A California appeals court recently delivered a significant blow to efforts aimed at boosting domestic oil production, specifically regarding a key pipeline network that connects offshore platforms in Santa Barbara County to refineries elsewhere. The court upheld an injunction won by the California Coastal Commission against Sable Offshore Corporation, affirming that the commission acted within its rights when it issued a cease-and-desist order related to pipeline construction along the Gaviota coast.
This decision comes against the backdrop of rising gasoline prices attributed to the war with Iran and California’s stringent anti-oil policies, prompting discussions about increasing U.S. production instead of curtailing it.
Sable Offshore now faces a renewed challenge in a long-standing dispute, claiming it is entitled to repair and operate the pipeline infrastructure. This controversy dates back to 1986 when a coastal development permit was first granted for the pipeline system at the heart of the conflict, with one of the pipelines, CA-324, becoming infamous after a rupture led to the Refugio oil spill in 2015.
At the time of that incident, the pipeline was owned by Plains All American Pipeline, but it has since been transferred to ExxonMobil and was acquired by Sable Offshore in 2024. When Sable took over, the pipeline was not operational, as it was undergoing repairs and awaiting necessary court approvals following the spill.
Sable has aimed to resume production from the Santa Ynez unit, starting repair work on its pipeline network, which includes replacing certain sections and installing safety measures—actions it argues are compliant with existing permits.
However, the California Coastal Commission disagreed, leading to a cease-and-desist order issued in November 2024, claiming Sable was carrying out unauthorized construction in the Gaviota Coast area. Despite Sable’s assertion that their activities were permissible under the original permit, regulators insisted additional approvals were necessary.
The dispute escalated when a second cease-and-desist order was issued in February 2025, alongside a hefty $18 million fine for continuing construction. Sable contested these actions, claiming it had not received adequate due process, but the appellate court found that the lower court had given Sable ample opportunity to present its case.
The pipelines involved, CA-324 and CA-325, are crucial for connecting offshore platforms and processing facilities to refineries, making them essential for any attempts to revive production.
Despite this ongoing legal battle, Sable has started transporting oil through the pipeline, asserting that its subsidiary operates within the bounds of the coastal development permit granted back in 1986. Both the Coastal Commission and Sable chose not to comment on the recent ruling.
While the court’s decision does not resolve the broader conflict entirely—more lawsuits regarding Sable’s attempts to restart production are still in the pipeline—the California Coastal Commission’s Executive Director cautioned that violations appear ongoing, indicating the agency may seek further enforcement actions, including additional cease-and-desist orders and penalties.
