America’s Energy Infrastructure: Authorizing Pipeline Safety

The subcommittee on energy will now come to order. The chair recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. And again, good morning and welcome to today's energy subcommittee hearing to discuss legislation authorizing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety program. We welcome our witness, the Honorable Paul Roberti, the administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, and thank him for appearing before us today. Your perspective will inform our legislative effort and update us on the administration's priorities for maintaining the safety of America's pipeline infrastructure and enabling the safe expansion of it. It's good to have a Senate-confirmed administrator leading this vital safety agency after the record-long vacancy under the Biden-Harris administration. PHMSA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT, that develops and enforces federal safety regulations for the nation's pipeline infrastructure and the transportation of hazardous materials. PHMSA works closely with industry and pipeline operators to ensure the safe delivery of the nation's most abundant energy resources, from natural gas and crude oil to propane, jet fuel, gasoline, and other refined petroleum products. States also play an essential role in carrying out PHMSA's pipeline safety program, acting as boots on the ground to help inspect and oversee the safety of over 3.3 million miles of both liquid and gas pipelines in PHMSA's jurisdiction. In fact, states inspect and enforce the pipeline safety regulations for 85 percent of the infrastructure in PHMSA's safety authority. Pipelines continue to be the safest and most efficient mode of transport for the energy of American families and our economy depends on it. Reliable, affordable natural gas makes up almost half of our country's resource mix for power generation, and more than half of American families rely on natural gas to heat their homes, cook their food, and power their lives. Pipeline infrastructure in this country is essential to ensure the safe delivery of energy to fuel our country. To advance PHMSA's mission to oversee the safety of our pipeline infrastructure, we will review the discussion draft before us today, and that draft legislation before us today focuses on safety, exactly as Congress originally intended with PHMSA's mission. This discussion draft reauthorizes PHMSA for five years, enabling PHMSA to continue modernizing and enhancing its pipeline safety program. The draft would codify several important provisions to improve the efficiency and safety of the agency. For example, the bill would remove duplicative regulations that do not improve safety, clarify that PHMSA's cost-benefit analysis focuses on safety and not anti-energy agendas, reduces red tape so special permit programs can efficiently focus on pertinent safety requirements, strengthen penalties for pipeline safety violations that impair pipeline operations, establish a voluntary information sharing program to advance good safety products among pipeline operators, and ensure the ensure state damage prevention programs adopt best practices to reduce the leading cause of pipeline damage incidents. The United States energy system is at a turning point. We're witnessing unprecedented energy demand not seen in decades, and demand is only expected to increase over the next several years, of which we've heard from almost every witness that we've had before us saying that we need more energy. Safe, efficient deployment and oversight of our gas and liquid pipeline system is key to providing reliable energy and power to American families. For too long, sound pipeline safety policy has been hijacked by the environmental left, intent on stymieing pipeline expansion and limiting its massive benefits to our nation. I look forward to working with PHMSA, pipeline operators, and relevant stakeholders to make sure the pipeline safety program is efficient, predictable, and focused on safety priorities to promote confidence and enable the safe expansion of our pipeline system. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance legislation that provides for durable and focused safety oversight of and appropriate to the pipeline infrastructure. Again, we want to thank you, Administrator Roberti, for being with us today, and with that, I yield back and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's 14th District, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Administrator Roberti. Colleagues, pipeline safety should be a bipartisan priority for this committee. It should be easy to agree that pipeline safety requires adequate resources, it requires a robust professional workforce, and a regulator willing to do its job to keep Americans safe. Congress has proved that we can deliver on those goals and we've done it in a bipartisan way. We passed the PIPES Act of 2020 to address methane pollution and improve safety standards for gas gathering lines and other pipeline segments. We followed that in 2021 with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated $1 billion over five years for grants to help replace leak-prone gas pipelines. Today's hearing should be about building on those successes. Unfortunately, as with so many bills our Republican colleagues have decided to bring through this committee, you're just not living up to your responsibility to our hardworking neighbors back home because it appears, based upon the work product from the Republican side of the aisle, that you are not serious about pipeline safety. You've allowed the office PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety authorization to lapse for over two and a half years. Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee passed a bipartisan PHMSA reauthorization bill. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed a bipartisan bill. But unfortunately, the Energy and Commerce Republicans have decided to write a bill without Democratic input, which only reflects the priorities of oil and gas polluters. This is not how we craft serious, durable policy. Colleagues, PHMSA needs reform, such as new authorities to regulate emerging technology like hydrogen and carbon dioxide pipelines. These are industries that Republicans say they support, but the bill is silent. It doesn't authorize any studies or rulemakings that would help us make these industries safer. PHMSA also needs resources, but this bill authorizes nearly $200 million per year less than the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has passed. PHMSA needs staff, which is why the House T and I bill authorizes an increase in the number of employees with certain subject matter expertise. The Energy and Commerce Committee bill does nothing for workforce development. It also is silent while the Trump administration has cut the number of employees at PHMSA by 14 percent, or they've declined anyway. Nearly all of PHMSA's senior career staff chose to leave rather than endorse the administration's actions. PHMSA also needs congressional oversight, particularly now. Pipeline safety enforcement was cut in half in 2025. PHMSA should hold dangerous actors accountable by increasing maximum penalties for breaking the law, but this bill does nothing to strengthen enforcement. Just last week, the president stood before Congress and claimed that he is rapidly ended high prices. That's not true, and our hardworking neighbors back home know this very well. Electricity prices are up 13 percent on average, but much higher in many places. The average U.S. household paid $116 more on their electricity bills last year compared to the year before. Many are paying more. Since Trump took office, utilities have proposed rate hikes of at least $92 billion. This is a legal tariffs that cost hardworking Americans thousands of dollars. In midst all this pain, the administration is trying to gut energy assistance and disaster relief programs. And now, based upon the war in Iraq, the future is very uncertain for the cost of energy. It looks like again, the average working American and businesses that rely on consistent energy are going to be paying more. All of that is going to continue this affordability squeeze that I know my folks back home can't afford. None of it lowers costs and none of this keeps Americans safe. Once again, the president is proving he has no solutions to real problems of hardworking families. If they're looking in the Energy and Commerce Committee, their time is probably better spent elsewhere, but hope springs eternal. I really encourage my Republican colleagues to work with us to develop a real PHMSA reauthorization bill that protects the American people, not just oil and gas interests. Thanks, I yield back my time.

Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the full committee chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for all this, Administrator Roberti, for being here. And my good friend from Florida used a term I was about to use, hope springs eternal. This is a discussion draft and so there's opportunities for us to do this in a bipartisan way. We hope that we can. I would note there are a couple of provisions that were not included in our discussion draft because there were some concerns about from the minority for them if they were included. So hopefully that's a signal that we want to do this in good faith and we want to work together and hopefully we can get to a solution. So I would say look to the Energy and Commerce Committee. Hopefully we can work together to find common ground, but it has to be common ground, it can't be just one way or the other. So we appreciate that and hope does spring eternal we can work together. And we're not marking up next week, discussion draft is before us and hopefully the opportunity to come up with a bipartisan solution because I believe if we can do it, they're more stable, it gives people more certainty. So we'll work on we'll continue to work that direction. So PHMSA's pipeline safety program promotes safe delivery of more than two-thirds of our nation's energy products to market through its regulations and oversight in partnership with state safety programs. As we consider today's pipeline safety discussion draft and the work and priorities of PHMSA, we should not lose focus on this central role of pipelines. The energy supplied through pipelines is safest and most affordable form of fuel transport is vital for keeping our lights on, for heating our homes, and for making many of the products of our modern society relies upon. Pipeline infrastructure networks include about 2.4 million miles of natural gas lines serving 74 million American homes and businesses, and there are over there are a half a million miles of oil and natural gas transmission lines and the related storage infrastructure which serves communities, manufacturers, refiners, and transportation sector. The recent winter storm, Fern, clearly demonstrated the benefits of this essential infrastructure. People had the gas they needed to heat their homes during one of the largest cold weather emergencies in years, and natural gas-fired power generation had the supplies to produce the power needed when demand reached its peak. This was life-saving performance made possible by the pipeline transmission and storage network that is designed to deliver the fuels Americans need when they need it. We need a regulatory system designed to serve the life-saving value of a safe and efficient pipeline infrastructure and we need to expand capacity to expand the benefits of energy. More capacity means lower prices. The discussion of the draft today provides a great opportunity to meet what should be a bipartisan goal of expanding the safe delivery of affordable, reliable energy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide the tools and guidance this administration needs to get this done right. Thank you, and I yield back.

Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Latta. We're here today to discuss the Republican proposal to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety activities, more than two years after the last authorization, the PIPES Act of 2020, expired. It's disappointing to me that Republicans are once again choosing to go it alone on this reauthorization because bipartisan cooperation is necessary to get any reauthorization across the finish line. And that's exactly the approach that both the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee have taken, working together and producing bipartisan bills. It's also troubling that Republicans are choosing a partisan path when you look at how the Trump administration has weakened and radically altered PHMSA's pipeline safety program over the last year. Enforcement activities have fallen off a cliff. The number of pipeline enforcement cases opened last year was roughly half of the average during the prior four years. And instead of focusing on safety, in the first weeks of the Trump administration, PHMSA withdrew two ready-to-be-finalized safety rules required by law and has yet to reissue them. PHMSA staffing is also a major issue, with a 14 percent reduction in nearly all of its senior career staff choosing to leave. So even if the administration were to suddenly recognize the importance of keeping our pipelines safe, it's unclear to me if PHMSA has the resources and staff necessary to aggressively enforce our nation's pipeline safety laws. So Administrator Roberti, I was frankly hopeful that with your confirmation, the bleeding and disorder at PHMSA would stop, but unfortunately, that has not been the case. In recent months, PHMSA has been engaged in a bogus audit of grants given to the Pipeline Safety Trust, the nation's only nonprofit dedicated to pipeline safety. For months, PHMSA suspended reimbursements to the Pipeline Safety Trust and now is only allowing the resumption of the grant on the condition that it not be used to compensate the trust's executive director, who testified before this committee last year on pipeline safety. To me, this looks a lot like retaliation against the only organization working to shine a light on the Trump administration's dangerous PHMSA agenda, and it's unacceptable and cannot happen again. You also recently issued a memo indicating that PHMSA would waive enforcing pipeline safety rules for pipelines helping Trump's so-called energy dominance agenda. And Administrator Roberti, PHMSA does not have the authority to selectively enforce our nation's laws based on whether the president thinks a pipeline is important or not. So let me now turn to the discussion draft before us today. This draft represents a marked improvement over the version that committee Republicans proposed last Congress. It no longer contains a number of provisions that Democrats had identified as poison pills and were completely unrelated to pipeline safety. However, any pipeline safety reauthorization must strengthen PHMSA's core safety and enforcement responsibilities, especially in light of an administration that seems unwilling to do so. And on that count, this Republican bill falls short. The bill fails to reauthorize a few provisions from the PIPES Act, including TAG grants and damage prevention programs that are vital to communities. It also fails to formally authorize the continuation of the successful bipartisan infrastructure law program to replace aging, unsafe distribution pipelines across the nation. The draft bill attempts to roll back a requirement from the 2020 law that PHMSA consider environmental harms and does nothing to push PHMSA to finalize safety rules for carbon dioxide pipelines and methane leak detection. And finally, the bill does nothing to enhance PHMSA's ability to fight back against companies flouting its safety rules and regulations. And that's not to say the bill is all bad. I support the establishment of a voluntary information sharing system, and I also think that pushing states to adopt best practices for their one-call excavation programs is a good idea. But the bad in this discussion draft outweighs the good. Committee Republicans should learn the lessons of the partisan approach they took last Congress and not repeat the same mistakes. There is ample time to negotiate and alter the bill before a markup, and I'm hopeful we can get to a bipartisan product just like the other two committees have done. If we can't, then we risk further delaying reauthorization of PHMSA's critical pipeline safety authorities. And I don't think that's acceptable, and I don't believe Republicans do either. So Chairman Latta, let's work in a bipartisan fashion so we can produce a bill that keeps the American people safe. And I thank you and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. And this now concludes member opening statements. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Again, we want to thank our witness for joining us today and taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. Our witness will have an opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from our members. Our witness today is Administrator Paul J. Roberti, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. And before recognizing you, just some quick housekeeping. If you'd pull that mic up to you close, we'd appreciate that. And also with the lights, you'll have five minutes. You'll have four minutes where it'll be green, one minute when yellow, and at red, time's up. So we appreciate you being here today, and at this time, you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. Thank you. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. And this now concludes member opening statements. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record. Again we want to thank our witness for joining us today.

Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify on the reauthorization of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety program. I appreciate the subcommittee's support for PHMSA's vital work for ensuring the safety of our nation's vast energy transportation network. Safety drives everything we do at DOT and PHMSA. Our goal is a zero future, zero incident future for the nation's network of over 3.3 million miles of pipelines transporting oil, gas, and other energy products all across the country. A modern, safe, reliable transportation network is critical to ensuring American homes and businesses always have access to the energy needed to power daily life. PHMSA's pipeline safety program has three key elements: updating or developing new regulations, policies, and guidance for operators; using our inspection enforcement process to hold pipeline operators accountable; and supporting research into new and promising technologies. Each of these three elements is critical to ensuring the safety and reliability of our pipeline network, which is more important than ever as the nation experiences an energy renaissance propelled by innovative production technologies and growing global demand for U.S. energy. Under Secretary Duffy's leadership, the PHMSA team has been hard at work, unleashing American energy and delivering on President Trump's America First agenda. PHMSA is operating more efficiently and effectively than ever before, initiating more pro-growth, pro-safety rulemakings in the first year of this administration than in the previous four years combined. Our regulatory agenda has been heavily focused on modernizing regulations and eliminating unnecessary and outdated requirements that do not advance safety. Many of PHMSA's regulations have not been updated in decades, and last year we initiated several concurrent efforts to update key sections of our code to enhance safety and encourage continued industry innovation. At the same time, PHMSA has revamped its enforcement program to ensure the process is fair while continuing to hold operators accountable. PHMSA announced new inspection enforcement priorities for the agency last year, a first-of-its-kind effort that recently led to the issuance of the highest proposed civil administrative penalty in the agency's history. The agency is also deploying its investigators earlier and more often to ensure that we are on site when incidents occur. PHMSA remains laser-focused on safety, which is why we have also redirected the agency's research and development program to focus on projects that will improve the safety of our existing infrastructure and to keep it operating safely for years to come. PHMSA's most recent pipeline safety authorization expired in 2023. While the agency has continued to operate since then, we appreciate the subcommittee's attention to extending our authorization using a streamlined approach. PHMSA is continuing to work to complete several outstanding mandates from past reauthorizations, and your bill will allow us to focus on advancing those priorities without adding to the agency's backlog. The committee's proposed approach introduces important statutory reforms aligned with the administration's efforts to modernize the agency, such as reforms to our special permit program. I have been a public servant most of my career, and I am honored to return to PHMSA as administrator after four years in which the agency's top post was left vacant. Having served as both a state utility regulator and as PHMSA's chief counsel, I know how critical the agency's work is to ensuring public safety, and I am grateful that President Trump has prioritized returning the agency to its core safety mission. Today's PHMSA is more efficient, effective, and responsive than ever before. I am grateful to the dedicated PHMSA staff for their hard work keeping the American people safe and ensuring affordable domestic energy is available where it is needed. In closing, thank you again, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Castor, and members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to share my vision for a modern PHMSA. I look forward to your questions.

Well, thank you very much for your testimony, and we will now move into the question-answer portion of our hearing, and I'll begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Roberti, we often discuss affordability. Will increasing pipeline infrastructure help drive down energy prices?

I'm sorry, I...

We often discuss affordability. Will increasing pipeline infrastructure help drive down energy prices?

Absolutely, Chairman. The nation's pipeline network remains the envy of the world. The amount of energy moved safely to propel our economy and our way of life is really an incredible story. That infrastructure is critical. We're not a permitting agency, but to the extent that the nation will need more energy, and we know that to be the case, then the safest way to move that energy to homes and businesses and to power plants that support the electric grid is through pipelines.

As a regulator, you have a key role in enabling the safe expansion of the pipeline infrastructure. What are your priorities in terms of expanding our pipeline infrastructure in a safe manner?

So our priorities are to breed trust in the safety of the transportation network. It's to be an effective, streamlined, respected regulator to ensure that the code, on the one hand, the regulations, which are in this book here, are modernized, that they're clear, that they're up to date, that they take advantage of, that they reflect the engineering and technologies of today and not from decades ago. And on the other hand, I think it would fall into three categories: compliance, enforcement, and accountability. We the the industry needs to be held accountable to run their operations safely. And I am highly, highly committed to that.

You know, you mentioned something you talked about modernization of the regulations and also being clear. You know, that word clear when we talk about the federal government could also be kind of muddy. So what what do we need to do on those regulations to make sure they're clear for people across the country?

So that's a really good question. One of the efforts I bring and and my entire my entire leadership team are folks that have been in the federal government before. So we come back with an understanding of how the government works. When we write regulations, less words are more. We need to be specific very, very clear about what these regulations do so that we have transparency and a full understanding by the industry of what they need to do. So having clear clear regulations is is one piece of it. The other side of it is I think to make sure the industry knows where we are targeting our enforcement. And our reprioritization of our enforcement in the last year has sent a clear message to industry of where we're going to target our enforcement so that they can focus on those areas of their system because we're going to be coming out and inspecting in areas such as integrity management programs, activities in high consequence areas, and especially if an incident or accident occurs, we are going to be there and we're going to investigate it and we're going to make sure that the the code was complied with.

Well thank you. PHMSA is responsible for not only developing the safety regulation but also enforcing it as you're mentioning that. Explain how on the prior how how you are prioritizing enforcement to ensure the most significant safety concerns are always addressed.

Yeah, so the historically PHMSA's inspectors went out and typically they would be you know citing everything and anything. And the the reassessment of the the enforcement program was to focus on areas where safety would be most impacted. So again, as I mentioned, high consequence areas, control rooms and leak detection, knowing when a leak is occurring so that it can be addressed immediately, accidents and incidents, avoiding accidents and incidents, excavation damage, which I know is a subject of this bill. Areas where we are seeing the greatest impacts to safety and impacts on the environment is where we're prioritizing enforcement. That sends a clear message to industry where they should devote their resources because that's where we're going to be looking.

Well thank you. My time's almost expired and I will submit my other questions written questions to you. And I'll yield back and at this time I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Administrator. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety program oversees the safety of 3.3 million miles of oil, gas, and other pipelines that stretch across the country. For most Americans, it's out of sight, out of mind, which means that the responsibility of your agency is particularly important to to ensure the safety of the American public and our businesses. Over the last 10 years, there have been an average of over 620 pipeline safety incidents each year resulting in an average of 43 injuries and 11 deaths. And these numbers unfortunately are climbing every year. Last April, a pipeline explosion in Missouri killed a five year old child. Meanwhile, in January 2024, an explosion from a natural gas line in Fort Worth, Texas injured 21 people. I heard you answer to the chairman and I know you said in your Senate confirmation hearing that safety is going to be your top priority. Is that right?

Yes. Yes, absolutely. The mission of safety.

Yet, it's very concerning that since 2024, the number of employees at PHMSA has decreased by more than 14 percent. Aren't you concerned with the ability of your agency to keep folks safe when you're losing many of the experts that that should be tasked to do that?

So so you're correct we've lost we've lost some staff but those if you look in a broader context, when I was when I was chief counsel just a few years ago, the agency's budget and the staffing was I mean the budget was almost doubled. So there so where we are today, all of the all of the administration's efforts to reduce workforce did not touch critical safety workers. So the inspection and enforcement divisions have seen not big reductions and we're hiring we're working to hire there.

Mr. Administrator, I hear what you're saying, but we are also watching what you're doing and we understand that pipeline safety enforcement was cut in half in 2025. So the it's not computing there. It's you know what the the actual results rather than the rhetoric is what the Congress is focused on. Mr. Administrator, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created PHMSA's first ever infrastructure grant program designating $1 billion in grant funding to repair, rehabilitate, and replace gas distribution pipelines. The grants were wildly popular. Hundreds of communities across 29 states were able to take advantage of these grants including one across the bay from where I am in Clearwater, Florida. Do you believe that the Congress should fully fund and authorize that important initiative?

Well I know that free money is always wildly popular. And let me put some place that in context. The grant program focused on publicly owned gas systems. Investor owned gas systems were not part of the grant program. So I come from Rhode Island to serve my in my as I said when I got confirmed, I came from Rhode Island to serve my nation. In my state with an investor owned utility we have made investments and efforts to replace cast iron, bare steel, and high risk infrastructure over the course of 20 years. So the big issue for Congress and we will implement whatever program effectively that you decide to fund, but the big issue is an equity is an equity issue. Should states that are paying for the replacement of aged and leak prone pipelines which they have an obligation to do, which we need regulators economic regulators in those states to require capital programs to systematically replace aged infrastructure, should those states that are doing it now bail out states that haven't done it?

So is your is your answer a no, you don't support reauthorization of the that very popular grant program to repair, rehabilitate, and replace gas distribution pipelines?

I I just raised the equity issue, but if the Congress in its wisdom decides to continue the program...

And safety is your overriding you said safety is your overriding concern and you do not support you or would you support it with changes is that what you're saying?

I support the the regulations require all operators to make investments and to address leak prone high risk infrastructure and whether or not the taxpayers pay for it or those utilities do what all other utilities are doing across the country, particularly in states where they don't have publicly owned gas systems, you know, we you have you get to the same place. It's just a question of who pays for it.

Thank you very much.

The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the chair of the full committee for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you Administrator Roberti for being here. And I want to build off your comments in your testimony about operating more effectively than ever, initiating more pro-growth pro-safety rulemakings. So our pipeline system with its life enhancing and life saving energy delivery is essential to a strong and safe society. So my questions are how do you see your safety priorities enabling the safe expansion of pipelines and not unnecessarily limiting their benefits? And how should we incorporate that vision for not unnecessarily limiting benefits of pipelines into our discussion draft? We want to make sure we're safe, safe first and foremost, but also not limiting.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman for the question. We're not a permitting agency. Decisions about whether pipes get permitted are either with the federal government if it's interstate and with with the states. But the extent those pipelines exist, we're going to make sure that our rules in terms of the specifications for the design, the construction are are clear, that they are enforced, that the pipelines are operated safely in accordance with our code and and to basically not be distracted. One of the observations I've had and you look at prior reauthorizations is that there are so many reports and efforts that seem to become a distraction to the agency to focus on this core on its core duty to inspect and enforce compliance with the code. So I think that in some sense in my view as a federal agency, less is more instead of more mandates and more studies and more more looking for opportunities for fuel conversions that may be you know futuristic technologies, we need to focus on what I think is the bread and butter of this agency which is compliance, enforcement, accountability, modernizing the code, and dealing with the outstanding congressional mandates that Congress has has given this agency.

Do you have any examples of like proposals or anything that might distract you from being able to do what you think's the core mission which we think is ensuring that people have safe pipelines?

Well one of the big giant differences from the last administration to this administration was not the distraction of converting the agency into more of an environmental regulator focused on long-term effects on climate change rather than focused on what is really the pure safety mission of maintaining and keeping the product in the pipe. So we're looking for you know real impacts on safety, real impacts impacts on the environment, discharges of oil into rivers or or fields. That's where that's where the core safety mission lies. And so when we tried to expand the when the last administration expanded the agency to do many of these things were really outside the scope and more in the realm of an environmental regulator, I believe that it diluted and distracted the agency and its workforce from that core mission of safety.

Okay, thanks. So and you know unfortunately we have have to have enforcement actions sometimes and it's good that you're there. So if you talk about publishing your enforcement priorities, how does publishing enforcement priorities and related data help to deter unsafe operations?

Well our hope is that by by telling operators where we are going to be focusing, they're going to be more diligent and put more resources into those efforts. Leak detection, main integrity management in high consequence areas, excavation damage prevention, which is predominantly done by our state partners. But those are those are key areas where we want to and and certainly avoiding incidents and accidents. You know, the the number of incidents and accidents, that is always going to be a warning. We're trying to achieve a zero incident future. Pipelines are the by far the safest mode of transportation, but but one fatality or one major accident is one too many in my opinion.

