After the construction of a West Oakland coal terminal was approved by the California Supreme Court in September, members of environmental group 350 East Bay Area have renewed a decade-long movement to keep potentially carcinogenic coal out of the Bay.
Many anti-coal advocates were disappointed this fall, after the Court decided not to review a state ruling from 2023 that permitted the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) to build an export terminal. This decision is the latest in over a decade of coal-related legal battles between the City of Oakland and OBOT. Currently, OBOT has full permission to begin constructing their terminal and plans to ship up to 10 million tons of coal from Utah to Asia each year.
However, environmental group 350 East Bay Area hasn’t given up the fight. At a virtual meeting on Jan. 17, seven of the organization’s leaders planned efforts such as canvassing and further legal challenges to resist the terminal and any health risks it may bring in the new year. Flick at what they resolved to do]
Many of the group’s efforts are being led by Ann Harvey, a 350 East Bay member who has protested against coal in Oakland for more than a decade. “We need just major, major community activation around this at the same time as everything else that we’re trying to do,” Harvey said.
350 East Bay has purchased 500 yard signs labeled “No Coal in Oakland!” They are also searching for volunteer canvassers who live along the train route to inform neighbors of coal’s health risks.
Public health is one of the primary reasons that 350 East Bay refuses to give up the fight against the terminal. In a 2024 UC Davis study, increases in asthma, heart attacks, and early deaths were found along the train route from Martinez through Contra Costa County. Far from being an Oakland-specific issue, the new terminal will likely affect residents in Richmond, Berkeley, and other cities along the tracks.
Amid concerns over the terminal’s impact on health, OBOT CEO Phil Tagami has emphasized that building the terminal is fully within the company’s rights. “At the end of the day, the truth and the law and the process worked. It just took nine years and a couple months,” he said in an interview with The Oaklandside.
However, according to research done by 350 East Bay’s legal team, there may be grounds for further legal action against OBOT. The 2023 ruling favoring OBOT ignored the developers’ commitments to place covers on coal-carrying trains. According to 350 East Bay, OBOT hasn’t fulfilled their promises to minimize coal dust emissions; although this has not been confirmed by other sources, it could be interpreted as a breach of their lease.
Still, some Oakland legislators are hesitant to continue the fight.
“The City Council is very gun shy having lost these court cases,” Harvey said. “They don’t want to do anything that might put them at any risk of being sued again, and they are just not really aware of what powers they still have.”
While the City Council hasn’t released a public statement of defeat, some officials have expressed frustration at the decision to allow OBOT to build despite ten years of protest. Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker said “we are disappointed that the trial court did not recognize what we strongly believe the evidence demonstrated and contract language required,” after Alameda Superior Court Judge Noël Wise favored OBOT in the 2023 case.
Jack Lucero Fleck, another 350 East Bay member, plans to combat the narrative that the coal port can’t be stopped. In a letter to the East Bay Times published in November, he wrote “I’m disappointed that you chose to run a misleading and inaccurate NY Times article about the proposed Oakland coal terminal.”
Although activists like Harvey and Fleck are still fighting against the proposed coal terminal, they continue to search for young activists to revitalize their movement. “Because this has been basically in the courts and the city’s lawyers fighting it, there is a core group of us that has become very old and small.” Harvey said.
“The appeal to you is that we really need to let people know, first of all, that it is still a threat. [The terminal] still could be stopped, but it needs community action.”
