California Moves to Block Federal Order Restarting Sable Oil Pipelines
California is seeking a court injunction to block a federal order restarting Sable Offshore’s oil pipelines, setting up a major legal fight over pipeline authority and regulation.
(P&GJ) — California Attorney General Rob Bonta is seeking a preliminary injunction to block a federal order that enabled the restart of Sable Offshore Corp.’s onshore oil pipelines, setting up a legal clash over pipeline authority and regulatory control.
The motion challenges a March directive issued by the U.S. Department of Energy under the Defense Production Act (DPA), which required Sable to resume oil transportation through its Las Flores pipeline system. State officials argue the order improperly overrides California law and a federal court consent decree governing the pipelines.
The dispute centers on Lines CA-324 and CA-325, which run along the Santa Barbara County coastline and have been largely inactive since a 2015 rupture caused the Refugio oil spill. That incident released more than 120,000 gallons of crude oil and led to stricter oversight requirements before any restart could occur.
According to the state’s filing, the federal order directed Sable to resume operations without completing required state approvals or meeting conditions outlined in the consent decree. California argues the DPA does not grant federal officials authority to bypass environmental regulations or court orders.
The lawsuit also contends the federal directive exceeds statutory authority by attempting to compel pipeline operations rather than prioritizing contracts, which is the intended scope of the DPA. State attorneys further argue the order is inconsistent with federal regulations and was issued without required findings or analysis.
Sable resumed transporting oil through the pipelines shortly after the federal order was issued in March, citing compliance with the directive.
California maintains the restart creates potential environmental and safety risks, while also undermining state regulatory authority. The motion asks the court to halt pipeline operations until the legal challenge is resolved.
The case is part of a broader legal effort by the state to challenge federal actions affecting pipeline oversight, including a separate dispute over jurisdictional classification of the same lines.