"Promoting and Improving Safety and Efficient Pipeline Infrastructure"

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                  PROMOTING AND IMPROVING SAFETY AND5                  EFFICIENT PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE67=======================================================================89                                (119-8)1011                                HEARING1213                               BEFORE THE1415                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,16                        AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS1718                                 OF THE1920                              COMMITTEE ON21                           TRANSPORTATION AND22                             INFRASTRUCTURE23                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2425                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2627                             FIRST SESSION28                               __________2930                           FEBRUARY 25, 202531                               __________3233                       Printed for the use of the34             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure3536                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3738     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-39     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/40                             transportation41                                ______4243                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE444560-155 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 20254647             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE4849                     Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman50                 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member51Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,           Eleanor Holmes Norton,52  Arkansas, Vice Chairman              District of Columbia53Daniel Webster, Florida              Jerrold Nadler, New York54Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Steve Cohen, Tennessee55Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            John Garamendi, California56Brian Babin, Texas                   Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia57David Rouzer, North Carolina         Andre Carson, Indiana58Mike Bost, Illinois                  Dina Titus, Nevada59Doug LaMalfa, California             Jared Huffman, California60Bruce Westerman, Arkansas            Julia Brownley, California61Brian J. Mast, Florida               Frederica S. Wilson, Florida62Pete Stauber, Minnesota              Mark DeSaulnier, California63Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Salud O. Carbajal, California64Dusty Johnson, South Dakota          Greg Stanton, Arizona65Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey       Sharice Davids, Kansas66Troy E. Nehls, Texas                 Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois67Tracey Mann, Kansas                  Chris Pappas, New Hampshire68Burgess Owens, Utah                  Seth Moulton, Massachusetts69Eric Burlison, Missouri              Marilyn Strickland, Washington70Mike Collins, Georgia                Patrick Ryan, New York71Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Val T. Hoyle, Oregon72Kevin Kiley, California              Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,73Vince Fong, California                 Vice Ranking Member74Tony Wied, Wisconsin                 Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan75Tom Barrett, Michigan                Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina76Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska       Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania77Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,            Robert Garcia, California78  Pennsylvania                       Nellie Pou, New Jersey79Jeff Hurd, Colorado                  Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan80Jefferson Shreve, Indiana            Laura Friedman, California81Addison P. McDowell, North Carolina  Laura Gillen, New York82David J. Taylor, Ohio                Shomari Figures, Alabama83Brad Knott, North Carolina84Kimberlyn King-Hinds,85  Northern Mariana Islands86Mike Kennedy, Utah87Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri88Vacancy8990     Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials9192                 Daniel Webster, Florida, Chairman93                 Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member94David Rouzer, North Carolina         Andre Carson, Indiana95Mike Bost, Illinois                  Seth Moulton, Massachusetts96Doug LaMalfa, California             Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina97Bruce Westerman, Arkansas            Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania,98Pete Stauber, Minnesota                Vice Ranking Member99Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Jerrold Nadler, New York100Dusty Johnson, South Dakota          Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois101Troy E. Nehls, Texas                 Steve Cohen, Tennessee102Tracey Mann, Kansas                  Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia103Burgess Owens, Utah                  Frederica S. Wilson, Florida104Eric Burlison, Missouri              Patrick Ryan, New York105Vince Fong, California               Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio106Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska       Laura Friedman, California107Jefferson Shreve, Indiana            Mark DeSaulnier, California108David J. Taylor, Ohio                Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)109Mike Kennedy, Utah110Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)111112                                CONTENTS113114                                                                   Page115116Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii117118                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE119120Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State121  of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,122  and Hazardous Materials, opening statement.....................     1123    Prepared statement...........................................     2124Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of125  Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,126  Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, opening statement..........     3127    Prepared statement...........................................     4128Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of129  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and130  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     5131    Prepared statement...........................................     7132133                               WITNESSES134135Andrew J. Black, President and Chief Executive Officer, Liquid136  Energy Pipeline Association, oral statement....................     9137    Prepared statement...........................................    10138Eric V. Taylor, P.E., Director, Engineering Services, BHE GT&S,139  on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America,140  oral statement.................................................    13141    Prepared statement...........................................    15142Emanuel A. Paris IV, Vice President, Alex E. Paris Contracting143  Co., Inc., on behalf of the Distribution Contractors144  Association and the Pennsylvania Utility Contractors145  Association, oral statement....................................    20146    Prepared statement...........................................    22147Bill Caram, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety Trust, oral148  statement......................................................    27149    Prepared statement...........................................    29150151                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD152153Submissions for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster:154    Statement of Rob Benedict, Vice President, Petrochemicals and155      Midstream, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.....    61156    Statement of the American Gas Association....................    62157    Letter of February 21, 2025, from Sarah K. Magruder Lyle,158      President & Chief Executive Officer, Common Ground159      Alliance, to Hon. Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon. Dina160      Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,161      Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.........................    64162Letter of March 6, 2025, from Hon. Chrissy Houlahan, a163  Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of164  Pennsylvania, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Rick165  Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and166  Infrastructure, and Hon. Daniel Webster, Chairman, and Hon.167  Dina Titus, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Railroads,168  Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Submitted for the Record by169  Hon. Dina Titus................................................    67170171                                APPENDIX172173Question to Eric V. Taylor, P.E., Director, Engineering Services,174  BHE GT&S, on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association175  of America, from Hon. Dina Titus...............................    69176Questions to Bill Caram, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety177  Trust, from Hon. Dina Titus....................................    70178179               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]180181                           February 21, 2025182183    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER184185    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,186and Hazardous Materials187    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and188Hazardous Materials189    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Promoting and Improving190Safety and Efficient Pipeline Infrastructure''191_______________________________________________________________________192193                               I. PURPOSE194195    The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous196Materials of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure197will meet on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in1982167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony199at a hearing entitled, ``Promoting and Improving Safety and200Efficient Pipeline Infrastructure.'' The United States201Department of Transportation's (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous202Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is the Federal agency203responsible for regulating the safety of natural gas and204hazardous liquids pipelines. In 2023, the House Committee on205Transportation and Infrastructure passed H.R. 6494, the206Promoting Innovation in Pipeline Efficiency and Safety Act of2072023 (PIPES Act of 2023) that would reauthorize and make208improvements to PHMSA's pipeline safety programs and processes209to better ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and210hazardous liquid energy sources.\1\211---------------------------------------------------------------------------212    \1\ PIPES Act of 2023, H.R.6494, 118th Cong. (2024), [hereinafter213PIPES Act of 2023].214---------------------------------------------------------------------------215    This hearing will examine stakeholder perspectives on216legislation to improve natural gas and hazardous liquid217pipeline infrastructure safety. Members will receive testimony218from Andrew Black, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO),219Liquid Energy Pipeline Association; Eric V. Taylor, Director,220Engineering Services, Berkshire Hathaway Energy Eastern Gas221Transmission and Storage (BHE GT&S) on behalf of the Interstate222Natural Gas Association of America; Emanuel A. Paris IV, Vice223President of Alex E. Paris Contracting Co., Inc. on behalf of224the Distribution Contractors Association and the Pennsylvania225Utility Contractors Association; and Bill Caram, Executive226Director, Pipeline Safety Trust.227228                             II. BACKGROUND229230ABOUT PHMSA231232    PHMSA was created under the Norman Y. Mineta Research and233Special Programs Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-426) (2004234Act). Prior to the implementation of the 2004 Act, the DOT235Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) managed the236DOT's pipeline and hazardous materials safety programs.\2\237PHMSA's mission is to protect people and the environment by238advancing the safe transportation of natural gas and hazardous239liquids through roughly 3.4 million miles of pipelines, which240account for the transportation of 65 percent of the energy241commodities consumed in the United States.\3\ The 2004 Act242established that PHMSA ``shall consider the assignment and243maintenance of safety as the highest priority . . . .'' \4\244PHMSA is also charged with the safe and secure movement of over245one million daily shipments of hazardous materials by all modes246of transportation.\5\247---------------------------------------------------------------------------248    \2\ Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act249of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423 [hereinafter the 2004250Act].251    \3\ PHMSA, Pipeline Safety Program Budget and Grants Presentation252(Jan. 25, 2023) (on file with Comm.).253    \4\ The 2004 Act, supra note 2.254    \5\ See Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58,255135 Stat. 429, [hereinafter IIJA]; id.256---------------------------------------------------------------------------257    PHMSA sets Federal minimum safety standards for pipeline258safety functions, including developing, issuing, and enforcing259regulations for the safe transportation of natural gas260(including liquefied natural gas) and hazardous liquids by261pipeline through the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS).\6\ The262Agency's regulatory programs are focused on the design,263construction, operation, and maintenance or abandonment of264pipeline facilities, and in the construction, operation, and265maintenance of LNG facilities.\7\ PHMSA has safety jurisdiction266over transportation-related pipeline facilities; not drilling,267siting, or production facilities.\8\ Overall, OPS directly268employs 232 Federal inspector and enforcement staff, and269partners with 450 state inspectors.\9\270---------------------------------------------------------------------------271    \6\ PHMSA, Office of Pipeline Safety, available at https://272www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/offices/office-pipeline-safety (last273updated Dec. 13, 2018).274    \7\ PHMSA, Pipeline Safety Regulations, available at https://275primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/SafetyStandards.htm?nocache=8847.276    \8\ See PHMSA, PHMSA Regulations, available at https://277www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations (last updated May 5, 2021); see also Fed.278Energy Regulatory Comm'n, Natural Gas Pipelines, available at https://279www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/overview/natural-gas-pipelines280(last updated Feb. 10, 2021); see also Library of Cong., Oil and Gas281Industry: A Research Guide, available at https://guides.loc.gov/oil-282and-gas-industry/laws/agencies.283    \9\ PHMSA, Federal Effort, [hereinafter Federal Effort], available284at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/285pipeline/effort-allocation/federal-286effort#::text=OPS%27s%20216%20federal%20inspection287%20and,8%2C541%20hazardous%20liquid%20breakout%20tanks (last updated288Feb. 14, 2025).289---------------------------------------------------------------------------290291PIPELINE SAFETY FRAMEWORK292293    Safety regulations differ depending on the nature of the294pipeline and the commodity that is moving through it. PHMSA's295regulations govern pipelines and facilities that transport296natural gas separately from those that transport hazardous297liquids.\10\ Additionally, the pipelines and facilities used to298transport natural gas and hazardous liquids vary in operating299pressures, diameter size, intended purpose, and proximity to300populated areas.\11\ This infrastructure includes:301---------------------------------------------------------------------------302    \10\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. Sec.  192, 195.303    \11\ Id.304---------------------------------------------------------------------------305     LDistribution Pipelines: These pipelines transport306natural gas to commercial and residential end-users. Gas307distribution pipelines tend to be smaller in diameter and308operate at lower pressures.\12\ PHMSA estimates there are 2.35309million miles of gas distribution lines, many of which are310intrastate pipelines.\13\ There are no hazardous liquid311distribution pipelines.\14\312---------------------------------------------------------------------------313    \12\ PHMSA, Fact Sheet: Distribution Pipelines, available at314https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/315FSDistributionPipelines.htm (last updated Feb. 26, 2018).316    \13\ PHMSA, Annual Report Mileage for Gas Distribution Systems,317available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/318annual-report-mileage-gas-distribution-systems [hereinafter Annual319Mileage Report].320    \14\ Gov't Accountability Off. (GAO), GAO-12-388, Pipeline Safety:321Collecting Data and Sharing Information on Federally Unregulated322Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety, at 3, available at323https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-388.pdf.324325     LTransmission Pipelines: These pipelines transport326energy products from treatment and processing facilities to327bulk customers, storage facilities, and local distribution328networks.\15\ The products transported can include natural gas329and hazardous liquids.\16\ PHMSA estimates there are 300,464330miles of interstate gas transmission lines.\17\331---------------------------------------------------------------------------332    \15\ PHMSA, Fact Sheet: Transmission Pipelines, available at333https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/334FSTransmissionPipelines.htm.335    \16\ PHMSA, Pipeline Miles and Facilities 2010+, available at336https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/337analytics/338saw.dll?Portalpages&PortalPath=%2Fshared%2FPDM%20Public%20Website%2F_339portal%2FPublic%20Reports&Page=Infrastructure (last updated Jan. 28,3402022).341    \17\ Annual Mileage Report, supra note 13.342343     LGathering Lines: These lines transport natural344gas from a production site to a central collection point. PHMSA345currently regulates 111,547 miles of gas gathering lines.\18\346Historically, gathering lines were built in lower populated347areas, had smaller diameters than transmission lines, and348operated at pressures and flow lower than transmission349lines.\19\ However, as new gas development occurs around the350country, producers are installing new gathering systems in351higher populated areas and building larger diameter and higher-352pressure gathering lines.\20\353---------------------------------------------------------------------------354    \18\ Id.355    \19\ PHMSA, Fact Sheet: Gathering Pipelines, available at https://356primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/factsheets/fsgatheringpipelines.htm.357    \20\ PHMSA, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pipeline Safety: Safety358of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines, PHMSA-2011-0023 (Apr. 8,3592016), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/36013/2016-11240/pipeline-safety-safety-of-gas-transmission-and-gathering-361pipelines.362363     LHazardous Liquid Pipelines: These pipelines364transport liquid petroleum and other types of liquid energy365products from sources of origin to refineries and chemical366plants, and in some cases to storage or distribution367facilities.\21\ According to PHMSA, hazardous liquids traverse368the United States through approximately 228,000 miles of369hazardous liquid pipelines.\22\ Hazardous liquids include crude370oil, refined petroleum products, and anhydrous ammonia.\23\371---------------------------------------------------------------------------372    \21\ Pipeline Safety Trust, Hazardous Liquid Pipelines--Basics and373Issues, available at https://pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/3742015-PST-Briefing-Paper-03-HazLiquidBasics.pdf, (last updated Sept.3752015).376    \22\ Annual Mileage Report, supra note 13.377    \23\ 49 C.F.R. Sec.  195.2. (noting PHMSA currently regulates378carbon dioxide in the supercritical state in 49 C.F.R. Sec.  195.379Carbon dioxide in this state is primarily used for enhanced oil380recovery).381382     LLiquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities: These383facilities are used for converting, transporting, or storing384LNG. Historically, PHMSA has regulated peak shaving facilities385and satellite facilities where LNG has been used to manage386capacity during times of peak demand. PHMSA also regulates387import and export terminals.\24\ To address growth in LNG388exports, the PIPES Act of 2016 and the PIPES Act of 2020389mandated that PHMSA update its safety regulations for LNG390facilities; however, rulemaking remains in its early391development phase.\25\392---------------------------------------------------------------------------393    \24\ See PHMSA, LNG Facility Siting, available at https://394www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/liquified-natural-gas/lng-facility-siting.395    \25\ PHMSA, PIPES ACT 2020 Web Chart, available at https://396www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2025-01/397January%202025%20PIPES%20Act%20Chart.pdf.398---------------------------------------------------------------------------399400PHMSA'S PIPELINE SAFETY OVERSIGHT401402    When violations of PHMSA's regulations occur, the Agency403has several enforcement mechanisms it can use. These include404the issuance of a warning letter, a notice of probable405violation, or a corrective action order.\26\ PHMSA may also406issue fines for non-compliance.\27\ In 2024, PHMSA initiated407197 cases and closed 187 enforcement cases.\28\408---------------------------------------------------------------------------409    \26\ 49 C.F.R. Sec.  190.205.410    \27\ See PHMSA, Civil Penalty Summary, available at https://411www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulatory-compliance/pipeline/enforcement/civil-412penalty-summary.413    \28\ PHMSA, Enforcement Activity, available at https://414primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data.415---------------------------------------------------------------------------416417STATES' PIPELINE SAFETY OVERSIGHT418419    PHMSA supports states' oversight work by authorizing states420to assume certain aspects of pipeline safety enforcement for421intrastate gas pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines, and422underground natural gas storage through certifications and423agreements with PHMSA under 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  60105 and42460106(a). PHMSA also authorizes states with certifications to425participate in the oversight of interstate pipeline426transportation through agreements under 49 U.S.C. Sec.42760106(b). To conduct inspections and enforcement, each state428must annually certify its pipeline safety program by429demonstrating to the Secretary of Transportation that it: has430adopted, or is taking steps to adopt, the Federal standards; is431enforcing each standard through inspections; and is encouraging432and promoting the establishment of damage prevention433programs.\29\ States with certified pipeline safety programs434may impose additional standards for intrastate pipelines and435facilities so long as they are compatible with the minimum436Federal standards issued by PHMSA.\30\437---------------------------------------------------------------------------438    \29\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  60105.439    \30\ PHMSA, State Programs Overview, available at https://440www.phmsa.dot.gov/working-phmsa/state-programs/state-programs-overview.441---------------------------------------------------------------------------442443III. KEY PROVISIONS OF COMMITTEE'S PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION444       FROM 118th CONGRESS: H.R. 6494, THE PIPES ACT OF 2023:445446    The current authorization for PHMSA pipeline safety447activities and programs expired on September 30, 2023, and has448been operating under continuing authorities. On December 16,4492023, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure450favorably reported H.R. 6494, the PIPES Act of 2023 that passed451by voice vote.\31\ No further action was taken by the House452during the 118th Congress.453---------------------------------------------------------------------------454    \31\ PIPES Act of 2023, supra note 1.455---------------------------------------------------------------------------456    The bill would support the reliability and safety of457American energy infrastructure and PHMSA's pipeline safety458mission through rulemaking direction, studies, and programs459that increase pipeline safety, transparency, and stakeholder460engagement. These provisions will improve the performance and461safety record of the United States natural gas and hazardous462liquid pipeline network.463464SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND SUPPORTING PHMSA'S MISSION465466    The PIPES Act of 2023 supports PHMSA's mission. Section 24467of the bill directs PHMSA to establish a voluntary information468sharing system (VIS) that encourages pipeline operators and469stakeholders to share pipeline safety data through a470confidential platform to be analyzed and reported, so that471pipeline safety lessons learned can be shared with472stakeholders.\32\473---------------------------------------------------------------------------474    \32\ PIPES Act of 2023, supra note 1, at Sec.  24.475---------------------------------------------------------------------------476    While serious pipeline incidents have declined by 34477percent over the previous 20 years, there remain a number of478preventable incidents the bill seeks to address.\33\ According479to PHMSA data, excavation damage in the past 20 years accounted480for over 1,300 incidents, 60 fatalities, and $659.8 million in481property damage to pipelines, representing 11 percent of all482pipeline incidents.\34\ Section 18 of the PIPES Act of 2023483updates the assessment criteria for State Damage Prevention484programs and requires adoption of leading practices for state485one-call programs, including requiring states to limit486exemptions to one-call program participation and increasing the487use of commercially-available technology to locate underground488facilities.\35\ Also, according to PHMSA data, pipeline489material, weld, or equipment failures in the past 20 years490accounted for 5,184 incidents, 32 fatalities, and $3.8 billion491in property damage, representing 41 percent of all pipeline492incidents.\36\ The bill ensures PHMSA and state pipeline safety493programs have necessary resources to conduct pipeline safety494oversight, including $56 million over four years for increases495to state pipeline safety program budgets and calls for hiring496up to 30 additional employees with advanced engineering,497scientific, or other technical expertise at PHMSA.\37\498---------------------------------------------------------------------------499    \33\ Federal Effort, supra note 9.500    \34\ PHMSA, Pipeline Incident 20 Year Trends, (last updated Dec.50111, 2023), available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/502pipeline/pipeline-incident-20-year-trends [hereinafter Pipeline503Incident].504    \35\ PIPES Act of 2023, supra note 1, at Sec.  18.505    \36\ Pipeline Incident, supra note 34.506    \37\ PIPES Act of 2023, supra note 1, at Sec.  2.507---------------------------------------------------------------------------508509INCREASED TRANSPARENCY510511    The PIPES Act of 2023 requires PHMSA to review industry512safety standards every four years and incorporate into existing513regulations as needed, and improves public access to such514standards.\38\ Section 7 of the bill directs PHMSA to report on515its inspection and enforcement priorities, as well as report on516the number of inspections completed and violations found.\39\517Section 8 of the bill requires PHMSA to provide notification to518Congress when it does not follow the recommendations of the519external technical safety standards advisory committees.\40\520Section 10 creates an Office of Public Engagement and assigns521specific duties to engage with the public, government522officials, public safety organizations, and pipeline operators,523and assist with inquiries regarding pipeline safety best524practices and regulations. Further, Section 29 directs PHMSA to525assess how pipeline operators engage and share information with526the public and state or local emergency response organizations,527and issue updated guidance if necessary.\41\528---------------------------------------------------------------------------529    \38\ Id. at Sec.  6.530    \39\ Id. at Sec.  7.531    \40\ Id. at Sec.  8.532    \41\ Id. at Sec.  29.533---------------------------------------------------------------------------534535EMERGING FUELS AND TECHNOLOGIES536537    Section 20 of the Pipes Act of 2023 requires the Government538Accountability Office (GAO) to study existing natural gas539pipeline systems that blend hydrogen at a volume greater than540five percent. The report may inform future rulemaking if541necessary.\42\ Additionally, Section 14 of the bill requires542PHMSA to study the potential and existing use of pipelines543constructed with composite materials to transport hydrogen and544hydrogen blended with natural gas, and issue a rulemaking545allowing for the use of such materials following the completion546of the study.\43\ Lastly, the bill directs PHSMA to update its547regulations that govern the transportation of gaseous carbon548dioxide, including the requirement that operators utilize549dispersion modeling in high consequence areas.\44\550---------------------------------------------------------------------------551    \42\ PIPES Act of 2023, supra note 1, at Sec.  20.552    \43\ Id. at Sec.  14.553    \44\ Id. at Sec.  25.554---------------------------------------------------------------------------555556                             IV. WITNESSES557558     LAndrew Black, President and CEO, Liquid Energy559Pipeline Association560     LEric V. Taylor, P.E., Director, Engineering561Services, BHE GT&S, on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas562Association of America563     LEmanuel A. Paris IV, Vice President, Alex E.564Paris Contracting Co., Inc., on behalf of the Distribution565Contractors Association and the Pennsylvania Utility566Contractors Association567     LBill Caram, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety568Trust569570                   PROMOTING AND IMPROVING SAFETY AND571                    EFFICIENT PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE572573                               ----------574575                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025576577                  House of Representatives,578Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous579                                         Materials,580            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,581                                                    Washington, DC.582    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m. in583Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Webster584(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.585    Mr. Webster of Florida. The Subcommittee on Railroads,586Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will come to order.587    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to588declare a recess at any time during the subcommittee's hearing.589    Without objection, show that adopted.590    I also ask unanimous consent that the Members not on the591subcommittee be permitted to sit on the subcommittee on today's592hearing and ask questions.593    Without objection, show that ordered.594    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into595the record, please email those documents to596DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.597    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of an598opening statement.599600       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL WEBSTER OF FLOR-601        IDA, CHAIRMAN,  SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPE-602        LINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS603604    Mr. Webster of Florida. When it comes to energy resources,605the United States has been twice blessed. First, we have been606blessed with a natural endowment of natural resources of607various types and compositions. Second, we have been blessed608with the ingenuity and entrepreneurship and that spirit that609goes with that to develop technologies and capabilities to610safely and effectively access, develop, and transport these611previously unavailable resources to markets and consumers.612    The economic and security benefits of this bounty have been613substantial. Overall, the domestic oil and gas sector supports614more than 10 million jobs and generates nearly $1.8 trillion in615economic activity. The average industry wage is 65 percent616greater than the United States average wage in other employment617sectors. These jobs are spread across multiple industries,618including manufacturing, construction, transportation, and619warehousing.620    Our committee has an interest in ensuring this energy621bounty is safely transported across the energy supply chain.622Today's hearing will examine the need to reauthorize the623Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or624PHMSA, including providing it with new direction and authority625over emerging energy resources.626    Last Congress, the committee passed H.R. 6494, the627Promising Innovation in Pipeline Efficiency and Safety Act of6282023, or PIPES. It was reported out of the committee on a629bipartisan basis. In drafting this bill, the committee630solicited input from a wide range of parties and received 90631priorities from Members and over 100 requests from pipeline632safety stakeholders.633    In our country, roughly 3.3 million miles of onshore634pipelines safely and efficiently carry natural gas, crude,635hydrogen, hazardous liquids, and other energy sources vital to636our Nation's energy independence. It is of the utmost637importance for Congress to ensure that PHMSA is focused on its638core mission of advancing the safe transportation of these639resources.640    I would like to welcome our witnesses today: Mr. Andrew641Black, president and CEO of the Liquid Energy Pipeline642Association; Eric Taylor, director of engineering services, BHE643GT&S; Emanuel Paris, vice president of Alex E. Paris644Contracting Company; and Mr. Bill Caram, executive director of645the Pipeline Safety Trust.646    I look forward to hearing your testimony.647    [Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]648649Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress650  from the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads,651  Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials652653    When it comes to energy resources, the United States has been twice654blessed. First, we are blessed with a natural endowment of mineral655resources of various types and composition. Second, we are blessed with656the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of American business that657developed the technology and capabilities to safely and efficiently658access, develop, and transport these previously unavailable resources659to markets and consumers.660    The economic and security benefits of this bounty have been661substantial. Overall, the domestic oil and gas sector supports more662than 10 million jobs and generates nearly $1.8 trillion in economic663activity. The average industry wage is 65 percent greater than the664United States average wage in other employment sectors. These jobs are665spread across multiple industries including manufacturing,666construction, transportation, and warehousing.667    Our committee has an interest in ensuring this energy bounty is668safely transported across the energy supply chain. Today's hearing will669examine the need to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials670Safety Administration (PHMSA), including providing it with new671direction and authority over emerging energy sources.672    Last Congress, the