Environmental groups file emergency lawsuit to halt federally-approved oil restart plans
SAN FRANCISCO (KEYT) – Environmental groups filed an emergency lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block the federal government's approval this week of restarting oil production in Santa Barbara County.
According to the suit filed in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the petitioners allege that the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration, "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".
The non-profit environmental groups who filed the lawsuit requested the court halt the emergency special permit issued by the federal government to the current owner of the pipelines.
The pipelines in question, Lines CA-324 and CA-325, would be used to transport crude oil from the Las Flores Canyon facility east to Kern County.
Line CA-324, formerly known as Line 901, has remained dormant since it ruptured and caused the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill which impacted 150 miles of California coastline and destroyed thousands of acres of shoreline habitats noted the petitioners.
"Sable stated that expedited review of its application was warranted in light of the national energy emergency declared by the President under the National Emergencies Act in Executive Order 14156," explained the Department of Transportation when granting the emergency permits to Sable Offshore. "This emergency special permit allows Sable to operate Lines CA-324 and CA-325 without being subject to the requirement to evaluate and remediate corrosion of or along a longitudinal seam weld within 180 days."
The federal pipeline regulator then stipulated a series of requirements the energy company must meet including documenting and sharing any damages to the pipeline from use and spills, "no later than 24 hours from the time of discovery."
ExxonMobil dropped its lawsuit against Santa Barbara County's denial of the energy giant's request to use trucks to transport crude oil on local roadways instead of the dormant pipelines in February of 2024 after it sold the oil production infrastructure to Houston-based Sable Offshore.
Since the sale, Sable has sought to restart oil extraction from 114 wells on three offshore platforms, transportation through associated pipelines (including CA-324 and CA-325), and a facility at Las Flores Canyon that are collectively called the Santa Ynez Unit.
The image below from a slide presented to investors by Sable Offshore, courtesy of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, shows Line CA-324 as Line 901 and Line CA-325 as Line 903.
Court documents revealed that Sable secured a $622,000,000 loan from Exxon to fund the purchase of the Santa Ynez Unit which is set to expire and ownership revert back to the oil giant unless oil from the Santa Ynez Unit enters the market.
In September, Sable Offshore submitted official paperwork to restart oil production with the California Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM) and the state-based safety agency responded the next month that there were still unmet conditions before an official restart.
At the time, the state safety regulator argued that full remediation of the pipelines required a permanent repair method and that tool tolerance -the acceptable variation in tool accuracy- is included in the state's safety waivers granted to the energy company.
In response, Sable Offshore sent a letter the following day stating that the Office of State Fire Marshal's conclusions were, "in error" and the requirements to use safety tools found within the waivers must be conducted within seven days of achieving initial steady state operation, but not before restart.
The company then requested in November that federal regulators with the U.S. Department of Transportation take over supervision of the company's attempts to restart oil production after it had determined that the pipelines connecting the Santa Ynez Unit to Pentland Station in Kern County is technically an interstate pipeline under the Pipeline Safety Act
The federal agency agreed with Sable Offshore and removed the state-based safety regulator's authority over the restart process before officially approving an emergency special permit to resume the use of the pipelines this week.
"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."
The day before the decision to transfer regulatory authority, the County of Santa Barbara's Board of Supervisors voted to not transfer permits that are part of Sable's restart plans.
"Sable is committed to energy affordability and reliability and to recommencing oil sales in a safe and efficient manner," shared Steve Rusch, Vice President of Environmental and Governmental Affairs for the Sable Offshore when reached for comment earlier this month. "Not only have we demonstrated all required operator capabilities and financial requirements, but we have gone above and beyond those requirements. Today’s decision [the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors vote to deny permit transfers on Dec. 16, 2025] does not impact Sable’s ability to continue operating the SYU facilities and pipeline system or its plans to re-commence oil sales."
The permit transfer decision isn't the only roadblock Sable Offshore is still facing as part of its plans to meet its agreement with ExxonMobil and retain ownership of the Santa Ynez Unit.
The energy company still has the following outstanding legal claims regarding its restart plans:
- Lease Violation: Public claims in May to have restarted oil production already may have violated leases issued by the California State Lands Commission
- Civil Charges: The California Attorney General filed civil charges over alleged violations of state environmental laws while Sable and its subsidiaries were conducting pipeline work
- Criminal Charges: The Santa Barbara County District Attorney filed criminal charges including five felony charges of knowingly discharging a pollutant into local waterways between at least October 2024 and April of 2025, 16 misdemeanor charges of obstructing a streambed, and improper actions concerning materials considered dangerous to local wildlife
"There is just too much evidence in the record that shows a pattern of noncompliance and either ignorance of our rules or just blatant disregard," explained Supervisor Lavagnino on his vote to deny the energy company permits after approving of the transfers earlier this year.
In addition, the Environmental Defense Center noted when announcing its lawsuit Thursday that the passage of SB 237, signed into law in September of this year, would require Sable Offshore to request a coastal development permit among other steps from state regulators to conduct any, "Repair, reactivation, and maintenance of an oil and gas facility, including an oil pipeline, that has been idled, inactive, or out of service for five years or more".
Those specifications only apply to plans to restart pipelines part of the Santa Ynez Unit.
"This bill makes clear that Sable—an out-of-state shell company that has repeatedly violated environmental rules—must undergo environmental review and receive Coastal Commission approval before repairing the corroded pipeline that spilled 105,000 gallons of oil along our coast in 2015," stated Assemblymember Hart who authored a bill introduced in the state's lower chamber that was used to create SB 237.
Sable is already facing an $18 million penalty from the California Coastal Commission, the largest penalty ever levied against a company in the Commission's history.
"Sable has consistently ignored California law, as confirmed by the court’s decision today [May, 28, 2025] to halt work on this aging oil pipeline in Santa Barbara," said a spokesperson on behalf of the California Coastal Commission. "This fly-by-night oil company has repeatedly abused the public’s trust, racking up millions of dollars in fines and causing environmental damage along the treasured Gaviota Coast."
