Sable has resumed oil production and pipeline transportation after federal agencies asserted jurisdiction and the Department of Energy directed a restart. California continues to challenge the federal actions.
Last updated Sep. 10, 2026
1. Executive overview
Sable Offshore Corp. has resumed production from the Santa Ynez Unit and transportation through the Las Flores Pipeline System, which had been shut down since the May 2015 Refugio oil spill. The restart followed state, local and federal permitting disputes, litigation and a change in federal policy. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration assumed pipeline-safety jurisdiction in December 2025, and the Department of Energy directed Sable to restore operations under the Defense Production Act in March 2026. California continues to challenge those federal actions and aspects of Sable’s operations in state and federal court.
The Santa Ynez Unit consists of Platforms Hondo, Harmony and Heritage and the onshore Las Flores Canyon processing facility. Production stopped after a segment of the associated pipeline system ruptured near Refugio State Beach on May 19, 2015, releasing approximately 123,000 gallons of crude oil under the federal consent-decree accounting. ExxonMobil pursued trucking and pipeline-replacement options before selling the assets to Sable. The pipeline transaction began in 2022, and Sable completed the broader acquisition in 2024.
The restart has involved Santa Barbara County, the California Coastal Commission, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Lands Commission, PHMSA, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The disputes concern coastal permits, pipeline safety, water-quality requirements, offshore approvals and the extent to which federal authority preempts state restrictions.
PHMSA determined in late 2025 that the onshore pipeline system falls under federal interstate-pipeline jurisdiction, approved a restart plan and issued an emergency special permit. The Department of Energy issued its restart directive in March 2026, and Sable began oil sales on March 29. Federal district-court rulings in August allowed pipeline operations to continue and recognized the preemptive effect of the federal order in several disputes. California and other parties have appealed or continued related litigation.
Project background
The Santa Ynez Unit was discovered in 1968 and began producing in the early 1980s. Its three platforms are connected by subsea and onshore lines to the Las Flores Canyon processing facility. The onshore system, formerly known as Lines 901 and 903 and later as CA-324 and CA-325, runs approximately 124 miles through Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern counties to Pentland Station.
On May 19, 2015, a corroded section of Line 901, then owned and operated by Plains All American Pipeline, ruptured near Refugio State Beach. The federal consent decree places the spill at approximately 2,934 barrels, or 123,000 gallons. Plains was convicted on nine criminal counts and incurred civil, criminal and settlement costs arising from the spill. ExxonMobil shut down the Santa Ynez Unit because it lacked another route to market. Santa Barbara County denied Exxon’s proposed trucking plan in 2022, and Exxon withdrew a pipeline-replacement proposal in 2023 before selling the assets to Sable.
Sable’s restart effort took more than three years from the initial pipeline transaction and produced litigation, enforcement actions and competing state and federal jurisdictional claims. This hub tracks the project’s operational status, permitting record, litigation, legislation and remaining legal questions.
2. Current status
Operations Platforms Harmony and Heritage are producing. In its August 10 second-quarter results, Sable reported an exit oil-sales rate of approximately 40,000 net barrels per day and said Platform Hondo was expected to return to service in September. No later company filing identified through September 13 confirms that Hondo has restarted. Sable reported $137.1 million in second-quarter revenue, $9.4 million of operating cash flow and $18.5 million in demurrage charges associated with midstream and offtake constraints.
Federal litigation On August 19, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied California’s request to block the Defense Production Act order. In related rulings, the court modified the 2020 federal consent decree to substitute PHMSA for the California Office of the State Fire Marshal and held that the federal order preempts state actions that would prevent operation of the onshore pipeline. The court also imposed approximately $1.45 million in consent-decree penalties on Sable. California filed notices of appeal. On August 31, the same court dismissed with prejudice Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum, a challenge to BOEM’s April 2025 decision not to require revision of the development and production plan for Platform Harmony, after finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
State litigation California courts have upheld state enforcement actions involving Sable. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a preliminary injunction supporting the Coastal Commission’s cease-and-desist order on June 17. Related state proceedings remain active, although their practical effect is affected by the August federal rulings concerning the Defense Production Act order and federal pipeline jurisdiction.
