On Dec. 31, an appeals court ruled against environmental groups’ request to stay a federal decision approving Sable Offshore Corporation’s restart plans for two oil pipelines along the Gaviota Coast.
The request was part of a lawsuit the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Defense Center, and others filed against the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to prevent “the immediate restart of the pipeline, which has been shut down for 10 years since it ruptured” and caused the 2015 Refugio oil spill.
The suit takes aim at PHMSA for taking oversight of the pipelines from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal in December, approving restart plans, and granting Sable an emergency special permit. The groups accuse PHMSA of violating the Pipeline Safety Act and the National Environmental Protection Act.
“In a rushed, legally dubious, and politicized process … PHMSA purported to take over regulatory jurisdiction of the pipeline system … and approved a restart plan,” the environmental groups wrote in court documents. “Restarting the pipeline would not only invite another oil disaster on the Central Coast, but all but ensure it.”
Sable intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of PHMSA, filing a response on Dec. 30.
“Petitioner’s actual position is apparent. They believe that these pipeline segments should not contain crude oil. And they believe, incorrectly, that serious harm would result from the flow of crude oil,” Sable’s response stated. “The only effect of the special permit is to waive a single regulatory requirement for repairs to happen within 180 days of discovering future corrosion along a seam weld.”
Sable argues that the special permit and restart plan reviews were both part of complying with the 2020 consent decree issued in the lawsuit against Plains All-American over the oil spill and wouldn’t normally be part of any similar oil pipeline restart procedures. The company, which has owned the pipelines since 2024, also argues that the restart plan and permit are almost identical to what was conceived in collaboration with the state fire marshal, except the 180-day repair waiver.
In October 2025, the Office of the State Fire Marshal sent Sable a letter informing it that the restart plan wasn’t approved yet. The company had failed to comply with one requirement—the 180-day repair requirement—in the state waiver approved in 2024.
In November, Sable appealed to PHMSA to reclassify the Las Flores Pipeline from intrastate to interstate, as “it transports crude oil from the [Outer Continental Shelf]” and take over jurisdiction. Prior to the pipeline’s shutdown, it was considered an interstate pipeline, according to Sable and PHMSA.
“Sable has already spent approximately $211 million on repair and maintenance activities along the pipelines through November 2025,” Sable wrote in court documents. “If Sable is prevented from resuming petroleum transportation, Sable will lose at least $2.6 million per day, $18.2 million per week, and $79 million per month in net revenue.”
The company added that repairs will continue after oil resumes flowing through the pipelines. PHMSA granted the special permit to Sable in compliance with an executive order from Trump over “insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation” that causes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to our nation’s economy, national security, and foreign policy,” Sable said.
PHMSA responded to the Sun’s request for comment with a statement.
“Restarting the Las Flores Pipeline will bring much needed American energy to a state with the highest gas prices in the country. We look forward to a swift resolution in this case to provide the operator with regulatory certainty and Californians with affordable American energy,” the statement said.
This article appears in January 8 – January 15, 2026.