The Brief

A Santa Barbara judge intends to rule against Sable Offshore Corp.’s bid to restart a pipeline that spilled thousands of barrels of crude into the Pacific 11 years ago – dealing a significant blow to the company’s attempt to use the Trump Administration to get around California regulators in its path.

In a tentative ruling, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Donna D. Geck said the Trump administration’s intervention was not enough to undo her earlier order keeping the pipeline shut down. The ruling — a preliminary decision signalling how the judge intends to rule unless persuaded otherwise — comes ahead of a Friday hearing.

The Houston-based startup, which bought the system from ExxonMobil in early 2024, secured an extraordinary intervention from the Trump administration last year to wrest oversight of the pipeline away from the California regulators who were blocking its path.

Sable declined to comment on the tentative ruling. In an earlier statement, Steve Rusch, the company’s vice president of environmental and government affairs, said the project would “offer Californians immediate relief at the pump by making gas more affordable,” and that the company had the experience to operate safely.

The company is facing a criminal prosecution by the local district attorney, a federal securities inquiry, two court injunctions and findings by county officials of a pattern of noncompliance.

Trump steps in to federalize a pipeline 

When state regulators told Sable that the company needed to repair corrosion on the pipeline last fall, the company turned to Washington.

About a month later, Sable asked federal regulators to declare the pipeline “interstate” – a designation that would shift authority from California's Office of the State Fire Marshal to the federal government. The company cited President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025 declaration of a national energy emergency.

On Dec. 17, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration agreed, ruling that the Las Flores Pipeline — two onshore oil lines running from Santa Barbara County to Kern County — qualifies as an interstate pipeline because it begins on federal offshore platforms and ends at a refinery in Kern County. The agency noted that the pipeline had been federally overseen before 2016. Six days later, the agency issued an emergency permit approving a restart plan. The agency declined to comment.

The maneuver caused immediate conflict. A 2020 federal consent decree stemming from the 2015 spill requires approval from the California State Fire Marshal before the pipeline can restart — a condition that appears to conflict directly with the Trump administration’s move to strip the fire marshal of authority.

Workers prepare an oil containment boom at Refugio State Beach, north of Goleta, on May 21, 2015, two days after an oil pipeline ruptured, polluting beaches and killing hundreds of birds and marine mammals.

(

Jae C. Hong

/

AP Photo

)

Environmental groups sued the Trump administration in December, saying it was “running roughshod over transparency, environmental review, and pipeline safety requirements.” California filed its own lawsuit in January. Christine Lee, a spokesperson for Attorney General Rob Bonta said the Trump administration’s “illegal actions” contradict the consent decree and attempt to evade state oversight.

Both cases were consolidated earlier this month and are awaiting a ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department declined to comment.

“It's a real impingement on state authority here that shouldn't stand,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, before the judge’s initial ruling was issued Thursday. “They're trying to basically seize control over these pipelines.”

The first major local test

Geck’s injunction, issued last July, bars Sable from restarting the pipeline until it secures all required state approvals, including those from the fire marshal. The order stems from a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Defense Center, which argued that the fire marshal violated the state Pipeline Safety Act by issuing restart waivers without required environmental review.

On Jan. 5, Sable asked Judge Geck to lift her injunction, arguing that once federal regulators asserted control, the state fire marshal “no longer has any regulatory authority.”

In her tentative ruling, Geck disagreed.

Linda Krop, a staff attorney with the Environmental Defense Center, said the tentative ruling turns on the 2020 consent decree, which binds Sable, federal regulators and the state fire marshal alike.

“It is still binding,” she said.

An exhibitor talks to an attendee at a town hall organized by the Environmental Defense Center and other local organizations.

(

Zin Chiang

/

CalMatters

)

Attendees at the town hall in Santa Barbara on Jan. 17, 2026.

(

Zin Chiang

/

CalMatters

)

At the core of the dispute is corrosion — and how strict the safety bar should be before oil can flow again. State regulators required permanent repairs on any section of pipe showing serious wall thinning, including spots that could be considered unsafe once inspection error is factored in.