Congressional and financial developments Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Salud Carbajal, joined by other California lawmakers, announced an inquiry in May 2026 into the federal restart decision. Sable has continued to refinance obligations associated with the acquisition and restart. The company reported its first full quarter of revenue and positive operating cash flow for the second quarter of 2026.
3. Why it matters to California energy policy
Sable Offshore’s restart is testing the division of authority among federal, state and local agencies over offshore oil production and the pipelines that transport the oil to market. The litigation could determine when federal pipeline-safety and emergency authorities preempt California’s coastal, environmental, water-quality and pipeline-safety requirements.
The outcome could extend beyond the Santa Ynez Unit. It may influence how California regulates other offshore energy infrastructure, how state agencies enforce permit requirements when federal and state directives conflict, and whether legacy oil facilities can resume operations under permits and approvals issued before current environmental standards took effect.
4. Timeline
May 2015 through August 2026
May 19 2015 — Line 901 ruptures near Refugio State Beach, releasing approximately 123,000 gallons of crude under the federal consent-decree accounting. Plains shuts Lines 901 and 903, and ExxonMobil halts production from the Santa Ynez Unit.
September 2015 — California enacts AB 864, requiring operators of certain pipelines in the coastal zone to install best available technologies, including leak-detection systems and automatic or remote-controlled shutoff valves.
2016 through 2021 — Exxon pursues an interim plan to transport oil by truck. Santa Barbara County grants a temporary emergency permit in 2016 and conducts environmental review of the broader proposal.
March 8 2022 — The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors denies Exxon’s trucking permit by a 3 to 2 vote. Exxon later sues the county.
October 13 2022 — ExxonMobil subsidiary Pacific Pipeline Company acquires Lines 901 and 903 from Plains and renames the system the Las Flores Pipeline System.
November 2022 — Exxon agrees to sell the Santa Ynez Unit and pipeline system to Sable for $625 million, financed in part through an Exxon loan.
September 28 2023 — U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee denies Exxon’s summary-judgment motion challenging Santa Barbara County’s denial of the trucking permit.
October 2023 — Exxon and Pacific Pipeline withdraw an application to construct a replacement pipeline and continue with a plan to repair the existing lines.
February 14 2024 — Sable completes its acquisition of Pacific Pipeline Company and the Santa Ynez Unit from Exxon. Exxon had disclosed an impairment of approximately $2.5 billion associated with the assets.
July and August 2024 — The state fire marshal rejects Pacific Pipeline’s amended safety plan. A Santa Barbara judge denies Sable’s effort to prevent disclosure of its oil-spill contingency plan.
August 30 2024 — Santa Barbara County and Sable enter a safety-valve settlement agreement. The county disclaims jurisdiction over specified underground valve work, and Sable dismisses its lawsuit against the county.
September 27 2024 — The Coastal Commission issues a notice of violation concerning pipeline work that it says required coastal authorization.
November 2024 — The Coastal Commission issues a cease-and-desist order. The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission separately approves transfer of Exxon’s permits to Sable; the Environmental Defense Center appeals.
December 17 2024 — The state fire marshal approves waivers from certain pipeline-safety requirements. Environmental groups later challenge the approvals.
February 18 2025 — The Coastal Commission issues another cease-and-desist order. Sable sues the Commission, alleging that existing permits authorize the work and asserting constitutional claims.
February 25 2025 — The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors deadlocks 2 to 2 on the appeal concerning transfer of Exxon’s permits to Sable after Supervisor Joan Hartmann recuses herself.
April 10 2025 — The Coastal Commission imposes an administrative penalty of approximately $18 million and issues another cease-and-desist order.
April 2025 — A court denies the attorney general’s request for a temporary restraining order. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board refers alleged unpermitted discharges to the attorney general.
May 2025 — Sable begins flowing oil from six Platform Harmony wells and announces a restart. The State Lands Commission describes the activity as well testing rather than a commercial restart.
May and June 2025 — A Santa Barbara County judge grants a preliminary injunction supporting the Coastal Commission’s enforcement order. Another judge temporarily blocks action under the state fire marshal’s waivers.
June 4 2025 — The Assembly passes AB 1448. The enrolled 2026 version would restrict the use of certain state-water leases and infrastructure to support Pacific Outer Continental Shelf leases issued after January 1, 2026, and add review requirements for specified lease actions.
