Carbajal and Schiff Weigh in Against Sable Offshore

Congressmember, U.S. Senator Send Letter to Governor Newsom Opposing Oil Company’s Plans to Restart Offshore Oil Operations

Adam Schiff and Salud Carbajal | Credit: Louise Palanker

Santa Barbara Congressmember Salud Carbajal, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff, and 21 other members of California’s congressional delegation signed an open letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, dated March 3, voicing their opposition to Sable Offshore’s intention of restarting Exxon’s former oil and gas plant off the Gaviota Coast near Refugio. They asked Newsom to join with them in calling for Sable’s plans to undergo the full rigors of environmental review and public participation in the process before any of the multiple state agencies with some oversight over the oil company’s proposal makes a final decision.

Carbajal was still a county supervisor in 2015 when Plains All American Pipeline’s Line 901 sprung a serious rupture due to massive pipeline corrosion, spilling 142,000 gallons of oil, much of which made its way into the ocean, where it fanned out along 150 miles of coastline. That pipeline has been shut down ever since, and without the pipeline to carry the oil, ExxonMobil — which bought the pipeline from Plains before selling to Sable — has been shut down as well. Two other offshore oil companies, Venoco and Freeport-McMoRan, were involuntarily idled with this loss of pipeline capacity.

If Sable is allowed to restart Exxon’s old operation, Carbajal, Schiff, et al., argued, the project would constitute “the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions on the Central Coast.” They set their letter in the context of the climate crisis, which they blamed for exacerbating the towering infernos that just raged through Los Angeles. In 2015, they said, the spill destroyed “thousands of acres of shoreline and subtidal habitats, killed untold numbers of animals, and shut down beaches, fisheries, and businesses.” On top of that, they said, the 2015 rupture cost the Santa Barbara economy in millions of dollars’ worth of spoiled, lost recreational opportunities, not to mention millions more for the fishing industry. Since then, they noted, three wildfires have threatened the site of the company’s onshore facility.

The letter noted that multiple state agencies have the cumulative say-so over whether Sable gets the green light to restart operations. None of these agencies has required any new environmental analysis or public participation.

Of these agencies, the State Fire Marshal has the greatest say and wields the greatest sway. On December 17, 2024, the State Fire Marshal granted Sable the much-needed waiver for the requirement that the pipeline be equipped with “an effective” cathodic protection system. Cathodic protection is a form of corrosion control that with most pipelines is seen as basic belts-and-suspenders safety equipment. But because it was determined that the cathodic protection system that was in place in 2015 failed to work, the Fire Marshal granted Sable’s waiver request with the proviso that the company conduct far more corrosion detection tests than was previously required, set far more stringent standards for what constitutes a risk, and take remedial pipeline repair safety actions far more frequently than before. In addition, Sable is equipping the pipeline with 27 automatic shut-off valves; these do not prevent leaks or ruptures, but they can limit how much oil escapes. The Fire Marshal has not yet, however, issued Sable a green light on restarting the pipeline and the entire plant.

It’s important to note that prior to the Fire Marshal’s December 17 decision, Santa Barbara’s legislative delegation in Sacramento, State Senator Monique Limón and State Assemblymember Gregg Hart, had been given assurances — to their faces — that the Fire Marshal would not issue any waivers until after a public meeting on Sable’s proposal could be held in Santa Barbara. These assurances were not honored.

Assemblymember Hart stated at the time, the decision to override that deal had to have come from the governor’s office. To date, the governor has not stated anything publicly about Sable or its plans, but among Santa Barbara’s environmental opposition to Sable’s proposal, that silence has been deafening, and much mental effort has been expended trying to understand Newsom’s thinking. Clearly, he’s been greatly concerned about California’s lack of refining capacity and the sticker shock that follows such shortages. The governor’s silence about a letter that was issued a week ago may, likewise, be deafening.

The letter was released three days before California Secretary of Interior Wade Crowfoot and a representative from the State Fire Marshal’s office are scheduled to host a public informational meeting — not a hearing — in Santa Barbara to discuss the Sable proposal this Thursday, March 13. Carbajal, Schiff, and the other signatories of the letter are asking that the State Fire Marshal rescind the state waiver for cathodic protection, conduct environmental impact review (EIR), and hold a public hearing. The last EIR was conducted in the late 1980s, a fact environmental critics have seized upon.

Sable and county energy planners have stated that because the pipeline and the oil facilities had been approved back in the late 1980s, they do not constitute a new project and therefore they cannot legally be required to provide additional environmental review. Had Sable built a brand-new pipeline, such environmental review would have been required. The previous pipeline owner had, in fact, proposed such a new project and was in the process of environmental analysis when ExxonMobil withdrew the application and announced that it had sold the entire coastal operation to Sable Offshore, a brand-new oil company — populated by an executive team with extensive professional experience in Santa Barbara — with no other assets.

Two weeks ago, the county supervisors deadlocked 2-2 whether to approve Sable’s application for a transfer of title and permits from Exxon, normally a ministerial and administrative formality. But Santa Barbara is unique in the nation for having an ordinance tailormade for oil company transfers, inspired by a concern that larger, deep-pocketed operators might sell out to smaller companies with less resources and experience, hence unable to cover the cleanup costs associated with a spill or other disaster.

What that deadlock vote means for Sable remains a subject that no doubt more than a few judges will scratch their chins over. Sable is insisting that the deadlock means the transfer went through; the county supervisors and the environmental opposition are arguing just the opposite. To date, no judge has adjudicated the matter, and for the county supervisors, it’s a complicated, potentially expensive legal fight just waiting to happen.

The Carbajal-Schiff letter touched on what might be Sable’s real Achilles heel. The company has yet to secure four miles of easement it needs to get from the California Parks Department along the coast. Without that easement, the company has a significant four-mile-long question mark. In a letter from the Parks Department, Sable was notified that its easement had expired in 2016 and that if it wanted to renew that easement to restart its oil and gas plant up the coast, it would need to get a coastal development permit and undergo an ill-defined degree of additional environmental scrutiny.

The California Coastal Commission has put Sable on notice, as well, that work it needs to do on the pipeline in the coastal zone needs a development permit. Sable has fought the Coastal Commission on this, insisting that the work being done qualifies as necessary repairs and not new development. The two sides have agreed to disagree, but in the meantime the Coastal Commission has issued the company two cease-and-desist orders on its work. That work has continued, and Sable has filed suit against the commission. For the Coastal Commission to enforce that order, State Attorney General Bonta would have to weigh in as well. That hasn’t happened yet.

Sable Offshore executive Steve Rusch took exception to the Congressional letter, stating, “At the time of restart, this pipeline will meet more stringent environmental and safety requirements than any other pipeline in the state. That’s because restart of the Santa Ynez Unit is authorized and ultimately controlled by the process agreed to in a federal consent decree [reached after the 2015 oil spill with the previous pipeline operator and inherited by Sable]. Sable continues to work closely with state regulatory agencies to follow and adhere to this established frame work.”

Correction: In addition to Schiff and Carbajal, the letter to Governor Newsom was signed by 21 other members of California’s congressional delegation, not 19 as originally reported.