Committee passed H.R. 6494, the Promoting673Innovation in Pipeline Efficiency and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2023. It674was reported out of Committee on a bipartisan basis. In drafting this675bill, the Committee solicited input from a wide range of parties and676received about 90 priorities from Members and over 100 requests from677pipeline safety stakeholders.678    In our country, roughly 3.3 million miles of onshore pipelines679safely and efficiently carry natural gas, crude, hydrogen, hazardous680liquids, and other energy sources vital for our nation's energy681independence. It is of the utmost importance for Congress to ensure682PHMSA is focused on its core mission of advancing the safe683transportation of these resources.684685    Mr. Webster of Florida. I will yield back now and recognize686Ranking Member Titus for an opening statement.687688       OPENING STATEMENT OF  HON. DINA  TITUS OF NEVADA,689        RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPE-690        LINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS691692    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to693the witnesses for being here today.694    As you all know, there are 3.4 million miles of hazardous695liquid and gas pipelines in the United States that help deliver696energy to all communities in all our districts. Over 11,000 of697those are in Nevada, so ensuring the safety of these pipelines698is a matter I take very seriously.699    In 2004, just to do a little history, Congress enacted700legislation to create the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials701Safety Administration, or PHMSA. PHMSA's dedicated staff in the702Office of Pipeline Safety ensures that the United States703pipeline transportation network operates safely, reliably, and704in an environmentally sound manner.705    States have also taken steps to improve pipeline safety. In7062021, Nevada became the first State to require annual leak707surveys of all intrastate natural gas pipelines. This was708annual instead of every 5 years, I think it was. By identifying709leaks early on, the regulations are helping prevent explosions710at businesses and in residential areas all across Nevada. Late711last year also, you saw regulators in Colorado finalize rules712requiring operators of natural gas pipelines to disclose more713data on leaks.714    Data from PHMSA shows that serious pipeline incidents have715really improved. They have decreased by 34 percent over the716last 20 years, and that's great. But despite this progress,717there is still work to be done.718    In January of last year, 2024, two houses, for example,719less than a mile apart in Jackson, Mississippi, exploded just 3720days from each other because of Atmos Energy pipeline leaks.721The first home explosion resulted in one fatality and one722injury. The resulting fire from the second explosion spread to723a neighboring home. These incidents happened after Atmos had724identified leaks in their pipelines in the area, but had failed725to correct and repair them.726    Then, in December of last year, a natural gas explosion in727Avondale, Louisiana, killed one person and injured five. And728again, this pipe was operated by Atmos Energy.729    Congress has repeatedly made it clear that pipeline safety730is a bipartisan issue, and I appreciate that, and that's why I731am concerned with President Trump's efforts to slash the732Federal workforce that will ensure this safety.733    Last Congress, as the chairman said, this committee734approved a bipartisan pipeline safety bill that would authorize735PHMSA to hire 30 additional staff members to implement pipeline736safety policies and fulfill Congress' mandates. This was737supported by Democrats and Republicans, as well as industry and738safety advocates, because we all know that increased capacity739will make pipelines safer for operators, for communities near740pipelines, and for our environment in general. This741legislation, however, never did receive a vote on the House742floor.743    The bipartisan PIPES Act of 2023 also included critical744provisions to address PHMSA's safety workforce shortages,745improve PHMSA's public outreach and engagement efforts, and746strengthen penalties for pipeline damage and disruption. The747bill also had provisions to help PHMSA prepare to regulate the748next generation of pipelines in keeping up with technology.749    Congress invested in pipeline projects to transport gaseous750carbon dioxide and hydrogen through the Bipartisan751Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. I want to752be sure that the Federal safety regulators have the tools they753need to mitigate the new risks that are associated with these754projects.755    In closing, I look forward to working with the chairman and756other members of this committee to build on the bipartisan work757on pipeline safety that started long ago and intensified last758session so that we can get legislation across the finish line759during this Congress.760    So, thank you all for being here today, and I look forward761to hearing your perspectives.762    I yield back.763    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]764765Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from766  the State of Nevada,  and Ranking Member,  Subcommittee  on Railroads,767  Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials768769    Thank you, Chairman Webster, for holding this hearing today.770    There are 3.4 million miles of hazardous liquid and gas pipelines771in the United States that help deliver energy to our communities, and772over 11,000 of those are in Nevada. Ensuring the safe operations of773these pipelines is a matter I take very seriously.774    In 2004, Congress enacted legislation to create the Pipeline and775Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. PHMSA's dedicated staff in776the Office of Pipeline Safety ensure that the United States' pipeline777transportation network operates safely, reliably and in an778environmentally sound manner.779    States have also taken steps to improve pipeline safety. In 2021,780Nevada became the first state to require annual leak surveys of all781intrastate natural gas pipelines. By identifying leaks early on, these782regulations are helping prevent explosions at businesses and in783residential areas across Nevada. Late last year, regulators in Colorado784also finalized rules requiring operators of natural gas pipelines to785disclose more data on leaks.786    Data from PHMSA shows that serious pipeline incidents have787decreased by 34 percent over the last twenty years. Despite this788progress, our work is far from over.789    In January 2024, two homes less than a mile from each other in790Jackson, Mississippi, exploded three days apart from Atmos Energy791pipeline leaks. The first home explosion resulted in one fatality and792one injury. The resulting fire from the second explosion spread to a793neighboring home. These incidents happened after Atmos had identified794leaks in their pipelines in the area but failed to repair them.795    In December of last year, a natural gas explosion in Avondale,796Louisiana, killed one person and injured five. This pipe was also797operated by Atmos Energy.798    Congress has repeatedly made clear that pipeline safety is a799bipartisan issue. This is why I am so concerned about President Trump's800efforts to slash the federal workforce.801    Last Congress, this Committee approved a bipartisan pipeline safety802bill that would authorize PHSMA to hire 30 additional staff to803implement pipeline safety policies and fulfill congressional mandates.804This was supported by Democrats and Republicans, as well as industry805and safety advocates, because increased capacity will make pipelines806safer for operators, communities near pipelines, and our environment.807This legislation, however, did not receive a vote on the House floor.808    The bipartisan PIPES Act of 2023 also included critical provisions809to address PHMSA's safety workforce shortages, improve PHMSA's public810outreach and engagement efforts, and strengthen penalties for pipeline811damage or disruption. The bill also had provisions to help PHMSA812prepare to regulate the next generation of pipelines.813    Congress invested in pipeline projects to transport gaseous carbon814dioxide and hydrogen through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the815Inflation Reduction Act. I want to be sure that federal safety816regulators have the tools they need to mitigate new risks associated817with these projects.818    In closing, I look forward to working with Chairman Webster and the819other members of this Committee to build upon the bipartisan work on820pipeline safety to get legislation across the finish line this821Congress.822    Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. I look forward823to hearing each of your perspectives on this critical issue.824    With that, I yield back.825826    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. I now827recognize the ranking member of the full committee.828    Mr. Larsen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.829830        OPENING STATEMENT OF  HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASH-831         INGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR-832         TATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE833834    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Webster and835Ranking Member Titus, for holding this hearing.836    The recent rise in pipeline incidents and deaths should be837a warning call to this committee. Now, last year in the838Northwest, we marked the 25th anniversary of the Olympic839pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Washington, an explosion that840claimed the lives of two 10-year-old boys and an 18-year-old841young man. The explosion released 237,000 gallons of gasoline842into Whatcom Creek that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park in843Bellingham.844    And so since then, for my entire tenure in Congress, I have845fought to reduce the risk of pipeline incidents, promote846transparency of pipeline safety information for local847communities, and increase accountability for pipeline848operators. And progress has been made, but certainly more needs849to be done through legislation and rulemaking.850    PHMSA advanced two important rulemakings in December of851last year, one on methane leak detection and the other on852gaseous carbon dioxide pipeline requirements. The leak853detection rule helps reduce pollution by limiting unintentional854methane leaks and intentional venting. I want to be clear that855President Trump signed this requirement into law in his first856term.857    As well, the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act, passed 13 years ago,858first required a carbon dioxide rulemaking. This requirement859was made more urgent after a carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured860in Mississippi in 2020. These rulemakings will increase safety,861they are required by law, and the new administration should now862quickly advance them after pulling them back.They can do work863already without us having to do more work.864    But now I want to turn to deadly accidents. According to865PHMSA, in the past 5 years, there have been 3,070 pipeline866incidents, killing 58 people, injuring 167 more people, and867causing more than $2.3 billion in property damage. The primary868reason these incidents occurred was due to material, weld, or869equipment failures: all factors primarily within the control of870pipeline operators.871    The NTSB, in addition to doing its great work investigating872aviation accidents that we have seen over the last 34, 35 days,873has nine open pipeline safety investigations, including one874that launched this past weekend after a Kansas Gas pipeline875leak and explosion in Hutchinson, Kansas.876    More people are dying, as well: 2024 and 2023 saw the877deadliest pipeline incidents in more than a decade. In March of8782023, a UGI pipeline explosion at a chocolate factory in West879Reading, Pennsylvania, killed 7 people, injured 11 people,880displaced 3 families from a neighboring apartment building, and881forced many more people from the area to evacuate. The882chocolate factory was not rebuilt, and production has shifted883to other facilities, leaving the town of West Reading,884population 4,530, without a significant employer that had been885in the community for 65 years.886    And more problems are occurring. There were more incidents887in 2024 than there were in 2023, including one in my district888in late December of 2023. The now BP-owned Olympic pipeline saw889another gas spill in my district. This time more than 20,000890gallons of diesel spilled near an elementary school in Conway,891Washington. Emergency response took more than a year, and it892still hasn't been completely cleaned up.893    But more can be done, and we should work quickly to pass a894pipeline safety bill similar to the one we passed last895Congress. This committee unanimously approved a bipartisan896pipeline safety bill that improved transparency by creating an897Office of Public Engagement, an idea championed by898Representative Strickland. This legislation also required PHMSA899to review operator emergency response plans.900    And more funding will help. PHMSA and State pipeline safety901programs need resources and staff to inspect pipelines, conduct902investigations when incidents occur, and take appropriate903enforcement actions so bad actors are held accountable. Our904bill increased the authorizations for both PHMSA and State905pipeline safety authorities. We also included $56 million for906State pipeline safety programs over 4 years.907    But I am troubled by the President's recent efforts to908remove people from the jobs that play a critical role to hold909pipeline operators accountable for their actions that might910harm people. Just as an example, PHMSA assessed a $2 million911civil penalty on Denbury Gulf Coast Pipelines and its912contractor, Republic Testing Laboratories, for obstructing913PHMSA safety inspectors from observing pipeline repairs and914verbally and physically assaulting PHMSA safety inspectors.915Employees of these two companies physically prevented a PHMSA916safety inspector from questioning a welder, held up a screen to917prevent a PHMSA safety inspector from observing a weld, and918prevented a PHMSA safety inspector from photographing test919equipment. These repairs were being conducted to replace the920carbon dioxide pipeline that ruptured in Satartia, Mississippi,921that sent 45 people to the hospital in 2020.922    Danbury's behavior towards PHMSA's safety inspectors, the923administration's efforts to cut staff from the Office of924Pipeline Safety and to cut funding for grants that Congress925itself--we all--mandated, including PHMSA's technical926assistance grants, put communities at risk nationwide. Let's927put safety in America first.928    Now, Congress has recognized that improving safety requires929strong regulation and funding support. The BIL created the930first-ever Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and931Modernization grant program, and last May, PHMSA announced $196932million for 60 publicly owned utilities to repair or replace933natural gas pipelines. This investment will reduce incidents934and improve safety. We should keep it going.935    Pipelines play a critical role in the daily lives of936Americans. We are here today to make sure the national pipeline937network safely delivers energy across the country.938    I look forward to today's discussion and thank each of the939witnesses today for your testimony.940    I yield.941    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]942943 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress944   from the  State of  Washington,  and Ranking Member,  Committee on945   Transportation and Infrastructure946947    Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Titus, for holding948this hearing.949    The recent rise in pipeline incidents and deaths should be a950warning call to this Committee.951    Last year, in the Northwest, we marked the 25th anniversary of the952Olympic pipeline explosion in Bellingham, WA that claimed the lives of953two 10-year-old boys and an 18-year-old young man.954    The explosion released 237,000 gallons of gasoline into a creek955that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham.956    For my entire tenure in Congress, I have fought to reduce the risk957of pipeline incidents, promote transparency of pipeline safety958information for local communities and increase accountability for959pipeline operators.960    Progress has been made, but more needs to be done through961legislation and rulemaking.962    PHMSA advanced two important rulemakings in December 2024: one on963methane leak detection and the other on gaseous carbon dioxide pipeline964requirements.965    The leak detection rule helps reduce pollution by limiting966unintentional methane leaks and intentional venting. I want to be clear967that President Trump signed this requirement into law in his first968term.969    A carbon dioxide rulemaking was first required in the 2011 Pipeline970Safety Act--13 years ago. This requirement was made more urgent after a971carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured in Mississippi in 2020.972    These rulemakings will increase safety, are required by law and the973new Administration should quickly advance them after pulling them back.974They can do work already without us having to do more work.975    But now I want to turn to deadly accidents.976    According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety977Administration (PHMSA), in the past 5 years there have been 3,070978pipeline incidents claiming 58 lives, injuring 167 more and causing979more than $2.3 billion in property damage.980    The primary reason these incidents occurred was due to material,981weld or equipment failures--all factors primarily within the control of982pipeline operators.983    The National Transportation Safety Board, in addition to doing this984great work investigating the aviation accidents we've seen over the985last 35 days, has nine open pipeline safety investigations, including986one it launched this past weekend after a Kansas Gas pipeline leak and987explosion in Hutchinson, Kansas.988    More people are dying, as well. 2024 and 2023 saw the deadliest989pipeline incidents in more than a decade.990    In March 2023, a UGI pipeline explosion at a chocolate factory in991West Reading, PA killed seven people, injured 11 people, displaced 3992families from a neighboring apartment building and forced many more993from the area to evacuate.994    The chocolate factory was not rebuilt, and production has shifted995to other facilities--leaving the town of West Reading, population9964,530, without a significant employer that had been in the community997for 65 years.998    More problems are occurring--there were more pipeline incidents in9992024 than in 2023, including one in my district.1000    In December 2023, the now BP-owned Olympic pipeline saw another gas1001spill in my district, this time more than 20,000 gallons of diesel1002spilled near an elementary school in Conway, Washington. Emergency1003response took more than a year, and it still hasn't been completely1004cleaned up.1005    More can be done; we should work quickly to pass a pipeline safety1006bill similar to the one we passed last Congress.1007    This Committee unanimously approved a bipartisan pipeline safety1008bill that improved transparency by creating an Office of Public1009Engagement--an idea championed by Representative Strickland.1010    The legislation also required PHMSA to review operator emergency1011response plans.1012    More funding will help: PHMSA and the state pipeline safety1013programs need resources and staff to inspect pipelines, conduct1014investigations when incidents occur and take appropriate enforcement1015actions so bad actors are held accountable.1016    Our bill increased the authorizations for both PHMSA and state1017pipeline safety authorities. We also included $56 million for state1018pipeline safety programs over four years.1019    But I am troubled by the President's recent efforts to remove1020people from jobs that play a critical role to hold pipeline operators1021accountable for their actions that might harm people.1022    As an example, PHMSA assessed a $2 million civil penalty on Denbury1023Gulf Coast Pipelines and its contractor, Republic Testing Laboratories,1024for obstructing PHMSA safety inspectors from observing pipeline repairs1025and verbally and physically assaulting PHMSA safety inspectors.1026    Employees of these two companies physically prevented a PHMSA1027safety inspector from questioning a welder, held up a screen to prevent1028a PHMSA safety inspector from observing a weld, and prevented PHMSA1029staff from photographing test equipment.1030    These repairs were being conducted to replace the carbon dioxide1031pipeline that ruptured in Satartia, Mississippi that sent 45 people to1032the hospital in 2020.1033    Denbury's behavior towards PHMSA safety inspectors, the Trump1034Administration's efforts to cut staff from the Office of Pipeline1035Safety, and cut funding for grants Congress mandated, including PHMSA's1036technical assistance grants, put communities at risk nationwide.1037    Congress recognized that improving safety requires strong1038regulation and funding support. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law1039created the first ever Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety1040and Modernization grant program.1041    Last May, PHMSA announced $196 million for 60 publicly-owned1042utilities to repair or replace natural gas pipelines. This investment1043will reduce incidents and improve safety. We should keep it going.1044    Pipelines play a critical role in the daily lives of Americans.1045    We are here today to make sure the national pipeline network safely1046delivers energy across the country.1047    I look forward to today's discussion and thank each of the1048witnesses for your testimony.10491050    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Again, I would1051like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here1052today.1053    Briefly, I would like to explain our lighting system. Green1054means go, yellow means you are getting ready to stop, and red1055means stop. Pretty simple.1056    The witnesses' full statements will be included in the1057record.1058    Without objection, show that ordered.1059    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing1060remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided1061answers to any questions that might be submitted in writing.1062    Without objection, show that ordered.1063    I ask for unanimous consent that the record remain open for106415 days for additional comments and information submitted by1065Members or witnesses to be included in today's hearing.1066    Without objection, show that ordered.1067    As your written testimony will be made part of the record,1068we ask you to limit your remarks to 5 minutes.1069    Mr. Black, you are recognized for 5 minutes.10701071    TESTIMONY  OF ANDREW J. BLACK,  PRESIDENT  AND CHIEF EX-1072     ECUTIVE  OFFICER,  LIQUID  ENERGY   PIPELINE   ASSOCIA-1073     TION; ERIC V. TAYLOR, P.E., DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING SERV-1074     ICES,  BHE GT&S,  ON BEHALF OF  THE INTERSTATE  NATURAL1075     GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA;  EMANUEL A. PARIS IV,  VICE1076     PRESIDENT, ALEX E. PARIS CONTRACTING CO., INC.,  ON BE-1077     HALF  OF  THE  DISTRIBUTION   CONTRACTORS   ASSOCIATION1078     AND  THE  PENNSYLVANIA  UTILITY  CONTRACTORS   ASSOCIA-1079     TION;  AND  BILL CARAM,  EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR,  PIPELINE1080     SAFETY TRUST10811082     TESTIMONY OF ANDREW J. BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EX-1083      ECUTIVE OFFICER,  LIQUID ENERGY PIPELINE ASSOCIATION10841085    Mr. Black. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members. I am1086Andy Black, president and CEO of the Liquid Energy Pipeline1087Association.1088    LEPA represents pipeline owners and operators transporting1089transportation fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet;1090transportation feedstocks like crude oil; home heating fuels1091like propane and heating oil; industrial feedstocks like ethane1092and butane; and low-carbon solutions like liquid petroleum gas,1093renewable diesel, and carbon dioxide. We have over 50 member1094companies delivering over 20 billion barrels annually across1095the nearly 230,000-mile network of pipelines.1096    Thank you for holding this hearing today and highlighting1097the vital role this committee has promoting the infrastructure1098that leads to American prosperity. This committee has an1099important role in ensuring our pipeline network is safe through1100pipeline safety reauthorization, allowing us to confidently1101expand our pipeline infrastructure.1102    As the committee considers the role of pipeline1103infrastructure and what changes to make to Federal pipeline1104safety laws, it is important to remember that pipelines are the1105safest way to deliver energy. More than 99.999 percent of crude1106oil and petroleum products delivered by pipeline reaches its1107destination safely. A report prepared by PHMSA for Congress1108analyzing 10 years of incident data found pipelines were 131109times safer than both trains and trucks, with pipelines1110experiencing only 1 incident for every 720 million gallons1111delivered. An Obama administration analysis found rejecting a1112major pipeline and shipping the same crude oil by rail would1113increase the risk of oil release by over 800 times and of1114barrels released by 2.6 times.1115    Current PHMSA pipeline incident statistics also show1116pipeline safety is improving. According to publicly available1117PHMSA data, total liquid pipeline incidents are down 12 percent1118over the last 5 years. Liquid pipelines incidents impacting1119people or the environment are also down 12 percent over the1120last 5 years. Declining pipeline incidents over the last 51121years supports the committee's measured approach to1122reauthorizing pipeline safety laws, without major changes or1123new mandates.1124    LEPA does believe Congress can do more to help modernize1125pipeline safety programs because key parts of PHMSA safety1126regulations are over 20 years old and do not reflect the latest1127advances in safety technology or know-how.1128    LEPA recognizes that America is blessed with an abundance1129of energy. Pipelines are the vital link from where that energy1130is produced to where it is refined into usable products and on1131to consumers and businesses in their home regions. Smart1132pipeline policies will promote the pipeline infrastructure1133needed to deliver American energy dominance.1134    Lastly, LEPA believes Congress can help PHMSA increase the1135effectiveness and transparency of its pipeline safety programs1136and requirements. LEPA welcomed and supported the pipeline1137safety reauthorization bill this committee approved in December1138of 2023.1139    My written testimony details the many provisions LEPA1140supported, including these six: number one, reforming PHMSA's1141special permit program; number two, strengthening penalties for1142pipeline safety violations that impair operations of facilities1143or damage construction sites; number three, requiring PHMSA1144issue an already congressionally mandated rulemaking on idled1145pipelines; number four, authorizing a voluntary information-1146sharing to convene stakeholders to collaborate on safety1147initiatives; number five, requiring risk-based inspections of1148in-service breakout tanks to reduce unnecessary greenhouse gas1149and air pollutant emissions, reduce worker safety threats, and1150reduce hazardous waste when shown to achieve an equivalent1151level of safety; and number six, improving pipeline expertise1152of PHMSA personnel with hiring authority for engineering,1153scientific, or other technical expertise.1154    One final note on leveraging new technologies. In the 20201155PIPES Act, Congress recognized pipeline safety could benefit1156from harnessing the latest high-tech inspection technologies1157and analytics. However, PHMSA bureaucratic redtape in the last1158administration effectively strangled this program before it1159could ever start. An opportunity now exists, and LEPA supports1160restoring the will of Congress and reauthorizing this program1161without additional bureaucratic redtape or conditions.1162    Thank you again for the committee's support of pipeline1163energy infrastructure and the opportunity to testify before you1164today on the benefits of pipelines, including their safety.1165Thank you.1166    [Mr. Black's prepared statement follows:]11671168 Prepared Statement of Andrew J. Black, President and Chief Executive1169              Officer, Liquid Energy Pipeline Association11701171    Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee.1172My name is Andy Black and I am President and CEO of the Liquid Energy1173Pipeline Association. LEPA represents pipeline owners and operators1174delivering transportation fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel,1175transportation feedstocks like crude oil, home heating fuels like1176propane and home heating oil, industrial feedstocks like ethane and1177butane, and low carbon solutions like renewable diesel, liquified1178petroleum gas and carbon dioxide. We have over 50 member companies1179delivering over 20 billion barrels annually across a nearly a 230,000-1180mile network of pipelines.1181    Thank you for holding this hearing today and highlighting the vital1182role this Committee has promoting the infrastructure that leads to1183American prosperity. In recent years, American families and workers1184have suffered from higher prices on everything from food to housing to1185energy. America is blessed with abundant energy supplies. Expanding1186American energy production will send new supply to market and pressure1187prices downward. Building energy infrastructure like pipelines will1188help us deliver more energy to the American people. The Transportation1189& Infrastructure Committee has an important role ensuring our pipeline1190network is safe, such as through pipeline safety reauthorization,1191allowing us confidently to expand our energy infrastructure.1192    Pipelines deliver the energy products American families use every1193day. Liquid energy pipelines deliver transportation fuels like1194gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that families, commuters, businesses and1195travelers use to drive and fly where they need to go. Pipelines deliver1196transportation fuel feedstocks like crude oil and industrial feedstocks1197like ethane, propane and butane to make everything from plastics to1198pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints and fabrics. Rural home heating and1199agricultural fuels like propane delivered regionally by pipeline before1200traveling locally by truck heat rural homes and farms, dry crops after1201harvest, and keep livestock barns warm throughout the winter.1202    When thinking about energy, the American people tell us what they1203care most about is safety, followed by affordability and reliability.1204Each year, LEPA commissions a nationwide poll of public sentiment on1205energy and pipelines. The American public's preference for safe energy1206supports this Committee's work to reauthorize federal pipeline safety1207law.12081209[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]12101211    As the Committee considers the role of pipeline infrastructure and1212what changes to make to federal pipeline safety laws, it is important1213to remember pipelines are the safest way to deliver energy. More than121499.999% of crude oil and petroleum products delivered by pipeline1215reaches its destination safely.12161217[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]12181219    A 2018 report prepared for Congress by PHMSA analyzing 10 years of1220incident data found pipelines were 13 times safer than both trains and1221trucks with pipelines experiencing 1 incident for every 720 million1222gallons delivered and rail incidents occurring every 50 million gallons1223delivered. An Obama administration analysis found rejecting a major1224pipeline and shipping the same crude oil by rail would increase the1225risk of oil release by over 800 times and barrels released by 2.61226times.1227    Current PHMSA pipeline incident statistics also show pipeline1228safety is improving. Federal law and regulations require operators to1229report pipeline incident data to PHMSA. Full year data for 2024 is now1230available, which allows us to examine current trends in pipeline1231safety.12321233[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]12341235    According to publicly available PHMSA data, total liquids pipeline1236incidents are down 12% over the last 5 years. Liquids pipeline1237incidents Impacting People or the Environment (IPE) are also down 12%1238over the last 5 years. This last metric, incidents Impacting People or1239the Environment, was developed jointly by PHMSA, the Pipeline Safety1240Trust and industry under the recommendation of the National1241Transportation Safety Board. NTSB asked the pipeline community to1242identify the most meaningful metric for measuring pipeline safety.1243PHMSA certainly tracks many metrics but we agree that Incidents1244Impacting People or the Environment are the most meaningful and are1245gratified they are down 12% over the last 5 years.1246    Declining pipeline incidents over the last 5 years supports the1247Committee's measured approach to reauthorizing pipeline safety laws1248without major changes or new mandates. LEPA does believe Congress can1249do more to help modernize pipeline safety programs. Hi-tech inspection1250and analytical tools, like an MRI or ultrasound in the doctor's office,1251are available for pipeline safety. However, key parts of PHMSA safety1252regulations are over 20 years old and do not reflect the latest1253advances in safety technology or know-how.1254    LEPA also recognizes that America is blessed with an abundance of1255energy. Pipelines are the vital link from where that energy is1256produced, to where it is refined into usable products, and on to1257consumers and businesses in their home regions. Smart pipeline policies1258will promote the pipeline energy infrastructure needed to deliver1259American energy dominance. Lastly, LEPA believes Congress can help1260PHMSA increase the effectiveness and transparency of its pipeline1261safety programs and requirements.1262    LEPA welcomed and supported the pipeline safety reauthorization1263bill the Committee approved in December 2023. Provisions LEPA supported1264included:1265      Reforming PHMSA Special Permit program to impose permit1266review shot clock and limit unrelated permit requirements (Sec. 17)1267      Strengthening penalties for pipeline safety violations1268that impair operation of facilities or damage construction sites (Sec.126921)1270      Requiring PHMSA issue Congressionally mandated rulemaking1271on idled pipelines (Sec. 12)1272      Providing defendants the opportunity for a formal PHMSA1273hearing, and protect security or commercially sensitive information1274presented as evidence in PHMSA hearings open to the public (Sec. 26)1275      Authorizing a Voluntary Information Sharing program to1276convene stakeholders to collaborate on safety initiatives (Sec. 24)1277      Requiring risk-based inspections of in-service breakout1278tanks to reduce unnecessary greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions,1279worker safety threats, and hazardous waste when shown to achieve an1280equivalent level of safety (Sec. 28)1281      Improving pipeline expertise of PHMSA personnel with1282hiring authority for engineering, scientific or other technical1283expertise (Sec. 4)1284      Increasing transparency of PHMSA inspection program with1285reporting on inspection priorities, dates and locations (Sec. 7)1286      Require PHMSA review of consensus safety improvement1287standards (Sec. 6)1288      Targeted update of federal CO2 pipeline requirements to1289extend regulatory coverage to gaseous CO2, require CO2-specific1290incident dispersion modeling (topography, weather, operating1291conditions, trace compounds), require PHMSA complete rulemaking within12921 yr. (Sec. 25)12931294    One final note on leveraging new technologies. In the 2020 PIPES1295Act, Congress recognized pipeline safety could benefit from harnessing1296the latest hi-tech inspection technologies and analytics. Congress1297authorized PHMSA to conduct a pipeline safety technology demonstration1298pilot program under certain conditions.1299    However, in implementing the technology demonstration program,1300PHMSA under the previous administration added a host of additional1301administrative, regulatory and legal conditions to the program beyond1302what Congress itself mandated. As a result, PHMSA received no1303applications to conduct technology pilots and the program sunsetted.1304Pipeline operators cited the additional conditions PHMSA imposed in its1305implementation guidance as making the program infeasible. PHMSA1306bureaucratic red tape effectively strangled this program in its crib.1307An opportunity now exists and LEPA supports restoring the will of1308Congress and reauthorizing this program without additional bureaucratic1309red tape or conditions.1310    Thank you again for the Committee's support of pipeline energy1311infrastructure and the opportunity to testify before you today on the1312benefits of pipelines, including their safety.13131314    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.1315    Mr. Taylor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.13161317     TESTIMONY OF ERIC V. TAYLOR, P.E., DIRECTOR, ENGINEER-1318      ING SERVICES,  BHE GT&S,  ON BEHALF OF THE INTERSTATE1319      NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA13201321    Mr. Taylor. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and1322members of the subcommittee, good morning. My name is Eric1323Taylor, and I serve as the director of engineering services for1324BHE GT&S. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of1325the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, otherwise1326known as INGAA, on promoting and improving safety and pipeline1327infrastructure. We appreciate the subcommittee's leadership and1328ongoing efforts to develop a measure that would reauthorize the1329Office of Pipeline Safety within PHMSA.1330    INGAA is a trade association specifically representing the1331interstate natural gas pipeline and storage industry. INGAA's1332member companies transport most of the natural gas consumed in1333the United States through a network of approximately 200,0001334miles of interstate transmission pipelines and are primarily1335focused on serving customers like local distribution companies,1336electricity generators, industrial manufacturers, and LNG1337export facilities.1338    I focused the last 10 years of my career on pipeline1339safety, and most recently have been engaged in the last 2 major1340PHMSA rulemakings: the Leak Detection and Repair, LDAR, and1341Class Location proposed rules. I was very involved in the Gas1342Pipeline Advisory Committee, GPAC, meetings in November 20231343and March 2024.1344    We applaud the committee for employing a bipartisan1345strategy in the 118th Congress to reauthorize PHMSA pipeline1346safety programs for 4 years. As you begin your deliberations to1347draft and ideally enact a pipeline safety reauthorization1348measure, there are several points I would like to make on1349behalf of the natural gas transmission pipeline industry.1350    First, the United States Department of Transportation,1351PHMSA, other regulators, and industry experts have for decades1352agreed that pipelines are the safest mode of natural gas1353transportation. INGAA supports having a strong safety regulator1354and the robust, durable, and consistent regulations led by1355PHMSA to ensure accountability of operators. We take our1356commitment to safety seriously, and appreciate PHMSA's role in1357ensuring the industry maintains its safety focus, and the1358public is confident in the safety and reliability of natural1359gas pipelines.1360    Second, INGAA's top regulatory priority with PHMSA is1361completion of the Class Location Rule, which presents1362opportunities to improve safety, protect the environment, and1363possibly increase capacity of existing pipelines that have had1364their capacity reduced due to a downrate from a class location1365change. Class location change regulations have not been1366substantially updated in more than 50 years. Revising them has1367been an INGAA goal for more than two decades. More details were1368provided in my written testimony, but INGAA strongly supports1369the committee's prior mandate for PHMSA to complete this1370rulemaking within 90 days after the enactment date.1371    Third, in the 2011 reauthorization, Congress required PHMSA1372to issue regulations for conducting tests to confirm the1373material strength of previously untested natural gas1374transmission pipelines. PHMSA completed this congressional1375mandate in the fall of 2019. And while INGAA supported PHMSA1376promulgating this regulation, the agency made admitted drafting1377errors. Unless rectified, INGAA members may be forced to retest1378previously tested pipelines with no added safety benefit,1379causing disruption to communities, unnecessarily venting gas,1380and costing operators billions of dollars. INGAA commends this1381committee for addressing this issue in the PIPES Act of 2023.1382    Fourth, the GPAC is an advisory committee to the1383Department, and plays an important role to enhance gas pipeline1384safety regulations. Historically, GPAC met regularly to1385consider important rules and discuss important safety1386advancements, but since January 2021, has only convened three1387times, despite its charter stating GPAC meet approximately four1388times per year. Further, there are times where PHMSA has1389disagreed with the unanimous GPAC decisions to final rules1390without providing a technical basis for why. While INGAA does1391not challenge PHMSA's independence to render decisions, we1392believe Congress can strengthen transparency by receiving PHMSA1393reports on rationale and conclusions when issuing final rules.1394INGAA appreciates the committee previously addressing both1395issues.1396    Lastly, our industry recognizes the importance of data-1397sharing and proactively attempts to participate in industry1398organizations to share lessons learned. INGAA supports the1399bipartisan inclusion of language in your bill last Congress for1400voluntary information-sharing.1401    In conclusion, your efforts are vital to ensure PHMSA has1402the resources and direction to continually improve safety for1403our industry. I truly appreciate the opportunity to testify in1404front of the subcommittee today, and I look forward to your1405questions.1406    [Mr. Taylor's prepared statement follows:]14071408Prepared Statement of Eric V. Taylor, P.E., Director, Engineering Services,1409 BHE GT&S, on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America14101411    Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the1412Subcommittee:1413    Good morning. My name is Eric Taylor, and I serve as the Director1414of Engineering Services for BHE GT&S.1415    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the1416Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) on promoting and1417improving safety and pipeline infrastructure. We appreciate the1418Subcommittee's leadership and ongoing efforts to develop a measure that1419would reauthorize the Office of Pipeline Safety within the Pipeline and1420Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).14211422                               Background14231424    BHE GT&S is an interstate natural gas transmission and storage1425company headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia, with operations in 101426states between New York and Florida. BHE GT&S is an indirect wholly1427owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy. BHE GT&S operates 5,4001428miles of natural gas transmission pipelines with more than 985,0001429horsepower, 100 miles of natural gas liquids pipelines, and 756 billion1430cubic feet (Bcf) of total natural gas storage--with 420 Bcf of working1431gas capacity--along with a gathering and processing company. We also1432provide liquified natural gas (LNG) for U.S. customers through Pivotal1433LNG and operate Cove Point, LNG--an import, export and liquefaction1434facility in Lusby, Maryland. In 2024, BHE GT&S delivered over 2.21435trillion cubic feet of natural gas to its customers.1436    BHE GT&S provides service to many large customers such as major1437utilities, power plants and industrial manufacturers, through numerous1438links to major pipelines. BHE GT&S is committed to providing customers1439with innovative and sustainable solutions that help its customers1440transport natural gas safely, reliably and efficiently in their1441markets.1442    BHE GT&S is a member of INGAA, the Southern Gas Association (SGA),1443and the Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI). As a member of1444these organizations, BHE GT&S shares and learns from some of the1445brightest and most innovative minds within our industry. PRCI, for1446example, provides an excellent opportunity to collectively fund1447research to improve the understanding of failure mechanisms and1448identify methods to more accurately characterize and address pipeline1449safety. PRCI also provides research to meet the needs of future fuels1450to support operators' efforts to safely transport those fuels and1451associated products.1452    INGAA is a trade association specifically representing the1453interstate natural gas pipeline and storage industry. INGAA's member1454companies transport most of the natural gas consumed in the United1455States through a network of approximately 200,000 miles of interstate1456transmission pipelines. These large capacity, critical infrastructure1457systems are analogous to the Interstate Highway System and span1458multiple states and regions. INGAA members are primarily focused on1459serving customers like local distribution companies, electricity1460generators, industrial manufacturers and LNG export facilities.1461    I work out of the BHE GT&S Bridgeport, West Virginia office. I1462began my career as an engineer in the gas control group and conducted1463system modeling to evaluate the most efficient methods to transport1464natural gas through our pipeline system. This modeling ultimately1465reduced fuel consumption and related emissions. I gained a great1466understanding of how our pipeline system operates throughout the year,1467how we rely on our storage capabilities to meet peak demand, and how1468critical our pipeline system is to ensure consistent deliverability of1469electricity near our pipeline system as electric generation facilities1470consume large quantities of gas to balance the grid during the hottest1471days.1472    I have focused the last 10 years of my career on pipeline safety,1473which includes ensuring BHE GT&S meets PHMSA compliance. Throughout my1474career, I have helped improve pipeline safety by studying the root1475causes of failures and near miss incidents, by implementing lessons1476learned from those incidents to help reduce the likelihood of a similar1477event, and by evaluating new technologies to support the reduction of1478methane emissions. BHE GT&S supports and participates in various1479industry groups to better understand and mitigate threats to our1480natural gas and liquid pipeline systems and LNG facilities. I am1481currently an executive board member of PRCI and will present at1482multiple SGA events this year. Previously, I chaired the INGAA pipeline1483safety committee in 2023 and 2024.1484    I have been engaged in the last two major PHMSA rule makings--the1485Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) and the Class Location proposed rules.1486I assisted in the development of INGAA and joint trade comments on1487PHMSA's LDAR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). And I was very1488involved in the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings in1489November 2023 and March 2024, where I helped educate industry GPAC1490members on proposed regulations and made multiple public comments on1491the LDAR and Class Location proposed rules. After the GPAC meetings, I1492worked with joint industry groups to formulate comments on both1493proposed rules.1494    For more than a decade, the shale revolution has gifted our country1495with abundant natural gas supplies, which has elevated the need for1496additional infrastructure to transport natural gas across the country.1497Pipelines reliably deliver North America's abundant natural gas1498reserves to fuel our homes and businesses and are the safest mode of1499natural gas transportation. The North American Electric Reliability1500Corporation indicated in its recent summer assessment that ``natural1501gas supply and infrastructure is vitally important to electric grid1502reliability, particularly as variable energy resources satisfy more of1503our energy needs.''1504    The INGAA membership is committed to transporting natural gas in a1505safe, reliable and environmentally responsible manner. Our industry has1506a long history of supporting Congress' enactment of bipartisan pipeline1507safety reauthorization measures, which help advance the safe operation1508and maintenance of critical energy infrastructure.1509    We applaud the Committee for employing such a strategy in the 118th1510Congress when it approved via voice vote H.R. 6494, the Pipeline1511Efficiency and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2023, which would have1512reauthorized for four years the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety1513Administration's (PHMSA) pipeline safety programs. Additionally, H.R.15146494, which contained the priorities of the interstate natural gas1515pipeline sector, would have provided an efficient and effective1516framework to advance the safety of energy infrastructure across the1517United States. As you begin your deliberations to draft, and ideally,1518enact a pipeline safety reauthorization measure, there are several1519points I would like to make on behalf of the natural gas transmission1520pipeline industry.15211. INGAA supports having a strong safety regulator1522    The U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA, other regulators and1523industry experts have for decades agreed that pipelines are the safest1524mode of natural gas transportation. According to PHMSA, these linear1525infrastructure networks transport large quantities of natural gas and1526petroleum products, with over 99.999% of all pipeline deliveries being1527made safely each year. Accidents are rare, and INGAA's members are1528committed to ca goal of zero pipeline incidents.1529    INGAA supports having a strong safety regulator and the robust,1530durable and consistent regulations led by PHMSA to ensure1531accountability of operators. We take our commitment to safety seriously1532and appreciate PHMSA's role in ensuring that the industry maintains its1533safety focus and that the public is confident in the safety and1534reliability of natural gas pipelines.1535    INGAA's members purchase top-quality materials, address potential1536safety or security issues during the pipeline planning and siting1537processes, and conduct consistent quality and safety checks throughout1538the construction process. Pipeline companies strive for zero accidents1539and incidents by evaluating, inspecting and maintaining pipelines. Our1540members evaluate and learn from information and data shared at joint1541industry meetings and as part of PHMSA and NTSB investigations to1542prevent similar events from occurring on individual systems.1543    As part of ongoing safety programs, pipeline companies conduct1544integrity management and continuous improvement programs in the areas1545of evaluation, inspection and maintenance. A critical component of1546integrity management programs is the use of inline inspection tools,1547which are often referred to as smart pigs. Operators run these tools to1548detect potentially harmful defects in pipelines. Over the last 301549years, modern methods of pipe inspection have improved greatly and1550become more effective, efficient and environmentally sound compared to1551other assessment methods, with the added benefit of nominally1552interrupting pipeline operations.1553    For example, BHE GT&S was an early user of inline inspection tools1554to identify anomalies. We recognize this is the most efficient and1555accurate method to identify, evaluate and track possible system1556anomalies and collaborate with service providers to expand the use of1557inline inspection technology on our pipelines that are more difficult1558to assess. BHE GT&S also was an early user of inline inspection1559technologies and processes for storage wells to help ensure storage1560integrity. BHE GT&S reviews in detail near misses, accidents and1561incidents to identify causal factors, learn from them and implement1562measures to prevent reoccurrence. BHE GT&S uses information and data1563shared at joint industry meetings and as part of PHMSA and NTSB1564investigations to evaluate our pipeline system, procedures, training1565and design and implement improvements to prevent a similar event from1566occurring on our system. We also work with external agencies to conduct1567emergency simulations to evaluate how we can work together to minimize1568any potential impact to the public.1569    INGAA's commitment to safety has been an essential priority for1570years. After the unfortunate and tragic incident in San Bruno,1571California, in 2010, INGAA's member companies have proactively worked1572to improve the industry's safety performance. This effort resulted in1573the formation of the Integrity Management, Continuous Improvement, or1574IMCI, program. The program is anchored by a goal of zero pipeline1575incidents, and since its inception, the pipeline industry has made1576rapid advances in safety technology and practices in pursuit of1577achieving this goal. The program was recently updated to include input1578from PHMSA, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National1579Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National1580Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, and the Pipeline Safety1581Trust. The program follows five guiding principles:1582    1.  Our goal is zero incidents;1583    2.  We are committed to a strong safety culture;1584    3.  We will be relentless in our pursuit of improving by learning;1585    4.  We are committed to implementing and continuously improving1586pipeline safety management systems; and1587    5.  We will regularly engage our stakeholders.15881589    INGAA's work on the updated IMCI program--IMCI 2.0--and the related1590results were shared with key stakeholders.15912. PHMSA should promulgate the Class Location Rule1592    INGAA's top regulatory priority with PHMSA is completion of the1593Class Location rule, which presents opportunities to improve safety,1594protect the environment, and possibly increase capacity of existing1595infrastructure that has been downrated due to a class change. Class1596location change regulations have not been substantially updated in more1597than 50 years. Revising them has been an INGAA goal for more than two1598decades. We were pleased when PHMSA issued a Notice of Proposed1599Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Class Location Rule in October 2020. Operators1600appreciated that Congress included a provision in the enacted 20201601Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES)1602Act requiring the agency to convene a meeting of the Gas Pipeline1603Advisory Committee (GPAC) comprised of industry, government and public1604stakeholders to provide policy recommendations and review the NPRM by1605the end of 2021.1606    This proposed rulemaking would address scenarios where population1607changes around pipelines necessitate changes to existing pipeline1608infrastructure. When a class location change occurs, current1609regulations may require operators to replace existing pipe. This can be1610required even when an engineering assessment using modern inspection1611tools ensures the pipeline segment can continue to safely operate at1612the same historical maximum allowable operating pressure. Advancements1613in inline inspection tools and other safety technologies help enhance1614company decisions to make repairs and, in most cases, eliminate the1615need for disruptive pipe replacements.1616    Existing regulations require unnecessary pipe replacements due to1617class changes. When PHMSA requires operators to replace pipes,1618operators must ensure gas is absent from the pipeline segments to be1619replaced, which results in service disruptions and released emissions.1620When operators are forced to replace pipe that can continue to operate1621safely at its historical maximum allowable operation pressure, the1622public and landowners also are affected because of the excavation and1623land impact associated with replacing pipe. INGAA estimates that1624existing requirements to unnecessarily replace perfectly safe pipe cost1625its members $200-$300 million per year. These funds could be better1626allocated to address other aspects of our safety systems.1627    INGAA also estimates that class change pipe replacements under the1628current regulations result in up to 800 million standard cubic feet of1629natural gas blowdowns to the atmosphere annually which equals the1630amount of gas that could meet the needs of more than 10,000 homes. The1631optimal way for the pipeline industry to reduce methane emissions is to1632decrease the number of blowdowns or voluntary gas releases. Finalizing1633the rulemaking would lower methane emissions by eliminating preventable1634releases.1635    In place of a class location pipeline replacement change, INGAA1636members have submitted special permit applications to demonstrate their1637pipelines can continue to operate safely at their same historical1638maximum allowable operating pressures. However, these applications take1639a long time to approve, are inconsistent in their requirements, and are1640burdensome to the pipeline sector and PHMSA. Problems include the1641regularity of the changing process and the fact that it can take up to1642three years to approve a single permit. Finalizing the class location1643rule can improve safety by requiring the appropriate assessments for a1644miles long pipeline segment, from launcher to receiver, as opposed to1645the replacement of a small section of pipe that could range 100 to 10001646feet, meeting current class location replacement requirements to1647maintain the existing maximum allowable operating pressure. It can also1648provide regulatory certainty and consistency for industry stakeholders1649and the regulator because it would allow modern technological tools to1650inspect pipeline infrastructure in lieu of outdated methods.1651    PHMSA held a class location GPAC meeting last March. At the GPAC1652meeting, interstate natural gas pipeline industry members recommended1653an improved method of using a risk-based application to determine1654class. This new method expanded the scope of the final rule beyond that1655of the proposed rule to address broader class location concerns and1656ensure risk is properly identified on pipeline systems. As a result of1657this proposal, the Committee overwhelmingly voted to hold a second1658advisory committee meeting in March 2025.1659    INGAA is hopeful that PHMSA will publish a final rule before year-1660end 2026 to improve safety and meet the collective goal of the industry1661and the public to lower GHG emissions. INGAA strongly supports the1662Committee's mandate for PHMSA to complete this rulemaking within 901663days after the enactment date of H.R. 6494.16643. Gas Transmission Rule Part 1 (RIN 1) record keeping issue1665    In Section 23 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job1666Creation Act of 2011, Congress required PHMSA to `` . . . issue1667regulations for conducting tests to confirm the material strength of1668previously untested natural gas transmission pipelines . . . '' PHMSA1669completed this congressional mandate October 1, 2019, issuing the gas1670transmission rule part 1 (RIN 1). This rule governs testing and record1671keeping requirements for the maximum allowable operating pressure1672(MAOP), which determines the amount of natural gas that can move safely1673through a pipeline. Since the 1950s and even earlier before testing and1674record keeping requirements were required by federal code in 1970,1675operators have regularly conducted these tests to ensure a pipeline is1676safe prior to entering service.1677    While INGAA supported PHMSA promulgating its RIN 1 regulation, the1678agency made drafting errors related to the MAOP record keeping1679requirements that would result in the natural gas pipeline transmission1680industry needlessly retesting about 50,000 miles of previously pre-19701681tested pipelines if modern-day record keeping standards are not met.1682Changes to the regulation to state that only previously untested1683pipelines are required to be tested are critical. In 2022, PHMSA1684published a regulatory interpretation letter on this subject,1685illustrating the problematic regulatory text and could be enforced by1686state regulators. In response, PHMSA created a formal working group and1687met several times in 2024 with INGAA and the Pipeline Safety Trust, a1688public safety stakeholder, to craft a regulatory solution.1689    Without a durable regulatory fix, INGAA members would be forced to1690retest previously tested pipelines with no added safety benefit and1691causing disruptions to communities and unnecessarily venting of gas.1692This would cost operators billions of dollars which could be better1693deployed advancing actual safety measures. The interstate gas pipeline1694sector continues to advocate for this regulation to be clarified and1695resolved through legally durable regulatory changes in 2025 to provide1696pipeline operators certainty on required pipeline work to satisfy the1697July 2028 regulatory requirement.1698    INGAA commends the Committee statutorily address this issue by1699including a provision in the PIPES Act of 2023 to temporarily prohibit1700PHMSA from requiring operators to retest previously tested pipelines1701with documented records showing a sufficient minimum pressure until a1702working group report and rulemaking proceeding is completed.17034. Enforcement reform1704    PHMSA has five regional offices where its inspectors audit pipeline1705operators and issue enforcement actions based on their findings. In1706recent years, PHMSA has promulgated several significant rules affecting1707the gas transmission sector and resulting in substantial changes to the1708code. During the prior administration, PHMSA began inspecting and1709enforcing these new regulations. Under existing PHMSA enforcement1710processes, each regional office acts mostly autonomously with little1711oversight from the agency headquarters. This process produces multiple1712problematic enforcement cases that have substantial impacts. A single1713improperly written enforcement action has the potential to compel1714operators to make costly changes completely outside of the rulemaking1715process. An incorrect interpretation of the code requirement can be1716referenced in subsequent enforcement cases as justification for the1717enforcement case to proceed, and an operator could be incorrectly1718identified as being out of compliance with the regulation.1719    The agency's inspectors are uninvolved in the rulemaking process1720and often are unaware of the background to understand regulatory1721intent. Inspections that are typically scheduled to last a week or two1722regularly drag out for months. Furthermore, many inspectors employ1723creative interpretations of regulations to penalize operators when the1724action identified has no measurable safety impact. Several pipeline1725operators have challenged these enforcement actions via litigation,1726which is costly and time consuming for both the industry and PHMSA.1727    INGAA requests PHMSA reform its enforcement processes.1728Specifically, interstate operators continue to advocate for requiring1729the agency's senior career leadership in the offices of field1730operations and policy and programs to review all draft enforcement1731actions to ensure consistent application and interpretation of the1732regulation, the application of the regulation meets the original intent1733of the regulation, set time limited audits, and mandate that all1734enforcement actions be directly tied to risk-based safety threats.17355. Improve PHMSA application approval process1736    PHMSA is required to review applications from pipeline operators in1737several key areas. These requests stem from aspects of federal1738regulations where the code allows operators to utilize different1739methodology than what is prescribed, broader notification requirements1740and allowing exceptions to the code in certain circumstances.1741    For all these different scenarios, PHMSA has increasingly delayed1742responses, periodically disregarded statutory deadlines to provide1743adequate responses or modified requirements for similar activities over1744the years. In some instances, applications can take years for PHMSA to1745respond. Pipeline operators file these requests typically due to major1746reliability, financial or safety implications, and often conduct1747engineering-critical assessments to calculate the remaining strength of1748a pipeline based on known inputs such as threats, loadings, operational1749circumstances, mechanical and fracture material properties, and1750degradation processes, giving operators the information needed to1751understand the health of their assets. Delayed responses to these1752applications can have substantial impacts on pipeline operators.1753    INGAA encourages PHMSA to create uniform processes for all1754applications with quicker approval times by year-end 2025.17556. Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC) reform1756    GPAC is an advisory committee to the Department of Transportation1757and PHMSA on matters of natural gas pipeline safety and regulatory1758oversight. GPAC is comprised of 15 members, with equal representation1759from the natural gas industry, federal and state agencies, and the1760public (such as safety advocates and emergency managers). GPAC's stated1761role is to review PHMSA's proposed regulatory initiatives to ensure the1762technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness and1763practicability of each proposal. PHMSA is not bound by GPAC1764recommendations but must include rationale related to disagreements1765with GPAC's recommendations in the preamble text of final rules. These1766processes are required by statute.1767    GPAC plays an important role in completing INGAA's objective to1768enhance gas pipeline safety regulations. The time needed to complete a1769rulemaking is partially affected by the quantity and quality of1770dialogue with impacted stakeholders, which is especially important when1771rulemakings are complex and technical, including initiatives relating1772to pipeline safety regulation. New rules should leverage stakeholder1773knowledge and expertise to facilitate the deployment of new1774technologies and practices that are more effective and efficient and1775less disruptive than legacy methods that may be reflected in existing1776regulations.1777    Historically, GPAC met regularly to consider important rules and1778discuss important safety advancements. Since January 2021, GPAC has1779only convened three times. The 2022-2024 GPAC Charter states that GPAC1780meets approximately 4 times each year. It also states that GPAC members1781are to be appointed based on their experience in the safety regulation1782of the transportation of gas and pipeline facilities or must be1783technically qualified to evaluate gas pipeline safety standards or1784risk-management principles by their training, experience or knowledge1785in one or more fields of engineering that are applicable to the1786transportation of gas or operation of a gas pipeline facility. With the1787known benefits of GPAC, INGAA believes that Congress should consider1788requiring PHMSA to hold at least two GPAC meetings annually and ensure1789GPAC members are experienced in safety regulations of gas pipelines and1790pipeline facilities or be technically qualified, meeting the 2022-20241791charter requirement.1792    PHMSA has disagreed with unanimous GPAC recommendations to several1793important final rules without providing a technical basis on why it1794disagreed with the recommendations. While INGAA does not challenge1795PHMSA's independence to render decisions, we believe Congress can1796strengthen transparency by receiving reports from PHMSA on their1797rationale and conclusions when issuing final rules. INGAA appreciated1798this Committee's inclusion of a provision accomplishing this goal in1799H.R. 6494.18007. Voluntary information sharing system1801    Industry recognizes the importance of data sharing and proactively1802attempts to participate in industry organizations to share lessons1803learned; however, there are many roadblocks to effectively sharing1804lessons learned across the broader industry. INGAA supports the1805bipartisan bill passed by this Committee in the 118th Congress for the1806voluntary information sharing system. Industry requires the proper1807protections to share a detailed analyses of the cause or causes of a1808pipeline failure, abnormal operating conditions or near miss incident1809that could then be understood by other operators to effectively develop1810a remedial action plan to address causal factors.18111812                               Conclusion18131814    To fulfill America's energy, economic, security and environmental1815goals and continue to improve pipeline safety, INGAA stands ready to1816work in a bipartisan manner. We are prepared to enact durable pipeline1817safety reforms that enable safe operations of our infrastructure to1818maintain the reliable delivery of natural gas.1819    In conclusion, your efforts are vital to ensure PHMSA has the1820resources and direction to continually improve safety in our industry.1821I truly appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of the1822Subcommittee today and look forward to your questions.18231824    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.1825    Mr. Paris, you are recognized for 5 minutes.18261827     TESTIMONY OF EMANUEL A. PARIS IV, VICE PRESIDENT, ALEX1828      E. PARIS CONTRACTING CO., INC., ON BEHALF OF THE DIS-1829      TRIBUTION   CONTRACTORS  ASSOCIATION  AND  THE  PENN-1830      SYLVANIA UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION18311832    Mr. Paris. Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, Ranking1833Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for1834the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss1835effective ways to improve pipeline safety and efficient1836pipeline infrastructure.1837    I am Emanuel Paris, vice president of Alex E. Paris1838Contracting Company. We are located out of Atlasburg,1839Pennsylvania, and our company was established in 1928. We1840perform a variety of construction services, including1841installation of large and small diameter piping, cross-country1842pipeline, utility construction, and a variety of civil and1843commercial projects. I am here today representing the1844Distribution Contractors Association and the Pennsylvania1845Utility Contractors Association.1846    DCA is a national association representing the entities who1847provide construction services needed for installation,1848replacement, and rehabilitation of natural gas distribution1849systems as well as transmission pipelines and communities1850across our country. PUCA is one of the largest statewide1851utility construction associations in the country, serving1852excavation contractors in multiple underground facility1853markets. Because the vast majority of pipeline construction is1854contracted out to members of our industry, we appreciate this1855opportunity.1856    While there are many facets to pipeline safety, our1857industry remains especially concerned with the enduring problem1858of damage to underground facilities during excavation. For the1859most part, contractors, operators, and leaders in damage1860prevention like the Common Ground Alliance have long supported1861the concept of sharing responsibility and damage prevention.1862Ensuring for accurate and timely locating and marking of1863underground facilities is fundamental to this process, and they1864are gaining attention.1865    According to the Common Ground Alliance's 2023 Damage1866Information Reporting Tool, excavators face about 50/50 odds of1867being able to legally start work on time due to utilities not1868providing timely locates. This obviously undermines the 8111869process. According to CGA, failure to locate underground1870facilities accurately and on time was the root cause of 341871percent of facility damages in 2023. Records of underground1872utilities can be outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete, and are1873sometimes unavailable to damage prevention stakeholders like1874designers, locators, and excavators such as ourselves.1875    This committee's pipeline safety reauthorization bill1876considered in the last Congress addressed these challenges by1877proposing improvements to State damage prevention programs.1878    Specifically, we believe State pipeline safety authorities1879should support and encourage adoption of leading practices to1880improve their programs. We believe State damage prevention1881authorities should be setting policies to reduce exemptions in1882the damage prevention process; require marking of all1883underground lines and laterals, including sewer lines and1884laterals; encourage robust training for locate professionals;1885and to promote and encourage the use of state-of-the-art1886technologies to locate underground facilities.1887    Exemptions to the One Call or 811 process have been a thorn1888in the side of damage prevention since One Call laws were1889established. Exemptions for specific stakeholders or certain1890types of infrastructure do nothing but compromise the damage1891prevention process. While it was generally agreed to that1892exemptions to One Call participation are bad for damage1893prevention, it is important to clarify that participation means1894that all excavators notify their 811 center prior to1895excavation, and that all underground facility owners belong to1896their respective 811 center and respond to locate requests.1897    I want to move to the need for improved mapping of1898underground facilities, and specifically the need to move1899toward geographic information systems, or GIS mapping. GIS can1900create, analyze, and map different layers of data by creating1901maps and scenes related to underground facilities, and allows1902for layering of data tied to geographic points, rather than1903restricting the user to limited features on a static map. The1904goal of moving toward superior GIS mapping is shared by1905industries outside of the excavation construction industry.1906Support of these damage prevention provisions, especially1907related to GIS mapping, was shared by other national1908associations and organizations representing all of us.1909    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 provided1910an unprecedented $550 billion in new investments in American1911infrastructure, and a significant portion of those dollars will1912go toward improvements to underground systems. That means that1913there will be an unprecedented amount of underground utility1914work coming forward.1915    Our members also support provisions that would hold those1916who physically attack pipeline infrastructure more accountable.1917While most agree on the right to peaceful activism, including1918peaceful protests to pipeline construction projects, stiffer1919penalties are needed to hold those who engage in criminal1920activities during protests more accountable. It is important to1921include pipeline facilities under construction within the scope1922of this provision, and the excavation community would argue1923that while interfering or tampering with the operation of1924pipeline would clearly compromise pipeline safety, vandalism1925and destruction of nearby equipment used to build a pipeline1926can be just as dangerous.1927    The excavation construction industry looks forward to1928working with all of you on advancing pipeline safety1929reauthorization legislation to include language to improve1930State pipeline safety programs through promotion of several1931leading practices. I would like to thank you again for the1932opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward to1933answering any questions that you have.1934    [Mr. Paris' prepared statement follows:]19351936Prepared Statement of Emanuel A. Paris IV,  Vice President,  Alex E. Paris1937 Contracting Co., Inc., on behalf of the Distribution Contractors Associa-1938 tion and the Pennsylvania Utility Contractors Association19391940                              Introduction19411942    Chairman Webster, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the1943subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and1944testify this morning. I am Emanuel Paris, vice president of Alex E.1945Paris Contracting Company, located in Atlasburg, Pennsylvania. Our1946company was established in 1928, performing a variety of construction1947projects including both large and small diameter pipeline installation,1948cross country pipeline, utility line construction and a variety of1949civil and commercial projects.1950    I'm here today representing the Distribution Contractors1951Association (DCA) and the Pennsylvania Utility Contractors Association1952(PUCA). DCA is a national association representing contractors,1953suppliers and manufacturers who provide distribution construction1954services including installation, replacement and rehabilitation of1955natural gas distribution systems as well as gas transmission pipelines1956in communities across the country. PUCA is one of the largest state-1957wide utility construction associations in the country, serving1958excavation contractors in a range of underground facility markets.1959    The excavation construction industry has a vested interest in1960legislation that would reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials1961Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the nation's pipeline safety program.1962In the 118th Congress, two bills were introduced and passed through1963their respective committees in the House, but failed to advance to a1964floor vote in the House. Our hope is to help advance a new pipeline1965safety bill in the 119th Congress that includes bipartisan language1966intended to improve state pipeline safety programs and ensure the1967safety of both pipeline operators and contractors when protesting1968activities are conducted near pipeline infrastructure and related1969equipment located on pipeline projects.19701971               Avoiding Pipeline Damage During Excavation19721973    While there are many facets to pipeline safety, our industry is1974especially concerned with the enduring problem of damage to underground1975facilities during excavation activity. Organizations like ours and1976leading damage prevention organizations like the Common Ground Alliance1977(CGA) have long supported the concept of sharing responsibility in1978damage prevention. A fundamental responsibility included in this1979process is ensuring for accurate and timely locating and marking of1980subsurface facilities prior to excavation. We believe the next pipeline1981safety reauthorization bill should include language that would take1982steps toward improved pipeline mapping, underground facility locating,1983and ensuring all relevant stakeholders are required to participate in1984the 811 process and meet their respective responsibilities.1985    Problems associated with unmarked or mismarked facilities, or1986facilities not marked on time in accordance with state law, are gaining1987attention. According to the Common Ground Alliance's 2023 Damage1988Information Reporting Tool (DIRT) Report, excavators face essentially198950-50 odds of being able to legally start work on time due to utilities1990not providing timely locates--undermining confidence in the 811 system.1991    Moreover, according to CGA, failure to locate underground1992facilities accurately and on time was the root cause attributed to 34%1993of damages to underground utilities in 2023. Records of underground1994utilities are often inaccurate or incomplete and are largely1995unavailable to damage prevention stakeholders like designers, locators,1996and excavators. Improving damage prevention mapping technology and1997accessibility to damage prevention stakeholders has strong potential to1998reduce damages and increase the efficiency of the excavation process.1999    Excavation contractors put safety first, and preventing damages to2000underground facilities during excavation activity is fundamental in2001their work. To that end, we support policy that reflects shared2002responsibility among all stakeholders and promotes four principal2003``pillars'' of the damage prevention process:2004    1)  full participation in the 811 process, including membership of2005all owners/operators of underground facilities to the state 811 center;2006    2)  accurate and timely locating of underground facilities;2007    3)  visually identifying (``potholing'') of underground facilities;2008and2009    4)  full and balanced enforcement of state damage prevention law.20102011    While these fundamental responsibilities in damage prevention are2012evident, strong enforcement must be administered in a balanced and2013equitable manner. Locating and accurate marking responsibilities2014subject to facility operators should be held in the same regard as one-2015call notification and safe digging practices subject to excavators.2016    This committee's pipeline safety reauthorization bill considered in2017the last congress addressed challenges to the damage prevention process2018by proposing improvements to state damage prevention programs.2019    Specifically, we believe state pipeline safety authorities should2020support and encourage adoption of leading practices to improve their2021damage prevention programs. These leading practices include:2022      Examining and limiting exemptions to the damage2023prevention process, including municipal exemptions;2024      Requiring a ``positive response'' from the facility owner2025prior to excavation to ensure that underground facilities are marked,2026or that the excavation area is clear of any underground facilities;2027      Requiring marking of all lines and laterals, including2028sewer lines and laterals;2029      Encouraging training for locate professionals; and2030      Encouraging the use of state-of-the-art technologies to2031locate underground facilities, especially geographic information2032systems (GIS), which offer the most detailed and prolific pipeline2033mapping available.20342035    For the most part, stakeholders involved the excavation industry2036agree that these leading practices will undoubtably improve the damage2037prevention process in many states across the nation.2038    While ensuring for safe excavation is paramount, breakdowns in the2039damage prevention process also result in significant financial loss.2040According to a 2021 study sponsored by the Infrastructure Protection2041Coalition (IPC) entitled ``811 Emergency,'' failures in the 811 system2042are costing $61 billion a year in waste and excess costs and creating2043unnecessary hazards for public safety, particularly in states where the2044implementation and accountability are most lax.2045    The IPC report includes an in-depth examination of its operations2046in every state, and shows that these costs and the increased risk to2047public safety could be substantially reduced if states adopted more2048effective practices and procedures already in use in other parts of the2049country. The provisions described above are consistent with the2050findings of the IPC report.20512052                              GIS Mapping20532054    Optimal damage prevention begins early in the planning and design2055stages of a pipeline project. Understanding the risk and developing2056designs that mitigate risk is best achieved using industry-driven2057standards and utility engineering best practices. Providing excavators2058with well-contrived designs that avoid or mitigate utility conflicts2059along with standardized digital data on utility infrastructure enables2060better construction planning and execution by leveraging virtual design2061and construction technologies that eliminate potential for damages.2062Moreover, these methods expedite construction, providing tremendous2063cost savings on projects. A fundamental need is to electronically2064document utilities properly and in a standardized fashion at the time2065of installation.2066    The last pipeline safety reauthorization bill enacted into law,2067commonly referred to as the ``PIPES Act of 2020,'' included language2068that would require operators of gas distribution pipelines to identify2069and manage traceable, reliable, and complete records, including maps2070and other drawings. Accurate mapping of underground utility2071infrastructure facilitates locating, and use of geographic information2072systems (GIS) is the most effective way to identify and document a wide2073range of data about the underground infrastructure in a given area.2074    GIS can create, manage, visualize, analyze, and map different2075layers of data by creating maps and scenes related to underground2076facilities. GIS connects data to a map, integrating location data with2077a range of limiting information regarding the subsurface facilities in2078that area, and it allows for layering of data tied to geographic2079points. Rather than restricting the user to limited features on a2080static map, GIS mapping allows for viewing customizable combinations of2081data layers in a single dynamic tool.2082    Ensuring the use of readily available GIS mapping technologies2083would be the most efficient way to identify and document the exact2084location of underground pipelines (as well as other subsurface2085infrastructure). This precise mapping system is an increasingly2086utilized to ensure for the accurate locating and marking of underground2087facilities.2088    The goal of moving toward superior GIS mapping of underground2089facilities is shared by industries outside of excavation construction2090industry. Several letters in support of GIS mapping put together by DCA2091and PUCA in the last congress were signed on and supported by other2092national associations and organizations representing engineers,2093equipment manufacturers and distributors, technology experts and labor2094unions. Providing incentives for state pipeline safety programs to2095encourage and even require use of GIS mapping is clearly supported by a2096growing number of stakeholders.2097    Attached for your consideration is an overview of the state of2098damage prevention and initiatives to improve underground facility2099mapping, including expanding access to GIS mapping technologies.2100    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 provided an2101unprecedented $550 billion in new investments in American2102infrastructure, and a significant portion of those dollars will go2103toward improvements to underground systems. This means an unprecedented2104amount of excavation activity coming our way. The provisions described2105above would take needed steps to encourage states to reduce exemptions2106to the 811 process, require locating employ state-of-the-art2107technologies, such as GIS mapping along with published standards for2108documenting utility infrastructure, which will only improve the damage2109prevention process.2110  Increased Penalties for Physical Attacks on Pipeline Infrastructure2111    Our members also support language that would hold those who engage2112in physical attacks on pipeline infrastructure accountable.2113Specifically, the House bills considered in the last congress would2114have established a criminal penalty of up to 10 years in prison for2115those who cause a defect to or disruption of a pipeline system.2116Importantly, the provision would include pipeline facilities under2117construction.2118    While most agree on the right to peaceful activism, including2119peaceful protests to existing and pending pipeline construction2120projects, we strongly support legislative language that would hold2121those who engage in criminal activities during protests more2122accountable.2123    Past proposals related to this problem would have revised existing2124criminal penalties for damaging or destroying a pipeline facility by2125specifying that vandalism, tampering or disrupting the operation of a2126pipeline facility would be punishable by criminal fines and2127imprisonment. Importantly, leading proposals included pipeline2128facilities under construction within their scope. While interfering or2129tampering with the operation of a pipeline would clearly compromise2130pipeline safety, vandalism and destruction of nearby equipment used to2131build a pipeline can be just as dangerous.2132    Several states have enacted laws intended to deter pipeline2133vandalism. Tampering with or vandalizing this critical infrastructure2134or nearby equipment used to build it can create serious safety risks to2135the public, pipeline employees and even the perpetrators. Additionally,2136acts of vandalism could result in devastating environmental impacts.2137Therefore, we encourage the committee to adopt language that would2138enact criminal penalties for criminal protesting activities, and these2139penalties would be subject to vandalism and destruction of both2140pipeline infrastructure as well as the equipment and materials needed2141to build it.2142    The excavation construction industry looks forward to working with2143all you on advancing pipeline safety reauthorization legislation to2144includes language to improve state pipeline safety programs through2145promotion of several leading practices to help avoid damages to2146underground facilities during excavation activities.2147    I'd like to again thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to2148speak with you today, and I look forward to answering any questions you2149have on these important issues.2150                               __________21512152                               Attachment21532154               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]21552156                OVERVIEW: The State of Damage Prevention21572158    Background: The Common Ground Alliance (CGA) is dedicated to2159preventing damage to underground utility infrastructure and protecting2160those who live and work near these important assets through the shared2161responsibility of our stakeholders. CGA is a member-driven association2162of nearly 4,000 damage prevention professionals committed to saving2163lives and preventing damage to North American underground2164infrastructure by promoting effective damage prevention practices of2165today and tomorrow. CGA is the preeminent source of damage prevention2166data and information to reduce damages to underground facilities in2167North America through shared responsibility among all stakeholders.2168    According to CGA's Damage Information Reporting Tool (DIRT) Report,2169the annual rate of damages to buried infrastructure in the U.S. has2170remained stagnant for most of the last decade and costs the U.S. a2171staggering $30 billion every year. Each of the hundreds of thousands of2172dig-ins to underground utilities that occur annually has the potential2173to cripple communities and businesses by cutting them off from critical2174services, causing injury or even loss of life.2175    Looking Ahead: The damage prevention industry is facing2176increasingly complex challenges, and we must encourage innovation and2177incentivize the development of damage prevention solutions for the2178future. To do this, CGA has elevated the work of its traditional2179programs (Best Practices, DIRT and 811 awareness and use) and launched2180three new efforts to expedite the industries' achievement of the next2181significant reduction in damages:2182      The Next Practices Initiative--Launched in 2020, the Next2183Practices Initiative's goal is to encourage innovation and new2184practices to address the most critical challenges facing the damage2185prevention industry. The Next Practices Advisory Committee uses2186industry data, quantitative surveys, and stakeholder input to clearly2187identify and focus the industry on the advancement of the most2188effective solutions to address critical damage prevention challenges.21892190      The Damage Prevention Institute (DPI)--Launched in2191January 2023, the DPI mission builds on the industry-leading insights2192of CGA's Next Practices Initiative by utilizing a stakeholder-centered2193approach to develop performance metrics that reflect a commitment to2194Best Practices and dedication to improving the reliability of the U.S.2195damage prevention system for everyone involved.21962197      The 50 in 5 Industry Challenge--Announced in 2023, this2198effort challenges stakeholders to reduce damages to critical2199underground utilities by 50% in five years by bringing damage2200prevention advocates together around a targeted set of strategic, data-2201driven priorities. This call to action encourages the damage prevention2202industry to concentrate on three focus areas that prioritize critical2203issues identified by CGA's Next Practices Initiative and the top damage2204root causes that contribute to more than 76% of damages to buried2205infrastructure (according to CGA's most recent DIRT Report):2206        Effective and Consistent Use of 8112207        Key Excavator Practices (potholing, maintaining2208clearance, etc.)2209        Accurate, Timely Utility Locating22102211    CGA recently introduced the CGA Index, a metric for evaluating2212year-over-year damage trends, to measure industry progress in reducing2213damage. The status of the CGA Index will be updated annually in2214conjunction with the release of the DIRT report.22152216                       CHALLENGE: The Mapping Gap22172218    In 2023, failure to locate accurately and on time was the root2219cause attributed to 34% of damages to underground utilities. CGA's2220Locator White Paper and the work of the Next Practices Initiative2221reveal that improving the accuracy of facility maps and implementing2222electronic white-lining would help locators complete their work more2223quickly and accurately.2224    Records of underground utilities are often inaccurate or incomplete2225and are largely unavailable to damage prevention stakeholders like2226designers, locators, and excavators. Bringing damage prevention mapping2227technology and accessibility to damage prevention stakeholders has the2228potential to reduce damages and increase the efficiency of the safe2229excavation process.2230    Additionally, excavators continue to emphasize the importance of2231greater access to mapping records. The results of a 2024 national2232survey of excavators conducted by CGA revealed that 89% of professional2233excavators believe that having access to utility maps would reduce2234excavation damage.22352236             OPPORTUNITY: Improved Facility Mapping Records22372238    Although there is still a gap in mapping record accuracy and2239availability, many stakeholders are implementing programs and2240initiatives to improve mapping records. Featured in CGA's Leadership in2241Mapping video series, Jerry Schmitz, VP of Safety & Online Quality for2242Southwest Gas, describes his company's commitment to using maps as the2243foundation for its asset management and damage prevention efforts.2244Consumer's Energy has recently implemented a program to map its own2245natural gas distribution pipelines in addition to sewer facilities in2246close proximity to those assets.2247    In California, Senate Bill 865 (SB 865), introduced and passed in22482020, takes the improvement of mapping records further by requiring2249that new installations be mapped using GIS. The legislation aims to2250enhance safe excavation practices in the state by requiring all new2251subsurface installations to be mapped using a GIS starting from January22521, 2023, except for specific oil and gas flowlines within oil fields.2253    Increased availability and accessibility of GPS-enabled locating2254devices is also providing the industry with greater opportunities to2255effectively map facilities. UtiliSource, a Missouri-based utility2256design, engineering and project management company, rolled out a2257program to record the location of all third-party locates throughout a2258fiber installation project. They will then be able to utilize this2259mapping record as they continue to do work in the same area improving2260future project efficiency.2261    Gopher State One Call's GPS-enabled locator program in Minnesota2262partners with locating technology providers to equip damage prevention2263stakeholders across the state with utility line locators integrated2264with RTK GNSS accuracy and GPS collection capabilities. This program2265has been particularly beneficial to small municipalities, for whom2266updating legacy paper maps can be prohibitively time-consuming and2267expensive.22682269      OPPORTUNITY: Expanding Access to Utility Mapping Information22702271Important Concepts and Terminology2272    It is not necessary to consolidate utility mapping data in a single2273location to enable visualization of mapping data to support damage2274prevention processes.2275    The term ``distributed GIS'' refers to geographic information2276systems that do not have all of the system components in the same2277physical location. In the context of this document, ``distributed GIS''2278refers specifically to the rendering (or display) of geospatial data2279for an end user without that user having access to the underlying data.2280    Current GIS technology allows geospatial data owners to publish2281their data through a ``Web Mapping Service'', or ``WMS''. Publishing a2282WMS is a means of displaying view-only map data over the internet.2283Publishing a WMS empowers a data owner to completely control their own2284data, including where the data is stored, how the data is rendered/2285displayed for end users, and who may view the data. A WMS can be2286configured to prohibit copying or downloading GIS data underlying an2287internet-based map.2288Creating GIS Mashups2289    In a distributed GIS, the term ``mashup'' refers to a web-based2290mapping application that combines mapping content from disparate2291sources (such as web mapping services). Mashups separate the underlying2292geospatial data from the presentation of the data.2293    GIS mashups that incorporate mapping content from multiple2294utilities--who maintain full control over their own data--present many2295opportunities to support the damage prevention process. For example, an2296811 center could create a mashup of member utility data. The 811 center2297could then provide a display of the mapping data for dig tickets. The2298display would be limited to the extent of the excavation area and would2299only be available for the life of the ticket. An example of a mashup2300created by an 811 center is presented in CGA's Next Practices Case2301Study--Minnesota Utilities Mapping Project. The case study clearly2302demonstrates the concepts described in this document. Additionally,2303Texas 811 has created a mashup to provide map renderings of select2304facility participants' abandoned lines. CGA is following several2305mapping pilot projects and industry efforts to document practical2306options, effective protocols, and successful practices.2307    Efforts such as these have the potential to increase locating2308efficiency, decrease over-notification practices utilized by both2309contractors and facility owner/operators, and help decrease overall 8112310request volume so locators' workloads are more manageable.2311Additionally, increasing access to facility map information during the2312planning and design phase of large projects will improve overall2313project and process efficiency.2314Documenting Industry Best Practices for Distributed GIS for Damage2315        Prevention2316    Effectively using distributed GIS for damage prevention will2317require identifying Best Practices to address issues that arise with2318increased sharing of mapping records such as the following:2319      Geospatial data accuracy2320      Map feature attribute data2321      Geospatial data projections and coordinate systems2322      Adoption of protocols for publishing web mapping services2323to support damage prevention processes while also protecting data2324owners' information security23252326    As the only trade association that brings together stakeholders2327from all facets of the damage prevention industry, CGA is uniquely2328situated to facilitate an industry-wide dialogue to identify and2329document Best Practices that are creating an environment in which2330distributed GIS can serve the damage prevention process. This includes2331consideration of the items outlined above, which would provide the2332guardrails needed to provide greater access to facility mapping2333information prior to and during excavation projects.2334Taking Demonstration to Deployment2335    An effective option to provide greater access to facility map2336visualization for planned excavation would require selecting a finite2337area where map information would be provided to end users. Currently,2338the most widely adopted process for providing facility location2339information is when excavators make a locate request through the 8112340process--this occurs over 41 million times per year. Through this2341process, 811 centers use facility owner/operator map information to2342identify utilities that may be affected during an excavation project.2343Those utilities are then notified to locate and mark their facilities2344during a specified period of time prior to the excavation project. This2345well-understood process can be applied more broadly to provide affected2346stakeholders with facility visualization prior to and during an2347excavation project. This would not replace locating and marking but2348would greatly enhance the entire 811 damage prevention process.2349    This document is not intended to outline all of the issues that2350must be addressed, but to serve as a starting point to establish a2351process that has the potential to significantly enhance the current 8112352process and focus the industry on taking damage prevention to the next2353level in order to keep our communities safe and connected to the2354utilities we depend on every day.23552356    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.2357    Mr. Caram, you are recognized for 5 minutes.23582359        TESTIMONY OF BILL CARAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,2360                   PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST23612362    Mr. Caram. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Webster, Ranking2363Member Titus, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the2364subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today on the2365vital subject of pipeline safety. My name is Bill Caram, and I2366am the executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust.2367    The Pipeline Safety Trust was founded after the 19992368Olympic pipeline tragedy in Bellingham, Washington, an entirely2369preventable failure, spilled gasoline into a beautiful salmon2370stream in the heart of our community which ignited and killed2371three boys. The U.S. Justice Department was so appalled at the2372operations of the pipeline company and the lax oversight from2373the Federal Government that they asked the courts to set aside2374money from the settlement to create the Pipeline Safety Trust2375as a national watchdog on the pipeline industry and its2376regulators.2377    I look forward to the day when I can tell you that there2378have been no fatalities since the last time I testified, but2379today is not that day. The last 2 years have been the deadliest23802-year period for pipelines in nearly 15 years, since the 2-2381year period that included the devastating PG&E pipeline2382explosion in San Bruno, California, widely considered a low2383point for pipeline safety. I warn you that my message is2384largely the same as my previous opportunities to testify before2385this subcommittee, and that is because the state of pipeline2386safety is largely the same. We continue to languish with2387consistent poor performance, with a significant incident almost2388every day, and 30 people killed over the last 2 years.2389    In December, the NTSB held a board meeting to discuss the23902023 UGI Utilities pipeline failure in West Reading,2391Pennsylvania, that killed 7 people and injured 11. The failed2392piece of pipeline infrastructure was made from Aldyl A plastic.2393PHMSA has known these Aldyl A components are prone to failure2394for decades.2395    The NTSB is also investigating an Enbridge pipeline failure2396that occurred in November in South Jordan, Utah, that killed a239715-year-old child. The preliminary report finds that the failed2398pipeline was also Aldyl A.2399    Atmos Energy, a large gas distribution pipeline operator in2400the Southeast, has had a string of deadly failures with2401troublingly common patterns. An NTSB investigation of a 20182402home explosion that took the life of a 12-year-old girl while2403she practiced her cheerleading routine, found that the failed2404pipeline was part of an undermaintained system full of leaks2405that had led to fires in neighboring homes in the preceding2406days. Neighbors had complained repeatedly about the smell of2407gas. Atmos didn't find any leaks they deemed to be hazardous2408before the home exploded.2409    Then, just last year in Jackson, Mississippi, a pipeline-2410fueled home explosion killed the 82-year-old wife of a2411community pastor. An NTSB preliminary report found that the2412failed pipeline was part of an undermaintained system full of2413leaks that led to another home explosion in the following days.2414Neighbors had complained repeatedly about the smell of gas.2415Atmos didn't find any leaks they deemed to be hazardous before2416the home exploded.2417    Again, if I am repeating myself, it is because operators2418are repeating their mistakes that kill people.2419    While everyone on today's panel supports the goal of zero2420incidents, unfortunately, we have a long way to go. I commend2421this subcommittee for working together on pipeline safety2422legislation over the last 2 years, and the bill this2423subcommittee passed has some good provisions. Increasing civil2424penalties is a step in the right direction. When we try to2425chart penalties levied on operators against their quarterly2426earnings, we often can't even visualize the penalty at such a2427tiny percentage of earnings. So giving PHMSA more enforcement2428authority, albeit small in this case, is moving in the right2429direction.2430    Additionally, increasing authorized resources to PHMSA and2431State programs is another move in the right direction. Not only2432has the agency been chronically underfunded, but the additional2433miles of jurisdictional pipe and the potential build-out of2434carbon dioxide and hydrogen pipelines demand an increase in2435resources from Congress. Thank you for answering that call.2436    However, given the continued lack of progress on pipeline2437safety, we need more. There are many provisions in this bill2438that won't contribute to safety progress. Additionally, there2439are commonsense, practical safety initiatives that would make a2440real impact on safety, such as fire shutoff valves. These2441devices can mitigate the damage caused by a house fire that2442could be made worse by the presence of gas service. The valve2443automatically closes when exposed to heat, preventing natural2444gas from adding literal fuel to the fire. These devices are2445inexpensive, require no ongoing maintenance, and can be easily2446installed on service lines.2447    As you discuss how to move forward on authorizing PHMSA's2448pipeline safety program and make improvements to the law, I2449implore you to think of the empty seats at dinner tables across2450the country because of pipeline failures. I have been with2451families who have lost loved ones recently. I have been with2452families who lost loved ones over 25 years ago. And I can tell2453you, the pain never goes away. Please give PHMSA the authority2454and the resources it needs to meet its responsibility to the2455American people. Thank you.2456    [Mr. Caram's prepared statement follows:]24572458 Prepared Statement of Bill Caram, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety2459                                 Trust24602461    Good morning, Committee Chair Graves, Subcommittee Chair Webster,2462Committee Ranking Member Larsen, Subcommittee Ranking Member Titus, and2463members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today2464on the vital subject of pipeline safety. My name is Bill Caram, and I2465am the Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Trust.2466    The Pipeline Safety Trust was created after the Olympic Pipe Line2467tragedy in Bellingham, Washington in 1999. That entirely preventable2468failure spilled nearly a quarter-million gallons of gasoline into a2469beautiful salmon stream in the heart of our community which eventually2470ignited and killed three boys. The U.S. Justice Department was so2471appalled at the operations of the pipeline company and equally appalled2472at the lax oversight from the federal government, that they asked the2473federal courts to set aside money from the settlement to create the2474Pipeline Safety Trust as an independent national watchdog organization2475over the pipeline industry and its regulators.2476    We work to ensure that no other community will endure the senseless2477grief that Bellingham experienced from a pipeline tragedy. Sadly, there2478have been many senseless pipeline tragedies and disasters since2479Bellingham. Sadly, there have been many since the last hearing before2480this subcommittee just nine months ago. I am here today, hoping that we2481can continue to work together to move towards our shared goal of zero2482incidents.24832484                        Recent Pipeline Failures24852486    I look forward to the