July 18 2025 — Judge Donna Geck issues a preliminary injunction after finding that environmental groups were likely to succeed in challenging the state fire marshal’s safety-waiver approvals.
July and August 2025 — Securities class actions are filed against Sable concerning the company’s restart statements and a May 2025 stock offering.
September 16 2025 — The Santa Barbara County District Attorney files 21 criminal counts against Sable concerning pipeline excavation work.
October 2025 — The attorney general sues Sable over alleged illegal waste discharges. Sable amends its Coastal Commission lawsuit to seek more than $347 million in damages and files a separate action concerning application of SB 237.
November and December 2025 — PHMSA determines that the onshore pipeline system is subject to federal interstate-pipeline jurisdiction, assumes safety oversight, approves Sable’s restart plan and issues an emergency special permit.
December 2025 — Environmental groups seek an emergency stay of PHMSA’s action. The Ninth Circuit denies a stay but expedites review.
March 2026 — The Justice Department issues an opinion addressing the possible preemptive effect of a Defense Production Act order. The energy secretary directs Sable to restore operations, and Sable announces that production has resumed. California files suit to block the order.
March 2026 — California separately sues over the pipeline segment crossing Gaviota State Park. A state court leaves in place an injunction requiring advance notice before restart.
March 29 2026 — Sable begins oil sales through the pipeline system. Platform Harmony is producing, and Platform Heritage begins returning to service.
April 2026 — Platform Heritage resumes production.
April 17 2026 — A Santa Barbara County judge leaves the state injunction in place and rejects Sable’s argument that the federal directive displaced the state order at that stage of the litigation.
May 29 2026 — California members of Congress announce an inquiry into the basis for the Defense Production Act order and communications involving Sable and the federal government.
June 17 2026 — The Court of Appeal affirms the preliminary injunction supporting the Coastal Commission’s enforcement order by a 2 to 1 vote.
June and July 2026 — The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District grants Sable a five-day variance after emissions at Platform Heritage exceeded a permit limit because of equipment problems.
June and July 2026 — Sable pays extension fees and raises capital to refinance debt associated with the acquisition and restart.
August 10 2026 — Sable reports $137.1 million in second-quarter revenue, $9.4 million of operating cash flow and an approximately 40,000-barrel-per-day net exit sales rate. The company says Platform Hondo is expected to restart in September.
August 12 2026 — The Ninth Circuit dismisses as moot a challenge to PHMSA’s earlier jurisdictional determination but does not decide whether the pipeline segment in state waters qualifies as interstate.
August 2026 — A federal district court denies California’s request to block the Defense Production Act order, modifies the 2020 consent decree to recognize PHMSA as pipeline-safety regulator and holds in related litigation that the federal order preempts state actions that would prevent pipeline operations. The court also imposes approximately $1.45 million in penalties. California appeals.
August 31 2026 — A federal district court dismisses with prejudice Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum after finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge BOEM’s decision concerning Platform Harmony’s development and production plan.
The timeline reflects public court, agency, legislative, company and CEJ records available through September 10, 2026.
