On Monday, Sable got a boost from Judge Wilson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Wilson denied a request by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (and other State agencies) to enjoin Sable Offshore from restarting or continuing the operation of oil pipeline segments withing Gaviota State Park.
Sable got another boost from Chevron, which agreed to buy 20,000 bopd from Sable for its El Segundo refinery.
Not to be denied, the California Attorney General filed the attached lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The AG argues that US Energy Secretary Chris Wright has no authority under the Defense Production Act (DPA) to excuse Sable from compliance with state and federal laws and court orders. The lawsuit alleges that the DPA Order violates the Administrative Procedure Act and infringes on California’s sovereign power under the Tenth Amendment.
The suit also alleges that the Order violates the constitutional Separation of Powers by purporting to override not only state law and a preliminary injunction issued by the Santa Barbara Superior Court, but also a judicial Consent Decree approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that expressly acknowledged and approved the State’s role in reviewing and approving any planned restart of the onshore pipelines.
The AG asks the Court (p. 33) to issue a judicial declaration that the Wright Order is unconstitutional and/or unlawful because it violates the APA and the U.S. Constitution.
Read the Court filing for full details, and stay tuned. No doubt there will be more swings in momentum going forward.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
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 »