Subscribe now

In a March 18, 2026 notice of intent, BOEM said it will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate a proposal to authorize well stimulation treatments, including fracking, across existing wells at the site. Platform Gilda, located approximately nine miles offshore in the Santa Barbara Channel, is part of the Santa Clara Unit and is operated by DCOR LLC.

BOEM’s proposed action is to authorize fracking across 16 existing wells using existing offshore infrastructure. BOEM framed the action as an incremental enhancement of production that avoids the environmental impacts associated with new offshore development.

Fast-Track Review under Emergency NEPA Procedures

BOEM is conducting the review under the Interior Department’s “alternative arrangements” for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance during a declared national energy emergency. The EIS process could be completed in roughly 28 days from the date of the notice—far shorter than typical multi-year NEPA timelines.

The expedited review reflects broader federal efforts to expand domestic oil and gas production following executive orders declaring a national energy emergency and prioritizing increased domestic energy production. In its January 2026 application, DCOR said fracking at Platform Gilda is “needed to maintain Platform Gilda’s offshore production levels to support the national interest in reducing dependence on foreign energy sources, efficiently increasing domestic production and conserving resources in accordance with Executive Orders (EO) 14154 and EO 14156.” DCOR had previously applied for fracking permits that were slowed by the 2022 court decision.

Long-Standing Offshore Fracking Restrictions

Offshore fracking in California has been effectively blocked for years by litigation. In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that federal agencies violated environmental laws by approving offshore well stimulation without adequate review. The court ruled that the federal government must complete a full EIS review before approving permits for offshore oil drilling platforms.

The decision, which stemmed from a 2016 lawsuit brought by California and environmental groups, prevented the Interior Department and other federal agencies from issuing fracking permits until a complete EIS was issued.

The U.S. Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision in 2023, leaving in place a de facto moratorium on offshore fracking until comprehensive environmental analysis is completed.

Earlier district court rulings in 2018 similarly halted permitting, citing violations of the Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act.

Production Context and Policy Implications

Platform Gilda has produced approximately 42.6 million barrels of oil and 51.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas since beginning operations in 1981, according to federal data.

The review follows separate federal actions earlier this year to consider new offshore lease sales in California waters, suggesting a broader policy shift toward increased offshore development. In February 2026, BOEM announced that it will begin preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for potential oil and gas lease sales off the coast of California. The review encompasses the Northern, Central and Southern California Planning Areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Separately, the Trump administration has taken steps to support the restart of offshore oil production linked to the Santa Ynez Unit offshore oil field. Most recently, it directed Sable Offshore Corp. to restart the oil pipeline system serving the Santa Ynez Unit, citing national security concerns and the need to strengthen domestic energy supply on the West Coast.

Subscribe now

The complaint challenges the March 13, 2026 order issued under the Defense Production Act (DPA). The state argues the order exceeds federal authority and seeks to halt its implementation.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the directive “unlawfully purports to supersede state law, state court orders, and a federal court-approved Consent Decree” to allow Sable to restart the pipeline.

The federal order, issued by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, cites national security concerns and relies on President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order declaring an energy emergency. Wright said the order would “address supply disruption risks caused by California policies that have left the region and U.S. military forces dependent on foreign oil.”

California’s complaint argues the DPA does not authorize the federal government to override state environmental laws, judicial orders, or permitting requirements. It also contends that the statute does not permit the Department of Energy to compel private companies to enter into commercial arrangements with other private entities.

The state further raises constitutional claims, arguing the order improperly attempts to override state court rulings and a 2020 consent decree requiring state regulatory approval before operations can resume. The filing also alleges a violation of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, noting that a four-mile stretch of the pipeline crosses Gaviota State Park.

The lawsuit follows a separate challenge to actions by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), in which California disputed the agency’s assertion of federal jurisdiction over the Las Flores Pipeline System. That case, filed in January 2026, also challenges PHMSA’s approval of Sable’s restart plan and its issuance of an emergency special permit that waives certain safety rules.

Subscribe now

On March 16, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a motion in federal court seeking to prevent Sable from operating the pipeline, Politico reported. The motion came only days after the U.S. Department of Energy directed the company on March 13, 2026 to resume operations. Governor Gavin Newsom and Bonta had signaled imminent legal action following the federal order.

The federal directive, issued by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright under authority delegated through the Defense Production Act of 1950, requires Sable to prioritize restarting the pipeline system to support domestic energy supply. The administration framed the action in national security terms, citing risks to West Coast fuel availability.

Bonta called the federal order unlawful and warned that restarting the pipeline could pose significant environmental risks. Bonta filed the motion on behalf of the California Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Department of Parks and Recreation, according to Politico.

Sable has already begun transporting crude oil from the offshore Santa Ynez Unit through the Las Flores Pipeline System, which runs from Las Flores Canyon in Santa Barbara County to Pentland Station in Kern County. The company expects to begin selling crude oil by April 1, 2026.

Trespassing Claim Filed

California has also filed a separate lawsuit in Santa Barbara County Superior Court targeting Sable’s use of pipeline infrastructure that crosses Gaviota State Park, E&E News reported. Bonta alleges that the company resumed operations without required state authorization and is trespassing on state property. The state is seeking a court order requiring Sable to stop pipeline operations and remove infrastructure from park land.

Injunction Upheld

Additionally, on March 17, 2026, a Santa Barbara County judge upheld a July 2025 preliminary injunction against the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) that requires Sable to provide advance notice before restarting onshore pipeline operations. Environmental groups involved in the case argue that the restart violates the injunction and poses ongoing spill risks along the Santa Barbara coastline.

The injunction is part of a 2024 suit that environmental groups filed against the OSFM, arguing that the fire marshal did not comply with environmental review and pipeline safety laws before issuing the waivers for the pipeline.

