Subscribe now

The measure responds to the Trump administration’s efforts to expand offshore oil production. Supporters argue that California must prevent companies holding newly issued federal leases from using pipelines and other infrastructure in state waters to bring additional offshore production to market.

The measure would prohibit the State Lands Commission and local trustees of public-trust lands from approving new leases or other conveyances authorizing construction of infrastructure in state waters to support those federal leases. Existing leases and infrastructure in state waters also could not be used for that purpose.

The restrictions would not prevent repairs or maintenance needed to operate existing infrastructure safely. Pipelines and other facilities could also continue transporting oil and natural gas produced from state waters.

Applications to renew, extend, amend or modify leases for state infrastructure connected to post-2026 federal leases would be subject to additional public review. The commission or local trustee would have to place an application on a public meeting agenda and wait at least 180 days before acting on it.

Before approving an application, officials would have to consider its effects on marine resources and public-trust values; whether it would increase the amount of oil or gas transported through state waters; the infrastructure’s spill history; its connection to unconventional production techniques; and whether the operator has provided adequate financial assurances for spill liability and decommissioning.

An application that would begin, expand, intensify or restart federal offshore production could not be approved at the meeting where it is first presented. The commission or local trustee would also have to accept public comments at the meeting where it votes on the application.

AB 1448 would separately prohibit the State Lands Commission from issuing oil and gas extraction leases within California marine protected areas or national marine sanctuaries.

The bill would also strengthen requirements for transferring state oil and gas leases. The commission would have to consider the proposed operator’s experience, finances, compliance record and ability to protect public resources. The incoming operator would have to post a bond covering at least the estimated cost of decommissioning.

The outgoing operator would generally remain responsible for plugging wells, decommissioning facilities, restoring sites and remediating contamination. The commission could release it from those obligations only after finding that the work had been completed or receiving financial security covering the estimated liability plus 20%.

The Senate approved AB 1448 by a 29–10 vote on August 26, 2026. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments by a 46–18 vote on August 27, 2026. The bill now goes to Governor Gavin Newsom.

AB 1448 was originally introduced and passed in the Assembly in 2025 amid Sable Offshore Corp.’s effort to restart production from the Santa Ynez Unit off Santa Barbara County. Although Sable operates under longstanding federal leases that predate the bill’s 2026 cutoff, the legislation’s broader lease-review and financial-assurance provisions could affect Sable and other operators using infrastructure that crosses state waters.

Subscribe now

The commission staff determined that the proposed project was inconsistent with California coastal protection policies because it would extend production from aging offshore infrastructure and increase the risk of oil spills that could harm marine ecosystems, commercial fishing, and other coastal resources. Commissioners also objected to a separate consistency determination submitted by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management covering the project.

DCOR proposed to conduct fracking operations over five years, increasing oil production on Platform Gilda from approximately 1,100 barrels per day as high as 4,000 barrels per day. The project’s environmental review projected production of approximately 14 million barrels of oil and 13 million additional cubic feet of natural gas over the next 20 years. An analysis submitted to the commission estimated that fracking would yield approximately 8 million to 8.5 million more barrels than continued conventional production.

Platform Gilda, installed in 1981 and located roughly nine miles offshore of Ventura County, has produced approximately 42.6 million barrels of oil and 51.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas as of the end of 2025, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Because the platform is more than three nautical miles offshore, in the federal Outer Continental Shelf, the project is outside state waters and is not directly covered by California’s statewide prohibition on hydraulic fracturing.

Offshore fracking, however, has been subject to a federal court prohibition since a 2019 order barred federal agencies from authorizing well-stimulation treatments until they completed the environmental reviews required by federal law. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit upheld rulings that the federal government had violated the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act. The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review that decision.

In March, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) initiated a fast-tracked environmental review of the project and completed the review in April. The Trump administration contended that this review satisfies the required environmental reviews.

California officials have challenged the expedited federal process, arguing that BOEM is bound by the Ninth Circuit decision and subsequent district court injunction requiring BOEM to complete a full EIS and comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) before approving any permits for well stimulation treatments.

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act, however, gives the Coastal Commission authority to determine whether federally authorized projects that could affect California’s coastal resources are consistent with the state’s federally approved coastal management program.

The commission’s objection prevents the federal government from authorizing DCOR’s proposal unless the company successfully appeals to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The secretary may override the state if the project is found consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act or necessary for national security.

The vote also comes as the Trump administration is reviewing California’s federal coastal authority.

