California Attorney General sues Trump Administration over restarting oil production in Santa Barbara County
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) – On Friday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced his office filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging the the Trump Administration illegally took over plans to restart oil production in Santa Barbara County.
The lawsuit, filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, argues that three orders issued by federal regulators about restarting oil pipelines: taking over exclusive regulatory authority of restart plans on Dec. 17, issuing an approval of restart plans on Dec. 22, and granting an Emergency Special Permit to restart pipelines on Dec. 24, were all unlawful.
The pipelines in question, now known as Line CA-324 and Line CA-325, transport crude oil pulled from the sea floor in the Santa Barbara Channel by offshore platforms and stored at the Las Flores Canyon processing plant west to Gaviota and then north and east to Pentland Station in Kern County.
Line CA-324, formerly known as Line 901, has remained dormant since it ruptured, causing the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill which impacted 150 miles of California coastline and destroyed thousands of acres of shoreline habitats.
"Ever since a catastrophic oil spill at Refugio Beach in 2015 led to a court-ordered consent decree, CAL FIRE - Office of the State Fire Marshal has been responsible for overseeing the repair of the lines that caused the spill, which are now operated by Sable Offshore Corp in Santa Barbara County," shared Daniel Villaseñor with the California Natural Resources Agency. "The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is asserting these lines are within their jurisdiction and will assume regulatory authority of the lines going forward, and that the Office of the State Fire Marshal no longer has any role to play in keeping Californians safe from potential problems with these pipelines."
After Sable Offshore submitted official paperwork to restart oil production with the Office of State Fire Marshal in September, the state-based safety agency responded the next month that there were still unmet conditions before an official restart could begin.
"The Office of the State Fire Marshal is committed to its mission to protect the people, property, and natural resources of California," stated State Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant Friday. "Our team has worked diligently to uphold the terms of the consent decree and ensure the safety of lines CA 324 and CA 325."
Instead of meeting those conditions outlined by the state agency, Sable Offshore informed investors that it had determined that the pipelines connecting the Las Flores Canyon facility to Pentland Station in Kern County are technically an interstate pipeline under the Pipeline Safety Act and requested that federal regulators take over its restart plans involving the pipelines.
"This pipeline was regulated for decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, as an interstate pipeline," argued a spokesperson on behalf of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in a statement sent to Your News Channel regarding Friday's lawsuit. "The Las Flores pipeline was only redesignated as intrastate in 2016 when it was taken out of service. Based on the facts presented by Sable in their letter to us last November, PHMSA agreed with the operator that returning the pipeline to our jurisdiction was appropriate."
On Dec. 17 of last year, federal regulators agreed with Sable's assessment of the pipelines and announced that they had taken over exclusive regulatory oversight of the restart plans and approved Sable Offshore's restart plans under emergency permitting days later on Dec. 24, 2025.
"The assertion of federal jurisdiction is erroneous, and, if allowed to stand, would displace OSFM [Office of State Fire Marshal] from its role in regulating pipeline safety for the Las Flores Pipelines," argued the California Department of Justice in Friday's lawsuit. "The Restart Approval Order, if permitted to become effective, would allow the Las Flores Pipelines to operate (a) despite the failure to finish required repairs and remediation on the pipelines to address the lack of corrosion protection, which PHMSA [Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Adminstration] determined to be the root cause of the Refugio Oil Spill, and (b) without complying with OSFM’s alternative conditions, outlined in the OSFM State Waivers."
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) argued that the emergency permits to restart the pipelines were based on a national energy emergency declared by President Trump last year and therefore could bypass outstanding regulatory requirements.
"[T]he current energy emergency, particularly inadequate oil supplies and high energy prices on the West Coast, weighs heavily against Petitioner's request [to halt restart plans]," argued the Department of Transportation in its response to a lawsuit requesting the court block restart plans last year. "PHMSA [Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration] concluded that granting the permit was necessary to address the national energy emergency...the need for immediate action precluded preparing an environmental assessment."
"Restarting the Las Flores Pipeline will bring much needed American energy to a state with the highest gas prices in the country," added the PHMSA Friday. "We look forward to a swift resolution in this case to provide the operator with regulatory certainty and Californians with affordable American energy."
Environmental groups sued over the federal regulator's approval, alleging in their suit filed on Dec. 24 in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that the federal agency had, "bypassed the required public notice, opportunity for public participation, statement of reasons for its decisions, and other conditions generally required for pipeline safety regulation waivers under the federal Pipeline Safety Act".
"Rushing to restart this failed pipeline without following basic federal safety laws and without even making the necessary repairs poses an immediate threat to lives, property, and the environment across a large part of our state," explained the Environmental Defense Center's Chief Counsel Linda Krop, one of the petitioners in the Dec. 24 lawsuit. "We can’t allow the Trump administration and Sable to undermine California law and gamble with the safety of everyone living along the pipeline route."
