By Emily Arthun, Brian Somers , Travis Deti

October 11, 2026 - After nearly a decade of environmental reviews, litigation, public scrutiny, and air-quality monitoring, California has decided to subject Oakland’s coal export terminal to yet another round of review. The decision comes despite years of evidence showing no measurable increase in regional air pollution from coal rail traffic and multiple court rulings rejecting activist efforts to block the project.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 40 on Sept. 30, legislation aimed at requiring additional environmental review for large coal export facilities. While supporters call the law a public-health measure, the record tells a much different story. Eight years of air monitoring in West Oakland found no measurable increase in regional PM2.5 levels associated with coal trains.

Oakland’s own environmental analysis projected exposure levels well below applicable thresholds. Courts repeatedly ruled that the city lacked sufficient evidence to justify banning coal shipments.

At some point, facts must matter.

California’s new review requirement

AB40 requires additional review for coal export facilities handling more than 5 million tons annually. In practice, only one California project fits that description: the Oakland bulk terminal.

The legislation follows years of unsuccessful attempts to stop the project through local ordinances and litigation. Amendments added to the bill create a new regulatory pathway by treating certain air district permits as discretionary approvals subject to additional environmental review. At the same time, the legislation effectively questions environmental findings previously relied upon during development of the former Oakland Army Base.

California’s approach raises a basic question: If years of environmental review, monitoring and court decisions were sufficient for every other aspect of the project, why should one commodity be treated differently?

What the courts found

Oakland certified an environmental report for the Army Base redevelopment in 2002, and a 2012 addendum evaluated the impacts of a bulk terminal capable of moving up to three 100-car trains per day.

When Oakland attempted to prohibit coal handling in 2016, the courts disagreed.

In 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria found that Oakland failed to present substantial evidence demonstrating that coal shipments would create the health risks claimed by the city. The Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling in 2020. In 2025, California’s Court of Appeal affirmed that Oakland breached its contractual obligations related to the project, resulting in more than $6.5 million in fees awarded to the terminal company. The California Supreme Court later declined further review.

Rather than accepting these outcomes, Sacramento has chosen to revisit the issue through legislation as a last-ditch effort to the detriment of American taxpayers.

What 8 years of monitoring recorded

The strongest evidence comes from actual air monitoring.

From late 2013 through March 2021, three permanent monitoring stations in West Oakland continuously measured fine particulate matter. Analysts compared those readings against railroad records identifying trains carrying uncovered coal.

According to a 2025 review by Northgate Environmental Management, trains carrying uncovered coal around the Army Base did not result in a measurable increase in regional PM2.5 concentrations. On nearly all identified train days, air-quality readings remained below federal standards. Where elevated readings occurred, similar concentrations were recorded at both upwind and downwind monitors and had already appeared before the trains passed through the area.

The debate surrounding Oakland often centers on predictions, not science. The monitoring data reflect actual conditions measured over nearly eight years.

The economic stakes

The Oakland terminal would support jobs both at the port and throughout the western United States.

The facility itself is expected to employ between 100 and 200 workers and operate for decades. At full capacity, its annual throughput could support hundreds of mining jobs and thousands of additional positions connected to rail transportation, port operations, equipment suppliers and local businesses.

The project would also strengthen export access to important Pacific markets while supporting workers in Wyoming, Utah and other coal-producing states that continue to supply clean thermal coal to global customers.

A matter of fairness and certainty

This debate is about more than coal.

Businesses, workers and communities should be able to rely on contracts, environmental reviews and final court decisions. When governments continue changing the rules after losing in court, confidence in the regulatory process suffers.

California should apply consistent environmental standards to all bulk commodities moving through its ports and respect the legal decisions already rendered in this case. The state has spent years reviewing this project. It has years of monitoring data. It has multiple court rulings.

The overwhelming evidence deserves more weight than politics.

Build the port project.