
were nearly 9,000 incidents just in Tennessee alone. And during
that same year, more than 1 million calls were made to 8-1-1 to
help locate underground infrastructure before an excavation.
You know, 8-1-1 is one of our most critical tools for
pipeline safety. So my question is, what specific steps is
PHMSA taking to strengthen public awareness and compliance with
8-1-1 requirements nationwide? And how can Congress ensure that
States are given best practices for implementing their damage
prevention programs?
Mr. Roberti. Thank you for the question. Yes, the
excavation damage is a heightened concern when you--and I
talked about it earlier--when you look at the number of
incidents. And you cited them.
We rely on our State partners. Through the funds granted to
us from Congress, we issue One Call Grants----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yeah.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. To our State partners and
excavation prevention programs. But they are small dollars
overall, when you consider it.
A lot of the jurisdiction still resides in States. We try
to leverage the grant program as a way to achieve best or
better practices from certain States. I have witnessed--in my
experience, I think it is a patchwork of--there are leaders and
there are laggards----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yeah.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Across the country.
And that is why I think this provision, the leading
practices that are specified in this draft bill--that I think
the time has come for bolstering a national standard. Because,
again, the impacts to the public, the amount of activity out
there in terms of construction----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. And everything that is under the
ground, we probably need to have more training and more
supervision--
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, that goes right into my next
question.
You know, those PHMSA Technical Assistance Grants were
established to ensure communities stay informed and strengthen
pipeline safety at a local level.
Last year, approximately half of PHMSA's Technical
Assistance Grant funding went to an organization where a recent
audit found significant deficiencies related to financial
practices, and it is unclear whether that organization used
taxpayer funds for prohibited lobbying activities due to poor
record-keeping practices.
So, as PHMSA evaluates future Technical Assistance Grant
awards, how will you ensure stronger financial oversight and
accountability for the recipients?
Mr. Roberti. Well, we were charged by the administration
and the President issued a memorandum to look at----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Funding and how funding was being
used by NGOs. We did that. The audit was initiated before I
came in as Administrator, but the findings demonstrated that
this particular organization--Congress chose----
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. To take most of our funding for
Technical Assistance Grants and give it to this organization.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yeah.
Mr. Roberti. And we have a whole bunch of smaller
organizations. It is a highly competitive process. And we don't
have enough money over there.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yeah.
Mr. Roberti. And for this organization, we found it was
clear as day that they were engaged in activities like
lobbying, advocacy, litigation--litigation against my agency.
Technical assistance is not giving Federal taxpayer dollars
from my agency and have them come back and toss bricks at the
work we are trying to do to advance safety.
Mrs. Harshbarger. It is a little bit messed up.
Will PHMSA prioritize awards to organizations that focus on
educating contractors and businesses and localities about
excavation safety, damage prevention, and 8-1-1 compliances?
Mr. Roberti. I am sorry. I missed at the end of that.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Will they prioritize awards to
organizations that focus on educating these entities?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. We want to see--you know, to help with
community engagement. We want to use these dollars to increase
awareness about pipelines, increase--help communities, help
emergency responders know what is out there, how to deal when
we have an incident or an accident.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Roberti. That is good use of these grant dollars.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
Mr. Roberti. And we are going to continue requiring that.
In fact, all of our grants--we didn't just--there was an
allegation that we picked on this particular grantee. This is
our largest recipient. There were issues there. We have
addressed them. And we are going to make sure that all grantees
using Federal taxpayer dollars do the same.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. Well, you should have looked at
them. Yeah. But you are doing your job.
So I have a few more questions, but I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Allen [presiding]. The gentlelady yields.
And now I call on Ms. DeGette from Colorado for her line of
questioning.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Roberti, is it true that PHMSA published a
rule to limit the types of conditions that can be included in
special permits in September of 2025?
Mr. Roberti. So--so we--we revamped our special permit
program.
Ms. DeGette. Yeah. And----
Mr. Roberti. One of the things we found was that the
special----
Ms. DeGette. Wait. I didn't ask you what you found. I asked
you, is it true that you published a rule to limit the types of
conditions that can be included in special permits? Yes or no?
Mr. Roberti. I am not aware of that.
Ms. DeGette. You don't know. OK.
Well, so the bill--yeah, here it is.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put that
rule into the record.
Mr. Chairman? I would ask unanimous consent to put the rule
that PHMSA enacted in September 2025 into the record.
Mr. Allen. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
So I guess I will educate you, then, that the bill that we
are--the draft bill that we are considering today, the Pipeline
Safety Authorization Act, would codify this rule. That is what
the whole purpose of this is. So, just to let you know.
Mr. Roberti. OK.
Ms. DeGette. Now, in the notice of proposed rulemaking, it
specifically cites criticism from the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America, INGAA, about PHMSA's practice of
adopting numerous conditions and special permits.
Is that correct?
Mr. Roberti. There--I mean, there was a practice to add all
sorts of extraneous, superfluous conditions that were intended
to prevent innovation----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. And prevent--and----
Ms. DeGette. So it specific--do you know whether it
specifically cites that criticism from INGAA about that
practice?
Mr. Roberti. I am not aware of that.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Is it true that several of your current colleagues used to
work at INGAA, including your Deputy Administrator, Ben
Kochman?
Mr. Roberti. The Deputy Administrator did work there.
Ms. DeGette. At INGAA.
And so would you agree with this statement: ``It is
important to keep a strict bifurcation between regulators and
their former employers so as not to create a conflict of
interest''?
Mr. Roberti. Well, I think you are--I would view it
differently. Mr. Kochman----
Ms. DeGette. OK. But you don't think that you had----
Mr. Roberti. Mr. Kochman, like I, we both--all of us
previously worked at PHMSA. We went out and did other jobs.
Ms. DeGette. Sure.
Mr. Roberti. But in terms of discharging the duties of
these positions where you are dealing with complex regulations,
that knowledge and experience is important. When you come into
this agency and you work for me, you adhere to the highest
ethical standards, and if you don't have the safety mission at
heart, then you are not on my team.
Ms. DeGette. I don't disagree with that. But, of course,
that is not the question that I asked either--is when somebody
leaves the agency, don't you think that there needs to be a
bifurcation between the interests that they are now
representing in their current position and the previous
position that they held at the agency?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. And there are all----
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. OK. That is all I was trying to ask
you.
Mr. Roberti. But there are all sorts of ethical
requirements.
Ms. DeGette. Right. Absolutely.
Mr. Roberti. And it is done by career officials.
Ms. DeGette. Great. OK. So----
Mr. Roberti. You wouldn't get away with doing anything
unethical in the Government----
Ms. DeGette. So I guess----
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Trust me.
Ms. DeGette [continuing]. That is why--I guess that is why
we were concerned and dismayed that Deputy Administrator--is it
``Koch-man''?
Mr. Roberti. ``Koch-man,'' yes.
Ms. DeGette [continuing]. That Deputy Administrator Kochman
recently published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to
get feedback on how to cut back repair requirements, in which
he cited comments provided from INGAA which he himself authored
while serving as INGAA's director of pipeline safety policy.
