House Republicans grill US pipeline safety official on agency's climate focus

A federal pipeline safety agency's sharpened focus on preventing methane leaks drew intense scrutiny during the first meeting of the Republican-controlled Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials under the new U.S. Congress.

The subcommittee held the March 8 hearing to review the agency's implementation of the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020, known as the PIPES Act. Lawmakers also explored a range of future rulemaking needs as they prepare for periodic legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA.

Yet GOP concerns that PHMSA is placing too much emphasis on climate action were a throughline in Republicans' questioning. Reps. Pete Stauber, R-Minn., and John Duarte, R-Calif., asked PHMSA Deputy Administrator Tristan Brown if the White House was influencing or directing the agency to change its mission from safety to climate action.

Brown responded to those inquiries and others by noting that it was the previous Congress that ordered PHMSA to take steps and make rules to minimize methane emissions in the PIPES Act. The agency's mission statement has long included protecting the environment, said Brown, currently PHMSA's highest-ranking official.

Asked by Rep. Rudy Yakym, R-Ind., whether some recent pipeline incidents may have resulted from PHMSA prioritizing climate action over safety, Brown said, "Absolutely not."

Climate hires draw scrutiny

The concerns bled into Republicans' questions about PHMSA's persistent staffing constraints. Subcommittee Chair Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, asked Brown whether his recent comments that PHMSA is a climate change agency were helpful in recruiting safety and inspection personnel.

Brown said they were, noting that some new hires cited the opportunity to work on climate issues. The climate messaging was particularly useful in recruiting candidates under 35 who "really care about making a difference in the world," Brown said.

Asked about PHMSA's request to hire six pipeline safety staffers with climate change expertise, Brown said PHMSA had to staff up to meet PIPES Act mandates, which require the agency to consider environmental impacts in rulemakings. PHMSA previously did not have any staffers dedicated to National Environmental Policy Act review and now has three, Brown said.

"We have not revamped our agency of 600 people with three people," Brown said. "We just now are able to carry out the laws that you've given us to carry out, which include environmental impacts."

Staffing under a microscope

Nehls said PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety was falling short of a PIPES Act requirement: Pipeline inspection and enforcement personnel should not fall below 247 people. The office had just 207 personnel as of Jan. 21, Nehls said.

PHMSA is meeting hiring mandates in the PIPES Act but grapples with annual turnover due to retirements and challenges competing for talent with the private sector and other state and federal agencies that offer higher pay, Brown said. New PHMSA recruitment and retention proposals are pending with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Brown said.

In his opening comments, Nehls also said PHMSA "must prioritize hiring competent pipeline safety inspectors, not more lawyers." But Brown said PHMSA was facing a "new normal" of increased legal challenges over its rulemakings, "resulting in longer development timelines and diversion of personnel resources."

Asked what PHMSA funding requests Congress should expect from President Joe Biden's 2024 budget proposal, Brown said the administration was trying to address new demands placed on state agencies that regulate gas distribution systems and receive about 55% of their funding through congressional appropriations. The administration is also seeking to shore up PHMSA's ability to oversee hydrogen and carbon dioxide transportation in light of new federal support for hydrogen hubs and carbon capture.

Brown faced several questions on why PHMSA's Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee — a venue for government, industry and public stakeholders to workshop new rulemakings — had met just once since January 2021. Over the past two years, PHMSA had focused on completing several overdue rules to meet PIPES Act mandates, and lawmakers should expect more meetings as PHMSA pivots to new rulemakings, Brown said.

Stakeholders share rulemaking priorities

Brown listed several priorities, including leak detection and repair, safety of gas distribution pipelines, updated regulations for liquefied natural gas facilities, and an overhaul of CO2 pipeline safety requirements.

Republican lawmakers additionally asked about PHMSA's progress to consider establishing a center of excellence for LNG safety and interagency work to expedite project permitting. Democrats expressed concern over CO2 and hydrogen pipeline transportation; asked about progress mitigating methane emissions; and inquired whether PHMSA had adequate resources to recruit staff, levy civil penalties and support inter-agency cybersecurity efforts.

The nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust submitted 22 recommendations, but Executive Director Bill Caram highlighted several priorities: removing a cost-benefit analysis requirement unique to PHMSA that "handcuffs" rulemaking, expanding the agency's ability to regulate existing pipelines and replacing some performance-based rules with more prescriptive requirements.

The top priority for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America is completing a long-delayed rule that would give operators more options for complying with pipeline safety regulations in places where populations change, according to Kenneth Grubb, Kinder Morgan Inc.'s COO for gas pipelines.

Tech demonstration project stirs debate

The Liquid Energy Pipeline Association, or LEPA, focused on the industry's issues with a demonstration program mandated in the PIPES Act. The program would allow operators to pilot innovative pipeline inspection technology and analytics tools, with the goal of helping PHMSA update regulations.

No operator has submitted an application because the program is untenable as designed, LEPA President and CEO Andrew Black said. According to Black, PHMSA exceeded its congressional mandate by requiring applications to undergo National Environmental Policy Act review and a special permit process used for permanent projects. PHMSA also required a standard of review that exceeds the standard for the special permit process, Black said.

Research and development projects should not require environment review or go through the "broken" special permit process, Black said. He asked Congress to clarify the program and reauthorize it for 10 years.

Brown said PHMSA was open to dropping the National Environmental Policy Act review, but the industry had not put forward an alternative proposal for assessing environmental impacts during public comment. Allowing operators to pilot new technologies in operational pipelines without environmental review could expose PHMSA to potential litigation, Brown said.

S&P Global Commodity Insights produces content for distribution on S&P Capital IQ Pro.