Subscribe now

According to the staff report to DCOR, the project would significantly increase oil production while extending the operating life of aging offshore infrastructure, creating unacceptable risks to marine resources, commercial fisheries, coastal recreation, and public safety.

DCOR’s proposed fracking operations would be carried out over five years and are expected to increase oil production at the platform from 1,100 barrels per day to 4,000 barrels per day. The project would also recover approximately 14 million barrels of oil and 13 million additional cubic feet of natural gas over the next 20 years that would otherwise remain in the reservoir.

The wells are located in federal waters and are therefore not subject to California’s statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing. The Coastal Commission staff notes, however, that the project lies adjacent to some of California’s most environmentally sensitive marine resources. The area includes the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, marine protected areas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, biologically important whale habitat, essential fish habitat, and productive commercial fishing grounds.

A central concern throughout the report is the age of Platform Gilda and its associated infrastructure. The platform and pipelines have operated for approximately 45 years, more than double the 18-year operating life anticipated when originally approved in 1980. Staff concludes that increasing production through hydraulic fracturing would place additional stress on aging wells, pipelines, and processing equipment while substantially increasing the amount of oil transported through the system.

The report also cites DCOR’s recent operating history. The commission staff notes that facilities operated by the company were involved in two of Southern California’s most significant offshore incidents in recent years—the 2021 Huntington Beach pipeline spill and the 2026 offshore natural gas leak and platform fire near Carpinteria. According to the report, these incidents demonstrate that inspection and maintenance programs cannot eliminate the risk of spills from aging offshore facilities.

The California Coastal Commission will consider the recommendation on August 13, when it considers both DCOR’s federal consistency certification and a separate consistency determination submitted by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).

If the Commission adopts staff’s recommendation and objects to DCOR’s consistency certification, the company may appeal the decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Secretary may override the state’s objection only if the project is consistent with the objectives of the Act or is necessary in the interest of national security.

The project has been part of the Trump administration’s conflict with California over offshore oil production. In March, BOEM initiated a fast-tracked environmental review to evaluate the proposal and completed the review in late April over the opposition of California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Subscribe now

The EIA completes a fast-tracked federal review of the proposed treatments on up to 16 existing wells at the platform as part of DCOR LLC’s update to its Development and Production Plan. The EIS is not an approval of the project. A separate record of decision will determine whether the activity is authorized.

BOEM said it completed the review in 28 days under the Department of the Interior’s “alternative arrangements” for National Environmental Policy Act compliance during a declared national energy emergency. Typical environmental reviews can often take several years.

The expedited review is part of broader federal efforts to expand domestic oil and gas production following executive actions prioritizing energy security. DCOR has argued that additional well stimulation at Platform Gilda is necessary to sustain offshore production and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.

BOEM framed the proposal as an incremental production enhancement using existing infrastructure, avoiding the environmental footprint associated with new offshore development.

Platform Gilda, installed in 1981 and located roughly nine miles offshore Ventura County, has produced approximately 42.6 million barrels of oil and 51.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas as of the end of 2025, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

State Opposition

California officials have challenged the expedited federal process. Rob Bonta formally opposed the review in a March 30 comment letter, arguing that the use of emergency procedures violates federal law and prior court orders governing offshore well stimulation.

Bonta argued that BOEM is bound by a 2022 Ninth Circuit decision and subsequent district court injunction requiring BOEM to complete a full EIS and comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) before approving any permits for well stimulation treatments.

The dispute sets up a potential federal-state conflict over offshore energy development authority and environmental review standards, particularly as the federal government moves to accelerate permitting under emergency declarations.

The outcome could be a test case for the use of emergency NEPA procedures to advance offshore oil production and could shape future federal actions on energy infrastructure permitting in California waters.

The attorney general argued in a March 30, 2026 comment letter that the process violates federal law and longstanding court orders. “Curtailing procedural requirements for environmental review in the name of a fake ‘national energy emergency’ is unlawful,” Bonta said in a statement.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) initiated a fast-tracked environmental review to evaluate a proposal to authorize well stimulation treatments, including fracking, on up to 16 existing wells on Platform Gilda. The authorization of well stimulation treatments is a change from the existing Development and Production Plan, and BOEM is conducting the review under the Interior Department’s “alternative arrangements” for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance during a declared national energy emergency.

Bonta challenged BOEM’s reliance on “alternative arrangements” under a declared national energy emergency to fast-track the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, arguing those procedures are unlawful and inconsistent with federal regulations. Bonta argued that the emergency procedures do not cover well stimulation treatments on Platform Gilda.

