Subscribe now

The challenge adds to litigation over federal oversight of the pipeline system connecting Santa Ynez Unit offshore production with inland transportation facilities. It follows an earlier lawsuit against an emergency special permit issued in December 2025. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the court ruled that the permit issued in June rendered the earlier permit challenge moot.

Permit changes corrosion-repair requirements

PHMSA’s issued-permit list identifies Sable’s permit as PHMSA-2026-0464, issued June 25, 2026. The permit, included in the petition’s exhibits, waives a requirement to remediate certain corrosion along longitudinal seam welds within 180 days of discovery. PHMSA says its alternative conditions require more frequent integrity assessments, stricter anomaly-repair criteria, and additional corrosion analysis.

Under PHMSA’s special-permit program, operators may seek relief from particular regulatory requirements when the agency determines that doing so is consistent with pipeline safety. PHMSA says it typically requires alternative measures providing an equal or greater level of safety.

Groups contest safety findings and federal jurisdiction

The petitioners include the Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara County Action Network, Sierra Club, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, and Wishtoyo Foundation. Their announcement alleges violations of federal pipeline-safety and environmental laws and challenges PHMSA’s assumption of jurisdiction over the pipelines from California regulators.

PHMSA prepared an environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact supporting the June permit. The petition challenges those documents and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s concurrence with PHMSA’s determination concerning effects on protected species. The groups ask the court to set aside the challenged agency actions.

Inspection work raises separate coastal-permit questions

The lawsuit comes as Sable investigates newly identified pipeline anomalies. The company sought county clearance to excavate 12 locations for inspection and possible repair, the Santa Barbara Independent reported. County officials had not determined how many locations would require repairs.

The report also described a separate state-court ruling requiring California Coastal Commission authorization for pipeline repair work in the coastal zone. The overlapping disputes concern both the federal safety conditions governing operation and the state approvals needed to perform work along the pipeline route. The September 22 petition seeks judicial review of the federal permit; its filing does not itself establish that the permit is unlawful or suspend pipeline operations.

Subscribe now

The executive order, issued September 8, 2026, gives the secretaries of the Interior and Energy departments overlapping authority to use certain DPA powers for energy resources within their respective jurisdictions. Each secretary may exercise the delegated authority independently.

Interior gains independent energy authority

The DPA allows the federal government to prioritize contracts and allocate materials, services, and facilities considered necessary for national defense.

Executive Order 14427 amends a 2012 order that previously assigned several energy-related responsibilities principally to the Energy Department. It adds the Interior secretary to provisions covering energy production, construction, distribution, use, and related activities.

The order also gives the Interior, Commerce, and Energy secretaries independent authority under DPA provisions concerning the allocation of materials, services, and facilities.

Disputes between the Interior and Energy secretaries involving energy would generally go first to the National Energy Dominance Council. Matters involving national-defense infrastructure or military operations would also involve the National Security Council and coordination with the Department of War.

Order follows federal intervention in Sable restart

The change comes as the Trump administration seeks to help Sable restore production from the Santa Ynez Unit and transport oil through its pipeline system along the Santa Barbara County coast.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright directed Sable in March to restore the Santa Ynez Unit and pipeline system, invoking DPA authority delegated under an earlier executive order.

The Energy Department said the project could produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day and reduce California’s dependence on imported crude. It characterized the pipeline system as important to energy security and military readiness.

Sable’s restart effort remains the subject of disputes involving state and local regulators, environmental organizations, and the federal government. Those disputes include questions about pipeline oversight, permit requirements, and the extent of federal authority over infrastructure connected to offshore leases.

The Interior Department oversees offshore oil and gas operations through agencies including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Giving the Interior secretary independent Defense Production Act authority could provide another potential basis for federal action affecting offshore production or related infrastructure.

For more information, see the CEJ Sable Offshore issue hub.

Subscribe now

The lawmakers filed an amicus brief September 8 in California v. Wright, a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The litigation challenges Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s March order directing Sable to restore operations under the Defense Production Act.

California Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and Santa Barbara-area Representative Salud Carbajal led the filing. Sixteen other Democratic senators and representatives joined them.

The brief argues that the Department of Energy failed to establish the national-defense need required to invoke the Defense Production Act. It says the department did not explain how crude produced by the Santa Ynez Unit would address an unmet military-fuel requirement or why restarting Sable’s pipelines was necessary for national defense.

