CORRECTION [02/27/2025, 11:00 a.m.]: A previous version of this article stated that the permit transfer was needed for the pipeline restart. This article has been corrected to reflect that Sable Offshore states it is not needed while the Environmental Defense Center states it is needed. This update also includes the county’s position on the 2:2 vote, which means “no action.”
CORRECTION [02/27/2025, 12:52 p.m.]: A previous version of this article stated that Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann abstained from voting; this article has been updated to reflect that it was a recusal.
The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors deadlocked the transfer of county permits for the Las Flores Pipeline System from ExxonMobil to Sable Offshore at a Feb. 25 county hearing. But parties contest that this step by the county is necessary for Sable to restart pipeline operations, leaving the status of the pipeline restart unclear.
Environmental groups display signs that read “don’t enable Sable.” Sara Stevens / Daily Nexus
The hearing was the only opportunity for public comment since Sable was founded in 2020 to restart the Santa Ynez Unit. For the first time, community members publicly expressed concerns about cathodic protection for metal erosion, personal job stability and Sable’s financial capability to foot the bill should another spill, such as the 2015 Refugio State Beach oil spill, occur. In addition, around 100 people gathered outside the building to protest against the transfer.
In 2015, the Las Flores Pipeline ruptured due to corrosion, damaging nearly 1,500 acres of beach and killing an estimated 791 local wildlife creatures, making it one of the largest oil spills on the Pacific Coast to date. Sable is currently attempting to restart pipeline operations.
The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) appealed the transfer in November after the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission approved it in late October.
Santa Barbara County is the only governing body to require oil permit transfers to go through it first, according to County Supervising Planner Errin Briggs. Oil and gas companies in other cities such as Huntington Beach and Long Beach must notify their respective fire departments of a change in operator, but no other authorization is necessary.
The vote was split 2 against 2, with First District Supervisor Roy Lee and Second District Supervisor Laura Capps voting against the transfer and Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson and Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino voting in favor. Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann was recused from voting due to a conflict of interest because the pipeline runs near her home property.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Defense Center, alongside environmental nonprofits the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation, Get Oil Out! and the Santa Barbara County Action Network, appealed the transfer for the Las Flores Pipeline System, Santa Ynez Unit and the Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company Gas Plant.
Around 8 a.m., the EDC and the Center for Biological Diversity hosted a rally in front of the Santa Barbara County Administration Building opposing the pipeline’s restart. Green-clad protestors assembled in front of the building with signage that read “No Offshore Oil,” “Protect our Waters” and “Drilling is Killing.”
“I’m involved in the Isla Vista chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, and this has been a hot-button issue for us. And also, as an environmental studies major and just an avid lover of the beach, I felt like this is an important event to come out to,” third-year economics and environmental studies double major Elijah Stevenson said.
Speakers at the protest included Tribal Chair for the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Mati Waiya, EDC Staff Attorney Jeremy Frankel, Center for Biological Diversity Senior Oceans Campaigner Brady Bradshaw and UC Santa Barbara Environmental Affairs Board Advocacy Chair Jenna McGovern.
Those against the permit transfer ranged from concerned community members, UCSB student organizations including California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), UCSB Stop Sable and the I.V. chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, among other local environmental organizations.
“Why would we not be here [at the meeting]? We live here, and Sable [is] trying to come in and disrupt our ocean, and this issue would obviously cause harm to not only us, but the people that deserve to have this land be restored,” I.V. Surfrider Foundation member and fourth-year economics major Jacqueline Kurland said.
Also in the crowd were several supporters of Sable, some wearing “Sable” baseball caps. Supporters ranged from Sable employees and employees of companies who are employed by Sable for pipeline operations, such as Apex Companies and State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, to community members concerned with tax revenue and the community’s economic need for oil. Supporters near the rally declined requests for comment.
The hearing began around 9:15 a.m. Members of the Energy, Minerals and Compliance Division Briggs and Planner Jacquelynn Ybarra summarized their findings surrounding the permit transfer and appeal, recommending the supervisors deny the appeal and grant the transfer to Sable.
Sable and the appellants followed by stating their respective cases. The transfer surrounds 25B of the Code of Ordinances, passed in 2001 to ensure the safe operation of the pipeline — including “adequate financial responsibility” of oil and gas companies within the county. Its purpose was explicitly to halt large oil companies from transferring their assets to less experienced companies.
