California Court Upholds Injunction Halting Sable Pipeline Repair Work

A California appeals court has issued a closely watched ruling in the dispute over Sable Offshore's pipeline repairs, a decision with broader implications for coastal permitting and energy projects.

(P&GJ) — A California appeals court has upheld a preliminary injunction preventing Sable Offshore Corp. from continuing certain repair work on its Las Flores pipeline system without additional coastal permitting, ruling that the California Coastal Commission acted within its authority to issue a cease-and-desist order after Santa Barbara County declined to pursue enforcement.

In a published opinion issued June 17, the California Second District Court of Appeal rejected Sable's argument that the county's determination that existing permits covered the work prevented the commission from intervening. Instead, the court concluded the California Coastal Act allows the commission to assume enforcement responsibility when a local government declines to act on an alleged violation that could significantly affect coastal resources.

The appellate court wrote that Santa Barbara County "had ample opportunity to act" but "deliberately declined to do so," allowing the Coastal Commission to exercise its authority under state law.

"Given that the County declined to act regarding the alleged violation, the Commission properly exercised its authority under the statute," the appellate court wrote.

Sable had argued that the county determined its repair and maintenance work was authorized under coastal development permits originally issued for the Las Flores Pipelines in the 1980s. The appellate court rejected that interpretation, finding that accepting the company's position would undermine the Legislature's intent in expanding the commission's enforcement authority.

Explaining its reasoning, the appellate court wrote: "The Legislature could not have intended for the Commission's newfound authority to be thwarted by communication from an objecting county."

The opinion also held that once the Coastal Commission established a prima facie case that the Coastal Act may have been violated, state law required the preliminary injunction to remain in place without balancing competing equities.

One justice dissented, arguing Santa Barbara County had acted—not declined to act—by determining the repair work was already authorized under existing permits. The dissent also noted that much of the disputed work has since been completed and that oil has resumed flowing through the pipeline following subsequent federal actions.