logo
Court backs California Coastal Commission in fight over offshore oil operation

Court backs California Coastal Commission in fight over offshore oil operation

Yahoo29-05-2025
Just days after a Texas oil firm shocked California environmentalists and regulators by announcing the resumption of offshore oil production along the Santa Barbara County coast, a court has ordered the company to cease further construction or repairs until they obtain official approvals.
For months, Sable Offshore Corp. has denied the California Coastal Commission's authority to oversee and approve upgrades to a network of oil pipelines that were shuttered after a major 2015 spill.
The company argues that it doesn't need any new permits because it is only repairing and maintaining existing pipelines — as opposed to constructing a new line — meaning the Coastal Commission doesn't have a say in the matter. Sable sued the commission in February, claiming overreach of its authority.
But on Wednesday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle sided with the Coastal Commission and ordered Sable to abide by a preliminary injunction, upholding a cease and desist order commissioners issued in April. That action requires Sable to stop any further coastal work until the company obtains necessary permits from the Coastal Commission or the ongoing lawsuit is settled.
"The Commission has presented credible evidence of violation of the Coastal Act," Anderle wrote in his ruling. Landscape grading and other pipeline work Sable performed "fall squarely within the definition of 'development' in the Coastal Act," he found.
Read more: Under Trump, Texas firm pushes to restart Santa Barbara oil drilling. Is it skirting California laws?
Sable insists that it is still operating within original permits from the 1980s. The commission disagrees however, and has ordered the company to seek new permits.
'It's a significant win not only for the Coastal Commission, but for the environment, for the state, for the people and, frankly, the rule of law," said Alex Helperin, assistant chief counsel for the Coastal Commission.
'We've never seen someone just completely ignore one of our orders before. ... This is unprecedented for us and [the judge's ruling is] a really important indication of the rule of law and the idea that our orders have to be taken seriously.'
Although commission officials have hailed the judge's decision as a victory, it remains unclear how it will impact the oil operation. Sable has already finished much —if not all — of the work commissioners have protested.
Still, Sable officials say they plan to appeal the judge's ruling.
"We look forward to overturning today's decision, though it has no bearing on Sable's plans to recommence oil sales by July," read a statement from Steve Rusch, Sable's vice president of environmental and governmental affairs. "Sable will continue to aggressively defend our vested rights to pursue low carbon California oil and natural gas sorely needed to stabilize supply and lower consumer gasoline prices.'
In April, the California Coastal Commission found that Sable had repeatedly violated the Coastal Act by repairing and upgrading oil pipelines without necessary permits or approvals. The company was fined $18 million, issued a cease and desist order and directed to restore areas that saw environmental damage.
Sable has ignored those findings, and filed the lawsuit against the the commission.
The preliminary injunction issued Wednesday doesn't resolve that case, but may be an indication of how the court may lean in a final decision — which is likely still months, if not years, away.
Read more: Offshore oil operation near Santa Barbara resumes production after 10 years
Sable outraged environmentalists and officials last week when it announced that it had resumed oil production at one of its offshore platforms — located in federal waters — at a rate of about 6,000 barrels a day, with plans to quickly increase extraction. The company said the oil is being sent to the onshore Las Flores Canyon processing facility for storage, but was clear that full use of the onshore pipelines had yet to begin.
But among those who were taken aback by the announcement was Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who serves as chair of the California State Lands Commission and has oversight of offshore oil pipelines. Sable was required to update the State Lands Commission on any oil flow and failed to do so, she said.
"Sable's failure to clearly and timely communicate these activities to the commission undermines trust of Sable's motives, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significant concerns held by many regarding the resumption of activities, and raises serious questions about Sable's willingness to be a transparent operator," Kounalakis wrote in a May 23 letter to Sable that was reviewed by The Times.
Kounalakis also accused the company of misleading the public. She said that lands commission staff told her that the new oil flows were the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart.
"These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart ... Characterizing testing activities as a restart of operations is not only misleading but also highly inappropriate — particularly given that Sable has not obtained the necessary regulatory approvals to fully resume operations," she wrote.
She said that the company needs to resolve all pending legal challenges and regulatory requirements before any attempt to fully restart commercial operations in order to remain in compliance with its offshore pipeline leases.
Sheri Pemberton, a spokesperson for the commission, said Sable has not yet responded to the lieutenant governor's letter.
Sable representatives did not respond to questions about the letter or the concerns raised by the State Lands Commission chair.
Environmental activists argued that the judge's ruling and Kounalakis' letter further demonstrate that Sable cannot be trusted to safely run an operation that previously failed.
'This just shows, again, that this is not a company we can trust to follow the law in California or responsibly operate equipment that already caused one of the worst spills in our state history," said Alex Katz, the executive director of the Environmental Defense Center.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SOC INVESTOR DEADLINE: Sable Offshore Corp. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit
SOC INVESTOR DEADLINE: Sable Offshore Corp. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit

Business Upturn

time2 days ago

  • Business Upturn

SOC INVESTOR DEADLINE: Sable Offshore Corp. Investors with Substantial Losses Have Opportunity to Lead Investor Class Action Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Sable Offshore Corp. (NYSE: SOC) publicly traded securities between May 19, 2025 and June 3, 2025, all dates inclusive (the 'Class Period') and/or pursuant and/or traceable to Sable Offshore's registration statement issued in connection with Sable Offshore's May 21, 2025 secondary public offering (the 'SPO'), have until September 26, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit. Captioned Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp. , No. 25-cv-06869 (C.D. Cal.), the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit charges Sable Offshore as well as certain of Sable Offshore's top executives and underwriters of the SPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at [email protected]. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Sable Offshore operates as an independent oil and gas company. According to the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit, on or about May 21, 2025, Sable Offshore conducted its SPO, issuing 10 million shares of its common stock at the offering price of $29.50 per share for proceeds of $295 million to Sable Offshore. The Sable Offshore class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period and in the SPO's offering documents represented that Sable Offshore had restarted oil production off the coast of California when it had not. The Sable Offshore class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 23, 2025, Eleni Kounalakis, the Lieutenant Governor of California and chair of the California State Lands Commission wrote a letter to Sable Offshore's Vice President of Environmental & Government Affairs, Steve Rusch, stating that a May 19, 2025 Sable Offshore press release 'appears to mischaracterize the nature of recent activities, causing significant public confusion and raising questions regarding Sable's intentions. Your press release also implies that Sable has restarted operations at the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU). However, Commission staff has informed me that the limited volume oil flows are the result of well-testing procedures required by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement prior to restart. These activities do not constitute a resumption of commercial production or a full restart of the SYU.' The May 23 letter was not published on the internet for the general public to view until May 28, 2025, the complaint alleges. On this news, the price of Sable Offshore stock fell more than 15%, according to the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit. Then, on June 4, 2025, the complaint alleges that Sable Offshore revealed that '[o]n June 3, 2025, a Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge granted ex parte requests from plaintiffs in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, et al. (25CV02244) and Environmental Defense Center, et al. v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, et al. (25CV02247) for temporary restraining orders prohibiting Sable Offshore Corp. ('Sable') from restarting transportation of oil through the Las Flores Pipeline System pending the hearing on an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction scheduled for July 18, 2025.' On this news, the price of Sable Offshore stock fell further, according to the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Sable Offshore publicly traded securities during the Class Period and/or pursuant and/or traceable to the SPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Sable Offshore class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 800-449-4900 [email protected]

Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Sable Offshore Corp. (SOC) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm
Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Sable Offshore Corp. (SOC) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Business Wire