Bonta argued that BOEM is bound by a 2022 Ninth Circuit decision and subsequent district court injunction requiring BOEM to complete a full EIS and comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) before approving any permits for well stimulation treatments. Completing a full EIS would take far longer than the expedited review process, which could be completed in roughly 28 days from the date of the notice with 10 days for public comment. Bonta argued that BOEM risks violating that injunction if it proceeds without a comprehensive review.

Subscribe now

In a March 18, 2026 notice of intent, BOEM said it will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate a proposal to authorize well stimulation treatments, including fracking, across existing wells at the site. Platform Gilda, located approximately nine miles offshore in the Santa Barbara Channel, is part of the Santa Clara Unit and is operated by DCOR LLC.

BOEM’s proposed action is to authorize fracking across 16 existing wells using existing offshore infrastructure. BOEM framed the action as an incremental enhancement of production that avoids the environmental impacts associated with new offshore development.

Fast-Track Review under Emergency NEPA Procedures

BOEM is conducting the review under the Interior Department’s “alternative arrangements” for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance during a declared national energy emergency. The EIS process could be completed in roughly 28 days from the date of the notice—far shorter than typical multi-year NEPA timelines.

The expedited review reflects broader federal efforts to expand domestic oil and gas production following executive orders declaring a national energy emergency and prioritizing increased domestic energy production. In its January 2026 application, DCOR said fracking at Platform Gilda is “needed to maintain Platform Gilda’s offshore production levels to support the national interest in reducing dependence on foreign energy sources, efficiently increasing domestic production and conserving resources in accordance with Executive Orders (EO) 14154 and EO 14156.” DCOR had previously applied for fracking permits that were slowed by the 2022 court decision.

Long-Standing Offshore Fracking Restrictions

Offshore fracking in California has been effectively blocked for years by litigation. In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that federal agencies violated environmental laws by approving offshore well stimulation without adequate review. The court ruled that the federal government must complete a full EIS review before approving permits for offshore oil drilling platforms.

The decision, which stemmed from a 2016 lawsuit brought by California and environmental groups, prevented the Interior Department and other federal agencies from issuing fracking permits until a complete EIS was issued.

The U.S. Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision in 2023, leaving in place a de facto moratorium on offshore fracking until comprehensive environmental analysis is completed.

Earlier district court rulings in 2018 similarly halted permitting, citing violations of the Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act.

Production Context and Policy Implications

Platform Gilda has produced approximately 42.6 million barrels of oil and 51.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas since beginning operations in 1981, according to federal data.

The review follows separate federal actions earlier this year to consider new offshore lease sales in California waters, suggesting a broader policy shift toward increased offshore development. In February 2026, BOEM announced that it will begin preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for potential oil and gas lease sales off the coast of California. The review encompasses the Northern, Central and Southern California Planning Areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Separately, the Trump administration has taken steps to support the restart of offshore oil production linked to the Santa Ynez Unit offshore oil field. Most recently, it directed Sable Offshore Corp. to restart the oil pipeline system serving the Santa Ynez Unit, citing national security concerns and the need to strengthen domestic energy supply on the West Coast.

Subscribe now

The action, published as a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on February 27, 2026, initiates the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and marks the first formal step toward evaluating offshore leasing options under the 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The Department of the Interior released a draft proposal in November 2025 to lease approximately 1.27 billion acres in the OCS, including in six areas off the coast of California.

The PEIS will analyze a representative California lease sale and assess environmental, economic and resource considerations that could inform lease sales currently scheduled for 2027 in the Central and Southern California planning areas, as well as any future sales off the state’s coast.

“California households are facing an energy affordability crisis, and inaction is no longer an option,” Acting BOEM Director Matt Giacona said in a statement. “This Notice of Intent reflects the administration’s commitment to responsibly evaluating offshore leasing as part of a broader strategy to lower costs, strengthen energy security, and support American jobs.”

BOEM said the representative lease sale would include all unleased blocks in federally managed portions of the planning areas that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources. The agency emphasized that the Notice of Intent does not authorize drilling or finalize any lease sale. Instead, it begins a multi-step review process that includes environmental analysis, public input and subsequent federal decision-making.

The notice opens a 30-day public scoping period during which tribal governments, state and local agencies, stakeholders and members of the public may submit comments. BOEM said input received during scoping will help define the scope of analysis, identify reasonable alternatives and outline potential mitigation measures for consideration in the PEIS. The agency is also inviting qualified government entities to participate as cooperating agencies in the environmental review process.

Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, BOEM is responsible for managing offshore oil and gas leasing in federal waters. Lease sales, if ultimately held, can generate bonus bids, annual rental payments and production royalties for the federal government. Offshore activities also support employment across exploration, development and supply-chain sectors, according to the agency.

The programmatic environmental review will examine potential impacts on marine ecosystems, fisheries, coastal communities, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, among other factors. The analysis is expected to evaluate cumulative impacts and alternatives, including a no-action alternative in which no lease sale would occur.

Subscribe now

While the action does not authorize drilling or commit the federal government to holding lease sales, the calls are the first step in the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing process. BOEM could hold offshore lease auctions as soon as 2027.

“These Calls begin a careful analysis of two key areas with promising resource potential on the Outer Continental Shelf to help guide future decisions about potential leasing and development—supporting U.S. energy security, creating good-paying jobs, and reducing reliance on foreign energy, all while maintaining our commitment to responsible environmental stewardship,” BOEM Acting Director Matt Giacona said in a statement.

The review is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to expand domestic oil and gas production. In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued a series of energy-related memorandums and executives orders that included lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling in federal waters. The orders established U.S. policy to “encourage energy production and exploration on federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

In November, the Department of the Interior released a draft proposal to lease approximately 1.27 billion acres in the OCS, including in six areas off the coast of California. The draft proposal, released on November 20, 2025, follows reports on a leaked draft of the plan earlier this month.

West Coast Opposition

California, Oregon, and Washington moved to oppose the federal action, submitting a joint comment objecting to any new offshore leasing along the Pacific coast. California Governor Gavin Newsom, joined by Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, said the proposal threatens coastal economies and ecosystems while offering limited energy benefits. In a joint statement, the governors argued that offshore drilling poses unacceptable spill risks to fisheries, tourism, ports, and sensitive marine habitats. The California Department of Justice also submitted a comment in opposition.

Legal Risks Loom

State officials have signaled that litigation is likely if the federal government moves beyond preliminary review toward lease sales. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has already sued the Trump administration over federal approvals related to offshore oil infrastructure, including Sable Offshore Corp.’s restart of oil pipelines serving offshore platforms in state waters.

The issuance of oil leases off the coast of California would likely face challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and other federal statutes that require extensive environmental review and state consistency determinations.

Limited Energy Impact

Offshore production in Pacific federal waters currently accounts for approximately 0.1% of total U.S. offshore oil output, according to federal data cited by Reuters. No new federal leases have been issued off California since the early 1980s. Opponents of offshore drilling argue that even a small probability of a spill carries outsized consequences for California’s coastline. (For background on California’s opposition to offshore drilling, see California’s Energy Transition from Oil State to Fossil Free: Introduction Part Three—Offshore Drilling).

Next Procedural Steps

The current BOEM notices initiate a public comment period and data-gathering phase. The agency will use the submissions to inform whether to include California planning areas in a future five-year offshore leasing program.

Subscribe now

The 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program includes 34 potential offshore lease sales in federal OCS planning areas. The 34 potential offshore lease sales include six along the California coast in what would be the first federal oil and gas lease sales along the Pacific coast since 1984.

The Secretary of the Interior issued an order titled “Unleashing American Offshore Energy,” which directs the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to terminate the Biden administration’s 2024–2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program and replace it with a new program for 2026–2031 by October 2026. The secretary’s order implements President Trump’s executive order on “Unleashing American Energy,” which established as U.S. policy to “encourage energy production and exploration on federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

Potential Lease Areas

The 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program includes 34 potential offshore lease sales across 21 of 27 federal OCS planning areas. The 34 potential offshore lease sales include six along the California coast, seven in the Gulf of Mexico, and 21 off the coast of Alaska. Of the six California areas, three are off the coast of southern California starting in 2027, two along the central coast starting in 2027, and one off the coast of northern California starting in 2029.

Southern California has been the focus of California offshore oil development. There were 10 lease sales in the Southern California Planning Area between 1963 and 1984 with significant exploration and development. There are 30 existing leases, and all leases are producing. Active leases currently produce oil from 23 oil platforms in federal waters and four platforms in state waters. There has been a new state lease since 1969. Eight platforms in federal waters are being decommissioned.

The Northern California Planning Area has had only one lease sale, in 1963, with no commercial discoveries, according to the proposal. The Central California Planning Area has also had only one lease sale, also in 1963 and also with no commercial discoveries.