In her tentative ruling, Geck sided with the state, finding that the federal action was not enough to override her order.

Sable will have a chance to contest that finding at Friday’s hearing. The company has argued that it had already completed the required repairs and argued that those tougher standards were meant to apply only after the pipeline restarts, not before.

The fight carries significant economic and environmental stakes.

Sable has told investors that production could rise from about 30,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to more than 50,000, with oil flowing to Los Angeles, Bakersfield and San Francisco refineries. The company told CalMatters this week it could serve 20% of the state’s market, an attractive possibility as California recalibrates its energy strategy to shore up fossil fuel infrastructure even as it pushes toward cleaner power.

But state water officials and the Coastal Commission say the pipeline crosses environmentally sensitive coastal areas, and environmental groups say corrosion risks that caused the 2015 Refugio spill make careful inspection essential.

Sable says it has upgraded monitoring systems and strengthened emergency shutoff protections on the line, plans to inspect the pipeline more frequently than federal rules require, and has response crews positioned for rapid deployment, according to a company spokesperson.

A UC Santa Barbara analysis found the restart would not reduce foreign imports and would raise global greenhouse gas emissions because of the project’s higher carbon intensity.

The remaining roadblocks

Multiple state and federal hurdles still stand between the company and a restart.

A second injunction, issued by Judge Thomas Anderle, also in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, bars work deemed development under state coastal law without a permit from the California Coastal Commission.

That order stems from a separate case over unpermitted work along the Gaviota Coast — conduct state officials have called part of a broader pattern of noncompliance. The commission last year imposed a record $18 million fine, which Sable is disputing.

A new state law, Senate Bill 237, requires oil facilities idle for five years or more to obtain a new coastal development permit. A stretch of the pipeline crosses Gaviota State Park, and state officials say they cannot grant a new easement without completing environmental review.

Oil rigs are visible in the Santa Barbara Channel, as hikers visit the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve, on Jan. 17, 2026.

(

Zin Chiang

/

CalMatters

)

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors last year denied Sable’s request to assume ExxonMobil’s operating permits, also citing a pattern of noncompliance. County prosecutors have also charged Sable with multiple counts related to alleged unpermitted excavation and dumping during pipeline work in 2024 and early 2025. That criminal case is ongoing.

Sable’s shrinking runway

Even if Sable clears its legal hurdles, time may be its biggest obstacle.

The company disclosed in a recent securities filing that it had $97.7 million in cash and cash equivalents as of the end of last year and will need to spend $25 million to $30 million a month to keep operating this year. It said it plans to seek up to $250 million through stock sales.

The financial pressure is compounded by a weaker oil market than the company anticipated when pitching investors, said Clark Williams-Derry, an analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Crude prices have remained well below earlier projections, tightening the project’s economics and leaving less margin for delay.

“The company is … burning through cash,” Williams-Derry said. “It is facing much higher costs — and a much slower timetable — than it had envisioned originally.”

Sable has floated a fallback plan to bypass the onshore pipeline and export oil by offshore tanker — a proposal that has drawn fierce opposition in California.

The pipeline fight comes as the Trump administration acts to expand offshore oil leasing along the West Coast – a move that has drawn fierce opposition in California. Geck’s tentative ruling is the first sign that federal efforts to override state authority may face resistance in court.

“If Sable ultimately is not able to build this — or to reopen this pipeline — I think it'll just be confirmation that state and local governments have a say,” said Deborah Sivas, a Stanford environmental law professor. “It'll just reaffirm the Feds can't come in and force things down on states and locals.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

A helicopter crashed in Chatsworth on Tuesday, killing at least three people near a deadly bus crash, officials said.

Another person was taken to the hospital, but their condition was not immediately clear, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department.

It was not immediately clear whether some of the people killed in the crash had been on the helicopter. At least one person killed was outside in the parking lot, Capt. Branden Silverman, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Fire Department, said during a news conference.

“We’re trying to determine how many patients were inside the helicopter,” he said.

