The Brief

There are more than 35,000 idle oil wells in California, according to state data. Idle wells are wells that haven’t produced any oil for two years or more and have yet to be properly plugged or put back into production.

Many of these wells leak methane, a powerful planet-heating gas. They often also leak chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other health impacts.

L.A. County has more idle (and active) wells than any other urban area in the state, putting the health of thousands of Angelenos — largely low-income communities of color — at risk from chemicals that may leak from idle wells. That’s why many advocate groups say these regulations don’t go far enough, and that state policies should put more pressure on oil companies to clean these wells up, including a timeline on closing idle wells, especially those near where people live, play and work.

And they say oil companies, not taxpayers, should be required to pay for that cleanup. That’s the subject of a new report from the Sierra Club.

A multibillion dollar need

David Haake speaks at a press conference announcing the release of the Sierra Club's report on idle oil wells on Tuesday, Dec. 5 at Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area. The Inglewood oil field is in the background.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

The report used data from CalGEM — the state agency that regulates oil drilling operations — to identify operators of tens of thousands of idle wells across the state and found it could cost $10 billion to clean up all the idle wells across California. The report also found that large oil companies operating in the state have more than enough profit to pay for plugging their own idle wells. The report found that Chevron, Aera Energy and California Resources Corporation own two thirds of idle wells in the state.

“The oil industry created this problem, and it's their responsibility to clean it up,” said David Haake, a professor at UCLA’s school of medicine who has long lived in Culver City, near the Inglewood oil field, which has active and idle wells. Haake has lost two spouses to cancer, which he attributes to living in close proximity to oil drilling. That’s the reason he became a volunteer with the Sierra Club.

Jasmin Vazin of the Sierra Club.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

The report relied on publicly disclosed profit data from those companies. The report calls for additional policies, such as putting a time limit of six months to a year for how long idle oil wells can remain unplugged.

“California taxpayers should not be on the hook to pay the billions of dollars it will cost to clean up these wells,” said Jasmine Vazin, who focuses on the oil industry for the Sierra Club. “We need policy changes that hold this industry accountable for the cost of cleaning up their wells.”

State laws on idle oil wells

Under state law, oil operators have three options when it comes to dealing with an idle oil well:

• They can pay a yearly fee for each of their idle wells.
• They can submit a plan to clean up and plug those wells. 
• They can do nothing … and the well will be declared abandoned and become the responsibility of the state … and taxpayers … to clean up. Then those wells become designated as “orphan” wells.

Federal and state laws also require fossil fuel companies to set aside funds to ensure that wells are ultimately plugged and remediated. 

There’s been some progress in advancing more oversight of idle wells in recent years — state rules that went into effect in 2019 require oil operators to regularly monitor their idle wells for leaks. Rules that went into effect as a result of 2016 legislation have also led to improvements in plugging more idle wells, according to a study released by CalGEM.

CalGEM also recently released a priority list of orphan wells to clean up, including several sites in L.A. The agency estimates cleaning up those wells will cost $80 million from both state and federal funds, such as the Inflation Reduction Act.

But that cost is why Vazin said the state should do more to prevent idle wells from becoming “orphan” wells in the first place.

“If all of the idle wells we currently have become orphan, what CalGem is doing now — plugging orphan wells with federal and state taxpayer money — is what we're going to be facing for all of the wells in California,” she said.

What the oil industry says

The Western States Petroleum Association, the oil industry’s trade organization that has long lobbied for less strict industry regulations in the state, refuted the Sierra Club’s findings.

“This report is meant to provide policy makers an erroneous and exaggerated picture of idle well policy in the state,” it wrote in a statement.

Chevron, Aera Energy and the California Resources Corporation, which oversee the most idle wells in the state, all told LAist that they have plugged thousands of oil wells since 2019, far above the pace reflected in CalGEM data revealed in the Sierra Club's report.

Chevron stated they have plugged more than 2,200 wells so far this year and 6,800 wells in California over the last five years. The Sierra Club report, based on CalGEM data, shows the total number of wells Chevron plugged in 2022 was 154, while the total between 2018-2022 was 1,214.

Aera Energy oversees the second highest number of idle wells, and they wrote in a statement to LAist that since 2019, they’ve plugged more than 5,000 idle wells and are on track to plug 950 in 2023.