Governor Gavin Newsom, a likely presidential candidate in 2028, expressed opposition to the plan, potentially setting up offshore oil drilling as an election issue. “Trump’s idiotic plan endangers our coastal economy and communities and hurts the well-being of Californians,” he said in a statement. “This reckless attempt to sell out our coastline to his Big Oil donors is dead in the water. Californians remember the environmental and economic devastation of past oil spills,” he said.

“For decades, California has stood firm in our opposition to new offshore drilling, and nothing will change that. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect our coastline.”

Subscribe now

The plan would open lease sales in federal waters off Alaska in 2026, the coasts of southern and central California in 2027, and along the Atlantic Coast in 2028. The plan, however, would exempt Florida, Georgia and South Carolina from offshore drilling. It would also, reportedly, remove the requirement for draft environmental impact statements for the leases.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act allows the president to “from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” The withdrawal of these lands has recently become a heightened political issue.

Trump has long supported increased offshore drilling and, during his first term in 2017, he issued an executive order stating that it was U.S. policy to encourage energy exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). His five-year leasing plan proposed leases in the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic oceans. A court ruling that only Congress, and not the administration, can repeal a ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean put the broader five-year plan on hold. (see California’s Energy Transition from Oil State to Fossil Free: Introduction Part Three—Offshore Drilling).

In 2022, President Joe Biden withdrew much of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts from drilling in his five-year plan for 2023-2028. In January 2025, Biden issued an executive order banning new offshore oil and gas drilling along most of the U.S. coastline, including significant areas of the California coast. Upon taking office in 2025, Trump repealed Biden’s executive orders that withdrew the OCS areas from leasing.

Subscribe now

The end of production on Esther was part of a settlement that ended a dispute between the California State Lands Commission and DCOR over repurposing an oil pipeline. The Lands Commission and the company reached a settlement agreement in January 2025. The Commission noted that the platform had an operative life of about 15 years.

The settlement established decommissioning deadlines and procedures, including the requirement that operators pay all the decommissioning costs.

The dispute between the Commission and DCOR LLC was over DCOR’s ability to repurpose a pipeline to transport oil from state Platform Eva to federal Platform Edith. The settlement granted DCOR LLC a $10 million royalty credit on future oil produced from Platform Eva in exchange for relinquishing its mineral rights and decommissioning Platform Esther.

The Lands Commission noted that the royalty credit is “significantly less than Platform Esther’s production value.”

The platform was installed in 1965 and rebuilt in 1985. It was known as a novelty surf spot.

Subscribe now

The case arose when environmental groups learned that the Interior Department had issued 51 fracking permits in federal waters off California without conducting an environmental review. In 2014, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) sued to halt fracking in the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California. In 2016, environmental groups, along with the State of California and the California Coastal Commission, brought additional actions alleging that the federal agencies violated environmental laws when they authorized unconventional oil drilling methods on offshore platforms in federal waters.

In June 2022, in American Petroleum Institute v. Environmental Defense Center, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the federal government had violated the Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act by issuing permits for “well stimulation” through hydraulic fracturing for the area. The court also found that the Interior Department failed to conduct the required environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act.

More specifically, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government must complete a full environmental review before approving permits for offshore oil drilling platforms. The decision prevented the Interior Department and other federal agencies from issuing fracking permits until a complete environmental impact statement is issued “rather than the inadequate [environmental assessment] on which they had relied.”

The Ninth Circuit held that the agencies “did not take the ‘hard look’ mandated by NEPA. They relied on flawed assumptions in the EA that distorted and rendered irrational their finding of no significant impact.” The court held that this “failure to take the requisite ‘hard look’ renders the EA inadequate under NEPA.” The agencies should have “prepared a full EIS in light of the unknown risks posed by the well stimulation treatments and the significant data gaps that the agencies acknowledged.”

In January, the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and Dos Cuadras Offshore Resources petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. The oil companies argued that the fracking ban would “undermine the development of oil, natural gas, and renewable energy on the entire Outer Continental Shelf.”

California legislators have repeatedly introduced legislation to ban offshore drilling in state waters. In 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20, which stated that California “must focus on the impacts of oil extraction as it transitions away from fossil fuel, by working to end the issuance of new hydraulic fracturing permits by 2024.” In April 2021, he directed the state’s Department of Conservation’s Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM) Division to begin regulatory action to end the issuance of new fracking permits, including offshore in state waters, by January 2024.

(See also California’s Energy Transition from Oil State to Fossil Free: Introduction Part Three—Offshore Drilling)