time5 days ago

  • Business Wire

Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Sable Offshore Corp. (SOC) Investors of Class Action Filing and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors who purchased Sable Offshore Corp. ('Sable' or the 'Company') (NYSE:SOC) securities to contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@ or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to the securities fraud class action lawsuit against the Company. [ LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION ] On May 19, 2025, Sable announced that it had resumed oil production from one of three offshore platforms related to its Las Flores pipeline (the 'Onshore Pipeline') in California as of May 15, 2025. On May 21, 2025, Sable announced the pricing of its previously announced underwritten public offering of 8,695,654 shares of its common stock, by the Company at a price to the public of $29.50 per share (the 'Public Offering'). The Company subsequently announced the closing of the Public Offering on May 23, 2025, with gross proceeds of approximately $295 million. On May 23, 2025, the California State Land Commission sent Sable a letter warning the Company that, 'The [May 19] press release appears to mischaracterize the nature of recent activities, causing significant public confusion and raising questions regarding Sable's intentions.' According to the letter, Sable had conflated offshore well testing activities required by a federal regulatory agency with the restart of operations. Then, on May 28, 2025, the Santa Barbara County Superior Court approved a preliminary injunction requested by the California Coastal Commission regarding Sable's maintenance and repair work in the coastal zone related to its Onshore Pipeline. On this news, the price of Sable declined by $5.04 per share, or approximately 15%, from $32.93 per share on May 27, 2025, to close at $27.89 on May 28, 2025. The lawsuit alleges that Sable made false or misleading statements that the Company had restarted oil production off the coast of California when it had not. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sable securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@ or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Coastal Commission vs. SpaceX: Round 2
Coastal Commission vs. SpaceX: Round 2

