Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pipeline Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pipeline jurisdiction clarification bill stalls after debate over Public Service Commission authority and eminent-domain implications
Summary
House Bill 494 to clarify pipeline definitions and limit Public Service Commission jurisdiction was held in Senate Commerce after witnesses warned it could upend long-standing statutory expectations and impact eminent-domain rights.
Representative Domingue presented House Bill 494 to clarify the statutory definition of a pipeline and to limit Louisiana Public Service Commission (PSC) jurisdiction over certain third-party terminal tank facilities. He said the change would restore predictability after an administrative-law judge found that an operation at Fouchon could be subject to PSC rate regulation.
Rosefield Fouchon Operating CEO Chris Kapsilimi testified the bill would protect third-party terminals from an unexpected expansion of PSC jurisdiction, preserve pricing flexibility and encourage capital investment. He said an ALJ ruling threatened to subject a standalone terminal to PSC rate-setting despite the industry's long practice and the statute's original intent.
Cantium and other pipeline opponents said the dispute arose from a unique factual situation and that the PSC had considered the record carefully and issued a unanimous 5–0 decision upholding jurisdiction in that particular instance. Neil Abramson, representing Cantium, argued the bill was designed to affect litigation outcomes and could create unintended uncertainty for industry and landowners. He warned the measure might also affect eminent-domain rights because PSC jurisdiction has long been linked with pipeline expropriation authority.
The PSC’s executive secretary and commissioner Davonte Lewis told the committee the case was fact-specific and not a general expansion of the commission's reach; they noted the commission’s orders and staff analyses. Senator Harris asked the PSC to clarify the commission position, and commission staff described the administrative appeals process and the stay/appeal rights available to both parties.
A roll call to report the bill as amended failed in committee, 4 yeas to 5 nays, and the measure was therefore held. Senators opposing the motion said they were concerned that the new language introduced uncertainty about a statute that had governed the sector for decades and could inadvertently alter eminent-domain authorities at issue in pipeline disputes.
