The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to reinstate a citywide ban on new oil and gas drilling and require existing operations to shut down within 20 years, reviving a landmark environmental policy that was overturned in court.
The 13-0 vote marks the city’s latest attempt to end oil extraction in neighborhoods where residents have long complained of pollution and health risks. Although a new state law has strengthened local governments’ authority to restrict drilling, the California Independent Petroleum Association said Wednesday that it intends to challenge the revised ordinance in court.
The measure, which now heads to Mayor Karen Bass for approval, prohibits new oil and gas wells and designates existing extraction operations as nonconforming land uses throughout the city.
Existing wells may continue operating during the 20-year phaseout, but operators generally would be prohibited from expanding, deepening or redrilling wells, subject to specified exceptions for servicing and public health and safety.
Wells that are abandoned, discontinued or idle for a continuous year would be permanently barred from resuming operations. All remaining oil extraction operations would have to cease within 20 years of the ordinance’s effective date, unless another legal requirement mandates an earlier closure.
The restrictions would affect more than 600 active and 1,200 idle oil wells across Los Angeles, according to environmental justice coalition STAND-L.A., which has advocated for the ban for more than a decade.
The council originally approved the prohibition in December 2022, but oil operators challenged the ordinance in four related lawsuits.
On Sept. 6, 2024, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin ruled that the ordinance was preempted by state law in effect when it was adopted.
Less than three weeks later, on Sept. 25, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 3233, which expressly authorized local governments to restrict oil and gas operations. The city subsequently repealed its original ordinance in May 2025 to comply with a stipulated judgment.
The city then developed a revised ordinance under the new state law, accompanied by a new Mitigated Negative Declaration, revised environmental findings and a mitigation monitoring program.
Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky acknowledged Wednesday that the city expects another legal challenge to the ordinance.
“We know we’re going to get sued, and it’s important that we show that we’ve done our work here,” Yaroslavsky said.
She pointed to additional environmental analyses and findings addressing objections raised by the oil industry, arguing that the city had strengthened the record supporting the restrictions.
Councilmember Traci Park also urged her colleagues to support the ordinance, saying oils and gas wells do not belong in residential neighborhoods.
Park said her Westside district is home to an extensive network of industrial facilities, including oil refineries, power generation plants, gas storage wells and pipelines, alongside environmentally sensitive coastal areas.
“It’s long past due,” Park said of the city’s efforts to stop new drilling and phase out existing operations.
Rock Zierman, chief executive officer of the California Independent Petroleum Association, criticized the council’s decision, arguing that restricting local oil production would increase California’s dependence on imported petroleum and lead to higher gasoline prices, fewer jobs and reduced tax revenue.
“Why the LA City Council would want Angelenos to be more dependent on foreign oil tankers is nuts. Having to pay $1.72 more than any other state is not high enough? ” he said in an emailed response to SCNG. “Imports are completely exempt from California’s environmental, labor, and human rights laws. This will lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions, higher gas prices, fewer jobs, and fewer taxes for vital services.”
Zierman also characterized the ordinance as “an illegal taking,” and said the industry association intends to challenge it in court.
“We will fight this illegal action in court again,” he said.
Environmental attorneys disputed the industry’s legal objections, pointing to the passage of AB 3233 after the original ordinance was challenged.
Kendall Chappell, a legal fellow with Communities for a Better Environment, said the revised ordinance is on stronger legal footing because the state law now explicitly recognizes local governments’ authority to restrict oil drilling.
She said the city also thoroughly examined the oil industry’s environmental objections and found them lacking in credibility.
Cooper Kass, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said the new state law resolved the preemption issue that undermined the original ordinance.
“This fight isn’t over. Oil corporations will drill deep into their bottomless well of money and legal theories to try to bring this ordinance down and put their profits over people once again,” he said in an emailed statement.
Environmental advocates welcomed the council’s decision but said the 20-year phaseout does not immediately eliminate the health and safety concerns associated with existing drilling operations.
“20-years is too long to wait. The City has tools to protect residents now. It must start using them,” said Richard Parks, president of Redeemer Community Partnership, in a statement distributed by STAND-L.A.
Chappell said the coalition continues to push for the closure of two drilling sites that advocates say have repeatedly violated regulations: the Warren E&P Banning site and the E&B Murphy site.
She said the city and state regulators have separate enforcement powers that could lead to earlier closures in cases involving regulatory violations or safety concerns.
Councilmember Adrin Nazarain, chair of the council’s Energy and Environment Committee, said the vote was an important step toward protecting neighborhoods that have historically borne the impacts of oil extraction.
“No one should have to pay for their ZIP code with their health,” Nazarian said in a statement.
The ordinance now awaits Bass’ approval. Because it contains an urgency clause, it would take effect upon publication after the mayor signs it, starting the 20-year phaseout period. A legal challenge could complicate its implementation.