A striking report has revealed that 90 percent of the 137 interstate pipeline fires or explosions since 2010 have drawn no financial penalties for the companies responsible.
The article from E&E News reporter Mike Soraghan underscores the federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) weak authority over the fossil fuel industry for these disasters.
The government levied a mere $5.4 million in fines for the 13 pipeline explosion and fire cases in the last eight years, the analysis found.
"That's less than one day of profits for one major pipeline company, TransCanada. It's $2 million less than what [TransCanada CEO Russ Girling] made last year," Soraghan explained in a tweet.
One of the country's largest natural gas pipeline accidents—the 2010 San Bruno, California pipeline explosion that resulted in eight deaths—fell under state jurisdiction rather than PHMSA. California authorities imposed a record $1.6 billion fine against Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)....
Citing PHMSA data, the Washington Post reported that more than 300 people have died and 1,200 have been injured due to natural gas pipeline incidents in the last 20 years—and the nation's aging gas distribution network further increases these risks....
More news from the Manchurian president's administration.
Sadly, "since 2010".
Maybe it's a misplaced apostrophe - More news from the Manchurian presidents' administrations.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
I'd be interested in knowing how many of the 137 since 2010 were investigated, company found negligent, no fine issued. I'd also like to know what causes of these explosions were found by credible accident investigations. And in the ones not resulting in personal injury, I'd like to know whose property was damaged, and if those people exercises any claims against the company. And are we concluding that enforcement is weak, that enforcers are paid off, that the gas companies have better lawyers than the enforcers, or what? The headline makes it exciting, the details provided not so much.
I'd be interested in knowing how many of the 137 since 2010 were investigated, company found negligent, no fine issued. I'd also like to know what causes of these explosions were found by credible accident investigations. And in the ones not resulting in personal injury, I'd like to know whose property was damaged, and if those people exercises any claims against the company. And are we concluding that enforcement is weak, that enforcers are paid off, that the gas companies have better lawyers than the enforcers, or what? The headline makes it exciting, the details provided not so much.
Valid points.
A guess: It would be a lot more work and would require case by case review to determine the reasons, something perhaps only an impartial entity within the government would have the resources to do. Maybe E&E News reporter Mike Soraghan did what he could - ID that there's an obvious problem, whatever it is that needs fixing.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
One would still need detailed expert pipeline, regulatory and legal analysis to be able to say, 'This is why there should have been a fine in this instance.'
Meanwhile, I'm comfortable in saying that there should be a fine more than 10% of the time. In what proportion of car accidents, for example, is no fault found and no penalty assessed?
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
I know nothing about pipelines or related fires. I do know something about the NTSB and OSHA and neither is particularly shy about imposing fines. Overall, though, as the article pointed out, given the miles of pipeline carrying unimaginably amounts of gas throughout the US, including directly into houses and businesses, that explosions are pretty rare. And it's certainly easy to pile on to PG&E, they of Erin Brockovitch infamy, and now possibly to blame for the Camp Fire, but fines levied by most agencies (NTSB, OSHA, etc.) aren't usually crippling to the offender and are usually according to a scale - often based on extent of personal injury.
But still, I'm guessing the big players in that industry own quite a few legislators and thrown down a good bit of money to protect their interests.
I know nothing about pipelines or related fires. I do know something about the NTSB and OSHA and neither is particularly shy about imposing fines. Overall, though, as the article pointed out, given the miles of pipeline carrying unimaginably amounts of gas throughout the US, including directly into houses and businesses, that explosions are pretty rare. And it's certainly easy to pile on to PG&E, they of Erin Brockovitch infamy, and now possibly to blame for the Camp Fire, but fines levied by most agencies (NTSB, OSHA, etc.) aren't usually crippling to the offender and are usually according to a scale - often based on extent of personal injury.
But still, I'm guessing the big players in that industry own quite a few legislators and thrown down a good bit of money to protect their interests.
Reading a little bit between the lines I think the point is that the federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is far weaker than NTSB or OSHA. The article doesn't get into whether this is due to internal corruption, poor enabling legislation (somewhat implied) or both.
Even if one thinks that the $1.6 billion fine against PG&E California authorities imposed for "the 2010 San Bruno, California pipeline explosion that resulted in eight deaths" is excessive, there is just no excuse for PHMSA levying only $5.4 million in fines for "137 interstate pipeline fires or explosions since 2010".
Here's the original article, it might elaborate on some of these issues:
Yeah, that was very good - thanks.
Too few people in inspection/enforcement, too many miles of pipe for them, too little authority, yada.
I did think it was significant that it pointed out the companies probably lose way more in each accident than any remotely reasonable fine would be anyway...but then I figured they have insurance for that. And they'd have insurance for the fines too, actually. Nothing to do but nationalize the companies and let the government run them. Oh, wait...
