Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Why Environmentalists Say The $120 Million SoCal Gas Leak Disaster Settlement Falls Short

Three years after Southern California Gas Company sealed a massive natural gas leak at its storage field near Porter Ranch, a judge has approved a legal settlement stemming from the disaster.
The settlement will cost SoCal Gas $120 million, but it disappointed some environmental groups who said it didn't do enough to address the damage the gas leak caused to residents living nearest the gas well.
The well ruptured in October 2015, and blew methane gas and other substances for four months, becoming the nation's largest-ever uncontrolled gas leak.
California's Attorney General and the city and county of Los Angeles agreed to drop their lawsuits against SoCal Gas as part of the $120 million settlement.
The settlement was meant to fulfill an emergency order issued by then-Gov. Jerry Brown at the height of the blowout. He ordered SoCal Gas to fully offset the harmful greenhouse gases that went into the atmosphere.
The agreement provides $26.5 million dollars for projects to offset 109,000 metric tons of methane released by the ruptured gas well.
To do that, the money will be used to capture methane being produced in large amounts - by cows.
Loans will be funded to to build systems at big dairies in Kern County that will capture methane from cow manure and convert it to usable natural gas. The project will also fund construction of pipelines to move the gas from the dairy farms into the natural gas distribution system where it can be sold.
SoCal Gas would not own the gas produced in the methane capture projects or earn income from the sale, state Air Resources Board spokesman Dave Clegern said.
Once the proceeds of gas sales repays the loans with interest, the money will be available to fund methane capture projects in Los Angeles city and county.
Byron Chan, an attorney with EarthJustice, a legal organization that represents environmental groups, said the settlement did not require SoCal Gas to pay the full cost of the methane capture projects.
"It's not holding them fully accountable for the entire mitigation," Chan said.
The California Air Resources Board says the settlement does require SoCal Gas to pay to offset all the methane it released into the atmosphere via the dairy methane digester projects. The money will do double-duty, first to fund the dairy gas projects and later to be used closer to communities that were harmed by the gas release, said Dave Clegern, ARB spokesman.
The settlement cost comes out of the company's profits, not ratepayers. The company still faces about 350 lawsuits and 48,000 plaintiffs who sued the company over the gas leak.
Getting the methane mitigation projects in place as soon as possible is critical, Clegern said. That is because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that does its worst damage in the atmosphere in the first decade after it is released.
A group of Porter Ranch residents called the Aliso Canyon Community Action Committee also came out against the settlement because it directs the methane mitigation money to dairy farms in the San Joaquin Valley, not to projects in Los Angeles city or county where affected families live.
The settlement also pays the state and local governments' legal costs and provides $25 million for a long-term health study of Porter Ranch residents who live close to the Aliso Canyon gas storage field. Some 8,000 households relocated away from neighborhoods near the gas leak, many complaining about headaches, nosebleeds, and other symptoms.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.