And I liken that to if I put a suggestion box outside my
congressional office and stuffed it full of comment cards that
I had written out. It looks like I am interested in
constructive feedback, but I don't have to institute any of the
changes I didn't already plan on making. That is the way I see
it.
So I just want to ask you, do you see a Deputy
Administrator citing his own comments previously made as a
conflict of interest?
Mr. Roberti. It would--if there were a conflict of
interest, it would not have happened. We----
Ms. DeGette. No, no----
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Are very, very careful about
that.
Ms. DeGette. But if the Deputy Administrator cited his own
comments as a reason for his decision, don't you think that is
a conflict of interest?
Mr. Roberti. Well, the body of the document is worked up by
career officials. It gets signed off on by--it is signed off by
a noncareer official. Everyone----
Ms. DeGette. Yeah, I hear--I know you don't want to answer
this question, but I appreciate you trying----
Mr. Roberti. But that would----
Ms. DeGette [continuing]. To do it.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Mean that no one who had any
engagement in the real world of pipelines could ever work in
this industry.
Ms. DeGette. No. What it would mean is they can't base
their decisions on the comments that they--on the very comments
that they made.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Balderson [presiding]. Thank you.
Dr. Miller-Meeks?
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair.
I would also thank our witness for testifying today.
As the Representative for Iowa's First Congressional
District, I know how much our communities depend on a safe and
reliable energy network to power homes, farms, and businesses.
And, in fact, many of the communities within my district are
asking for more pipelines and natural gas, not less.
Much of that energy does move through an extensive network
of pipelines that crosses our States, including rural areas and
small towns that don't always make the headlines when something
goes wrong.
Recently, we saw a significant pipeline explosion in
Washington County that thankfully did not result in injuries,
but it was a stark reminder that one incident in a rural field
can shake an entire community's confidence.
Our constituents want to know that the rules and oversight
in place today match the risk and technologies of today, not of
the world 40 years ago.
PHMSA has laid out a goal of a zero-incident future, and I
agree that should be our aim. To get there, we need a modern
regulatory framework that encourages innovation and uses the
best available tools while updating older regulations that may
no longer fit current technology, equipment, and operations.
This hearing is a chance for Congress to give clearer
direction, streamline what isn't working, and reinforce what
is. And I look forward to your answers to my questions on how
this legislation can help us modernize pipeline safety in a way
that protects Iowans, helps operators replace aging line and
build new infrastructure, and keeps safety, not political
philosophy, at the center of PHMSA's mission.
Administrator Roberti, incidents like the one in Washington
County can shake the public's confidence even when no one is
hurt. What role do you see for PHMSA in keeping the public
informed after an incident regarding the cause, the fixes, and
any longer-term safety changes so that people in rural areas
feel they are not in the dark about the risk and the responses?
Mr. Roberti. Well, thank you for the question.
You know, every--an incident like that--I am aware of that
incident. We deployed our investigators. They are on site,
monitoring the remediation activities. There was, I believe, an
ordered pressure reduction on that pipeline in order to make
sure that it is safe.
We have community liaisons that can be available to assist
the community with any questions. My staff is certainly
available to liaise with your staff and provide information and
updates as you feel necessary.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
And when older pipelines are what is being affected, a lot
of PHMSA's core regulations were written for an earlier era of
pipeline design and inspection.
How are you making sure that new tools, like advanced in-
line inspection, data analytics, and remote monitoring, are
recognized and encouraged in your regulation so that innovation
is rewarded and not penalized?
Mr. Roberti. Yeah. So, I mean, the movement of technology
to create better in-line inspection tools that didn't exist
decades ago are critical. And so we have an R&D forum that is
coming up where we are trying to push commercialization of more
technologies that are available to detect anomalies and defects
in pipelines. We are going to continue--we are going to
continue to do that.
In a situation like this, I have made it very clear that
our oversight over a pipeline that has had an accident should
require enhancements and a remediation plan. I would expect
that there would be more requirements on in-line inspection,
examination of the pipeline, if it is going to continue to
operate. And, certainly, unless we are fully confident, we are
not going to allow it to revert to the original pressure
before----
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. So it seems like this is a big
opportunity to update outdated PHMSA rules so that they better
reflect today's technology without adding unnecessary red tape
for operations.
Does any Federal agency currently require electric
transmission companies to notify pipeline operators before
beginning a reconductoring or voltage upgrade project in a
shared right-of-way?
And, if not, should PHMSA work with FERC and DOE to
establish a clear, consistent notification and coordination
process to protect both grid reliability and pipeline safety?
Mr. Roberti. So that is definitely an emerging issue. I
have met with some trade organizations that were very concerned
about this. There was a failure recently due to this. It caused
the--the currents from the transmission line actually caused
corrosion and a hole in the pipe.
So I think there is great room for improvement on that, and
we need to coordinate with our other Federal partners and
States and citing authorities to, I think, do more on that
issue.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
Up next is Representative Matsui from California.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Roberti, for being here today.
I think we can all agree that the safe operation of our
Nation's pipelines is of critical importance for all Americans.
When something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating,
whether it is a deadly explosion or a toxic oil spill that
contaminates our drinking water and causes ecological
catastrophe.
We rely upon our safety regulator, PHMSA, to have our
backs, to make sure that pipelines are properly maintained and
pipeline operators are taking the necessary precautions.
Unfortunately, I am gravely concerned by some of the recent
actions taken by PHMSA that undermine pipeline safety.
In California, PHMSA is attempting to overrule State
authorities and authorize the restart of the Sable Offshore oil
pipeline, the same pipeline that caused the 2015 Refugio oil
spill. That oil spill released more than 120,000 gallons of
oil, affecting 150 miles of California coastline, doing
irreparable harm to ecosystems, and forcing the closure of
fisheries and beaches, costing local businesses hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Mr. Roberti, yes or no, are you familiar with this pipeline
and its history?
Mr. Roberti. I am very well familiar with that pipeline.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Are you familiar with the cause of the oil
spill?
Mr. Roberti. I am familiar with it. I was involved in an
enforcement action with eight Federal agencies and the State of
California that, under my leadership, led to one of the highest
fines in the history--the highest fine in the history of the
United States for a discharge of oil into Refugio State Beach,
which, I can tell you, I have walked and even collected----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. An oil-covered stone as a--as a--
to remember what the impact of such----
Ms. Matsui. All right. OK.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. A discharge would be.
Ms. Matsui. Now, you determined the pipeline ruptured due
to a defective and inadequate corrosion protection system. And
due to this defect, the California State government required
that the Sable Corporation take additional measures to detect
and repair any corrosion before restarting the pipeline.
The legal settlement following the Refugio oil spill
clearly requires California's approval for Sable to restart the
pipeline, but Sable rejected the State's requirements,
requesting that PHMSA intervene and overrule the State of
California. In December, PHMSA asserted exclusive authority
over the pipeline and, just 6 days later, issued an emergency
permit for the pipeline.
