SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — In an action cheered by state environmentalists, the California Coastal Commission has voted to fine a Texas-based oil firm $18 million for failing to obtain necessary permits and reviews in its controversial push to revive oil production off the Gaviota Coast.
After hours of public comment Thursday, the commission found that Sable Offshore Corp. has for months violated the California Coastal Act by repairing and upgrading oil pipelines near Santa Barbara without commission approval.
In addition to the $18-million fine, commissioners ordered the company to halt all pipeline development and restore lands where environmental damage has occurred.
“The Coastal Act is the law, the law … put in place by a vote of the people,” Commissioner Meaghan Harmon said. “Sable’s refusal, in a very real sense, is a subversion of the will of the people of the state of California.”
Advertisement
An anti-Sable shirt worn by an attendee at a California Coastal Commission hearing to consider sanctions for the Texas-based oil company trying to restart drilling on Santa Barbara’s coast.
(Michael Owen Baker / For The Times)
The decision marks a significant escalation in the showdown between coastal authorities and Sable officials, who claim the commission has overstepped its authority. The action also comes at a time when the Trump administration is actively encouraging oil and gas production in stark contrast to California’s clean-energy and climate-focused goals.
Sable insists that it has already obtained necessary work approval from the County of Santa Barbara, and that commission approval was necessary only when the pipeline infrastructure was first proposed decades ago.
Advertisement
It wasn’t immediately clear how the Houston-based company would respond to the commission’s action.
“Sable is considering all options regarding its compliance with these orders,” read a prepared statement from Steve Rusch, Sable’s vice president of environmental and governmental affairs. “We respectfully have the right to disagree with the Commission’s decision and to seek independent clarification.”
Ultimately, the matter may be end up in court. In February, Sable sued the Coastal Commission claiming it lacks the authority to oversee its work.
On Thursday, Rusch called the commission’s demands part of an “arbitrary permitting process,” and said the company had worked with Coastal Commission staff for months in attempt to address their concerns. Still, Rusch said his company is “dedicated to restarting project operations in a safe and efficient manner.”
Commissioners voted unanimously to issue the cease-and-desist order — which would stop work until Sable obtained commission approval — as well as the order to restore damaged lands. However, the commission voted 9 to 2 in favor of the fine — the largest it has ever levied.
Advertisement
The hearing drew hundreds of people, including Sable employees and supporters and scores of environmental activists, many wearing “Don’t Enable Sable” T-shirts.
“We’re at a critical crossroads,” said Maureen Ellenberger, chair of the Sierra Club’s Santa Barbara and Ventura chapter. “In the 1970s, Californians fought to protect our coastal zone — 50 years later we’re still fighting. The California coast shouldn’t be for sale.”
Santa Barbara Middle School students wait in line to speak during a California Coastal Commission hearing to consider sanctions for the Texas-based oil company trying to restart drilling on Santa Barbara’s coast.
(Michael Owen Baker / For The Times)
At one point, a stream of 20 Santa Barbara Middle School students testified back-to-back, a few barely reaching the microphone. “None of us should be here right now — we should all be at school, but we are here because we care,” said 14-year-old Ethan Maday, a ninth-grader who helped organize his classmates’ trip to the commission hearing.
Advertisement
Santa Barbara has long been an environmentally conscious community, due in part to a history of major oil spills in the area. The largest spill, which occurred in 1969, released an estimated 3 million gallons of oil and inspired multiple environmental protection laws.
Sable hopes to reactivate the so-called Santa Ynez Unit, a collection of three offshore oil platforms in federal waters. The Hondo, Harmony and Heritage platforms are all connected to the Las Flores pipeline system and associated processing facility.
It was that network of oil lines that suffered a massive spill in 2015, when the Santa Ynez unit was owned by another company. That spill occurred when a corroded pipeline ruptured and released an estimated 140,000 gallons of crude near Refugio State Beach. Sable’s current work is intended to repair and upgrade those lines.
At Thursday’s hearing, Sable supporters insisted the upgrades would make the pipeline network more reliable than ever.
Mai Lindsey, a contractor who works on Sable’s leak detection system, said she found it “unfair” how the commission was asserting itself in their work.