The California Resources Corporation oversees the third-highest number of idle wells in the state and the largest number in L.A. county, according to the Sierra Club’s report. In an emailed statement to LAist, spokesperson Rich Venn said the company has permanently plugged about 1,400 idle wells in the last two years and that the company currently oversees about 5,000 idle wells, as opposed to the 6,658 stated in the Sierra Club’s report, which used CalGEM data through April 2023.

“CRC invests significantly to permanently plug idle wells in accordance with state mandates,” Venn wrote.

Across the board, most of these wells are being plugged in rural areas (where the vast majority of these wells are located), according to a 2020 investigation by the L.A. Times and the Center for Public Integrity.

Venn added that the company is also investing in new technologies to repurpose their idle oil wells to extract geothermal energy, a climate-friendly renewable energy that California is working to expand as it transitions from fossil fuels.

The latest clash between California and President Donald Trump over abortion and gender-affirming care could soon leave doctors caught between state and federal law.

Under a bill that may soon pass the Legislature, California medical providers and affiliated businesses could face hefty state fines if they comply with a federal subpoena seeking abortion, gender-affirming or reproductive care information without first notifying the California attorney general, patients and providers.

But delaying responding to the feds could put them at risk of violating federal law, and independent constitutional scholars say the pending law might not survive a legal challenge.

The bill is in response to efforts the Trump administration and conservative states have undertaken to block or criminalize abortion services and care for transgender people.

Under Assembly Bill 1930, any medical provider or business served with any civil, criminal or regulatory inquiry, investigation, subpoena or summons seeking “legally protected health care activity” “shall not comply” unless the provider notifies the state attorney general as well as others involved in the care.

The measure’s author, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles, said the impetus for the bill, in part, was a federal subpoena from the Trump administration to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles seeking medical records for youth transgender patients.

“No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk,” he told the Assembly Judiciary Committee at a hearing last week.

Lawmakers spent just 17 minutes discussing AB 1930 at its first legislative hearing last week, despite the legal complexities and consequences for California’s patients, doctors, hospitals, insurers, tech companies and others. It passed on a party-line vote, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. It now moves to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where it’s scheduled to be discussed on Tuesday

The Los Angeles hospital was one of 20 medical providers that offered gender-affirming care for minors that received federal subpoenas seeking patients’ medical records. At the time, the U.S. Justice Department said the subpoenas were part of an investigation into “health care fraud” and “false statements.” Some of the families sued to fight the subpoenas. In January, the feds backed off and didn’t receive the records.

Rady Children’s Hospital, which operates facilities in San Diego, Orange and Imperial counties, told CalMatters earlier this year that the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general was investigating the hospital. The investigation preceded Rady’s decision to halt most gender-affirming services for minors, a decision that is now tied up in multiple court cases.

The measure says that in order for a business or provider to release records, the entity making the legal demand must include an affidavit declaring that the investigation is not related to punishing providers for performing abortions, transgender care or other services protected under California law or that the investigation involves a possible California crime or is an inquiry into “professional discipline.”

The recipient would be required to inform the attorney general’s office within seven days of receiving the legal demand. The attorney general would have an additional 30 days to review the matter before the recipient could comply with the order.

The measure, which is co-sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, would also mandate that the provider notify patients and providers whose records are being sought. Those who break the rules would face civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation.

Democrats move to protect abortion

California lawmakers have, in recent years, enacted more than a dozen laws designed to shield medical professionals from conservative states and the federal government on abortion and transgender health care.

Democrats passed the laws after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and other states began banning or criminalizing abortion. Thirteen states ban abortion and some, most notably Texas, penalize anyone who helps another person get an abortion.

Legislative efforts to protect clinicians and patient medical records have expanded as the Trump administration has increasingly politicized other services like gender-affirming care for minors.

California laws prohibit state law enforcement from extraditing medical professionals who may have violated another state’s laws on abortion or gender-affirming care. They also prohibit medical facilities from sharing patient information about those services with out-of-state law enforcement.

LGBTQ+ civil rights group Equality California is the latest bill’s other co-sponsor. Zbur was its executive director before being elected to the Legislature.

Equality California’s legislative director, Craig Pulsipher, told the Judiciary Committee the measure builds “on California’s existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them.”

Various groups that oppose gender-affirming care are against the measure, as is the California Chamber of Commerce.

In a letter to lawmakers, representatives for the state’s influential business lobby said CalChamber’s members appreciate lawmakers wanting to “help defend businesses facing subpoenas,” and they don’t oppose the bill out of “support for misuse of subpoena powers.”

“However, we are concerned that AB 1930 will compel businesses to violate federal law in order to comply with state law,” they wrote.