During court proceedings earlier this month, Sable Offshore admitted that dormant onshore pipelines have not been restarted, opening them up to new state regulations.
Representatives of the Houston-based energy company characterized pipelines that connect the company's three offshore platforms, both offshore ones that connect to the Las Flores Canyon refinement facility and onshore pipelines that connect that facility all the way to Pentland Station in Kern County, as active and part of a singular unit in court.
When pressed by the judge if onshore pipelines were transporting oil, Sable Offshore admitted that they were not.
That distinction makes a big difference.
A new state law, SB 237, would require any owner of a pipeline, "that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more" to request a coastal development permit among other steps from the California Coastal Commission to conduct any, "Repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility, including an oil pipeline".
Those specifications only apply to plans to restart onshore pipelines owned by Sable Offshore in Santa Barbara County.
"In its latest unlawful power grab, the Trump Administration is illegally claiming exclusive federal authority over two of California's onshore pipelines," said Attorney General Rob Bonta Friday. "The President is once again prioritizing his donors over our people and communities. California will not stand idly by as the President endangers California's beautiful coastline and our public health to increase profits for his fossil fuel industry friends."
During the flurry of approvals and litigation in December, the California Coastal Commission noted that it had not waived its right under the Coastal Zone Management Act to review the federal regulator's decision to reclassify pipelines and assume authority over restart plans.
The state regulator added that the federal government's expedited approval is also subject to review of compliance under Subpart E of the Coastal Zone Management Act, through the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as Appendix D of the Consent Decree in U.S. et al v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP and Plains Pipeline, a court decision agreed to after the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill.
The Coastal Commission's insistence on a 30-day review period joins another state agencies noting that the restart process still has outstanding steps.
According to California State Parks, an easement for Gaviota State Park is necessary to restart production and has not been granted for CA-325 which runs through the state agency's jurisdiction.
Of the 22 detected pipeline anomalies requiring repair work back in May of 2025, 18 were within the borders of Gaviota State Park, shown as the blue circles on the left side of the image below along Line 325a which is the green line.
During court proceedings in late December, Sable Offshore argued that the offshore and onshore pipelines have been active since May of last year.
Public claims made back in May of 2025 by Sable Offshore and the Trump Administration about already restarting oil production may have violated leases issued by the California State Lands Commission.
"This is a significant achievement for the Interior Department and aligns with the Administration's Energy Dominance initiative, as it successfully resumed production in just five months," stated the U.S. Department of Interior in July of 2025. "With production now underway at Sable's Platform Harmony, the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) continues to work with Sable to bring additional production online."
The energy company walked back those restart claims explaining in a disclaimer to investors that, "The Santa Ynez Unit assets discussed in this [May 19, 2025] press release have not sold commercial quantities of hydrocarbons since such Santa Ynez Unit assets were shut in during June of 2015 when the only onshore pipeline transporting hydrocarbons produced from such Santa Ynez Unit assets to market ceased transportation. There can be no assurance that the necessary approvals will be obtained that would allow the onshore pipeline to recommence transportation and allow the Santa Ynez Unit assets to recommence sales."
Getting oil to market isn't just tied to promises to investors, Sable's purchase of the entire oil-generating system from ExxonMobil back in February of 2024, has a crucial deadline.
Court documents revealed that Sable secured a $622,000,000 loan from Exxon to fund the purchase of the local oil production infrastructure which has a stipulated deadline where ownership would revert back to ExxonMobil unless oil from the Santa Ynez Unit under Sable's management enters the market.
After an extension of that deadline last year, Sable now has until March of 2027 to get oil to market or risk loosing the entire Santa Ynez Unit's offshore platforms, pipelines, and the Las Flores Canyon facility.
In addition to that financial deadline, the new requirement of a costal development permit, and the still-outstanding easement from California State Parks, Sable is also facing civil charges brought by the California Attorney General and criminal charges brought by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office regarding its pipeline repair work last year.
"The allegations from the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office are inflammatory and extremely misleading," stated a spokesperson on behalf of Sable Offshore. "All of the repairs and excavations were supervised by a certified independent biologist and cultural resource professional and Office of State Fire Marshal personnel. No wildlife were adversely affected. All of these previously disturbed areas have been or are being remediated in accordance with state and local erosion control mitigation measures."
Further complicating Sable's restart plans was the decision by the County of Santa Barbara's Board of Supervisors to not transfer permits the day before the Department of Transportation publicly shared that it had taken over oversight of the restart process in December of last year.
Operating without those permits may pose a financial risk to ExxonMobil which still retains the permits.
Your News Channel has reached out to Sable Offshore about Friday's lawsuit and other outstanding regulatory hurdles and its response will be added to this article when it is received.
