Business
Oakland Coal Terminal Backed by Trump Would Be Bigger, Dirtier Than Promised, Says Report
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 devel
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.
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/