Politico

time6 days ago

  • Politico

Coastal Commission vs. SpaceX: Round 2

With help from Camille von Kaenel ROCKET REMATCH: The California Coastal Commission is going for another round with Elon Musk's space company. U.S. Space Force officials will be back in front of the commission next Thursday with a proposal to double SpaceX's rocket launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base from 50 to 95 per year — and agency staff is recommending commissioners reject it. 'The simple fact remains that it is a privately owned company engaged in activities primarily for its own commercial business,' staff said in a report Friday. 'It is not a public federal agency or conducting its launches on behalf of the federal government.' The vote promises to reopen a rift between Musk and the agency after the commission rejected Space Force's previous proposal to increase SpaceX launches from 36 to 50, but cited Musk's politics and support for President Donald Trump in doing so. The commission drew a lawsuit from Musk — and a rebuke from Gov. Gavin Newsom at the time. 'I'm with Elon,' Newsom said in October after Musk sued the commission for political bias. 'You can't bring up that explicit level of politics.' The fight is flying further under the radar this time around, though. Where a bipartisan group of pro-space state and federal lawmakers spoke up for SpaceX ahead of October's vote — and environmentalists chimed in on behalf of nearby residents and wildlife they argued would be disturbed by the launches' sonic booms — that type of lobbying hasn't materialized. Neither Newsom's office nor SpaceX responded to a request for comment. Space Launch Delta 30 Commander Col. James T. Horne III, who oversees Vandenberg and Western operations, said in a statement that the commission staff recommendation doesn't change the military's 'unwavering commitment to preserving the California coastline' and that its partnership with SpaceX helps maintain 'its technological edge and strategic advantage over competitors.' The relative quiet comes amid a shifted political landscape, after Trump returned to power and Republicans swept Congress on a message of affordability and economic strength. Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers, faced with looming refinery closures and perpetually high building costs, are trying to boost in-state oil drilling and have already weakened environmental permitting for everything from wildfire fuel breaks to high-speed rail, putting environmentalists on the back foot. Jennifer Savage, California policy associate director for the Surfrider Foundation, said environmental groups are in rapid response mode, which has 'taken energy away from other things that we normally would have perhaps had more capacity to deal with.' 'I do think there's a lot of political overwhelm happening on all fronts, and that has divided people's attention perhaps more than when this first came up,' Savage said. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire have also shaken up the commission since last year, replacing members like former Chair Justin Cummings, former Vice Chair Paloma Aguirre and alternate Gretchen Newsom (no relation to Gavin Newsom), all of whom had bemoaned Musk's behavior. And Newsom himself spent the early part of this year clipping the commission's wings, issuing several executive orders in the wake of the Los Angeles fires to suspend the Coastal Act — the 1976 law that established the commission — in an effort to fast-track rebuilding. But there's also the reality that Space Force officials moved forward with the increase from 36 to 50 last year, even after the no vote, citing federal preemption and national security considerations. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), one of the lawmakers who signed a bipartisan letter last year backing the launch increase, said the reality that the commission can't stop the military's plan means the issue has taken on less urgency. 'Now that the commission has proved its own irrelevance, maybe that same imperative doesn't exist,' said Kiley, who is pushing a bill that would limit state authority to review certain activities related to national security and post-disaster recovery and rebuilding. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! MERCURY RISING: Los Angeles landlords and tenants, get your fans ready. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance Tuesday to require landlords in its unincorporated areas to keep indoor temperatures in all the rooms of rental units below 82 degrees, either by using passive cooling methods like blackout curtains or by installing air conditioners. Chair Pro Tem and Supervisor Hilda L. Solis, who introduced the measure after three years of efforts to establish an indoor heat standard, called it a 'life-saving policy that prioritizes the health and dignity of renters' amid growing evidence that rising temperatures are triggering more heat illnesses and death. She said she hoped other cities in the region would follow suit. She and her co-author, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, agreed to partly carve out small landlords from the requirement amid pushback from the California Apartment Association and Supervisor Janice Hahn. Landlords who only own a few units will have until January 2032 to bring temperatures into check in every room of the unit; in the interim, they will have to keep only one room below 82 degrees. The compromise partly responded to a RAND report that recommended that Los Angeles policymakers should focus first on cooling one room instead of the whole unit so as not to stress the grid with new air conditioners. The ordinance takes effect in 30 days but won't be enforced until Jan. 1, 2027. — CvK AI YI YI: Artificial intelligence could be the power sector's savior — if the industry plays its cards right, California policy editor Debra Kahn writes in her latest column. Trump is canceling loan guarantees for wind-connected transmission lines and trying to block federal land from being used for wind power — but he's telling agencies to figure out how to build data centers on that same land. And those data centers need power. AI and its attendant data centers are projected to unleash the U.S. electricity industry's first net growth in 20 years. They could solve the industry's longstanding problem of spreading its growing costs across a shrinking pool of customers, if it can build fast enough to meet the demand. 'The size and the scale of what we're seeing now is unlike anything we've ever seen,' Pacific Gas & Electric Co. executive Mike Medeiros said, after PG&E got approval for a new rate structure to speed up connecting data centers to the grid. 'People will tell you — they probably haven't seen load growth like this since World War II.' — DK WHAT CANCELED PROGRAM?: The Trump administration is claiming it didn't really cancel a FEMA grant that funds disaster preparation and mitigation, four months after it shuttered the program. FEMA acting Administrator David Richardson wrote in a July 25 court declaration that 'despite FEMA's public announcements,' the agency actually didn't end the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, of which California is one of the largest beneficiaries. The document startled state and local officials and created new uncertainty about the administration's plans for helping communities with hurricanes, floods and other disasters, Thomas Frank reports for POLITICO's E&E News. Attorney General Rob Bonta joined 19 other AGs in a lawsuit last month challenging the program cancellation, arguing that the Trump administration violated congressional guidance to prioritize mitigation efforts and defied government spending authority by refusing to reallocate funds dedicated for BRIC to other programs. — AN CASTING SHADE: The Trump administration is making plans to cancel a $7 billion program funding solar projects in low-income communities across the country, people familiar with the agency's plan told POLITICO's Zack Colman, Alex Guillén and Kelsey Tamborrino on Tuesday. The termination letters are being drafted this week and could go out within days, according to a former EPA official familiar with the agency's plan granted anonymity to speak ahead of the release of the letters. The Solar for All program awarded money to state agencies, localities or nonprofit groups in almost every state to be used for residential rooftop panels, community solar developments or storage technologies — including $250 million to California state energy agencies that has yet to be distributed. Kym Meyer, litigation director at the Southern Environmental Law Center, signaled the group would pursue legal action if the administration terminates the grants. — The shipping company that delivers most of Hawaii's cars has stopped sending electric vehicles to the state because of the risk of battery fires. — Purple states are piling onto the lawsuit challenging Trump's freezing of federal electric vehicle funding. — A heat wave is coming to California this week, intensifying the wildfires already burning and raising the risk of more blazes.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store