Okay, thanks. So you talk about state damage prevention programs and what are your thoughts on the importance of those programs and would this provision help remove the largest cause of pipeline incidents?

Yes, so when you look at the number of incidents in 2025, when you look at the incidents, there were 25 fatalities. 80 percent of those lie within the jurisdiction of our state partners where we don't have primary jurisdiction, but we use our state partners because those are the local gas companies. Of those, so 80 percent of the 25 were within states and local utilities. Of that, 30 percent 30 to 40 percent are related to excavation damage. So one of the highest public safety impacts is in this area of excavation damage. And I believe that that these...

I'm sorry, the gentleman's time has expired.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Chairman Latta. Administrator Roberti, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I am concerned about the reduction in pipeline safety enforcement activity at PHMSA last year. And according to your own data, last year PHMSA opened roughly half as many enforcement cases than it did on average during the Biden administration. And as of Monday, PHMSA has only opened 10 enforcement cases this year. Now, during your confirmation hearing and even and also today, you stated that you wanted to assure the public that pipelines are safety, but I think PHMSA's actions speak louder than your words, frankly. So let me ask you, why did enforcement decline so dramatically last year? And can you commit that the amount of enforcement cases PHMSA initiates will rebound to typical levels this year?

Yeah, so many of the numbers in the period of time that you're referring to were before I came on as as administrator.

I realize.

I have within this agency, if you ask anybody, they will if they if if you ask anybody in this agency what I talk about, they'll they will know the three words that I talk about: compliance, enforcement, accountability.

Right, but what I'm asking you...

And and I think in the last few months, you've seen that. The highest administrative penalty that we rendered at the close of the year for $9 million for an operator that spilled a significant amount of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. We took action. That was at my direction.

No, I appreciate that. And I expect that that Chairman that I expect that that will continue. I just want to be sure and I'm not asking for a specific number, but I just want your commitment that PHMSA will rebound in terms of the number of enforcement cases in general, there'll be a rebound to typical levels, you know. That's all. Can you say yes or no?

Yes. I I do expect that to rebound. And I would note that for 2025, the the level of fines actually was the highest in the history of the entire agency because of those late year activities.

All right, thanks. Now, I also wanted to discuss a notice of limited enforcement discretion that PHMSA published in January. And my concern that is that this is essentially a blanket waiver of all safety rules for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines in order to address what I consider the president's phony energy emergency. So let me ask you, why should Americans have trust in the safety of pipelines if you're announcing that pipelines that benefit the president politically won't be subject to safety standards? Because that's how I look at this notice of limited enforcement discretion.

No, I appreciate your your question and your concern. Those that effort can only happen an operator can only achieve enforcement discretion unless with a demonstration that safety will not be undermined.

And how do they do that?

We will we will ensure we will look at the the circumstances in which the operator has has stated that there is a there is an emergency. Now, remember, if there we're talking about a situation where there may be an energy emergency where the ability to move product may mean the difference between whether a community is able to heat their homes at night. So there are corresponding safety and reliability issues that would be taken into consideration here. But if we're not satisfied that enforcement discretion or special permit is appropriate because it will undermine safety, that permit will not be issued. And at any time we find that we find evidence that or we have a concern about safety, we'll revoke that.

All right, I appreciate. Let me just ask you one more question. Has PHMSA done an analysis of the financial benefit pipeline operators will gain from the waiver we just discussed?

From that waiver? No, I don't expect it to be used unless there are serious exigencies that warrant a strong public need to assist communities because of a deprivation of energy supply where we need to find ways similar to if there's a major storm or hurricane, we may on the Hazmat side waive hours of service requirements in order to get product to to gas stations or to heating heating oil to homes. It's in that context. There'd have to be a demonstrated...

I mean, my concern, and I'm not going to ask you anything more, my concern is that this waiver jeopardizes safety and essentially pads the profits of pipeline companies, you know, at a time when energy bills are skyrocketing. But I appreciate your response. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, the gentleman yields back. And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama's sixth district for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Roberti, the U.S. officially initiated its departure from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which helped drive the Biden administration's climate agenda. Does this reduce spending on enforcement in the climate area in this area that can be used more effectively for other priorities?

I missed the end of the question, I'm sorry.

I'll try to speak better English, I'm from the South. Does this reduce spending in that area, enforcement on the Biden climate agenda, does that free up funding that can be used more effectively in other for other priorities?

Yes, I do think that I do think that our the expansive focus on things beyond direct impact...

But it doesn't mean that you're negating any responsibility for taking care of the environment and and safety issues. It doesn't...

No, no, not at all, not at all.

Let me ask you something else. How important is private investment for improving the nation's network of pipelines and do we need new pipelines to replace old ones to meet the nation's energy needs?

Well, that's a great question. I mean, the beauty of the American system of of the network of the network of pipelines that we rely on for the most part is funded by private capital because we have regulatory institutes.

So that private investment's very important.

Extremely important, I think it's the best way.

Let me ask you this. We need additional pipelines, we're going to have to have a major increase in investment in energy and processing and refining critical metals, rare earth elements. Are you concerned that the Keystone XL reversal signaled to the private market that another pipeline project or another major project could be canceled as a political act, even after years of work and and major sunk costs?

Well, to the extent that the presidential permits, one administration can there's a clause in each presidential permit that allows it to be rescinded. It's not...

So doesn't that increase it's not good policy to do that. Well, that that should cause private investors to be concerned, it will increase the cost of pipeline because of the risk mitigation that that you'd have to look at to look into. Absolutely yes, it will, that's a risk. Are you as PHMSA coordinated with other agencies to ensure reliable pipeline cybersecurity?

Yes, we do, we have a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. We work we we work closely with FERC, we'll engage with our DOE partners and get briefings from the FBI and...

Do you have any jurisdictional conflicts at the federal or state level?

The jurisdiction really resides in CISA at the Homeland Security Department and in TSA, but being that we have so many inspectors that are out in the field and in control rooms, we try to coordinate with them so that we can help assist in in achieving their ends.

Let me ask you, PHMSA's been mandated by Congress to complete the idle pipeline rulemaking as part of the 2020 reauthorization. Pipeline operators need regulatory certainty from PHMSA for situations where they suspend normal service on pipeline systems due to changes in market conditions and what's the status of the pipelines is either active is neither active nor abandoned. The current PHMSA PIPES Act 2020 chart, which tracks the progress of pipeline safety rulemakings, projects publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking on idle pipelines by February of 26 of 2027. Could you provide an update on implementation of the idle pipeline rulemaking?

Yes, so I I'm very aware that's one of our mandates. Our teams are working on it. We hope to advance that to an NPRM by fall. And I think there are good reasons to do so.

Okay, it's going to be very important that that we have this again because of the emerging energy needs that we need and I think in terms of upgrading and expanding the network of pipe pipelines across the country. So Mr. Chairman, with that I'll yield back.

Thank you very much, the gentleman yields back. And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 50th district for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important pipeline or hearing on pipeline safety. My local utility, San Diego Gas and Electric, manages over 16,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. Those pipelines are critical component of of our energy infrastructure, they help keep the lights on for us and similarly for millions of Americans across the country. And every witness before the Energy Subcommittee has been clear this year, we need more of everything, whether it's transmission, pipelines, renewables, or gas. And that's why ensuring that this infrastructure is safe and appropriately regulated is critical, both for the safety of our communities and for the long-term competitiveness of the natural gas and pipeline industry. Unfortunately, the regulatory pendulum swing, especially when it comes to pipeline regulation, can stand in the way. And at the EPA, the Obama administration issued methane control rules. Trump appealed them. Biden put them back and now Trump is repealing them again. And we're seeing it that at PHMSA, specifically regarding standards for pipeline leakage and safety standards. We had the bipartisan PIPES Act of 2020, which was signed into law by President Trump. It mandated that these rules be updated and finalized within a set amount of time. Unfortunately, the Biden administration delayed, they blew past that deadline, and they only issued rules on their way out the door. The Trump administration then promptly and without explanation declined to finalize them. So that enforcement ambiguity combined with the drop of enforcement that Mr. Pallone talked about is leaving industry and communities with some uncertainty. That's why I introduced a bill with Representative Carter of Louisiana and Senator Luján, which would codify the draft rule and modernize decades-old standards for gas pipeline leak detection and repair. The bill would not disallow future updates to the rule or discourage future innovation, but it provides regulatory certainty for industry to make sure there are durable rules that they can follow. Updated rules are estimated to deliver up to $1.5 billion in net benefits to industry and consumers while eliminating up to half a million metric tons of methane emissions. And I would just pause to say that as with regard to methane's emissions, it is a serious environmental concern, sure, but it's also a customer demand issue. The reason that so much innovation has happened around methane in the United States is not because of government regulation, but because of consumer demand from places like Korea, Japan, and the EU that want clean gas and American gas is cleaner because of that consumer demand. We should be proud of that and we should be calling it out. But addressing the fugitive emissions from oil and gas operations is one of the most effective ways to protect public health while keeping America's energy sector globally competitive. So Mr. Roberti, does PHMSA intend to issue and finalize an updated leak detection and repair rule?

We do, that is one on the list of mandates. When this administration came in, that was a proposed rule, it had not been submitted to the Federal Register across all departments of government, all of those rules were pulled back for further examination. We're examining that. I want to get these mandates done. I intend to, I intend to, that is on our list.

Give a sense of timing for your timing for that?

That one is probably not this year, but you know, it is something we want to, we definitely want to address.

So the majority's draft that we're discussing today would disallow the administration from considering the environmental benefits of issuing pipeline safety standards, including leak detection and repair. Can you explain what environmental benefits PHMSA does consider when it updates standards and how do you balance between the economics, safety, and environmental benefits of rules?

Yeah, so you know, you could, I mean, in the academia world, you could make all sorts of arguments on the nexus to the environment, the nexus to safety, but at some point you draw limits about where is the proper nexus for the execution of the agency's mission. And our view is, yes, we don't want methane leaking out of any pipes. Containment of all products that are moving through pipes, it's essential that we have containment. But as we address how to implement the rule, we want to be sensitive to available technologies, what's cost-effective. I would say at the top of it, leaks in high-consequence areas are critical that they not exist, that they be detected because public safety is at risk. Leaks of our liquid pipelines where there's a potential leak to a river or into the environment, those are high priority. But I think this administration's policies, it's a much less, it's a tenuous link to the climate change.

I'm going to run out of time, but I would just say that maintaining protection against leaks has environmental benefits. I hope that doesn't scare you off from doing it. And I yield back.

Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia's 12th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Chair Latta, for holding this important hearing to discuss pipeline safety reauthorization legislation. This is not only a national security issue, it is a serious economic issue. For example, we've got wells capped because we have gas we can't burn it off, and we need to get it in a pipeline. And plus, we've just had the coldest winter in recent memory that I can recall. And because of the past policies, the war on fossil fuel, everything was driven to electric generation. And now we have all this gas that's much more efficient. In fact, heat pumps don't work when it gets below 30 degrees, so you're sitting there using strip heat 90 percent of the time to heat your home, and that is not efficient at all. But we've got to get this done. And I want to thank you for your efforts in making sure that we move forward and dominate in this energy production. Building up our pipeline capacity is critical to delivering this affordable energy to our constituents across the country. And obviously, pipeline safety is critical, and we want to do everything we can to make sure that we do the right thing environmentally and otherwise. But like you said, there's this nexus like to what extremes do you go to and that sort of thing. And obviously, safety is important. With this in mind, Administrator Roberti, can you describe the important role of a cost-benefit when considering these regulations that are imposed on you?

Thank you for the question. A cost-benefit analysis, if you look at any regulation and all good public policy must look at technical considerations, economic considerations, and the benefits. A cost-benefit analysis is what I think is fundamental to good government, to good regulation. So these requirements stem all the way back. There are presidential executive orders still in place today from prior presidents. I think it's Executive Order 12866, I think is the number, which drives the use and requirement that executive agencies use cost-benefit analyses. So they're good. Now there's an overlay in the Pipeline Safety Act. Either way, we're doing that as a, I think, an essential component of developing regulations that make an appropriate balance between the cost and the benefits.