Mr. Roberti, yes or no, did you prepare an environmental
review for this decision?
Mr. Roberti. I believe an environmental review is underway.
Ms. Matsui. Well----
Mr. Roberti. Part of that notice----
Ms. Matsui [continuing]. My understanding is that--OK.
Did you issue a public notice or offer an opportunity for
public comment, as required under law?
Mr. Roberti. The emergency special permit was issued. It
has been resubmitted and noticed. I think it is available for
public comment right now.
Ms. Matsui. Well--OK.
Mr. Roberti. And I think an environmental review is being
conducted.
Ms. Matsui. Are you aware that Sable is facing multiple
criminal complaints regarding environmental violations for work
conducted as part of this project?
Mr. Roberti. I am not aware of that. I know there is a lot
of--there is litigation.
What our role was was the question of whether the
operational characteristics would trigger interstate, Federal
jurisdiction over the safety aspects of that pipeline. And when
that request was submitted, it was clear that it was
interstate, so jurisdiction----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Reverted to PHMSA.
Ms. Matsui. In 2016, following the Refugio oil spill, the
PHMSA Administrator at that time said, quote, ``This pipeline
will not be allowed to operate until we are satisfied that all
of the safety issues have been appropriately addressed.''
Can you seriously tell me that in just 6 days, with no
environmental review, with no public comment period, you
determined that all the safety issues with this corroded,
defective pipeline had been appropriately addressed?
Mr. Roberti. We--so that is a very fair question. We
deployed--before we make any decision on a restart, under our
regulations, we deployed a team of investigators. We did it
collaboratively with the Office of the State Fire Marshal. They
send inspectors too.
And--I specifically asked for this--I went over with my
lead field administrator that oversees these activities a 12-
page inspection report to review all aspects of that pipeline
facility to make sure that it has satisfied all of the
regulations in the event that it is going to restart.
Ms. Matsui. Well, the companies can self-certify, though.
So how does PHMSA plan to conduct oversight to ensure that
pipeline operators aren't endangering public safety?
Mr. Roberti. Yeah, for the--like I said, the first thing is
to send inspectors out there to inspect the integrity
management protocols.
And I specifically asked--I said this can't just be pulling
stuff off a shelf----
Ms. Matsui. That is right.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Undusting stuff that Plains All
American Pipeline system had. And they made----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. It very clear that there have
been serious efforts done to make sure that the pipe, the
facilities, all of the activities are up to----
Ms. Matsui. I see that my time is up.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. Up to the points of the code.
Mr. Balderson. Your time has expired.
Ms. Matsui. I yield back.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
Next up is the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, thank you for being here.
PHMSA--what, 3.3 million miles of pipelines? It is kind of
astronomical when you think about it. That is a lot of ground
to cover. And Americans depend on that every day for safety,
for reliability, affordable energy.
With the agency's authorization expiring in 2023, I think
we have an important opportunity for both stability and
clarity. The broader goal, I think, should be to avoid layering
on new congressional mandates. Obviously, you have testified
that you are going through a backlog of old mandates now and
dealing with those, but--and also to give the administration
some running room to complete those outstanding requirements,
modernize regulations, and implement safety priorities.
The discussion draft reauthorizes programs, strengthens
enforcement where needed, and streamlines the process so the
agency can focus on advancing safety while enabling energy
delivery. That should remain, I think, our guiding principle:
strong safety oversight without the unnecessary bureaucratic
expansion. And so I look forward to our discussion here.
Pipeline safety rulemaking has been a long-recurring issue
in these debates. Can you talk about your backlog of rulemaking
that you inherited and where you are in implementing those? And
does Congress adding more required rulemakings help your
safety-focused agenda?
Mr. Roberti. So--so we had--we had a backlog. We are
moving--we finally achieved compliance with the class location
rule, which has been finalized.
We are moving the LNG facilities rule. This deals with LNG
export facilities and also stationary sources of LNG to
support--pressure support for distribution systems. That rule,
we hope to release an NPRM hopefully in the first half of this
year.
The idle pipe rule, we are trying to address that mandate.
And then I want to get to--we have prioritized based on
where the greatest impact of safety would be, where we needed
more--the regulatory certainty. And that still leaves a few of
the mandates, like the leak detection rule, the CO2
gaseous rule. Those are areas that we are trying to get to. We
are trying to get them all done.
Mr. Fry. Great.
I am going to shift focus for a little bit.
In recent years, especially involving high-profile
pipelines, there have been ``peaceful'' protests--right?--with
air quotes--that have provided opportunities for criminals to
attack pipelines and pipeline infrastructure, posing dangers
not only to the attackers themselves but the communities, the
safety of workers, certainly of people in the surrounding area
and the environment.
The acts are dangerous--right?--such as valve turning and
other equipment, but don't necessarily result in physical
damage to the pipeline, which I think poses a prosecutorial
problem in how the law is interpreted to apply to only acts
that cause physical damage.
The discussion draft includes a provision to close that
loophole. It would expand criminal penalties to actions that
not only damage or destroy but also impair the operation of
pipelines and pipeline facilities.
What are your thoughts on expanding that to cover such
acts?
Mr. Roberti. Well, you know, we all support and believe in
the right for peaceful protests and the ability for communities
to express their concerns about energy infrastructure running
through their communities.
But where you have pipelines, tampering with a pipeline, an
operating pipeline, is not just dangerous for the person who
does it, it is dangerous to others, it is dangerous to workers.
It could create an extremely dangerous situation, and putting
aside supply disruption and what that would do to downstream
communities that rely on those energy sources.
I think, in this day--it is unfortunate, but in this day
and age, probably the time has come to make sure that that
specific conduct is held to a criminal standard.
Mr. Fry. Yeah.
The measure also covers damage or destruction to facilities
under construction. Do you think that modernizing that, I
guess, or closing that loophole would be an effective deterrent
for various physical acts that ultimately deprive the public of
affordable energy?
Mr. Roberti. I think it would be an appropriate deterrent.
But being vigilant both on the physical and cybersecurity side,
with all the--you know, the threat vectors are just
continuously growing, and constant vigilance is in order as
well.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
And I see my time has expired, unfortunately. It always
goes quick. And I know that the Chair, including the current
occupant of the chair position, runs a tight ship, so, with
that, I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Representative.
Up next is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you and the
ranking member hosting this hearing.
And, in addition to being a safety regulator, PHMSA funds
some research and development activities, and that research can
be critical in making well-informed regulatory decisions.
I was surprised to see that, in September, PHMSA terminated
nine R&D grants, primarily involving safety and corrosion
issues for CO2 and hydrogen pipelines, totaling $7
million.
Administrator Roberti, do CO2 and hydrogen
pipelines currently exist in the United States?
Mr. Roberti. I believe that there are about 5,600 miles of
CO2 pipelines. A much, much lower number of hydrogen
pipelines exist today.
Mr. Tonko. And do you believe, in the years ahead, there
will be more or less miles of CO2 and hydrogen
pipelines in operation in our country?