Advertisement
“Are you in your lane for enforcing this?” Lindsey asked.
She said people need to understand that focusing on previous spills is no longer relevant, given how technology in her industry has drastically changed: “We learn and we improve,” she said.
Steve Balkcom, a contractor for Sable who lives in Orange County, said he’s worked on pipelines for four decades and he has no doubt that this one will be among the safest. He chalked up the controversy to a “not in my backyard” attitude.
“I know the pipeline can be safe,” Balkcom said.
Sable has argued that it can could proceed with its corrosion repair work under the pipeline’s original permits from the 1980s. The company contends such permits are still relevant because its work is only repairing and maintaining an existing pipeline, not constructing new infrastructure.
Advertisement
The Coastal Commission rejected that idea Thursday. Showing several photos of Sable’s ongoing pipeline work, Lisa Haage, the commission’s chief of enforcement, called Sable’s work “extensive in both its scale and the resources impacted.”
Commission staff have also argued the current work is far from identical from original permits, noting that recent requirements from the state fire marshal mandate new standards to respond to corrosive tendencies on the pipeline.
“Not only did they do work in sensitive habitats and without sufficient environmental protections and during times that sensitive species were at risk, but they also refused to comply with orders issued to them to address those issues,” Haage said at the hearing.
In a statement of defense, however, Sable said this project will “meet more stringent environmental and safety requirements than any other pipeline in the state.”
Carpinteria resident Jessica Norris holds a sign in an overflow room during the California Coastal Commission hearing.
(Michael Owen Baker / For The Times)
Advertisement
The company estimates that when the Santa Ynez Unit is fully online, it could produce an estimated 28,000 barrels of oil a day, according to an investor presentation, while also generating $5 million a year in new taxes for the county and an additional 300 jobs. Sable anticipates restarting offshore oil production in the second quarter this year, but the company acknowledges that some regulatory and oversight hurdles remain.
Most notably, its restart plan must still be approved by the state fire marshal, though several other parts are under review by other state agencies, including state parks and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Commissioners on Thursday were grateful for the community input, including from Sable employees, whom Harmon called “hard-working people” not responsible or at fault for the Coastal Act violations.
“Coastal development permits make work safe,” Harmon said. “They make work safer not just for our environment … they make work safer for the people who are doing the job.”
Advertisement
She urged Sable to work cooperatively with the commission.
“We can have good, well-paying jobs and we can protect and preserve our coast,” Harmon said.
But some environmentalists said Thursday’s findings should further call into question Sable’s larger project.
“How can we trust this company to operate responsibly, safely, or in compliance with any regulations or laws?” Alex Katz, executive director of the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center, said in a statement. “California can’t afford another disaster on our coast.”
A California man was charged Tuesday after authorities say he brought an explosive device and other weapons through a security checkpoint at Sacramento International Airport.
Kimani Osayande Jones, who also uses the last name Jackson,attempted to bring an improvised explosive device, a knife and other bladed weapons, a torch lighter and zip ties through a TSA security checkpoint on May 30, according to court documents filed Tuesday in the Eastern District of California.
Officials believe Jones, 49, repeatedly called the FBI tip line to report he was being threatened and intimidated in the months leading up to the incident.
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office bomb technicians safely removed the explosive device and tested its powder and fuse, both of which were determined to be “viable and energetic,”officials say.
Advertisement
Investigators said the device had the potential to damage an aircraft and cause a loss of cabin pressure.
Jones’ other luggage, which had already been through security and loaded onto an American Airlines flight to Charlotte, North Carolina, was hand-searched and examined by a canine unit upon arrival, and investigators said nothing “illegal or concerning” was found.
Jones has been chargedin federal courtwith unlawful possession of explosive material at an airport. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.
His attorney, Meghan McLoughlin, told CNN in a statement: “There is often more to these cases than the government’s allegations, and that the criminal process will reveal Mr. Jones’ story as well.”
Multiple cell phones and repeated FBI tip line calls
The Sacramento resident went through security on May 30 wearing a face covering and blue latex gloves, court documents say.
Advertisement
When officers found the explosive device and other items in Jones’ carry-on bag, he told them he was unaware the items were in his possession and said “he would be okay with just discarding them.”When authorities informed him that explosive material could not simply be thrown away, he denied ownership of the backpack.