Right. Well, there's a lot of concern about affordability, particularly since we had such, if you were born after 1982, you never saw inflation in this country until the Biden administration took over. So affordability is critical to our people. The discussion draft would, and obviously, Congress has done a lot to deal with regulation in looking at everything and, like I said, cost-benefit, what is it doing and how much does it cost? How much does it cost the American people? Would you agree good policy should de-emphasize non-U.S. benefits given they can result in extra costs without benefiting taxpayers?

Did you say non-U.S.?

Yeah. Non-U.S.

No, I wouldn't agree with that.

Okay. All right. During a previous subcommittee hearing, I mentioned the need to reform the special permit program. How does this discussion draft modernize this process so that we can expand pipeline infrastructure projects while maintaining safety and ensure the process is beneficial?

Well, I know that the last administration had tried to move the program forward, but did so and created, required a NEPA analysis, the National Environmental Policy Act, and it was used as basically, it basically complicated and I think it was really unnecessary. It completely bogged down that program and it never went anywhere. And NEPA is, I mean, I don't need to tell you that there's a role for NEPA, but when you're talking about existing infrastructure and you're talking about using innovative technologies to advance safety and move product, it's not something that I know that I would believe NEPA is triggered. And I've done my share of NEPA cases. I've argued them in the U.S. Courts of Appeal, so I know a little bit about this. But we have somewhat distorted the role of NEPA in that process.

And I'm sorry that the gentleman's time...

I yield back. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey's 8th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Chairman. Pipelines are everywhere. They're buried under our schools, recreational areas, drinking water sources, and our neighborhoods. When pipeline incidents happen, they happen in our communities where we live, where our kids go to school, and they have serious, sometimes fatal consequences in our communities. That's why pipeline safety is critical. Last Congress, I discussed a 2020 CO2 pipeline rupture in Mississippi, which resulted in mass carbon dioxide poisoning. Two hundred people were evacuated and at least 45 people were hospitalized. So the stakes of pipeline safety aren't hypothetical. They're very real. And it is the responsibility of the government to protect our communities and prevent another accident like this from happening again. Mr. Roberti, your testimony highlights that, quote, "safety drives everything you do at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety program." And key elements of PHMSA's pipeline safety program include updating and developing regulations, enforcement to hold pipeline operators accountable. Is that correct? Just yes or no.

Yes.

Thank you. In January of last year, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for CO2 pipelines in response to the 2020 accident we discussed earlier. This rule would have required emergency responders to be trained on hazards specific to CO2, expand PHMSA's jurisdiction to cover more pipelines carrying CO2, and address other safety issues that came out of the Mississippi accident. But Mr. Roberti, PHMSA withdrew this rule last year. Is that correct? Yes or no.

It was not a rule. It was on the web. It never went to the Federal Register for whatever reason.

So how would you describe it? So that was a safety precaution in response to the 2022 Mississippi accident that occurred.

So the Satartia incident was a very serious incident.

And so what was the response to it that you're saying is not a rule?

On the rule?

You're saying it was not a rule, so I'm asking you how would you describe it?

How would I describe it? It was an effort to develop a rule. It was never an actual rule that got posted in the Federal Register and like every administration...

All right, so that initiative's no longer being considered? Yes or no.

It is being considered because it's a mandate of Congress on the gaseous CO2 rules, and I've committed to address all of the mandates of Congress. That's a priority while I'm here as administrator. But that rule went, the scope of that rule was far wider and greater. In fact, if you look at Satartia...

I want to have a longer conversation, but I have to move on. Because I do believe it's important rulemaking, however you want to describe it, given the real-life example that prompted PHMSA to initiate the rulemaking process, which was already required from a 2011 pipeline safety reauthorization is now 15 years overdue. Can you tell me what these plans are that you described to take up this rulemaking? Are we going to see something potentially in the next six months?

I don't know that we'll get it to it in the six months, but we are going to get to that because it is a mandate and I've instructed my staff that I want to get all the mandates done.

All right, please push it forward, right, because we've seen the consequences in places like Mississippi, which colleagues across the aisle represent. It's important to do.

That Satartia incident, though, had that operator complied with existing regulations under Part 195...

Right, but the rulemaking was about how we prepare, how we prepare when these accidents happen and making sure our emergency staff is prepared for the unique dynamics of CO2 accidents. So I understand what you're saying, but the response was about how do we train our first responders, which is critically important and should be supplemented. I have to move on.

And they failed.

I'm sorry, I have to move on. Your testimony also highlights that enforcement and holding pipeline operators accountable are also key to PHMSA's mission. Is that correct? Yes or no.

I'm sorry, I...

Yes, sure. In your testimony, it's highlighted that enforcement and holding pipeline operators accountable are also key to PHMSA's mission. Is that correct? Yes or no.

Absolutely. Yes.

Because according to a Politico article from this January, the Trump administration has slashed pipeline enforcement in 2025, bringing about half the average number of cases as in previous years. PHMSA also announced it would cease enforcement against any pipeline operators who claimed that they had to violate safety standards to accommodate the President's claimed, quote, "energy emergency." That doesn't sound like it's in line with PHMSA's commitment to holding pipeline operators accountable. It sounds like just another way for pipeline operators to circumvent safety regulations. All this is on top of a 14 percent decrease in staffing since President Trump took office. We've talked about that we need more pipelines. We have less staff to make sure that everything's done properly and safely. So an already under-resourced and understaffed agency experienced a 14 percent drop in safety and staffing levels, and the bill we're considering today provides an even deeper funding cut to this agency. This is, these are the challenges that we have with our friends across the aisle. We know that this can be done in a bipartisan way. Our House T&I Committee has shown that we can do it. We should follow their lead instead of making this a partisan pursuit in furtherance of the President's failed policies. I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, thank you for being here. I will give you the opportunity if you would like to finish the discussion on the CO2 incident and finish that as you were explaining.

Well, you know, the Satartia incident, I know is a very serious incident, and we deployed investigators to that incident, and it resulted in a $2.8 million fine because of the failure of that operator to do what's already required in Part 195 of our code, which covers liquid CO2 pipelines. And they failed to take into account the risks of storms, erosion, geohazards. They failed in the execution of their integrity management program responsibilities and also the communication with emergency responders. And we held them accountable with that fine. So that's why we get into a debate, how much do the regulations need to be, how many more words do you need in this code for requiring conduct that's already clear? And that's why I believe enforcement and accountability is the absolute top priority for this agency, for me, for Secretary Duffy. And we are going to hold operators accountable because had they followed the code, that incident should not have occurred.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that response. I'll move on with my question. The draft legislation we're discussing today includes language clarifying that in-plant piping systems, which are part of a larger refining and production facility, are regulated by OSHA and PHMSA. Administrator, last July, your agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt in-plant piping systems. In the notice, PHMSA reorganized that applying overlapping regulatory programs to in-plant piping systems often results in uncertainty and compliance issues. Sorry. Can you discuss how this overlap can make it more challenging for operators to maintain safe operations?

Well, yes. So we've moved that rule. We see that it's embedded in the draft bill here. And we think it's a good thing. And I'll tell you why. Because there was ambiguity over the course of decades who had jurisdiction. One thing I've always seen in government, and to this day we still deal with this, you have multiple agencies. It's good government for agencies to know their swim lanes and have clarity for the industry who regulates. And so in-plant piping, OSHA for the most part does refineries and on-premise piping like that. And we wanted to clarify, kind of make it pretty clear that this would be an OSHA responsibility. They would handle that. And that way operators know who's responsible for regulating.

All right. Thank you. PHMSA's notice of proposed rulemaking noted that OSHA's regulatory programs provide an equivalent level of safety to PHMSA. Would you agree with that assessment?

I would. I've met with, I've had some high-level meetings with OSHA to coordinate on their approach to some of their regulatory methodologies and they seem to be very good.

Thank you. Lastly, can you provide an update on where the rulemaking stands and when PHMSA may issue a final rule on the in-plant piping?

On the in-plant piping? Yes. That is moving through. I don't know as I sit here right now the precise timing, but we can get you that information. I'd be glad to follow up.

Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate your attention. We're conscious of our time here. I appreciate your attention to supporting the safe expansion of America's LNG export capacity. At the direction of Congress last year, PHMSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to modernize federal standards for LNG facilities. Following comments from the LNG industry and interested parties, do you believe there is room for PHMSA to do better coordinate with FERC and the U.S. Coast Guard to prevent conflicting or unnecessary regulatory requirements?

Absolutely. As my prior example about having appropriate swim lanes, it makes no sense as the agency with safety jurisdiction to send inspectors out to inspect an LNG facility only to find out that FERC, after granting a permit, has a whole team there doing the same thing for another week or two. So swim lanes are important. That's better government.

All right. I'm only going to leave you 15 seconds here. And is this an issue the National Center of Excellence for LNG Safety will focus on in the future?

That will be, I mean, that center, which we're excited we're going to be opening later this spring, will focus on knowledge management, best practices. We are working closely, we're going to work closely with FERC to figure out how we have a memorandum of agreement with FERC. I intend to meet with the chairman of FERC to...

And I'm sorry, as the gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia's 4th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Castor, for this important hearing today. PHMSA has the incredible responsibility of overseeing a 3.3 million mile long network of pipelines transporting oil, natural gas, and hazardous chemicals such as ammonia and hydrocarbons. Maintaining strong oversight of these chemicals, highly volatile energy products, and the pipelines that transport them across the nation are an incredibly difficult but vital task. And that's why I am disappointed in the current legislation as it stands. While the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee have advanced bipartisan legislation geared towards maintaining strong pipeline oversight and providing funding to continue updating and maintaining aging pipeline infrastructure, this committee has proposed legislation, the Republicans on this committee have proposed legislation with no bipartisan input that underfunds and degrades PHMSA's ability to carry out the important task of overseeing America's pipelines. Most notably, this legislation includes provisions that strip requirements for PHMSA to consider environmental impacts in its safety standards. And this comes at a time when pipeline safety enforcement has plummeted at an alarming level and was cut in half in 2025 alone. Administrator Roberti, do you believe that community engagement, support, and transparency are important in the long-term success of a pipeline project such as those your agency oversees?

We have our community liaisons. They are very important. They do a good job. We rely on them when an incident occurs. So yes, I do.

Thank you. I agree that it is incredibly important. And yet this administration is cutting enforcement activity and the bill further attempts to strip PHMSA of its ability to consider environmental impacts in issuing safety standards. I fail to see how any pipeline project under this administration or the parameters of the bill would garner any meaningful support or trust from impacted communities. There is no accountability. There is no guarantee that their environmental and related safety concerns will be considered for these massive projects. And I suspect that it's our historically disadvantaged communities that will continue to suffer those consequences. We've seen that time and time again in Virginia where the same communities, mostly the ones that don't have the resources or have had the historical power to fight back against these projects, have been the ones that have been disproportionately impacted by these projects and their environmental and public health impacts. And I think that communities that have historically borne disproportionate environmental and public health burdens should not receive less oversight due to a lack of political access or fewer resources to command attention. So Administrator, does PHMSA track inspections, incidents, and enforcement outcomes in a manner that allows you to demonstrate with evidence that safety oversight is being applied consistently across communities, including those that have been historically over-burdened by such programs and projects?

So you raise an important area about transparency on what we do. When I came to this agency, I was Chief Counsel, but as I return as Administrator, one of the things I observed is that our website is not user-friendly. It actually does not show you the degree of work that our inspectors are doing out there. Every time a pipeline ruptures and we send out teams and we issue corrective action orders and there are remediation plans, you cannot easily see all of the activity we are doing on monitoring the remediation of these pipelines. And that's something that is a high priority. We're looking at our, we collect a lot of data, but when you go on the website, it is not user-friendly. I may not be so IT literate on how to find things on a website, but I think we can achieve great improvements. I want the public, I want communities to know when there's a pipeline in their community and something goes wrong or they're interested in it, I want them to be able to track the progress of or the situation and know exactly what PHMSA is doing on their behalf because right now it doesn't look like, it looks like a black hole.

