EDC Files Lawsuit Challenging New Trump Administration Special Permit for Defective Central Coast Pipelines

A new federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Santa Barbara is taking aim at the Trump administration's latest move to keep oil flowing through two aging Central Coast pipelines — including the line that ruptured in 2015 and caused the Refugio State Beach oil spill, one of the worst coastal disasters in California history.

The Santa Barbara Independent reported that the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), joined by a coalition of conservation groups, is challenging a "special permit" issued by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) that waives certain federal pipeline safety regulations for onshore pipelines CA-324 and CA-325. Line 901 — now designated CA-324 — failed in May 2015, dumping crude oil onto Refugio State Beach and into the Pacific, coating seabirds and closing fisheries along the Gaviota Coast.

What the Special Permit Does

At the heart of the dispute is a permit that allows the pipelines' current owner, Sable Offshore Corp., to operate the lines without meeting standard federal safety requirements — despite what opponents describe as a documented history of severe corrosion.

"This permit is part of an unprecedented federal effort to bring back defective pipelines over the objections of the state and our community," said Linda Krop, EDC's chief counsel. "We remember the severe damage to our environment and economy from the 2015 spill. The permit issued by the Trump administration allows these lines to operate without meeting the usual safety requirements, and puts the coast and our entire community at risk of another major disaster."

The pipelines run from Santa Barbara County inland to Kern County. Sable restarted them in March after the administration invoked the Defense Production Act, an extraordinary order that allowed the company to operate outside normal state environmental, safety, and property laws, according to the announcement.

The Federal-State Jurisdiction Fight

The legal battle centers in part on which government actually regulates these lines. California's State Fire Marshal determined last year that the pipelines were not safe to operate without additional repairs. But PHMSA then reclassified the pipelines as "interstate" facilities — putting them under federal rather than state jurisdiction — and approved an emergency special permit and restart plan on December 22.

Tuesday's lawsuit argues that jurisdictional takeover was unlawful, and that the new special permit violates the Pipeline Safety Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act by skipping required environmental reviews and safety findings. A separate challenge to the earlier emergency permit, filed by EDC and others, remains pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"PHMSA is attempting to strip California of its coastal authority to benefit Sable — and that's an overreach we won't accept," said Maureen Ellenberger, chair of the Sierra Club's Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter. "We are taking this to the Ninth Circuit to defend our rights and ensure community values, not greedy corporate interests, guide decisions about our ocean and our coast."

New Defects Discovered Months After Restart

The timing of the lawsuit follows a troubling summer for the pipeline operator. During a June press tour, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum promoted the Sable project as safe. But in August — roughly five months after the restart — Sable alerted Santa Barbara County to the discovery of a dozen "anomalies," possible defects serious enough to require excavation and potential repairs, according to the Independent.

Sable's ability to fix those problems is itself constrained: a court judgment last month upheld a California Coastal Commission order prohibiting the company from excavating within the Coastal Zone or making repairs without a Coastal Commission permit — leaving the operator in a bind between federal pressure to keep the lines running and state authority over the coastline.

The case adds to a growing stack of litigation. Last year, EDC and its partners won an injunction prohibiting Sable from restarting the pipeline without all necessary approvals; the groups say the March restart placed Sable in violation of that injunction in a case now pending in state court.

Who Is Suing, and Why It Matters Locally

Tuesday's filing was brought by EDC on behalf of itself, Get Oil Out!, the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SB CAN), the Sierra Club, and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, along with the Center for Biological Diversity on behalf of itself and the Wishtoyo Foundation.

The coalition's arguments go beyond pipeline engineering to questions of local control. "Local land stewardship is best kept for local government and citizens who live and rely on the land for their livelihoods and lifestyles," said Michael Lyons of Get Oil Out!, the organization born out of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that helped launch the modern environmental movement. "This permitting bypass by Sable and PHMSA is simply a money grab without concern for local residents and the environment."

Nancy Avoce, executive director of SB CAN, said the group is worried about the precedent: "SB CAN is concerned about what precedent this could set if federal decisions can be used to circumvent state and local protections."

For Santa Barbara residents, the stakes are both ecological and economic. The 2015 Refugio spill fouled beaches, harmed marine life in the Channel, and cost the region millions in tourism and fishing losses. Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Executive Director Ted Morton said his organization is "determined to continue defending our coast from the ecological and economic risks of expanded offshore oil drilling."

What Comes Next

The new lawsuit will move through the federal courts alongside the pending Ninth Circuit challenge and the state-court injunction case. Meanwhile, the dozen reported anomalies remain unresolved, and the Coastal Commission's excavation restrictions stand — setting up a legal and regulatory standoff that could determine whether the pipelines that caused the Refugio disaster continue pumping crude beneath the Gaviota Coast.