At today’s House Energy & Commerce pipeline safety hearing, a committee member made false accusations about the Pipeline Safety Trust’s use of federal grant funds, and Administrator Roberti amplified them. I’d like to correct the record.
For background: Congress has specifically directed PHMSA to fund the Pipeline Safety Trust as a source of independent technical assistance to communities on pipeline safety issues. PST has received that funding for years, and in that time has maintained a strong audit record, strong enough that federal reviewers have designated us a “low-risk” grantee. In 2025, PHMSA conducted an additional review, known as a programmatic review, of PST’s grant program covering three fiscal years. That review found no evidence that PST used grant funds for prohibited activities. However, PHMSA took issue with PST’s timekeeping and recordkeeping practices, even though those practices were fully compliant with the federal regulations that govern grant management. The documentation PHMSA demanded went beyond what those regulations require.
What was said
Today’s hearing included two segments touching on PST and its grant funding. In his opening statement, Ranking Member Pallone (around the 0:28:40 mark) accused PHMSA of conducting a “bogus audit” of PST, suspending grant reimbursements, and conditioning resumption of the grant on PST not using it to pay for the salary of the Executive Director (that’s me!), noting that it looks like retaliation. I appreciate Ranking Member Pallone standing up for PST’s work. I won’t adopt all of his characterizations, but the underlying facts are correct.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Harshbarger (around the 1:33:25 mark) claimed that an audit found “significant deficiencies” in PST’s financial recordkeeping and that it was unclear whether grant funds had been used for prohibited activities such as lobbying. Administrator Roberti then amplified those claims. Both the characterization of the audit findings and the implication about PST’s use of funds are false, and I want to set the record straight.
The facts
“Significant deficiency” is a specific term of art in auditing. The review that was conducted was not a formal financial audit, it was a programmatic review, and its findings and recommendations should be understood in that context. The review had some findings and recommendations but did not identify any significant deficiencies. More importantly, on the core question of whether PST used grant funds for prohibited activities, the report states plainly: “Although we found that PST does actively engage in the prohibited activities of lobbying, advocacy and/or litigation, we found no evidence that federal grant funds were expended to pay for those activities.”
The report does note that the review was limited by the level of documentation PST maintained. But that caveat needs context: PST’s timekeeping and recordkeeping practices were fully compliant with the federal regulations governing grant management found at 2 C.F.R. § 200.430 and were developed under guidance by its independent auditor. The documentation standards PHMSA and its reviewer demanded went beyond what those regulations require. We told PHMSA throughout this process that if they wanted more detailed records than regulations require, we would work with them to develop enhanced practices, but we could not reasonably have been expected to exceed regulatory requirements before being asked to do so. The “special conditions” PHMSA ultimately imposed to unfreeze the grant, including barring PST from charging my salary even for fully allowable work, have no clear basis in regulation. We accepted these terms under protest to resume congressionally directed work.
Instead of correcting the mischaracterization of the programmatic review and its findings, Administrator Roberti told the committee it was “clear as day” that PST engaged in lobbying, advocacy, and litigation; selectively citing that same finding while ignoring that there was no evidence that PST used any federal funds for these activities. He also claimed PST engaged in litigation against his own agency. I’m not sure what he is referring to. PST filed an amicus brief that supported PHMSA’s position in one proceeding but has not otherwise been involved in litigation involving the agency. He may be confusing a Petition for Reconsideration on a recent rulemaking with litigation, but a Petition for Reconsideration is not litigation. In any case, PST is permitted to engage in lobbying, advocacy, and litigation. We simply cannot use federal grant funds to pay for those activities. We never have. Every year since receiving significant grant funding, PST has undergone an independent third-party audit that scrutinizes exactly this question. Our consistent clean audit history has earned us designation as a “low-risk auditee.”
What this is actually about
Administrator Roberti closed his comments on PST by saying: “Technical assistance is not taking federal taxpayer dollars and then come back and toss bricks at the work we’re trying to do to advance safety.”
That statement reveals more than he may have intended. He isn’t describing a grant compliance problem. He’s describing an organization that sometimes criticizes his agency and his displeasure with that fact. That’s not a basis for suspending a grant.
Moving forward
PST is grateful for the funding Congress has directed to us and we take seriously our responsibility to be good stewards of every dollar. We are proud of that record and have nothing to hide. We will keep doing what we do: educating the public about pipeline safety; convening stakeholders across the spectrum; and yes, calling out the industry and the regulators, including PHMSA, when we believe they are moving in the wrong direction on their fundamental obligation to protect people and the environment from the dangers that pipelines pose.
Pipeline safety should not be a partisan issue. PST has worked constructively with PHMSA under administrations of both parties, and I genuinely regret that the relationship has deteriorated to this point. We share the same goal of zero pipeline incidents, and I hope we can find our way back to the kind of working relationship that serves that mission. That will require PHMSA to respect the independence that makes PST useful to them in the first place.
Leave a Reply