Food & Water Watch, Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles, and Sierra Club have joined an existing lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), accusing both entities of failing to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when approving a project to convert the Scattergood gas plant to operate on a blend of hydrogen and methane.
The plant is located near the communities of Inglewood, Hawthorne, and Lennox, areas that the organizations say have long experienced air-quality impacts from fossil-fuel infrastructure. LADWP announced plans in 2022 to upgrade the plant so that it could burn the new blend, allowing it to continue operating beyond its expected closure date.
Dispute Over the Environmental Impact Assessment
The organizations say public concerns about the project are not limited to the continued operation of a gas plant, but also include its climate impacts, safety risks associated with hydrogen, and substantial water needs. In 2025, the LADWP Board of Commissioners certified the project’s environmental impact report, but the opposing groups described it as inadequate and said it did not properly assess potential health and environmental impacts.
Communities for a Better Environment and Los Angeles Waterkeeper filed the lawsuit in December, but its proceedings were temporarily paused while the Los Angeles City Council considered an appeal filed by the organizations against the LADWP Board of Commissioners’ approval. After the council voted to reject the appeal on August 4, 2026, the stay on the lawsuit is expected to end in September, with new parties joining the challenge to the project.
What Do the Organizations Joining the Lawsuit Say?
Theo Caretto, an attorney with Communities for a Better Environment, said the Scattergood project represents an investment in new fossil-fuel infrastructure, and criticized what he described as the report’s failure to address safety impacts, air and water pollution, and the city’s climate goals.
Tyler Lobdell, senior attorney at Food & Water Watch, said reliance on hydrogen is inconsistent with Los Angeles’s stated commitment to achieving 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035, while Zack Waterman of Sierra Club said the environmental analysis was drafted in a way that favored investment in new gas infrastructure.
Alex Jasset, energy justice director at Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles, said LADWP had not sufficiently evaluated the project’s health and environmental impacts, as well as constraints in the hydrogen market, warning that this could leave the city dependent on methane combustion.
Why Does This Dispute Matter?
The lawsuit by itself does not determine whether using hydrogen at the plant will achieve an actual reduction in emissions, but it places the environmental impact assessment and the project-approval process under judicial review. The open questions, according to the lawsuit and statements by the organizations, concern the adequacy of the safety, health, and water analysis; the practicality of relying on hydrogen; and whether continued operation of the plant is consistent with the city’s 2035 climate goal.
The dispute is also not the only challenge to the project; the Center for Biological Diversity filed a separate lawsuit against LADWP concerning the Scattergood project. The allegations presented in these cases remain the positions of the plaintiffs until the court rules on them.