The lawmakers also distinguish crude oil from the finished fuels used by the military. In their view, general references to California’s military facilities and dependence on imported oil do not establish the statutory connection between the Sable project and a specific defense requirement.

The Department of Energy ordered Sable to restore operations on March 13. The department said the Santa Ynez Unit could produce up to 50,000 barrels of oil per day and characterized its restoration as necessary to protect national security and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

The order directed Sable to restore production at the offshore Santa Ynez Unit, operate the associated pipeline system and deliver oil to California refineries. It relied on authority delegated to Wright after President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act.

California subsequently sued Wright and the Department of Energy, arguing that the federal directive exceeded the government’s statutory authority and improperly displaced state law, regulatory requirements and court orders governing the pipeline.

The litigation is separate from, but related to, proceedings involving a federal consent decree governing the pipelines after the 2015 Refugio oil spill. In August, a federal judge allowed Sable to continue operating the system under federal oversight while imposing a $1.45 million penalty for violating the consent decree.

The dispute now presents a broader question about how far the federal government may use national-security authority to override or preempt state restrictions on energy infrastructure. A decision accepting the administration’s position could expand federal control over projects characterized as important to domestic energy security. A ruling for California could limit the government’s ability to invoke the Defense Production Act without demonstrating a more specific connection to national defense.

For more information, see the CEJ Sable Offshore issue hub.

Subscribe now

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled August 19, 2026, that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration would replace the California Office of the State Fire Marshal as the agency administering key provisions of the federal consent decree governing Lines CA-324 and CA-325. The court also imposed approximately $1.449 million in stipulated penalties, payable to California, after finding that Sable violated the decree before it was modified.

The ruling stems from a consent decree entered after the 2015 Refugio oil spill involving the pipeline’s previous owner, Plains All American Pipeline. The decree required the operator to obtain state waivers and approval of restart plans from the Office of the State Fire Marshal before placing the pipelines back into service.

Sable acquired the pipeline system and agreed to be bound by the decree. The court determined that Sable violated the consent decree when it restarted without obtaining all required state approvals. The judge, however, denied California’s request for an injunction shutting the pipeline down, concluding that changed circumstances justified modifying the decree. Those circumstances included the change in pipeline ownership and a federal Defense Production Act order directing operation of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System.

The court also ruled that the federal Defense Production Act order prevents the California Department of Parks and Recreation from taking legal action that would stop Sable from operating the onshore pipeline in compliance with that order.

Separately, California is challenging both the federal government’s jurisdictional determination and the PHMSA’s permits. In July, California filed a legal challenge to block the pipeline restart. The state petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to invalidate a federal permit issued by the PHMSA. California also sued to block the federal order directing Sable to restart the pipeline.

California can still seek to enforce portions of the modified consent decree and is continuing separate challenges to PHMSA’s actions.

The dispute is emerging as an important test of whether the federal government can use the Defense Production Act to prevent states from enforcing environmental laws that interfere with a federally directed energy project.

Subscribe now

In a tentative ruling reported by Courthouse News, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee dismissed claims that the December 2025 decision by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to deny the permit transfer violated the Takings Clause of the U.S. and California constitutions and was preempted by federal and state law.

On December 15, 2025, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to deny the transfer of operating permits from ExxonMobil to Sable Offshore Corp. The final development permits covered the Santa Ynez Unit, a gas plant, and the Las Flores Pipelines. The transfer of permits was a key step in restarting the Santa Ynez Unit, which has been shut since the 2015 Refugio oil spill.

In this latest development, according to Courthouse News, Judge Gee took under submission both Santa Barbara County’s motion to dismiss and a separate motion filed by environmental organizations challenging the companies’ federal preemption claims. The claims are separate from Sable’s pending petition seeking a writ directing Santa Barbara County to transfer the permits, which remains before the court.

Sable argued that Sable purchased the assets from ExxonMobil for approximately $600 million with the expectation that the permit transfers would be an administrative action rather than a discretionary review. According to Sable, the county improperly treated the transaction as though the permits disappeared upon the sale, effectively requiring a new permitting process.

Santa Barbara County responded that its ordinance gives the county authority to evaluate whether a proposed operator can comply with permit conditions and local regulations before approving a transfer.

