Third Stream has received a fine of $9.6 million. Photo courtesy of Third Stream

Pipeline safety regulators on Monday, January 5, assessed their largest fine ever against the company responsible for leaking 1.1 million gallons of oil into the Gulf off the coast of Louisiana in 2023. But the $9.6 million fine isn’t likely to be a major burden for Third Coast to pay.

This single fine is close to the normal total of $8 million to $10 million in all fines that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration hands out each year. But Third Coast has a stake in some 1,900 miles of pipelines, and in September, the Houston-based company announced that it had secured a nearly $1 billion loan.

Pipeline Safety Trust Executive Director Bill Caram said this spill “resulted from a company-wide systemic failure, indicating the operator’s fundamental inability to implement pipeline safety regulations,” so the record fine is appropriate and welcome.

“However, even record fines often fail to be financially meaningful to pipeline operators. The proposed fine represents less than 3% of Third Coast Midstream’s estimated annual earnings,” Caram said. “True deterrence requires penalties that make noncompliance more expensive than compliance.”

The agency said Third Coast didn't establish proper emergency procedures, which is part of why the National Transportation Safety Board found that operators failed to shut down the pipeline for nearly 13 hours after their gauges first hinted at a problem. PHMSA also said the company didn't adequately assess the risks or properly maintain the 18-inch Main Pass Oil Gathering pipeline.

The agency said the company “failed to perform new integrity analyses or evaluations following changes in circumstances that identified new and elevated risk factors” for the pipeline.

That echoed what the NTSB said in its final report in June, that “Third Coast missed several opportunities to evaluate how geohazards may threaten the integrity of their pipeline. Information widely available within the industry suggested that land movement related to hurricane activity was a threat to pipelines.”

The NTSB said the leak off the coast of Louisiana was the result of underwater landslides, caused by hazards such as hurricanes, that Third Coast, the pipeline owner, failed to address despite the threats being well known in the industry.

A Third Coast spokesperson said the company has been working to address regulators' concerns about the leak, so it was taken aback by some of the details the agency included in its allegations and the size of the fine.

“After constructive engagement with PHMSA over the last two years, we were surprised to see aspects of the recent allegations that we believe are inaccurate and exceed established precedent. We will address these concerns with the agency moving forward," the company spokesperson said.

The amount of oil spilled in this incident was far less than the 2010 BP oil disaster, when 134 million gallons were released in the weeks following an oil rig explosion, but it could have been much smaller if workers in the Third Coast control room had acted more quickly, the NTSB said.

A barge hit a bridge in Galveston, resulting in an oil spill. No injuries were reported. Photo via portofgalveston.com

Barge hits bridge connecting Galveston and Pelican Island, causing partial collapse and oil spill

A barge slammed into a bridge pillar in Galveston, Texas, on Wednesday, spilling oil into waters near busy shipping channels and closing the only road to a small neighboring island. No injuries were reported.

The impact sent pieces of the bridge, which connects Galveston to Pelican Island, tumbling on top of the barge and shut down a stretch of waterway so crews could clean up the spill. The accident knocked one man off the vessel and into the water, but he was quickly recovered and was not injured, said Galveston County Sheriff’s Office Maj. Ray Nolen.

Ports along the Texas coast are hubs of international trade, but experts said the collision was unlikely to result in serious economic disruptions since it occurred in a lesser-used waterway. The island is on the opposite side of Galveston Island’s beaches that draw millions of tourists each year.

The accident happened shortly before 10 a.m. after a tugboat operator pushing two barges lost control of them, said David Flores, a bridge superintendent with the Galveston County Navigation District.

“The current was very bad, and the tide was high," Flores said. “He lost it.”

Pelican Island is only a few miles wide and is home to Texas A&M University at Galveston, a large shipyard and industrial facilities. Fewer than 200 people were on the campus when the collision happened, and all were eventually allowed to drive on the bridge to leave. The marine and maritime research institute said it plans to remain closed until at least Friday. Students who live on campus were allowed to remain there, but university officials warned those who live on campus and leave “should be prepared to remain off campus for an unknown period of time.”

