Louisiana Voice

A Louisiana legislator whose umbilical cord is attached intransigently and unapologetically to the oil and gas industry (no conflict there) authored a couple of bills in the current session which would do far more to protect the industry than it does Louisiana citizens or its environment.

House bills 617 and 549 would, in order, (a) make Louisiana a “fossil fuel sanctuary” in defiance of President Biden’s environmental plans and (b) change the status of natural gas pipelines from “transport vehicles” to “facilities,” a subtle difference in vernacular that would remove the authority of State Police to impose FINES against pipeline companies for failing to report natural gas leaks in a timely manner.

And while The Guardian, the superb British publication, REPORTED on HB 617 by State Rep. Danny McCormick (R-Oil City), the House has already given near-unanimous (97-0, with seven representatives not voting) approval of HB 549, which would drastically change the reporting requirements on and responsibility for natural gas leaks.

Both bills by McCormick, who Guardian reporter Sara Sneath pointed out runs M&M Oil and who before becoming a legislator, was a member of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, the powerful industry lobbying group, dovetail nicely with Louisiana’s long tradition of fealty to the petrochemical industry in Louisiana but which appear to run counter to the health interests of his constituents and to protection of Louisiana’s air quality.

Calumet Refinery, for example, was hit in 2013 with a $326,000 fine for nine air violations and a group of oil companies, including Calumet, offered residents of a mostly Black neighborhood in his district a paltry $2.7 million to SETTLE several lawsuits over health problems suffered by 703 plaintiffs that had dragged on for decades.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy may express his anger at Biden’s description of the corridor along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans as “cancer alley,” but facts are facts, no matter how inconvenient they may be. The corridor had that name – with good reason – long before Biden appeared on the scene even as vice president in the Barack Obama administration.

Because of fears that the EPA could revoke the state’s authority to enforce federal rules and possibly because of the Legislative Fiscal Office’s estimate of the possible lost of nearly $7.3 million in federal funds, McCormick’s fossil fuel sanctuary bill was tabled. That didn’t prevent him from sniffing, “I don’t know who would have a problem with it (the bill), honestly.”

But the House passage of his HB 549 raises new fears with attorney Isaac Jackson who says an obscure state statute could shield oil and gas companies from legal liability for damages they might cause. Unreported gas leaks that spark explosions could be a classic example of the unintended consequences of LA R.S. 30:51.

Jackson, who is a former general counsel for the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, a former assistant attorney general and a former employee of Exxon, says it would be difficult to portray him as anti-oil and gas.

“At the same time,” he said, “I am concerned that the oil and gas/petrochemical lobby has wielded so much influence with regulators and legislators that laws have been shaped to have certain oil and gas companies avoid liability for damages they admit to causing.  I can tell you from first-hand experience in the industry that most oilfield operators are good operators.  But these laws are designed to protect only the few, worst ones. That’s not how the law should work.

“This is why I am concerned about a curious law of unclear intention, unclear origin, with no legislative history, and which is broadly worded in a dangerous way. The law’s key language is not typical of other laws. The vague wording of the law makes it susceptible to disagreement in how it might apply. But that uncertainty is also what makes it dangerous,” he said.

A plain reading of Revised Statute 30:51 indicates that it creates what Jackson calls a “secret” three-year countdown clock within which a state or local official must sue an oil and gas operator to enforce a penalty, otherwise known in legal circles as prescription. “That alone is enough to raise one’s eyebrows,” Jackson said. 

Under normal Louisiana law, the countdown clock for holding the violator responsible would begin only upon the regulator learning of the violation. But this odd law starts the clock regardless of any knowledge to the regulator. Instead, the law uses the curious term “made known” and states that the clock begins when an operator “makes known” a violation to the state attorney general. “What does it even mean to ‘make known’ to the attorney general?” Jackson asked rhetorically. “A postcard? An oral statement made in passing? A formal letter? No one knows because the law is so oddly worded.”

Left unsaid by Jackson was the well-known predisposition of the current attorney general to protect the oil and gas industry at all costs. AG JEFF LANDRY has consistently FOUGHT EFFORTS by Gov. John Bel Edwards and individual parishes to hold the industry accountable for the vast damage it has inflicted on Louisiana’s coastal wetlands.

“Here’s a good question for those who doubt the possible implications of this law: if this is not a get-out-of-jail free card to bad industry actors, then what actually is the alternative purpose and effect of the law?” Jackson asked.

He said the state must be honest with itself. “In the oil and gas context, bad operators do not write to notify their local and parish officials when the operator commits a violation for the same reason citizens do not write letters to the police to self-report speeding violations. With this law on the books, bad operators have a perverse incentive to cover up violations and quietly notify the attorney general, knowing that he may not alert local governments and state regulators,” he said. 

“This is a bad law and it should be changed. Until it is changed, local district attorneys should advise local and parish government clients of the dangers associated with Revised Statute 30:51 and push the attorney general for a formal policy ensuring that the public and officials are notified of each violation “made known” to the attorney general. And unless district attorneys warn their clients of the dangers associated with this law they perhaps risk falling short of their obligation under Revised Statute 16:2(C) to render faithful and efficient services.”