5. Key data
—Sable’s 2022/2024 purchase of the Santa Ynez Unit and pipeline: $625 million (plus $100 million-plus in repairs), financed via a ~$622 million Exxon loan
—Length of the Las Flores Pipeline System (formerly Lines 901/903): 124.42 miles across three segments (CA-324, CA-325A, CA-325B)
—Wells across the Santa Ynez Unit’s three platforms: 112 (90 producers, 12 injectors, 10 idle)
—Coastal Commission fine against Sable, April 2025: $18.0 million (record fine)
—Damages Sable is seeking from California over the restart delay: $347 million-plus
—Criminal counts filed against Sable by the Santa Barbara DA, September 2025: 21
—Sable’s net production exit rate, Q2 2026: ~40,000 barrels/day, vs. ~45,000 boe/day pre-2015 peak
—Sable Q2 2026 revenue: $137.1 million — first quarter of positive operating cash flow ($9.4 million)
—Federal consent-decree penalty imposed on Sable, August 2026: approximately $1.45 million
6. Legislation
Status as of September 13 2026
AB 864 (2015): Requires coastal-zone pipelines under state fire-marshal jurisdiction to install “Best Available Technologies” — leak detection, automatic shutoffs, remote block valves — passed in direct response to the Refugio spill. Status: Signed / in force
AB 3233 (2024): Empowers local governments to adopt oil-and-gas regulations more protective than state law — the legal basis Santa Barbara County has weighed for potential new-drilling restrictions. Status: Signed / in force
AB 1448 (2025): Would restrict use of certain state-water leases and oil-and-gas infrastructure to support Pacific Outer Continental Shelf leases issued after Jan. 1, 2026, and add review requirements for specified lease actions. The enrolled text is broader coastal/offshore policy and should not be described as applying solely to Sable. Status: Passed Legislature; enrolled 9/1/26; presented to governor 9/4/26
SB 237 (2025): Streamlines new-well approvals in Kern County through 2036, but also requires a new coastal development permit for “repair, reactivation, and maintenance” of idle oil/gas facilities — a provision Sable is fighting in a Kern County declaratory-judgment suit. Status: Signed; contested by Sable
7. Legal framework
California Coastal Act. The Act governs coastal development permits and authorizes Coastal Commission cease-and-desist orders and administrative penalties. The Sable litigation concerns whether existing Santa Barbara County permits authorize the repair work and whether the Commission could act after the county declined to require new permits.
California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA governed review of Exxon’s proposed trucking plan and remains a basis for challenges to permitting decisions involving the restart.
Federal consent decree. A 2020 consent decree resolved federal and state claims arising from the Refugio spill. Its restart provisions require advance submission and approval of a restart plan, staged pressure increases and enhanced leak detection, and limit post-restart operating pressure. In August 2026, the federal district court modified the decree to substitute PHMSA for the state fire marshal as pipeline-safety regulator.
Pipeline Safety Act. PHMSA determined in December 2025 that the onshore Las Flores Pipeline System falls under federal interstate-pipeline jurisdiction. The agency approved Sable’s restart plan and issued Special Permit PHMSA-2026-0464 on June 25, 2026. California and environmental groups have challenged PHMSA’s jurisdictional and permitting actions.
Defense Production Act. On March 13, 2026, the Department of Energy directed Sable to restore operations under delegated Defense Production Act authority. A March 3 Justice Department opinion concluded that an order issued under the Act could preempt conflicting state law. A federal district court accepted the preemption argument in August 2026. California has appealed.
8. Agencies
California Coastal Commission. State coastal agency that issued cease-and-desist orders and an administrative penalty involving Sable’s pipeline work and obtained a preliminary injunction that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in June 2026.
Office of the State Fire Marshal. California pipeline-safety regulator that reviewed Sable’s safety plans and waivers before PHMSA asserted federal jurisdiction over the onshore pipeline system in December 2025.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Federal pipeline-safety agency that asserted jurisdiction over the onshore pipeline system in December 2025, approved Sable’s restart plan and issued special permits governing pipeline operation.
California State Lands Commission. Manages state offshore leases and raised questions in May 2025 about Sable’s characterization of early production activity as a completed restart.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. State water-quality agency involved in enforcement concerning alleged unpermitted work and waste discharges associated with pipeline repairs.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Federal agencies overseeing offshore safety, leases and development plans relevant to the Santa Ynez Unit.
Santa Barbara County Planning Commission / Board of Supervisors. Local agencies involved in permit transfers, land-use approvals and other decisions affecting the Santa Ynez Unit and pipeline system.
U.S. Department of Energy. Issued the March 13, 2026 Defense Production Act directive requiring restoration of Santa Ynez Unit and pipeline operations; the order is the subject of ongoing federal litigation.
9. Companies and organizations
Sable Offshore Corp. Owner and operator of the Santa Ynez Unit and Las Flores Pipeline System since February 2024.
ExxonMobil and Pacific Pipeline Company Former owners of the assets. Exxon remains a creditor under financing used for Sable’s acquisition.
Plains All American Pipeline Owner and operator of Line 901 at the time of the 2015 rupture. Plains later sold the pipeline to Exxon.
Environmental Defense Center Center for Biological Diversity and Wishtoyo Foundation Organizations involved in litigation concerning permits, pipeline-safety approvals and federal offshore decisions.
