HR 2100 Introduced – PALS Act

Back in March Rep Nehls (R,TX) introduced HR 2100, the Providing Americans with LNG Safely (PALS) Act. The bill would prohibit DOT from taking action to stop the shipment of liquified natural gas (LNG) by rail. This is very similar to S 1012 that was introduced earlier this year in the Senate, but Nehls added a cute name.

Prohibition on Action

The very short bill would specifically stop DOT from taking two different types of regulatory action concerning the shipment of LNG by rail. The first would be a prohibition against issuing any regulation or long-term order that prohibits the transportation of LNG by rail. The second would prevent similar DOT actions that would restrict or contract the scope of PHMSA’s final rule authorizing the shipment of LNG by rail that was issued last year.

The bill does specifically state that: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Transportation from issuing short-term emergency orders related to the transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail.”

Moving Forward

While Nehls is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration, and a cosponsor is Ranking Member Graves (R,MO), there is no way that this bill will be considered in Committee. This is almost a strictly party-divided issue. Even in a nearly evenly divided House, this bill could never make it to the floor for consideration.

S 1012 Introduced – Protecting LNG by Rail

Last month, Sen Cruz (R,TX) introduced S 1012, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from prohibiting the transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail, and for other purposes. The bill would stop DOT from modifying last summer’s final rule allowing the shipment of LNG by rail. A similar bill, HR 2100 was introduced in the House.

The Language

The bill is a short piece of legislation, only one section and no fancy title. It would not only stop DOT from initiating rulemakings to prohibit the transportation of LNG by rail, it would also prevent any rulemakings that “restricts or contracts the scope of allowance provided by the final rule of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, titled “Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail”, which was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 44994)” {§1(a)(2)}. It would, however, allow DOT “to issue short-term emergency orders related to the transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail” {§1(b)}.

Moving Forward

Cruz is a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This could mean that there would be enough influence to have this bill considered in Committee. In this case, however, I think that opposition for Democrats would be sufficient to stop the bill from being considered. If it were considered it would fail on a party line vote or maybe even have one or two Republicans vote against it. It could never make it to the floor of the Senate for consideration.

Commentary

Cruz and his two cosponsors {Sen Kennedy (R,LA) and Sen Cramer (R,ND)} are all from natural gas producing states. They are very aware of the general opposition in the Democratic Party to the shipment of natural gas by rail, and really, almost anything to do with natural gas in general. It is very likely that DOT will start some sort of rulemaking limiting LNG shipments or flatly overturning the Trump Administration’s rule allowing such shipments.

The three Senators know that there is no possible way for this bill to move forward in the Senate in this session. Even in a narrowly Republican Senate, this bill would face too much stiff opposition from Democrats to be able to get anywhere. The same will hold true on HR 2100 in the House. This bill and it’s House counterpart were introduced just to show the member’s constituents that they were trying to do something to protect the interests of natural gas shippers, the two bills are political gestures, nothing more.

Frankly, I am surprised that we have not seen a bill directing DOT to vacate the LNG by rail rule; something along the lines of §8202 of HR 2, the INVEST in America Act in the 116^th Congress. Such a bill would be very unlikely to be considered in a split Senate, but it would be an important notice to environmental activists and chemical safety supporters of the Democratic Party.

One thing is for sure, this is not the last we have heard about LNG by rail in the 117^th Congress.

Bills Introduced – 3-19-21

Yesterday, with just the House in session, there were 53 bills introduced. One of those bills will receive additional coverage in this blog:

HR 2100 To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from prohibiting the transportation of liquefied natural gas by rail, and for other purposes. Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22] 

As a side note (and the only mention here) H Res 260 was introduced yesterday to expel Rep. Greene (R,GA) from the House under article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. That clause reads:

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

There is nothing in the language of the bill that would explain what specific ‘disorderly behavior’ would be the basis for the expulsion.