Well, I can tell you it definitely does look like a black hole. And I can tell you there are significant number of communities in Virginia over the past year, now that they are aware of just how many pipeline assets are concentrated in their communities, they are very concerned about the safety and what the federal government and what your agency's doing to keep them safe. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee's First District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, Mr. Administrator. According to the Common Ground Alliance, 2024 saw more than 170,000 reported damages to underground infrastructure. That includes pipelines and water and electric utilities, and there were nearly 9,000 incidents just in Tennessee alone. And during the same year, more than one million calls were made to 811 to help locate underground infrastructure before an excavation. You know, 811 is one of our most critical tools for pipeline safety. So my question is, what specific steps is PHMSA taking to strengthen public awareness and compliance with 811 requirements nationwide, and how can Congress ensure that states are given best practices for implementing their damage prevention programs?

Thank you for the question. Yes, the excavation damage is a heightened concern when, and I talked about it earlier, when you look at the number of incidents and you cited them. We rely on our state partners. We, through the funds granted to us from Congress, we issue one-call grants to our state partners in excavation prevention programs, but they're small dollars overall when you consider it. A lot of the jurisdiction still resides in states. We try to leverage the grant program as a way to achieve best or better practices from certain states. I've witnessed in my experience, I think there, it is a patchwork of there are leaders and there are laggards across the country. And that's why I think this provision, the leading practices that are specified in this draft bill, that I think the time has come for bolstering a national standard because again, the impacts to the public, the amount of activity out there in terms of construction and everything that's under the ground, we probably need to have more training and more supervision.

Well, let's go right into my next question. You know, those PHMSA technical assistance grants were established to ensure communities stay informed and strengthen pipeline safety at a local level. Last year, approximately half of PHMSA's technical assistance grant funding went to an organization where a recent audit found significant deficiencies related to financial practices, and it's unclear whether that organization used taxpayer funds for prohibited lobbying activities due to poor record-keeping practices. So, as PHMSA evaluates future technical assistance grant awards, how will you ensure stronger financial oversight and accountability for the recipients?

Well, we were charged by the administration and the President issued a memorandum to look at funding and how funding was being used by NGOs. We did that. The audit was initiated before I came in as administrator, but the findings demonstrated that this particular organization, Congress chose to take most of our funding for technical assistance grants and give it to this organization. And we have a whole bunch of smaller organizations. It's a highly competitive process and we don't have enough money over there. And for this organization, we found it was clear as day that they were engaged in activities like lobbying, advocacy, litigation, litigation against my agency. Technical assistance is not giving federal taxpayer dollars from my agency and have them come back and toss bricks at the work we're trying to do to advance safety.

It's a little bit messed up. Will PHMSA prioritize awards to organizations that focus on educating contractors and businesses and localities about excavation safety, damage prevention, and 811 compliances?

I'm sorry, I missed the end of that.

Will they prioritize awards to organizations that focus on educating these entities?

Yes, we want to see to help with community engagement. We want to use these dollars to increase awareness about pipelines, help communities, help emergency responders know what's out there, how to deal when we have an incident or an accident. That's good use of these grant dollars. And we're going to continue requiring that. In fact, all of our grants, we didn't just there was an allegation that we picked on this particular grantee. This is our largest recipient, there were issues there, we've addressed them, and we're going to make sure that all grantees using federal taxpayer dollars do the same.

Well, you should have looked at them. Yeah, you're doing your job. So, I've got a few more questions, but I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

The gentlelady yields, and now I call on Ms. DeGette from Colorado for her line of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Roberti, is it true that PHMSA published a rule to limit the types of conditions that can be included in special permits in September of 2025?

So, we revamped our special permit program. One of the things we found was that the special...

Wait, I didn't ask you what you found. I asked you, is it true that you published a rule to limit the types of conditions that can be included in special permits, yes or no?

I'm not aware of that.

You don't know. Okay. Well, so the bill... Yeah, here it is. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent to put that rule into the record. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent to put the rule that PHMSA enacted in September 25 into the record. Thank you. So, I guess I will educate you then that the bill that we are the draft bill that we're considering today, the Pipeline Safety Authorization Act, would codify this rule. That's what the whole purpose of this is. So, just to let you know. Now, in the notice of proposed rulemaking, it specifically cites criticism from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, INGAA, about PHMSA's practice of adopting numerous conditions in special permits. Is that correct?

There was a practice to add all sorts of extraneous, superfluous conditions that were intended to prevent innovation and prevent...

So, it specific do you know whether it specifically cites that criticism from INGAA about that practice?

I'm not aware of that.

Okay. Is it true that several of your current colleagues used to work at INGAA, including your Deputy Administrator Ben Kochman?

The Deputy Administrator did work there.

At INGAA. And so, would you agree with this statement: it's important to keep a strict bifurcation between regulators and their former employers so as not to create a conflict of interest?

Well, I think you're I would view it differently. Mr. Kochman, like I, we both all of us previously worked at PHMSA, we went out and did other jobs, but in terms of discharging the duties of these positions where you're dealing with complex regulations, that knowledge and experience is important. When you come into this agency and you work for me, you adhere to the highest ethical standards, and if you don't have the safety mission at heart, then you're not on my team.

I don't disagree with that. But of course, that's not the question that I asked either, is when somebody leaves the agency, don't you think that there needs to be a bifurcation between the interests that they're now representing in their current position and the previous position that they held at the agency?

Yes, and there are all sorts of ethical requirements.

Right. Absolutely.

And it's done by career officials. Great. Okay. You wouldn't get away with doing anything unethical in the government.

So, I guess that's why we were concerned and dismayed that Deputy Administrator, is it Kochman?

Kochman, yes.

That Deputy Administrator Kochman recently published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to get feedback on how to cut back repair requirements in which he cited comments provided from INGAA which he himself authored while serving as INGAA's Director of Pipeline Safety Policy. And I liken that to if I put a suggestion box outside my congressional office and stuffed it full of comment cards that I had written out. It looks like I'm interested in constructive feedback, but I don't have to institute any of the changes I didn't already plan on making. That's the way I see it. So, I just want to ask you, do you see a Deputy Administrator citing his own comments previously made as a conflict of interest?

If there were a conflict of interest, it would not have happened. We are very, very careful about that.

But if the Deputy Administrator cited his own comments as a reason for his decision, don't you think that's a conflict of interest?

Well, the body of the document is worked up by career officials. It gets signed off on by if it's signed off by a non-career official, everyone signs off on it.

I know you don't want to answer this question, but I appreciate you trying.

But that would mean that no one who had any engagement in the real world of pipelines could ever work in this agency.

No, what it would mean is they can't base their decisions on the comments that they on the very comments that they made. I yield back. Thank you.

Dr. Miller-Meeks.

Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair. I'd also thank our witness for testifying today. As a representative for Iowa's first congressional district, I know how much our communities depend on a safe and reliable energy network to power homes, farms, and businesses. And in fact, many of the communities within my district are asking for more pipelines and natural gas, not less. Much of that energy does move through extensive network of pipelines that crosses our states, including rural areas and small towns that don't always make the headlines when something goes wrong. Recently, we saw a significant pipeline explosion in Washington County that thankfully did not result in injuries, but it was a stark reminder that one incident in a rural field can shake an entire community's confidence. Our constituents want to know that the rules and oversight in place today match the risk and technologies of today, not of the world 40 years ago. PHMSA has laid out a goal of zero incident future, and I agree that should be our aim. To get there, we need modern regulatory framework that encourages innovation and uses the best available tools while updating older regulations that may no longer fit current technology, equipment, and operations. This hearing's a chance for Congress to give clearer direction, streamline what isn't working, and reinforce what is, and I look forward to your questions to answers to my questions on how this legislation can help us modernize pipeline safety in a way that protects Iowans, helps operators replace aging line and build new infrastructure, and keeps safety, not political philosophy, at the center of PHMSA's mission. Administrator Roberti, incidents like the one in Washington County can shake the public's confidence even when no one is hurt. What role do you see for PHMSA in keeping the public informed after an incident regarding the cause, the fixes, and any longer-term safety changes so that people in rural areas feel they're not in the dark about the risk and the responses?

Thank you for the question. You know, every an incident like that, I'm aware of that incident, we deployed our investigators, they are they are on site monitoring the the remediation activities. There was, I believe, an ordered pressure reduction on that pipeline in order to make sure that it's safe. We have community liaisons that can that can be available to assist the community with any questions. My staff is certainly available to liaise with your staff and provide information and updates as you feel necessary.

Thank you. And when older pipelines are what's being affected, a lot of PHMSA's core regulations were written for an earlier era of pipeline design and inspection. How are you making sure that new tools like advanced inline inspection, data analytics, and remote monitoring are recognized and encouraged in your regulation so that innovation is rewarded and not penalized?

Yes, I mean, the movement of technology to create better inline inspection tools that didn't exist decades ago are critical. And so we have an R&D forum that's coming up where we are trying to push commercialization of more technologies that are available to detect anomalies and defects in pipelines. We're going to continue to do that. In a situation like this, I've made it very clear that our oversight over a pipeline that has had an accident should require enhancements in a remediation plan. I would expect that there be more requirements on inline inspection examination of the pipeline if it's going to continue to operate. And certainly, unless we're fully confident, we're not going to allow it to revert to the original pressure before that accident.

So it seems like this is a big opportunity to update outdated PHMSA rules so that they better reflect today's technology without adding unnecessary red tape for operations. Does any federal agency currently require electric transmission companies to notify pipeline operators before beginning a reconductoring or voltage upgrade project in a shared right-of-way? And if not, should PHMSA work with FERC and DOE to establish a clear, consistent notification and coordination process to protect both grid reliability and pipeline safety?

So that is definitely an emerging issue. I met with some trade organizations that were very concerned about this. There was a failure recently due to this. It caused the currents from the transmission line actually caused corrosion and a hole in the pipe. So I think there is great room for improvement on that, and we need to coordinate with our other federal partners and states and siting authorities to I think do more on that issue.

Thank you. My time's expired. I yield back.

Thank you. Up next is Representative Matsui from California.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Roberti, for being here today. I think we can all agree that the safe operation of our nation's pipelines is of critical importance for all Americans. When something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating, whether it's a deadly explosion or a toxic oil spill that contaminates our drinking water and causes ecological catastrophe. We rely upon our safety regulator, PHMSA, to have our backs, to make sure that pipelines are properly maintained and pipeline operators are taking the necessary precautions. Unfortunately, I'm gravely concerned by some of the recent actions taken by PHMSA that undermine pipeline safety. In California, PHMSA is attempting to overrule state authorities and authorize the restart of the Sable offshore oil pipeline, the same pipeline that caused the 2015 Refugio oil spill. That oil spill released more than 120,000 gallons of oil, affecting 150 miles of California coastline, doing irreparable harm to ecosystems and forcing the closure of fisheries and beaches, costing local businesses hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Roberti, yes or no, are you familiar with this pipeline and its history?

I am very well familiar with that pipeline.

Okay. Are you familiar with the cause of the oil spill?

I am familiar with it. I was involved in an enforcement action with eight federal agencies and the state of California that under my leadership led to one of the highest fines in the history, the highest fine in the history of the United States for a discharge of oil into Refugio State Beach, which I can tell you I have walked and even collected an oil-covered stone as a to remember what the impact of such a discharge would be.

All right. Okay. Now, you determined that pipeline ruptured due to a defective and inadequate corrosion protection system. And due to this defect, the California state government required that the Sable Corporation take additional measures to detect and repair any corrosion before restarting the pipeline. The legal settlement following the Refugio oil spill clearly requires California's approval for Sable to restart the pipeline. But Sable rejected the state's requirements, requesting that PHMSA intervene and overrule the state of California. In December, PHMSA asserted exclusive authority over the pipeline and just six days later issued an emergency permit for the pipeline. Mr. Roberti, yes or no, did you prepare an environmental review for this decision?

I believe an environmental review is underway as part of that notice.

Well, my understanding is that, okay, did you issue a public notice or offer an opportunity for public comment as required under law?

The emergency special permit was issued. It has been resubmitted and noticed. I think it's available for public comment right now. And I think an environmental review is being conducted.

Are you aware that Sable is facing multiple criminal complaints regarding environmental violations for work conducted as part of this project?

