Oil and gas industry petitions to block pipeline monitoring rule that cites Enbridge failures
Two oil and gas industry groups have filed a petition in hopes of eliminating a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) rule that would better hold them accountable. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and GPA Midstream want to halt the implementation of the “Pipeline Safety: Unusually Sensitive Areas for the Great Lakes, Coastal Beaches, and Certain Coastal Waters” rule that went into effect last month. The rule explicitly cites API member Enbridge’s failures with its Line 5 and Line 6B pipelines as to why stricter regulations must take effect. According to the rule, which amends current safety regulations in place, “certain coastal waters, the Great Lakes, and coastal beaches are classified as unusually sensitive areas for the purpose of compliance with the hazardous liquid integrity management regulations… A hazardous liquid pipeline that could affect these newly designated areas must be included in an operator’s integrity management program.”
What that means for polluters is that they must comply with stricter standards because “unusually sensitive areas” require more risk analysis assessment and monitoring, as those areas typically include drinking water sources or areas with threatened wildlife species. They are also considered “high consequences areas,” because of the amount of damage a pipeline rupture could cause to such an environment. All of these designations were put in place long before the present rule was adopted on Feb. 25, but oil and gas companies are causing a ruckus because this means they must take accountability for the many precious environments their pipelines continue to threaten. It’s more shocking that, prior to this, many companies hadn’t come up with, say, “a plan for scheduling and performing baseline assessments” than it is that API and GPA want to put a stop to those assessments altogether.
The petition by API and GPA asks the D.C. Court of Appeals to halt the rule from taking effect while the court reviews it. They claim that there simply wasn’t enough time for comment from the groups themselves and the public. Unsurprisingly, they also take issue with the “unusually sensitive areas” designation. Were the petition to be denied, API and GPA have an opportunity to file a lawsuit—a nightmare situation for anyone who cares about the environment—and the rule could languish in the meantime. Pipeline Safety Trust Executive Director Bill Caram slammed the groups’ latest legal move, calling it “bad faith stalling,” which is a kinder way of saying they’re pulling the usual bullshit of pretending they were caught unaware and on their asses.
“Pipeline operators have enjoyed this regulatory loophole for far too long and Congress has twice mandated this very specific fix. This bad faith stalling effort puts our prized coastal waters, including the Great Lakes, which contain 84% of North America’s surface freshwater, at unnecessary risk,” Caram said. Those two instances of Congress mandating a similar solution include the 2011 Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act and the 2020 PIPES Act. Both have reauthorized prior guidances and also tightened restrictions that echo the latest PHMSA rules. But oil and gas companies are reticent to do the right thing, and it’s comical to think they legitimately care about comments on such restrictions.
An upcoming meeting that will include public comment on Line 5’s impact on climate change will likely see the worst of Enbridge and its ilk on full display as the community argues against a proposed tunnel system that would keep fossil fuels flowing and further damage the planet. As for the petition filed by API and GPA, the groups and their respondents have until Apr. 4 to file a raft of paperwork that includes any procedural motions and a statement of issues to be raised. They also have until Apr. 18 to submit any dispositive motions that could move the case along a bit faster.