Background: By a 3-2 vote, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, acting under the direction of the Board of Supervisors (also by a 3-2 vote), passed ordinances to ban new onshore oil and gas wells and phase out old wells.
“We keep discovering new oil and new techniques to recover it,” said Commissioner John Parke. “The only thing to stop the oil industry and the production of oil is legislation.”
Comments:
- The first sentence is perceptive, acknowledging that resources are not really finite given the ingenuity of engineers and geologists.
- The second sentence is disturbing. The Commissioner believes he is legally and morally entitled to terminate an industry that has been present in Santa Barbara County for >130 years. He believes the Commission can do so by a slim majority and without compensation to those whose property rights are being abrogated.
- The 2 Commissioners voting against euthanizing the County’s oil industry represent Districts 4 and 5 (maps below) where most of the wells are located. In essence, South County Santa Barbara is terminating an industry that is important to North County.
- Pertinent to the County’s action is a suit filed by John and Melinda Morgan, who inherited the mineral rights to two parcels in the Cat Canyon Field (District 4). They argue that a similar provision in CA Senate Bill 1137 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property.













Comments from the California AG and Sable Offshore on the special permit application to PHMSA
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California AG, comment letters, PHMSA, pipeline, Rob Bonta, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit, special permit on April 8, 2026| 2 Comments »
I’m attaching the complete comment letters from Sable Offshore and their main antagonist, California Attorney General Bonta, in response to PHMSA’s public notice and request for comments on Sable’s special permit application.
Summary of the California AG’s assertions:
“First, PHMSA is without authority to grant such a special permit because Lines CA-324/325 are intrastate pipelines and California regulators have sole regulatory oversight over any attempt to restart these Lines and issue state waivers. Second, California has vested interests in ensuring Lines CA-324/325 operate safely and PHMSA’s proposed special permit would dilute the higher state safety standards that were imposed on Sable and therefore it is inconsistent with pipeline safety. 49 C.F.R. § 190.341(d). Third, given the fact Line CA-324 already failed and caused a catastrophic oil spill in 2015 in Santa Barbara County, even if PHMSA had authority to issue a special permit (which it does not), a more robust environmental analysis needs to be performed. Fourth, PHMSA unlawfully invokes the Endangered Species Acts’s emergency consultation procedures and has given no indication that it will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, in violation of the Act. Finally, Secretary Wright’s March 13, 2026, order (“DPA
Order”) does not change anything about the propriety of the Application, because the DPA Order itself is unlawful.”
Summary of Sable’s position (screenshot):
You can sample the other public comments, some of which are quite good, by visiting the Regulations.gov docket.
Read Full Post »