I am not aware of that. I know there's a lot of there is litigation. What our role was was the question of whether the operational characteristics would trigger interstate federal jurisdiction over the safety aspects of that pipeline. And when that request was submitted, it was clear that it was interstate, so jurisdiction reverted to PHMSA.

In 2016, following the Refugio oil spill, the PHMSA administrator at that time said, quote, "This pipeline will not be allowed to operate until we are satisfied that all of its safety issues have been appropriately addressed." Can you seriously tell me that in just six days with no environmental review, with no public comment period, you determined that all the safety issues with this corroded defective pipeline have been appropriately addressed?

We so that's a very fair question. We deployed before we make any decision on a restart under our regulations, we deployed a team of investigators. We did it collaboratively with the Office of the State Fire Marshal. They send inspectors too. And I specifically asked for this, and I have a I went over with my lead field administrator that oversees these activities, a 12-page inspection report to review all aspects of that pipeline facility to make sure that it is satisfied all of the regulations in the event that it is going to restart.

Well, the company's self-certified though. So how does PHMSA plan to conduct oversight to ensure that pipeline operators aren't endangering public safety?

Yeah, for the like I said, the first thing is to send inspectors out there to inspect the integrity management protocols. And I specifically asked, I said, this can't just be pulling stuff off a shelf and dusting stuff that Plains All American Pipeline system had. And they made it very clear that there have been serious efforts done to make sure that the pipe, the facilities, all of the activities are up to up to compliance with the code.

I see that my time is expired.

Your time is expired. Thank you. Next up is the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, thank you for being here. PHMSA, 3.3 million miles of pipelines is just kind of astronomical when you think about it. That's a lot of ground to cover. And Americans depend on that every day for safety, for reliability, affordable energy. With the agency's authorization expiring in 2023, I think we have an important opportunity for both stability and clarity. The broader goal, I think, should be to avoid layering on new congressional mandates. Obviously, you've testified that you're going through a backlog of old mandates now and dealing with those. But also to give the administration some running room to complete those outstanding requirements, modernize regulations, and implement safety priorities. The discussion draft reauthorizes programs, strengthens enforcement where needed, and streamlines the process so the agency can focus on advancing safety while enabling energy delivery. That should remain, I think, our guiding principle. Strong safety oversight without the unnecessary bureaucratic expansion. And so I look forward to our discussion here. Pipeline safety rulemaking has been a long recurring issue in these debates. Can you talk about your backlog of rulemaking that you inherited and where you are in implementing those and does Congress adding more required rulemakings help your safety-focused agenda?

So we had a backlog. We are moving. We finally achieved compliance with the class location rule, which has been finalized. We are moving the LNG facilities rule. This deals with LNG export facilities and also stationary sources of LNG for to support pressure support for distribution systems. That rule we hope to release an NPRM, I hope, in the first half of this year. The idle pipe rule, we're trying to address that mandate. And then I want to get to we've prioritized based on where the greatest impact of safety would be, where we need more the regulatory certainty. And that still leaves a few of the mandates, like the leak detection rule, the carbon, the CO2 gaseous rule. Those are areas that we're trying to get to. We're trying to get them all done.

Great. I'm going to shift focus for a little bit. In recent years, especially involving high-profile pipelines, there have been peaceful protests, right, with air quotes, that have provided opportunities for criminals to attack pipelines and pipeline infrastructure, posing dangers not only to the attackers themselves but the communities, the safety of workers, certainly of people in the surrounding area and the environment. The acts are dangerous, right, such as valve turning and other equipment, but don't necessarily result in physical damage to the pipeline, which I think poses a prosecutorial problem in how the law is interpreted to apply to only acts that cause physical damage. The discussion draft includes a provision to close that loophole. It would expand criminal penalties to actions that not only damage or destroy but also impair the operation of pipelines and pipeline facilities. What are your thoughts on expanding that to cover such acts?

Well, you know, we all support and believe in the right to for peaceful protests and the ability for communities to express their concerns about energy infrastructure running through their communities. But where you have pipelines, tampering with a pipeline, an operating pipeline is not just dangerous for the person who does it, it's dangerous to others, it's dangerous to workers, it could create extremely dangerous situation in putting aside supply disruption and what that would do to downstream communities that rely on those energy sources. I think in this day, it's unfortunate, but in this day and age, probably the time has come to make sure that that specific conduct is is held to a criminal standard.

Yeah, the measure also covers damage to or destruction to facilities under construction. Do you think that modernizing that, I guess, or closing that loophole would be an effective deterrent for various physical acts that ultimately deprive the public of affordable energy?

I think it would be an appropriate deterrent, but being vigilant both on the physical and cybersecurity side with all the, you know, the threat factors are just continuously growing and constant vigilance is in order as well.

Thank you for that. And I see my time is expired. Unfortunately, it always goes quick. And I know that the chair, including the current occupant of the chair position, run a tight ship. So with that, I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Up next is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you and the ranking member hosting this hearing. And in addition to being a safety regulator, PHMSA funds some research and development activities. And that research can be critical in making well-informed regulatory decisions. I was surprised to see that in September, PHMSA terminated nine R&D grants, primarily involving safety and corrosion issues for CO2 and hydrogen pipelines, totaling $7 million. Administrator Roberti, do CO2 and hydrogen pipelines currently exist in the United States?

I believe that there are about 5,600 miles of CO2 pipelines, much, much lower number of hydrogen pipelines exist today.

And do you believe in the years ahead there will be more or less miles of CO2 and hydrogen pipelines in operation in our country?

You know, that's unclear. I think it depends on how you view the clean energy transition. I know that there's differing views on that. For supercritical CO2 pipelines, I think the code is fairly sufficient in regulating them. We might want to do some updates to the latest industry consensus standards.

Well, many believe more pipelines in the future. And so if the infrastructure already exists, is there any reason why we wouldn't want more information to improve the safety of their operations, such as knowing how far people should be from ruptured pipelines to be safe, which was the subject of some of these terminated awards?

So some of these awards kind of when you look at where we want to have R&D that can go to market, that can move the needle on safety. And some of these, some of these grants you're speaking of, I took a personal interest to make sure that were we making the right decisions on the appropriate use of taxpayer money. And basically they were looking at approaches that would reduce carbon footprints associated with corrosion mitigation. And that just didn't seem that we were in an appropriate area to experiment with taxpayer money. So there were instances like that. Focusing on the hydrogen economy with this administration, it seemed that we could achieve more safety outcomes moving those dollars to areas that were going to be real and palpable in terms of the infrastructure that's going to be deployed to meet the energy demands. And I'm not aware of whether we had specific dollars associated with CO2. But those efforts are, I don't think they are in the front seat right now of where America's energy economy is going.

Well, PHMSA's website says these projects were terminated, and I quote, "due to changes in the administration's priorities." What does that mean? Is the administration no longer prioritizing safety in these types of pipelines?

It's not about, it is about, it's actually about prioritizing safety and doing less R&D on opportunities for conversion to alternative fuels with lower carbon footprints. That was a less, a much less direct way to achieve safety outcomes than to focus R&D on developing better ways of detecting corrosion and inhibiting corrosion on pipelines, the real threats that may result in a rupture to a pipeline.

Well, in December, a PHMSA spokesperson was quoted in E&E News stating, quote, "Taxpayers don't want those resources wasted on the Democrats' Green New Scam agenda." So I'm assuming the renewables are what they were focused on. I'd like to point out that these awards were being carried out by research institutions including North Dakota State University, the University of North Dakota, the University of Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. Not exactly places that are thought of as bastions of Green New Deal thought leadership. But they are places that have a lot of nearby pipeline infrastructure. And I would guess that those communities want to know how to maximize safety. So Administrator Roberti, is it, it is incumbent, I think, on you to rise above politics when people's lives are at stake, and that means making certain that PHMSA research agenda items are accurately reflecting the emerging issues and knowledge gaps that exist to promote pipeline safety, especially when renewables are the cleanest and most readily added to the grid. So I would strongly encourage you to keep this in mind as PHMSA funds research moving forward. So with that, I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the remainder of his time, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado's 8th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Chairman, and of course to the ranking member and to the administrator for taking the time for this important hearing. I spent over a decade as a cop, 12 years in the U.S. Army and Colorado Army National Guard, and I now get to represent one of the top energy producing regions in the nation. And so pipeline safety aligns perfectly with those two priorities, which is energy dominance and then public safety and national security. We need more reliable power, and we have to keep the safety of our communities top of mind. Now lucky for us, the United States, my district produces some of the cleanest and safest oil and natural gas in the world, and reauthorizing PHMSA, the pipeline safety program, will enable to us to continue that legacy. Over about 80 percent of the oil and 60 percent of the natural gas in the state of Colorado comes out of my district. Unfortunately, the ruling Democrats in Colorado are working to completely eliminate natural gas by 2050, and oftentimes they do that by attacking pipelines and the distribution infrastructure to get this form of energy into people's homes or to other end users of natural gas. And so my question to you is, how do burdensome environmental regulations and climate mandates in blue states like Colorado actually prevent the safe and consistent maintenance of pipeline infrastructure? Thank you, chairman, and of course to the ranking member and to the administrator for taking the time for this important hearing. I spent over a decade as a cop, 12 years in the US Army and Colorado Army National Guard, and I now get to represent one of the top energy-producing regions in the nation.

Well, every time the industry, and this is right now it's a state-by-state issue. Many states are trying to eliminate pipelines, and what it does is to the extent that states hold decisions, say for distribution systems that are made of compromised materials like cast iron, bare steel, or even Aldyl-A, which is a plastic that is moving high up on the list for pipeline assets that need to be replaced. States that are pursuing decarbonization are saying, hold on, let's take a timeout, we won't need these pipelines anymore. Unfortunately, whether they're regulators or their legislators, they're operating in a world of delusion. These pipelines will be necessary for decades to come. The electric grid can't possibly accommodate the megawatt hours that would be necessary to convert the fuel, the high-density sources of energy like oil and jet fuel and natural gas, let alone fly planes. It cannot happen. And so the math really belies and demonstrates the problem here. So when industry is distracted by these, these policies, new policies and changes have to occur over long periods of time. And when you try to force huge changes in an industry by a date certain because you picked off a round number like 2020 or 2050, you're setting yourself up for failure. But what it does to safety is this: these companies no longer have the support of state economic regulators, that's not the case at the federal level, to continue investing in systems to make sure that they are safe.

So is it fair to characterize that as when regulation, regulatory burden goes after pipelines, they actually can't invest the money, the time, the resources, and the technology into making those distribution systems safer because they're dealing with a regulatory structure or a regulatory concept that says, we're not even going to need these pipelines in the case of Colorado by 2050 where natural gas is banned for residential heating? Is that a fair characterization?

Absolutely. What they're saying is that the customer should get a heat pump that won't even make your home feel warm if you've experienced the weather in New England like we have in the past month. And on top of it, your electric rates will quadruple to pay for it at the higher elevated electricity prices. Is that progress? I don't think so.

And as we know in Colorado, natural gas is oftentimes cleaner than the electricity that's coming out of the grid right now per equivalent use of, for equivalent amount of energy and when we measure that in terms of carbon footprint. I got 30 seconds left here. Talk about how the information sharing systems of this pipeline safety bill that we're talking about, tell me about how that enhances public safety. Twenty-five seconds.

Okay. Well, we think that it will be modeled after what the FAA has done. There's a lot of data information that comes from inline inspection tools. All of this data, there's a, there's a hesitation among the industry to share it for fear of the safeguards that are built into this bill. And this would facilitate sharing of information. We could probably leverage AI to figure out ways to take this data, share it, and make the pipeline system safer and achieve that zero incident future.

