EDC files lawsuit challenging new Trump administration special permit for defective Central Coast pipelines

EDC files lawsuit challenging new Trump administration special permit for defective Central Coast pipelines
Federal agency again waives safety standards for pipeline that failed in 2015 and caused a historic spill on the California coast

 

SANTA BARBARA, CA – The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and other conservation groups sued the Trump administration today to challenge a “special permit” allowing oil to flow through pipelines with a history of severe corrosion, including one that failed in 2015, causing one of the worst oil disasters in California history.

The permit waives certain federal safety regulations for onshore pipelines CA-324 and CA-325, the former of which was responsible for the 2015 Plains Oil Spill disaster at Refugio State Beach.

“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, Chief Counsel of the Environmental Defense Center. “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 pipeline’s current owner, Sable Offshore Corp., restarted the pipelines in March after the Trump administration issued an extraordinary order under the Defense Production Act ostensibly allowing the company to operate outside of normal state environmental, safety, and property laws. The administration has claimed a “national emergency” to fast-track approvals for the embattled pipelines and other projects.

During a press tour In June, Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum promoted the Sable project as safe. But in August, just five months after restarting, Sable alerted Santa Barbara County to the discovery of a dozen “anomalies,” or possible defects serious enough to require excavation and potential repairs. A court judgment from last month upholds a Coastal Commission order prohibiting Sable from excavating within the Coastal Zone or making repairs without a permit from the Coastal Commission.

The lawsuit filed today argues that PHMSA unlawfully took jurisdiction over the pipelines away from California, which determined last year – through the State Fire Marshal – that the pipelines were not safe to operate without additional repairs. The lawsuit also alleges that the new special permit violates the Pipeline Safety Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act by failing to conduct the necessary reviews or make the required findings about pipeline safety.

Last year, PHMSA attempted to take over restart authority from the state Fire Marshal by reclassifying the pipelines – which start in Santa Barbara County and end in Kern County – as “interstate,” meaning it leaves the State of California and should therefore be under federal jurisdiction. After this dubious change, PHMSA approved an emergency special permit and restart plan on December 22. A lawsuit filed by EDC and others is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today’s lawsuit focuses on the new special permit and was filed by EDC on behalf of itself and Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara County Action Network, Sierra Club, and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, and by the Center for Biological Diversity on behalf of itself and Wishtoyo Foundation. Quotes from EDC’s clients are below.

Numerous other legal challenges have been filed over the pipelines’ restart. Last year, EDC and its partners won an injunction prohibiting Sable from restarting the pipeline without all necessary approvals. Restart of the pipelines placed Sable in violation of the injunction, and the case is pending in state court.

“PHMSA is attempting to strip California of its coastal authority to benefit Sable—and that’s an overreach we won’t accept. For decades, the Sierra Club has fought alongside our partners, to protect this coast from risky oil operations. 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.”
– Maureen Ellenberger, Chair of Sierra Club Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter

“Santa Barbara Channelkeeper is proud to stand with other conservation groups in challenging PHMSA’s recent actions that are unprecedented and inadequate for protecting the waters, wildlife, and habitats of the Channel and Gaviota coast. We are determined to continue defending our coast from the ecological and economic risks of expanded offshore oil drilling.”
– Ted Morton, Executive Director, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

“Local land stewardship is best kept for local government and citizens who live and rely on the land for their livelihoods and lifestyles. This permitting bypass by Sable and PHMSA is simply a money grab without concern for local residents and the environment.”
– Michael Lyons, Get Oil Out!

“SBCAN believes decisions with such significant consequences should not bypass the environmental safeguards, public processes, and state and local oversight that exist to protect these resources and the people who live here. SBCAN is concerned about what precedent this could set if federal decisions can be used to circumvent state and local protections.”
– Nancy Avoce, Executive Director, Santa Barbara County Action Network (SBCAN)

 

###