County attorneys cited Sable’s alleged history of regulatory disputes, including claims that the company performed work without required approvals, failed to provide required notifications, and did not submit certain zoning clearance applications before undertaking pipeline repairs. According to the county, these issues supported the Board of Supervisors’ conclusion that Sable was not a qualified operator.

Sable, however, maintains that the county’s stated reasons were pretextual and that several supervisors opposed restarting offshore oil production regardless of the company’s qualifications. The company alleges that county officials directed planning staff to identify grounds for denying the transfer in order to prevent the restart.

Subscribe now

According to a June 2, 2026 letter first reported by Politico, Sable asked the DOE to assemble the property interests necessary for the project through voluntary acquisition where possible and, if necessary, through the federal government’s eminent domain authority.

The request comes as the Trump administration continues evaluating the creation of a California petroleum reserve to improve fuel security on the West Coast. In June, Sable Offshore Corp. proposed a West Coast Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright confirmed that there is “active dialogue” regarding the proposal. Administration officials have cited California’s strategic military importance, geographic isolation from the nation’s pipeline network, declining refinery capacity, and increasing dependence on imported crude oil as reasons for evaluating the concept.

According to KEYT, Sable identified multiple parcels owned by the State of California, Santa Barbara County, and private landowners that the company believes are necessary to maintain and expand critical oil transportation infrastructure.

The company identified two locations where condemnation “is required or advisable” and a third location where condemnation should be considered because of an ongoing landowner dispute. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the affected properties include approximately three miles of state-owned submerged lands offshore Santa Barbara, portions of Gaviota State Park, and privately owned undeveloped property north of Buellton crossed by the pipeline system.

The proposal immediately drew criticism from environmental organizations. The Center for Biological Diversity argued that using federal eminent domain authority to facilitate additional oil production would conflict with California environmental laws and ongoing litigation involving the pipeline system.

Federal authority presents complex legal questions

Whether the DOE could implement Sable’s proposal remains uncertain. The federal government possesses broad eminent domain authority when Congress has authorized a project serving a public purpose and has provided the necessary statutory authority and funding. However, it is uncertain that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which authorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would support the creation of a separate regional reserve on the West Coast or whether Congress would first need to enact additional legislation authorizing the program.

Any attempt to condemn property would likely face multiple legal challenges. Among the most significant is the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which permits the government to acquire private property only for a public use and upon payment of just compensation. Additional legal issues could include DOE’s statutory authority, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, potential federal preemption of state law, and the interaction between federal authority and California’s environmental and coastal permitting requirements.

If pursued, the proposal would represent one of the most significant assertions of federal authority over California energy infrastructure in recent decades and could establish important precedent regarding the federal government’s role in preserving energy infrastructure that it considers critical to national energy security.

The special permit, issued June 25, 2026, exempts Sable from the requirement for operators of hazardous liquid pipelines to remediate specified longitudinal seam weld corrosion within 180 days of discovery. The special permit covers Lines CA-324 and CA-325, including associated segments CA-325A and CA-325B, which transport crude oil from the Las Flores Canyon processing facility in Santa Barbara County to the Pentland terminal in Kern County.

Rather than requiring automatic repairs within 180 days, the alternative integrity management program imposes several conditions, including more frequent in-line inspection runs; enhanced corrosion monitoring and integrity assessments; hydrostatic pressure testing; annual crack detection inspections; independent third-party technical reviews; annual reports; and mandatory repair criteria and operational restrictions.

PHMSA concluded that these conditions adequately mitigate the risks associated with longitudinal seam weld corrosion while allowing the pipeline to operate under a more tailored integrity management program.

PHMSA Jurisdiction

The 10-year special permit comes after several months of Sable lobbying. In November 2025, Sable requested that the federal government take regulatory oversight of the pipeline system critical, taking authority from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). In December 2025, PHMSA agreed with Sable’s jurisdictional determination and assumed regulatory oversight of the pipeline.

The PHMSA then approved the pipeline restart plan on December 22, 2025 and soon after issued order granting an “emergency special permit” until February 21, 2026, waiving the requirement to “evaluate and remediate corrosion occurring at longitudinal seam welds within 180 days.”

Sable applied for a long-term special permit on January 22, 2026; PHMSA published the application for public comment in February and later extended the comment period to allow additional public review following developments related to the pipeline before issuing the 20-year special permit in June.