Sable argued that it was in full compliance with the code and that the county did not need to examine the company’s full performance and capabilities to approve the permit transfer.
“The matter before you is simply a change in name of the permits, the limited purpose of this hearing is to seek approval of the transfer of the county permits, from Exxon[Mobil] to Sable,” Sable Vice President of Environmental & Governmental Affairs Steve Rusch said. “To be clear the permit transfer does not affect the restart of operations.”
Supervisors Capps and Lavagnino emphasized that the permit transfer alone does not guarantee the restart of the pipeline.
The EDC and the Center for Biological Diversity argued Sable has not demonstrated the financial capabilities and experience to safely restart the pipeline and therefore could not comply with 25B.
“Between the cost to respond to a spill and Sable’s $800 million debt, Sable’s total possible liabilities could be well north of a billion dollars, all but guaranteeing its insolvency,” Frankel said.
As of 2024, Sable has a debt of $814.4 million. The 2015 spill cost then-owner of the pipeline, Plains All American Pipeline, around $870 million, with roughly $500 million going to settlements.
Public comment lasted from around 12 p.m. until 3 p.m., with 122 people making comments. Opinions spanned across both sides of the issue.
UCSB Environmental Affairs Board member Jenna McGovern gives public comment. Sara Stevens / Daily Nexus
“From everything I’ve heard today from everyone who’s spoken, I’ve yet to hear that every inch of that pipeline has evidence of corrosion protection,” local resident Laurie Bailey said. “This is the moment before the tragedy happens. This is the moment we’ll all look back on and say, did we make the right decision back then? This is the back then.”
Bailey’s late husband, Owen Bailey, was the EDC executive director for nine years.
Some Sable employees spoke about their need for employment in public comment.
“As a recent graduate, I understand the struggle of finding meaningful work. Many of us graduate with a degree but face difficulty securing stable local jobs all while dealing with student debt,” Sable employee and recent UC Merced graduate Juan-Daniel Montelongo said. “I experienced this firsthand when struggling to find work despite my education, then I found Sable Offshore.”
After public comment, each side gave their last comments and waited for the decision of the supervisors. The supervisors then gave their final speeches.
“This is not fair to the public that this is your one shot where we experienced a devastating spill in 2015 and this is what you get,” Capps said before the vote. “There’s so many layers, it’s designed to be really confusing.”
Lavagnino upheld that the hearing was solely for the transfer of permits.
“A woman asked today — and I think she summed up the thoughts of so many today — … ‘Do you stand with the people or do you stand with big business?’” Lavagnino said in his decision. “I came to the conclusion, we have to stand by the law.”
The announcement of the vote resulted in cheering from both sides, unsure of what the deadlock meant but hopeful for another chance to state their case in the future. Ultimately, Supervisor Capps said it is the county’s view that the split vote meant the permits did not go through.
When asked whether the county permit transfers were required to restart the pipeline, Communications Manager and Public Information Officer Kelsey Gerckens Buttitta referred the Nexus to the Office of the State Fire Marshall’s Pathways for Restarting Pipelines.
The pathway names several state agencies directly involved in its restart, and does not name the county in this list. However, the pathway does state that the Office of the State Fire Marshall (OSFM) will evaluate all compliance and safety requirements once all approvals – including ones from local agencies – are met.
The EDC also said the vote meant no action for now, that the permit was needed to restart the pipeline and that Sable will now have to negotiate an operator agreement with ExxonMobil.
“EDC has been working really, really hard, and I think the county ultimately made the correct decision today,” Frankel said after the hearing. “I think this is a huge step for our county. I think that the county’s decision really reflects an understanding that this company can’t be trusted to responsibly operate and doesn’t have the financial wherewithal to mediate another spill, when one happens or abandon the facilities, leaving taxpayers liable.”
Sable said it viewed the split vote as meaning that the appeal did not pass and that the Planning Commission’s decision stands. Also, that the permit transfer was not needed to continue.
“Sable is pleased the appeals failed and the Planning Commission’s approval of the Santa Ynez Unit permit transfer to Sable stands,” Rusch said in a statement to the Nexus. “We look forward to continuing to work with the County to finalize the permit transfer, and to safely restarting production as soon as possible.”
A version of this article appeared on p. 1 of the Feb. 27, 2025 edition of the Daily Nexus.