Jones also had five mobile phones in his possession. The cameras on each phone had been covered with painter’s tape, which authorities believe was intended to prevent his surroundings from being recorded.
One phone contained a 15-minute timer ready to start and another had a message from an unknown number on the screen stating, “we will be awaiting your call,” according to court documents.
An individual police believe to be Jones made approximately 13 calls to the FBI tip line leading up to the incident,beginning in March.
On May 24, the caller reported being followed to and from a doctor’s appointment and described what he said were threats and intimidation by another individual.
Advertisement
He said he was “being coerced in sleep to say certain phrases through digital media” and described “hearing sounds coming through walls, window panes, or even outside, attributing the outside sounds to drones,” court documents say. The call was ultimately terminated because of its “nonsensical nature.”
On the day of the incident, the same caller again contacted the FBI tip line, alleging that several individuals were threatening him throughout the past year through “cyber means.” He also referenced exercising his Second Amendment rights while denying any intention to harm others.
The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office also noted it had prior contact with Jones, “wherein he had a history of being paranoid.”
Hilton, Becerra lead California governor primary results
Vote counting continued after California’s primary election for governor with just over half of the results in.
Although results from California’s primary election began rolling in on Tuesday, June 2, it could take days or even weeks before the final counts are certified.
“This is normal … We have a process that by law ensures both voting rights and the integrity of elections, so I would call on all Californians to be patient,” Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said in a June 2 news release.
Advertisement
The Golden State’s lengthy vote-counting process has “become a national narrative about California elections,” according to Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.
“In California, it takes a long time to certify votes, to verify the signatures, to then count the ballots; all of that process takes a while,” Kousser said in an interview last week. “It may take a while for us to learn who the top candidates who emerge are.”
Here are some factors behind California’s lengthy vote-counting process.
Mail-in ballots come with added verification step
With each mail-in ballot cast, elections officials must compare the signature on a returned vote-by-mail envelope to the voter’s signature on their voter registration card. Various factors go into determining whether the signatures match, including the slant of the signature, whether it is printed or written in cursive, and the size, proportions, or scale.
Vote-by-mail ballots were Californians’ preferred voting method in both the 2024 primary and general elections, with drop-off locations — such as ballot drop boxes and voting centers — the most popular way to return mail-in ballots.
Advertisement
During California’s 2024 primary, more than 7.7 million votes were cast statewide, and 90 percent of those were mail-in ballots. This means election officials had to verify the signatures on more than 6.8 million ballots before they could be counted. For the November 2024 general election, 80% of cast ballots, or about 13 million, were vote-by-mail.
Reviewing conditional voter and provisional ballots
California also allows for same-day voter registration, also known as conditional voter registration. Voters who need to register, or re-register, within 14 days of an election can do so at their county elections office, polling place, or vote center. These ballots will be processed and counted after the county elections office has completed the voter registration process.
In addition to conditional voter ballots, there are provisional ballots that must be verified before they are counted. Voters cast provisional ballots for a wide array of reasons, including if their name does not appear at a polling place or if they’ve made a mistake on their ballot. After a voter casts a provisional ballot, it will not be counted until election officials have confirmed that the voter is registered to vote in that county and has not already voted in that election.
Vote-by-mail ballots can be sent on Election Day
Though state officials recommend voters mail their ballots sooner rather than later, state law allows vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a specified window afterward, thereby extending the tallying process.
Advertisement
For the primary, ballots needed to be postmarked on or before June 2 and received by county elections office no later than June 10.
California is, well, big
California is the most populous state in the nation. And, as of May 18, a record total of 23,155,447 Californians were registered to vote.
While not all registered voters are expected to have voted, county election officials estimate that more than 5 million ballots were cast statewide.
When to expect final results
Under state law, county elections officials are required to report the results for most ballots by June 15, or 13 days after the election, according to Weber. However, some ballots can take counties up to 30 days to count every ballot and then conduct a post-election audit.
State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to state officials July 3. State officials then have until July 10 to certify the results of the election.
California’s crowded, protracted gubernatorial primary is going to take a little more time to settle.