Layla Jane, a “detransitioner” who sued her health care provider over the gender-reassignment surgery she received as a teen, said the bill would protect doctors from investigations into negligent care and make it harder for patients like her to subpoena for medical records.

“This bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies,” she told the committee. “It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, ‘You are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed.’ There is no blanket for me.”

Would the bill survive a legal challenge? 

Bill Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker who oversees the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, said in a statement that Zbur’s measure would be unconstitutional.

“Any effort by California to restrict the federal government’s lawful use of, or compliance with, subpoenas is unlawful and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause,” Essayli said.

Three independent constitutional scholars who CalMatters asked to review the bill suggested Essayli may have a point.

Under that provision of the U.S. Constitution, states cannot pass laws that run counter to the federal government’s legal authority.

“If there’s a conflict between federal law on the one hand, and state or local (law) on the other, federal law wins out,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law.

Chemerinsky and the other scholars said the measure is unlikely to run into the same legal problems that caused a federal judge to block California’s attempt to ban federal agents from wearing masks. The judge in the mask case ruled that the state had discriminated against the federal government since it exempted state police from the ban.

This proposed measure doesn’t single out the federal government; the bill applies to any entity issuing subpoenas.

Still, the scholars said forcing private health care providers and businesses not to respond to a subpoena on a federal deadline could be legally problematic.

“It looks like the federal government could say you’re impeding their law enforcement,” said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a law professor at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

“Is this impeding federal ... objectives?” said Vikram David Amar, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law. “If so, it would be invalid under Supremacy.”

The California Attorney General’s Office responded to an interview request for Bonta with an unsigned written statement.

“Bills aren’t final when they’re introduced and can change throughout the legislative process,” it read. “Our office will continue to have conversations with stakeholders regarding AB 1930 and will address concerns as appropriate and needed.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Despite a seemingly unimpeachable goal — ensuring adequate child support to keep kids out of poverty — a bill making its way through the state Assembly has left legislators and advocates divided.

The measure, from Elk Grove Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, would compel separated families to enroll in a state program empowered to garnish wages for child support.

Currently, custodial parents must “opt in” to enroll in the California Department of Child Support Services. They often do not take that step, sometimes because they have made their own arrangements.

Under Nguyen’s bill, families would have to opt out of the program. She said the goal of the bill is to ensure that children get the money they need.

“It’s the child that suffers. If you’re a single-income parent…and struggling to make ends meet, then the extra piece of income comes in. I think it reduces child poverty,” said Nguyen.

The measure addresses what groups close to the child support system say is a pressing issue: When parents split up, child support arrangements can fall to the wayside. That leaves the problem to the court system and puts children at risk for poverty.

At a March hearing, the bill had support from the California Child Support Association and the Department of Child Support Services from Sacramento, Solano and San Joaquin Counties.

“Right now, just in Sacramento County, my department is sending $11 million every month home to families putting food on the table and shoes on children's feet. It's an incredible anti-poverty program,” Dallin Frederickson, the director of Sacramento County’s Department of Child Support Services, told lawmakers at a March hearing, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

“Unfortunately, the child support program in California is underutilized,” he said.

But critics say that entering all families into the child support services system could actually undermine the stability of separated families by disrupting the bonds that remain, as when parents have come to their own financial agreements.

Even a Democratic lawmaker who voted for the bill at the hearing raised questions about how it could affect families who make their own child support arrangements.

“I've seen what happens when families get separated and crumble and fall to pieces,” Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, a Los Angeles Democrat, said at the hearing. “And I'm just concerned that any ways that we further deteriorate a strong relationship between parents, we're harming the best interests of the child.”

A first-in-the-nation proposal

Among California’s 2 million children in single-parent households, 1 in 4 live in poverty. That rate is four times higher than among children living with married parents. Women head 80% of single-parent households, which are more likely to live in poverty than single-father households.

Statewide, there are slightly more than 1 million court orders for child support payments, with total payments owed reaching $2.6 billion in 2024.

If Nguyen’s Assembly Bill 1643 passes, it’s unclear how many additional families would be enrolled into the state collection program, but it could be thousands, based upon the annual number of court orders.

“There’s a bit of unknown. This could be a really fundamental change in a big state. (So), should they do a pilot study in one county?,” said Rebecca Miller, senior attorney for Western Center for Law and Poverty.

Custodial parents of any income level can choose to enroll into child support services, however, enrollment is mandatory for parents who receive public assistance under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act of 1975.