10. Litigation
Sable Offshore Corp. & Pacific Pipeline Co. v. California Coastal Commission
Santa Barbara Superior Court No. 25CV00974 · appeal 2d Civ. No. B347601, Cal. Ct. App., 2d App. Dist., Div. Six
Sable challenges the Coastal Commission’s notices of violation and cease-and-desist orders and argues that existing permits authorize its repair work. The trial court granted the Commission a preliminary injunction in May 2025, and the Court of Appeal affirmed by a 2 to 1 vote on June 17, 2026. Sable has also sought more than $347 million in damages. The litigation includes a factual dispute over the extent of offshore span-remediation work.
California v. U.S. Department of Energy (DPA order challenge)
U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal., No. 2:26-cv-03396
California alleges that the Department of Energy exceeded its authority under the Defense Production Act and violated federal administrative and constitutional requirements. The state also disputes Sable’s authority to use the pipeline segment crossing Gaviota State Park after expiration of a prior easement.
State of California v. PHMSA (Ninth Circuit petitions for review)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · consolidated with Environmental Defense Center v. PHMSA, No. 25-8059
California and environmental groups challenged PHMSA’s December 2025 jurisdictional determination, restart approval and emergency special permit. On August 12, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that PHMSA’s later June 2026 action mooted the earlier challenge without deciding whether the pipeline segment in state waters is interstate. California separately petitioned for review of the June 25 special permit and related jurisdictional determination.
People of the State of California v. Sable Offshore Corp. (criminal)
Santa Barbara County Superior Court No. 25CR07677 · filed September 16, 2025
The case remains active. The Santa Barbara County Superior Court calendar lists a continued arraignment for September 29, 2026.
People ex rel. Regional Water Quality Control Board v. Sable Offshore Corp.
Santa Barbara County Superior Court No. 25CV06285 · filed October 3, 2025
The attorney general, acting for the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, alleges that Sable disturbed streambed and wetland sites during pipeline-repair work without required waste-discharge authorization. The allegations remain subject to adjudication.
Securities class action — Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp. et al.
U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal., No. 2:25-cv-06869 · filed July 28, 2025
The putative securities class action alleges that Sable’s May 2025 restart statements were misleading in connection with a secondary stock offering. The defendants include Sable, company officers and offering underwriters. The allegations remain subject to adjudication.
Sable Offshore Corp. & ExxonMobil v. Santa Barbara County
U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal., No. 2:25-cv-04165-MRA-AGR · filed May 8, 2025
Sable and Exxon sued Santa Barbara County over the Board of Supervisors’ deadlock on transfer of operating permits. The complaint argues, among other claims, that federal and state pipeline-safety law preempts the county from considering certain safety issues under its ownership-transfer ordinance.
Environmental groups v. Office of the State Fire Marshal
Santa Barbara Superior Court Nos. 25CV02244 & 25CV02247 · both filed Apr. 15, 2025
Environmental groups challenged the state fire marshal’s safety-waiver approvals. The litigation produced a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in 2025. Sable later sought to dissolve the injunction after PHMSA assumed federal jurisdiction.
Sable Offshore Corp. v. State of California (SB 237)
Kern County Superior Court · petition filed September 29, 2025
Sable seeks a declaration that SB 237’s coastal-development-permit requirement for specified work on idle oil and gas facilities does not apply to the Las Flores Pipeline System.
Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum
On August 31, 2026, the court dismissed with prejudice a challenge to BOEM’s April 2025 decision not to require revision of the development and production plan for Platform Harmony. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
Other proceedings
Various courts
Other proceedings concern the pipeline segment through Gaviota State Park, a related easement dispute and a challenge to CalGEM bonding requirements.
ExxonMobil Corp v Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal., No. 2:22-cv-03225-DMG-MRW · Judge Dolly M. Gee
Exxon challenged Santa Barbara County’s denial of its proposed trucking plan. The district court rejected Exxon’s vested-rights theory in September 2023. The parties dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice after Exxon sold the assets to Sable.
Center for Biological Diversity and Wishtoyo Foundation v BOEM and Interior
Federal court · v. Haaland, No. 2:24-cv-05459 (filed June 27, 2024); v. Burgum, No. 2:25-cv-02840 (Apr. 2, 2025)
The cases challenge federal lease renewals and approvals associated with the Santa Ynez Unit under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. BSEE and BOEM agreed in March 2025 to conduct an environmental assessment.
