ExxonMobil accuses California county of unlawfully denying trucking operation permit

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp is accusing Santa Barbara County of unconstitutionally denying the company a permit to transport oil on Highways 101 and 166 in California.

In a lawsuit recently filed by ExxonMobil in a California federal court, the company claims the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors unlawfully denied a permit request to haul oil by truck, violating its constitutional rights.

ExxonMobil’s Santa Ynez Unit is seeking a permit to resume operations of three offshore platforms off the Santa Barbara County coast and an onshore processing center in Las Flores Canyon. Since operations began in 1970, oil from the platforms was transported to the processing center via pipeline.

In 2015, one of the two pipelines ruptured, forcing both pipelines to shut down. Exxon Mobil was forced to transport the remaining 400,000 barrels of oil, or 2,500 truckloads, via truck to the Phillips 66 pump station in Santa Barbara. According to the complaint, it did so without incident.

Since then, operations have ceased, but ExxonMobil has spent about $100 million each year to maintain the Santa Ynez Unit. In 2017, the oil company filed a permit application with Santa Barbara County to restart operations. This time, the primary mode of transportation will be trucks. However, that will only be temporary until a new pipeline becomes available.

During the four years of working with the local government, ExxonMobil claims it submitted a wealth of evidence detailing the safety of the operations.

In September 2021, the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development staff found that the risk of an oil spill – once every 17 years – was outweighed by the numerous benefits of the ExxonMobil project.

Those benefits include:

• Returning locally produced, low-carbon-intensity oil to California markets.
• Reducing greenhouse gases by using 2017 or newer model trucks.
• Contributing over $200,000 to the Coastal Resources Mitigation Fund.
• Providing the county over $1 million each year in additional tax revenues.
• Restoring jobs lost as a result of the shutdown.
• Increasing spending at local businesses.

Despite the recommendation, the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denying the project. According to ExxonMobil, the decision was based on unsupported public comments and “pure conjecture.”

Adopting the same reasoning, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors made the final decision denying ExxonMobil’s permit application.

ExxonMobil claims the county committed to the following:

• Prejudicial abuse of discretion and misapplication of the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Issuing a de facto ban on trucking oil in violation of Santa Barbara County’s land use regulations.
• Violating the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and state Constitutions “by substantially impairing ExxonMobil’s property rights without just compensation.”
• Violating the Commerce Clauses “by unjustifiably discriminating against commerce of oil.”
• Illegally exercising its “police powers by affecting residents outside of Santa Barbara County without due consideration of the regional welfare.”

A Santa Barbara County spokesperson told Land Line that the county does not comment on pending litigation. LL