Attached is an opinion prepared by the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, for the General Counsel, Dept. of Energy. This opinion may boost prospects for Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) production, either by Sable Offshore or a successor.
BOE SYU watchers see this State-Federal battle ultimately ending up in the Supreme Court, perhaps following the 9th Circuit’s ruling on PHMSA’s preemption of State authority over the onshore pipeline segments.
A few key excerpts from the DOJ opinion (emphasis added):
p. 1: You have asked whether an order issued under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA” or “Act”), Pub. L. No. 81-774, 64 Stat. 798 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.), to Sable by the President or his delegee would preempt the California laws currently impeding Sable from resuming production and operating the associated pipeline infrastructure. We conclude that it would.
p. 6: As the Supreme Court has explained, executive orders “may create rights protected against inconsistent state laws through the Supremacy Clause,” especially when such orders are issued pursuant to “congressional authorization.”
p. 20: State law, we have been advised, is not currently the only impediment to Sable’s ability to resume production and transportation of oil. A consent decree entered in United States v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P., No. 20-cv-02415 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020), Dkt. 33 (“Consent Decree”), “currently vests authority over resumption of transportation through the onshore portions of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System with the California Office of the State Fire Marshal.” Sable Letter at 9. We have been advised that, in addition to the United States and various State of California entities, Sable is a party to the Consent decree as a result of an acquisition. You have asked whether an executive order under the DPA would displace these provisions of the Consent Decree, even though there are both federal- and state-law claims at issue in that case. For three reasons, we think it would.
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 »