A group of Democratic members of Congress has asked a federal court to invalidate the Trump administration’s use of national security emergency powers to support the restart of Sable Offshore Corp.’s Santa Ynez Pipeline System.
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.