day when I can speak before you to let you2487know that there were no fatalities since the last time I testified, but2488today is not that day. The last two years have been the deadliest two-2489year period for pipelines in nearly 15 years, since the two-year period2490that included the devastating PG&E pipeline explosion in San Bruno, CA2491that killed eight people and destroyed an entire neighborhood--a time2492that I think all on this panel would agree was a low point for pipeline2493safety. I warn you in advance that my message is largely the same as my2494previous opportunities to testify before this subcommittee. That's2495because the state of pipeline safety is largely the same. We continue2496to languish with consistent poor performance, with a significant2497incident almost every day and 30 people killed over the last two years.2498    In December, the NTSB held a Board meeting to discuss the 2023 UGI2499Utilities pipeline failure in West Reading, PA that resulted in an2500explosion that killed seven people and injured 11 \1\. Family members2501of some of the victims attended the meeting where the NTSB discussed2502the failed piece of pipeline infrastructure made from Aldyl A plastic.2503PHMSA has known these Aldyl A components are prone to failure for2504decades.2505---------------------------------------------------------------------------2506    \1\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/PLD23LR002.aspx2507---------------------------------------------------------------------------2508    The NTSB is also investigating an Enbridge pipeline failure that2509occurred in November 2024 in South Jordan, UT that killed a 15-year-old2510child. The preliminary report finds that the failed pipeline was also2511Aldyl A \2\.2512---------------------------------------------------------------------------2513    \2\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/PLD25FR001.aspx2514---------------------------------------------------------------------------2515    Atmos Energy, a large gas distribution pipeline operator in the2516Southeast has had a string of deadly failures with troublingly common2517patterns. In 2018, a deadly home explosion in Dallas, TX took the life2518of a 12-year-old child while she practiced her cheerleading routine. An2519NTSB investigation found that the failed pipeline was part of an under-2520maintained system full of leaks that had led to other fires in2521neighboring homes in the preceding days. Neighbors had complained2522repeatedly about the smell of gas. Atmos didn't find any leaks they2523deemed to be hazardous before the home exploded \3\.2524---------------------------------------------------------------------------2525    \3\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/PLD18FR002.aspx2526---------------------------------------------------------------------------2527    Then, just last year, in Jackson, MS, a pipeline fueled home2528explosion killed the 81-year-old wife of a community pastor. An NTSB2529preliminary report found that the failed pipeline was part of an under-2530maintained system full of leaks that led to another home explosion in2531the following days. Neighbors had complained repeatedly about the smell2532of gas. Atmos didn't find any leaks they deemed to be hazardous before2533the home exploded \4\. Again, if I'm repeating myself, it's because2534operators are repeating their mistakes that kill people.2535---------------------------------------------------------------------------2536    \4\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/PLD24FR003.aspx2537---------------------------------------------------------------------------2538    On the hazardous liquids side, we've seen two recent failures that2539have contaminated drinking water wells. An Energy Transfer pipeline in2540Pennsylvania was discovered to have been leaking jet fuel for at least254116 months, according to PHMSA, after many complaints about the taste2542and smell of residents' water. And In December, an Enterprise Products2543pipeline spilled 23,000 gallons of gasoline, contaminating nine2544drinking wells.2545    These are just several of the 534 significant pipeline incidents2546that have happened in the last two years.25472548 5 Year Anniversary of the Denbury Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Failure in2549                              Satartia, MS25502551    I want to take a moment to acknowledge the five-year anniversary of2552the harrowing carbon dioxide pipeline failure in Satartia, MS. As of2553this past Saturday, five years have passed since nearly 50 people went2554to the hospital experiencing seizures, loss of consciousness, foaming2555at the mouth, and many other terrifying effects of carbon dioxide2556exposure \5\. Denbury's failure in Satartia laid bare many glaring2557regulatory shortfalls that have been clearly identified, but five years2558later we haven't modernized the regulations. It took over 12 years for2559PHMSA to modernize regulations with lessons learned from PG&E's2560devastation in San Bruno. I hope it doesn't take nearly as long for2561PHMSA to modernize carbon dioxide pipeline safety regulations with2562lessons learned from Denbury's disaster in Satartia.2563---------------------------------------------------------------------------2564    \5\ https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2022-05/2565Failure%20Investigation2566%20Report%20-%20Denbury%20Gulf%20Coast%20Pipeline.pdf2567---------------------------------------------------------------------------2568                           PIPES Act of 202325692570    While everyone on today's panel supports the goal of zero2571incidents, unfortunately, we have a long way to go. I commend this2572subcommittee for working on pipeline safety legislation over the last2573two years. The bill this subcommittee passed has some good provisions.2574    Increasing civil penalties is a step in the right direction. With2575few exceptions, civil penalties are not financially meaningful to2576operators. When we try to chart penalties levied on operators because2577of fatal pipeline failures against their quarterly earnings, we often2578can't even visualize the penalty, it's such a tiny percentage of2579earnings. Giving PHMSA more enforcement authority, albeit small in this2580case, is moving in the right direction.2581    The Voluntary Information Sharing system, authorized by the PIPES2582Act of 2023 has the potential to make a difference on pipeline safety.2583Especially if coupled with widespread adoption of Pipeline Safety2584Management Systems.2585    Additionally, increasing authorized resources to PHMSA is another2586move in the right direction. Not only has the agency been chronically2587underfunded, but the additional miles of jurisdictional pipe such as2588gas gathering pipelines and the Congressionally incentivized potential2589buildout of carbon dioxide and hydrogen pipelines demand an increase in2590resources from Congress. Thank you for answering that call.2591    However, given the continued lack of progress on pipeline safety,2592we need more. There are many provisions in this bill that won't2593contribute to safety progress. Allowing for reduced storage tank2594inspection, for example, will help operators save money, but will not2595promote safety. Mitigating pipeline failures due to geohazards would be2596better served by mandating a rulemaking than a study. We have industry2597guidance and several studies that should be more than enough to inform2598a PHMSA rulemaking effort to close this gaping regulatory gap.2599    Pipeline Safety Management Systems have been developed over the2600last ten years. Lessons have been incorporated and updated. When2601implemented properly it leads to better safety outcomes. However2602widespread adoption still eludes the pipeline industry. Congress could2603make a meaningful difference in pipeline safety by directing PHMSA to2604take steps towards widespread industry adoption.2605    There are other commonsense, practical safety initiatives that2606could be incorporated that will make a real impact on safety. One such2607example is fire shutoff valves. These devices can mitigate the damage2608caused by a house fire that could be made worse by the presence of gas2609service. A valve is held open by a polymer with a low melting point,2610and when exposed to heat, the polymer melts and the valve automatically2611closes, preventing natural gas from adding literal fuel to the fire.2612These devices are inexpensive and can be easily installed on service2613lines.26142615                               Conclusion26162617    As you discuss how to move forward on authorizing PHMSA's pipeline2618safety program and make improvements to the law, I implore you to think2619of the empty seats at dinner tables across the country because of2620pipeline failures. I've been with families who have lost their loved2621ones recently and some who lost their loved ones 25 years ago. I can2622tell you; the pain never goes away. Please give PHMSA the authority and2623the resources it needs to meet its responsibility to the American2624people.2625    Thank you.2626                               __________26272628                                Appendix26292630 Fact Sheet: Requiring the Installation of Fire Shutoff Valves in Gas2631                         Distribution Pipelines26322633    The Problem: In the event of a fire in a structure that has natural2634gas service, gas distribution piping is often compromised and serves as2635fuel. This adds literal fuel to the fire and puts occupants and first2636responders at increased risk of injury and death. According to PHMSA,2637for this reason, it is necessary to quickly shut off the flow of gas to2638the structure.2639    Background: It may take considerable time to complete the shutoff2640of gas, including notification of first responders and the gas company,2641arrival of first responders and gas company at the scene, determining2642the appropriate method to shut off the gas, executing shut off, and2643release of the gas in the pipe between the shutoff location and the2644structure. Reviews of accident reports have shown that it is not2645unusual for this to take hours, prolonging the emergency. Use of2646automated shutoff valves can significantly reduce the time to shut off2647gas to the structure. One such device is a fire shutoff valve (FSV),2648also known as a thermal shutoff valve.2649    A typical FSV uses a spring-loaded plug held in place by a fusible2650link made of a low melting point alloy. When the fire shutoff valve is2651exposed to fire, the link melts and the spring closes the valve,2652shutting off the gas. FSVs are typically installed in the service line2653either before the regulator, before the meter, or after the meter.2654    FSVs are commercially available and have been used in gas service2655lines before the gas meter and in gas supplies to appliances.2656Currently, there are no federal regulations requiring their use in2657natural gas distribution systems. They are required in Massachusetts2658\6\ and have been used in Germany since the 1990s. The Pipeline Safety2659Trust supports the widespread use of these safety devices and advocates2660for federal regulations that would make their use mandatory.2661---------------------------------------------------------------------------2662    \6\ General Laws of Massachusetts Part 1, Title XXII, Chapter 164,2663Section 75 A2664---------------------------------------------------------------------------2665    Recommendation: Congress should require PHMSA to amend 49 CFR Part2666192(H) to require operators to install fire shutoff valves on all gas2667distribution service lines.26682669                      Suggested Statutory Language26702671Sec. __, Requiring Fire Shutoff Valves for Gas Distribution Service2672        Lines.--2673    (a) In general--Section 60110 of title 49, United States Code, is2674amended by inserting at the end:2675        1.  Definitions. As used in this section:2676            Fire shut off valves are spring-loaded plugs held in place2677        by a fusible link made of a low melting point alloy and2678        attached to a gas source. When the fire shutoff valve is2679        exposed to fire, the link melts and the spring closes the2680        valve, shutting off the gas.2681        2.  Not later than ___, the Secretary of Transportation shall2682        prescribe standards on the circumstances under which an2683        operator of a natural gas distribution system must install fire2684        shutoff valves in the system.2685        3.  If the Secretary decides, under subsection (2) of this2686        section that there are circumstances under which an operator2687        will not be required to install a fire shutoff valve on a2688        service line in a natural gas distribution system, the2689        Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the reasons for2690        the decision not later than 30 days after the decision is made.26912692    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. Okay, so now2693it is time for us to ask questions. If you are ready, we are2694ready.2695    I guess my first question is, basically, Mr. Caram and2696others mentioned the fact that things just didn't get done. I2697am wondering, the last 4 years has had no Administrator, nobody2698in charge. How does that affect the overall enforcement, no2699matter what kind of law we passed? Anybody want to tackle that?2700    Mr. Black.2701    Mr. Black. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LEPA applauds President2702Trump for nominating a PHMSA Administrator for Senate2703confirmation. It is important to have an Administrator to drive2704change within PHMSA, and PHMSA needs that change to improve the2705use of new technologies.2706    An Administrator can also help reassure the American public2707that comprehensive regulations govern pipeline safety, that2708PHMSA is on the case, and, like the modes of other2709transportation networks, can reassure the American public that2710this transportation system is safe.2711    Mr. Webster of Florida. Anyone else?2712    Mr. Paris.2713    Mr. Paris. So I think not having a confirmed Administrator2714shows that there are some--it gives an uncertain regulatory2715environment. And if there is a confirmed Administrator, it2716shows that the Government is serious about tackling these2717issues. So I think it is very important that we do so.2718    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Taylor.2719    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we would also2720support having that individual confirmed, but we also can2721support and make sure that we work with the current PHMSA2722administration and make sure that we continue to improve on2723safety, and we have been able to do so through the last2724administration.2725    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Caram.2726    Mr. Caram. Yes, my hope and expectation is that pipeline2727safety is a bipartisan issue that rises above politics. And I2728think we have seen that through all recent administrations,2729including the last Trump administration under Skip Elliott's2730leadership. And seeing two members of that team returning, and2731Paul Roberti and Ben Kochman, leads me to hope and expect that2732safety-forward leadership will continue.2733    Mr. Webster of Florida. Pipelines are the safest mode of2734transportation by far. We understand that. But are the safety2735rules, regulations, laws, and other things enough? Maybe just2736undirected by a--not having a leader? Or is there something2737else we should be doing? Anybody want to tackle that one?2738    Mr. Black. It's great that pipeline incidents are declining273912 percent overall and 12 percent on incidents impacting the2740pipeline environment, but our goal is zero incidents. Congress2741has a role in that through pipeline safety reauthorization. So2742does PHMSA. Technology is improving. Engineering analytics are2743improving. The way to improve pipeline safety further is to2744update PHMSA regulations to use this new technology and know-2745how through pipeline safety demonstration pilot programs and2746then updating of PHMSA's regulations.2747    Mr. Webster of Florida. Anyone else?2748    Mr. Taylor.2749    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I will build off2750of what Mr. Black just said.2751    We also agree with continuing to leverage new technologies.2752We are part of several different associations, organizations,2753one of them being Pipeline Research Council International,2754where funds are collected and developed to improve technology2755and figure out ways to leverage that new technology and2756incorporate it.2757    So sometimes PHMSA is not as quick to adopt those new2758technologies, and so we would be looking for PHMSA to find2759avenues to be able to do that if it is recommended practices,2760if it is new technologies, but trying to leverage those as2761quickly as we can just to improve pipeline safety.2762    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Paris.2763    Mr. Paris. I think first, a consideration is, what we are2764doing here today is getting all the stakeholders involved and2765talking about these things. I mean, it is important that we all2766understand. I don't understand what my colleagues here do every2767day, and I don't expect them to know what I do every day. So it2768is important for us to have these discussions.2769    Another point that they had made is this evolving2770technology. And for us, as excavators, the GIS mapping is what2771stands out to us the most. The technology is readily available,2772and we really feel that it would help our industry.2773    Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes. Well, there is--I know there2774have been advancements just in the last 10 years as far as what2775is underneath the earth. And it is a beautiful thing that can2776be done, beautiful technology. It works. Is that lacking?2777    Mr. Paris. In our industry we don't see it, yes. I mean, we2778are basically given a static, black-and-white map or a drawing2779that shows where utilities are, and half the time, they are not2780correct. So we don't see the GIS mapping involved in our2781industry yet.2782    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Caram.2783    Mr. Caram. Yes, I would just like to say that the goal is2784not to be the safest form of transportation of hazardous2785materials. The goal is zero incidents. And one way to make some2786meaningful movement towards that is the widespread adoption of2787safety management systems.2788    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.2789    Okay, Ms. Titus, you are recognized for questions.2790    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.2791    As I said, Nevada was the first State to have annual2792inspections and surveys of all the natural gas pipelines.2793Rather than every 5 years, we do it annually. It is a triple2794win. We find leaks earlier, which improves safety; we reduce2795greenhouse gases; and we create jobs. More people are surveying2796for these lines.2797    Mr. Caram, if we had a national standard, would you expect2798to see similar results in other States, and we could have these2799three goals accomplished nationwide?2800    Mr. Caram. Yes, absolutely. I agree, a good leak detection2801and repair program with good standards on leak detection2802technology has multiple benefits, many of which you listed.2803    Primarily, for us, the biggest benefit is better safety2804outcomes. We continue to have too many home explosions and too2805many people dying from these leaks on pipelines. And leak2806detection standards and strong repair criteria will make a2807difference on that, and so we are strong supporters of it.2808    Many States--or some States have adopted those, like2809Nevada, and that is wonderful to see. Some operators do go2810above and beyond and have those strict standards for2811themselves. But what we really need is what Congress asked2812PHMSA to do in 2020, and that is set a national standard, where2813we know that all operators are held to this standard of finding2814leaks on a regular basis and repairing those leaks promptly.2815    Ms. Titus. As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, there was2816knowledge of leaks in some of these accidents, but they just2817weren't fixed. How about the sanctions on companies that don't2818fix the leaks, even if they know about them? Would those be2819adequate in the last legislation that came out of this2820committee, or should we look at that?2821    Mr. Caram. I am sorry, could you repeat the question one2822more time?2823    Ms. Titus. Well, if you discover a leak but you don't fix2824it and it results in an accident, what are the consequences?2825    Mr. Caram. Sure. Yes, we have seen the consequences over2826and over, unfortunately, of home explosions and fatalities. Of2827course, not every leak----2828    Ms. Titus [interrupting]. I don't mean: What are the bad2829consequences for the environment? I mean: What are the2830consequences for the company that found the leak and didn't fix2831it?2832    Mr. Caram. Well, that is left up to the enforcement, to the2833investigation, whether it is an NTSB investigation and they2834find the root cause analysis, or if it is PHMSA or the State2835program that investigates. If the regulator finds that they2836were out of compliance and that they should have determined2837that it was a hazardous leak that they didn't repair, they2838could be held liable with enforcement.2839    But the regulations are not written very specifically as to2840how they should appropriately grade a leak and what they2841determine to be hazardous. And I think----2842    Ms. Titus [interrupting]. So it is not a----2843    Mr. Caram [continuing]. The draft PHMSA rule----2844    Ms. Titus [interrupting]. It is not a scale of fines, or2845penalties, or anything like that? It is just kind of ad hoc?2846    Mr. Caram. Yes, there is a standard as to fines that are2847charged when an operator is found out of compliance. It is just2848sometimes it is difficult to find an operator out of compliance2849when the regulations are not written very prescriptively as to2850how they should handle leaks.2851    Ms. Titus. And do you think the legislation that came out2852of this committee last time deals with that sufficiently?2853    Mr. Caram. Well, the PIPES Act of 2020 directed PHMSA to2854write rules on finding leaks and repairing any leak that could2855be deemed hazardous. And so we would expect PHMSA to interpret2856that rule to do exactly what we are talking about, be2857prescriptive about how to grade leaks and how to ensure that2858they are repaired promptly.2859    Ms. Titus. Well, without this standard in place, since the2860legislation didn't pass--you mentioned some companies do it2861themselves. I mean, they are good companies, they want to be2862safe themselves. Could you all address what does a company do?2863Does it take it on itself to have these annual leak2864inspections, that sort of thing? Brag about yourselves, and2865tell us what you are doing, even without this standard in2866place.2867    Mr. Black or Mr. Taylor.2868    Mr. Black. Pipeline operators regulated by PHMSA have2869requirements for fixed intervals for inspecting their pipes2870through smart pigs that collect--that travel through the pipe,2871and they develop a risk-based schedule. If there are features2872that need to be researched more frequently through more smart2873pigs, they will.2874    We are using advanced analytics right now with better2875predictive models to understand, if we find a sign of corrosion2876or cracking or something, when is the best time to--when do you2877need to go out there and address that before--and what are the2878true threats? Certainly believe about the importance of doing2879smart pigs through pipelines and assessing features on the2880schedule that they need to be before an issue can become a2881problem.2882    Ms. Titus. Mr. Taylor.2883    Mr. Taylor. Yes. For the natural gas industry and for the2884transmission side, we actually do more frequent patrols than2885what you are describing. So for Class 1 and 2 you will do once2886per year. But then in Class 3 and 4, our higher populated2887areas, it is more frequent than that. High-consequence areas2888you also have quarterly patrols. So you are again looking for2889those leaks that could be detrimental, could be hazardous, and2890making sure that you respond appropriately to address those.2891    So from a transmission side, we are out there more2892frequently than what you are describing.2893    Ms. Titus. Okay. Mr. Caram.2894    Mr. Caram. And I will just say that patrols are not the2895same as surveys and are not always done with leak detection2896technology. Many operators, of course, do, but they are not2897required in the regulations.2898    Ms. Titus. Thank you.2899    Thank you, Mr. Webster.2900    Mr. Webster of Florida. Mr. Larsen, do you have questions?2901    Mr. Larsen of Washington. I do.2902    Mr. Webster of Florida. Some say yes, some say no.2903    Mr. Larsen of Washington. [Inaudible.]2904    Mr. Webster of Florida. Sure, go ahead.2905    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Kind of going out of turn, and I2906appreciate that. For a variety of reasons, a lot going on2907today. But my first question is for Mr. Caram.2908    In the 2020 PIPES Act, Congress created a grant that the2909Pipeline Safety Trust receives to provide technical assistance2910to communities and individuals in support of pipeline safety.2911What does your organization do with those dollars?2912    Mr. Caram. Yes, this has been really critical funding for2913our organization, and we are grateful to Congress for2914authorizing it and to PHMSA for awarding it. We have spent the2915money on a number of ways to improve--to offer technical2916assistance to communities, and we really see that as a way to2917improve public engagement among the public, the pipeline2918industry, and the regulators.2919    One of the ways to improve public engagement and to offer2920technical assistance is to educate the public. So we have used2921grant money on a number of things, including a primer on2922pipelines that we call The Briefing Papers. It is a 15-page2923document that--or 15-part document, it is much longer than 152924pages--that includes information such as the basics of how2925pipelines work, how they are regulated, how to find information2926about pipelines through the National Pipeline Mapping System2927and the PHMSA database, and a lot of information about2928emergency response and spill response planning.2929    We have also produced guides that are stakeholder-specific,2930like a landowners guide to pipelines and local government guide2931to pipelines.2932    We also use the grant money for some of our staff time. We2933get a lot of calls from members of the public, a lot of them2934that live along rights-of-way that find us online. And they are2935often angry, frustrated, haven't gotten a lot of answers from2936anyone. And we maintain a good working relationship with PHMSA,2937with a lot of the State regulators, with the pipeline trade2938associations, and with a lot of individual operators, so we are2939often able to talk to these folks, find out why they are so2940frustrated, and connect them with the right people.2941    Mr. Larsen of Washington. How many staff do you have?2942    Mr. Caram. We have about 10 staff.2943    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Total? Yes.2944    Mr. Caram. Yes, and----2945    Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. All in Bellingham?2946    Mr. Caram. No, about half are in Bellingham and half are2947spread out. COVID showed us that we are able to work remotely.2948    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. So it has been over 20 years2949since much of the pipeline industry began implementing2950integrity management. Has integrity management improved2951pipeline safety compared to a more prescriptive regulatory2952approach in the view of PST?2953    Mr. Caram. Integrity management is a bit of a mixed bag.2954There are some areas you can look to that we have seen some2955improvement. I think the Distribution Integrity Management2956Program, also known as DIMP, while there is still lots of room2957for improvement, we can see some real progress there since DIMP2958has been implemented. Parts of transmission integrity2959management have proven to be effective. Using inline inspection2960tools to find corrosion has been successful.2961    But I will say the idea of integrity management puts the2962onus on the operator to identify all of the potential threats2963on their pipeline within these high-consequence areas and2964create a plan to mitigate against those threats and implement2965that plan. So we would expect that when we look at the2966significant incidents within those areas where they are2967required to have integrity management, that we would have lower2968rates of significant failures, significant incidents. And we2969actually see the opposite, that there are lower failures2970outside of those areas.2971    So I don't have a lot of answers as to why that is not2972working, but I know threat identification by operators is a2973problem, and we need to figure out what's not working and how2974to fix it.2975    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks, thanks.2976    Mr. Taylor, the EPA identified natural gas systems as a2977main source of methane emissions, and the PIPES Act of 20202978mandated that PHMSA finalize a rule on methane leak detection2979and repair programs, both for safety and to cut pollution,2980methane pollution. Did PHMSA's final rule from December reflect2981INGAA's input?2982    Mr. Taylor. Yes, it followed the GPAC recommendation, so2983generally it followed what we were recommending. We would like2984the opportunity to have it noticed and commented again, just--2985again, there were a couple of small things we would like to2986improve on. But ultimately, yes, it followed the GPAC2987recommendations.2988    Mr. Larsen of Washington. It generally did, okay. I am2989just--it is just--I get when administrations come in and they2990want to do things differently. It just seems like both on the2991methane leak and the other one I mentioned, on the CO22992pipelines, that we told PHMSA to do this, it was--these were2993nearly done, there was generally a lot of consensus. Like, this2994wasn't the fight to be had, but now we've got to do this all2995over again. So it sounds like we have to do it all over again.2996    Mr. Taylor. Yes.2997    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Am I right?2998    Mr. Taylor. Yes.2999    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Great. Thank you very much.3000    I will yield back.3001    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentleman yields back. Mr.3002LaMalfa, you are recognized.3003    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.3004    Panelists, thanks for joining us here today as we review3005pipeline issues, and really remember what a great job they do3006for us in this country of transporting so much energy product3007when you consider that there is over 1.5 million miles of3008pipelines and that they are the best alternative of moving3009energy and certainly the most efficient and the most3010ecologically sound.3011    I mean, when I hear people badmouthing pipelines, well,3012what's your alternative? Do you want to haul it all in trucks,3013or try and get ships close enough to port--ports that are still3014many miles from inland areas that need it? It is just a--it is3015kind of a--sometimes a fruitless argument here.3016    Of course, we need to improve pipeline safety, but I guess3017my questions would lead to the idea that, what are we doing to3018make that as expeditious as possible? So I want a couple3019thoughts from Mr. Black.3020    I have a figure here that says oil through pipelines is 133021times safer than alternate modes. And even an Obama-era3022administration had said that same conclusion. My home State of3023California, there is a lot being done in the name of the3024environment, and so I guess pipelines being so strong that way,3025it would seem we would have more going on with pipeline efforts3026in California. So do you think, Mr. Black, that California's3027reluctance or flat-out opposition for permitting new pipelines3028to move these products, is it based on a safety concern or is3029there something else happening there?3030    Mr. Black. Thank you, Congressman. As you mentioned, even3031the PHMSA report for Congress and the incident data shows that3032pipelines are the safest way to move the energy that Americans3033use. The study showed that it is 13 times more likely to have3034an incident on those other modes.3035    So the reason this fuel is moving on a pipeline or a train3036or a truck is because the Americans need it. So if the pipeline3037is stopped or is never able to enter the market, that fuel is3038moving on another mode which is less safe. So if we are making3039permitting decisions based just on safety, we should be adding3040pipelines.3041    Mr. LaMalfa. Where does the politics enter in, you think?3042    Yes, you don't want to touch that probably, as we know3043California is moving rapidly--or trying to rapidly move towards3044banning fuel-powered vehicles, and they have already been very3045anti-oil exploration on that order.3046    So what else? Let's see.3047    We do need permitting reform. What in the process--I know3048we had the PIPES Act in 2023 that took a leap at that, but what3049else could we be doing to reform PHMSA's process that is3050basically just holding up--you talk about technology a little3051bit on the panel. There are more things we could be doing to3052have a speedier process so we actually can implement this. And3053I am sure there are environmental concerns when you want to go3054out and dig up a pipeline and make repairs or improvements.3055What are some of the holdups, Mr. Black and Mr. Taylor?3056    Mr. Black. Well, PHMSA can reduce its bureaucratic redtape,3057and Congress can help you do that. There is a special permit3058program that Congress created because you can't do one-size-3059fits-all regulations for the entire pipeline network. Wide3060diameter, narrow diameter, high pressure, low pressure, large,3061small, different operating environments. But that special3062permit program which would allow a variance to the waivers in3063an equivalent way to improve safety is basically broken because3064PHMSA has been taking too long and applying unnecessary3065conditions.3066    In your bill that you reported in the December of 2023, you3067have reforms to the special permit process. Similarly, Congress3068can tell PHMSA: You need to update your repair criteria, your3069schedules to reflect the latest know-how in technologies and3070analytics. Let's use this MRI ultrasound-type technology that3071is in smart pigs, and update regulations. Let's use the3072engineering assessments that give us a more precise reading on3073where is an issue, a problem----3074    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Thank you.3075    Mr. Black [continuing]. And when it needs to be----3076    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Thank you, let me jump to----3077    Mr. Black [continuing]. Congress can help push that.3078    Mr. LaMalfa. Let me jump to Mr. Taylor for a moment on3079that, too.3080    What are the roadblocks? How do we fix them?3081    Mr. Taylor. Yes. From the 118th Congress, the Class3082Location Rule, that would be very beneficial if we could get3083that completed. That would free up additional potential energy3084from, as I mentioned during my oral testimony, having--where we3085have maybe reduced our MAOP, maximum allowable operating3086pressure, due to a class change, so allowing that flexibility.3087    The Technical Standards Committee, having GPAC meet more3088frequently.3089    The incorporation by reference, having more frequent review3090of those documents that are incorporated would allow the newer3091technologies, newer thought processes to be implemented much3092quicker and be implemented.3093    And then lastly, that voluntary information-sharing just3094would allow lessons learned to be more widely distributed and3095make sure that we can account for those----3096    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Can these be done by executive3097action or do we need to pass legislation? What do you run into?3098    And then I will stop, Mr. Chairman.3099    Quickly.3100    Mr. Black. If I can help.3101    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.3102    Mr. Black. The voluntary information-sharing needs action3103by Congress to create that safe space for collaboration, like3104the airline industry. We need Congress to act----3105    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Thank you.3106    Mr. Black [continuing]. And it is in your bill.3107    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.3108    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so