On 5/14/2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the complaint filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) against the Dept. of the Interior. This was one of the less prominent cases challenging Sable Offshore’s oil and gas operations in the Santa Ynez Unit.
The CBD had challenged an April 2025 BOEM decision concluding that Sable was not required to revise its development and production plan for the SYU. They sought a court order requiring a revised plan. This suit seemed to be a stretch, so its dismissal is not a surprise.
Per the Dept. of Justice, the court dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiffs’ asserted procedural injury had no basis in the statute, was not traceable to any action by BOEM, and could not be redressed by an order of the court. (Other than that, it was just fine. 😉)
Among other problems the court identified with the plaintiffs’ case, they invoked a provision of the statute that governs “approval of a development and production plan,” not revision of an already-existing plan. It will be interesting to see the full decision so that we can better understand the context for that statement. Distinguishing revised plans in that manner could have significant policy implications.
For a full update on Sable litigation, see the section of their Quarterly Report beginning on p. 12.
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 »