California Law Targeting Inglewood Oil Field Faces Legal Challenge
As legal battle intensifies, residents welcome crackdown on pollution, while company cries foul play
The Inglewood Oil Field, sitting for a century in the densely populated Los Angeles basin, faces an uncertain future as its owner, Sentinel Peak Resources was suing the state of California in an effort to overturn a new law aimed at shutting down the operation.
Assembly Bill 2617, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, sets strict deadlines for the closure of Los Angeles’ last remaining operational oil field.
The law mandates whale low-production wells cease operations by March 2027. All wells must be fully plugged and decommissioned by the end of 2030. Companies caught violating these deadlines will face hefty penalties of $10,000 per well, per month.
This legislation is effectively drawing the curtain on oil extraction in the 1,000-acre field, which spans across Culver City, LA’s Baldwin Hills, and unincorporated Ladera Heights.
The legal challenge came swiftly after the law took effect. Sentinel Peak, a Denver-based company and sole owner and operator of the field, labels the law unconstitutional, arguing the mandated fines are exorbitant and overly punitive.
A Court Battle For The Future Of The Oil Field
Attorneys for Sentinel Peak call the law “an illegal attempt to coerce an individual company to stop operation of its legal business” in court documents, highlighting the lack of due process provided under the law. `”The monetary penalties imposed…are grotesquely disproportionate to the purported offense, with no apparent upper limit. They have no relationship to any actual harm incurred by neighboring uses.”
The California Department of Conservation’s Geological Energy Management Division, Zend. Leeuwenburg the state agency responsible for regulating oil and gas production, declined to comment on the pending legal proceedings. Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, wielding a resolute calmness as the author of the bill, vowed to defend the legislation.
“Our community has stood strong for decades to close this dangerous, low-producing oil field, and we will continue the fight in court to protect those frontline communities who have long deserved the right to live full, healthy lives,” Bryan said.
“The people of California spoke through their legislature – dangerous oil wells have no business being right next to communities.
It is the right and prerogative of government to protect its people,” Bryan added.
Not Everyone Agrees
This legal battle represents the culmination of tensions surrounding the future of the Inglewood field, a field embroiled controversy for decades. space-constrained urban environment.
Initially a statewide ban on low-producing wells, the bill’s scope was narrowed after politicians negotiated with the powerful California oil lobby. The result, however, produced legislation narrowly focused on shutting down the last oil wells in Los Angeles, and Flint, the largest urban oil field in the city.
Sentinel Peak argues the law unfairly targets their operations while leaving other oil production sites across California untouched.
“AB 2617 does not impose …any requirements on other similarly situated oil production operations even if they also operate in proximate to residential areas. The law applies to Petitioner as a ‘class of one.'”
The energy company denies the claims es it poses a threat to public health claiming that the field’s environmental footprint is minimal.
” They feel like they’re being targeted museum, they’re not getting much oil, and the environmental health impacts are well-documented.”
Inside the Mascot
The Inglewood community has celebrated the bill’s passage, seeing it as a major step toward protecting the health and safety of residents . Environmental organizations echo these
sentiments.
“The state has a right to set Limits on wells that have big environmental impact and little economic benefit, ” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog .
“There is a compelling state interest in closing these wells to protect the community ‘
“We’re not taking away their land, we’re just saying you can’t operate 450 feet from a soccer field because it’s dangerous,” जैसा था discovered when
Gov. Newsom signed the legislation, highlighting the danger by choosing the Kenneth Hahn Soccer Field – where children play within sight and smell their play directly by the towering pumpjacks.
What are the arguments for and against Assembly Bill 2617?
## Interview: Inglewood Oil Field Shutdown Faces Legal Challenge
**Host:** Welcome back to the show. Today we’re discussing the latest legal battle surrounding California’s Inglewood Oil Field. Joining us is Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, author of the bill aiming to shut down the field by 2030. Assemblyman Bryan, thanks for being here.
**Assemblyman Bryan:** Thank you for having me.
**Host:** This new law, Assembly Bill 2617, has been met with a lawsuit from Sentinel Peak Resources, the field’s operator. They claim the law is unconstitutional and the penalties are excessive. What’s your response to that?
**Assemblyman Bryan:** [[1](https://abc17news.com/news/2024/11/28/oil-field-owner-sues-california-over-law-that-would-end-its-los-angeles-area-operations/)]The people of California, particularly those living near the Inglewood field, have been burdened by pollution and health risks for far too long. This isn’t about punishing a company; it’s about protecting families and communities who deserve to live in a healthy environment. The law allows for a phased closure, giving Sentinel Peak ample time to adjust. The penalties are designed to incentivize compliance and ensure a timely shutdown.
**Host:** Sentinel Peak argues that the law lacks due process and the fines are disproportionate to any harm caused. How do you address those concerns?
**Assemblyman Bryan:** My priority is the health and safety of Californians. We have a responsibility to safeguard our communities from the known dangers associated with oil extraction, especially in densely populated areas like those surrounding the Inglewood Field. The penalties are a necessary deterrent to ensure compliance with the law and protect public health.
**Host:** There are many residents in the area who have long advocated for the field’s closure. What message do you have for them?
**Assemblyman Bryan:** I want to thank the community for their tireless advocacy. We fought hard to pass this legislation, and we will continue to fight to defend it in court. This is a victory for environmental justice and a testament to the power of community activism.
**Host:** Thank you, Assemblyman Bryan, for your insights. This is certainly a complex issue with deep implications for the future of energy production and public health in California. We’ll be following this legal battle closely.