Sable Offshore Corporation is suing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the nonprofit Environmental Defense Center (EDC) to prevent the release of pipeline information on the pipeline that ruptured and spilled 142,000 gallons of oil into the ocean near Refugio State Beach in 2015. The information at issue is related to worst-case oil spill responses as well as information on the condition of the pipeline. Sable argued in the lawsuit that the release of the information in a public records request would compromise national security and the company’s trade secrets.
Sable plans to restart the pipeline and the onshore and offshore operations of its Santa Ynez Unit. (see State Fire Marshall Denies Santa Ynez Unit Pipeline Safety Plan) The Environmental Defense Center, a nonprofit environmental law firm, opposes the pipeline restart.
Integrated Contingency Plan
State law requires Sable to submit an integrated contingency plan (ICP) for the transportation and storage of petroleum and related products through the Las Flores Pipeline System. The ICP establishes emergency procedures in response to unplanned releases of oil and other substances.
Sable submitted both an un-redacted and redacted version of the ICP to the CDFW’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in June 2024, asserting that the redacted information was exempt from public disclosure. In July, the OSPR informed Sable that, in response to a public records request, it would release the ICP without redactions except for personally identifiable information. Sable appealed the decision and sued to prevent the releases of information.
Sable Invokes National Security and Trade Secrets
In its lawsuit, Sable argued that the ICP contains “highly sensitive” information related to pipeline safety and response. The company argued that limited information in the ICP “constitutes homeland security and critical infrastructure information, as well as information compiled for law enforcement purposes.” This includes non-public information on “worst case” discharges, pipeline wall thickness, and trunk line charts. Sable argued that the release of such information “could enable terrorists, criminals, or other bad actors to use, for example, the detailed pipeline location information to sabotage or otherwise disrupt pipeline operations.” Sable also argued that the ICP contains “confidential commercial business, proprietary, and/or trade secret information” that includes pipeline specifications and design information.
Sable also argued that the Public Records Act exempts from public disclosure information that is also exempt from disclosure under federal law. The company argues that Critical Infrastructure Information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA as well as state and local disclosure laws.
State and EDC Responses
The state responded that the OSPR has a statutory duty to make the ICP available for public review and comment and that Sable did not show the specificity required in the regulation for its claims of confidentiality.
The EDC responded that Sable seeks to conceal information from the public regarding the vulnerabilities of the pipeline and the risks of bringing it back online “[u]nder the guise of meritless ‘national security’ and ‘trade secret’ concerns.” The EDC argued that the interim harm to Sable outweighs the harm to the EDC and the public.
