Sable Offshore Slammed with $18 Million Fine at Marathon Coastal Commission Meeting in Santa Barbara
If Texas Oil Company Complies with Orders and Applies for Coastal Development Permits, Fine Will Be Reduced to Original Amount of Nearly $15 Million
After multiple notices of violation, two cease-and-desist orders, and countless attempts to resolve the situation amicably, the California Coastal Commission voted on April 10 to impose a more than $18 million fine on oil company Sable Offshore, which was originally facing a nearly $15 million fine based on commission staff’s recommendation. The commission also unanimously voted to approve a third cease-and-desist order for Sable’s alleged unpermitted construction work on oil pipelines along the Gaviota Coast and an environmental restoration order.
Commission Chair Justin Cummings proposed increasing the administrative penalty to $18,022,500 during staff deliberations after the nearly five-hour enforcement report and public comment period. If Sable complies with all aspects of the orders and applies for coastal development permits, it will be able to discount its fine to the original amount of $14,987,250.
Commissioner Susan Lowenberg — one of three commissioners who voted against the fine increase — said she was “very disappointed with my colleagues” for pulling a surprise escalator in the 10th inning.
“Sable’s refusal to comply is violating the law,” said Commissioner and Santa Barbara City Councilmember Meagan Harmon.
Sable, in its work to restart the previously corroded oil pipelines involved in the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill, has long contended that the work being conducted is authorized under permits issued to the pipeline’s original owner in the 1980s. Santa Barbara County appears to have sided with Sable in the matter, asserting in a February 12 letter that Sable’s work is authorized under their current permits.
“The Sable Offshore team has decades of experience in successfully collaborating with government agencies,” said Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, in a statement. “Despite having worked with Coastal Commission staff for many months, the Commission and Sable disagree regarding whether Coastal Act authorization exists for the work and whether the Commission has the authority to order our maintenance and repair work to stop. That’s a fundamental disagreement that the parties have not been able to resolve.”
The commission received more than 2,600 letters from California residents supporting Sable’s stance.
The Coastal Commission fundamentally disagrees with both Santa Barbara County and Sable, and has taken the February 12 letter as a refusal by the county to enforce the Coastal Act. The county’s settlement following litigation brought about by Sable has preempted them from having any permitting jurisdiction — a decision that the commission disagrees with.
“Clearly, we haven’t gotten a foothold with Sable, and we haven’t gotten a foothold with Santa Barbara County,” said Commissioner Harmon. “I remain utterly confused.”
At Thursday’s meeting, multiple commissioners weighed in on the county’s August 2024 settlement agreement with Sable that preempted them from having permitting jurisdiction over the matter, expressing frustration at the county’s alleged lack of legal basis.
“I have never seen a county cave this way,” said Commissioner Dayna Bochco. As such, the Coastal Commission has stepped in as the enforcement authority, as they say is legally allowed under the Coastal Act. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has also received letters from the commission and state legislators, asking him to step in.
The commission issued its first cease-and-desist order in November 2024 after becoming aware of Sable’s work on some 130 pipeline anomalies in the coastal zone without coastal development permits. Initially, it was also believed that Sable was constructing safety valves on the pipelines at that time, although Sable’s April 4 response to the commission’s staff report asserted that safety valve construction had been completed months prior.
While compliant with the first stop-work order, Sable did not apply for coastal development permits from the commission. They continue to claim that all work completed on the pipeline is routine maintenance and repair, not “development,” which necessitates a new permit.
The commission also alleges that Santa Barbara County has failed to provide them with requested information on Sable’s project at least seven times. County planner Lisa Plowman disputed this claim in an April 9 letter to the commission, saying, “Commission staff has all of the information that the county considered prior to concluding that the pipeline anomaly work … is authorized by the existing permits.”
Sable sued the commission after it issued a second cease-and-desist order in February, alleging the commission of overreaching its jurisdiction. Sable continues to conduct work in the coastal zone, citing the county’s February 12 letter as proof of its legality.
“We’re not overstepping our authority,” said Commissioner Linda Escalante. “This is our only lane.”
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board also issued a notice of violation to Sable last year for alleged unauthorized discharge into waterways. An enforcement hearing is scheduled for April 17 on the matter, and the board will consider adopting a resolution to ask Attorney General Bonta for additional assistance with enforcement.
“Sable is dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner,” Rusch added. “No California business should be forced to go through a protracted and arbitrary permitting process when it already has valid permits for the work it performed.”
Editor’s Note: Alice Walton, a spokesperson for Sable Offshore, issued a statement on April 10 saying, “California residents submitted more than 2,600 letters to the Coastal Commission supporting Sable.” Sable provides a form on their secondary website (https://sablecaliforniaenergy.com/take-action/) to attach your name to four pre-written letters per person “that will be sent at the optimal moment for the campaign.” Joshua Smith, a spokesperson for the California Coastal Commission, said 2,658 “form letters” were received between April 3-4. Some people sent multiple letters, Smith added.
You must be logged in to post a comment.