Right before the county supervisors convened behind closed doors to discuss the pending lawsuit filed against them by Exxon and Sable Offshore Corp., Supervisor Joan Hartmann dropped a bombshell: The alleged conflict of interest that prevented her voting on all matters involving Sable oil had been reevaluated and she was now legally permitted full voting rights, albeit under relatively narrow constraints.
That’s a big deal because with Hartmann recusing herself, the supervisors had been deadlocked in a perpetual 2-2 tie when voting on issues concerning Sable Offshore. That hadn’t stopped Hartmann from objecting forcefully to Sable’s efforts to restart Exxon’s long-sidelined facility up the Gaviota Coast, when speaking off the dais. The oil operation has been shut down since 2015 when the pipeline ruptured, causing a major spill.
With Hartmann now allowed back in the fray, the supervisors, at least on paper, would appear to tilt solidly against Sable. Hartmann has called climate change the existential crisis of our time, noting that if Sable is allowed to restart Exxon’s facility — which it purchased in February 2024 — it would account for roughly half the greenhouse gases emitted in Santa Barbara County. Sable and Exxon both sued the county supervisors when they deadlocked 2-2 over approving the transfer of Exxon’s title and permits to the new company.
Because the Planning Commission approved the transfer by a 3-2 vote, Sable argues that the commission vote holds sway, given the supervisors’ tie. County Counsel, however, contends that the supervisors’ vote was a “de novo” decision, meaning it and it alone counts.
Given Hartmann’s outspoken comments, Sable might be inclined to challenge her impartiality when it comes to rendering what the law says is a quasi-judicial decision. To the extent Sable has an opinion, its spokesperson Alice Walton declined to share it. Sable’s road ahead, once seemingly uncluttered by serious obstacles, now appears more fraught.
This Friday, Judge Donna Geck will hear preliminary arguments whether the California Fire Marshal — who has the last word on Sable’s fate — should be enjoined from rendering an approval on the restart until he holds a public hearing and conducts some form of environmental review of the plans. The Environmental Defense Center won the first round in that legal showdown, but this is a battle that promises to last many more rounds.
Up on the fourth floor of the County Administration Building, news of Hartmann’s rejuvenated availability has been met with considerable head-scratching. A recent opinion rendered by the California Fair Political Practices Commission concluded Hartmann was not precluded by the closeness of her home in Buellton to the Sable Pipeline from participating in the transfer of ownership deliberations. County Counsel — stymied by the deadlock in getting meaningful board direction during settlement talks — sought out the state board’s opinion.
It should be noted that the state board never barred Hartmann from participating on pipeline repairs and maintenance, but she stated former County Counsel Mike Ghizzoni urged her to recuse herself from deliberating on substantive changes to the pipeline — the installation of automatic shutoff safety valves, for starters — that opened the door to restarting oil operations. The new opinion allows her only to participate in deliberations about the transfer of title from Exxon to Sable. But then, that’s the only matter over which the county believes it exerts any jurisdiction.