The case stems from the California Coastal Commission’s issuance of cease-and-desist orders in November 2024 and February 2025 after determining Sable was conducting “unpermitted development” work within the Coastal Zone along the Las Flores Pipelines. Sable filed a lawsuit against the Coastal Commission at the time, challenging its authority.

The pipeline repairs have since been completed and the pipeline has been operational since the Trump administration directed Sable to restart the oil pipeline system in March 2026. Sable, however, could still be responsible for the $18 million fine from the Coastal Commission for refusing to comply with its orders to stop work.

In the recent appeal, Sable argued that the California Coastal Commission lacked authority to issue a cease-and-desist order because Santa Barbara County had already determined that the repair work did not require additional coastal permits. According to the company, the County’s decision prevented the Commission from intervening.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, concluding that Santa Barbara County’s decision not to pursue enforcement did not constitute an “action” that deprived the Commission of its independent enforcement authority under the California Coastal Act. The court held that the Commission was authorized to issue its own cease-and-desist order after Santa Barbara County declined to act and that the trial court properly issued a preliminary injunction upon finding a prima facie violation of the Coastal Act.

The appellate court also rejected Sable’s due process and federal preemption arguments, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting the injunction.

Sable also argued that the appeal should be dismissed because much of the pipeline repair work had already been completed before the injunction was issued.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the controversy remains active because the preliminary injunction continues to prohibit future work that the Commission believes requires coastal authorization. As a result, the court held that its decision could still provide meaningful relief and therefore the appeal was not moot.

Limited Decision

The appellate decision addresses only whether the preliminary injunction was properly issued. It does not determine whether Sable ultimately violated the Coastal Act or whether every aspect of the company’s pipeline repair program required a coastal development permit.

Those questions remain before the trial court as litigation over the Commission’s enforcement action continues.

Subscribe now

In its application to dissolve the preliminary injunction, Sable argued that the Secretary of Energy’s order was a material change justifying dissolution of the preliminary injunction order. The company argued that the order preempts the preliminary injunction, which prevents the Fire Marshal and Sable from proceeding with the restart of the Las Flores Pipeline System until 10 days after it gives notice to the court that it received the necessary approvals and permits.

Judge Donna Geck said the order does not release Sable from the injunction. “[T]here is no conflict between the Federal Consent Decree and the preliminary injunction,” the judge wrote. “The conflict issue raised by Sable is not a conflict between state law and federal law, but a conflict between the DPA Order, as interpreted here by Sable, and the Federal Consent Decree. To the extent that the Federal Consent Decree is binding on the parties, there is no preemption issue.”

The judge stated that there is a “binding federal judgment in the Federal Consent Decree which requires favorable action by the OSFM before Sable is permitted to restart the Las Flores Pipelines. As construed by the federal courts, a DPA Order does not by itself permit violation of other federal law to accomplish the goals of the DPA Order.” Sable, the court wrote, “continues to be obligated to the requirements of the Federal Consent Decree.”

“The DPA Order therefore does not constitute a basis for dissolving or modifying the preliminary injunction.”

The court also said it was “deeply concerned” with Sable’s noncompliance with the injunction. The court set for a hearing on May 22 to address whether to issue an order to show cause why Sable “should not be found in contempt.”

The injunction is part of a 2024 suit that the Environmental Defense Center and the Center for Biological Diversity filed against the Fire Marshal. The groups argued that the fire marshal did not comply with environmental review and pipeline safety laws before issuing the waivers for the pipeline.

Sable maintains that it has permission to restart the pipeline under the federal consent decree.

Subscribe now

The state argues in a comment letter that PHMSA improperly reclassified Lines CA-324 and CA-325 as “interstate” pipelines on December 17, 2025, despite the pipelines operating entirely within California. The state argues that PHMSA lacks jurisdiction and the Office of the State Fire Marshal should continue to oversee the pipelines.

According to the state, that reclassification unlawfully shifted regulatory oversight from the Office of the State Fire Marshal to PHMSA. California is already challenging both the reclassification and PHMSA’s earlier emergency permit in pending federal litigation.

The special permit under consideration would allow Sable to restart the pipelines without completing portions of the corrosion assessment and remediation process otherwise required under federal safety rules.

California argues that PHMSA lacks authority to grant the permit because the agency has no lawful jurisdiction over the pipelines. The state also contends that PHMSA has failed to demonstrate any emergency justifying the waiver, has not conducted adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and has improperly relied on emergency consultation procedures under the Endangered Species Act.

