PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 24, 2017
Liability Insurance in Event of Spill Act or the LINES Act
This bill amends the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to cap the liability of parties that are responsible for oil discharges from a Great Lakes pipeline (any pipeline that crosses the navigable waters of the Great Lakes system) to the total of all removal costs plus $75 million.
A responsible party with respect to a Great Lakes pipeline must establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility (e.g., evidence of insurance or a bond) in a certain amount.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Under current law, the Department of Transportation (DOT) may issue an emergency order to impose restrictions, prohibitions, and safety measures on owners and operators of gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing if they are necessary to abate an imminent hazard. This bill eliminates DOT's emergency order authority with respect to gas pipeline facilities.
The bill expands DOT's emergency order authority with respect to hazardous liquid pipeline facilities, including by allowing DOT to impose restrictions, prohibitions, and safety measures if it: (1) discovers reliable evidence that the pipeline is violating conditions required for its operation that were previously agreed upon between the responsible party and a state, tribal, or local government; or (2) determines, after consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard, that inadequate resources are available to respond to and clean up an oil spill during seasonal conditions or conditions expected or caused by an extreme weather event, or the responsible party cannot demonstrate that it has sufficient financial resources to satisfy the liability limits in the event of an oil spill incident.
People & committees
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1226 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1226 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1226 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1226 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.