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

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

For generations, the Black church has stood strong in our communities through every historical change this country has experienced. During the civil rights movement and in recent times, faith leaders have helped uplift Black sanctuaries to register voters, keep food pantries open for people in need, and sit with families in hospital rooms in their most desperate moments. When our people faced new trials, they could always look to our faith leaders and the church to lean in to help us be included in these transformative changes.

Artificial intelligence is the latest revolutionary change to impact our society, and much like other transformations before us, underserved communities often get left behind.

I was recently featured in a report entitled “Faith, Community & AI” and it found that people send ChatGPT more than 70 million messages a week about religion. Nearly 22 million involve studying sacred texts, and 16 million ask about religious practices and holy days. Our members make up part of those numbers. They bring questions of faith to these tools every day.

Pastors have noticed, and according to a September 2025 Lifeway Research survey of 1,003 Protestant pastors, 42 percent said they use or experiment with AI in ministry. I count myself among them.

I write my sermons by hand, through prayer and study. When I finish a draft, I ask ChatGPT this question: “Where might this sermon become unclear or difficult to follow for someone early in their walk of faith?” It shows me gaps in my preparation, like where I incorrectly assumed everyone would know the context of who the Pharisees were. Then, change comes from my own pen, not the robot. The tool helps me reach the person in the back pew while the message still comes from me.

If I could have my wish, our whole community would take a similar posture. We must use these tools, understand them, and most importantly be present to help shape them if we want to be included in the coming change.

I implore my fellow faith leaders to use these tools. Start now and use them with wisdom. We count on each and every one of you to make sure our communities help write the next chapter of this story. This rapid change is not as unfamiliar as it may sound. My first understanding of AI came from using a calculator for the first time in grade school. We did not call it AI, but it was a tool that helped me work through mathematical equations hours more efficiently.

It starts with training; there is no involvement without understanding. Free AI trainings have begun in our churches and community centers across the nation. Every faith leader should sign up and, when possible, encourage members of your congregations to join you. By learning how to use AI, we can better understand what it can do, make up our own minds about its impact, and have a say in how it shapes our communities.”

Next, we must be at the tables where the builders of these tools make decisions. Presence is the first step toward understanding, and that gap is only bridged through a coordinated effort. How can any tool serve a community well if that community is not part of the conversation? Our traditions, needs, and concerns must be accounted for, and Black faith leaders are already making that happen. OpenAI’s recent Faith report states plainly that AI should never become an arbiter of religious truth. I fully intend to hold the company to its word, and the most effective way I can do that is from inside.

I will close with this––we must diligently protect what only the church can give. A believer in Seoul, Korea quoted in the report warned, “if you pour every struggle into a private chat, your pastor and your friends may never learn you need help.” A chatbot will not sit with a grieving family or pray with you at two in the morning. As we adopt this technology, it is up to us to ensure it keeps people connected to each other and to their church.

Rev. Dr. Adolphus Lacey is senior pastor of Bethany Baptist Church in Brooklyn, New York.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group