The Attorney General also maintains that PHMSA’s position conflicts with the federal consent decree that resolved enforcement actions stemming from the 2015 Refugio oil spill. The consent decree, which was approved by a federal court and signed by PHMSA, recognized the Office of the State Fire Marshal’s role in reviewing and approving any future restart of the onshore pipelines. According to California, PHMSA’s recent actions represent a significant departure from both the consent decree and the agency’s longstanding treatment of the pipelines as intrastate facilities.

The filing also challenges the legality of the Department of Energy’s Pipeline Capacity Prioritization and Allocation Order, issued under the Defense Production Act, which the Trump administration has relied upon to support Sable’s restart. California argues that the order cannot expand PHMSA’s jurisdiction and is itself unlawful. The Attorney General separately challenged the order in federal court last month.

Attorney General Bonta said the federal government is improperly invoking President Trump’s declared “National Energy Emergency” to circumvent state authority and pipeline safety requirements.

In January, California also filed a lawsuit against the PHMSA for taking regulatory authority over the pipeline system and approval of Sable’s restart plan and its issuance of an emergency special permit.

Subscribe now

The complaint challenges the March 13, 2026 order issued under the Defense Production Act (DPA). The state argues the order exceeds federal authority and seeks to halt its implementation.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the directive “unlawfully purports to supersede state law, state court orders, and a federal court-approved Consent Decree” to allow Sable to restart the pipeline.

The federal order, issued by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, cites national security concerns and relies on President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order declaring an energy emergency. Wright said the order would “address supply disruption risks caused by California policies that have left the region and U.S. military forces dependent on foreign oil.”

California’s complaint argues the DPA does not authorize the federal government to override state environmental laws, judicial orders, or permitting requirements. It also contends that the statute does not permit the Department of Energy to compel private companies to enter into commercial arrangements with other private entities.

The state further raises constitutional claims, arguing the order improperly attempts to override state court rulings and a 2020 consent decree requiring state regulatory approval before operations can resume. The filing also alleges a violation of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, noting that a four-mile stretch of the pipeline crosses Gaviota State Park.

The lawsuit follows a separate challenge to actions by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), in which California disputed the agency’s assertion of federal jurisdiction over the Las Flores Pipeline System. That case, filed in January 2026, also challenges PHMSA’s approval of Sable’s restart plan and its issuance of an emergency special permit that waives certain safety rules.

Subscribe now

On March 16, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a motion in federal court seeking to prevent Sable from operating the pipeline, Politico reported. The motion came only days after the U.S. Department of Energy directed the company on March 13, 2026 to resume operations. Governor Gavin Newsom and Bonta had signaled imminent legal action following the federal order.

The federal directive, issued by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright under authority delegated through the Defense Production Act of 1950, requires Sable to prioritize restarting the pipeline system to support domestic energy supply. The administration framed the action in national security terms, citing risks to West Coast fuel availability.

Bonta called the federal order unlawful and warned that restarting the pipeline could pose significant environmental risks. Bonta filed the motion on behalf of the California Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Department of Parks and Recreation, according to Politico.

Sable has already begun transporting crude oil from the offshore Santa Ynez Unit through the Las Flores Pipeline System, which runs from Las Flores Canyon in Santa Barbara County to Pentland Station in Kern County. The company expects to begin selling crude oil by April 1, 2026.

Trespassing Claim Filed

California has also filed a separate lawsuit in Santa Barbara County Superior Court targeting Sable’s use of pipeline infrastructure that crosses Gaviota State Park, E&E News reported. Bonta alleges that the company resumed operations without required state authorization and is trespassing on state property. The state is seeking a court order requiring Sable to stop pipeline operations and remove infrastructure from park land.

Injunction Upheld

Additionally, on March 17, 2026, a Santa Barbara County judge upheld a July 2025 preliminary injunction against the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) that requires Sable to provide advance notice before restarting onshore pipeline operations. Environmental groups involved in the case argue that the restart violates the injunction and poses ongoing spill risks along the Santa Barbara coastline.

The injunction is part of a 2024 suit that environmental groups filed against the OSFM, arguing that the fire marshal did not comply with environmental review and pipeline safety laws before issuing the waivers for the pipeline.

Further court proceedings are scheduled for April 17.