I appreciate3109it. Indeed, in my home--for my California people that are3110watching, we are really seeing it isn't about the pipeline3111safety, it is about the politics of shutting down the use of3112this form of energy and not allowing pipelines or any other3113infrastructure.3114    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.3115    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentleman yields back.3116    Mrs. Foushee.3117    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,3118for holding this hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for3119being here with us today.3120    Mr. Caram, on August 14, 2020, two teenagers discovered a3121puddle of gasoline in the Oehler Nature Preserve near3122Huntersville, North Carolina. More than 4 years later, with3123over 2 million gallons spilled, it remains one of, if not the3124largest, gasoline spill on land in the United States, and3125cleanup is still in progress.3126    Just last month, there was another leak on this same3127pipeline in Paulding County, Georgia, that temporarily shut3128down the pipeline. Most alarmingly, the fire department was not3129aware of the leak until reporters called to ask about it.3130    What measures are in place to ensure that first responders3131and the public are aware of pipeline incidents?3132    And furthermore, how should pipeline operators engage with3133the public in the aftermath of these incidents, especially ones3134with potential public health concerns?3135    Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for the question. So that3136particular incident on the Colonial pipeline in Huntersville3137and a recent one on an energy transfer pipeline in Pennsylvania3138with jet fuel illustrate something that's really lacking in3139pipeline technology, and that's on leak detection.3140    The best leak detection system on a liquid pipeline can3141detect down to a 1-percent loss of throughput, and on a large3142pipeline like Colonial, that is a lot of product, and that is3143what we saw in Huntersville. And so a leak detection system3144won't necessarily pick up these small leaks that happen over3145time, and it often is the public that sees those.3146    Specifically to your question, PHMSA requires operators to3147develop an emergency response plan, and that gets inspected.3148Part of that plan requires the operator to notify first3149responders and the public in the event of a failure. Sometimes3150when a failure does happen, we learn that the emergency3151response plan was not appropriate or sufficient. Other times,3152an operator doesn't follow the procedures in their emergency3153response plans, and we end up with situations like that.3154    Mrs. Foushee. Mr. Taylor, I also serve on the Science,3155Space, and Technology Committee, and I am interested in how new3156technologies are monitoring for methane leaks from natural gas3157pipelines.3158    I know, for instance, that the Environmental Defense Fund3159recently launched a $90 million satellite to monitor both3160accidental and intentional methane gas releases. Did INGAA work3161with PHMSA on the final leak detection rules required by the31622020 PIPES Act, and do any of INGAA's companies use similar3163technology to monitor for leaks?3164    Mr. Taylor. So I know some INGAA companies are utilizing3165satellite technologies based off of the Leak Detection and3166Repair Rule as it was proposed and worked through the process.3167That wouldn't be sensitive enough for leak detection3168capabilities of what we were trying to achieve. So we are3169trying to utilize new technologies where we can, where there3170are more laser-based technologies that are applied to flights.3171    So it could be fixed-wing aircraft, it could be3172helicopters, but those are some additional technologies that3173are able to detect a more sensitive leak, so meaning3174sensitive--detecting a much smaller leak along the pipeline3175right-of-way. But satellites today are not able to achieve that3176sensitivity.3177    So it would be a very large leak. So like you mentioned,3178maybe it is a--where you intended to vent a lot of gas for3179whatever reason. If you were doing work, or if there was an3180emergency event, maybe it can detect those types of things, but3181it is not going to see those very small leaks.3182    Mrs. Foushee. Mr. Black, according to the Department of3183Transportation's Inventory of Artificial Intelligence Use3184Cases, PHMSA has explored the potential of AI to augment its3185rulemaking process. PHMSA has also funded research projects to3186develop AI-enabled pipeline inspection tools, a pipeline safety3187data management framework, emergency response training, and a3188pipeline corrosion management tool. Can you speak to the3189potential for AI to improve the pipeline safety practices of3190operators and emergency responders?3191    Mr. Black. Thank you, Congresswoman, you are definitely on3192to something.3193    We think AI and machine learning has great opportunities3194for improvements in pipeline safety. Pipeline technology right3195now produces terabytes of data from the smart pigs that travel3196inside a pig, and it would be great to have the opportunities3197to continue the use of machine learning to tease out of the3198data issues before they are a problem.3199    In your bipartisan bill last time, you have a voluntary3200information-sharing program. That will create a safe space for3201operators and regulators and stakeholders in the industry to3202talk more about how to use that data, and it will help.3203    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you.3204    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.3205    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentlelady yields back. Mr.3206Stauber, you are recognized.3207    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.3208    Mr. Black, I appreciate that comment. In order for us to3209win the AI war, we need energy via the pipelines.3210    Mr. Taylor, what is the natural gas pipeline sector's3211perspective on the value of PHMSA's advisory committee?3212    Mr. Taylor. Can you ask the question one more time?3213    Mr. Stauber. What is your perspective on the advisory3214committees?3215    Mr. Taylor. Okay, I am sorry. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.3216Very valuable. Having that meeting allows discussion of various3217new topics, new technologies, different ways to address safety3218concerns if we are seeing new things pop up that we are not3219aware of, or something new that we can bring the players3220together, the different parties together and think about, okay,3221what is the right way to tackle this? How do we try to strive3222for zero incidents across the pipelines?3223    So it is extremely important, allows these new rules that3224we are talking about--again, like Class Location Rule, how do3225we try to get that completed? We are going to need to have3226another GPAC discussion. So having that meeting as frequently3227as we can--again, the last Congress had two times per year. The3228current charter says four times per year. Somewhere in that3229range would be extremely helpful to continue to have the3230dialog, the conversation, and move the rules forward, move new3231thoughts forward, move new technologies forward.3232    Mr. Stauber. Would you agree that GPAC has the ability, if3233technology arises in between those meetings, to call a session3234to say here, here is new technology, here is where we can make3235it safer and we can implement it sooner, rather than later?3236    Mr. Taylor. So that is set up through PHMSA. PHMSA has to3237organize those discussions and get that meeting organized. And3238so it is really--we appreciate the benefit from Congress to try3239to get this completed and force that discussion, because it3240takes a lot of work, but it is ultimately very important to3241improve safety and advance that.3242    Mr. Stauber. Do you think holding more frequent advisory3243meetings with key pipeline safety stakeholders strengthens3244PHMSA's rulemaking process?3245    Mr. Taylor. It would definitely improve the process3246because, again, as we talk through these rules, regulations, we3247get the right parties together, make sure that we are3248considering all aspects, because again, it is extremely3249beneficial to get the public side together, get the industry3250side together, get the State entities. Because through the last3251GPAC, when we talked through LDAR, we talked through class3252location, everybody brought in their different thoughts and3253their different concerns to make sure we come out with the best3254regulation we can.3255    Ultimately, we want something that comes out that is3256technically accurate, as well, because if something is put out3257there that we can't meet, that's not going to be beneficial to3258the industry----3259    Mr. Stauber [interposing]. Right.3260    Mr. Taylor [continuing]. That's not going to be beneficial3261to the public.3262    Mr. Stauber. Right, and so I think those are some things3263that will come out of that meeting.3264    I would just say that we know that pipelines are a very3265safe and effective way of moving energy. And I think all3266panelists here agree that safety is the number-one priority. I3267think that if we met more often and used that technology and3268actually brought it to fruition, I do believe we can make it3269even safer.3270    And this means that Mr. Caram would be out of a job if we3271make it completely safe, because then he couldn't come here and3272talk about more safety. But with all due respect, I think it is3273important. I think this is a very, very healthy discussion.3274There is that balance.3275    Mr. Caram, I read your testimony and it is very sad when we3276have deaths, right? But I do believe that the industry is doing3277the best they can with the information given to them. I don't3278believe it is anything nefarious.3279    We want to move together safely in this next century and3280with the technology we have, because if we don't move that3281energy, we won't win the AI war. If we don't move that energy,3282more people in the northern climates are going to have3283difficulty getting through the winters. So I think it is3284important that we understand the value of the pipelines and3285that safety is the number-one priority.3286    So I just want to thank all the witnesses for being here.3287Mr. Chair, thank you for holding this very important hearing,3288and I yield back.3289    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentleman yields back. Mrs.3290Sykes.3291    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for3292holding this hearing. I look forward to continuing discussions3293on how we can keep pipelines safe but active in our3294communities.3295    As some of you may know, on May 28, 2024, a natural gas-3296fueled explosion occurred at the Realty Tower Building in3297Youngstown, Ohio. I don't represent Youngstown, Ohio. That was3298the former 13th Congressional District, and I hope this line of3299questioning does not continue to confuse people as to what3300communities I represent, but it is important to bring up3301because it is a significant topic of discussion.3302    The explosion occurred at the base of the building,3303destroying the facade, throwing glass, brick, and other debris3304onto the sidewalk and causing the first floor of the Chase Bank3305to collapse into the basement. The explosion tragically killed330627-year-old bank employee Akil Drake, who was found deceased in3307the basement, along with nine other people who sustained3308injuries that required hospitalization. There was significant3309structural damage to the 13-story building which contained the3310bank and other offices as well as a few residences.3311    People deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their3312workplaces, and I want to express my sincere condolences to3313Akil's family and everyone else whose lives were impacted or3314turned upside down due to this devastating explosion.3315    At the time of the explosion, a four-person scrap removal3316crew was working at the building's basement to remove and3317relocate utilities in preparation for the city's road3318improvement project. The NTSB found that during the work, a3319scrap removal worker cut through an inactive but still3320pressurized service line, resulting in a gas leak and a3321subsequent explosion. According to the NTSB, the explosion3322occurred just 6 minutes after the service line was cut.3323    The NTSB says the investigation will focus on the pipeline3324operator's procedures and practices for meter removal,3325recordkeeping, and abandoning gas facilities; ownership of the3326inactive service line; the companies associated with the Realty3327Tower Building; and the scrap crews' and contractors'3328operational practices and policies for work crews.3329    However, while NTSB continues their investigation into this3330tragedy, the explosion has had long-lasting consequences to the3331community, especially those who called the building home and3332those who had businesses there. In the aftermath, the 100-year-3333old building needed to be demolished, forcing residents of the3334neighboring apartment complex to be displaced for months while3335demolition occurred.3336    This tragic pipeline explosion and the following3337displacement of residents demonstrates why this committee takes3338issues of pipeline safety so seriously. We must continue to3339work together to prevent accidents like these from happening3340again, including taking the NTSB's report and recommendations3341into account.3342    So Mr. Caram, how are pipeline operators supposed to3343indicate that a gas line is inactive?3344    Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for that question. As I3345understand it, there are no requirements for marking or3346identifying inactive service lines unless One Call has been3347initiated, and in that case, they would.3348    When there isn't an active service line, operators have3349some options on how to deal with that, how to discontinue that3350line, some of which allow pressurized gas to be in that section3351of the inactive service line. And so we would love to see more3352specificity in the regs around this.3353    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you.3354    And Mr. Paris, just a pretty broad question. Have you seen3355accidents like this before, where an excavator thought an3356inactive gas line meant that it could be cut?3357    And if so, how should this type of accident be3358characterized: as excavator damage or poor recordkeeping?3359    Mr. Paris. So to answer your first question, yes, we see3360this. There are many times that we come across abandoned old3361lines where we excavate and break those lines, and have to3362either make that repair or come up with another plan.3363    I would like to go back to the importance of mapping, and I3364do think it is an issue with what data we are given and shown3365before excavation. I know a lot of the topics and incidents3366that we have talked about today are after pipeline construction3367is done and our job as excavators is over, but there is also an3368importance of getting those lines marked before construction3369starts, when we are building these things in the ground from3370the start.3371    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Paris. You did an incredible3372job, because my next question was going to be about mapping and3373so you already answered in the first question.3374    So with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the remainder of my3375time.3376    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentlelady yields back. Mr.3377Nehls, you are recognized.3378    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the3379witnesses that are here today. I am happy that this3380subcommittee is kick-starting the pipeline reauthorization3381process again. I felt that last Congress, this committee, we3382produced an excellent bill. It passed out of this committee on3383a bipartisan basis. I would like to commend both sides of the3384aisle, both sides working on this, for the hard work in3385producing a great bill.3386    It is a shame. It is a shame that our Senate colleagues,3387they failed to have any hearing on this pipeline3388reauthorization and stalled the momentum we all garnered. And3389as we look to examine the pipeline reauthorization bill, there3390are several priorities that I wish to talk about and raise3391awareness. As a former law enforcement official, I strongly3392believe we need to protect--we have to protect our critical3393infrastructure.3394    Mr. Black, can you talk about some of these environmental3395extremists--and they are out there--who encourage violence3396against this pipeline infrastructure, and why is this3397dangerous? And what was included in the previous bill to3398counter these activists?3399    Mr. Black. There have been violent attacks on pipelines,3400and there are loopholes in the energy statutes that prevent3401full prosecution of all of them. There have been attacks on3402pipelines before they have gone into service, and they are not3403covered. And then there have been attacks on pipelines3404operating right now to turn a valve.3405    Now, a pipeline is a safe----3406    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Sure.3407    Mr. Black [continuing]. Industrial piece of equipment3408operated by trained personnel, but not somebody who is just3409turning a valve. And that could hurt themselves, the public, or3410the environment.3411    This committee--and thank you for your role as prior3412chairman of the subcommittee----3413    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Yes.3414    Mr. Black [continuing]. Would close those loopholes.3415Protest? Fine. Violent attacks on pipelines can hurt3416themselves, the public, and the environment.3417    Mr. Nehls. And higher civil penalties, as well. We need to3418fine----3419    Mr. Black [interposing]. Yes.3420    Mr. Nehls [continuing]. These people. Thank you.3421    Mr. Paris, it seems most believe that exemptions to the One3422Call or that 811 process are detrimental, they are detrimental3423to damage prevention. Can you provide any examples of these3424types of exemptions and why you would want them reduced or3425eliminated?3426    Mr. Paris. Yes, so some of the examples of exemptions3427specifically in the State of Pennsylvania include municipal3428utilities that are not required to be a part of the 811 or One3429Call system. Therefore, when a One Call is placed, they do not3430have to go and mark the lines.3431    Mr. Nehls. Yes.3432    Mr. Paris. Another example is agriculture. So I believe in3433the State of Pennsylvania, they are not required to put a One3434Call in anything above 18 inches. We do find more than not that3435when excavating, we come across these lines, and we do our due3436diligence, we don't get a positive response rate from the3437locate.3438    Mr. Nehls. Sure.3439    Mr. Paris. We go to pothole and visualize where these lines3440are, they are not where they say they are, or they are not3441marked at all.3442    So yes, these exemptions are hard for our industry in3443construction and excavating.3444    Mr. Nehls. Yes, I can't agree with you more.3445    One of the greatest provisions in the previous bill was the3446section 28 inspection of these in-service breakout tanks. I3447know API isn't here, but these breakout tanks, they are a3448critical part of the liquid energy product supply chain. The3449breakout tanks are used to store product that is not currently3450in the line to allow for optimum sequencing and to temporarily3451hold product from the main pipeline. I believe there are more3452than 8,500 breakout tanks in service that support hazardous3453liquids pipelines operations.3454    And I find it interesting, operators are required to3455inspect these in-service breakout tanks according to PHMSA3456regulations, right?3457    Tank engineering design--we have--all about safety,3458everybody is concerned about safety. I agree, safety should be3459the top priority. The engineering design in these tanks and the3460liner performance has improved drastically--improved3461dramatically over the past 10 to 15 years, as demonstrated by3462the PHMSA data. I guess there is--PHMSA says incident data for3463the 12-year period from 2010 to 2022 shows a 0.5-percent3464incident rate from releases from tank floors due to cracking or3465pinhole corrosion. And allowing operators to base inspection3466frequency on risk modeling as outlined by API will ensure that3467these inspections are not conducted unnecessarily, while again3468keeping safety in the front of mind.3469    I am assuming, Mr. Black, you would agree with these risk-3470based inspections? I mean, it takes, like, 30,000 man-hours. I3471mean, you've got to drain the whole damn thing, you've got to3472put somebody down in there.3473    Mr. Black. Yes.3474    Mr. Nehls. We should have the technology to do this and do3475it based on risk.3476    Mr. Black. Absolutely----3477    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Correct?3478    Mr. Black [continuing]. Congressman. PHMSA should not be--3479--3480    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Yes.3481    Mr. Black [continuing]. Requiring inspections of a storage3482tank on----3483    Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Yes.3484    Mr. Black [continuing]. A fixed interval when the technical3485standard now that EPA and many States have adopted is for risk-3486based inspections. It reduces worker safety threats, air3487pollutant emissions, hazardous waste. Yes.3488    Mr. Nehls. Thank you.3489    Mr. Taylor, I am assuming you would agree. Thank you, sir.3490    Mr. Taylor. Yes, Congressman.3491    Mr. Nehls. I yield back.3492    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentleman yields back. Ms.3493Friedman, you are recognized.3494    Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chair Webster and Ranking Member3495Titus, and for the witnesses for coming here today.3496    Unfortunately, California is no stranger to natural gas3497transmission pipeline disasters. Fifteen years ago, of course,3498we had the explosion in the San Bruno neighborhood in northern3499California, where several people were killed and 47 million3500standard cubic feet of natural gas was released. I believe 83501people were killed and about 38 homes were destroyed. And we3502all still grieve for them in California. And closer to home for3503me in Los Angeles, thousands of people are still suffering3504health impacts because of the leak at Aliso Canyon.3505    So the question is, are we now safer since San Bruno? And3506have we put into place everything we need to keep our community3507safe?3508    And I believe the answer is no, because the last 2 years3509have been the deadliest 2-year period for pipelines since the3510San Bruno explosion. In the past 2 years alone, 30 people have3511tragically lost their lives due to pipeline safety incidents.3512And I hope to work with the subcommittee, with everyone on this3513subcommittee, to develop robust standards to prevent these3514disasters from occurring.3515    Now, L.A. has a high number of liquid and natural gas3516pipelines through very densely populated areas including in my3517district in Glendale and Burbank, Los Angeles, and Pasadena.3518During the L.A. fires, we saw a lot of ignitions happening at3519the homes that were impacted by fire because the natural gas in3520the homes was on fire.3521    Now, I toured the Eaton Canyon area 1 and 2 and 3 days3522after the fire, and those plumes of natural gas flames came up3523from thousands and thousands of homes. In fact, there were3524victims walking around their former homes looking to collect3525their personal items, trying to navigate around 7-, 8-foot-tall3526walls of flame in their houses because those natural gas3527pipelines were still on, and they were still on fire, and I saw3528ignitions 2 days later happening because of the winds pushing3529those flames around.3530    So my question for Mr. Taylor is, what did your members--3531what steps did they take during those fires to minimize that3532kind of incident?3533    And should those ignitions still have been happening 2, 33534days after the fire?3535    How do we make sure that we don't have the public walking3536through these burn areas through their homes while they have to3537navigate around very intense flame plumes--I don't even know3538what to call them--coming out of their former homes?3539    Mr. Taylor. Yes, so thank you, Congresswoman.3540    That specific type of fire and that specific type of3541instance would be tied more towards the distribution system.3542And so again, from a transmission side, we could potentially3543isolate. I don't know the specific details of all the situation3544there and how that gas is being fed to that exact location in3545the areas you are speaking of, but that would be more of a3546distribution-type focused, distribution-type question on how3547they could potentially isolate those areas.3548    Ms. Friedman. Okay. And just so that you have it in your3549head, we are talking thousands of homes, an entire--more than3550one neighborhood. So not just one house at a time, but you had3551entire neighborhoods that were impacted by this.3552    Mr. Taylor, as you know better than me, fire valves are3553inexpensive, spring-loaded valves that are designed to melt3554before the pipeline fails, sealing the pipeline and preventing3555natural gas from fueling fires in these kinds of incidents. Why3556is it important to install fire valves in gas distribution3557pipelines, especially for communities like we have in Los3558Angeles that are fire-prone and earthquake-prone, just3559disaster-prone in general?3560    Mr. Taylor. I don't know if you are asking me or Mr. Caram,3561but----3562    Ms. Friedman [interrupting]. Whoever, yes. Whoever wants3563to----3564    Mr. Taylor [continuing]. So again, from our standpoint,3565that would be more distribution-focused. We wouldn't have that3566type of application for transmission pipelines. But it would3567make sense for distribution.3568    I will let Mr. Caram answer the question, though, as well.3569    Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for that question, and I am so3570sorry about the devastation in your district and around your3571State.3572    And yes, what you are talking about is on the distribution3573systems, which are the service lines that go into each home and3574building. And you can install these fire valves on service3575lines very easily, and they have a low melting point polymer3576that holds the valve open. And when they are exposed to heat,3577that polymer melts and the valve automatically closes because3578we see in times of emergency, it is often difficult and it3579takes time to shut off the valves around a system on a3580distribution system. And so these would, in the case of a fire,3581whether it be a home fire that started in the kitchen and3582spread, or if it is something more widespread like a wildfire3583through a community, these could mitigate the extra damage3584caused by the gas service to the homes.3585    Ms. Friedman. Thank you both for your answers, and I yield3586back.3587    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentlelady yields back. Mr.3588Owens, you are recognized.3589    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member3590Titus. I want to thank you again for today's hearing and3591opportunities to learn about the American industry and3592innovation that can be liberated from the yoke of outdated3593overregulation.3594    Operating under expired authorizations, pipelines deserve3595this focus and consideration due to the positive impact they3596have on everyday lives: heating our homes, cooking our food, to3597powering American manufacturing. It is important we take these3598opportunities today to shatter any mistruths about pipelines'3599impact on the environment. I have a couple of questions and a3600few comments.3601    Mr. Black, can you explain how pipelines often result in3602lowering carbon dioxide emissions?3603    Mr. Black. Liquid pipelines are primarily powered by3604electricity, and the other modes that energy could travel over,3605diesel generates the power for those pumps--sorry, it is diesel3606emissions related to train and truck, so there are less carbon3607emissions. We are the most environmentally friendly way to move3608the liquid energy that Americans use.3609    Mr. Owens. Great, thank you, and I have another question3610for you. For those who are not aware, pipelines, specifically3611liquid transmission pipelines, are one of the most heavily3612regulated industries in this country. Can you describe the3613multiple layers of safety regulations placed on these3614pipelines?3615    And do more regulations make people and environments more3616safe?3617    Mr. Black. Well, you are right. Liquid pipelines are very3618heavily regulated. Federal, State, and even sometimes local, it3619starts right here, right, with oversight over the industry and3620over PHMSA and telling PHMSA what it should do, and then PHMSA3621as the regulator, the enforcer. States can have intrastate3622regulations. States can partner with PHMSA to be the inspector3623even of an interstate pipeline. And then in some cases there3624are local requirements about pipeline activity or construction.3625    So a very carefully regulated, comprehensive set of3626regulations. Few gaps.3627    Mr. Owens. Okay. I have that last question. Do more3628regulations make people and environment more safe?3629    Mr. Black. If they are smart regulations, right? Sometimes3630we have PHMSA being maybe 20 years behind. It would be3631beneficial for the environment if we would update those3632regulations. But smart regulation absolutely has been3633contributing to the continued decrease in pipeline safety3634incidents.3635    Mr. Owens. Okay. I just have a few comments here. Through3636various PIPES Acts passed through this committee, Congress3637continues to authorize innovative technologies and practices3638that would improve safety in this field. I want to repeat that.3639We continue to authorize innovative technologies and practices3640that would improve the safety. And yet, unfortunately, there3641has been no implementation of this innovation due to Biden's3642bureaucratic hurdles.3643    The intended pilot programs never move forward, and the3644authorization for programs have lapsed. This, unfortunately, is3645another example of the free market industry moving faster than3646a non-innovative culture of bureaucratic government. We will3647never know how much damage could have been mitigated or lives3648saved if bureaucrats had just gotten out of the way and just3649let this process move forward.3650    For those who are watching, I just want to just make sure3651you understand what you are seeing here. This is what is called3652the innovators.3653    This is what you guys do every single day of your lives.3654You have a passion for it. You have an interest in things that3655we don't have interest in doing. And what you expect, very3656simply, is predictability to be given an opportunity to give3657the best service, to get a great reputation so you can make a3658great profit, and thousands of Americans benefit from that.3659    We have to recognize that the innovators is where this will3660change. I will say this. I am thankful that we have a majority3661now of innovators, of people who have been in business for3662themselves. We are on your side. We are going to figure out how3663to listen to you and provide innovative legislation, and we3664have a President who understands what innovation is all about,3665who wants this industry to drive the world's economy.3666    So I am excited about where we are today. Just know that we3667are listening, and we are looking forward to getting more3668impact from people like yourself, all you stakeholders, to make3669sure that we truly do make our mark in the world. So thank you3670so much.3671    And I yield back.3672    Mr. Webster of Florida. The gentleman yields back. Mr.3673Carson.3674    Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking3675Member. Thank you all.3676    Regarding our critical transportation infrastructure,3677including pipeline infrastructure, can you describe some of the3678most important cybersecurity and information technology3679challenges that have to be addressed?3680    Considering the growing number of malign actors that need3681to be reeled in, what are your thoughts about the ransomware3682attacks on entities like the Colonial Pipeline Company which3683disrupted gasoline supplies throughout the east coast?3684    How many of these issues were impacted by insufficient3685staffing and basically legacy equipment?3686    Are there any specific ways that our committee can provide3687assistance regarding these issues and vulnerabilities, quite3688frankly?3689    Mr. Taylor. I can first take a shot at answering that.3690    So from our standpoint, we know it is critically important.3691We know we are critical infrastructure, so we, as INGAA member3692companies, are trying to take additional steps to help prevent3693that and try to address it.3694    My focus is more PHMSA-related, so I don't get more into3695the TSA and various other areas that would be regulatory3696introduction for additional cybersecurity measures. But we3697definitely know, as an industry, it is critically important.3698And we are taking additional steps to mitigate that concern.3699    Mr. Black. You are absolutely right, Congressman.3700Cybersecurity is very important. The threats are real that3701pipeline operators face, and they are facing them every day.3702The way that these operators are trying to address them is3703through improved cybersecurity technology and defenses,3704developing industry standards on the use of cybersecurity to3705protect the SCADA systems that power the operation of the3706pipeline, and then partnering with Government--CISA, Department3707of Homeland Security--to help the national security personnel3708tell us what they can about threats, including in classified3709settings. Very important to protect our pipeline infrastructure3710from cyber threats.3711    Mr. Carson. Yes, sir.3712    Mr. Paris. Congressman, I would like to touch on3713cybersecurity when it comes to GIS mapping, because a lot of3714the questions that we receive when we talk about GIS mapping3715is, well, how can we protect that data?3716    And we obviously see that that is a potential issue, but I3717would like to point all of your attention to a case study that3718is being done in Minnesota, where they are doing a task called3719distributive data, where they are giving the excavators and the3720people involved, the utilities and facility owners, that data3721for the life of the ticket and only for the life of the ticket.3722So it is a way to make sure that the data is being secured. So3723I just wanted to mention that.3724    Mr. Carson. Thank you.3725    Yes, sir.3726    Mr. Caram. A little different perspective on cybersecurity,3727as integrity management regulations require an operator to3728identify every potential threat against their system, and I3729don't think cybersecurity has historically been included in3730those potential threats. But it is a potential threat, and it3731should be part of an integrity management plan.3732    Mr. Carson. Yes, sir.3733    Thank you all.3734    I yield back, Chairman.3735    Mr. Shreve [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes3736Mr. Garcia.3737    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking3738Member, and, of course, our four witnesses.3739    I would like to take a moment to first acknowledge that3740last week, in my district, in the town of Cicero, Illinois,3741there was an explosion, and it killed one person. It is, of3742course, under investigation. The cause of the explosion will be3743determined in part by that investigation and, of course, it is3744so important that PHMSA be able to support State pipeline3745safety inspectors in their work.3746    So let me begin my questions. Mr. Caram, the State of3747Illinois recently passed a law pausing the development of new3748carbon dioxide pipelines, as you are probably aware, until a3749Federal safety standard exists for those pipelines. In fact,3750the bill that this committee passed last year required PHMSA to3751complete a rulemaking establishing minimum safety standards for3752gaseous carbon dioxide pipelines. My question is this: Why is3753it important to set Federal safety standards before we build3754more carbon dioxide pipelines, in your opinion?3755    Mr. Caram. Yes, thank you for the question, and I want to3756start by saying that this past Saturday marked the 5-year3757anniversary of the Denbury failure in Satartia, Mississippi,3758that sent 45-plus people to the hospital that night 5 years3759ago.3760    So there are gaping regulatory gaps in the minimum safety3761regulations for carbon dioxide pipelines. Depending on the3762phase of the CO2, it wouldn't be subject to any minimum safety3763regulations. And the regulations fall short in a number of3764other areas, including emergency response, and plume dispersion3765modeling, impurities, and a host of other areas. And that draft3766PHMSA rule that was submitted for publication did a good job3767addressing most of those risks.3768    Now, there is a congressional limitation on PHMSA's3769authority, the non-application clause that says that PHMSA3770cannot adopt design, construction, or initial testing standards3771on existing pipelines. So knowing that we have these regulatory3772gaps, some of them would fall under design or construction3773standards. Any pipelines that get built before those new3774standards come out, those design and construction standards, if3775they are included in PHMSA's rule, would not apply to what is3776already built.3777    And so we are just encouraging PHMSA to move quickly on its3778rulemaking so that any pipelines that are built will be3779following the modernized standards.3780    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. My next question has to3781do with the proposed safety rule issued by the Biden3782administration as required by the 2011 pipeline safety law, but3783currently placed on hold.3784    One provision of the proposed rule focused on the right-of-3785way of carbon dioxide pipelines. Specifically, for a pipeline3786right-of-way within 2 miles of any building, operators would be3787required to justify why that pipeline location was chosen.3788    In addition, the proposed rule would have required those3789operators to establish an emergency planning zone extending 23790miles on either side of their pipelines to make sure that there3791is a plan in case of an emergency.3792    I believe we can and must do more to ensure rigorous safety3793standards and transparency with communities that are impacted3794by these pipelines.3795    My question: Can you talk about the consequences, Mr.3796Caram, to local communities if the proposed rules don't move3797forward?3798    Mr. Caram. Sure. Well, I think that those proposed rules3799did a good job addressing many of the regulatory gaps that we3800have identified and that we are concerned about and think could3801lead to increased failures. And by not adopting those rules, we3802think that communities could be left with less protection, and3803so we do worry about that.3804    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,3805I yield back.3806    Mr. Shreve. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair3807now recognizes Mr. Westerman for 5 minutes of questions.3808    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the3809witnesses for being here today, an important subject when we3810talk about pipeline safety and innovation for the future.3811    But an area of concern that I have is us actually being3812able to build pipelines. We already know they are a very, very3813safe and efficient way of transporting gases and liquids, yet3814we have a burdensome permitting process that makes it very3815difficult to build new pipelines here in our country, and we3816have probably a bigger need for more pipeline distribution3817systems than we have ever had, especially when you look at the3818demands for more electricity and what are we going to use to3819generate that electricity.3820    We have an abundant amount of natural gas here, but if we3821can't move it to where it is needed, then it doesn't do us3822nearly as much good. So what I would like to ask each witness3823is how you perceive if permitting delays are driving up prices,3824if all this duplicative permitting and the judicial review3825process--does that add anything to safety of pipelines?3826    And what reforms specifically in the permitting area do you3827think would be beneficial for being able not just to make3828pipelines safer, but to be able to build more pipelines?3829    I will start with you, Mr. Black.3830    Mr. Black. Thank you, Congressman, and I represent liquids3831pipelines, and I want to thank you for your personal leadership3832on permitting reform. You are absolutely right. It is very3833important. As we have been discussing today, the pipeline is3834the safest mode of transporting liquid energy that Americans3835use. So if we can expand pipelines, we are improving safety.3836    On permitting reform, we support--and this will not be a3837surprise to you--quick decisions by permitting agencies,3838judicial reform so entire permits are not thrown out by some3839small provision, and then continued use of the nationwide3840permit 12 process for pipelines. If we can move better3841permitting reform that allows for durable permits, we will be3842able to expand the safest energy transportation infrastructure3843we have.3844    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Black.3845    Mr. Taylor.3846    Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. As Mr. Black3847stated, again, a very similar situation for the natural gas3848side. We definitely need permitting reform. We would definitely3849support that. Obviously, we would like to advance our projects3850as quickly as we can.3851    One step we could take in the very quick would be the3852classification rule. Again, that would free up some additional3853capacity because that would allow maximum allowable operating3854pressures to be reinstated back to where they originally were,3855and that is going to build some capacity within existing3856pipeline infrastructure. So that would be extremely helpful for3857us, and would be extremely helpful to get that rule completed3858as quickly as possible.3859    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.3860    Mr. Paris.3861    Mr. Paris. So from the excavator side, when permitting3862comes into play, if permits are not approved in a timely basis,3863then we are out of work, and we have to put employees on3864layoff, or they are on unemployment. We have seen that in the3865past.3866    I would like to emphasize, though, that we are working with3867our customers in the safest fashion that we can, and we are3868always looking to improve the way we can be safe when it comes3869to pipeline infrastructure. Back in the day, it was about a3870finger-pointing kind of thing, but now it is about working3871together and talking about what the real issues are and moving3872forward with that.3873    I would also like to point out within the permitting3874process is part of the design phase of the project. So what is3875important to get these permits through faster and more safer is3876getting back to these basics in what I believe--these marked3877utilities, and mapping, and making sure that these are laid out3878within the permitting process.3879    Mr. Westerman. Good.3880    Mr. Caram.3881    Mr. Caram. Yes, yes. So this is really outside of the3882focus. The primary focus of our organization focuses really on3883safety regulations.3884    But I will say, as a public safety advocate, I am grateful3885for a robust permitting process that includes opportunities for3886public input. I see it as a balance between efficiency and3887responsibility, and I am sure there are places where progress3888on efficiency can be made, and we will just be there to make3889sure that those changes are responsible and safety-forward.3890    Mr. Westerman. Do you see that it's in balance right now?3891Do you think the permitting laws and the multiple agencies that3892you have to go through, is it balanced between efficiency and3893safety now, or do you think we need more regulations or less3894regulations?3895    Mr. Caram. Again, it is really outside of the main part of3896our work, and I am grateful for a robust process that has3897opportunity for public input.3898    Mr. Westerman. All right. With that, I yield back, Mr.3899Chairman.3900    Mr. Shreve. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair3901now recognizes Mr. Mann for 5 minutes of questions.3902    Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being3903here today. I am Tracey Mann. I represent the Big First3904district of Kansas, which is 60 primarily rural counties in the3905western part of my State.3906    Kansas has over 48,000 miles of gas pipelines and 11,0003907miles of liquid pipelines that run throughout the State to help3908transport these goods across the country. I believe pipelines3909are one of the safest and most efficient modes of3910transportation for energy and are essential to delivering3911energy from where it is produced to where it is needed around3912the country.3913    A handful of questions.3914    First off for you, Mr. Black, what are some examples of how3915you feel like PHMSA needs to modernize its pipeline safety3916requirements?3917    Mr. Black. PHMSA regulations are over 20 years old,3918Congressman, in many aspects. Pipelines use modern technologies3919to assess pipelines through smart pigs that travel inside a3920pipeline looking for features like corrosion and cracks. And3921then pipelines use modern engineering assessment techniques and3922predictive analytics that can help us understand with more3923precision what issues need to be addressed and when. So we have3924that information, that better safety technology and that better3925program.3926    But PHMSA regulations are slow to react, and they are 203927years old, so then we need a special permit process to allow a3928variance to achieve the same level of protection, but smarter,3929but that process is broken. So two ways that PHMSA can improve3930is to allow update of repair criteria to reflect technology,3931and then to approve the special permit process and implement3932safety technology demonstration programs in a bureaucratic-free3933way.3934    Mr. Mann. My next question is, can you explain to the3935committee the potential benefits of the pipeline safety3936technology demonstration pilot program?3937    Mr. Black. Sure. This would give PHMSA the data to have the3938confidence to update their regulations. We will be able to show3939that new technologies traveling through the pipe and new3940engineering analytics will let us more efficiently focus on3941what we now know are the real threats on the proper schedule.3942So if the demonstration program can help PHMSA understand that,3943then they will have the confidence.3944    One more, we could have a demonstration program on the use3945of drone technologies or satellites to replace the fixed-wing3946rights-of-way patrols that pipeline operators have to do. Then3947maybe we can do more patrols for the same amount of money. But3948not if we have inflexible PHMSA regulations.3949    Mr. Mann. I could not agree more. We have got to embrace3950technology for everyone's benefit, including to make everything3951more safe.3952    Question for you, Mr. Taylor: The Class Location Rule is3953one of PHMSA's outstanding mandates. Please describe the3954importance of this regulation to pipeline operators.3955    Mr. Taylor. Yes, yes, it is extremely important. Again, it3956would allow some flexibility instead of going out and3957replacing, say, 1,000 feet of pipe, now I can apply subpart O3958or, again, additional assessments, preventative mitigative3959measures. I am going to look for those specific threats that3960are applicable from launcher to receiver, and I am going to run3961a battery of tools for that pipeline to make sure I am properly3962addressing or assessing those pipeline threats.3963    It also reduces impacts on landowners because, again, now I3964am not either pressure testing or replacing that pipe, I can3965run that additional technology through the pipeline.3966    And in addition, it is an improvement to the environment3967because now I am not going to have emissions related to doing3968all that additional work. I can just, again, run the new3969technologies as Mr. Black described.3970    Mr. Mann. Great. And how long has your sector advocated for3971this updated rule?3972    Mr. Taylor. It has been over two decades.3973    Mr. Mann. Over 20 years.3974    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.3975    Mr. Mann. Yes, yes.3976    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.3977    Mr. Mann. Well, that says a lot right there. Thank you all3978for being here today.3979    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.3980    Mr. Taylor. Thank you.3981    Mr. Shreve. Thank you.3982    The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Chairman Rouzer3983for 5 minutes of questions.3984    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate our3985panelists being here today. I hate that I had to pop out, and I3986missed the benefit of the Q&A the last 30, 35 minutes or so,3987but let me look at this, or let me ask you from a broad3988standpoint.3989    As far as the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee3990for this year, next year, this Congress, what is the number-one3991or two items of oversight that you think are really critically3992important in this space?3993    And then, from a legislative standpoint, too, obviously, we3994are going to be working on a surface transportation3995reauthorization. And not that that deals directly, obviously,3996with pipelines, but anything in that space that you think we3997need to be pursuing legislatively I am curious about, as well.3998    Mr. Black, we will start----3999    Mr. Black [interrupting]. Well, hearings like today to4000conduct oversight over PHMSA, encouraging them to reduce4001bureaucracy and redtape and embrace innovation.4002    On legislative, a targeted pipeline safety reauthorization4003bill like you have, work that you have been doing on continued4004use of the nationwide permit program for oil and gas. And in4005your Coast Guard reauthorization bill in the committee last4006Congress, you encouraged the National Response Center to allow4007online incident notification, rather than just making a call4008and waiting for someone to answer the phone. Those three4009legislative priorities would really help.4010    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Taylor.4011    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. Again, as Mr. Black mentioned, the4012118th Congress had Class Location Rule. I mention again for the4013same reasons I just mentioned to Mr. Mann: the Technical4014Standards Committee, having that more frequent meeting with the4015GPAC LPAC that would again advance pipeline safety; discuss new4016technologies, look at what is working, what is not, and find4017opportunities to improve; the incorporation by reference,4018evaluating what are some of the more recent documents or4019recommended practices that are being referenced by PHMSA. Those4020would be extremely important because there are some standards4021in there that are 20 years old. We obviously know technology4022has significantly changed in the past 20 years, so should be4023referencing newer documents.4024    The voluntary information-sharing, that is another great4025aspect that we could have a proper space to make sure that we4026can collect that information and can share that out so that4027different operators can learn from maybe a mistake or a mishap,4028a near-miss, an incident from another operator.4029    And then that workforce development, just trying to have4030PHMSA have the right resources available at their needs to be4031able to conduct inspections and audits as they need to.4032    Mr. Paris. I think for us it sounds simple, but it is very4033complex, and that is just a full and balanced statewide4034enforcement of damage prevention laws which includes full4035participation in an 811 process, accurate and timely locating4036for all facility owners, and the opportunity to move the needle4037towards GIS mapping.4038    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Caram.4039    Mr. Caram. Yes, for us it is the increased resources to4040PHMSA and the State programs that was identified in the bill,4041and appreciate industry support on that, as well. The increased4042enforcement authority to PHMSA, I think, will make a4043difference. I want to reiterate support for standardizing4044damage prevention.4045    A couple of things that were not in the bill would be the4046implementation of fire valves and then, more broadly, figuring4047out a path forward to encourage widespread adoption of safety4048management systems.4049    Mr. Rouzer. Now, the next item is not directly related to4050pipeline safety, but an issue of concern of mine. Several years4051ago, we had the shutdown of the Colonial pipeline,4052cybersecurity and that realm. Talk to me about our strengths4053and weaknesses and anything that we need to be doing as a4054Congress, as a House, as a Senate to help you address those4055issues better.4056    Mr. Black. Cybersecurity is very important. We have many4057threats pipelines face every day.4058    The way the pipeline operators are approaching this is to4059increase investment in cybersecurity defenses, develop best4060practices among the industry for protecting the systems that4061operate the pipeline, and then partnering with Government so4062that we can learn from the national security and the4063intelligence community about those threats. So it is making4064sure that Government has whatever resources it needs just on4065this issue to help identify the threats for us to partner4066together so we don't have to have voluntary shutdowns on4067ransomware like we had with Colonial or cyber breaches of4068operating equipment. Important issue. Thank you.4069    Mr. Rouzer. Yes, anybody else real quick?4070    Mr. Taylor. Not necessarily my area of focus, but just4071again maybe piggybacking off the volunteer information-sharing,4072maybe there are opportunities to better communicate some of the4073concerns or risks. If we are seeing certain issues that pop up4074across the industry, just how do we get that information out4075there as quickly as possible so that all operators can put up4076their defenses or develop new defenses, whatever the concern4077is, but just trying to share that information more quickly,4078more broadly so that we can address it.4079    Mr. Rouzer. Yes. I am out of time, but any quick thought?4080    Mr. Paris. The operation side is a little bit out of my4081wheelhouse, but I had pointed to Congressman Carson about a4082case study that is being done when it comes to GIS mapping out4083of the State of Minnesota. And it has proven that cybersecurity4084and protection of that kind of thing is working with our kind4085of data.4086    Mr. Caram. Very quickly, I would just encourage operators4087to identify cyber threats in their threat identification for4088integrity management, and mitigate against those threats as4089part of their integrity management program in addition to4090specific prescriptive cybersecurity regulations.4091    Mr. Rouzer. Thank you. I yield back.4092    Mr. Taylor of Ohio [presiding]. The gentleman yields back,4093and I recognize Member Burlison for 5 minutes for questions.4094    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4095    I just got back from a conference, a global conference4096called ARC, Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. We had world4097leaders from most of the Western nations: Britain, the United4098States, Canada, a lot of the European nations. And really, the4099common theme was that we have had a lost decade, if not two4100decades of economic growth, of industrialization that has been4101outsourced to countries like China that are not exactly the4102cleanest country to send your industry to.4103    And so the other thing that concerned me is the question4104of, history tends to repeat itself. And about every 80 to 904105years, the world reserve currency moves to a different nation.4106And we in the United States, we are well beyond that 80 or 904107years. We are at about 120 years being the world reserve4108currency. It generally follows the nation that is the4109industrial powerhouse in the world, the manufacturing leader.4110That being said, energy costs are a key driver of this. Cheap,4111abundant, and affordable energy is what every manufacturer is4112seeking.4113    And so with that question, Mr. Black, in your testimony,4114you emphasized that expanding American energy production will4115send new supply to the market and pressure prices downward as4116building energy infrastructure like pipelines will help us4117deliver more energy to the American people. Can you highlight4118why investments in energy infrastructure is essential if we are4119going to maintain world dominance economically?4120    Mr. Black. We have tremendous energy supplies in the United4121States and, of course, Canada with our integrated market both4122in liquids and in natural gas. When we can get that energy to4123market, to the people and the businesses who use it, that4124produces downward pressure on prices.4125    If we have additional energy made that we don't need in4126this country, we can sell it in the world market, helping our4127trade balance and helping push global prices down and4128increasing global prosperity. But in order to do that, you have4129to be able to expand pipeline capacity. In both cases, it is4130the most economical and most reliable way to move that energy4131to where it can be beneficially used.4132    Mr. Burlison. It is my belief that the one common4133denominator that the poor and the rich have to deal with is the4134cost of energy. Unfortunately, the poor have much more as a4135percentage of their income, greater harm from those costs.4136    Mr. Black. Yes.4137    Mr. Burlison. And so would you agree with me when I say:4138Show me a nation that is abundant in energy and cost-effective,4139affordable energy, and I will show you a nation that has low4140poverty rates?4141    Mr. Black. Affordable, reliable energy lifts people out of4142poverty, lifts nations out of poverty and helps them grow, yes.4143    Mr. Burlison. Let me ask this. You mentioned in your4144testimony that smart pipeline policies will promote the4145pipeline energy infrastructure that we need to deliver and keep4146American energy dominance. Can you describe what is smart4147pipeline policies?4148    Mr. Black. Well, one is making targeted improvements to4149PHMSA, rather than adding new mandates, harsh penalties that4150aren't called for. If we can help the public understand that4151the pipeline network--liquids and gas--is well regulated and it4152is safe, there will be more support for that pipeline4153expansion. We need PHMSA on the case, showing that they are4154doing things, that they are holding companies accountable, and4155that they are reassuring the public that pipelines are safe. We4156will be able to expand pipelines better than we have been.4157    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.4158    Mr. Taylor, in your testimony, you highlighted the4159important role that the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee plays.4160And yet, since 2021, that committee has only convened three4161times. How often are they supposed to convene?4162    Mr. Taylor. The charter states they should be meeting4163approximately four times per year. So obviously, not meeting4164that charter.4165    Mr. Burlison. Can you expand on the role and how that4166impacts the industry, them not meeting impacts the industry?4167    Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. So it definitely impacts the industry4168because, again, you can get different thought processes4169involved. Obviously, there is public, there is the industry,4170there is PHMSA, so you are getting the different players4171involved and discuss key safety concerns, advancements,4172technology changes. So you are just trying to look at the4173regulations and figure out how can we continue to move and4174strive for zero incidents across the industry.4175    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr.4176Chairman, I yield back.4177    Mr. Taylor of Ohio. The gentleman yields back. I recognize4178myself for 5 minutes of questions.4179    First, I want to thank Chairman Webster and Ranking Member4180Titus for holding this hearing today, and thank you to the4181witnesses for your testimony and insight.4182    Ohio contains over 100 pipeline operators that oversee418356,000 miles of distribution lines, over 10,000 miles of4184transmission lines, and over 1,100 miles of gathering lines. My4185district is home to the Buckeye XPress and Tennessee Gas4186Pipeline, both of which provide pivotal natural gas for the4187State and the country. With a large network of pipelines, I am4188proud to work with my colleagues on this committee to pass4189legislation that ensures that our pipelines are safe across the4190great State of Ohio and the Nation.4191    People across the country want lower energy costs, and that4192means the United States needs to unleash its natural resources.4193I am proud that this administration wants to prioritize oil and4194natural gas production to create jobs and economic development4195for both consumers and industries. Mr. Paris, what has been4196Pennsylvania's experience with shale gas, and how have you4197worked to ensure that this energy is developed and transported4198safely?4199    Mr. Paris. So like I said before, we are working with our4200customers on a day-to-day basis to improve safety. Safety is4201number one, and it is a part of every task that we complete.4202    Now, as far as our local economy, the gas industry, since4203it has come to Pennsylvania, it has bolstered our local4204economies. We have seen businesses that were ready to shut4205their doors be brought back to life. So we take that as a4206responsibility on us to make sure that we are installing these4207pipelines correctly and following safe practices.4208    Mr. Taylor of Ohio. Thank you.4209    More often than not, regulations have hindered industry4210from adopting the best technologies, practices, and standards4211that allow for their businesses to thrive. I was disappointed4212to learn in your testimony, Mr. Black, about how the pipeline4213safety technology demonstration pilot program, created to test4214some of the latest and advanced inspection programs and4215analytics, was ineffective because of the previous4216administration's practices and policies. Mr. Black, could you4217please elaborate on the benefits of this program if it were to4218be implemented properly?4219    Mr. Black. Thank you. This was a great opportunity that4220Congress created, and we missed as a nation, and I hope that we4221can retry that.4222    The pipeline safety technology demonstration program was4223put by PHMSA into the special permit process, and the special4224permit process is broken. There are conditions unrelated to4225variances that are requested, there are delays, there were4226unusual procedures for temporary R&D programs that we just4227don't need. So if Congress can reauthorize the pipeline safety4228technology pilot demonstration program and tell PHMSA, ``Don't4229apply those unnecessary conditions,'' let's get to work, let's4230find a way to benefit from the newer technologies and improve4231PHMSA regulations. But we will need congressional action.4232    Mr. Taylor of Ohio. Thank you. Is there anyone on the panel4233that disagrees that Congress should reimplement this program?4234    Okay, thank you. I yield back.4235    Are there any further questions from any members of the4236subcommittee who have not been recognized?4237    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would4238like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony.4239    The subcommittee stands adjourned.4240    [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]42414242                       Submissions for the Record42434244                              ----------42454246 Statement of Rob Benedict, Vice President, Petrochemicals and Midstream,4247  American   Fuel  &  Petrochemical  Manufacturers,   Submitted  for  the4248  Record by Hon. Daniel Webster42494250    The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is the4251leading trade association representing the manufacturers of the fuels4252that keep America moving and petrochemicals that are the essential4253building blocks for organic chemistry, including plastic products that4254improve the health, safety, and living conditions of humankind and make4255modern life possible. AFPM members keep America moving and growing as4256they meet the needs of our nation and local communities, strengthen4257economic and national security, and support over three million American4258jobs.4259    Our membership includes operators of pipelines as well as4260manufacturers that rely on pipelines to safely transport feedstocks and4261petroleum products. Pipelines continue to be the safest and most4262efficient means of transporting natural gas, crude oil and petroleum4263products. The safety and security of pipelines is important not only to4264the American economy, but to the men and women who work to keep America4265moving.4266    AFPM encourages efforts to ensure our nation's essential pipeline4267systems continue to operate safely and efficiently. Policies that allow4268our nation to maintain our current critical infrastructure while4269building new needed infrastructure in turn bolster our economy, allows4270increased transportation of more energy products, and keeps energy4271affordable. We support the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety4272Administration's (PHMSA) mission ``to protect people and the4273environment by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other4274hazardous materials that are essential to our daily lives'' and in turn4275we support reauthorization of PHMSA's pipeline safety programs.4276    Specifically, AFPM supports a five-year reauthorization of PHMSA's4277pipeline safety programs. PHMSA plays an essential role in developing4278and enforcing regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally4279sound transportation of energy and other hazardous materials by4280pipeline and other modes. AFPM looks forward to a continued partnership4281with PHMSA as we help build a safe and reliable transportation network.4282    PHMSA has long sought the ability to gather more pipeline incident4283information from operators, including close calls, to aid in their4284decision making. AFPM supports PHMSA establishing a voluntary4285information sharing (VIS) system to gather, evaluate, and quantify4286critical pipeline safety data and information to improve safety. This4287type of system has proven beneficial in other sectors. Any VIS must4288include appropriate safe harbor provisions, that ensure data is only4289used for the intended purpose of improving pipeline safety.4290    AFPM supports PHMSA finalizing workable pipeline safety standards4291for carbon dioxide (CO2) facilities. While current federal pipeline4292safety standards already regulate the design, construction, operation,4293maintenance and emergency response for CO2 and hydrogen pipelines, the4294regulations could be updated to ensure they are consistent and foster4295needed innovation. PHMSA should ensure the regulations address any4296specific safety concerns for these materials, but at the same time not4297be so burdensome that they stifle development of this critically4298important infrastructure.4299    AFPM supports increased frequency of meetings of the Technical4300Safety Standards Committees as well as the development of pipeline4301safety enhancement programs. Technical Safety Standards committees are4302integral to the advancement of pipeline safety and have proven to4303result in good policy. AFPM has long supported pilot programs as they4304are important in testing the efficacy of safety innovations and4305advanced technologies. Though they can be useful, it is important that4306pilot programs are not overly restrictive and encourage industry4307participation.4308    AFPM supports strengthening penalties for damaging, destroying, or4309impairing the operations of pipeline facilities. Under current PHMSA4310authority, there are inadequate penalties for vandalism of pipeline4311facilities, and those in place are unused by PHMSA.4312    Pipelines must be protected, and deterrents must be in place to4313dissuade such actions. AFPM encourages Congress to clarify PHMSA's4314authority to penalize vandals, either through its own action or in a4315referral to the Department of Justice. We also support, and encourage4316the Committee to include in its bill, the creation of a ``worker safety4317zone'' around pipeline construction and repair operations, to protect4318pipeline workers and the public.4319    PHMSA is a small agency with an important mission. While previous4320reauthorizations authorized PHMSA with resources, PHMSA has not4321completed many of its priority rulemakings. AFPM supports Congress4322reauthorizing PHMSA with the resources to achieve its safety mission.4323Thank you again for your attention and work on Pipeline Safety4324reauthorization. We appreciate your leadership on this important issue4325and look forward to working with lawmakers as the reauthorization4326process moves forward.43274328Statement of the American Gas Association, Submitted for the Record by4329                          Hon. Daniel Webster43304331    The American Gas Association (AGA) is pleased to provide our input4332for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on4333Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials hearing on Promoting and4334Improving Safety and Efficient Pipeline Infrastructure. AGA shares the4335same goals as safety advocates, the public, pipeline sector industry4336partners, and Congress: Ensuring America's pipeline system remains the4337safest, most secure, most reliable in the world. To that end, we4338applaud the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's bipartisan4339work to draft, negotiate and pass the Promoting Innovation in Pipeline4340Efficiency and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2023 (H.R. 6494) last Congress,4341and we look forward to working with the Committee in the 119th Congress4342to help push pipeline safety reauthorization through the legislative4343process and into law.4344    AGA, founded in 1918, represents more than 200 local energy4345companies that deliver clean natural gas throughout the United States.4346There are more than 77 million residential, commercial, and industrial4347natural gas customers in the U.S., of which 96 percent--more than 744348million customers--receive their gas from AGA members. AGA advocates4349for natural gas utility companies and their customers and provides a4350broad range of programs and services for member natural gas pipelines,4351marketers, gatherers, international natural gas companies, and industry4352associates. Today, natural gas meets more than one-third of the U.S.'4353energy needs. Natural gas pipelines are an essential part of the4354nation's energy infrastructure. Indeed, natural gas is delivered to4355customers through a safe, approximately 2.7-million-mile underground4356pipeline system, including 2.3 million miles of local utility4357distribution pipelines, 100,000 miles of gathering lines, and 300,0004358miles of transmission pipelines providing service to more than 1894359million Americans.4360    Distribution pipelines are operated by natural gas utilities, or4361``local distribution companies (LDCs).'' Gas utility distribution pipes4362are the last, critical link in the natural gas delivery chain that4363brings natural gas from the wellhead to the burner tip. AGA member4364utilities are the ``face of the gas industry,'' embedded in the4365communities they serve, and interact daily with customers and the state4366regulators who oversee pipeline safety locally. The distribution4367industry takes very seriously the responsibility of continuing to4368deliver natural gas to our families, neighbors, and business partners4369as safely, reliably, and responsibly as possible. The industry is4370committed to providing life-sustaining energy to the thousands of4371communities in our country who count on it, every second of every day4372of the year.43734374                Our Number One Priority: Pipeline Safety43754376    The domestic shale revolution has resulted in an abundant supply of4377clean, affordable, and reliable natural gas. This robust supply has4378translated into stable natural gas prices and an increasing number of4379utility customers who use this resource for residential and commercial4380applications like cooking, space and water heating, and manufacturing.4381Last year alone, natural gas utilities added 730,000 customers and438220,700 miles of pipeline to serve these new customers. Alongside this4383tremendous opportunity comes the absolute necessity of operating safe4384and reliable pipeline infrastructure to help ensure dependable natural4385gas delivery to homes, businesses, and essential facilities like4386hospitals. Every year the industry invests $33 billion on the safety of4387our pipeline systems. Unquestionably, pipeline safety is our industry's4388number one priority, and through critical partnerships with state and4389federal regulators, legislators, and other stakeholders, AGA