Listen to the article
California is suing the Trump administration over a decision to restart oil pipelines that were involved in a major environmental disaster nearly a decade ago, state officials announced Friday.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit challenging the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) assertion of federal jurisdiction over two oil pipelines located entirely within California. The legal challenge marks the state’s 55th lawsuit against the Trump administration.
“The Trump administration unlawfully undermined California’s authority, unlawfully federalized the pipelines, usurped state control and unlawfully issued Sable a sham emergency permit to begin pumping oil when there’s absolutely no emergency,” Bonta said during a news conference at Dockweiler State Beach.
At the center of the dispute are two Los Flores pipelines that run from Santa Barbara County to Kern County. One of these pipelines ruptured in 2015, causing the Refugio oil spill disaster that released more than 100,000 gallons of heavy crude oil into the environment, including at least 21,000 gallons that flowed into the Pacific Ocean. The environmental damage prompted years of cleanup efforts and legal action against the previous pipeline operator.
The Trump administration recently granted Sable Offshore Corp. permission to restart operations on these pipelines, a move Bonta characterized as “the latest example of Trump doing the oil industry’s bidding.”
California officials argue the federal government has overstepped its authority. Since the pipelines are located entirely within California and don’t cross state lines or enter federal waters, the state maintains it has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over them.
“Sable asked the Trump administration to declare the pipelines ‘interstate,’ meaning the pipelines are part of a larger system that extends into federal waters on the outer continental shelf. That is a fantasy. That is not true,” Bonta explained, calling it a “pretext to usurp state oversight.”
The legal battle highlights ongoing tensions between California and the federal government over energy policy and environmental regulation. The dispute comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to increase domestic oil production and roll back environmental protections established by previous administrations.
Bonta emphasized that the lawsuit isn’t challenging whether the pipelines should eventually be restarted but rather who has the authority to make that determination. “The answer is clear: the state of California gets to decide,” he said.
Energy industry analysts note that the dispute reflects California’s increasingly assertive stance on climate and environmental issues. The state has pursued aggressive climate policies, including plans to phase out new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
For coastal communities in Santa Barbara County, the prospect of restarting these pipelines evokes painful memories of the 2015 disaster, which damaged sensitive marine habitats and resulted in criminal charges against the pipeline operator. Environmental organizations have expressed support for California’s position, citing concerns about potential risks to the state’s coastline and marine ecosystems.
The case will likely hinge on technical interpretations of pipeline jurisdiction under federal law and could set important precedents for state versus federal authority over energy infrastructure projects in the future. Legal experts suggest the matter might ultimately be resolved in higher courts, potentially including the Supreme Court, given the significant jurisdictional questions at stake.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This is an interesting case study in the ongoing tensions between state and federal authority, especially when it comes to the energy sector and environmental protection. I’m curious to see how the courts weigh the competing arguments and interests at play.
Absolutely, the ruling could have significant ramifications for how pipeline infrastructure is regulated and overseen going forward, with major implications for both the energy industry and environmental stewardship.
Given the history of the Refugio spill, I can see why California is taking such a strong stance to protect its coastline and environment. The state has a clear interest in ensuring proper safety protocols are in place. However, the federal government also has a role to play in overseeing critical energy infrastructure. It’s a complex issue without easy answers.
Absolutely, this is a delicate balance between environmental protection and national energy policy. The courts will have to carefully weigh the competing interests and jurisdictional claims.
Interesting development in the ongoing battle between California and the federal government over oil pipeline oversight. The state seems intent on maintaining control over these critical energy assets, especially after the 2015 Refugio spill disaster. It will be important to see how the courts rule on the jurisdiction issues.
Indeed, the 2015 spill must have been highly damaging to the local environment. California has a strong interest in ensuring proper safety and oversight protocols for pipelines within its borders.
The Trump administration appears to be pushing for federal jurisdiction over these pipelines, perhaps to expedite the restart process. However, California’s lawsuit argues this undermines the state’s authority. It’s a complex legal battle with significant environmental and energy policy implications.
You’re right, this is a high-stakes clash between federal and state power over critical infrastructure. The outcome could set an important precedent for pipeline regulation moving forward.
The 2015 Refugio oil spill was a major environmental disaster, so it’s understandable that California wants to maintain tight control over these pipelines to prevent future incidents. However, the federal government likely sees jurisdiction as a national energy security issue. This clash of priorities will be fascinating to watch unfold.
As an investor in energy and mining stocks, I’ll be watching this case closely. The California-federal dispute adds uncertainty around the future of these pipelines, which could impact commodity prices and the financials of related companies. Clarity on jurisdiction would provide more stability for the industry.