Questions, comments, or tips? Contact editor@californiaenergyjournal.com.

Subscribe now

Under the directive, Sable began transporting oil from the Santa Ynez Unit through the Las Flores Pipeline System—referred to in the order as the Santa Ynez Pipeline System—from Las Flores Canyon in Santa Barbara County to Pentland Station in Kern County.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright framed the directive in national security terms. The order will “address supply disruption risks caused by California policies that have left the region and U.S. military forces dependent on foreign oil,” Wright said in a statement. “Today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness.”

The directive is the latest move by the Trump administration to support Sable in its ongoing legal and political conflict with California regulators over restarting the pipeline system that ruptured in 2025 and caused the Refugio oil spill.

In December 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) approved Sable’s restart plan for its Las Flores Pipeline System. The approval came only days after the PHMSA confirmed Sable’s determination that the pipeline qualifies as an interstate pipeline under the Pipeline Safety Act rather than as an intrastate public subject to state regulation.

The March 13 order states that the Santa Ynez Unit “is a critical energy resource on the West Coast” and “one of the largest known offshore oilfields in the United States.” According to the Department of Energy, the field could produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day—a 15% increase in California’s in-state oil production.

The directive states that the oilfield cannot address the energy shortages cited in President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order declaring a national energy emergency “without reliable transport of SYU’s production through the Santa Ynez Pipeline System (SYPS) to market on mainland California.”

The order directs Sable to “immediately prioritize and allocate pipeline transportation services for hydrocarbons from the SYU through the SYPS, including transportation service activities at the onshore facilities in Las Flores Canyon, California, to the Pentland Station terminal in Pentland, California.”

The Santa Ynez Pipeline System has an existing capacity of 200,000 barrels per day, according to Sable.

Sable stated that it is producing oil from Platform Harmony and expects to increase to full production at platforms Harmony and Heritage by the end of March. The company said it expects Platform Hondo to resume full production in June 2026. Sable plans to begin sales by April 1, 2026 at a rate of approximately 50,000 barrels per day.

Order Invoked Defense Production Act

Wright issued the directive under authority delegated to the Department of Energy under the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, which allows the federal government to require private companies to prioritize production and services necessary for national defense. The directive came shortly after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to delegate certain DPA authorities to the Secretary of Energy.

Wrights directive also builds on Trump’s executive order declaring a national energy emergency. “An affordable and reliable domestic supply of energy is a fundamental requirement for the national and economic security of any nation,” the directive states.

Trumps executive order stated that risks are particularly acute on the West Coast, “where dangerous State and local policies jeopardize our Nation’s core national defense and security needs, and devastate the prosperity of not only local residents but the entire United States population.”

California Officials Say State Will Sue

Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the directive and said California would sue to enforce court orders and state law against Sable and to challenge the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers.

“Donald Trump started a war, admitted it would spike gas prices nationwide, told Americans it was a small price to pay, and now he’s using this crisis of his own making to attempt what he’s wanted to do for years: open California’s coast for his oil industry friends so they can poison our beaches,” Newsom said in a statement.

“This wouldn’t lower prices by a cent. This is an attempt to illegally restart a pipeline whose operators are facing criminal charges and prohibited by multiple court orders from restarting,” he said.

Newsom added that California “will not stand by while the Trump administration attempts to sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also criticized the directive, calling it the administration’s “latest brazen abuse of power.” He said on social media that California “will not stand by as this administration continues their unlawful all-out assault on California and our coastlines, and we are reviewing all of our legal options.”

Sable Sues State Parks Department

Sable is also suing the California Department of Parks and Recreation, seeking a court declaration that the federal order overrides state environmental review requirements and confirming the company’s right to access a four-mile section of Line 325 that runs through Gaviota State Park.

The State Parks Department responded in a letter to Sable denying its claim that the federal order grants access to the pipeline easement and stating that the easement expired in 2016, according to the New York Times.

The department also ordered Sable to remove the four-mile portion of the pipeline crossing the park.

State officials said Sable’s attempts to restart the pipeline ended the possibility that the department would issue a new easement for the pipeline if Sable complies with state environmental reviews, according to the New York Times.

The State Parks department said it would take legal action if Sable did not provide a plan for removal of the pipeline within 10 days or confirm by noon on March 16, 2026 that it had not restarted the pipeline and that the company would receive all state approvals before a restart. Sable did not respond to the deadline.