Coastal Commission Adds to Sable Sanction

“We weren’t expecting that,” said Alex Katz, Executive Director of the Environmental Defense Center, to the Montecito Journal shortly after the California Coastal Commission fined Sable Offshore Corp. $18 million for unapproved work on the Las Flores pipeline. Katz and other environmental activists were quite surprised, yet pleased, when the commission raised the fine by more than three million dollars. 

At the April 10th meeting, the Coastal Commission accused Sable of violating the California Coastal Act by disregarding repeated directives to halt all pipeline work, including two cease-and-desist orders. Since issuing the first order in November, the commission has maintained a clear and consistent message: Sable must apply for new permits. 

Sable argues otherwise, feeling no need to apply for a new Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Instead, they say they received support from the County to conduct repairs under the original 1980s permits. They also accused the commission of “overstepping” its authority by ordering them to stop work, and in February, they sued the Commission. 

Sable also accused commission staff of “repeatedly” ignoring the County’s authorization of their repair work. Representing Sable, DJ Moore of Latham & Watkins read aloud a letter from Santa Barbara County planner, Lisa Plowman, in which she says, “Commission staff has all the information that the County considered prior to concluding that the pipeline anomaly repair work identified in the February 12, 2025, letter is authorized by the existing permits and was analyzed in the prior environmental review.”

Commissioners strongly disagreed with the County and Sable’s claims that their work was within the confines of the original permits. They said the so-called repair work was “extensive” and far beyond what is laid out in the original permits. “What we have seen occurring on the ground in the photos that were presented today, it’s not repair, it’s replacement,” said Commissioner and Santa Barbara City Councilmember, Meagan Harmon. 

Chair Justin Cummings proposed the fine increase, saying, “I think that we really need to send a message to folks in the state that they need to come work with us. But if you want to go out and try to supersede the people in the state of California, we’re going to stand up for ourselves.”

The fine amount is calculated by the number of violation days, which varies – $7,000 a day for some and $11,000 for others. Commission staff said they wanted to impose a “reasonable and defensible penalty,” which also happened to be the largest they have ever enforced. 

Commissioner Susan Lowenberg was “fully opposed” to the fine increase and said she was “very disappointed” with her colleagues for the last-minute surprise. She ultimately voted against the rise alongside Commissioner Effie Turnbull-Sanders, making the vote 9-2. 

The commissioners also issued Sable another cease-and-desist order, ordering them to complete restoration efforts in areas where they accused them of “under-permitted development.” 

“The Sable Offshore team has decades of experience in successfully collaborating with government agencies,” said Sable Vice President of Environmental and Governmental Affairs Steve Rusch, in a prepared statement following the hearing. “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.

“That’s a fundamental disagreement that the parties have not been able to resolve,” he continued. “Sable is dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner. 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.”

Sable continues to assert that the repair work occurred within the pipeline’s already disturbed and permanently impacted corridor, where impacts to biological resources were already found. However, Coastal Commission staff say that’s incorrect. They argued that activities like extensive excavation, vegetation removal, and the removal of the insulation layer were not covered by the original permits.

In their staff report, the Coastal Commission says that photographs from early October depicted improperly installed erosion control measures and excavation activities on steep slopes near sensitive habitats, including riparian wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). “All of this leads Commission staff to have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of any potential measures taken to safeguard against coastal resources damage,” they said in the report. 

Commissioners expressed disappointment with County officials, who they said failed to explain their decision-making process. The Coastal Commission staff indicated that they believed the County had not acted appropriately to address Sable’s alleged unpermitted development, suggesting a failure on the County’s part to adequately protect coastal resources. Commissioner Harmon expressed “utter confusion” and frustration, feeling the situation could have been avoided if the County had acted differently. 

“Santa Barbara County failed to act, and I have to go on record with my frustration about that,” said Harmon, who felt that it was unfair that the responsibility had fallen on them. “I’m just shocked in the way that the County wasn’t here to tell its own citizens why they wanted to let this go unreviewed and un-responded to,” echoed Commissioner Dayna Bochco. 

At the commission hearing and past county meetings, Sable employees have shown up supporting their employer by wearing Sable hats and shirts, some even bringing their wives and husbands. Commissioners and staff members acknowledged these employees, saying their quarrel is not with them. It’s “not an issue of environment versus jobs,” said Lisa Haage, chief of enforcement for the commission. “Our beef here is with the corporate entity and not with their employees.” 

Some Sable employees would say otherwise. “So it feels probably different to everybody,” confided Sable employee Leo Dickhaut to the Montecito Journal when asked about the state of his job. “But it’s a scary thought to think that tomorrow you can’t pay your mortgage payment, can’t pay your car payment, you can’t put food on the table for your kids. I mean, that’s why we’re here today, supporting the company,” he continued, “Because we have – you have – families. All of us have families, right?”

Over 100 people signed up to speak at the public comment, which lasted hours. Former State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson stepped up to the mic, joking that “You can’t put lipstick on a pig,” when referring to Sable’s efforts to repair the corroded pipeline, the same one responsible for the 2015 Refugio oil spill. 

A group of 20 middle schoolers from Santa Barbara Middle School lined up for public comment to share their concerns about the potential Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) restart. They worried that restarting the unit would inevitably cause an oil spill. Many shared their love for the beach and worried another spill would be worse than the 2015 one. 

Commission staff offered Sable to decrease their fine by 10%, from $18,022,500 to the initially proposed amount of $14,987,250, if they applied for a new Coastal Development Permit, as they had initially asked them to do. 

Still, despite the commission’s willingness to reduce the fine, some members emphasized that safety concerns must be balanced with compliance. “I’m acutely aware of the need for pipeline repair work,” said Commissioner Harmon. “I want repairs to happen. I believe that repairs are necessary. We need them. I don’t think anyone wants to stop repairs that are going to keep us safe,” she continued. “I certainly do (support repairs), but they have to be done in the right way.”