In total, 116 people signed up for public comment to voice their support or frustrations with the oil company. Grace Medecki / Daily Nexus
The decision followed two ignored cease and desist letters issued to Sable by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for continuing the maintenance and rebuilding of the pipeline, which caused over 400,000 gallons of oil to spill along the coast in the 2015 Refugio oil spill. Sable has not received valid permits despite campaigning to restart the pipeline.
“What’s really before us today is a compliance issue,” CCC Chairman Justin Cummings said. “I think the staff made it pretty clear that there was a need to come forward and get those permits, which ultimately for us is intended on making sure that the work that [Sable does] provides the greatest protections to our environment.”
At their meeting, the Commission voted on three separate action items related to the Sable Offshore pipeline. They passed a third cease and desist order to discontinue all development on the pipeline, including heavy excavation and vegetation removal, and to require Sable to submit a permit application to restart work. They also motioned for Sable to take restorative actions to undo where work had been started.
The commissioners passed an $18,022,500 administrative penalty against Sable for ignoring multiple cease and desist orders in an 8-3 split vote. Commissioners Effie Turnbull-Sanders, Susan Lowenberg and Mike Wilson voted against the penalty, citing that the increased penalty amount from $14,987,250 to $18,022,500 is too high for Sable to pay.
“Although I am in favor of a fine, I am now forced to vote no on this,” Lowenberg told the panel when asked to vote on approving the higher fine. “I am not happy with my colleagues on this.”
Sable employees, environmental activists involved in the UC Santa Barbara Stop Sable initiative and Commission members gathered at the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort starting at 8 a.m. for the CCC meeting.
The meeting was heavily attended by advocacy groups voicing their frustrations against the oil company, as well as Sable’s supporters. Attendees against Sable’s unauthorized work on the pipeline included government officials, local environmental volunteer organizations and a group of students from Santa Barbara Middle School.
Second-year environmental studies major Lila Werland expressed frustration regarding Sable’s unpermitted work.
“Let’s not be fooled, Sable is a shell company of Exxon[Mobil]. This is not a small business oil company,” Werland said.
UCSB students from the Stop Sable initiative on campus — a collaboration between the Associated Students (A.S.) Environmental Affairs Board (EAB), California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) and Environmental Law Club — voiced their concerns.
“This is just such a relevant issue right now,” third-year environmental studies major and EAB Advocacy Co-Chair Nikki Talebi said. “It’s the first time these three groups have come together and worked together on an issue. We just really wanted to make sure we had enough widespread support throughout UCSB by bringing these groups together.”
The hearing began with arguments for and against the three action items presented by the CCC. Enforcement Counsel Stephanie Cook, Assistant Chief Counsel Alex Helperin and Director of the Commission’s energy division Cassidy Teufel said the work caused heavy damage to vegetation and posed threats to wildlife.
“There is no precedent for this kind of direct disregard for legal orders, and it is highly problematic for an entity to flatly refuse to comply with a legal issue order,” Cook said.
Cook referred to images of the unpermitted work conducted by Sable, which amounted to nine separate violations of the California Coastal Act. The act is a set of provisions established in California’s state legislature regulating all work on the coast to preserve coastal resources.
In total, 3.7 acres of heavy excavation were made between Gaviota State Park beach and Refugio State Beach. Sable reportedly dug 72,000 cubic yards of soil and established 136 worksites, according to Cook’s presentation. She noted that continued work into 12 sites in Gaviota State Park could also damage approximately 14,000 square feet of environmentally sensitive area and require the construction of up to three miles of access roads in sensitive habitats.
“We have repeatedly asked for Sable to apply for development permits, as well as any future planned work,” Cook said. “However, staff have been continually met with Sable’s continual refusal to comply with the Coastal Act.”
Sable’s Vice President of Environmental & Governmental Affairs Steve Rusch and External Counsel Duncan Joseph Moore spoke on behalf of the oil company. Both stated that the work done had only concerned routine maintenance and repair work along the pipeline.
“In this instance, Commission staff and Sable fundamentally disagree whether the Coastal Act authorization exists for the work and whether the commission has the jurisdiction to issue these orders,” Rusch said.
Moore said that Sable has been continuing to repair the safety valves along the pipeline, and that the valves are part of Sable’s necessary routine repairs. He reported that the Office of the State Fire Marshal had approved 18 safety valves, seven of which are located in the coastal zone.
“This work was completed substantially before the Commission issued its 2024 [Notice of Violation]. Importantly, the valves were installed within the pipeline’s already disturbed corridor and permanently impacted corridors,” Moore said.
In total, 116 people signed up for public comment to voice their support or frustrations with the oil company.
Former California Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson said the pipeline is a “problem” during a public comment. She served as state representative of the Santa Barbara district from 2012-2020, witnessing the 2015 oil spill.
“I think the fact that we have a company that has chosen to just ignore those responsibilities is a level of arrogance that we cannot accept. Nobody is above the law,” Jackson said.
According to the Santa Barbara Independent, the commission received 2,600 letters from California residents in favor of Sable’s actions.
Sable advocates ranged from long-term employees working on the pipeline to contractors working with Sable for projects concerning oil.
“What we are seeing here is government overreach aimed at shutting down high-skill, high-paying jobs that our communities rely on,” Sable advocate Jose Crespo said in a public comment.
Fourth-year environmental studies major and President of Environmental Law Club Mia DiCostanzo noted that this decision would have a heavy financial impact on the oil company. Based on financial reports from 2024, the company is already facing a debt of $814.4 million.
“Sable is already in millions of dollars in debt and facing a multimillion dollar fine today,” DiCostanzo said. “I wanted to be here to show that the students care. These people are subject to political pressure; that means they have to care about what their constituents think.”
Fourth-year environmental studies and communication double major and EAB Advocacy Co-Chair Jenna McGovern also noted UCSB’s long-standing history in activism against oil, originating from the 1969 oil spill that helped to spur the first Earth Day and the student activism that followed the Refugio oil spill.
“Ever since Earth Day and [the 1969 and 2015 oil spills], it’s always been UCSB students,” McGovern said. “Being able to rally students with our energy and our community and togetherness, I think that’s very important for this issue and community in Santa Barbara to see that young people do care.”
This decision comes in light of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation suing the Trump administration and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management earlier this month for allegedly failing to follow federal regulations for the restart of the Santa Ynez Unit.
“Despite having worked with Coastal [Commission] staff for many months, the Commission and Sable disagree regarding whether Coastal Act authorization exists for the work and whether the Commission has the authority to order our maintenance and repair work to stop,” Rusch said. “No California business should be forced to go through a protracted and arbitrary permitting process when it already has valid permits for the work it performed.”
The CCC motioned that Sable will only be liable to pay the $14,987,250 fine if they follow the first two enforcement actions to stop all further work to the pipeline. Sable will have to pay the full $18,022,500 if they ignore the enforcement items.
A version of this article appeared on p. 1 of the Apr. 17, 2025 edition of the Daily Nexus.
