Nine months after a split decision, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors will again decide whether to transfer operating permits to Sable Offshore Corp. as the company pursues its goals of restarting oil production in the county.

The board was ordered by a Superior Court judge to vote on whether to transfer a series of permits to Sable, which would allow the company to move forward with its goal of restarting the Santa Ynez Unit. The unit includes the pipeline that ruptured in 2015, causing the Refugio oil spill.

After the board failed to reach a decision in February, Sable sued the county, requesting that the court force the county to transfer the permits. Instead, a Superior Court judge declined the request and instructed the board to discuss the transfer again.

The board is set to hear the case on Tuesday during its weekly meeting in Santa Barbara, at the County Administration Building,105 E. Anapamu St.

The pipeline in question is part of the Santa Ynez Unit, which includes offshore platforms, a Gaviota Coast processing facility, and transportation pipelines. 

Sable purchased the unit from ExxonMobil in 2024. The pipeline, Plains’ Line 901, was owned by Plains All American Pipeline when it burst in 2015, and it was later purchased by ExxonMobil.

Sable is planning to restart oil production at the Santa Ynez Unit by reactivating the pipeline, including Plains’ Line 901. However, the company must obtain the county operating permits for the pipeline before it can restart operations.

The company also needs to gain state approval and has already submitted a restart plan for the pipeline. The Office of the State Fire Marshal confirmed it has received the plan and is reviewing it. There is no update on when the state will announce its decision. 

During the Feb. 25 meeting, the board voted 2-2 on whether to approve the transfer. Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino and Fourth District Supervisor Bob Nelson voted in favor of the transfer. Second District Supervisor Laura Capps and First District Supervisor Roy Lee voted against the transfer.

Third District Supervisor Joan Hartmann recused herself during the first discussion, citing a conflict of interest. Part of the pipeline in question runs underneath her property.

To approve the transfer, the board would have needed a majority vote. The permit transfer was not approved because of the stalemate, and Sable sued the county in an attempt to force the transfer.

Judge Dolly Gee instead sent the issue back to the Board of Supervisors, saying it was required to vote on the issue again within 60 days of its decision. If a decision is not reached, the board must rehear the issue every 45 days until a majority vote is reached.

Hartmann’s office said the supervisor will be able to vote during Tuesday’s meeting after receiving clearance from the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

According to Hartmann’s office, the FPPC advised that the supervisor does not have “a disqualifying financial interest” in the decision and will be able to participate in the meeting. Even though part of the pipeline runs under her property, the FPPC found that Hartman does not stand to make any financial gain from the decision.

Opposition to the Transfer

Since obtaining the Santa Ynez Unit, Sable has stated that it wants to restart the facility to help provide more oil to the region. Sable was originally founded to take over and restart the Santa Ynez Unit, which has been shut down since 2015.

In a previous statement, Jim Flores, the CEO and chairman of Sable, expressed concerns about California’s economy if the pipeline does not begin pumping oil again.

“Sable is very concerned about the state’s crumbling energy complex,” Flores said. “California’s economy will face dire consequences if refineries continue to close due to the lack of domestic production, which should be a major concern for the bondholders of the State of California.”

Sable also argues that it offers well-paying jobs to residents in Santa Barbara’s North County. Supporters of Sable have argued to the Board of Supervisors that oil and gas jobs support families and allow them to make good money without college degrees.

Proponents also state that the oil and gas industry still provides an essential product that is used to make a variety of oil-based products.

Critics of the plans have raised concerns about restarting the facility after the pipeline burst that caused the Refugio oil spill 10 years ago. The rupture dumped about 142,000 gallons of crude oil onto the Gaviota shoreline and into the ocean.

Environmental groups have argued that using an aging pipeline that has already ruptured is an accident waiting to happen. They have also raised concerns about whether Sable, a relatively new company, can afford to clean up potential spills.

In the aftermath of the spill, Plains was forced to pay a fine of $50.5 million to the California State Lands Commission. The company also paid $60 million to the federal government and $230 million in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by local fishermen and shoreline property owners.

ExxonMobil later purchased the pipeline and facilities from Plains before it announced a sale of the Santa Ynez Unit weeks later. Sable, which bought the unit, was officially formed in February 2024.

Activist groups also have raised concerns about whether Sable can be trusted to act as an operator. Opponents have pointed to Sable’s violations of the California Coastal Commission’s orders as an example of how the company violates laws.

In November 2024, Sable was issued a cease-and-desist order by the commission after it was alerted that the company had begun construction near the pipeline.

Sable excavated 3.7 acres across its worksites and an estimated 72,000 cubic yards of soil in the coastal zone, according to court documents.

The California Coastal Commission alleged that Sable had conducted the work without proper permits and instructed the company to stop. Sable ignored its instructions despite multiple cease-and-desist orders.

The commission fined Sable $18 million for defying its authority and disturbing the ecosystem in the coastal zone. Sable later sued the commission, but a Superior Court judge found that Sable had conducted the work without proper permits.

The court also determined that the commission was within its authority to fine Sable for the construction.

Sable said the work was done to repair anomalies in the pipeline, and all construction was conducted in accordance with federal rulings.

Sable also faces criminal charges for the work committed in the zone. The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office officially announced on Sept. 18 that it had filed 21 criminal charges against Sable, including five felony charges of violating the California Water Code.