Santa Barbara Supervisors Vote 2-2 on Pipeline Permit Transfer to Sable Offshore

Environmentalists Chalk Up Board’s ‘Nonaction’ as Win Following Seven-Hour Hearing

The supervisors’ board room was packed on Tuesday for a seven-hour hearing on whether to approve the transfer of pipeline permits from ExxonMobil to Sable. The supervisors’ tie vote meant no permit transfer took place. | Credit: Ingrid Bostrom

County Supervisor Laura Capps said Sable’s requested permit transfer didn’t pass her “smell test.” | Credit: Ingrid Bosrom

[Updated: Wed., Feb. 26, 2025, 11:40am]

To say the house was packed would be an understatement.

Two sides of the Santa Barbara County Administration Building told opposite stories on Tuesday, with environmental groups rallying against Sable Offshore’s plans to restart coastal oil pipelines and offshore platforms on one side, and Sable’s own employees and executives — marked by Sable baseball caps and cowboy hats — on the other. But at 9 a.m., when the Board of Supervisors convened to vote on whether to approve the transfer of permits from the pipeline’s former owner, ExxonMobil, to Sable, both sides collided in what had to have been one of the longest public comment periods ever recorded.

But after seven hours, the supervisors ended in a split 2-2 vote, as Supervisor Joan Hartmann recused herself due to the pipeline running through her property. In what county counsel called a “non-action,” no permit transfer took place, eliciting cheers from environmental activists throughout the room.

“There are too many red flags,” said Supervisor Laura Capps. “It doesn’t pass my smell test.”

Planning and Development staff approved the transfer of permits to Sable on October 30, 2024, but appeals filed by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and Center for Biological Diversity with the Wishtoyo Foundation put the decision into the supervisors’ hands. The pipeline’s corrosion tendencies — evidenced by its rupture in the 2015 Refugio Oil Spill and its continued lack of cathodic protection — fueled the appellants to argue that the county cannot make the required findings under county ordinance 25B.

Environmental Defense Center attorney Jeremy Frankel said that “Sable has unequivocally failed to demonstrate” that it has the resources to handle a potential oil spill. | Credit: Ingrid Bosrom

The ordinance was enacted in 2001 to protect the county from smaller oil companies that may not have the resources — financial or otherwise — to handle a potential oil spill. “Sable has unequivocally failed to demonstrate as much,” said Jeremy Frankel, an attorney with the EDC, one of the appellants.

However, 25B was interpreted on Tuesday in many different ways by the county, the appellants, and Sable. Even a February 20 letter from the ordinance’s original author, John Day, couldn’t clear it up.

“There isn’t anything required in the statute that has not been provided,” contended Sable’s attorney, Jessica Stebbins Bina of Latham & Watkins.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) states that Sable has $101 million worth of financial responsibility for each of the pipeline’s three sections, and granted Sable certificates stating this. According to Sable’s president, J. Caldwell Flores, “To this day, we have not been asked by any entity, including staff here, or OSPR, or federal staff, to provide anything more than certificates.”

In other words, no regulatory agency has seen Sable’s insurance policy. When Supervisor Capps asked to see it, Flores said the company would “have to review our contractual language with our underwriters.”

Steve Rusch, Sable Offshore’s vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs, presented Sable’s case for a permit transfer before the Board of Supervisors. | Credit: Ingrid Bosrom

However, according to county planner Jacquelynn Ybarra, taxpayers would not be on the hook if a spill occurred that Sable couldn’t financially handle. Rather, Sable might be able to dip into a pool of funding that oil companies pay into as a sort of self-insurance.

Among those voicing concern about the potential permit transfer was Mayor Randy Rowse on behalf of the City of Santa Barbara. In a February 19 letter to the Board of Supervisors, he expressed unease over the “renewed risks of leaks and spills that could impact marine ecosystems, sensitive habitats, and the local economy…. We urge the county to require rigorous inspections and emergency response planning to mitigate any hazards posed by reactivating the pipelines.”

Questions regarding Sable’s ability to comply with laws and regulations were also brought before the supervisors. The California Coastal Commission issued Sable a second cease-and-desist order on February 18 for doing unpermitted work in the coastal zone. The same day, Sable sued the Coastal Commission and has continued working, citing a February 12 letter from county energy planner Errin Briggs saying that no additional permits were needed. Sable is also dealing with violations issued by the Regional Water Board and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

“My job today is to determine, really, whether or not this applicant meets the requirements of 25B,” said Supervisor Steve Lavagnino, who voted to approve the transfer of permits to Sable along with Supervisor Bob Nelson. “This pipeline was legally permitted.”

Supervisor Capps, who voted against the permit transfer with Supervisor Roy Lee, found that Sable did not meet those requirements. “I cannot in good faith say that this transfer gives me reassurance of fiscal responsibility,” she said.

“We look forward to continuing to work with the county to finalize the permit transfer, and to safely restart production as soon as possible,” said Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, in a statement to the Independent.

Editor’s Note: This story was updated to add a statement from Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs.

Environmental activists wearing green shirts and Sable employees sporting company baseball caps and cowboy hats crowded outside the County Administration Building and inside the board room on Tuesday. | Credit: Ingrid Bostrom