member4390companies are continually working to enhance pipeline safety,4391integrity, and system resiliency.43924393               Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Priorities43944395    AGA and its members support fact-based, reasonable, flexible, and4396practicable updates to pipeline safety regulation that build upon4397lessons learned and evolving improvements to pipeline safety and4398related programs and technology. In that spirit, AGA wishes to4399highlight 5 high-level priorities as the House-Senate reauthorization4400process moves forward.4401    Support Limiting Pipeline Excavation Damage Incidents. Excavation4402damage is the primary cause of distribution pipeline incidents.4403According to PHMSA data, in the past 20 years, excavation damage4404incidents on natural gas pipelines have resulted in 57 deaths, 2544405injuries, and over $300 million in property damage. These often tragic4406incidents are preventable. States that have healthy excavation damage4407prevention and enforcement programs typically experience lower rates of4408damages to pipelines. AGA supports directing PHMSA to incentivize4409states to adopt One Call program leading practices, derived from the4410best state excavation damage programs, and condition their grants to4411State One Call programs based upon adoption of these best practices. We4412are confident this program will save lives.4413    Support Pipeline Technology Alternatives. Modern pipeline safety4414technologies--not contemplated when many pipeline safety regulations4415were first implemented--can, if deployed, meet the intent of these4416older existing regulations and improve the overall safety of natural4417gas, hazardous liquid, underground storage, and liquefied natural gas4418infrastructure. For example, satellite technology has advanced to the4419point where it can be used to comply with leak detection regulation and4420breakaway meter technologies and excess flow valves can stop the flow4421of gas if a meter is hit, eliminating the need for physical meter4422protection barriers. AGA supports a PHMSA regulatory process to4423identify technology alternatives that, if utilized, will meet the4424intent of existing pipeline safety regulations and provide an equal or4425greater level of pipeline safety.4426    Strengthen Criminal Penalties for Damage to Pipelines. Natural gas4427utilities are experiencing an uptick in criminal attacks on property,4428equipment and facilities. These activities range from gunshots4429targeting pipelines, IEDs placed on gas delivery equipment, and the4430damaging of facilities and equipment necessary for safe natural gas4431delivery. These activities are not only hazardous to the safety and4432property of the public and member company employees, they also threaten4433an LDC's ability to deliver natural gas to thousands of homes,4434hospitals, schools, government and military facilities, and other4435critical infrastructure customers. AGA supports increased criminal4436penalties on bad actors who intentionally damage, destroy or impair4437pipelines and pipeline facilities, including those under construction.4438    Hydrogen-Natural Gas Blending R&D Study. Hydrogen is an emerging4439solution for achieving gas LDC energy storage and decarbonization4440goals. Natural gas projects in North America and worldwide demonstrate4441successful blending of hydrogen into the existing natural gas4442distribution network or utilizing natural gas that has a naturally4443occurring higher hydrogen content. Hawai'i Gas has successfully4444utilized a natural gas hydrogen blend of 15% for decades and many4445systems overseas are operating at approximately a 20% blend. It is4446important to understand how companies operating natural gas4447distribution systems with a higher hydrogen content are operating these4448systems safely. As such, we suggest GAO conduct a review of natural gas4449distribution systems worldwide that utilize hydrogen-natural gas4450blending applications, or utilize gas with a higher hydrogen content,4451to identify processes, materials, and standards the operators have4452implemented to operate safely. The results of this study will help4453underpin the safety of ongoing domestic hydrogen R&D and blending4454operations.4455    5-Year Reauthorization for PHMSA's Pipeline Safety Program. PHMSA's4456Pipeline Safety program was reauthorized most recently in the PIPES Act4457of 2016 and PIPES Act of 2020. As PHMSA's Pipeline Safety program4458expired again in 2023, the frequency of reauthorization has been4459squeezed to just 3 years. This interval is inappropriate given the4460significant time it takes to conduct studies, publish reports, move4461reauthorization priorities from legislation to Proposed Rulemaking,4462address comments, and develop and publish Final Rules. Acknowledging4463the time required to conduct studies, publish reports, and develop4464feasible, reasonable, cost effective, and practical rulemaking4465(including stakeholder input), and in keeping with reauthorization4466intervals that preceded the PIPES Act of 2016 (1996, 2002, 2006, 2011),4467Congress should reauthorize PHMSA's Pipeline Safety program for not4468less than 5 years.44694470                               Conclusion44714472    America's gas utilities' commitment to pipeline safety relies on4473sound engineering principles and best in class technology, a trained4474professional workforce, effective community relationships, and a strong4475partnership with state pipeline safety authorities and PHMSA. As4476pipeline safety reauthorization legislation is drafted this year, AGA4477encourages Congress to work in a bipartisan fashion to move reasonable4478and consensus changes to pipeline safety law and regulation, support4479PHMSA's primary role as pipeline safety regulator, and recognize the4480great strides in pipeline safety engineering and operating practices4481that pipeline companies are putting into practice across the country.4482Pipeline sector companies and their trade associations stand ready to4483assist in this process with real world operations, engineering and4484safety data and experience. Please use us as a resource.44854486Letter of  February 21,  2025,  from Sarah K. Magruder Lyle, President &4487 Chief Executive  Officer,  Common Ground Alliance, to  Hon. Daniel Web-4488 ster, Chairman,  and Hon. Dina Titus,  Ranking Member,  Subcommittee on4489 Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Submitted for the Record4490 by Hon. Daniel Webster44914492                                                 February 21, 2025.4493The Honorable Daniel Webster,4494Chairman,4495Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials,4496        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2184 Rayburn4497        House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515.4498The Honorable Dina Titus,4499Ranking Member,4500Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials,4501        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2370 Rayburn4502        House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515.45034504RE:  The importance of improving facility mapping records to enhance4505public safety, protect underground infrastructure and ensure4506reliability45074508    Dear Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Titus,4509    The Common Ground Alliance (CGA) is a member-driven association of4510nearly 4,000 damage prevention professionals committed to saving lives4511and preventing damage to North American underground infrastructure by4512promoting effective damage prevention practices of today and tomorrow.4513CGA is the preeminent source of damage prevention data and information4514to reduce damages to underground facilities through the shared4515responsibility among all stakeholders. We are pleased to provide the4516committee with an overview of the state of damage prevention and the4517potential GIS mapping has to reduce excavation damages to our Nation's4518pipeline infrastructure.4519    According to CGA's Damage Information Reporting Tool (DIRT) Report,4520the annual rate of damages to buried infrastructure in the U.S. has4521remained stagnant for most of the last decade and costs our communities4522a staggering $30 billion every year. Each of the hundreds of thousands4523of dig-ins to underground utilities that occur annually has the4524potential to cripple communities and businesses by cutting them off4525from critical services, causing injury or even loss of life.4526    As our Nation's underground infrastructure system continues to4527grow, the damage prevention industry faces increasingly complex4528challenges. We must encourage innovation and incentivize the4529development of damage prevention solutions for the future. To do this,4530CGA has elevated the work of its traditional programs (Best Practices,4531DIRT and 811 awareness and use) and launched three new efforts to4532expedite the industry's achievement of the next significant reduction4533in damages:4534      The Next Practices Initiative--Launched in 2020, the Next4535Practices Initiative's goal is to encourage innovation and new4536practices to address the most critical challenges facing the damage4537prevention industry. The Next Practices Advisory Committee uses4538industry data, quantitative surveys, and stakeholder input to clearly4539identify and focus the industry on the advancement of the most4540effective solutions to address critical damage prevention challenges.45414542      The Damage Prevention Institute (DPI)--Launched in4543January 2023, the DPI mission builds on the industry-leading insights4544of CGA's Next Practices Initiative by utilizing a stakeholder-centered4545approach to develop performance metrics that reflect a commitment to4546Best Practices and dedication to improving the reliability of the U.S.4547damage prevention system for everyone involved.45484549      The 50-in-5 Industry Challenge--Announced in 2023, this4550effort challenges stakeholders to reduce damages to critical4551underground utilities by 50% in five years by bringing damage4552prevention advocates together around a targeted set of strategic, data-4553driven priorities. This call to action encourages the damage prevention4554industry to concentrate on three focus areas that prioritize critical4555issues identified by CGA's Next Practices Initiative and the top damage4556root causes that contribute to more than 76% of damages to buried4557infrastructure (according to CGA's most recent DIRT Report):4558        Effective and Consistent Use of 8114559        Key Excavator Practices (potholing, maintaining4560clearance, etc.)4561        Accurate, Timely Utility Locating45624563    CGA recently introduced the CGA Index, a metric for evaluating4564year-over-year damage trends, to measure industry progress in reducing4565damage. The status of the CGA Index will be updated annually in4566conjunction with the release of the DIRT Report.45674568                   Safety Risks of Inadequate Mapping45694570    Access to accurate utility mapping records can provide stakeholders4571with a critical tool to prevent damage to underground utilities. In4572order to take full advantage of the opportunity mapping provides, the4573accuracy of mapping records has to be prioritized and stakeholders4574across the damage prevention process need to have greater access to4575excavation site mapping information.4576    In 2023, failure to locate accurately and on time was the root4577cause attributed to 34% of damages to underground utilities. CGA's4578Locator White Paper and the work of the Next Practices Initiative4579reveal that improving the accuracy of facility maps and implementing4580electronic white-lining would help locators complete their work more4581quickly and accurately.4582    Records of underground utilities are often inaccurate or incomplete4583and are largely unavailable to damage prevention stakeholders like4584designers, locators, and excavators. Increasing adoption of mapping4585technology and map accessibility for damage prevention stakeholders has4586the potential to reduce damages and increase the efficiency of the safe4587excavation process.4588    Additionally, excavators continue to emphasize the importance of4589greater access to mapping records. The results of a 2024 national4590survey of excavators conducted by CGA revealed that 89% of professional4591excavators believe that having access to utility maps would reduce4592excavation damage.45934594                   Improved Facility Mapping Records45954596    Although there is much work to do to enhance mapping record4597accuracy and availability, many stakeholders are implementing programs4598and initiatives to improve mapping records. Featured in CGA's4599Leadership in Mapping video series, Jerry Schmitz, VP of Safety &4600Online Quality for Southwest Gas, describes his company's commitment to4601using maps as the foundation for its asset management and damage4602prevention efforts. Consumer's Energy has recently implemented a4603program to map its own natural gas distribution pipelines in addition4604to sewer facilities in close proximity to those assets.4605    In California, Senate Bill 865 (SB 865), introduced and passed in46062020, takes the improvement of mapping records further by requiring4607that new installations be mapped using GIS. The legislation aims to4608enhance safe excavation practices in the state by requiring all new4609subsurface installations to be mapped using a GIS starting from January46101, 2023, except for specific oil and gas flowlines within oil fields.4611    Increased availability and accessibility of GPS-enabled locating4612devices is also providing the industry with greater opportunities to4613effectively map facilities. UtiliSource, a Missouri-based utility4614design, engineering, and project management company, rolled out a4615program to record the location of all third-party locates throughout a4616fiber installation project. They will then be able to utilize this4617mapping record as they continue to do work in the same area, improving4618future project efficiency.4619    Gopher State One Call's GPS-enabled locator program in Minnesota4620partners with locating technology providers to equip damage prevention4621stakeholders across the state with utility line locators integrated4622with RTK GNSS accuracy and GPS collection capabilities. This program4623has been particularly beneficial to small municipalities, for whom4624updating legacy paper maps can be prohibitively time-consuming and4625expensive.46264627            Expanding Access to Utility Mapping Information46284629Important Concepts and Terminology4630    It is not necessary to consolidate utility mapping data in a single4631location to enable visualization of mapping data in support of damage4632prevention processes.4633    The term ``distributed GIS'' refers to geographic information4634systems that do not have all of the system components in the same4635physical location. In the context of this letter, ``distributed GIS''4636refers specifically to the rendering (or display) of geospatial data4637for an end user without that user having access to the underlying data.4638    Current GIS technology allows geospatial data owners to publish4639their data through a ``Web Mapping Service,'' or ``WMS.'' Publishing a4640WMS is a means of displaying view-only map data over the internet.4641Publishing a WMS empowers a data owner to completely control their own4642data, including where the data is stored, how the data is rendered/4643displayed for end users, and who may view the data. A WMS can be4644configured to prohibit copying or downloading GIS data underlying an4645internet-based map.4646Creating GIS Mashups4647    In a distributed GIS, the term ``mashup'' refers to a web-based4648mapping application that combines mapping content from disparate4649sources (such as web mapping services). Mashups separate the underlying4650geospatial data from the presentation of the data.4651    GIS mashups that incorporate mapping content from multiple4652utilities--who maintain full control over their own data--present many4653opportunities to support the damage prevention process. For example, an4654811 center could create a mashup of member utility data. The 811 center4655could then provide a display of the mapping data for dig tickets. The4656display would be limited to the extent of the excavation area and would4657only be available for the life of the ticket. An example of a mashup4658created by an 811 center is presented in CGA's Next Practices Case4659Study--Minnesota Utilities Mapping Project. The case study clearly4660demonstrates the concepts described in this letter. Additionally,4661Texas811 has created a mashup to provide map renderings of select4662facility participants' abandoned lines. CGA is following several4663mapping pilot projects and industry efforts to document practical4664options, effective protocols, and successful practices.4665    Efforts such as these have the potential to increase locating4666efficiency, decrease over-notification practices utilized by both4667contractors and facility owner/operators, and help decrease overall 8114668request volume so locators' workloads are more manageable.4669Additionally, increasing access to facility map information during the4670planning and design phase of large projects will improve overall4671project and process efficiency.4672Documenting Industry Best Practices for Distributed GIS for Damage4673        Prevention4674    Effectively using distributed GIS for damage prevention will4675require identifying Best Practices to address issues that arise with4676increased sharing of mapping records such as the following:4677      Geospatial data accuracy4678      Map feature attribute data4679      Geospatial data projections and coordinate systems4680      Adoption of protocols for publishing web mapping services4681to support damage prevention processes while also protecting data4682owners' information security46834684    As the only trade association that brings together stakeholders4685from all facets of the damage prevention industry, CGA is facilitating4686industry-wide dialogue to identify and document Best Practices that are4687creating an environment in which distributed GIS can serve the damage4688prevention process. This includes consideration of the items outlined4689above, which would provide the guardrails needed to provide greater4690access to facility mapping information prior to and during excavation4691projects.4692Taking Demonstration to Deployment4693    An effective option to provide greater access to facility map4694visualization for planned excavation would require selecting a finite4695area where map information would be provided to end users. Currently,4696the most widely adopted process for providing facility location4697information is when excavators make a locate request through the 8114698process--this occurs over 42 million times per year. Through this4699process, 811 centers use facility owner/operator map information to4700identify utilities that may be affected during an excavation project.4701Those utilities are then notified to locate and mark their facilities4702during a specified period of time prior to the excavation project. This4703well-understood process can be applied more broadly to provide affected4704stakeholders with facility visualization prior to and during an4705excavation project. This would not replace locating and marking but4706would greatly enhance the entire 811 damage prevention process.4707    This summary we have provided is not intended to outline all of the4708issues that must be addressed, but to serve as a starting point to4709establish a process that has the potential to significantly enhance the4710current 811 system and focus the industry on taking damage prevention4711to the next level to keep our communities safe and connected to the4712utilities we depend on every day.4713    The Common Ground Alliance appreciates the Committee's interest in4714the importance of GIS mapping to protect our Nation's critical pipeline4715infrastructure and keep our communities safe and connected.4716            Sincerely,4717                                    Sarah K. Magruder Lyle,4718                           President & CEO, Common Ground Alliance.47194720Letter of March 6, 2025, from Hon. Chrissy Houlahan, a Representative in4721 Congress from  the Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  to Hon. Sam Graves,4722 Chairman, and Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking  Member,  Committee  on  Trans-4723 portation and  Infrastructure,  and Hon. Daniel Webster, Chairman,  and4724 Hon. Dina Titus,  Ranking  Member,  Subcommittee  on  Railroads,  Pipe-4725 lines, and  Hazardous Materials,  Submitted for the Record by Hon. Dina4726 Titus47274728                                                     March 6, 2025.4729The Honorable Sam Graves,4730Chairman,4731Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of4732        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.4733The Honorable Daniel Webster,4734Chairman,4735Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, U.S.4736        House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.4737The Honorable Rick Larsen,4738Ranking Member,4739Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of4740        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.4741The Honorable Dina Titus,4742Ranking Member,4743Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, U.S.4744        House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.4745    Dear Chairmen Graves and Webster and Ranking Members Larsen and4746Titus:4747    Thank you for your leadership in ensuring the safe and efficient4748operation of our nation's hazardous liquid and gas pipelines in your4749forthcoming pipeline safety reauthorization legislation. I write4750following your subcommittee's February 25, 2025 hearing titled4751``Promoting and Improving Safety and Efficient Pipeline4752Infrastructure'' to emphasize the need for action to address issues4753related to ``Aldyl A'' plastic piping.4754    DuPont's Aldyl A has a long and well-documented history of ``poor4755performance histories relative to brittle-like cracking,'' including4756several Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration warnings4757dating back to 1999.\1\ Concerningly, Aldyl A has been involved in two4758deadly incidents in the past two years in the United States. This4759includes the R.M. Palmer Company Chocolate Factory explosion in West4760Reading, Pennsylvania in my district two years ago, which led to the4761death of seven workers, injured eleven people, displaced three4762families, and destroyed property.\2\ The National Transportation Safety4763Board (NTSB) recently met in December 2024 to review the incident and4764found that degradation of the retired Aldyl A tee from elevated ground4765temperatures allowed the gas to escape from the gas pipeline.\3\ In4766November 2024, the NTSB issued a preliminary report for another4767explosion involving an Aldyl A pipeline in South Jordan, Utah, which4768led to the death of a 15-year-old child, displaced families, and4769damaged several residences.\4\ This troubling acceleration of Aldyl A4770tragedies underscores the need for urgent congressional action.4771---------------------------------------------------------------------------4772    \1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/11/26/02-30055/4773notification-of-the-susceptibility-to-premature-brittle-like-cracking-4774of-older-plastic-pipe and4775    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2007-09-06/pdf/07-4309.pdf4776    \2\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/PLD23LR002.aspx4777    \3\ https://www.windrosemedia.com/livewebcast/version9/4778WebcastPortal/webcast.php?webcast_4779id=371&rpath=/clients/ntsb/public4780    \4\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/PLD25FR001.aspx4781---------------------------------------------------------------------------4782    In your subcommittee's pipeline safety hearing last week \5\, and4783previous hearing in May 2024 \6\, Mr. Bill Caram, Executive Director of4784the Pipeline Safety Trust, underscored the need for action to remove4785Aldyl A from pipelines, referencing both incidents in West Reading and4786South Jordan and stating, ``I look forward to the day when I can speak4787before you to let you know that there were no fatalities since the last4788time I testified, but today is not that day. The last two years have4789been the deadliest two-year period for pipelines in nearly 15 years.''4790---------------------------------------------------------------------------4791    \5\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW14/20250225/117825/HHRG-4792119-PW14-Wstate-CaramB-20250225.pdf4793    \6\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW14/20240507/116970/HHRG-4794118-PW14-Wstate-CaramB-20240507.pdf4795---------------------------------------------------------------------------4796    The upcoming pipeline safety reauthorization presents an4797opportunity for Congress to finally act before any more lives are lost.4798In the 118th Congress, I introduced the bipartisan Aldyl A Hazard4799Reduction and Community Safety Act \7\ (H.R.5638), which would require4800the proper documentation and subsequent removal of Aldyl A in high4801consequence areas, including considerations to minimize costs and4802service disruptions. As your subcommittee works to advance pipeline4803safety reauthorization legislation in the 119th Congress, I4804respectfully ask to work with you to reintroduce and include this4805critical legislation.4806---------------------------------------------------------------------------4807    \7\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/56384808---------------------------------------------------------------------------4809    Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue, especially4810considering the increase in deadly Aldyl A incidents recently. I stand4811ready to work with you to ensure that no other lives are lost on4812account of this problematic piping material.4813            Sincerely,4814                                          Chrissy Houlahan,4815                                                Member of Congress.48164817                               Appendix48184819                              ----------48204821    Question to Eric V. Taylor, P.E., Director, Engineering Serv-4822     ices,  BHE GT&S,  on behalf  of the Interstate  Natural  Gas4823     Association of America, from Hon. Dina Titus48244825    Question 1. Thank you for sharing with the Committee during our4826hearing that the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)4827supports the leak detection final rule as required in the Protecting4828Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 that4829PHMSA announced in mid-January 2025. Without its publication in the4830final register, I am concerned that known leaks will continue to go4831unrepaired and may cause further tragedies.4832    INGAA would like to see changes made to the final rule, what are4833those changes, and does INGAA believe it can garner consensus with the4834government and public members of the gas pipeline advisory committee4835for the changes in a timely manner?4836    Answer. Thank you for the question on Interstate Natural Gas4837Association of America's (INGAA) perspective on the Gas Pipeline Leak4838Detection and Repair (LDAR) rule. INGAA generally supports the proposed4839regulation but would like to see the rule noticed again and offered for4840comment by the current Administration to make changes.4841    First, I would like to provide background on existing leak4842detection requirements for transmission pipelines. Transmission4843pipelines are generally larger in diameter and operate at higher4844pressures than distribution pipelines. During the hearing, you noted4845Nevada has strict annual leak survey requirements for distribution4846pipelines. However, as transmission pipeline operators, the federal4847regulations \1\ also require annual surveys but also more frequent leak4848surveys depending upon the surrounding population of the pipeline.4849Current regulations \2\ also require hazardous leaks be promptly4850repaired. The PIPES Act of 2020 \3\ contained a self-executing mandate4851in Section 114, which requires pipeline operators to eliminate4852hazardous leaks and minimize releases of natural gas from pipeline4853facilities. Further, the self-executing mandate required an operator's4854plan include replacement or remediation of pipelines that are known to4855leak based on the material (including cast iron, unprotected steel,4856wrought iron, and historic plastics with known issues), design, or past4857operating and maintenance history of the pipeline.4858---------------------------------------------------------------------------4859    \1\ 49 C.F.R. Part 192.7064860    \2\ 49 C.F.R. Part 192.7034861    \3\ P.L. 116-2604862---------------------------------------------------------------------------4863    INGAA remains supportive generally of the LDAR rule. The Pipeline4864and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) followed the Gas4865Pipeline and Advisory Committee (GPAC) recommendations. INGAA and other4866industry associations submitted joint industry comments relating to the4867GPAC meetings held to review and discuss PHMSA's proposed LDAR rule and4868associated regulatory analyses. Included below are examples of proposed4869modifications from joint industry comments PHMSA received \4\ and4870concerns that have recently emerged.4871---------------------------------------------------------------------------4872    \4\ PHMSA-2021-0039 docket4873---------------------------------------------------------------------------4874    1.  Strike the proposed modifications made to 49 C.F.R. Part4875192.199. By design, relief valves are intended to vent gas at an4876operator selected set pressure and then closed, ending gas venting,4877once the pressure is below the set point. PHMSA's proposed modification4878incorrectly assumes operators set relief valves to vent more gas than4879appropriate.48804881    2.  Strike ``Unintentional estimated gas loss of three million4882cubic feet or more'' from the definition of an Incident \5\ so those4883losses can be captured in the proposed large volume release report.4884Removing this language would allow incident reporting to be solely4885focused on safety events and would provide PHMSA and industry better4886data to drive improvements in safety and reduce methane emissions. In4887reviewing current incident information, it appears the industry is4888experiencing a greater number of incidents, but this increase is due to4889an equipment malfunction. As an example, equipment malfunctions may be4890due to a relief valve that operated and vented more than 3 million4891cubic feet of gas. This data is valuable to track and measure to4892understand causal factors for this equipment malfunction and4893communicate to industry for continuous improvement, but this is not a4894safety related concern since the gas is vented from a device intended4895to vent gas. It is, however, an environmental issue, and INGAA supports4896having this information captured in a large volume release report.4897---------------------------------------------------------------------------4898    \5\ 49 C.F.R. Part 191(1)(iii)48994900    3.  Adjust the submission date for annual reports from the natural4901gas distribution, transmission, gathering, and LNG industries to June490215th. This date aligns with the much smaller Hazardous Liquids annual4903report submission date. Additional time will be needed to account for4904the recent addition for records evaluations and remediation, as well as4905the proposed requirements to evaluate leak data and associated4906estimates. This extra time helps to better ensure the full and accurate4907---------------------------------------------------------------------------4908completion of the annual report.49094910    Finally, and of particular concern, PHMSA recently created an4911exclusion for compressor stations that are subject to methane fugitive4912emission monitoring and repair requirements under the following:4913    i.  40 CFR 60.5397(a) (including alternative means approved through4914the process described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)4915under 40 CFR 60.5398(a) or 60.5399(a), or49164917    ii.  40 CFR 60.5397(b) (including alternative test methods approved4918under 60.5398b and alternative means approved through the process4919described by the EPA under 40 CFR 60.5399b); or49204921    iii.  an EPA-approved State or Tribal plan, or Federal plan, which4922includes methane emissions monitoring and repair standards equivalent4923to the model rule presumptive standards in 40 CFR 60.5397(c) (including4924alternatives approved according to 40 CFR 60.5398(c)49254926    The EPA is currently reviewing these regulations. The LDAR rule4927must be modified if the EPA withdraws these regulations. If these EPA4928regulations are retained, compressor stations subject to EPA4929regulations should comply with EPA reporting requirements rather than4930duplicative reporting requirements in the proposed LDAR rule.4931    Unfortunately, I am not able to determine when or how quickly the4932GPAC could develop a consensus to address the issues I have noted4933above. Another factor which may impact when the LDAR rule is finalized4934is scheduling GPAC meetings. Since January 2021, GPAC has only convened4935three times. It is imperative the Committee require at least two annual4936GPAC meetings to ensure regulations are reviewed and new technologies4937adopted. The last GPAC meeting was held in March 2024. At the time, the4938Committee voted to reconvene in one year to discuss potential changes4939to the class analysis process as part of the class location rule.4940However, no GPAC meeting is currently scheduled.49414942        Questions to Bill Caram, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety4943                       Trust, from Hon. Dina Titus49444945    Question 1. We need to implement the final rule that Congress4946advanced in 2020 to require operators to repair known leaks on a more4947consistent basis. After the tragedy of the explosions and subsequent4948fires in Jackson, Mississippi, Atmos categorized known leaks in the4949area as non-hazardous and therefore did not immediately fix them. We4950also need to ensure sufficient penalties are in place to incentivize4951operators to detect and repair leaks.4952    Question 1.a. What are the benefits to enacting this rule that4953Congress required in 2020?4954    Answer. The current gas pipeline safety regulations on leak4955detection and repair were written largely in the 1970's. Congress4956recognized the need to modernize these regulations and mandated that4957PHMSA adopt a final rule by January of 2022. First and foremost, the4958resultant fires and explosions from pipeline leaks continue to kill4959people every year, and setting standards for how operators need to look4960for those leaks and how quickly they need to repair them is critical.4961Also, we now know that methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and leaks4962that have historically been allowed to emit methane into the atmosphere4963so long as they don't pose an immediate risk of explosion to nearby4964buildings should also be repaired.4965    Your example of the Atmos Energy pipeline failures is apt. NTSB is4966still conducting its investigation, but based on the factual report we4967know that the leaks were categorized as Grade 2, meaning that they were4968not deemed ``immediately hazardous.'' That appears to be a tragic4969error. The final rule that PHMSA published, but then withdrew, would4970have set standards for the type of equipment operators need to use to4971find leaks, set clearer standards on how to grade the leaks they find,4972and set schedules for repair of those leaks based on their grade. 20234973and 2024 were especially deadly years for pipeline failures, with 304974people killed. We don't have time to lose.49754976    Question 1.b. Your testimony stated that PHMSA's civil penalties4977are not ``financially meaningful.'' Should Congress increase civil4978penalties to encourage pipeline operators to repair leaks more quickly?4979    Answer. Yes, Congress should absolutely give PHMSA more effective4980enforcement authority by increasing civil penalties. Again, using Atmos4981Energy as an example, after a separate tragic pipeline incident that4982killed a 12-year-old girl in Dallas, TX in 2018, the Texas Railroad4983Commission, whose pipeline safety program is overseen by PHMSA,4984proposed a $1.6 million fine in 2021. For perspective, Atmos brought in4985$3.5 billion in revenue in 2021. The proposed fine represents 0.05% of4986Atmos's revenue for the year. Even when looking at Atmos's 2021 net4987income of $697 million, the fine is only 0.2% of that. These fines are4988not financially meaningful and will not, on their own, drive change in4989behavior.49904991                                  [all]