11. Developments to watch
—Platform Hondo Sable said on August 10 that Hondo was expected to return to service in September. No later company filing identified through September 13 confirms the restart.
—Congressional inquiry The inquiry announced in May could produce additional documents, hearings or findings concerning the federal restart decision.
—Appeals Federal appeals could further define the preemptive effect of the Defense Production Act order and PHMSA jurisdiction.
—Financing Sable’s debt, capital raising and cash flow remain relevant as production and marketing arrangements develop.
—Criminal case The Santa Barbara County prosecution remains active, with a continued arraignment scheduled for September 29, 2026.
—Securities and regulatory matters Public filings may provide additional information concerning investor-communications investigations.
12. Open questions
— How far does the Defense Production Act authorize federal directives that conflict with state pipeline, environmental or property-law requirements?
— What effect will the federal rulings have on California’s state-court injunctions and enforcement orders?
— How will Sable’s financing obligations change as production and sales develop?
— How will the Santa Barbara County criminal case proceed?
— Will the pending federal litigation resolve whether the state-waters segment of the pipeline is interstate?
13. Primary documents
—DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, “Preemptive Effect of Defense Production Act Order on State Law,” 50 Op. O.L.C. __ (March 3, 2026) — memo to DOE General Counsel
—Sec’y of Energy Chris Wright, “Pipeline Capacity Prioritization and Allocation Order” (”Wright Order”) — 91 Fed. Reg. (March 13, 2026)
—Consent Decree, United States v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. — No. 2:20-cv-02415, C.D. Cal. (March 13, 2020)
—Sable v. California Coastal Commission, verified complaint — Santa Barbara Sup. Ct. No. 25CV00974 (February 18, 2025)
—Sable v. California Coastal Commission, Court of Appeal opinion — 2d Civ. No. B347601 (June 17, 2026)
—CCC Executive Director Cease and Desist Order No. ED-24-CD-02 — November 12, 2024
—CCC Staff Report, agenda items Th8.1–Th8.3 (penalty calculation) — March 28, 2025, for Apr. 10, 2025 hearing
—State of California v. Wright (DPA order challenge) — C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-03396 (filed March 31, 2026)
—State of California v. PHMSA / Environmental Defense Center v. PHMSA — 9th Cir. Nos. 26-508 and 25-8059
—PHMSA Special Permit, Docket No. PHMSA-2026-0464, issued June 25, 2026 — https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/special-permits-state-waivers/special-permits-issued
—People ex rel. Regional Water Quality Control Board v. Sable Offshore Corp. — Santa Barbara Sup. Ct. No. 25CV06285 (October 3, 2025)
—Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp. et al. (securities class action) — C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-06869 (July 28, 2025)
—Sable & ExxonMobil v. Santa Barbara County — C.D. Cal. No. 2:25-cv-04165-MRA-AGR (May 8, 2025)
—ExxonMobil v. Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, order on cross-MSJ — C.D. Cal. No. 2:22-cv-03225-DMG-MRW (September 27, 2023)
—SB County Board of Supervisors Action Letter approving Exxon-to-PPC pipeline transfer — September 19, 2023 (4-0 vote)
—Sable Offshore Corp. investor presentation — September 2025
—CDFW-OSPR oil spill contingency plan deficiency letters (4 letters, Plans CA-00-7239 and CA-00-7217) — September–December 2024
Department of Energy, March 13, 2026 restart directive — https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-directs-sable-offshore-restore-santa-ynez-unit-and-pipeline
Sable Offshore, Q2 2026 financial and operational results — https://www.sableoffshore.com/news/news-details/2026/Sable-Offshore-Corp--Reports-Second-Quarter-2026-Financial-and-Operational-Results/default.aspx
California Court of Appeal, Sable Offshore Corp. v. California Coastal Commission, B347601 — https://courts.ca.gov/opinion/published/2026-06-17/b347601
California Legislature, AB 1448 — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1448
U.S. Department of Justice, September 3, 2026 summary of August 31 dismissal in Center for Biological Diversity v. Burgum — https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-court-dismisses-another-attempt-stymie-sable-offshore-corporations-oil-and-gas