Mr. Roberti. You know, that is unclear. I think it depends
on how you view the clean-energy transition. I know that there
are differing views on that for supercritical CO2
pipelines. I think the code is fairly sufficient in regulating
them. We might want to do some updates to the latest industry
consensus standards.
Mr. Tonko. Yeah. Well, many believe more pipelines in the
future.
And so, if the infrastructure already exists, is there any
reason why we wouldn't want more information to improve the
safety of their operations, such as knowing how far people
should be from ruptured pipelines to be safe, which was the
subject of some of these terminated awards?
Mr. Roberti. So some of these awards kind of, when you look
at--we want to have R&D that can go to market, that can move
the needle on safety. And some of these--some of these grants
you are speaking of--I took a personal interest to make sure
that, were we making the right decisions on the appropriate use
of taxpayer money? And basically they were looking at, you
know, approaches that would reduce carbon footprints associated
with corrosion mitigation. And that just didn't seem that we
were an appropriate area to experiment with taxpayer money. So
there were instances like that.
Focusing on the hydrogen economy, with this administration
it seemed that we could achieve more safety outcomes moving
those dollars to areas that were going to be real and palpable
in terms of the infrastructure that is going to be deployed to
meet the energy demands.
And I am not aware of whether we had specific dollars
associated with CO2. But those efforts are--I don't
think they are in the front seat right now of where America's
energy economy is going.
Mr. Tonko. Well, PHMSA's website says these projects were
terminated--and I quote--``due to changes in the
administration's priorities.''
What does that mean? Is the administration no longer
prioritizing safety----
Mr. Roberti. It is not about----
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. In terms of pipelines?
Mr. Roberti. It is about--it is actually about prioritizing
safety and doing less R&D on opportunities for conversion to
alternative fuels with lower carbon footprints.
That was a less--a much less direct way to achieve safety
outcomes than to focus our R&D on developing better ways of
detecting corrosion and inhibiting corrosion on pipelines, the
real threats that may result in a rupture to a pipeline.
Mr. Tonko. Well, in December a PHMSA spokesperson was
quoted in E&E News stating, quote, ``Taxpayers don't want those
resources wasted on the Democrats' `Green New Scam' agenda.''
So I am assuming the renewables are what they were focused on?
I would like to point out that these awards were being
carried out by research institutions including North Dakota
State University, the University of North Dakota, the
University of Oklahoma, and Texas A&M--not exactly places that
are thought of as bastions of Green New Deal thought
leadership. But they are places that have a lot of nearby
pipeline infrastructure, and I would guess that those
communities want to know how to maximize safety.
So, Administrator Roberti, it is incumbent, I think, on you
to rise above politics when people's lives are at stake. And
that means making certain that PHMSA research agenda items are
accurately reflecting the emerging issues and knowledge gaps
that exist to promote pipeline safety, especially when
renewables are the cleanest and most readily added to the grid.
So I would strongly encourage you to keep this in mind as
PHMSA funds research moving forward.
So, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Latta [presiding]. Thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back the remainder of his time.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado's
Eighth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Chairman, and of course to the
ranking member and to the Administrator for taking the time for
this important hearing.
I spent over a decade as a cop. I am 12 years in the U.S.
Army and Colorado Army National Guard. And I now get to
represent one of the top energy-producing regions in the
Nation. And so pipeline safety aligns perfectly with those two
priorities, which is energy dominance and then public safety
and national security. We need more reliable power, and we have
to keep the safety of our communities top of mind.
Now, lucky for us, the United States, my district, produces
some of the cleanest and safest oil and natural gas in the
world, and reauthorizing PHMSA, the Pipeline Safety Program,
will enable us to continue that legacy. About 80 percent of the
oil and 60 percent of the natural gas in the State of Colorado
comes out of my district.
Unfortunately, the ruling Democrats in Colorado are working
to completely eliminate natural gas by 2050. And oftentimes
they do that by attacking pipelines and the distribution
infrastructure to get this form of energy into people's homes
or to other end users of natural gas.
And so my question to you is, how do burdensome
environmental regulations and climate mandates in blue States
like Colorado actually prevent the safe and consistent
maintenance of pipeline infrastructure?
Mr. Roberti. Well, every time the industry--and this is--
right now, it is a State-by-State issue. Many States are trying
to eliminate pipelines.
And what it does is--to the extent that States hold
decisions, say, for distribution systems that are made of
compromised materials like cast iron, bare steel, or even Aldyl
A, which is a plastic that is moving high up on the list for
pipeline assets that need to be replaced--States that are
pursuing decarbonization are saying, ``Hold on. Let's take a
timeout. We won't need these pipelines anymore.''
Unfortunately, whether they are regulators or they are
legislators, they are operating in a world of delusion. These
pipelines will be necessary for decades to come. The electric
grid can't possibly accommodate the megawatt hours that would
be necessary to convert the few--the high-density sources of
energy like oil and jet fuel and natural gas, let alone fly
planes. It cannot happen. And so the math really belies and
demonstrates the problem here.
So, when industry is distracted by these policies--new
policies and changes have to occur over long periods of time.
And when you try to force huge changes in an industry by a date
certain because you pick off a round number like 2020 or 2050,
you are setting yourself up for failure.
But what it does to safety is this: These companies no
longer have the support of State economic regulators--that is
not the case at the Federal level--to continue investing in
systems to make sure that they are safe.
Mr. Evans. So is it fair to characterize that as: When
regulators and regulatory burden goes after pipelines, they
actually can't invest the money, the time, the resources, and
the technology into making those distribution systems safer
because they are dealing with a regulatory structure or a
regulatory concept that says, ``No, we are not even going to
need these pipelines,'' in the case of Colorado by 2050, where
natural gas is banned for residential heating? Is that a fair
characterization?
Mr. Roberti. Absolutely. What they are saying is that the
customer should get a heat pump that won't even make your home
feel warm, if you have experienced the weather in New England
like we have in the past month, and on top of it your electric
rates will quadruple to pay for it at the higher, elevated
electricity prices.
Mr. Evans. And----
Mr. Roberti. Is that progress? I don't think so.
Mr. Evans. And, as we know, in Colorado natural gas is
oftentimes cleaner than the electricity that is coming out of
the grid right now for equivalent use of--for equivalent amount
of energy and when we measure that in terms of carbon
footprint.
I have 30 seconds left here. Talk about how the
information-sharing systems of this pipeline safety bill that
we are talking about--tell me about how that enhances public
safety. Twenty-five seconds.
Mr. Roberti. OK. Well, we think that it will be modeled
after what the FAA has done.
There is a lot of data information that comes from in-line
inspection tools. All of this data--there is a hesitation among
the industry to share it, for fear of the safeguards that are
built into this bill.
And this would facilitate sharing of information. We could
probably leverage AI to figure out ways to take this data,
share it, and make the pipeline system safer and achieve that
zero-incident future.
Mr. Evans. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The gentleman's time has expired, and he yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington's
Eighth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Administrator Roberti, for being here today.
Today I would like to focus our attention on safety of
liquid pipelines.