The accident came weeks after a cargo ship crashed into a support column of the Francis Key Bridge in Baltimore on March 26, killing six construction workers.

The tugboat in Texas was pushing bunker barges, which are fuel barges for ships, Flores said. The barge, which is owned by Martin Petroleum, has a 30,000-gallon capacity, but it's not clear how much leaked into the bay, said Galveston County spokesperson Spencer Lewis. He said about 6.5 miles (10.5 kilometers) of the waterway were shut down because of the spill.

The affected area is miles away from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which sees frequent barge traffic, and the Houston Ship Channel, a large shipping channel for ocean-going vessels. Aside from the environmental impact of the spill, the region is unlikely to see large economic disruption as a result of the accident, said Marcia Burns, a maritime transportation expert at the University of Houston

“Because Pelican Island is a smaller location, which is not in the heart of commercial events, then the impact is not as devastating," Burns said. “It’s a relatively smaller impact.”

At the bridge, a large piece of broken concrete and debris from the railroad hung over the side and on top of the barge that rammed into the passageway. Flores said the rail line only serves as protection for the structure and has never been used.

Opened in 1960, the Pelican Island Causeway Bridge was rated as “Poor” according to the Federal Highway Administration’s 2023 National Bridge Inventory released last June.

The overall rating of a bridge is based on whether the condition of any of its individual components — the deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert, if present — is rated poor or below.

In the case of the Pelican Island Causeway Bridge, inspectors rated the deck in “Satisfactory Condition,” the substructure in “Fair Condition” and the superstructure — or the component that absorbs the live traffic load — in “Poor Condition.”

The Texas Department of Transportation had been scheduled in the summer of 2025 to begin construction on a project to replace the bridge with a new one. The project was estimated to cost $194 million. In documents provided during a virtual public meeting last year, the department said the bridge has “reached the end of its design lifespan, and needs to be replaced.” The agency said it has spent over $12 million performing maintenance and repairs on the bridge in the past decade.

The bridge has one main steel span that measures 164 feet (50 meters), and federal data shows it was last inspected in December 2021. It’s unclear from the data if a state inspection took place after the Federal Highway Administration compiled the data.

The bridge had an average daily traffic figure of about 9,100 cars and trucks, according to a 2011 estimate.

___

Lozano reported from Houston. Associated Press reporters Christopher L. Keller in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas; Acacia Coronado in Austin, Texas; and Ken Miller in Oklahoma City contributed to this report.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Solar surpasses coal to become ERCOT’s third-largest power source in 2025

by the numbers

Solar barely eclipsed coal to become the third biggest source of energy generated for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) in 2025, according to new data.

In 2024, solar represented 10 percent of energy supplied to the ERCOT electric grid. Last year, that number climbed to 14 percent. During the same period, coal’s share remained at 13 percent.

From the largest to smallest share, here’s the breakdown of other ERCOT energy sources in 2025 compared with 2024:

  • Combined-cycle gas: 33 percent, down from 35 percent in 2024
  • Wind: 23 percent, down from 24 percent in 2024
  • Natural gas: 8 percent, down from 9 percent in 2024
  • Nuclear: 8 percent, unchanged from 2024
  • Other sources: 1 percent, unchanged from 2024

Combined, solar and wind accounted for 37 percent of ERCOT energy sources.

Looking ahead, solar promises to reign as the star of the ERCOT show:

  • An ERCOT report released in December 2024 said solar is on track to continue outpacing other energy sources in terms of growth of installed generating capacity, followed by battery energy storage.
  • In December, ERCOT reported that more than 11,100 megawatts of new generating capacity had been added to its grid since the previous winter. One megawatt of electricity serves about 250 homes in peak-demand periods. Battery energy storage made up 47 percent of the new capacity, with solar in second place at 40 percent.