No state currently mandates child support services enrollment for families not receiving public assistance, as stipulated in Nguyen’s bill.

“It could violate federal law because it forces people into the system,” said Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate for Western Center for Law and Poverty.

Another concern is cost to taxpayers, though Nguyen said that the bill won’t add costs.

However, because it requires that all child support payments go through the State Disbursement Unit, the measure could increase administrative costs for local agencies, triggering state-mandated reimbursement costs, according to a legislative committee analysis.

“I don’t see why they think it’s cost-free,” said Gonzalez.

The mechanics of California child support

Child support payments decrease poverty for children living with their primary caregiver, but the payments alone are not enough to eliminate poverty, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, making payments may worsen poverty for fathers living separately, especially if they’re already low-income.

Child support payments also have proven to offer other benefits, including more involvement of the paying parent with their children, better academic outcomes and wellbeing for the kids and improved parent-to-parent relationships.

The system Nugyen’s bill would default California families into, from the Department of Child Support Services, already collects and distributes almost two thirds of child support owed in the state, as of 2024. When needed, the department also locates parents and establishes paternity. It collects money using payroll deductions and, if necessary, by garnishing wages, intercepting tax refunds or suspending drivers’ licenses to compel compliance.

The public system for child support payments isn’t straightforward, especially if the parents’ split is acrimonious. That’s when the courts — actually two courts — can step in.

Attorney Miller said Family Court is the system most people think of for handling divorce, child custody and support payments.

Separately, the Title IV-D court is the federally required child support system designed in the 1970s primarily to manage payments for families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or welfare. Nearly half of custodial parents enrolled in child support services receive TANF. California Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids, better known as CalWORKS, is our state’s TANF program.

In California, when parents separate, Family Courts order child support payments based on both parents’ incomes and the amount of time each spends with the kids. Then the custodial parent can choose to complete “opt in” paperwork for the payments to go through child support services.

Many parents choose not to enroll for a multitude of reasons, for example if they have

an agreement with their former spouse, or if they believe the non-custodial parent can’t afford payments. Some parents don’t want to interact with the other parent because it’s unpleasant or dangerous. Some domestic violence survivors fear that reporting their former partners to child support services would expose them or their kids to harm.

“We think parents should be trusted to make the decision of what’s best for their family and not forced into the system…the system doesn’t work for everyone,” said Gonzales.

Nguyen said she’s working with the opponents to resolve their differences.

“This is really just about making sure the money gets to the parents who have custody of the kids and making sure they are fed, and they are properly cared for,” said Nguyen.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

On a recent Wednesday evening in March, the auditorium at Roosevelt High School buzzed with old-school Japanese anime anthems.

Songs like Hironobu Kageyama’s “Cha-La Head-Cha-La,” the theme from “Dragon Ball Z,” and selections from Hayao Miyazaki’s cult classic “My Neighbor Totoro” echoed throughout the performing arts center.

The concert was an intentional tribute to a community once central to Boyle Heights, as students used music to honor a history largely erased during World War II, when more than  400 Japanese American students were forcibly removed and incarcerated in camps. 

Guiding the 77-piece ensemble was band director Pedro Ramos, who took over the program last fall and, in collaboration with the school’s Japanese teacher and club, built the concert around themes of culture and solidarity.

“Roosevelt was hit hard during Japanese Internment and continues to be attacked with ongoing ICE raids,” said Ramos, 24. “The purpose of this concert is to bring solidarity and highlight the perpetuity and appreciation of each other’s culture in turbulent times.”

That vision came through in a program that blended cultures and histories. One piece, “Gelato Con Caffé” by Toshio Mashima, fused rock with samba, reflecting both Japanese and Latin influences. The concert also featured a video of students speaking on what Japanese culture means to them.

Band director Pedro Ramos leads his student ensemble on stage on March 25, 2026.

(

Jesse Reynoso

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

“We’re a community now, but there was a Japanese community here once before us,” said Frankie Danielle Trujillo, a senior who plays the alto saxophone. “These pieces honor them and show our appreciation of both communities.”

The performance drew students from across campus, including members of Roosevelt’s Japanese Club.

Junior Eric Samaniego, 17, joined the club as a freshman and said it gave him a sense of belonging.

“Middle school was miserable … This was a very refreshing start,” he said, standing next to his mother, who wore a pink cherry blossom T-shirt designed by students and sold to raise funds for the club’s cultural activities.

The club, supported by Japanese teacher Yoriko Hongo, offers a space for students to connect and celebrate their passion for Japanese culture.

