Sponsors (3)
Last progress June 12, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 12, 2025 by Julia Brownley
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Updates offshore pipeline safety and decommissioning rules and requires studies on environmental impacts. It directs the Interior Department’s offshore safety agency to issue final pipeline safety rules within 18 months that mandate regular third‑party inspections and continuous volumetric leak detection, requires removal or securing of exposed pipeline segments, orders studies and monitoring on leaving pipelines in place vs removal and on chemicals used in offshore operations, and conditions the law’s effectiveness on a required review for harm to reef fish habitat.
Within 18 months after the date of enactment, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, must issue final regulations relating to Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf — Pipelines and Pipeline Rights‑of‑Way (72 Fed. Reg. 56,442 (Oct. 3, 2007)).
The final regulations must require owners of oil and gas pipelines subject to the regulations to provide for internal and external inspections of pipelines by a third party no less frequently than every two years, unless the Director of the Bureau determines that any such inspection is not required.
The final regulations must require owners of subject pipelines to equip them with a leak detection system or device that provides continuous volumetric comparison between the pipeline’s product input and output, and that includes alarms and sufficient sensitivity to detect variations between input and discharge volumes so leaks can be detected as quickly as possible.
The Directors of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) must jointly conduct a study comparing environmental benefits and risks of decommissioning oil and gas pipelines in place on the sea floor versus removing them.
The study must include an evaluation of pipelines that have been decommissioned in place and identify those at high risk of causing safety and environmental harm, causing obstructions, or unduly interfering with present or future uses of the outer continental shelf.
Who is affected and how:
Offshore pipeline owners and operators: face direct regulatory changes — mandatory leak detection systems, required biennial third‑party inspections (unless waived), monitoring obligations for decommissioned lines, and a potential annual fee to fund removal if they go bankrupt. These requirements will increase compliance and lifecycle costs and may change decommissioning choices.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and other offshore safety agencies: must develop, implement, and enforce new rules on an accelerated timeline, conduct studies and monitoring, set fee levels, and inspect/require corrective action for exposed or shifted lines. This raises administrative workload and resource needs.
Fishing communities, coastal communities, and maritime users: stand to benefit from stricter leak detection, removal or securing of hazardous exposed pipeline segments, and consideration of navigation and fishing uses in decommissioning decisions; they may also be affected by physical removal activities (temporary disruption) or by pipelines left in place.
Chemical suppliers and oil/gas operators: will be required to participate in a study on chemical risks and could face future restrictions or reporting requirements based on study findings.
Environmental groups and resource managers: may see enhanced protections, monitoring, and policy guidance on leaving infrastructure in place vs removal; they may also challenge or contest decommissioning decisions.
Potential economic effects: increased industry costs for compliance, inspections, detection systems, monitoring, and removal could be passed on to consumers or affect project economics; the annual fee mechanism creates a contingency fund but may be controversial in its structure and level.
Overall tradeoffs: the legislation strengthens safety and environmental oversight and creates mechanisms to address orphaned/abandoned pipelines, but it increases regulatory complexity, industry costs, and administrative responsibilities for BSEE and partner agencies. Debates are likely over leave‑in‑place vs removal decisions and fee levels.