President Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have presented a propositional bill to Congress to increase federal oversight of oil and gas pipelines around the country. Called the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2010, the bill includes procedures relating to gas, oil, biofuel, carbon dioxide, and other hazardous liquid pipelines. The proposal comes directly in response to two recent pipeline issues: the San Bruno explosion and the Talmadge Creek oil spill in Michigan. The San Bruno explosion killed a reported 4 people and destroyed nearly 40 homes, and the Michigan spill put over a million gallons of oil into the creek in July 2010.
The proposed bill includes increased consequences for safety violations, which are defined to include at least one death, at least one injury requiring hospitalization, $250,000 in environmental costs or any explosion putting the safety of the public in jeopardy. It also stipulates assistance to be given to Alaska in order to bring its existing pipelines up to date in accordance with the new laws and requires 40 more employees in the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration by the end of fiscal year 2014 to enforce the new rules. For the original bill, go here.
This bill, if passed, would greatly expand the federal power to oversee public utilities, such as PG&E (San Bruno) and Enbridge Energy (Talmadge Creek), continuing the pattern of stronger central government. Some may argue that this action is too much, that the new regulations would be too strong, and that the federal government ought not to have such strong regulations. I would disagree. The recent oil-related disasters have made it clear to me that our national dependence on oil must either be stopped or more highly regulated. Public safety has been jeopardized too many times, and the private sector does not react quickly enough to disasters because a quick reaction is not in their best interest. BP took months to cap the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and still has not taken full responsibility for the disaster. Enbridge and PG&E took immediate responsibility, but their disasters cost 100 households their drinking water and approximately 40 families their entire houses. Since states and local governments do not have the funds to properly oversee these private companies working with extremely dangerous materials, and the companies themselves are as interested in profits as public safety, the federal government needs to step in and take control. If anything, this bill is too little, too late.
More information:
Obama's proposal:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/15/129879692/obama-administration-wants-stronger-pipeline-oversight
San Bruno fire:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/09/09/2010-09-09_blast_likely_caused_by_gas_line_explosion_causes_massive_fire_in_san_bruno_calif.html?r=news/national
Talmadge Creek spill:
http://www.businessreviewusa.com/news/gulf-disaster/800k-gallons-oil-spill-mi%E2%80%99s-talmadge-creek
4 comments:
It's totally true: " our national dependence on oil must either be stopped or more highly regulated". It's interesting how all of these disasters are occurring considering our need on the resources. The bill is a little late but at least our president did react. We now know that if there's a problem, our president will come to fix it. The central government's involvement in this is definitely a positive good. The passage of this bill would definitely kick PG&E in the rear and hopefully help them find cracks in 30 inch pipelines.
Do we really want our president fixing every problem? While I believe this problem is absolutely one the president and governments at all levels ought to become involved in, I don't want the president fixing all the problems we face. If the American public begins to take that as our universal opinion, will we not end up with more wire-tapping and other "anti-terrorism" measures? Where do we draw the line?
@Kathy
Your blog post responding to Immanuel's comment seems to contradict your initial position when you posted this blog entry.
Who do you want to fix all the problems that we face? It will be some sort of government that will need to step in and regulate the harm that business causes. The "wire tapping" comment you made has no relevance to the topic of the blog post you made. Please elaborate what problems you don't want to be fixed by the president and/or central government, as most problems will be caused by the negligence of business that are looking for profit. I agree with what Immanuel said on the grounds that the government should step in and create bills to control the situation or regulate it.
Cris- I'm sorry if my comment was confusing. I also agree with Immanuel in that I believe it is important the national government step in and protect the people when it comes to public safety and disasters like the one in San Bruno. Perhaps my comment and post were contradictory because I don't have a clean cut opinion. I think that it is necessary for the government to pass a bill similar to the one Obama has proposed, but I think it is wrong for the government to listen to our conversations in the name of national security. Where the line lies is still very much up in the air for me.
Post a Comment