Thank you. Yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington's 8th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Roberti, for being here today. Today, I'd like to focus our attention on safety of liquid pipelines. Less than four months ago, a blueberry farmer just outside my district discovered an oil spill at the BP Olympic pipeline, which is a critical supply line for jet fuel. It took roughly three weeks for BP to respond and repair and then restart operations during the busy travel season, and flights were canceled and severe fuel shortages at Sea-Tac, I believe also in Portland, resulted in our state in a state emergency declaration. I'd love to think that this was a one-off, but unfortunately, it's not the first time this has happened. This marks the 26th reportable incident in the last 13 years resulting in nearly 30,000 total gallons of oil spilled. And while we're lucky that in this particular instance, there weren't reports of significant harm to wildlife or to public health, a leak in 2023 caused 25,000 gallons of gas to seep into fish habitat and close a nearby school. So Administrator Roberti, as I mentioned earlier, blueberry farmer tending to his land detected this first leak randomly. It wasn't BP. And from discovery, again, it took a couple weeks to identify the point of origin and then longer to fix it. And so despite BP touting their systems as state-of-the-art, I'm really concerned that this is considered state-of-the-art if a blueberry farmer detected it essentially and if this is a pattern. And so I guess my question is, it's alarming I think to most of us when a farmer discovers this and not state-of-the-art systems. And can you kind of comment on why the public seems to be more able to detect these than leak operator?

Well, it's interesting on the natural gas side, the mercaptan that is in all natural gas is a mechanism for the public being alert that there's a leak and that does save lives. But, but I share your concerns. I mean, this is the same, I'm well aware of this pipeline. I've been very active in asking the enforcement division where we are with these reports, failure investigation reports, and I'm going to continue to do that. Both of those most recent accidents are under investigation, so I'm not going to talk too much about them, but I want you to know they're under investigation. I also know this is the same pipeline, the Olympic pipeline that caused the, the horrible tragedy in 1999 that took the lives of three young people. And so that's the type of stuff with I live with every day. That's the type of stuff that keeps me up at 2:00 AM. My goal is to ensure that the operators of pipelines are waking up as much as I'm waking up over incidents like this.

So I guess here's where I'd like to really go. Standards help companies rise to standards. And as you know, PHMSA requires liquid pipeline operators to maintain an effective leak detection system, but PHMSA has declined to actually set performance standards after Congress directed a study to examine whether they were necessary. And it seems like in every other industry, you put a standard on there if you want an industry to meet it. And so does PHMSA need clear statutory direction to set a quantitative, not just a qualitative performance standard on leak detection systems?

I don't know that we need a standard. I do believe that that's one of the areas I profiled in our enforcement agenda to look at leak detection and I think that that's a really, really important area where we need to look at those technologies. So that's definitely, I think our agency with the current leadership, we have been doing, we've been out in advance many of the proposed mandates and efforts that have come out of the competing bills in Congress, we've already been doing. We've been very active on this front, but I am going to, I will commit to you and to this committee that we're going to work aggressively to improve this.

It's just a final comment in my 13 seconds. Please strongly consider actual standards. It will demand the best in companies and will give more tools to PHMSA. And I also just have to comment as many of my colleagues have that it's very regrettable that this was not a bipartisan bill. They managed to do it in T and I, they managed to do it in the Senate and here we are. I really would hope that in this committee known for bipartisanship, we could, you know, have a seat at the table and bring a bipartisan bill because we need PHMSA reauthorized. Thank you, yield back.

Thank you, the gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's 11th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just a note, it is still a discussion draft and there's plenty of time to make it bipartisan. It should be. Pipelines are the safest delivery method in the world. We appreciate what you're doing. In a state like Texas, we have almost a half a million miles of pipeline that transport the vast majority of our oil, natural gas, CO2, and other things and our national security depends on that. We're seeing that play out with the situation in Iran. We need to continue to build out this network because it is the safest network. So Administrator, thank you. The ERCOT grid relies heavily on natural gas-fired generation to meet the peak demand and maintain grid stability. An adequate pipeline capacity and timely infrastructure development are directly tied to reliability and affordability. But can you mention how will the reauthorization of PHMSA help ensure that pipeline infrastructure can be developed safely and efficiently to improve that reliability and the affordability for every American family?

Yes. I believe in the value of growing the nation's pipelines because of how safe they are. We stand ready to assist and reviewing the plans, designs for pipelines. We don't permit them, but we work very cooperatively to assist and make sure that the design and the construction and the operation of those pipelines will be safe and in accordance with our Code of Federal Regulations. That to me, having clarity, having understandable regulations, and being a good government agency that is going to hold operators accountable if they fail to meet the code, I think goes a long way to supporting the development of pipelines.

Well, that's why this is so important because that predictability is important for them to know what those regulations are to meet them and they have every intent. I would invite my colleagues, especially on the other side of the aisle, to come visit my district and see exactly what these operators are doing not only to comply, but above and beyond. Enhanced oil recovery is very important right now. It depends on CO2. There's many companies who have championed that technology. And will PHMSA modernize the safety regulations for CO2 specifically in those pipelines to ensure that they're workable for operators, understandable, and that they can also be safe as well?

Yes. And we have an outstanding gaseous CO2 mandate. The current regulations haven't been updated on the supercritical. I think we are going to move on that. We're going to try to update those regulations. We're not going to do it in a, we're not going to write a whole bunch of regulations for hypothetical events. We're going to try to focus on industry consensus standards, look at what meets a good balance between cost and benefit, and that is on the list of mandates that I want to see done while I am here as Administrator.

How will a reauthorization strengthen the coordination between state agencies and work better to achieve stated objectives that we've been talking about in this hearing today?

So the grant money that you give us for the state-based grants and the one-call and the excavation damage prevention grants are really good because not only does it create a partnership with the states, it's an accountability tool where we evaluate how states are doing on the various efforts, whether it is to enforce the code for intrastate pipeline operators or in some instances like Washington, if it's an interstate agent where they do the inspections for interstate as well as intrastate. But that those grants and that partnership I think is a great example of cooperative federalism. I have a lot of trust in that approach and I know everybody needs more money. We try to give the states as much as we can. We fund up to 80 percent of their programs. We might be striking a level that's a bit lower than that right now with the current funding.

Thank you. Last question for you. As PHMSA shifts towards more of a data-driven approach and a risk-based oversight model, does the agency intend to potentially revisit how gas gathering lines are classified specifically for the inspection and compliance resources that are being used?

Yes. So for the gas gathering lines, the current pipeline safety law gives the Secretary this discretion. It's a little convoluted if you read it. In fact, I went to talk to my Chief Counsel this morning about reading that language and if you want to get into a like, you know, like twirl your head a little bit, you can look at that language. It's in the bill. But I digress. That area...

I may have to get it from you in writing. I'm sorry, I want to be respectful for...

If the gentleman would submit the answer to the gentleman from Texas, the authority of your answer to his question, that'd be appreciated.

Yes. So on that area, what we have done...

I'm sorry, the time's expired. I'm sorry. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas's 7th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you very much, Chairman Latta. And thank you to you and Ranking Member Castor for holding this hearing. I'm sorry that my friend from Texas is leaving, but I will take him up on his offer. I've been to his district. I've been to the control rooms there. And I have the privilege of representing the energy capital of the world in Houston. And Houston companies, as you likely know, Administrator Roberti, control over 58 percent of the United States' natural gas pipeline capacity and 33 percent of the oil capacity for oil pipelines. So the professionals who live and work in my district know that pipeline safety is paramount and they dedicate their lives and their careers to making sure that these pipelines are safe. And the safety of our communities has to remain a priority as demand for energy grows, which we talk about in this committee all the time, that we're going to have increased demand for the energy and for the infrastructure to deliver it. And to that end, I know from having worked in various capacities here that the safety of our pipeline infrastructure really depends on a working partnership between industry and government regulators at PHMSA. And unfortunately, what we've seen in this administration is that the cuts, the sort of chaotic, I would say, cuts and a real push to deregulate have left PHMSA struggling to fulfill its statutory obligations. I appreciate your testimony, Administrator Roberti, and I know, I can tell from this hearing, you know, that you're working hard to meet the challenges in front of you, but I also am very aware of the cuts that have been made that make that harder to do. And I've heard it from folks in the industry and a lot of concerns about what's happening. We know that since the beginning of this administration, more than half of PHMSA's senior leadership has left and several major rulemakings were abandoned in response to the President's regulatory freeze pending review memorandum. So what I'm hearing from people in my district is that PHMSA lacks the resources for proper training and isn't prepared and we are not preparing PHMSA for the challenges of the growing demands for pipelines to meet our energy needs. And the bill that we're reviewing today and talking about really fails to address those issues. It provides significantly less funding, $200 million on average for pipeline safety activities. That's less than the bipartisan bill from T and I. It also fails to provide a path forward for PHMSA to address new technologies like hydrogen and CO2 pipelines. And we need PHMSA to be forward-looking and thinking about the technologies and the sources of the future. When I was on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we worked on the 2020 reauthorization bill and I worked really hard to include this technology pilot provision. That was something that the people in my district told me was critically important to be able to get real-time testing results for new technologies in the field. And that was designed to really help address the concerns that my colleagues have raised on this side of the aisle about environmental concerns as well as concerns for overall safety and concerns from communities. So I'm really disappointed that this bill doesn't reauthorize this bipartisan program, which is included in the Senate reauthorization bill. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can work that into our bill as we know this is continuing in process and I'd really like to ask for that. Mr. Roberti, in the time that we have, can you talk a little bit, like I said, I've heard concerns from operators that the pilot program's implementation really has prevented the ability for them to get these new pilot technologies into the field. And so as we continue working on PHMSA reauthorization, what can we do to ensure the success of this program and ultimately the reauthorization of this program? If you could talk about that for the committee, I think that'd be very helpful.

Well, there was some but it was a bit of alignment between that program and what we are currently doing on special permits. That program got bogged down because of the influence of extraneous aspects like strong application of NEPA review. In our current program, we have tried to be much more transparent by posting special permits, being open to companies that want to exploit innovative techniques as long as they can prove that they can advance safety and not use the special permit process as a way of attaching all sorts of bells and whistles that are not really germane to the particular area of the code that the operator is seeking to operate under a different approach. So I think we're making headway. I mean, obviously if Congress were to do the program again, we would do it, but we've made great headway and I think the current legislation reflects some of the improved processes that we are putting in place to really help operators to say if you've got a better way of doing it...

I'm sorry to interrupt, the gentlelady's time has expired and the chair now recognizes the at-large member from the great state of North Dakota, the gentlelady for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Roberti. We go way back, probably about 13 years now that I've known you. And I just want to first thank you for the passion that you've showed for this issue for many, many years. When I was just a very new commissioner at the North Dakota Public Service Commission and new at NARUC, I remember being at meetings and it was shortly after the San Bruno explosion and you were the lead voice in all of NARUC on calling attention to that and really getting state regulators focused on it and really focusing on the need for prevention, for training, and you were like the biggest leader in NARUC on that issue. So to see you continuing to share your passion and experience on pipeline safety is really gratifying and I'm pleased to have you here today. So thank you. Couple things, speaking about the partnership with the states. Having been a regulator, we operated on behalf of PHMSA for some of the programs. I thought it was a great way to have folks who are committed to our state and really care deeply about what happens there focused on pipeline safety. So I think it's a brilliant program. Tell me about the benefits of the state partnerships and if you have enough money for that and if you think that you could save money and have more safety by expanding that model of kind of that cooperative federalism and more state inspectors.

Yeah, it is a great program. Our state partners cover 80 percent of the natural gas pipelines, the distribution pipelines. I think there's 1.3 million miles of distribution mains, another almost a million miles of service lines and they are front and center with their inspections. We work hard to train them, work cooperatively to share information. We have an annual certification program. I've made it very clear to my agency and the Office of Pipeline Safety leadership, I want them to engage in all the regional meetings that the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives have. They have their regional meetings like NARUC and to be fully engaged to support them, train them, share best practices and I make it a point, I drop everything when they have their annual meeting to go speak to them for all of the historical reasons and our legacy that we have with NARUC as public utility commissioners. So I really believe in it. Funding is up to 80 percent. I think we are tracking about a little below 60 percent on the funds that we can provide to states for their programs. If Congress gave us more money on that, we certainly could use it for the states, but right now I think the current budget amounts in the president's budget may not have that in there.

Yeah. Well, if there's any information that PHMSA could provide to us in the cost-benefit of that program, would be helpful to have so I can be a good advocate for increasing dollars for that. On another point, you've mentioned additional focus on enforcement and accountability. Can you talk a little bit about that and how that kind of is an extension of your risk-based approach to and how those are working together?