The helicopter crashed into a parking lot, into or next to some parked vehicles, Silverman said. The parking lot is for a large one-story building, but the type of business was not immediately clear.

More than 50 firefighters responded to the helicopter crash, according to the fire department. The fire had damaged four vehicles and two storage containers, but was out by Tuesday evening, according to officials.

Silverman described the helicopter as “pretty well destroyed” and said they’re going to have to go through the rubble to see how many victims were on board.

The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration will be handling the investigation.

This is a developing story.

The Los Angeles region’s lead homelessness agency is effectively forfeiting the federal administrative roles it has held for decades, including applying for millions of dollars in funding for the region and leading the annual homeless count, the agency announced Tuesday.

The decision comes as the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority faces mounting criticism from both the Trump administration and local leaders who accuse the agency of mismanaging homeless services.

It reverses a monthslong legal battle LAHSA had been waging with the federal government to continue in these duties.

The city of Los Angeles, L.A. County and other entities and organizations are now applying to take them over.

At a county meeting Tuesday, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath called it “a fundamental change that reflects the significant performance, contracting and financial concerns that have plagued LAHSA for too long.”

“ Officials avoiding accountability will no longer have LAHSA to hide behind, and the county and city must be accountable to each other and to our entire Los Angeles region,” Horvath continued.

LAHSA's decision

In June, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development suspended LAHSA from conducting its federal duties, including applying for or receiving grants, putting $241 million in anticipated funding and LAHSA’s future in limbo.

LAHSA sued.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter paused LAHSA’s suspension on Aug. 13, but also instructed a regional planning body known as the L.A. Continuum of Care Board to solicit applications from other entities to replace LAHSA in those key roles.

The Continuum of Care Board opened its application process online last week, inviting qualified organizations to take on one or more of LAHSA’s current administrative roles.

LAHSA’s governing commission voted unanimously Tuesday to not apply, effectively forfeiting the federal roles that comprise most of its remaining responsibilities.

The city of L.A. and L.A. County are both applying, according to LAHSA.

“With both the City and County preparing their own applications, competing against our founding partners would only fracture regional collaboration during an already complex time,” the LAHSA Commission and the agency's leadership said in a statement.

“This decision reflects the shared judgment of LAHSA’s Commission and executive leadership,” the statement continued.

Federal roles

LAHSA will forfeit the following federal homelessness roles:

1. Coordinating and submitting annual federal homeless assistance funding applications to HUD on behalf of the entire L.A. region — about $240 million in the coming year.

2. Planning, executing and reporting the region’s annual point-in-time homeless count.

3. Operating and administering a HUD-mandated database that tracks who's being served and whether they're moving into housing.

4. Managing and operating a HUD-mandated system to match unhoused people to available housing and services based on need.

How we got here

After Carter paused LAHSA’s suspension, the federal housing agency appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week, the appeals court issued a temporary stay on Carter's order.

LAHSA said that ruling created more uncertainty about whether the agency was eligible to apply for the federal roles it has held for the past three decades.

“Stepping aside now supports alignment with the direction the City and County are heading with their applications, and focuses public resources where they belong: on the people who depend on the rehousing system every day,” the LAHSA statement said.

LAHSA is a joint powers authority between the city and county, created three decades ago to manage the region’s response to homelessness.

City and county officials are collectively responsible for LAHSA, which has administered federal, state, county and city homelessness funding across the region.

Citing LAHSA’s management problems, L.A. County pulled more than $300 million annual homelessness funding from the agency starting this year, choosing instead to administer the funds through a new county homelessness department.

The city of L.A. is considering a similar move away from LAHSA. Mayor Karen Bass and her election rival Councilmember Nithya Raman both say the city needs its own independent homeless system.

In the current budget year, 73% of LAHSA’s nearly $500 million budget comes from the city of L.A., 20% from the federal government and 4% from L.A. County.

What’s next? 

LAHSA said it will continue to fulfill its ongoing federal responsibilities “until those duties transition to a new entity or entities.”

The agency has agreements with the city of L.A. to manage programs and contracts through June 30, 2027.