... I did think it was significant that it pointed out the companies probably lose way more in each accident than any remotely reasonable fine would be anyway...
I'd be okay with more criminal prosecutions and jail time in this and many other corporate malfeasance realms.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
... And they'd have insurance for the fines too, actually....
Can you get insured for fines?
[again] I know nothing about pipelines or pipeline safety compliance.
For OSHA fines, there is a ruling as to whether the violation was "willful" or "gross negligent". In cases of willful violations, executives can be held personally liable and/or turned in to law enforcement for criminal prosecution. Those fines aren't covered by insurance. And insurers do punish OSHA violators with higher premiums, too. So the petrol people likely wouldn't really have insurance against fines directly. They would, however, appeal any fines, eventually go to court, get a court ruling that might reduce or wipe out the fine.
[again] I know nothing about pipelines or pipeline safety compliance.
For OSHA fines, there is a ruling as to whether the violation was "willful" or "gross negligent". In cases of willful violations, executives can be held personally liable and/or turned in to law enforcement for criminal prosecution. Those fines aren't covered by insurance. And insurers do punish OSHA violators with higher premiums, too. So the petrol people likely wouldn't really have insurance against fines directly. They would, however, appeal any fines, eventually go to court, get a court ruling that might reduce or wipe out the fine.
I meant as a general principle, not specific to pipelines. I thought that all fines, by definition the result of illegal activity whether willful or grossly negligent or not, were uninsurable. It sounds like you're saying that I was wrong in some instances.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
"Willful" has a specific meaning in administrative law, meaning that the company knew the regulation, knew they were in violation and maybe intended to violate, and did nothing to comply. Lots of defenses to a "willful" designation, including, interestingly, that you didn't know. But in California, regarding wage-hour stuff, almost every violation starts out designated as willful under the theory that it is the employer's responsibility to know and comply with the law and if it doesn't then it must by definition be willful. Gross negligence also has a lot of defenses too, because you have to show not only that the employer knew it was wrong, but knew or should have known it would result in really bad injury/damage, and then do nothing to comply. "normal" negligence is usually considered just an "accident" particularly if it doesn't result in massive injury.
BTW, most of OSHA's original fine assessment gets negotiated down or waived if nobody gets killed and prompt corrections are made.
I get all that. The only sticking point here is I'm asking if some fines can be paid by insurance. If so, it sucks! A penalty should be borne by the offender directly. The theoretical increase in insurance rates is out of the government's hands and should not be considered sufficient deterrence to illegal activity.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
From JonesDay who, unlike me, actually does insurance work:
"A looming question in the case of insurance for fines and penalties is whether such items can be insured despite policy language expressly providing for such coverage. As with the insurability of punitive damages, there is no uniform view. However, one can make several general observations:
Fines or penalties that are based on intentional or willful conduct are likely to be challenged by the insurer based upon public policy arguments.
Fines or penalties that are "punitive" in nature are more likely to be challenged by the insurer than those that are "compensatory" in nature.
Penalties that are assessed vicariously against a policyholder (such as when a corporation is held liable for an unauthorized act of its employee) are less likely to be challenged."
So yes, some fines/penalties can be insured against. Still don't know anything about pipelines, though.
... So yes, some fines/penalties can be insured against....
Thanks, I do think that's rotten. There's no deterrence if the cost has been paid for up front in the form of premiums. Whether rates then go up after a payout is not certain.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
Still without knowing anything about pipelines... part of the issue with "insufficient" fines might be that most federal agencies, and I suppose most state agencies too, tend to focus on gaining compliance first, and punishing only when necessary. They don't usually try to crucify every offender off the bat and they consider past practices, whether there is systemic non-compliance, etc. So it could be that because the gas explosions really are pretty rate, though spectacular, that most of the time they don't find willful violations or gross negligence. In the one article you posted where the pipe hadn't been inspected for 24 years, my first thought was that that was awful, but maybe it wasn't. And maybe there was no requirement to inspect more frequently. Who knows. Maybe the regs themselves are loose.
I can definitely see your point in some cases, but not when 90% of fires/explosions go entirely unpunished. Whether Congress or the regulators are to blame, CA found the legal authority to assess a real fine for a single event that was almost 300 times as large as all of the federal fines for 137 events over 8 years.
A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.
-- Charlie Sykes on MSNBC
1312. ETTD.
I can definitely see your point in some cases, but not when 90% of fires/explosions go entirely unpunished. Whether Congress or the regulators are to blame, CA found the legal authority to assess a real fine for a single event that was almost 300 times as large as all of the federal fines for 137 events over 8 years.
And they could have done something about the BP oil spill, or the bigger one that is still leaking, but didn't. Thanks lil bush for the bs permit and saving the Gulf walruses, thanks Obama for letting BP be the only ones to measure the oil and for allowing them to illegally sink the oil where it will stay until disturbed.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