Yeah, like I said in our enforcement priorities, every time an accident or an incident happens, I believe that it's incumbent on us to be there on these significant incidents, to evaluate, to report out the facts, the who, what, where, when, what happened and then to evaluate was there good faith compliance with the code. I'm not looking for quotas, enforcement numbers, it's not about the numbers, it's about the safety results. I'm very focused on the safety results. I believe many of the criticisms that have occurred that predated me coming in as administrator, I'm hopeful that they will fade away because we'll be out there making sure operators know that they don't want us to show up, that we're not just going to show up and catalog and chronicle incidents and accidents. We are going to look and find out, like I used to say when I was subcommittee chairman at NARUC on pipeline safety, was the accident preventable? And if it was preventable, what should have been done under the code? And that's the accountability mechanism that I think trickles right up to upper management and to boardrooms and that is my goal and I'm going to pursue that.

Thank you. I appreciate your focus and your experience and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

And the gentlelady's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts' fourth district for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Chairman. Just one question. I know you've got a relatively small R&D budget, $12 million, is that what it was?

Yes.

What could be done on the R&D and tech deployment around methane leak detection, potent greenhouse gas and regrettably in this discussion draft version of the bill, protections against methane leaks have been scaled back, which I think is rightfully not going to be acceptable for a bipartisan product. But are there tech solutions that we should be cognizant of as we continue to negotiate this draft?

Leak detection is critical, whether it's methane or jet fuel. And so our upcoming R&D forum, which will occur at the end of this month, I think is a good opportunity to find out what new technologies. There's some very expensive technologies out there. We want utilities like distribution utilities to avail themselves of the latest technology. Some are really expensive. If there are lower cost ways to monitor for methane in high consequence areas, I think that is definitely a worthy cause.

What I would encourage you to do as you think about that, just from watching other agencies that have done it well or done it poorly is issue very clear criteria for success that are actually tech-agnostic criteria. Say here are the outcomes we are looking for, here's how we evaluate whether those outcomes have been met, and then here's how we will remunerate for the success of that. And so you can create a market for innovators to sell into then if you're very clear about what you're expecting. Now it would be helpful if this committee would back that up with bipartisan language, but I think there's a lot of ingenuity out there and I think some of these people will come and find you if you're very clear about what you're looking for.

I totally agree and I do believe that was one of the defects in the leak detection rule that we are examining right now, that the need to be technology-agnostic is very, very important. So I agree with that.

I've got a few extra minutes here. That was my only question. I know a couple times you got cut off. Is there anything else that you wanted to address that you haven't had a chance to say?

No, I appreciate the interest of this committee and the passion you have for all of these really important issues. So it's a privilege to appear before you today.

I yield back, Chair.

Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 15th district for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Administrator Roberti, for your testimony today. Fifteen years ago, a natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, which is in my district, just a few miles from my house. This tragedy claimed eight lives and destroyed or damaged over 100 homes. The impact on the community was devastating and long-lasting. And it's why we need to get reauthorization of this pipeline safety program right. Compared to the bipartisan proposal coming out of the T&I committee, this partisan bill has at least $150 million less in funding for replacing dangerous and outdated gas distribution pipelines. My understanding is that this will not sustain the grant program that was established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to replace aging and inadequate pipeline infrastructure. So, Administrator, by the time this grant program runs out of funding, will every dangerous and outdated gas pipeline in America have been replaced?

Well, I wouldn't call the pipelines, the age has never been, no pipeline reaches a certain age where it's declared to be unsafe because of the technologies that can be employed to monitor them. But I think when you're looking at systems like cast iron main that could predate more than 100 years ago, there comes a point in time where you have to have a long-term sustained approach for systemic investment and replacement. And all operators of utilities, whether they're publicly owned or investor owned, need to be doing that. So that's the imperative, focusing on systematic investment in systems to make sure that within 10 years or 50 years or 100 years, no pipeline asset is going to be 150 years old. And so the capital markets are, most communities have bond rating agencies give them the ability to attract funding, they have access to low-cost capital. You know, maybe the better way is to have a bank where there's low-cost capital, a revolving loan like they do on the clean water finance for sewer projects for municipally owned. But I do get concerned if you just take the dump truck and unload hundreds of millions of dollars out there, I don't know that you get the same tight, cost-effective outcomes in terms of infrastructure replacements. Now we've inherited this program, whatever Congress decides, we will implement it and we will implement it effectively. But at the end of the day, all operators need to be focused on knowing their assets, knowing where the risks are, and certainly knowing that if you've got a 100-year-old pipeline that's leaking, you've got to get that in the capital plan and you've got to address it and upgrade it.

Well, I certainly agree with a systemic approach to this, but there are dangerous pipelines running right now under schools and neighborhoods. And I have a deep concern if this committee is going to vote out a bill that would not fully fund the program to replace them given what we've seen happen across the country. So I believe it's woefully inadequate. But thank you for being here today to answer the questions. Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentleman from Texas, it's the 33rd district, isn't it? Yeah, boy I got a good memory. Is recognized for five minutes for questions.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and Administrator, appreciate your testimony here today. Last summer during our budget hearing, I said that pipeline safety is not a luxury, that it is a necessity. And we rely on millions and millions of infrastructure to power our country and we definitely have a shared responsibility to make sure that this network is as safe as possible. And for those of us in the Fort Worth area, this isn't an abstract policy discussion. We're still very much mindful, and you probably I'm not sure if you're aware of the Sandman explosion that happened in downtown Fort Worth of last year. As a matter of fact, my wife and I had just eaten at that hotel a week or two before that explosion and it really was just a reminder of how important pipeline safety is. I really appreciate your focus on modernizing PHMSA and your efforts to complete outstanding mandates from the 2020 PIPES Act. And also appreciate that the discussion draft before us attempts to move reauthorization forward. But I do have some serious concerns that the bill does not fully meet at the moment. As a Texan, I strongly support building and maintaining energy infrastructure. But public confidence in energy infrastructure depends on trust, and trust obviously depends on safety to minimize incidents like the one I just mentioned in downtown Fort Worth. Our job here is simple. We have to make sure that Americans can turn on the heat, that they can fuel their economy, and live in their homes knowing the infrastructure around them is safe. I look forward to a very productive dialogue on how we can work together to achieve our common goal of a zero incident future. And so I wanted to ask you, pipelines are definitely the safest or the safest transportation method, but safety depends on strong standards and consistent enforcement. Would you agree public trust relies on both industry performance and effective oversight?

Yes. Absolutely.

Thank you. PHMSA oversees more than 3 million miles of pipeline infrastructure and that continues to grow. What do you think happens operationally if funding fails to keep pace with new pipeline deployment?

Well, for us as an agency, we've worked very hard to be to to reorient and make sure that we are efficient and effective in how we run the agency with an eye towards our core activities for the most part, which is updating the code, making sure the code is updated and clear, and making sure that our enforcement program brings compliance and accountability in the industry. So we will continue to do that and and that will lead the industry and keep the industry operating making sure that they invest properly, that they are employing the latest technologies, in-line inspection tools, to make sure their systems are safe.

Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense. You mentioned in your testimony enforcement cuts and personnel reductions. But incidents continue to occur each year. Where do your current pipeline policies fall short in preventing accidents before they happen? Have you had a chance to sort of look at that?

Well, some of these I mean the majority like 70 to 80 percent of the incidents that we're responsible for are with states. So they we don't have primary jurisdiction and excavation damage, for instance, is a is a leading area. Even even this morning, there was an incident in Missouri that a house a house blew up because someone was drilling and putting in fiber-optic cable and drilled through a pipeline. Those types of incidents lead to a lot of property damage and can lead to to very serious consequences including death and they're avoidable, they're preventable. So we definitely need to do more on that front. On everything else, I mean leak detection for the liquid pipelines, that's that is yes, we've got to do we have to do better. We have to do better. And certainly pipelines in high-consequence areas carry huge responsibilities by the operators to constantly maintain surveillance on those pipelines to ensure that they're operating safely.

So understanding the practical impact, if PHMSA doesn't have sufficient resources or authority, what specific safety activities do you think have to be dropped or sort of minimized?

Well, you know, our inspection enforcement division, those core personnel were were exempted from any reductions. We we're the or early retirement programs. We did have a few retirements. We're not down that significantly and as we speak, we are hiring more inspectors. So we're not going to we're not going to back off on that area. I like I said, when I was chief counsel, this agency's budget ballooned in a matter of five years. We're back to where we were when I was chief counsel. And I thought we had a lot of resources then. I aim to leverage those resources ...

I am sorry to interrupt again, the gentleman's time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania's 13th District for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Chairman Latta, for holding this important hearing, and to you, Administrator Roberti, for testifying. As I have spoken at length during prior committee hearings, Pennsylvania has an incredibly strong natural gas industry that is well situated to meet both domestic and global supply. The resource that is under the feet of my constituents is plentiful, it's accessible, and it's affordable. But in order to move the natural gas to other parts of the country or to LNG export facilities, Pennsylvania must rely on the United States energy pipeline and that is what this discussion is all about. The safety of those pipelines and while the U.S. houses one of the most expansive pipeline networks in the world, as demand increases, so will the need for pipeline capacity. Our ability to expand and modernize our energy delivery network will rely on several factors. But two of the most important and timely are public trust in the safety and predictable regulation. I think, Administrator, you will agree with that. Your agency has done incredible influence and responsibility in both of these areas. And I applaud you for the work that you have already done since your confirmation in working through overdue rulemaking and modernizing your regulation to match current technological standards. Congress and federal agencies often move slower than the commercial market when it comes to considering and adopting technological improvements. Administrator Roberti, as PHMSA works through its rulemaking process, what steps can you take to future-proof your regulations allowing operators such as EQT, which drills in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, to adopt new technologies as they become available?

Well, I think the most important thing to your question, you you raise a really important issue. It's does the code reflect modern technologies? And so many of our efforts, we had 30 various rulemakings in the last year on the pipeline side to do just that, to take you know the the code and I I bring it with me here today because the code it it can't be a stale document. It really should be a living document and should move with the times. And as it does, I think we get more more the modern regulations that can leverage the the best in advanced engineering practices, new technology, are going to lead to more cost-effective and safer outcomes. What that does is it lowers costs for for the American consumer, but also it breeds safety and confidence in our pipeline.

And to the point that you're making, is there congressional direction that we can provide in the reauthorization that will assist in incentivizing industry innovation in both safety and efficiency rather than hindering it?

Well, I think the big thing you can do and what is very nice about this discussion bill is the attempt to expand the agency's mission beyond our core what I've discussed here today. It's very helpful for us to maintain the course and not try to expand the agency's mission like we saw in the last administration.

In your testimony, you emphasized PHMSA's refocused enforcement and infection the inspection framework that should not go soft on safety. You also mentioned examples of recent high-profile enforcement actions by your agency. Can you expand on how refocusing your oversight allows you to target the areas with the highest impact on safety?

Yeah, and I discussed this earlier about we we want to we want to focus on where accidents and incidents occur. That's a good place to to deploy resources and we're doing that. We want to focus on control rooms and where the capabilities to detect leaks, leak detection, is is front and center. We want to focus on high-consequence areas where pipelines where pipelines are in urban or high-population areas if something goes wrong, it you have a disastrous consequence.

Do you feel that this is a more targeted brand of oversight in pipeline safety?

Yeah, it is going to be more targeted. It's going to be safety-driven. So instead of having instead of handing out 100 speeding tickets for 5 miles over the speeding ticket, we're more looking like you know we're going to have 25 where you know the speeds were in excess of 15 to 25 miles per hour. The big the big ones.

I think you have that overview that is so necessary. And the reauthorization of PHMSA's pipeline safety program will not overall help to just strengthen the U.S. energy pipeline network, but it will ensure as it expands that we can continue to innovate, something you talk about and unleash that American energy dominance that we so desperately need. I thank you for being here today, Administrator. I yield back the remainder of my time. Something you talk about in unleash that American energy dominance that we so desperately need. I thank you for being here today, Minister. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Well thank you very much, the gentleman's time has expired and yields back. And seeing no further members wishing to ask questions of our witness today, thank you so much for appearing before us today. Members may have additional written questions for you, and I remind members they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10 business days upon receipt of their questions. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. And hearing no objections, without objection so ordered. And without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. Thanks for much for appearing today. Thank you.