Further court proceedings are scheduled for April 17.

Questions, comments, or tips? Contact editor@californiaenergyjournal.com.

Subscribe now

Under the directive, Sable began transporting oil from the Santa Ynez Unit through the Las Flores Pipeline System—referred to in the order as the Santa Ynez Pipeline System—from Las Flores Canyon in Santa Barbara County to Pentland Station in Kern County.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright framed the directive in national security terms. The order will “address supply disruption risks caused by California policies that have left the region and U.S. military forces dependent on foreign oil,” Wright said in a statement. “Today’s order will strengthen America’s oil supply and restore a pipeline system vital to our national security and defense, ensuring that West Coast military installations have the reliable energy critical to military readiness.”

The directive is the latest move by the Trump administration to support Sable in its ongoing legal and political conflict with California regulators over restarting the pipeline system that ruptured in 2025 and caused the Refugio oil spill.

In December 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) approved Sable’s restart plan for its Las Flores Pipeline System. The approval came only days after the PHMSA confirmed Sable’s determination that the pipeline qualifies as an interstate pipeline under the Pipeline Safety Act rather than as an intrastate public subject to state regulation.

The March 13 order states that the Santa Ynez Unit “is a critical energy resource on the West Coast” and “one of the largest known offshore oilfields in the United States.” According to the Department of Energy, the field could produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day—a 15% increase in California’s in-state oil production.

The directive states that the oilfield cannot address the energy shortages cited in President Donald Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order declaring a national energy emergency “without reliable transport of SYU’s production through the Santa Ynez Pipeline System (SYPS) to market on mainland California.”

The order directs Sable to “immediately prioritize and allocate pipeline transportation services for hydrocarbons from the SYU through the SYPS, including transportation service activities at the onshore facilities in Las Flores Canyon, California, to the Pentland Station terminal in Pentland, California.”

The Santa Ynez Pipeline System has an existing capacity of 200,000 barrels per day, according to Sable.

Sable stated that it is producing oil from Platform Harmony and expects to increase to full production at platforms Harmony and Heritage by the end of March. The company said it expects Platform Hondo to resume full production in June 2026. Sable plans to begin sales by April 1, 2026 at a rate of approximately 50,000 barrels per day.

Order Invoked Defense Production Act

Wright issued the directive under authority delegated to the Department of Energy under the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, which allows the federal government to require private companies to prioritize production and services necessary for national defense. The directive came shortly after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to delegate certain DPA authorities to the Secretary of Energy.

Wrights directive also builds on Trump’s executive order declaring a national energy emergency. “An affordable and reliable domestic supply of energy is a fundamental requirement for the national and economic security of any nation,” the directive states.

Trumps executive order stated that risks are particularly acute on the West Coast, “where dangerous State and local policies jeopardize our Nation’s core national defense and security needs, and devastate the prosperity of not only local residents but the entire United States population.”

California Officials Say State Will Sue

Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the directive and said California would sue to enforce court orders and state law against Sable and to challenge the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers.

“Donald Trump started a war, admitted it would spike gas prices nationwide, told Americans it was a small price to pay, and now he’s using this crisis of his own making to attempt what he’s wanted to do for years: open California’s coast for his oil industry friends so they can poison our beaches,” Newsom said in a statement.

“This wouldn’t lower prices by a cent. This is an attempt to illegally restart a pipeline whose operators are facing criminal charges and prohibited by multiple court orders from restarting,” he said.

Newsom added that California “will not stand by while the Trump administration attempts to sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also criticized the directive, calling it the administration’s “latest brazen abuse of power.” He said on social media that California “will not stand by as this administration continues their unlawful all-out assault on California and our coastlines, and we are reviewing all of our legal options.”

Sable Sues State Parks Department

Sable is also suing the California Department of Parks and Recreation, seeking a court declaration that the federal order overrides state environmental review requirements and confirming the company’s right to access a four-mile section of Line 325 that runs through Gaviota State Park.

The State Parks Department responded in a letter to Sable denying its claim that the federal order grants access to the pipeline easement and stating that the easement expired in 2016, according to the New York Times.

The department also ordered Sable to remove the four-mile portion of the pipeline crossing the park.

State officials said Sable’s attempts to restart the pipeline ended the possibility that the department would issue a new easement for the pipeline if Sable complies with state environmental reviews, according to the New York Times.

The State Parks department said it would take legal action if Sable did not provide a plan for removal of the pipeline within 10 days or confirm by noon on March 16, 2026 that it had not restarted the pipeline and that the company would receive all state approvals before a restart. Sable did not respond to the deadline.

Timeline: Sable Offshore and the Las Flores Pipeline System

Read more

May 19, 2015
A crude oil pipeline owned by Plains All American Pipeline (Line 901) ruptures near Refugio State Beach, spilling about 142,000 gallons of oil along the Santa Barbara coast.

Following the spill, ExxonMobil suspends production from the Santa Ynez Unit (SYU) offshore platforms and the Las Flore…

Read more

Subscribe now

Sable challenged a July 2025 preliminary injunction against the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM), finding that it likely violated state law in its approval of a waiver that allowed Sa…

Read more

Subscribe now

The action, published as …

Read more

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

In a petition filed on January 23, 2026, California challenged three actions by the fede…

Read more

Subscribe now

Environmental groups sued the Trump administration on December 24, 2025 over its approval of Sable’s request for an “emergency” waiver from fe…

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administ…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

In an 8-K filing on November 26, 2025, Sable stated that it determined that the 122-mi…

Read more

Subscribe now

The 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and …

Read more

Subscribe now

The proposed lease sales would primarily be offshore from Santa Barbara County, the New York Times reported, where Sable Offshore Corp. is looking to restart three …

Read more

Read more