Pipeline Safety Improvement and Information Act

Full Title:
Pipeline Safety Authorization Act of 2026

Summary#

This bill changes federal pipeline safety law to add new rules on permitting, enforcement hearings, information sharing, excavation damage prevention, penalties, and funding. Its main goal is to improve pipeline safety by encouraging information sharing, tightening some penalties, setting state best practices for excavation, and authorizing money for pipeline safety programs.

  • Creates a confidential Voluntary Information-Sharing system (VIS) for pipeline safety data and lessons, with a 15‑member governing board, a third‑party data manager, and limits on use of VIS information for enforcement or litigation.
  • Gives respondents a formal hearing in enforcement cases when proposed compliance costs or penalties meet or exceed $125,000. The Department must publish public-hearing protocols within one year.
  • Changes special-permit rules: limits the terms of waivers to risks tied to the standard, requires Federal Register notice, and requires the agency to decide on applications within 18 months. Congress and GAO get reports on implementation.
  • Raises civil penalties for pipeline safety violations (from $200,000 to $341,200 and from $2,000,000 to $3,412,000).
  • Authorizes funding for pipeline safety activities from fees and a trust fund: roughly $180.8 million per year for gas and hazardous liquid programs (2027–2031), $30 million per year from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for hazardous liquids, and $7 million per year for underground gas storage safety.
  • Adds state "leading practices" for one‑call (dig‑notification) programs and requires reports to Congress on state adoption and damage rates.

What it means for you#

  • Pipeline operators and contractors:
    • May be invited to submit safety data to the VIS on a voluntary basis. That information is kept confidential with limits on its use for enforcement or lawsuits.
    • Face higher maximum civil penalties for violations.
    • Special‑permit (waiver) applicants will see Federal Register notices and a stated 18‑month review target.
  • People and communities near pipelines:
    • The bill aims to share lessons learned across the industry, which could improve safety practices over time.
    • Some VIS information that could explain incidents may not be publicly released in identified form.
  • State governments and one‑call centers:
    • Must move toward adopting defined leading practices for ticketing, marking, training, and reporting to qualify for certain grants.
    • Will have to report damage rates per 1,000 tickets to the federal government.
  • Workers and labor groups:
    • Are included as potential participants and seats on the VIS governing board and may be part of information‑sharing and training programs.
  • People involved in enforcement or litigation:
    • The VIS generally bars use of its nonpublic information as evidence in civil litigation or to start enforcement actions, with specific exceptions (criminal evidence, data otherwise required to be reported, or information from other sources).
    • Parties facing enforcement actions can get a formal hearing when potential penalties or compliance costs reach $125,000 or more.

If you want to participate in the VIS or rely on VIS information, the bill does not require participation and leaves many implementation details to the agency and the VIS governing board.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: The bill specifies annual authorization amounts but does not provide a single overall cost estimate or a full fiscal note.

  • Authorized funding (annual, FY2027–2031): About $180,786,000 per year from fees for gas and hazardous liquid pipeline programs, including $77,000,000 per year for grants and $9,000,000 per year for a specified program.
  • Trust fund amounts (annual, FY2027–2031): $30,000,000 per year from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for hazardous liquid programs, including $13,000,000 per year for grants and $3,000,000 for the specified program.
  • Underground storage account: $7,000,000 per year from fees for underground natural gas storage safety.
  • Other likely costs (not estimated): running and securing the VIS (including third‑party data manager contracts), administrative costs for PHMSA and the Department to meet reporting and hearing requirements, costs for states to adopt leading practices, and costs to implement special‑permit review timelines.
  • No comprehensive fiscal note provided: No publicly available estimate of total program costs, net budgetary effects, or administrative costs beyond the authorization numbers.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to address several pipeline safety concerns and to improve prevention and response. Possible arguments in favor include:

  • It appears intended to encourage sharing of near‑misses and lessons across the industry in a confidential way, which could improve safety practices without fear of immediate regulatory or legal consequences.
  • The VIS could speed the spread of useful fixes and technology practices across operators.
  • Giving respondents a formal hearing for larger penalty or cost cases could protect due process and ensure more structured adjudication.
  • Requiring publication and time limits for special‑permit decisions increases transparency and predictability for applicants.
  • Strengthening state one‑call practices and requiring reporting aims to reduce excavation damage, a common cause of pipeline incidents.
  • Increased civil penalties could act as a stronger deterrent against willful or severe violations.
  • The bill provides multi‑year funding authorizations for inspection, grants, and safety programs.

Opponents' View#

The bill’s design creates possible trade‑offs and raises implementation questions:

  • One concern is that the VIS’s confidentiality rules, FOIA exemption, and broad exclusions from use in litigation could limit public access to information about accidents and hinder victims’ ability to get evidence in civil cases.
  • The governing board is exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which reduces formal public oversight and transparency of how the VIS is governed.
  • It is unclear how effectively information will be deidentified and whether deidentification will prevent re‑identification in practice. The bill does not specify technical standards or who pays for the third‑party data manager.
  • The VIS exclusions still allow disclosure for criminal evidence and required reporting, but the line between protected VIS material and discoverable material may create legal disputes.
  • Requiring formal hearings for certain enforcement matters could lengthen enforcement processes and increase administrative and legal costs for the agency and respondents.
  • The bill sets funding authorizations but does not include a full budget estimate of implementation costs, ongoing operating costs for the VIS, or costs to states to comply with the new leading practices.
  • Some details are not specified, including specific criteria for deidentification, how the VIS will be funded and staffed, and how federal and state reporting and discovery rules will interact in practice.

What is unclear: how much the VIS and related programs will actually cost, the technical rules for protecting data, and exactly how courts will treat VIS information when discovery and litigation overlap.