S 5045 Introduced

Pipeline Damage Expansion

Last month, Sen Cruz (R,TX) introduced S 5045, the Safe and Secure Transportation of American Energy Act. The bill would amend 49 USC 60123(b) to expand the coverage of ‘the penalty for damaging or destroying an interstate pipeline’ to include select civil disobedience activities. No new funding is authorized by this legislation.

Definitions

There are no new definitions included in this bill. This would lead to prosecutors and judges defining such terms as ‘vandalizing’, ‘tampering with’, and ‘disrupting the operation or construction’. With the punishment levels being proposed this seems to be a serious transfer of congressional authority.

Rewriting §60123(b)

Section 2 of the bill would rewrite §60123(b) to read:

“(b) PENALTY FOR DAMAGING OR DESTROYING FACILITY.—A person knowingly and willfully damaging or destroying  damaging, destroying, vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of an interstate gas pipeline facility, an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility, or either an intrastate gas pipeline facility or intrastate hazardous liquid pipeline facility that is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or attempting or conspiring to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

Moving Forward

Cruz is the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This (along with his 10 Republican cosponsors who are also members of the Committee) means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. I suspect, however, that there would be nearly party-line opposition to the bill as the proposed language appears to be directly targeting recent civil disobedience activities by environmental activists and Indian tribes who oppose the construction or expansion of the energy pipelines. I do not expect this bill to be taken up by the Committee.

Commentary

While it is easy to understand why pipeline owners, contractors and the industries that rely on such pipelines object to the civil disobedience activities that have delayed construction and impeded operations of hazardous material pipelines, I cannot comprehend how anyone can justify punishing the perpetrators by imprisonment for up to 20 years for such activities. This is especially true when owner/operator violations of safety standards under §60118(a) are limited to punishment under §60123(a) of no more than 5-years imprisonment.

There is a middle ground that could achieve the objective of inhibiting minor damage and disruption of pipeline operations without the overkill of a 20-year jail penalty that would have a chilling effect on civil disobedience activities. Instead of the proposed changes to §60123(b) a new subsection (e):

“(e) PENALTY FOR VANDALIZING OR DISRUPTING OPERATION OF FACILITY.—A person knowingly and willfully vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of an interstate gas pipeline facility, an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility, or either an intrastate gas pipeline facility or intrastate hazardous liquid pipeline facility that is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce not covered in subsection (b), or attempting or conspiring to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 1 year.”