Randy Weber (R-TX)
Pipeline Safety Authorization Act of 2026
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 41 - 8.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
H.R. 9338, titled the Pipeline Safety Authorization Act of 2026, amends title 49 of the United States Code to improve the overall safety of pipeline transportation. The bill sets funding levels for gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs through fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It requires minimum safety standards to explicitly consider safety and economic benefits within the United States. The legislation creates a confidential voluntary information-sharing system for pipeline safety data and sets new rules for state excavation damage prevention programs. Finally, the bill increases maximum civil penalties for pipeline safety violations.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +3
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Provides an opportunity for formal hearings when compliance costs or penalties exceed $125,000.
- Scored +2
Would farmers be better off under this?
Excavation damage prevention and locatable facility requirements are highly beneficial for agricultural land use.
- Scored +2
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Stricter safety and excavation protocols protect high-density populated areas.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases civil penalties and adds compliance costs for pipeline operators.
- Scored -1
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Requires states to adopt specific leading practices to be considered effective.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 4: This section gives respondents an opportunity for a formal hearing in enforcement matters where the cost of compliance or the proposed civil penalty is $125,000 or more. This is positive because it gives people and companies a fair and transparent chance to defend themselves against expensive government actions.
-
Section 8: This section establishes a confidential voluntary information-sharing system to gather pipeline safety data and share lessons learned across the industry. This is positive because it allows experts to collaborate on safety risks without fear of litigation, which helps prevent future accidents and protects communities.
-
Section 9: This section requires states to adopt leading practices for one-call notification programs and excavation damage prevention. This is positive because it helps stop construction and digging accidents from damaging underground utility lines, keeping neighborhoods safer.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 6: This section expands criminal penalties by prohibiting people from damaging, destroying, or impairing the operation of pipeline facilities under construction. This could be considered a burden because it broadens the scope of severe criminal liability for individuals involved in construction-related incidents.
-
Section 10: This section increases the maximum civil penalties for pipeline safety violations, raising individual penalties from $200,000 to $341,200 and maximum penalties from $2,000,000 to $3,412,000. This is a heavy financial burden that could drive up operational costs for companies, which might ultimately get passed down to everyday consumers in the form of higher utility prices.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — Excavation damage prevention and locatable facility requirements are highly beneficial for agricultural land use. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Stricter safety and excavation protocols protect high-density populated areas. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Safety improvements benefit all populations near pipeline corridors. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Safety improvements benefit all populations near pipeline corridors. Would children be better off under this? — Increased safety reduces the risk of catastrophic pipeline failures in populated areas. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improved safety reduces the risk of accidents in residential areas. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Safety improvements benefit all populations near pipeline corridors. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Improved safety reduces the risk of accidents in low-income areas where infrastructure may be older. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increased safety reduces the risk of catastrophic pipeline failures in populated areas. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improved safety reduces the risk of accidents in residential areas. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Safety improvements benefit all populations near pipeline corridors. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Safety improvements benefit rural areas, though some gathering lines may face reduced oversight. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increased safety reduces the risk of catastrophic pipeline failures in populated areas. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased safety standards and training requirements improve worker safety for pipeline crews. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Safety improvements benefit all populations near pipeline corridors. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increased safety reduces the risk of catastrophic pipeline failures in populated areas. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases civil penalties and adds compliance costs for pipeline operators.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides an opportunity for formal hearings when compliance costs or penalties exceed $125,000. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires public notice of permit applications and reports on their implementation status. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight through mandated 'leading practices' for state programs. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Standardizing pipeline safety across states facilitates smoother interstate energy transportation. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Requires states to adopt specific leading practices to be considered effective.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Increased pipeline safety and excavation damage prevention reduce the risk of accidents for consumers. Is this likely to grow the economy? — By focusing on safety and economic benefits within the US for safety standards, it may streamline pipeline efficiency.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Stricter safety standards and better excavation prevention reduce the likelihood of leaks and environmental contamination. Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides funding and grants for pipeline safety which often impacts rural infrastructure.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Establishes a confidential information-sharing system for safety data.
- 7/21/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 41 - 8.
- 7/20/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 6/24/2026
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
- 6/18/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy.
- Introduced in House