dismantling pipeline safety regulations

Trump’s administration is rolling back key pipeline safety regulations while appointing industry insiders to regulatory positions. Former pipeline lobbyist Ben Kochman now serves as acting administrator of PHMSA, while half the agency’s senior leadership has departed. This comes as pipeline accidents reach their deadliest period in over a decade. Legal challenges from energy companies could further weaken enforcement mechanisms. The changes may disproportionately impact vulnerable communities across America.

The Trump administration is rolling back key pipeline safety regulations, raising concerns about public health and environmental protection. The administration recently withdrew proposed carbon dioxide safety regulations that were created after a 2020 pipeline failure in Satartia, Mississippi, where nearly 50 people were hospitalized with “zombie”-like symptoms from a pressurized CO2 leak.

The withdrawal aligns with Trump’s deregulatory executive order and comes as former industry insiders take over key regulatory positions. Ben Kochman, a former pipeline industry lobbyist, has been appointed as acting administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Paul Roberti, the agency’s former chief attorney, has been nominated for the permanent position, while Sean Duffy, a former GOP congressman and pipeline lobbyist, was selected as Transportation Secretary.

These appointments have been celebrated by industry lobbying groups but have raised concerns about regulatory capture. The timing is particularly troubling as carbon capture projects requiring thousands of miles of new pipelines are being planned, with no safety regulations yet implemented for this new infrastructure. Investigations revealed that Denbury, the pipeline operator in Mississippi, faced a $2.9 million penalty for negligence in addressing operational risks.

In another challenge to oversight, Energy Transfer has filed a lawsuit claiming PHMSA’s in-house enforcement system is unconstitutional. The company wants to move enforcement to federal courts with jury trials, which could greatly slow down and reduce enforcement actions.

Adding to these concerns is a mass exodus of PHMSA senior leadership, with over half of the senior executives departing within three months. This leaves the agency without key leadership as it faces major safety challenges. The situation is further complicated by safety advocates arguing that reliance on industry self-regulation is insufficient to protect public health.

Recent pipeline safety incidents highlight the risks of reduced oversight. A leaking jet fuel pipeline contaminated drinking water in Pennsylvania, while Energy Transfer faced a $30 million fine for repeated spills. The period from 2023-2024 has been the deadliest two-year period for pipeline accidents in over a decade.

Critics warn that deregulation could increase the risk of accidents, reduce corporate accountability, and disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities located near pipelines.

You May Also Like

28-Day Energy Permits: DOI Bypasses Years of Environmental Review

DOI’s controversial 28-day energy permits bypass years of critical environmental reviews, potentially increasing emissions 400% while officials hide behind “national security.” Communities and ecosystems pay the price.

Pennsylvania Budget Battles Ignite as Clean Energy Proposals Fuel Heated Legislative Debate

Pennsylvania’s $51.5 billion budget sparks political warfare over “rebranded carbon tax” while facing a $6 billion deficit. Can ambitious green policies survive the red ink?

Public Lands Freed From 18 Outdated Energy Rules—Who Benefits Most?

18 federal rules just vanished overnight. Energy giants celebrate while conservationists panic. See who’s really cashing in on public lands.

Michigan Lawmakers Push to Label UP’s Gas Plants as ‘Clean’ Energy Despite Controversy

Michigan lawmakers want gas plants labeled as “clean” energy. Environmental groups are fuming while locals fear rising costs. Can Michigan reconcile its climate goals with economic reality?