Posts Tagged ‘California Coastal Commission’
Ouch! Too close to reality for some families and businesses?
Posted in California, Uncategorized, tagged Babylon Bee, California Coastal Commission on August 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Judge issues preliminary injunction halting Sable’s pipeline work
Posted in California, energy policy, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, halt to pipeline work, preliminary injunction, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on May 28, 2025| Leave a Comment »
For the reasons set forth herein, the application of the California Coastal Commission for issuance of a preliminary injunction is granted. No bond is required. The Commission shall present a written order for entry by the court.
The roller coaster ride continues. Sable Offshore’s stock price plunged in response to the latest order.
Straight talk about the Coastal Commission
Posted in California, energy policy, pipelines, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, Gavin Newsome, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County on April 17, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The Santa Barbara Independent doesn’t pull any punches in this article about the once invincible California Coastal Commission. I recommend that you read the entire article, but here are some choice excerpts (emphasis added):
Lastly, it’s totally unprecedented for members of the commission to verbally eviscerate energy planners with Santa Barbara County at a public hearing for refusing to provide them requested planning documents having to do with Sable no fewer than seven times. While the county has denied this charge, no one from the county showed up for last week’s meeting to explain their actions. One commissioner termed this absence a “dereliction of duty.”
What actions and outcomes ultimately emerge from this rancor remain far from obvious. That’s in part because the political support enjoyed by the Coastal Commission — long regarded as one of California’s many “third rails” of state politics — has never been so uncertain. By “uncertain,” I mean rarely has any state agency been so reviled by such a wide swath of political players and stakeholder groups.
The question has become not so much who hates the Coastal Commission — it’s who doesn’t. Donald Trump has hated the commission since it objected to a 70-foot flagpole Trump planted on a beachfront golf course he owned back before he became president.
Elon Musk, Trump’s alter ego, sued the Coastal Commission — and lost — over the commission’s outspoken refusal to grant him the “consistency determination” he needed to increase the number of SpaceX rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base from 35 to 50. Although a federal judge would rule in the commission’s favor, Governor Gavin Newsom, a noted Democrat, announced he was siding with Musk on this one.
So, what happens if Sable doesn’t pay the fine? Or keeps on working despite three cease-and-desist orders? The key question — still loudly unanswered — is what Attorney General Rob Bonta will do. Will Bonta throw his considerable heft behind the commission? He hasn’t yet. And it’s been several months. Does the governor want to pick his battles with the Trump-Musk White House for causes that enjoy more broad public support?
Sable fined $18 million for refusing to be bullied
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged $18 million fine, California Coastal Commission, Fire Marshall, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County on April 11, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Yesterday, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-3 to fine Sable Offshore $18,022,500 for performing pipeline repairs necessary to minimize operating risks and comply with the FIre Marshall’s requirements.
In the minds of at least some commissioners, Santa Barbara County, which reached agreement with Sable on pipeline repairs, is also a villain in this matter. Per Commissioner Harmon:
“We have not gotten a foothold with Sable, and we’ve not gotten a foothold with Santa Barbara County either. So, we are where we are, and because of this absolute failure of communication and Sable’s, to be frank, absolute failure to follow the law, this hearing has become necessary,” Harmon said.
We’ll see how this gets sorted out in the courts. Sable appears to have a strong case against the Commission, but litigation in California courts is not exactly ideal for oil companies.
John Smith comments on the Coastal Commission’s Staff Report on the Sable Cease and Desist Order
Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, Friends of Oceano Dunes, pipeline repair, Pismo Beach, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County, Santa Ynez Unit on April 9, 2025| Leave a Comment »
BOE contributor John Smith has shared (attached) his highlighted version of the 89 page California Coastal Commission staff report recommending imposition of a $15 million fine.
John finds it noteworthy that the report documents that Santa Barbara County did not concur with the CCC, and that the California State Lands Commission approved the span remediation work. John thinks this raises legitimate questions as to whether the CCC is overreaching in terms of asserting permitting authority for the repair and maintenance work.
John thinks it will be interesting to see how the Courts rule on this and expects an appeal regardless of the outcome. He points to the Court ruling against the CCC on Pismo Beach offroading case as being pertinent to the Sable-CCC dispute. (“Is the Friends of Oceano Dunes court victory a good omen for Sable?“)
In particular, note the text John has highlighted in green. These issues will likely be central to the Court deliberations.
BOE energy news update
Posted in Uncategorized, natural gas, Offshore Energy - General, California, energy policy, climate, CCS, tagged shale gas, BOEM, BSEE, Santa Ynez Unit, carbon capture, California Coastal Commission, Doug Burgum, Grok climate crisis on April 7, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Santa Ynez Unit items (thanks to John Smith for the links):
- Sable lawyers respond to Coastal Commission Staff Report
- Major LA Times article on Sable: reasonably well balanced; Linda Krop gets the last word (as always 😉); surprised that they didn’t talk about the OS&T and the early days of the SYU.
- Coastal Commission is coming to Santa Barbara (hIde your ORVs 😉)
- CBD sues BOEM and BSEE separately. If BOEM and BSEE were combined (as they should be), litigation would be more efficient 😉
Cuts in carbon capture spending coming? These are cuts that both climate activists and skeptics can support.
In a peer reviewed paper, AI (Grok-3) debunks the man-made climate crisis narrative.
Doug Burgum: Hydraulic fracturing technology is “one of the reasons why the U.S. shale revolution is a miracle. But that miracle keeps on getting better and better. It’s the thing that has literally turned around the economy.” Posted here 15 years ago: Natural Gas Bonanza – Why Aren’t We Celebrating?
SYU restart: Mission Impossible for Sable?
Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, Regulation, tagged BSEE, California Coastal Commission, California Fire Marshall, Center for Biological Diversity, lease extensions, Sable Offshore, Santa Ynez Unit on April 3, 2025| Leave a Comment »
It’s starting to look that way.
“The State Fire Marshal stated on February 25 — during a packed-house meeting at La Cumbre Junior High School — that he would not issue Sable authorization to restart production at the Santa Ynez Unit until all outstanding permit issues between Sable and the eight state agencies with oversight authority are resolved.“
Although Sable has a good defense against the Coastal Commission’s accusations, that statement by the Fire Marshal is ominous.
More bad news for Sable: The Center for Biological Diversity suit challenging the Federal government’s extension of the 16 Santa Ynez Unit leases is not going well. The government requested a voluntary remand of BSEE’s 2023 approval because “BSEE plans to reconsider its decision in light of Plaintiffs’ claims and conduct additional analysis, as warranted, under OCSLA and NEPA.”
In the attached decision, shared by John Smith, the judge denied the Federal government’s request. This does not bode well for the Federal government’s case going forward.
Is the Friends of Oceano Dunes court victory a good omen for Sable?
Posted in California, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, Friends of Oceano Dunes, Pismo Beach, Sable Offshore, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara County on March 27, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The organization Friends of Oceano Dunes is determined to preserve the long history of off-road vehicle use on Pismo-Oceano beach. See the video below and the historic photos from Bob2000.com.
The Coastal Commission, which dislikes off-road vehicles as much as they dislike offshore oil and gas operations (well maybe not quite that much! 😉) lost a court case with some similarities to the suit filed by Sable Offshore.
Noozhawk: In an opinion filed Monday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the commission’s attempt to ban off-road vehicles at the Dunes contradicts the language of the Local Coastal Plan put in place by San Luis Obispo County.
The Court ruled that the decision to open or close the Dunes to vehicles fell under the jurisdiction of the county, not the Coastal Commission.
Sable’s dispute with the Commission is similar in that Sable contends that their pipeline repair and maintenance activities are in compliance with Santa Barbara County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Coastal Act. Will Sable also be victorious in Court?
Sable states its case
Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, litigation, pipeline repairs, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County, Santa Ynez Unit on March 14, 2025| Leave a Comment »
See the attached letter from Sable’s attorneys; highlights below:
- The Commission staff appears to be asserting Commission jurisdiction over already permitted activities in order to attempt to exert influence over Sable’s planned restart of the Santa Ynez Unit oil production operations. Jurisdiction over restart activities is entirely outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and is separately regulated by other agencies.
- Sable’s repair and maintenance activities (anomaly repairs, safety valve installation, and span remediation) are in compliance with applicable provisions of Santa Barbara County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO), certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Coastal Act. As such, no cease and desist order is warranted – whether issued by the Executive Director or the full Coastal Commission.
- The onshore and offshore repair and maintenance work is fully authorized by coastal development permits previously approved by Santa Barbara County and the Commission. Therefore, those activities do not require new or amended coastal development permits and are not otherwise subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction or enforcement authority.
- Onshore anomalies: Santa Barbara County reviewed the detailed information Sable submitted with Zoning Clearance applications in 2024 and confirmed in a letter dated February 12, 2025, that the anomaly repair work is authorized by the pipelines’ existing coastal development permits and, consistent with past practice, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required for Sable to perform the work. Commission staff has repeatedly ignored that the County — as the applicable agency with delegated LCP authority under the Coastal Act — expressly has confirmed that the anomaly repair work was authorized by the onshore pipelines’ existing Coastal Development Permit, Final Development Plan, and Conditions of Approval.
- Onshore safety valves: Sable was required to undertake safety valve repair and maintenance activities pursuant to state law that the Coastal Commission supported. The safety valve repair work involves the exact same type of work as pipeline anomaly repairs, and Sable completed the safety valve work only after the County confirmed in writing that no further authorization from the County was required for the safety valves.
- Offshore span remediation: Sable’s span remediation maintenance activities were fully contemplated and authorized within the original coastal development permit approved by the Coastal Commission for the Offshore Pipelines in 1988 and the Development and Production Plan approved by the Department of the Interior. The span remediation maintenance activities involve the placement of sand-cement bags beneath certain segments of the offshore pipelines to provide additional pipeline support. The exact same support enhancement (span remediation) activities have been performed in the past on these same offshore pipelines without requiring any new Coastal Act authorizations.
- Sable has filed a lawsuit against the Commission in Superior Court in Santa Barbara County where it has asked the Court for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its vested rights to repair, maintain and operate the Santa Ynez Unit and Las Flores Pipeline Systems.
Coastal Commission Accountability Act
Posted in California, energy policy, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, CZMA, new legislation, Rep. Kevin Kiley on March 6, 2025| Leave a Comment »
“The California Coastal Commission is simply out of control and has veered far from its purpose of protecting the coast,” said Rep. Kiley. “From blocking SpaceX rocket launches to obstructing fire prevention projects, the Commission has repeatedly threatened the safety of Californians and weakened our national defense, while needlessly undercutting innovation and economic progress. The need to rein in the Commission has become urgent as we face the challenge of rebuilding Los Angeles following the fires. ”
The bill (attached), introduced by Kevin Kiley (CA), would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to expedite important coastal activities, including national security initiatives, critical infrastructure development, and disaster mitigation and recovery efforts. Key provision:
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON OBJECTION.—An objection or other challenge by a coastal state to an activity subject to a conclusive presumption of concurrence under paragraph (1) may not delay or otherwise prevent the activity from proceeding.”
While perhaps unlikely to be enacted, the bill addresses regulatory authority that many perceive to be unchecked and abusive. Congressional attention is clearly warranted.
