By Post Staff

A recent feasibility study commissioned by potential investors says an Oakland coal terminal backed by President Donald Trump could export 13 million tons a year — three times the amount estimated in an earlier environmental review.

Surprisingly, the report also contradicts developers’ and project advocates’ repeated pledges that the coal would be stored in a covered terminal. Instead, the millions of tons of coal shipped annually from inland states to the West Gateway terminal in Oakland would be stored in “two open-air bunkers,” with about 150,000 tons of coal per stockpile, before being sent overseas, according to the  recent report cited by the L.A. Times. (https://ruic.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Port-Study-RUIC-Bulk-Commodity-Ocean-Terminals-Study.pdf)

Residents and clean air advocates have long expressed concerns that coal dust would worsen pollution in West Oakland and throughout the East Bay.

The proposed site of the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) is located at the former Army base near the Port of Oakland, which developer Phil Tagami has been trying for years to turn into a shipping terminal despite determined community opposition.

Trump announced a $75-million investment in the project in June, about a third of its estimated cost. The new terminal would be the largest coal export site on the West Coast, transporting coal to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia, according to the Trump administration.

Trending

LIVE! — HE SAID…, HE SAID…, HE SAID…: with author Renee R. White — FRI. 5.3.24 7PM EST

Opponents say a new terminal would undermine years of progress cleaning up the air in West Oakland, which has a history of disproportionate pollution and high asthma rates due to its proximity to the port and other industry.

According to No Coal in Oakland organizer Ted Franklin, who has been active for 11 years in the fight to stop the coal terminal, the report indicates that investors may be looking for a cheaper way to build the terminal.

“We were shocked but not surprised” by the report, Franklin said. “Basically, it seems that the plan now is to store open piles of coal, which is a less expensive project than creating a completely enclosed facility.”

The threats that the project poses are real, but it faces a lot of economic and legal hurdles, he said.

Coal production is in permanent decline worldwide, he said, wondering who was going to “invest money in an industry that has no future.”

Further, the project has not yet attracted big investors. “There’s no bank, no financing, no financial institution backing this,” he continued.

A major legal hurdle facing the project is the passage of Assemblymember Mia Bonta’s bill, AB 40, the Community-First Coal Review Act, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30.

The law requires developers of large-volume bulk coal facilities to complete a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before they can operate. 

The law was specifically designed to block or delay the coal terminal project.

The report to potential developers was produced by consulting groups Norda Stelo and Wood Mackenzie in July and released this month. It was commissioned by the Rural Utah Infrastructure Coalition, made up of eight Utah counties that are considering investing about $43 million into the terminal to receive Utah coal.

The consultants produced their findings after visiting Oakland, examining engineering documents and holding discussions with Savage Cos., a Utah-based transport and logistics company selected to operate the facility

Research has shown that coal terminal operations can be dangerous to public health. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach moved away from open-air coal and petroleum coke storage three decades ago.

The report says that the site could process 12 million metric tons, or 13.2 million tons, of coal each year, three times more than the terminal’s approved environmental impact report from 2002 and its 2012 addendum. Neither document mentions coal specifically, but rather bulk commodities.

The coal arriving in Oakland could also be dirtier then had been previously stated, according to the report. Project officials previously said the terminal would handle only high-grade western bituminous coal from Utah, but the recent report says it will also handle Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming and Montana, known to be much dustier.

Nor does the report mention plans to cover the rail cars to prevent pollution, though project officials previously promised they would only utilize coal transported in covered rail cars.

“It appears the developers want to build something much bigger and more polluting than anything they previously revealed, either in court or to the West Oakland community,” said Colin O’Brien, deputy managing attorney at the nonprofit Earthjustice, speaking to the L.A. Times.

The report indicates that the project may be much more expensive and take longer to complete than anticipated. The Energy Department estimates the terminal will cost about $231 million, but the report places the price at between $430 million and $625 million.

The terminal will take 53 months to complete according to the report, significantly longer than Trump’s promise of exports beginning in 2028.

Ted Franklin’s column, “Utah Study Blesses Investment in Oakland Coal Terminal but Leaves Key Questions Unanswered” is available at https://nocoalinoakland.info/utah-study-blesses-investment-in-oakland/

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

By Kitty Kelly Epstein

I am an academic and a community activist. I take women’s issues, including workplace harassment and discrimination, seriously. I have been following the AC Transit Ward 3 election and have become concerned about what I believe is a serious injustice.

Joel Young is an effective AC Transit director.  He has secured more than $600 million for local bus service and fare affordability. He led the Freedom Bus Project, integrating civil rights history, art and transit. He was presiding over the board of AC transit when it won the 2023 Outstanding Public System Award, and he raised $1 million for the hydrogen fuel cell bus program. These are just a few of his accomplishments.

 I reviewed the allegations of unwanted physical contact and harassment made by AC Transit Director Sarah Syed against Director Joel Young, I believe the events of Sept. 24, 2025, have been characterized in a way that does not accurately reflect what occurred.

That interaction took place during a group photo after celebrating the life of a longtime Board member who passed away. From the video I reviewed, it appears that individuals were consoling one another and exchanging hugs in a public setting surrounded by numerous witnesses.

Young’s interaction with Syed appears consistent with those expressions of sympathy and it appears that Young was attempting to extend a gesture of goodwill toward Syed.

          I am concerned by how this incident has been recently used as a political tool to influence the outcome of the AC Transit Ward 3 election and support Young’s opponent.

Syed and her supporters launched a targeted political campaign, first through the Alameda County Democratic Party and subsequently by organizing a letter from a group of majority-white elected officials who have endorsed Young’s opponent against Young, who is Africa American.   

          Furthermore, this manufactured controversy distracts voters from the critical issues facing AC Transit. The public deserves a substantive debate on service reliability, ridership recovery, passenger and operator safety, financial stability, regional equity, and future transportation infrastructure. The electorate should be evaluating which candidate possesses the judgment, experience, and vision to lead AC Transit forward – not reacting to a distorted personal interaction.   

          Regardless of one’s political views or preferred candidate, allegations of harassment should never be weaponized for electoral purposes. We all know that exaggerated or unsupported accusations can undermine public understanding of, and trust in, efforts to address genuine sexual harassment and violence.

Kitty Kelly Epstein

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post