Subcommittee Markup of HR 3432 – Pipeline Safety

The Energy Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a markup hearing on HR 3432, the Safer Pipelines Act of 2019, tomorrow. The bill was introduced earlier this week and an official copy of the bill has not yet been published. A Committee print of the bill is available.

A quick review of that print indicates that this is an authorization bill for the pipeline safety activities of DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA). I have not yet had a chance to do an in depth review of the bill but it does include provisions making modification to current requirements for:

• Integrity management programs;

• Pipeline hazard communication requirements;

• Emergency preparedness planning; and

• The adjustment of civil and criminal penalties for violations of pipeline safety rules and regulations.

Additionally, §6 of the bill includes the same mandamus provisions found in HR 3290.

The markup notice indicates that at least one amendment will be considered to HR 3432. That amendment proposed by Rep. Kennedy (D,MA) would add six new sections to the bill. Again, I have not yet had a chance to do an in depth review of the amendment, but it looks very similar to HR 2139 that was cosponsored by Kennedy. HR 2139 has not yet been referred to the Energy Subcommittee and no action has been taken on that bill.

HR 2139 Introduced – Gas Pipeline Safety

Earlier this month Rep. Trahan (D,MA) introduced HR 2139, the Leonel Rondon Pipeline Safety Act. The bill would make amendments to gas distribution pipeline safety rules. This bill is a companion bill (identical language) to S 1097.

While Trahan is not on either of the two Committees to which this bill was assigned, one of her two co-sponsors {Rep. Kennedy (D,MA)} is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This means that it is possible that this bill will be considered in Committee. While S 1097 is unlikely to be considered in the Senate, the Energy and Commerce Committee is likely to take up this bill where I would suspect that it would pass with a strictly partisan vote. Committee Chair politics almost ensures that the bill would not move to the floor of the House unless sponsors are added that have some influence on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The lack of bipartisan support for this bill ensures that it would have to be considered by the whole House subject to a rule. It is unlikely that anyone currently associated with the bill has enough political influence to see that happen.

These two bills are political moves to demonstrate to constituents that were directly or closely affected by a serious pipeline safety event that the sponsors of the bill are trying to do something to fix the problem. This is good politics even if no further action is taken on either bill.