Less than 4 months ago, a blueberry farmer just outside my
district discovered an oil spill at the BP Olympic Pipeline,
which is a critical supply line for jet fuel.
It took roughly 3 weeks for BP to respond and repair and
then restart operations during the busy travel season, and
flights were canceled. And severe fuel shortages at SeaTac, I
believe also in Portland, resulted in our State--in a State
emergency declaration.
I would love to think that this was a one-off, but
unfortunately it is not the first time this has happened. This
marks the 26th reportable incident in the last 13 years,
resulting in nearly 30,000 total gallons of oil spilled.
And while we are lucky that in this particular instance
there weren't reports of significant harm to wildlife or to
public health, a leak in 2023 caused 25,000 gallons of gas to
seep into fish habitat and close a nearby school.
So, Administrator Roberti, as I mentioned earlier, a
blueberry farmer tending to his land detected this first leak
randomly. It wasn't BP. And from discovery, again, it took a
couple weeks to identify the point of origin and then longer to
fix it.
And so, despite BP touting their systems as state-of-the-
art, I am really concerned that this is considered state-of-
the-art if a blueberry farmer detected it, essentially, and if
this is a pattern.
And so I guess my question is: It is--you know, it is
alarming, I think, to most of us when a farmer discovers this
and not state-of-the-art systems, and can you kind of comment
on why the public seems to be more able to detect these----
Mr. Roberti. Yeah.
Ms. Schrier [continuing]. Than leak operators?
Mr. Roberti. Well, it is interesting; on the natural gas
side, the mercaptan that is in all natural gas is a mechanism
for the public being alert----
Ms. Schrier. Yeah.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. That there is a leak----
Ms. Schrier. You smell it.
Mr. Roberti [continuing]. And that does save lives.
But I share your concerns. I mean, this is the same--I am
well aware of this pipeline. I have been very active in asking
the enforcement division where we are with these reports,
failure investigation reports, and I am going to continue to do
that.
Both of those--those most recent accidents are under
investigation, so I am not going to talk too much about them,
but I want you to know, they are under investigation.
I also know this is the same pipeline, the Olympic
Pipeline, that caused the horrible tragedy in 1999 that took
the deaths--that took the lives of three young people.
And so that is the type of stuff with--I live with every
day. That is the type of stuff that keeps me up at 2:00 a.m.
My goal is to ensure that the operators of pipelines are
waking up as much as I am waking up over incidents like this.
Ms. Schrier. So, I guess, here is where I would like to
really go. Standards help companies rise to standards. And, as
you know, PHMSA requires liquid pipeline operators to maintain
an effective leak detection system. But PHMSA has declined to
actually set performance standards after Congress directed a
study to examine whether they were necessary.
And it seems like, in every other industry, you put a
standard on there if you want an industry to meet it. And so
does PHMSA need clear statutory direction to set a
quantitative, not just a qualitative, performance standard on
leak detection systems?
Mr. Roberti. I don't know that we need a standard. I do
believe that that is one of the areas I profiled in our
enforcement agenda, to look at leak detection, and I think that
that is a really, really important area where we need to look
at those technologies.
So that is definitely--I think our agency, with the current
leadership, we have been doing--we have been out in advance.
Many of the proposed mandates and efforts that have come out of
the competing bills in Congress we have already been doing. We
have been very active on this front.
But I am going--I will commit to you and to this committee
that we are going to work aggressively to improve----
Ms. Schrier. Just a final comment in my 13 seconds: Please
strongly consider actual standards. It will demand the best in
companies and will give more tools to PHMSA.
And I also just have to comment, as many of my colleagues
have, that it is very regrettable that this was not a
bipartisan bill. They managed to do it in T&I. They managed to
do it in the Senate. And here we are.
I really would hope that, in this committee, known for
bipartisanship, we could, you know, have a seat at the table
and bring a bipartisan bill because we need PHMSA reauthorized.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired and
yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 11th
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, just a note: It is still a discussion draft, and there
is plenty of time to make it bipartisan. It should be.
Pipelines are the safest delivery method in the world.
We appreciate what you are doing. In a State like Texas, we
have almost half a million miles of pipeline that transport the
vast majority of our oil, natural gas, CO2, and
other things. And our national security depends on that. We are
seeing that play out with the situation in Iran. We need to
continue to build out this network because it is the safest
network.
So, Administrator, thank you. The ERCOT grid relies heavily
on natural gas-fired generation to meet the peak demand and
maintain grid stability, and adequate pipeline capacity and
timely infrastructure development are directly tied to
reliability and affordability.
But can you mention how will the reauthorization of PHMSA
help ensure that pipeline infrastructure can be developed
safely and efficiently to improve that reliability and the
affordability for every American family?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. I believe in the value of growing the
Nation's pipelines because of how safe they are. We stand ready
to assist in reviewing the plans, designs for pipelines. We
don't permit them, but we work very cooperatively to assist and
make sure that the design and the construction and the
operation of those pipelines will be safe and in accordance
with our Code of Federal Regulations.
You know, that to me--having clarity, having understandable
regulations, and being a good government agency that is going
to hold operators accountable if they fail to meet the code--I
think goes a long way to supporting the development of
pipelines.
Mr. Pfluger. Well, that is why this is so important,
because that predictability is important for them to know what
those regulations are to meet them, and they have every intent.
And I would invite my colleagues, especially on the other side
of the aisle, to come visit my district and see exactly what
these operators are doing not only to comply but above and
beyond.
Enhanced oil recovery is very important right now. It
depends on CO2. There are many companies who have
championed that technology.
Will PHMSA modernize the safety regulations for
CO2 specifically in those pipelines to ensure that
they are workable for operators, understandable, and that they
can also be safe as well.
Mr. Roberti. Yes. And we have an outstanding gaseous
CO2 mandate. The current regulations haven't been
updated on the supercritical. I think we are going to--we are
going to move on that. We are going to try to update those
regulations.
We are not going to do it in a--we are not going to write a
whole bunch of regulations for hypothetical events. We are
going to try to focus on industry consensus standards, look at
what meets the--a good balance between cost and benefit, and
that is on the list of mandates that I want to see done while I
am here as Administrator.
Mr. Pfluger. How will a reauthorization strengthen the
coordination between State agencies and work better to achieve
stated objectives that we have been talking about in this
hearing today?
Mr. Roberti. So the grant money that you give us for the
State-based grants and the one-call and the excavation damage
prevention grants are really good because not only does it
create a partnership with the States, it is an accountability
tool where we evaluate how States are doing on the various
efforts, whether it is to enforce the code for intrastate
pipeline operators or, in some instances, like Washington, if
it is an interstate agent where they do the inspections for
interstate as well as intrastate.
But those grants and that partnership I think is a great
example of cooperative federalism. I have a lot of trust in
that approach, and, you know, I know everybody needs more
money. We try to give the States as much as we can. We fund up
to 80 percent of their programs. We might be striking a level
that is a bit lower than that right now with the current
funding.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you.