The mix of ERCOT’s energy is critical to Texas’ growing need for electricity, as ERCOT manages about 90 percent of the electric load for the state, including the Houston metro area. Data centers, AI and population growth are driving heightened demand for electricity.

In the first nine months of 2025, Texas added a nation-leading 7.4 gigawatts of solar capacity, according to a report from data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

“Remarkable growth in Texas, Indiana, Utah and other states ... shows just how decisively the market is moving toward solar,” says Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the solar association.

New UH white paper pushes for national plastics recycling policy

plastics paper

The latest white paper from the University of Houston’s Energy Transition Institute analyzes how the U.S. currently handles plastics recycling and advocates for a national, policy-driven approach.

Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president for energy and innovation at UH; Debalina Sengupta, assistant vice president and chief operating officer at the Energy Transition Institute; and UH researcher Aparajita Datta authored the paper titled “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Plastics Packaging: Gaps, Challenges and Opportunities for Policies in the United States.” In the paper, the scientists argue that the current mix of state laws and limited recycling infrastructure are holding back progress at the national level.

EPR policies assign responsibility for the end-of-life management of plastic packaging to producers or companies, instead of taxpayers, to incentivize better product design and reduce waste.

“My hope is this research will inform government agencies on what policies could be implemented that would improve how we approach repurposing plastics in the U.S.,” Krishnamoorti said in a news release. “Not only will this information identify policies that help reduce waste, but they could also prove to be a boon to the circular economy as they can identify economically beneficial pathways to recycle materials.”

The paper notes outdated recycling infrastructure and older technology as roadblocks.

Currently, only seven states have passed EPR laws for plastic packaging. Ten others are looking to pass similar measures, but each looks different, according to UH. Additionally, each state also has its own reporting system, which leads to incompatible datasets. Developing national EPR policies or consistent nationwide standards could lead to cleaner and more efficient processes, the report says.

The researchers also believe that investing in sorting, processing facilities, workforce training and artificial intelligence could alleviate issues for businesses—and particularly small businesses, which often lack the resources to manage complex reporting systems. Digital infrastructure techniques and moving away from manual data collection could also help.

Public education on recycling would also be “imperative” to the success of new policies, the report adds.

“Experts repeatedly underscored that public education and awareness about EPR, including among policymakers, are dismal,” the report reads. “Infrastructural limitations, barriers to access and the prevailing belief that curbside recycling is ineffective in the U.S. contribute to public dissatisfaction, misinformation and, in some cases, opposition toward the use of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ contributions for EPR.”

For more information, read the full paper here.

Investment bank opens energy-focused office in Houston

new to hou

Investment bank Cohen & Co. Capital Markets has opened a Houston office to serve as the hub of its energy advisory business and has tapped investment banking veteran Rahul Jasuja as the office’s leader.

Jasuja joined Cohen & Co. Capital Markets, a subsidiary of financial services company Cohen & Co., as managing director, and head of energy and energy transition investment banking. Cohen’s capital markets arm closed $44 billion worth of deals last year.

Jasuja previously worked at energy-focused Houston investment bank Mast Capital Advisors, where he was managing director of investment banking. Before Mast Capital, Jasuja was director of energy investment banking in the Houston office of Wells Fargo Securities.

“Meeting rising [energy] demand will require disciplined capital allocation across traditional energy, sustainable fuels, and firm, dispatchable solutions such as nuclear and geothermal,” Jasuja said in a news release. “Houston remains the center of gravity where capital, operating expertise, and execution come together to make that transition investable.”

The Houston office will focus on four energy verticals:

  • Energy systems such as nuclear and geothermal
  • Energy supply chains
  • Energy-transition fuel and technology
  • Traditional energy
“We are making a committed investment in Houston because we believe the infrastructure powering AI, defense, and energy transition — from nuclear to rare-earth technology — represents the next secular cycle of value creation,” Jerry Serowik, head of Cohen & Co. Capital Markets, added in the release.