“What’s special is that many of our members are not enrolled in Japanese classes and find a strong sense of belonging and identity through the club,” said Hongo. “It shows how culturally-inclusive spaces can impact students beyond the classroom.”

For Ramos, that community building is at the heart of his work in the classroom and on the stage.

“My job as a teacher is to simulate a consistent environment where students can learn and be the best version of themselves,” he said. “Only by recognizing patterns and tools of oppression can students see themselves as powerful forces in a world that needs drastic change. I’m happy I can provide that in an entertaining, musical way.”

A student plays the drums at Roosevelt High School’s Japanese appreciation concert on March 25, 2026.

(

Jesse Reynoso

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

The concert ended with a rendition of the chart-topping “Naruto” theme song “Go!!!” by 90s Japanese rock band Flow.

For freshman trombone player Eliah Daniel Gramajo, performing the music made that connection feel personal.

“It’s not every day you get to play a piece from one of your favorite anime that you watched as a little kid,” he said.

In the latest move to rewrite the history of the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Department of Justice has filed papers seeking to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups, who previously received commutations rather than full pardons from President Donald Trump.

About a dozen defendants who received lengthy sentences for their roles in planning and executing the riot were released from prison once Trump returned to office, though the felony convictions remained on their records. If approved by the federal courts, the move would wipe out those convictions and, among other things, restore the defendants' right to own guns.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration described the decision in court filings as "in the interests of justice."

Members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys celebrated.

"I am beyond thrilled right now," wrote Proud Boy Zachary Rehl, who was previously sentenced to 15 years in prison, on the social media site X.

Ed Martin, who has held multiple roles in the Trump Justice Department and currently serves as the U.S pardon attorney, cast the move as a triumph and called for further action.

"Hearing from J6rs and families tonight. They feel respected even loved. Proud," Martin wrote on X. "But there is more for you to do. Keep grinding. You were directly wronged by Biden prosecutors and you deserve more."

Martin has previously called for former Jan. 6 defendants to receive financial restitution.

The decision illustrates both the dramatic extent of changes at the Department of Justice in Trump's second term, as well as the stunning reversal of fortunes for the Jan. 6 defendants convicted of some of the most serious crimes that day.

During the Biden administration, the indictments and subsequent convictions on the rarely used seditious conspiracy charge underscored how law enforcement viewed the Jan. 6 attack: as a historic threat to democracy and the defendants as key orchestrators. Judges and juries largely agreed.

At the trial of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, prosecutors had played a recording discussing additional violence after Jan. 6. "We should have brought rifles," Rhodes said. "We could have fixed it right then and there. I'd hang f***in' Pelosi from the lamppost."

When federal judge Amit Mehta sentenced Rhodes to 18 years in prison, he described him as "an ongoing threat and peril to this country ... and to the very fabric of our democracy."

Now, under the Trump administration, leaders of the Justice Department say they take orders directly from the president, who has called Jan. 6 a "day of love," described the rioters as "great people" and denied — falsely — that his supporters assaulted police.

"I pardoned people that were assaulted themselves. They were assaulted by our government," Trump told reporters last year. "They didn't assault. They were assaulted."

Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, recently touted the mass pardons of Jan. 6 defendants as one of the administration's greatest achievements.

Greg Rosen, who led the "Capitol Siege" unit that prosecuted more than 1,500 Jan. 6-related cases, castigated the Trump administration for its latest move to vacate the conviction of Rhodes and several others.

"This is a sad and selfish reminder that constitutional due process — jury verdicts, judicial findings, years of hard-fought litigation and mountains of evidence — doesn't appear to matter once again," said Rosen, who is now with the law firm Rogers Joseph O'Donnell. "This isn't about fairness or justice. It's about overriding the considered will and judgments of judges and juries and rewarding individuals solely because of their political alignments with an administration."

An estimated 140 police officers were injured in the Jan. 6 attack, including many who testified to lifelong physical and mental trauma from what they endured.

Meanwhile, since receiving presidential pardons, dozens of former riot defendants have been charged with or convicted of additional crimes. On the same day the Justice Department moved to vacate the seditious conspiracy cases, it also filed documents in the ongoing case against David Daniel, who assaulted police Jan. 6 and was separately accused of child sexual abuse.

Daniel, prosecutors said, agreed to plead guilty to allegations that he sexually abused two young girls, including one who was under 12 years old at the time of the abuse.
Copyright 2026 NPR