US Energy Secretary Orders Texas Oil Firm to Restore California Operations

Move aims to address supply disruption risks, despite state opposition

Mar. 14, 2026 at 9:48pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright directed a Texas-based oil and gas company, Sable Offshore Corp., to restore operations in federal waters off the coast of southern California that were damaged by a 2015 oil spill. The order invokes the Defense Production Act to address supply disruption risks and replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month. However, California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the move, saying the state will not allow the Trump administration to "sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy."

Why it matters

This order highlights the ongoing tensions between the federal government and California over energy policy and environmental protection. The Trump administration is prioritizing energy security and production, while California is seeking to limit offshore drilling to protect its coastline and economy. The case could set a precedent for federal overreach into state regulatory authority.

The details

The Sable Offshore Corp. Santa Ynez unit includes three rigs in federal waters, offshore and onshore pipelines, and the Las Flores Canyon Processing Facility. The facility can produce about 50,000 barrels of oil per day. The federal government claims this will replace nearly 1.5 million barrels of foreign crude each month. However, California has sued the federal government for approving Sable's plans, arguing the state oversees the pipelines and the federal government has no right to "usurp California's regulatory authority."

  • On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reverse former President Joe Biden's ban on future offshore oil drilling.
  • In January 2026, California sued the federal government for approving Sable's plans to restart pipelines along the coast.

The players

Chris Wright

U.S. Energy Secretary who directed Sable Offshore Corp. to restore operations off the California coast.

Sable Offshore Corp.

A Texas-based oil and gas company that operates the Santa Ynez unit and pipeline off Santa Barbara, California.

Gavin Newsom

Governor of California, who condemned the federal government's move to restart the pipeline, saying the state will not allow the Trump administration to "sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy."

Rob Bonta

California's Democratic state Attorney General, who said the federal government "has no right to usurp California's regulatory authority" over the pipelines.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The Trump Administration remains committed to putting all Americans and their energy security first. Unfortunately, some state leaders have not adhered to those same principles, with potentially disastrous consequences not just for their residents, but also our national security. 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.”

— Chris Wright, U.S. Energy Secretary

“This is an attempt to illegally restart a pipeline whose operators are facing criminal charges and prohibited by multiple court orders from restarting. California will not stand by while the Trump administration attempts to sacrifice our coastal communities, our environment, and our $51 billion coastal economy. The Trump administration and Sable are defying multiple court orders, and we will see them back in court.”

— Gavin Newsom, Governor of California

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide whether to allow Sable Offshore Corp. to restart operations despite the state of California's opposition.

The takeaway

This clash between the federal government and California over energy policy and environmental protection highlights the ongoing tensions over the balance of state and federal authority. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how the federal government can intervene in state-regulated industries, even when those industries face legal challenges and opposition from state leaders.