Last question for you: As PHMSA shifts towards more of a
data-driven approach and a risk-based oversight model, does the
agency intend to potentially revisit how gas-gathering lines
are classified, and specifically for the inspection and
compliance resources that are being used?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. So, for the gas-gathering lines, the
current pipeline safety law gives the Secretary this
discretion. It is a little convoluted if you read it. In fact,
I went to talk to my chief counsel this morning about reading
that language. And, if you want to get into a, like, you know,
like, twirl your head a little bit, you can look at that
language. It is in the bill. But I digress.
You know, that area----
Mr. Pfluger. I may have to get it from you in writing. I am
sorry. I want to be respectful--
Mr. Latta. Well, if the gentleman would submit that in
writing, the answer to the gentleman from Texas, your answer to
his question, that would be appreciated.
Mr. Roberti. Yes. So, on that area, what we have done----
Mr. Latta. I am sorry. The time has expired. I am sorry.
Thank you. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas' Seventh
District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta, and
thank you to you and Ranking Member Castor for holding this
hearing.
I am sorry that my friend from Texas is leaving, but I will
take him up on his offer. I have been to his district. I have
been to the control rooms there.
And I have the privilege of representing the energy capital
of the world in Houston, and Houston companies, as you likely
know, Administrator Roberti, control over 58 percent of the
United States' natural gas pipeline capacity and 33 percent of
the oil capacity for oil pipelines. So the professionals who
live and work in my district know that pipeline safety is
paramount, and they dedicate their lives and their careers to
making sure that these pipelines are safe.
And the safety of our communities has to remain a priority
as demand for energy grows, which we talk about in this
committee all the time, that we are going to have increased
demand for the energy and for the infrastructure to deliver it.
And, to that end, I know from having worked in various
capacities here that the safety of our pipeline infrastructure
really depends on a working partnership between industry and
government regulators at PHMSA. And, unfortunately, what we
have seen in this administration is that the cuts, the sort of
chaotic, I would say, cuts, and a real push to deregulate have
left PHMSA struggling to fulfill its statutory obligations.
I appreciate your testimony, Administrator Roberti, and I
know--I can tell from this hearing, you know, that you are
working hard to meet the challenges in front of you, but I also
am very aware of the cuts that have been made that make that
harder to do. And I have heard it from folks in the industry
and a lot of concerns about what is happening.
We know that, since the beginning of this administration,
more than half of PHMSA'S senior leadership has left, and
several major rulemakings were abandoned in response to the
President's regulatory freeze pending review memorandum.
So, you know, what I am hearing from people in my district
is that PHMSA lacks the resources for proper training and isn't
prepared, and we are not preparing PHMSA for the challenges of
the growing demand for pipelines to meet our energy needs. And
the bill that we are reviewing today and talking about really
fails to address those issues.
It provides significantly less funding--$200 million, on
average--for pipeline safety activities. That is less than the
bipartisan bill from T&I. It also fails to provide a path
forward for PHMSA to address new technologies like hydrogen and
CO2 pipelines. And we need PHMSA to be forward
looking and thinking about the technologies and the sources of
the future.
When I was on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, we worked on the 2020 reauthorization bill, and I
worked really hard to include this technology pilot provision.
That was something that the people in my district told me was
critically important, to be able to get real-time testing
results for new technologies in the field.
And that was designed to really help address the concerns
that my colleagues have raised on this side of the aisle about
environmental concerns as well as concerns for overall safety
and concerns from communities.
So I am really disappointed that this bill doesn't
reauthorize this bipartisan program, which is included in the
Senate reauthorization bill. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can work
that into our bill, as we know this is continuing in process,
and I would really like to ask for that.
Mr. Roberti, in the time that we have, can you talk a
little bit--like I said, I have heard concerns from operators
that the pilot program's implementation really has prevented
the ability for them to get these new pilot technologies into
the field.
And so, as we continue working on PHMSA reauthorization,
what can we do to ensure the success of this program and
ultimately the reauthorization of this program? If you could
talk about that for the committee, I think that would be very
helpful.
Mr. Roberti. Well, there was a bit of alignment between
that program and what we are currently doing on special
permits. That program got bogged down because of the influence
of extraneous aspects, like strong application of NEPA review.
In our current program, we have tried to be much more
transparent by posting special permits, being open to companies
that want to exploit innovative techniques and prove that they
can advance safety, and not use the special permit process as a
way of attaching all sorts of bells and whistles that are not
really germane to the particular area of the code that the
operator is seeking to operate under a different approach.
So I think we are making headway. I mean, obviously, if
Congress were to do the program again, we would do it, but we
have made great headway, and I think the current legislation
reflects some of the improved processes that we are putting in
place to really help operators to say, ``If you have got a
better way of doing it----''
Mr. Latta. And I am sorry to interrupt. The gentlelady's
time has expired----
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. And the Chair now recognizes the
at-large Member from the great State of North Dakota, the
gentlelady, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Roberti. We go way back, probably about
13 years now that I have known you, and I just want to first
thank you for the passion that you have shown for this issue
for many, many years.
When I was just a very new commissioner at the North Dakota
Public Service Commission and new at NARUC, I remember being at
meetings, and it was shortly after the San Bruno explosion, and
you were the lead voice in all of NARUC on calling attention to
that and really getting State regulators focused on it and
really focusing on the need for prevention, for training.
And you were like the biggest leader in NARUC on that
issue. So just you continuing to share your passion and
experience on pipeline safety is really gratifying, and I am
pleased to have you here today, so thank you.
A couple of things. Speaking about the partnership with the
States, having been a regulator, we operated on behalf of PHMSA
for some of the programs. I thought it was a great way to have
folks who are committed to our State and really care deeply
about what happens there focus on pipeline safety. So I think
it is a brilliant program.
Tell me about the benefits of the State partnerships and if
you have enough money for that and if you think that you could
save money and have more safety by expanding that model of kind
of that cooperative federalism and more State inspectors.
Mr. Roberti. Yes, it is a great program. Our State partners
cover 80 percent of the natural gas pipelines, the distribution
pipelines. I think there's 1.3 million miles of distribution
mains, another almost 1 million miles of service lines, and
they are front and center with their inspections.
We work hard to train them, work cooperatively to share
information. We have an annual certification program. We try--I
have made it very clear to my agency and the Office of Pipeline
Safety leadership, I want them engaged in all the regional
meetings that the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives have--they have their regional meetings like
NARUC--and to be fully engaged to support them, train them,
share best practices.
And I make it a--I drop everything when they have their
annual meeting to go speak to them for all of the historical
reasons and, you know, our legacy that we have with NARUC as
public utility commissioners.
So I really believe in it. Funding is up to 80 percent. I
think we are tracking about a little below 60 percent on the
funds that we can provide to States for their programs. You
know, if Congress gave us more money on that, we certainly
could use it for the States. But, right now, I think the
current budget amounts in the President's budget may not have
that in it.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Yes. Well, if there is any information that
PHMSA could provide to us in the cost-benefit of that program,
it would be helpful to have so I could be a good advocate for
increasing dollars for that.
Mr. Roberti. OK.
