Santa Barbara judge rules against company that turned to Trump for help restarting pipeline

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.