Skip to content
Sign in
Energy · North America

Los Angeles advances 20-year oil-drilling phaseout despite industry objections

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-0 to advance a 20-year phaseout of oil drilling in the city. E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation and its affiliates warned that limits on operations could force wells to close before the phaseout ends, while an industry group raised concerns about imports and permit investments.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 2 outlets' reportingHow it's made

View timeline · 7 entries
2 outletsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Too few ratedL 0 · C 1 · R 1
Updat3 graphic: Los Angeles
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-0 to advance a 20-year plan to end oil drilling in the city (per New York Post).
  • E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation and three affiliated companies said limits on maintenance and other operations could force wells to close before the 20-year phaseout ends (per New York Post).
  • Los Angeles has more than 5,200 active, idle and abandoned oil and gas wells (per New York Post).
  • A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge agreed with an earlier challenge, and a ban was struck down in 2024 (per Los Angeles Times, New York Post).

The brief

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-0 to advance a 20-year phaseout of oil drilling in the city, moving forward with a plan that would end drilling and pumping within city limits. The vote drew objections from oil companies and an industry association, which warned about operational and economic consequences.

The ordinance treats existing oil and gas activity as inconsistent with current zoning, while allowing it to operate during the 20-year phaseout period. The Los Angeles Times reported that the council approved the plan after a years-long battle.

Councilmember Traci Park said the measure was not a debate over the merits of fossil fuels, pointing instead to the city’s commitment to clean electricity and investment in renewable energy. She called the action overdue.

E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation and three affiliated companies objected that limits on maintenance and other operations could force wells to close before the phaseout ends.

The companies’ attorneys had warned in a June 8 letter that the proposal could violate constitutional property protections and expose taxpayers to costly litigation, according to the New York Post. The story does not state the year of the letter.

The California Independent Petroleum Association argued that ending local production could increase dependence on imported oil and threaten investments made under existing permits. These are the association’s projected consequences; the available accounts do not quantify the potential increase in imports or the amount of investment at stake.

The city has more than 5,200 active, idle and abandoned oil and gas wells, which have fueled concerns about pollution near homes and schools. The New York Post reported that Los Angeles produced about 1.6 million barrels of crude oil in 2024, equal to 1.4% of California’s total production, citing city planning documents.

That figure situates the city’s production within the state but does not measure the effect of the phaseout on future imports. The legal dispute remains a central issue for the plan. The New York Post reported that Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky said the city expected to be sued and had spent substantial resources building its environmental and legal case.

The Los Angeles Times reported that a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge agreed with an earlier challenge and that a ban was struck down in 2024; the accounts do not specify how the newly advanced ordinance addresses the grounds for that ruling.

Supporters said the council’s action could encourage other municipalities to pursue similar measures, describing a possible “domino effect,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The immediate next steps for the city and any legal challenge are not specified in the accounts.

Why it matters

  • Residents living near Los Angeles’s more than 5,200 active, idle and abandoned oil and gas wells face the pollution concerns associated with those sites; homes and schools are specifically identified as nearby settings.
  • E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation and three affiliated companies say operational limits could force wells to close before the 20-year phaseout ends, putting their ongoing operations at stake.
  • The California Independent Petroleum Association says ending local production could increase reliance on imported oil and threaten investments made under existing permits; Los Angeles produced about 1.6 million barrels in 2024, 1.4% of California’s total.
  • The city may face litigation over the ordinance: the companies’ attorneys cited property protections and potential taxpayer costs, while Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky said the city had invested resources in its legal and environmental case.

What to watch next

  • Whether E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation and its affiliates challenge the ordinance in court, as the companies’ attorneys warned could happen.
  • How Los Angeles applies the ordinance’s 20-year phaseout and the provision allowing existing oil and gas activity to operate during that period.
  • Whether the California Independent Petroleum Association’s predicted increase in imported-oil reliance or risk to permitted investments is quantified.
  • Whether other municipalities pursue similar measures, following supporters’ prediction of a possible “domino effect.”

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
2 source articles · 2 unique outlets
Outlet political mix: Too few rated· 1 Center · 1 Right
Where the outlets are based: US/Canada 100%
Outlet political mix
Too few rated
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
1 outlet
1 outlet
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
2 unique outletsDominant coverage: US/Canada
Limited coverage
  • Coverage is currently limited to 2 outlets.
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

2 framing differences · 3 uncorroborated claims · 2 information gaps
The reports repeat the same account with different emphasis; its central claims are not independently confirmed in the reporting Updat3 read.Compared across 2 reports whose article text Updat3 read.
Framing / emphasis differences
Sources emphasise different angles, actors or consequences of the same reporting.
  • The New York Post foregrounds industry objections, potential lawsuits, property-rights concerns and import reliance; the Los Angeles Times emphasizes the council’s plan, its zoning treatment of existing activity and supporters’ expectation that other municipalities could follow.
  • The California Independent Petroleum Association’s predictions about import reliance and permit investments are attributed to the association by the New York Post; the Los Angeles Times excerpt does not address those forecasts.
Updat3: These are differences of emphasis, not disputes about what is reported. They do not show that the reported claims are true.
One-sided or uncorroborated claims
Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.
  • Councilmember Traci Park said the measure was not a debate about whether fossil fuels are good or bad and called the action overdue, according to the Los Angeles Times.
  • Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky warned that the city expected a lawsuit, according to the New York Post.
  • Supporters said the council’s action could create a “domino effect” among municipalities, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.
Not established by the reporting
Information the available reporting does not contain or confirm. This is a gap, not a disagreement.
  • Neither account provides a breakdown of the 5,200-plus wells by active, idle or abandoned status, or quantified pollution or health impacts on nearby residents.
  • The New York Post reports that the companies’ attorneys warned the proposal could violate constitutional property protections; this is presented as their legal argument, not a court finding about the ordinance.
Updat3: Updat3 cannot conclude anything about this from the current sources.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. In 1892, Edward Doheny and Charles Canfield drilled a successful oil well near present-day downtown Los Angeles, helping establish the city as an oil-producing center.
    Background · from our historical context
  2. CEQA, signed into law in 1970, requires public agencies to assess the environmental effects of many proposed actions and disclose that analysis before approving them.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. In 2015, the city adopted an ordinance requiring oil and gas operators to disclose chemicals used in well operations.
    Background · from our historical context
  4. In 2020, Los Angeles began reviewing the health and environmental effects of oil extraction as part of a broader effort to develop city policy.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. California’s Senate Bill 1137, signed in 2022, separately established health-protection requirements and setback rules for certain oil and gas operations near sensitive locations.
    Background · from our historical context
  6. Los Angeles moved to make oil extraction a nonconforming land use and phase out drilling.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  7. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge agreed with an earlier challenge, and a ban was struck down in 2024.
    Reported in this story's sourcesSource:Los Angeles Times

How we got here

The immediate legal backdrop was a Los Angeles County Superior Court ruling in 2024 that struck down a city oil-drilling ban after an industry challenge.

The ruling followed Los Angeles’ 2022 effort to make oil extraction a nonconforming land use and phase out drilling; the court found the city’s environmental review inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Original sources

2 articles from 2 outlets · US/Canada · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.