Mrs. Fedorchak. On another point, you mentioned additional
focus on enforcement and accountability. Can you talk a little
bit about that and how that kind of is an extension of your
risk-based approach too, and how those are working together?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. Like I said, in our enforcement
priorities, every time an accident or an incident happens, I
believe that it is incumbent on us to be there on the
significant incidents to evaluate, to report out the facts, the
who, what, where, when, what happened, and then to evaluate,
was there--you know, was there good-faith compliance with the
code?
I am not looking for quotas, numbers, you know, enforcement
numbers. It is not about the numbers, it is about, kind of, the
safety results. I am very focused on the safety results.
I believe many of the criticisms that have occurred that
predated me coming in as Administrator, I am hopeful that they
will fade away because we will be out there making sure
operators know that they don't want us to show up, that we are
not just going to show up and catalog and chronicle incidents
and accidents. We are going to look and find out, like I used
to say when I was subcommittee chairman at NARUC on pipeline
safety, was the accident preventable? And, if it was
preventable, what could have been--what should have been done
under the code?
And that is the accountability mechanism that I think
trickles right up to upper management and to board rooms and
that will--that is my goal, and I am going to pursue that.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you. I appreciate your focus and your
experience.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. And the gentlelady's time has expired and yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts'
Fourth District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman.
Just one question. I know you have got a relatively small
R&D budget--what, 12 million? Is that what it was?
Mr. Roberti. Yes.
Mr. Auchincloss. What could be done on the R&D and tech
deployment around methane leak detection, potent greenhouse
gas? And, you know, regrettably, in this discussion draft
version of the bill, protections against methane leaks have
been scaled back. I think it is, rightfully, not going to be
acceptable for a bipartisan product.
But are there tech solutions that we should be cognizant of
as we continue to negotiate this draft?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. I mean, leak detection is critical
whether it is methane or jet fuel, and so our upcoming R&D
forum, which will occur at the end of this month, I think is a
good opportunity to find out what new technologies--there are
some very expensive technologies out there. We want utilities,
like distribution utilities, to avail themselves of the latest
technology. Some are really expensive.
If there are lower-cost ways to monitor for methane in high
consequence areas, I think that is definitely a worthy cause.
Mr. Auchincloss. What I would encourage you to do as you
think about that, just from watching other agencies who have
done it well or done it poorly, is issue very clear criteria
for success that are actually tech-agnostic criteria: ``Here
are the outcomes we are looking for, here is how we evaluate
that those outcomes have been met. And then here is how we will
remunerate for the success of that.''
And so you can create a market for innovators to sell into
then if you are very clear about what you are expecting. Now,
it would be helpful if this committee could back that up with
bipartisan language, but I think there is a lot of ingenuity
out there, and I think some of these people will come and find
you if you are very clear about what you are looking for.
Mr. Roberti. I totally agree, and I do believe that was one
of the defects in the leak detection rule that we are examining
right now, that the need to be technology agnostic is very,
very important. So I agree with that.
Mr. Auchincloss. I have got a few extra minutes. That was
my only question. I know a couple of times you got cut off. Is
there anything else that you wanted to address that you haven't
had a chance to say?
Mr. Roberti. No. I appreciate the interest of this
committee and the passion you have for all of these really
important issues. So it is a privilege to appear before you
today.
Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back, Chair.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
the balance of his time.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
15th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Administrator Roberti, for your testimony today.
Fifteen years ago, a natural gas pipeline exploded in the
San Bruno, which is in my district, just a few miles from my
house. This tragedy claimed eight lives and destroyed or
damaged over 100 homes. The impact on the community was
devastating and long lasting, and that is why we need to get
reauthorization of this pipeline safety program right.
Compared to the bipartisan proposal coming out of the T&I
Committee, this partisan bill has at least $150 million less in
funding for replacing dangerous and outdated gas distribution
pipelines. My understanding is that this will not sustain the
grant program that was established under the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law to replace aging and inadequate pipeline
infrastructure.
So, Administrator, by the time this grant program runs out
of funding, will every dangerous and outdated gas pipeline in
America have been replaced?
Mr. Roberti. Well, I wouldn't call the pipelines--the age
has never been--no pipeline reaches a certain age where it is
declared to be unsafe, because of the technologies that can be
employed to monitor them. But I think when you are looking at
systems like cast-iron main that could predate more than a
hundred years ago, there comes a point in time where you have
to have a long-term, sustained approach for systemic investment
and replacement.
And all operators of utilities, whether they are publicly
owned or investor owned, need to be doing that. So that is the
imperative: focusing on systematic investment in systems to
make sure that, within 10 years or 50 years or 100 years, no
pipeline asset is going to be 150 years old.
And so the capital markets are--most communities have
bond--rating agencies giving them ability to attract funding.
They have access to low-cost capital. You know, maybe the
better way is to have a bank where there is low-cost capital, a
revolving loan like they do on the clean water finance for
sewer projects for municipally owned.
But I do get concerned if you just take the dump trunk and
unload hundreds of millions of dollars out there. I don't know
that you get the same tight, cost-effective outcomes in terms
of infrastructure replacements.
Now, we have inherited this program. Whatever Congress
decides, we will implement it, and we will implement it
effectively. But at the end of the day, all operators need to
be focused on knowing their assets, knowing where the risks
are, and certainly knowing that, if you have got a 100-year-old
pipeline that is leaking, you have got to get that in the
capital plan, and you have got to address it and upgrade it.
Mr. Mullin. Well, I certainly agree with the systemic
approach to this, but there are dangerous pipelines running
right now under schools and neighborhoods, and I have a deep
concern if this committee is going to vote on a bill that would
not fully fund the program to replace them given what we have
seen happen across the country.
So I believe it is woefully inadequate. Thank you for being
here today to answer the questions.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Texas--it is the 33rd District, isn't
it?
Mr. Veasey. Yes, it is.
Mr. Latta. Boy, I have got a good memory.
Is recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And, Administrator, I appreciate your testimony here today.
Last summer, during our budget hearing, I said that
pipeline safety is not a luxury, that it is a necessity. And we
rely on millions and millions of infrastructure to power our
country, and we definitely have a shared responsibility to make
sure that this network is as safe as possible.
And, for those of us in the Fort Worth area, this isn't an
abstract policy discussion. We are still very mindful--and I am
not sure if you are aware of the Sandman explosion that
happened in downtown Fort Worth last year. As a matter of fact,
my wife and I had just eaten at that hotel a week or two before
that explosion, and it really was just a reminder of how
important pipeline safety is.
I really appreciate your focus on modernizing PHMSA and
your efforts to complete outstanding mandates from the 2020
PIPES Act, and I also appreciate that the discussion draft
before us attempts to move reauthorization forward.
But I do have some serious concerns that the bill does not
fully meet at the moment. As a Texan, I strongly support
building and maintaining energy infrastructure, but public
confidence in energy infrastructure depends on trust, and
trust, obviously, depends on safety to minimize incidents like
the one I just mentioned in downtown Fort Worth.
