Posted on March 31, 2025
State Agency Issues Third Cease-And-Desist Order on Oil Company Alleging Unpermitted Coastal Work
California Coastal Commission staff have recommended that Sable Offshore be ordered to pay a nearly $15 million fine and complete a restoration plan for the oil company’s alleged unpermitted construction work along the Gaviota coast. Further, the commission issued a third cease-and-desist order against Sable, this time with an expiration date contingent on the company’s successful completion of permit applications. The matter will be put to a vote on April 10 during the Coastal Commission’s three-day meeting in Santa Barbara.
The March 28 staff report outlined each of Sable’s alleged actions and inactions in trying to repair and restart the Santa Ynez Unit, consisting of three offshore oil platforms and the coastal pipeline that burst from a corrosion hot-spot in the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill. According to the report, Sable has been conducting development work on the pipeline without authorization since at least September 2024. Sable has long contended that its pipeline work does not qualify as “development” under the Coastal Act and is covered by existing permits given to the pipeline’s previous owner in 1988. That language authorizes pipeline repairs, not development.
“The repair and maintenance work done to ensure the safe condition of the Santa Ynez Unit and onshore pipelines was fully authorized by coastal development permits previously approved by the California Coastal Commission and Santa Barbara County,” said Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, in a statement. “Commission staff’s unreasonable overreach is an attempt to exert influence over the planned restart of the Santa Ynez Unit oil production operations — something that is entirely outside of this Commission’s authority. All of Sable’s work has been conducted in previously disturbed areas, and commission staff continues to exaggerate the project’s impacts.”
Sable contends that Santa Barbara County, not the Coastal Commission, is the proper permitting authority, as it oversees implementation of the county’s Local Coastal Plan to comply with the Coastal Act. However, an August 2024 settlement agreement between Sable and the county preempts the county from interfering with Sable’s operations. Sable contended in that lawsuit that the county was prohibited from exercising any oversight over the pipeline. The county supervisors agreed.
“The county confirmed in a letter dated February 12, 2025, that the anomaly repair work is authorized by the pipelines’ existing coastal development permits and, consistent with past practice, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required for Sable to perform the work,” read Sable’s March 28 statement. “The county reaffirmed its conclusion on March 21, 2025, with respect to Sable’s previously completed anomaly repairs.”
Sable VP Steve Rusch called the Coastal Commission’s proposed penalty and cease-and-desist order an “unreasonable overreach.”
Despite both parties’ extensive attempts to resolve the situation, common ground has not been reached. Sable was hit with two cease-and-desist orders issued by the commission’s executive director, Kate Huckelbridge, in the past few months. The first one, issued in November, called for Sable to cease all unpermitted development work in the coastal zone and apply for coastal development permits from the commission. After a multi-day delay, Sable ceased its operations but did not apply for permits. Once the initial order expired, Sable continued work in the coastal zone without new permits. Huckelbridge then issued a second cease-and-desist order in February, after which Sable sued the Coastal Commission for overstepping its jurisdiction. The parties are scheduled for a case management conference in Santa Barbara County Superior Court on April 23.
“To date, Sable has made no efforts to comply with this second [cease-and-desist order], has not submitted any application for a [coastal development permit], and has refused to cease operations despite being fully informed of the ongoing Coastal Act violations and ongoing threats to coastal resources,” the report reads.
The Coastal Commission staff report states that Sable has conducted unpermitted work in the coastal zone since September 2024.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been looped in on the ongoing litigation and enforcement issues between the Coastal Commission and Sable, but he has yet to intervene.
Joshua Smith, a spokesperson for the Coastal Commission, called this administrative civil penalty “one of the largest” the commission has ever considered. On top of the $14,987,250 fine, commission staff recommend that Sable be ordered to restore any environmentally impacted areas and apply for coastal development permits for future and past work in the coastal zone. If approved by the commission’s voting members, Sable will have 180 days to cut a check. Sable can reduce its fine by 10 percent if all conditions of the cease-and-desist order are abided by, including applying for permits.
What ultimate impact this fine might have has yet to be determined. The State Fire Marshal stated on February 25 — during a packed-house meeting at La Cumbre Junior High School — that he would not issue Sable authorization to restart production at the Santa Ynez Unit until all outstanding permit issues between Sable and the eight state agencies with oversight authority are resolved.
The California Coastal Commission will meet April 9-11 at the Hilton Beachfront Hotel in Santa Barbara. The meeting is open to the public.
