“In baseball, ties famously go to the baserunner, but in county government it’s forced a legal fight in the courts.”
“The oil company Sable Offshore is insisting that when the County Board of Supervisors voted 2-2 on whether or not to allow another oil company, Exxon, to transfer its permits to Sable, the tie goes to Sable.”
“Accordingly, Sable — much in the limelight recently — just filed a lawsuit against the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in federal court to make that point. Joining Sable in this dispute is ExxonMobil, the oil giant that sold Sable its three offshore platforms, its 120-mile pipeline, and its onshore oil storage and processing facilities known as the Santa Ynez Unit two years ago.”
Because the Planning Commission had voted 3-1 to allow the transfer, Sable argues that the 2-2 Supervisors vote upholds the Planning Commission decision.
Never a dull moment in the Santa Ynez Unit restart doneybrook. More on the tie vote here and here.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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?
Santa Barbara resident Julia-Louis Dreyfus fires up the crowd. Photo Credit: Ingrid Bostrom, Independent
The Santa Barbara Independent and Noozhawk have closely followed the Sable saga and provided good coverage of the “Information Meeting.” BOE contributor John Smith followed the meeting online and shares his impressions.
Independent: “What was advertised as an informational meeting with eight state agencies that oversee Sable’s operations quickly became emotionally charged when the Environmental Defense Center’s Linda Krop and resident actor Julia Louis-Dreyfus were surprisingly called onto the stage to voice their opposition to the oil project.“
John Smith reports that the meeting got off to a good start before deteriorating:
Smith: “The CCC (Coastal Commission) presentation was interesting because it highlights their position and disagreement with SBC (Santa Barbara County) who determined permits were not required by Sable for maintenance and repair work. I think the agencies did a good job in sharing information on the status of permits, which if people were objective, may have alleviated many of their major concerns. Unfortunately, it went downhill at the end when EDC and Hollywood types were given the floor.”
Unsurprisingly, a State Senator facilitated the ambush:
Independent: “When Senator Limón’s staff called to the stage the Environmental Defense Center’s chief counsel, Linda Krop — who hosted a star-studded press conference beforehand with state legislators, actors Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Jane Fonda, and Ventura-based Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert, among others, outside the EDC’s headquarters — the town hall shifted gears from an info-session into a quasi-rally. Krop’s emotion-inciting words, followed by an angry, passionate speech from Louis-Dreyfus, put the room into a cacophony of cheers and jeers.“
Sable supporters (workers, not movie stars) were also in the house:
Independent: “Sable Offshore management, employees, contractors, labor, and supporters showed up today in good faith to participate in a town hall meeting where only government officials were on the agenda to present,” said Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, in a statement. “Project opponents forced the moderators to give them dedicated time to present biased information and smear the project. The opponents’ self-serving fundraiser and rally was not an appropriate use of public resources.”
“Not one word was said about the working people,” a Sable employee and union member told the Independent after he walked out. “This is my home, too, and I’m going to fight, too…. Without this, we’re just unemployed.”
Interestingly, regulatory fragmentation, a topic that this blog has railed about, was mentioned by one of the Sable opponents, and I suspect the Sable supporters agree!:
Noozhawk: “One of the audience members was Ravid Raphael, who has lived in Goleta for the past 11 years. One of his concerns was that there are too many departments and that they are too fragmented.“
Jane Fonda (no one would question her credibility😉) – Photo Credit: Ingrid Bostrom, Independent
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.
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors tie vote on the transfer of permits from Exxon to Sable has both sides declaring victory! (And I thought I was the only one who was confused!)
“During Wednesday’s meeting of the county Planning Commission, Lisa Plowman, director of Planning & Development, expressed uncertainty about the future of the permits and said the split vote meant that the board took no action.
“We are in the process of (…) determining what that actually means in the long run for Sable and the opponents,” Plowman said.”
“The county has not in recent memory had a tie vote under this section. The county is looking into what happens next.”
Sables’ take: “Sable is pleased the appeals failed and the Planning Commission’s approval of the Santa Ynez Unit permit transfer to Sable stands. We look forward to continuing to work with the county to finalize the permit transfer and to safely restarting production as soon as possible.”
Environmental Defense Center’s take: “We applaud the Board of Supervisors’ decision to NOT transfer permits to Sable to operate a defective pipeline and dangerous processing facilities on our shores.”
Just when you thought this couldn’t get more complicated!😖😣
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — A controversial oil project on California’s Central Coast remains unresolved after the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors deadlocked 2-2 on a vote regarding a permit transfer for a pipeline linked to the 2015 Refugio oil spill. The stalemate means Sable Offshore Corp.’s application remains pending without approval or denial, leaving the next steps up to the company.
“They still have a pending application with no action taken on it,” said Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta, public information officer with Santa Barbara County. “It hasn’t been approved or denied. It’s now up to Sable to decide what to do next.”
The Board voted 2-2 to uphold the approval of the transfer of permits from Exxon to Sable. The tie vote meant the appeal of the previous approval failed.
Interestingly, one of the Supervisors reportedly slammed the California Coastal Commission for being politically motivated and abusing the law.