Our job here is simple: We have to make sure that Americans
can turn on the heat, that they can fuel their economy and live
in their homes knowing the infrastructure around them is safe.
I look forward to a very productive dialogue on how we can work
together to achieve our common goal of a zero-incident future.
And so I wanted to ask you. Pipelines are definitely the
safest transportation method, but safety depends on strong
standards and consistent enforcement. Would you agree public
trust relies on both industry performance and effective
oversight?
Mr. Roberti. Yes.
Mr. Veasey. Absolutely. Thank you.
PHMSA oversees more than 3 million miles of pipeline
infrastructure, and that continues to grow. What do you think
happens operationally if funding fails to keep pace with new
pipeline deployment?
Mr. Roberti. Well, for us, as an agency, we work very hard
to reorient and make sure that we are efficient and effective
in how we run the agency with an eye toward our core
activities, for the most part, which is updating the code,
making sure the code is updated and clear, and making sure that
our enforcement program brings compliance and accountability in
the industry.
So we will continue to do that, and that will lead the
industry, keep the industry operating, making sure that they
invest properly, that they are employing the latest
technologies, in-line inspection tools to make sure their
systems are safe.
Mr. Veasey. Yes. No, that makes a lot of sense.
You mentioned in your testimony enforcement cuts and
personnel reductions, but incidents continue to occur each
year. Where do your current pipeline policies fall short in
preventing accidents before they happen? Have you had a chance
to sort of look at that?
Mr. Roberti. Well, some of these--I mean, the majority,
like 70, 80 percent of the incidents that we are responsible
for, are with States. So we don't have primary jurisdiction.
And excavation damage, for instance, is a leading area. Even
this morning, there was an incident in Missouri that a house
blew up because someone was drilling and putting in fiber optic
cable and drilled through a pipeline.
Those types of incidents lead to a lot of property damage
and can lead to very serious consequences, including death, and
they are avoidable. They are preventable. So we definitely need
to do more on that front.
On everything else, I mean, leak detection for the liquid
pipelines, that is--yes, we have got to do--we have to do
better. We have to do better. And, certainly, pipelines in
high-consequence areas carry huge responsibilities by the
operators to constantly maintain surveillance on those
pipelines to ensure that they are operating safely.
Mr. Veasey. So I understand the practical impact. If PHMSA
doesn't have sufficient resources or authority, what specific
safety activities do you think have to be dropped or sort of
minimized?
Mr. Roberti. Well, you know, our inspection enforcement
division, those core personnel, were exempted from any
reductions or early retirement programs. We did have a few
retirements. We are not down that significantly, and, as we
speak, we are hiring more inspectors. So we are not going to
back off on that area.
Like I said, when I was chief counsel, this agency's budget
ballooned in a matter of 5 years. We are back to where we were
when I was chief counsel, and I thought we had a lot of
resources then. I aim to leverage----
Mr. Latta. I am sorry to interrupt again. The gentleman's
time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania's
13th District for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta, for holding this
important hearing, and to you, Administrator Roberti, for
testifying.
As I have spoken at length during prior committee hearings,
Pennsylvania has an incredibly strong natural gas industry that
is well situated to meet both domestic and global supply. The
resource that is under the feet of my constituents is
plentiful, it is accessible, and it is affordable.
But in order to move the natural gas to other parts of the
country or to LNG export facilities, Pennsylvania must rely on
the United States' energy pipeline, and that is what this
discussion is all about: the safety of those pipelines.
And while the U.S. houses one of the most expansive
pipeline networks in the world, as demand increases so will the
need for pipeline capacity. Our ability to expand and modernize
our energy delivery network will rely on several factors, but
two of the most important entirely are public trust in the
safety and predictable regulation.
I think, Administrator, you will agree with that. Your
agency has done incredible influence and responsibility in both
of these areas, and I applaud you for the work that you have
already done since your confirmation in working through overdue
rulemaking and modernizing your regulation to match current
technological standards.
Congress and Federal agencies often move slower than the
commercial market when it comes to considering and adopting
technological improvements. Administrator Roberti, as PHMSA
works through its rulemaking process, what steps can you take
to future proof your regulations, allowing operators, such as
EQT, which drills in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, to
adopt new technologies as they become available?
Mr. Roberti. Well, I think the most important thing--to
your question, you raise a really important issue--is, does the
code reflect modern technologies? And so many of our efforts--
we had 30 various rulemakings in the last year on the pipeline
side to do just that, to take--you know, the code, and I bring
it with me here today because the code, it can't be a stale
document. It really should be a living document. It should move
with the times.
And, as it does, I think we get the modern regulations that
can leverage the best in advanced engineering practices. New
technologies are going to lead to more cost-effective and safer
outcomes. What that does is it lowers costs for the American
consumer, but also it breeds safety and confidence in our
pipeline system.
Mr. Joyce. And, to the point that you are making, is there
congressional direction that we can provide in the
reauthorization that will assist in incentivizing industry
innovation in both safety and efficiency, rather than hindering
it?
Mr. Roberti. Well, I think the biggest thing you can do and
what is very nice about this discussion bill is the attempt to
expand the agency's mission beyond our core--what I have
discussed here today, it is very helpful for us to maintain the
course and not try to expand the agency's mission like we saw
in the last administration.
Mr. Joyce. In your testimony, you emphasized PHMSA's
refocused enforcement inspection framework, that should not go
soft on safety. You also mentioned examples of recent high-
profile enforcement actions by your agency. Can you expand on
how refocusing your oversight allows you to target the areas
with the highest impact on safety?
Mr. Roberti. Yes. And I discussed this earlier about we
want to focus on where accidents and incidents occur. That is a
good place to deploy resources, and we are doing that. We want
to focus on control rooms and where the capabilities to detect
leaks, leak detection, is front and center.
We want to focus on high-consequence areas where pipelines
are in urban or high-population areas, and if something goes
wrong you will have a disastrous consequence.
Mr. Joyce. Do you feel that this is a more targeted brand
of oversight in pipeline safety?
Mr. Roberti. It is going to be more targeted. It is going
to be safety driven. So, instead of having--instead of handing
out 100 speeding tickets for 5 miles over the speeding ticket,
you are more looking like, you know, we are going to have 25
where, you know, the speeds were in excess of 15 to 25 miles
per hour, the bigger impacts.
Mr. Joyce. I think you have that overview that is so
necessary, and the reauthorization of PHMSA's Pipeline Safety
Program will not overall help to strengthen the U.S. energy
pipeline network, but it will ensure, as it expands, that we
can continue to innovate, something you talk about, and unleash
that American energy dominance that we so desperately need.
I thank you for being here today, Administrator. I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman's time
has expired and yields back.
And, seeing no further Members wishing to ask questions of
our witness today, thank you so much for appearing before us
today. Members may have additional written questions for you,
and I remind Members they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record and ask that witnesses do
their best to submit responses within 10 business days upon
receipt of their questions.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
And, hearing no objections, without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Latta. And, without objection, the subcommittee is
adjourned. Thanks so much for appearing today.
[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]