Environmental groups filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 22, 2026, challenging a federal special permit for Sable Offshore Corp.’s Las Flores Pipeline System. The case contests a June 25 decision by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) that allows an alternative approach to meeting a federal corrosion-repair requirement.
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.