The race remained too early to call Wednesday morning with 50% of the expected vote counted, according to NBC News’ Decision Desk. Three main candidates — former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, and two Democrats, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire activist Tom Steyer — are competing for two spots in the general election, with the candidate in fourth place, Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, running well behind.
Hilton had 27% support in the all-party primary with about half of votes still left to count, while Becerra had 26% and Steyer had 20%. Bianco was the only other candidate in double digits, at 11%.
In California, all candidates run on the same primary ballot in the primary and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the general election.
It’s difficult to say when it will be clear which two candidates advance to the November general election, however, due to the state’s protracted vote counting.
And with millions of ballots left to count, other key races in California remain uncalled as well, including the second runoff spot to face Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass one on one in November, several House races that could help determine the majority next year, and more.
Advertisement
In the governor’s race, all three candidates rallied supporters around the state as the evening drew on.
“We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good,” Hilton told allies. “It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction, a fresh start for our state, which is long overdue.”
But while Hilton was narrowly in first place when he spoke, Democratic candidates were capturing the majority of the votes.
Becerra looked back at his own “underdog story,” from his immigrant relatives to his bid for governor, which took some time to catch fire.
“Almost immediately, he’s counted out, an afterthought, overlooked by many, outspent by a ton, even called along the way to drop out and save us the trouble,” Becerra recounted to his supporters. “Well, guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up.”
Steyer struck a hopeful note in his election night speech despite a deficit in the vote count.
Advertisement
“It might take some time to figure out where this is going, we’re going to wait till every ballot is counted, we’re going to give democracy a time to work, and we know we finished really strong,” Steyer said.
Major battleground districts
GOP Rep. David Valadao’s district has been one of Democrats’ top targets for years, but two Democrats are locked in a close race for the second spot in the November general election against the incumbent.
School board member Randy Villegas, who won support from national progressives, has a slight lead over state legislator Jasmeet Bains, 30% to 26%, with less than half of the expected vote tallied in the 22nd District. Valadao is comfortably in first place.
And in Northern California’s 6th District, Rep. Kevin Kiley — who was elected as a Republican and switched to become an independent this election cycle, as he runs in another newly redrawn district — is bunched up in a tight race that includes Democrat Richard Pan, a former state legislator, and Republican Michael Stansfield. Currently, Stansfield is running ahead of Pan; they spent much of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning trading the lead, which could have significant general election implications.
Meanwhile, outside California, Democrats think they might be able to challenge for one of Montana’s red-tinted congressional districts this fall, after Rep. Ryan Zinke decided to retire. But less than 2 percentage points separate Democrats Sam Forstag and Ryan Busse with more than 85% of the expected vote tallied in their primary in Montana’s 1st District.
Advertisement
Read more about Tuesday’s House primaries here.
A safe seat battle to watch
Plenty of other House districts in California — and a few elsewhere — still have unsettled primaries, but one attracted particular attention due to how nasty the campaign got.
In Southern California, where two Republican incumbents are facing off in one district due to redistricting, Rep. Ken Calvert has advanced to the general election, but Rep. Young Kim is still battling for the second spot. She leads Democrat Esther Kim-Varet in the race for second, 22% to 16%, with about half of the vote in.
Who will face Bass in Los Angeles?
While Bass is projected to advance to a November runoff in Los Angeles, it’s not yet clear whether she’ll face Republican Spencer Pratt or Democrat Nithya Raman.
Bass has about 37% of the vote to 29% for Pratt and 21% for Raman so far, with approximately half of the expected vote tallied.
Advertisement
Speaking to supporters on election night, Raman, a member of the Los Angeles City Council, said that “tonight may not give us a final answer on this race.”
“Many thousands of votes will be counted in the days ahead, and we may not get an answer we like, but regardless of what happens next, nobody, nobody can take away what all of us have built together,” she continued.
Pratt, meanwhile, was looking ahead to a potential matchup with Bass when he spoke to reporters.
“Now I have five months to get deep into every community that hasn’t heard my message to make them safe,” said Pratt, a former reality TV star. “So I’m actually very excited, because I felt very rushed. It’s a big city, and I was not able to talk to as many people as I look forward to talking to.”
Bass also projected optimism, telling her backers, “We got a lot more to go, but so far it’s looking good.”
