Gut punch for Sable Offshore as California court rules in favor of Coastal Commission over oil pipeline
A California appeals court has dealt a major setback to efforts to bring more domestic oil production online, siding with state regulators in a major battle over a vital pipeline network that connects offshore platforms in Santa Barbara County to refineries outside the state.
California’s Second District Court of Appeal this week upheld an order obtained by the California Coastal Commission against Sable Offshore Corp., ruling that the agency acted within its jurisdiction when it issued cease-and-desist orders directed at pipeline work on the Gaviota coast.
It comes amid an increased focus on energy supply as the war with Iran and California’s anti-oil policies have helped drive natural gas prices through the roof, highlighting efforts to increase US production rather than limit it.
For Sable, the decision marks the latest chapter in the battle for infrastructure that the company is legally mandated to maintain and operate.
The dispute dates back decades.
In 1986, coastal development permits were issued for the pipeline system that is now in combat zones.
One of those lines, Pipeline 324, later gained notoriety after it ruptured in 2015 in the wake of the Refugio oil spill.
At the time of the spill, the pipeline was owned by Plains All American Pipeline.
The asset was later transferred to ExxonMobil before being acquired by Houston-based Sable Offshore in 2024.
When Sable purchased the system, the pipeline remained inactive because repairs were needed and court-approved permits were filed after the spill.
Seeking to restart production at the Santa Ynez unit, Sable began work on the pipeline network.
According to the company, workers were making repairs to existing facilities under existing permits, including replacing parts of pipes, installing safety valves and making other improvements.
The California Coastal Commission disagreed.
In November 2024, the commission issued a cease and desist order after determining that Sable was conducting construction work in the Gaviota Coast area.
Regulators insisted the company needed more approval despite Sable’s position that the work was under permits issued nearly four decades earlier.
A second cease and desist order followed in February 2025.
The conflict escalated further when the commission slapped Sable with an $18 million fine for continuing construction work.
Sable challenged the enforcement actions in court, saying in part that he did not receive due process during the proceedings.
The appeals court rejected that claim, finding that the lower court “gave Sable a full and fair opportunity to answer his case.”
The pipelines at the center of the dispute, CA-324 and CA-325, connect offshore oil platforms and processing facilities in Santa Barbara County to refineries outside the area, making them a vital link in efforts to restart production.
Even as the legal battles continued, Sable began transporting oil for sale via pipeline earlier this year.
The company maintains that Pacific Pipeline Company, its subsidiary, “continues to operate legally under its existing coastal development permits issued in 1986.”
The Coastal Commission and Sable both declined to comment on the latest decision.
The court decision does not end the wider battle.
Additional lawsuits related to Sable’s resumption of production are pending, while Coastal Commission Executive Director Kate Huckelbridge warned of ongoing violations and indicated the agency may pursue other enforcement actions, including additional cease-and-desist orders and penalties.
