Court decision expected Monday on challenge to ExxonMobil refinery restart
Closure of the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance on Monday hasn´t helped gas prices that have finally begin to shoot back up. Average retail gasoline prices in Los Angeles have risen 17.3 cents per gallon in the past week, averaging $2.84/g, according to GasBuddy's daily survey of 2,135 gas outlets in Los Angeles. Chuck Bennett/Staff Photographer
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge will decide Monday whether to allow ExxonMobil to fire up its Torrance refinery in violation of emission limits or bow to an environmental group that filed suit to block the long-awaited plant restart.
The Refinery Safety Network — the third community group to spring up since a February 2015 explosion crippled ExxonMobil’s ability to refine gasoline — filed the lawsuit Wednesday to halt the resumption of gasoline refining.
To reduce the threat of another explosion or fire, ExxonMobil wants to restart the refinery without using pollution-control devices.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Board voted 3-2 earlier this month to allow the company to do so, but the Refinery Safety Network has challenged that decision, alleging violations of state environmental law and the Health & Safety Code.
Judge Mary H. Strobel heard two hours of oral arguments from the parties Friday in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom.
Attorney Craig M. Collins, a principal in the Los Angeles law firm Blum Collins LLP that is representing the Refinery Safety Network, said ExxonMobil lawyers reiterated the risk of restarting the refinery with pollution controls.
“They did make threats that the plant is going to be really dangerous if they have to comply with any judge’s order in our favor,” Collins said. “If you can’t operate your plant safely, why should you be operating it at all?”
Collins said ExxonMobil wanted Strobel to issue a ruling the same day, saying a restart is imminent.
But Collins noted that in a “bizarre” sequence of events, ExxonMobil’s legal counsel either would not or could not say exactly when the company planned to do so.
![]()
![]()
Advertisement
In practical terms, there is no difference between an injunction or stay; both have the same effect, Collins said.
The Refinery Safety Network — the third community group to spring up since a February 2015 explosion crippled ExxonMobil’s ability to refine gasoline — filed the lawsuit Wednesday to halt the resumption of gasoline refining.
To reduce the threat of another explosion or fire, ExxonMobil wants to restart the refinery without using pollution-control devices.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Board voted 3-2 earlier this month to allow the company to do so, but the Refinery Safety Network has challenged that decision, alleging violations of state environmental law and the Health & Safety Code.
Judge Mary H. Strobel heard two hours of oral arguments from the parties Friday in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom.
Attorney Craig M. Collins, a principal in the Los Angeles law firm Blum Collins LLP that is representing the Refinery Safety Network, said ExxonMobil lawyers reiterated the risk of restarting the refinery with pollution controls.
“They did make threats that the plant is going to be really dangerous if they have to comply with any judge’s order in our favor,” Collins said. “If you can’t operate your plant safely, why should you be operating it at all?”
Collins said ExxonMobil wanted Strobel to issue a ruling the same day, saying a restart is imminent.
But Collins noted that in a “bizarre” sequence of events, ExxonMobil’s legal counsel either would not or could not say exactly when the company planned to do so.
Torrance residents have encountered similar difficulties getting the same answer, although members of local group Families Lobbying Against Refinery Exposures (FLARE) did persuade the AQMD to require a 48-hour notice ahead of the restart to the community.
Strobel finally sent the company’s legal counsel out into a courthouse hallway to consult with engineers, who said the restart would not occur over the weekend.
Among the complex legal issues the judge must decide is whether the AQMD decision is subject to California environmental law or specifically exempted, whether the nonprofit group has the legal standing to challenge the agency’s decision and what legal standard applies in the case.
For instance, ExxonMobil lawyers argued that for an injunction to be granted, the Refinery Safety Network must show irreparable injury would occur if the restart occurred, Collins said. The network contends it is merely seeking a stay or postponement of the restart because that’s in the public interest until additional environmental analysis is performed.
But an injunction involves a higher legal standard than a stay and the judge must decide which applies.
Similarly, the AQMD contends its decision involved an abatement order — which is exempt from state environmental law — rather than a permit, which isn’t, as both parties agree.
“We don’t care what you call it,” Collins said, “but you have to comply with the law if you’re granting a permit, which the (AQMD decision) does.”
AQMD officials did not respond to a request for comment.
ExxonMobil lawyers also argued the lawsuit should have been filed earlier because the refinery’s tanks are now full of crude oil in anticipation of the restart and, if it isn’t allowed to resume refining, the company won’t be able to fulfill signed contracts to deliver gasoline, Collins said.
An ExxonMobil spokesman Friday said merely that the company agrees with the AQMD decision.
Comments