The county’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing is applying to take over all four of LAHSA’s federal responsibilities, according to county officials. The city of L.A. is currently applying for at least two of those roles, putting the city and county in competition with each other.

“Moving forward, another entity will be leading the [Continuum of Care], which I believe should be the county, given our ability to most effectively administer contracts for our region,” Horvath said Tuesday.

Other organizations have also expressed interest. Better Angels, a homelessness nonprofit led by former L.A. mayoral candidate Adam Miller, contacted the court seeking to apply.

Applicants looking to take over LAHSA’s federal roles have until Sept. 25 to submit applications, but had to communicate their intent to apply by Sept. 15.

The applicants selected by L.A.’s regional Continuum of Care Board will have to be reviewed by HUD and the federal court.

The Los Angeles Unified School District’s falling enrollment and budget challenges are fueling conversations planned for later this year about potential school closures and consolidation.

“Our goal is not simply to have fewer schools; our goal is to have stronger schools, schools that are better resourced, schools that offer more programs for our students,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said during a school board meeting Tuesday. The superintendent shared a similar message in a video sent to families Monday.

LAUSD is spending more money than it brings in and has relied on reserves to fill the gap in recent years. In Tuesday’s meeting, district leaders presented an updated snapshot of LAUSD’s finances that shows steeper enrollment declines and lower state revenue and reserves than projected early this summer.

“That deficit spending is only possible while we have reserves and the very significant challenge that we’re facing as a district is that those reserves are being depleted very quickly,” said Saman Bravo-Karimi, the district's chief financial officer. “They’re eventually going to go negative and we can’t have negative balances as a school district.”

How is enrollment changing? 

Almost 4% fewer students than expected are attending LAUSD schools this academic year compared to last year, according to preliminary data.

Bravo-Karimi said that each 1% drop in enrollment is a loss of about $20 million a year because California funds schools based on how many students show up to class each day.

Fewer students have attended LAUSD schools over the last two decades, in part because of falling birth rates and the region’s high cost of living, but those declines were steeper than anticipated in recent years.

Board member Kelly Gonez said the schools in East San Fernando Valley communities targeted by federal agents have double the enrollment declines of other campuses.

“That increase in enrollment decline last school year was not a coincidence,” Gonez said. “Something changed … that is the presence of a federal administration that is attacking our immigrant communities.”

How is LAUSD approaching school closures?

The district pulled a scheduled vote Monday night on a $960,000 contract with a school closure consultant.

The district planned to work with Alvarez and Marsal to develop a framework for possible school closures, mergers or reconfigurations.

The firm’s priorities, as described on their website, include “maximizing investment value in education” and reshaping how institutions operate.

Alvarez and Marsal are also associated with several controversial decisions, including closing more than a dozen campuses during an overhaul of St. Louis schools in 2003 and faltering when contracted to restructure New York City schools' bus routes in 2007.

Several members of the public and a leader in the district’s teachers union spoke out against the contract and any similar future consultants.

“It’s hard for us to seriously work with this district to fight for more state funding when you squander limited funds you have on contracts with vultures and privatizers like the Alvarez company,” said Julie Van Winkle, United Teachers Los Angeles vice president.

Chait said the decision to remove the contract from consideration was in response to messages from school, community and district stakeholders over the weekend.

“One of the core leadership principles that I’ve always really tried to live by is to listen to folks, especially when they disagree,” Chait said.

Chait said the district needs external support to convene community meetings and compile and analyze data.

“This is arguably the most complex, the most difficult endeavor we will ever take on,” Chait said of school consolidations. “It will reset the footprint of our district for years to come.”

Chait said the district will begin holding community conversations related to school closures in the next few weeks and will share more details during a Sept. 22 meeting.

How did LAUSD’s budget become so strained?

The district’s current $20.6 billion budget projects a $2 billion deficit.

