Los Angeles Doubles Down on Oil Shutdown; CIPA Forcefully Challenges

Los Angeles is moving in the wrong direction on energy policy, advancing a ban on local oil production while dismissing concerns about foreign dependence, consumer costs, property rights, and basic procedural safeguards. CIPA is forcefully challenging both the shutdown policy and the process used to advance it, insisting that the city follow the law and confront the consequences of eliminating domestic energy production.

On October 28, the City Council voted unanimously to prohibit new oil and gas drilling and phase out existing production over 20 years. Coverage in the Los Angeles Times and the Post prominently featured CIPA CEO Rock Zierman’s opposition.

“Why the L.A. City Council would want Angelenos to be more dependent on foreign oil tankers is nuts,” Zierman said. “This will lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, higher gas prices, fewer jobs, and fewer taxes for vital services.”

According to the Times, the ordinance affects approximately 600 active and 1,200 idle wells. It would prevent idle wells from returning to production and designate existing operations as nonconforming uses subject to the phaseout. Routine servicing and maintenance would remain permissible, but redrilling, deepening, and expansion would be prohibited.

The vote followed formal objections to the city’s rushed consideration of the measure. In an October 27 letter concerning Council File No. 17-0447-S2, attorneys representing Pacific Coast Energy Company, NOPEC, Warren, and E&B requested that the Planning and Land Use Management Committee table the ordinance until the city satisfied its public notice, environmental review, and due process obligations.

Counsel for oil producers identified two principal procedural failures. First, the letter contends that the city failed to provide the notice required for a special meeting under the Brown Act. An announcement emailed at approximately 7:06 p.m. on October 26 preceded a meeting scheduled for 2:15 p.m. the following day, providing approximately 19 hours of notice rather than the applicable 24 hours, according to the attorneys.

Second, counsel challenged the adequacy of the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The materials included a newly drafted, 42-page ordinance, a 2,796-page planning report, new mitigation measures, and a City Attorney report, with less than 24 hours available for review. The attorneys argued that the city’s earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration did not adequately address the revised ordinance and mitigation measures.

These objections remain legal claims, rather than court findings. Nevertheless, presenting thousands of pages shortly before a hearing deprives affected businesses, workers, and royalty owners of a meaningful opportunity to examine the proposal and respond. A city seeking to dismantle an industry should expect scrutiny of its own compliance with the law.

Los Angeles has already seen one oil shutdown ordinance overturned. The city adopted its original ban in 2022, but a Superior Court judge struck it down in 2024 following a challenge to the city’s authority over production activities regulated by state law. Governor Newsom subsequently signed AB 3233 (Addis), expressly authorizing local governments to limit or prohibit oil and gas operations within their jurisdictions and providing the statutory foundation for the renewed effort.

That legislation has not resolved the broader legal dispute. Producers continue to raise constitutional property protections, vested rights, and environmental review concerns. Zierman has indicated that CIPA will again fight the city’s action in court.

For CIPA, the policy failure is equally clear. Shutting down local wells does not eliminate demand for gasoline, diesel, or aviation fuel. References to renewable electricity do not explain how those petroleum needs will be met. Instead, Los Angeles is sacrificing local production, investment, jobs, and revenues while leaving consumers increasingly exposed to replacement supplies from elsewhere.

CIPA will continue challenging the ban and demanding a transparent, legally sufficient process. The city’s determination to eliminate oil production does not excuse procedural shortcuts, and its climate ambitions do not make California’s continuing energy needs disappear.