LAUSD approved raises for teachers, principals and support staff earlier this year at the cost of an additional $1 billion this school year. LAUSD, like other districts in the state, also faces increased costs for employee health care, settlements for decades-old sexual assault claims and services for students with disabilities,

L.A. County education officials approved the district’s most recent budget Tuesday on the condition that LAUSD provide additional information about how it is implementing cuts this school year.

However, L.A. County Superintendent Debra Duardo also called out the district's “unsustainable” use of reserves.

“The district’s fiscal status necessitates continued monitoring for both immediate and future corrective actions,” Duardo wrote in a letter to district leadership, referencing the July appointment of a fiscal expert to advise the district.

LAUSD’s board has approved a series of plans to reduce spending and increase revenue. For example, the district eliminated hundreds of jobs, primarily in its administrative offices, earlier this year.

The district’s most recent fiscal stabilization plan includes furlough days for all employees, the elimination of thousands of jobs and cuts to programs that help high-needs schools pay for counselors, tutors and other student supports.

Most of these cuts aren’t scheduled to go into effect until the 2027-28 and 2028-29 school years.

The leader of a congressional panel warned Tuesday he would use “every tool” to get Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to testify after she skipped a hearing that put L.A.’s homeless services system in the hot seat.

It came as multiple audits, reviews and court rulings have found L.A. has failed to ensure proper tracking of large-scale spending on homeless services — particularly through the joint city-county L.A. Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA. Much of the money is federal dollars authorized by Congress.

Bass had declined to testify at Tuesday’s hearing, saying she was unavailable and that it would be a “politically motivated” attack. Her public schedule showed she planned to attend a groundbreaking of a shopping and community center in the Pacific Palisades two hours after the hearing was set to start.

Rep. Tim Burchett, the Tennessee Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee's DOGE subcommittee, said she won't get off that easily.

Bass "seems intent on evading accountability, but she knows we will not let her off the hook," Burchett said at the hearing. He added that he and the Oversight Committee’s chair would "use every tool at our disposal to secure her appearance if she does not cooperate.”

House committees and subcommittees can issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify or provide documents.

Just before the hearing got underway, Bass called it "the latest attack on Los Angeles by the Trump Administration and his allies in Congress.”

"I don't run LAHSA," she said, adding that she was the first mayor to sit on its board and that street homelessness has dropped since she took office. The latest official count for the city showed a 8% year to year jump in street homelessness.

Bass stepped off LAHSA’s governing commission last week, after LAist reported she had missed most of its meetings since she appointed herself to it in 2023. The mayor cited “time and all” as her reason for stepping down. She continues to appoint — and has the power to remove — half the commission’s members, including its current chair.

What happened at the hearing

Much of the hour-and-a-half hearing focused on Republican members’ criticism that Democrat-led cities distribute drug paraphernalia and don’t require unhoused people with addictions to get treatment as a condition of living in publicly funded housing.

Some proposals raised Tuesday would change how money reaches Los Angeles.

Burchett said he will introduce the Recovery First Housing Act, to require federally funded housing to offer substance abuse treatment. He has also introduced a bill restricting federal housing dollars to only support U.S. citizens.

LA's fights on a national stage

Burchett noted LAHSA’s audit committee chair, Justin Szlasa — who was proactive in rooting out wasteful spending — was demoted by Stephanie Graves, a Bass appointee who has declined to give her reason for doing so. The move was first reported by LAist.

Burchett also made claims that don’t hold up. He said 50,000 people are homeless in the city with "another 75,000" in the surrounding county. The latest official count found a total of 73,000 unhoused people across L.A. County — a figure that includes the city.

Burchett also said, “ LAHSA recently doled out funds to an L.A.-area nonprofit whose CEO had just been indicted for fraud.” LAist recently investigated LAHSA’s awarding of funds to that nonprofit, Abundant Blessings, and found no indication that LAHSA awarded it any funds after the fraud indictment. However, the review did find that long before the indictment, LAHSA kept awarding millions in contracts to the group even after it was flagged internally as high-risk for failing to do its job.

Burchett, however, was correct in saying “a court-ordered independent assessment of LAHSA's finances found alarming financial control weaknesses that leave the door open to rampant fraud.”