Oakland, CA

From Voices in the Dust
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The activism against coal dust in Hampton Roads and the No Coal in Oakland campaign both center community-driven efforts to protect public health from the dangers of coal pollution. Like Hampton Roads, West Oakland has a disproportionately high rate of respiratory illness and other physical ailments, which is linked to its close proximity to the Port of Oakland, as well as truck and rail traffic.[1]

In the early 2010s, developers unveiled plans to redevelop the Oakland Army Base as the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT), originally proposing transportation of low‑dust cargo like wind turbines or grain.[2] In 2015, it emerged that the terminal had quietly agreed to ship up to 10 million tons of coal per year through Oakland.[3]

Activists opposed to a coal facility in Oakland rally outside U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Jan. 10, 2018. (Tara Siler/KQED)

In response, the No Coal in Oakland movement formed, uniting local environmental justice groups (like the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project), labor unions (e.g. ILWU), health experts, youth activists, faith leaders, and groups such as Sierra Club, Communities for a Better Environment, Baykeeper, and Asian Pacific Environmental Network. They held massive hearings, colorful protests, testimony, and rallies to demand that Oakland reject coal exports for the sake of public health, climate justice, and local jobs. By late June 2016, under community pressure, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to ban the handling, storage, and transport of coal (and petroleum coke) within the city (including the OBOT) citing risks to air quality, asthma, heart and respiratory disease, and environmental equity for West Oakland communities.

From No Coal In Oakland, 5 organizers stand in front of the Oakland City Hall.

Litigation

Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland (Case No. 16-CV-7014) (2016–2020)

  • In December 2016, OBOT (Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal) sued Oakland alleging breach of the 2013 Development Agreement after the City passed an ordinance and resolution banning coal handling at the proposed terminal.[4]
  • A federal district court held a bench trial in early 2018 and concluded Oakland lacked “substantial evidence” to show the coal operation posed a significant health or safety risk. It described the City’s reports as “riddled with inaccuracies, major evidentiary gaps, erroneous assumptions, and faulty analyses”
  • The court ruled that the City’s coal ban violated the Development Agreement and declared it invalid.[5][6]
  • On May 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, affirming the lower court’s standard of review and finding
A container ship docked in a berth at the Port of Oakland on Feb. 11, 2015, in Oakland. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

State Court Litigation: OBOT/OGRE v. City of Oakland (2018–2025)

  • After the federal decision, OBOT’s Ground Lease required the City and OBOT to hit specified development milestones by August 14, 2018. When the City terminated the lease for missing that deadline, OBOT (and its subtenant OGRE) sued in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming the City’s obstruction and the prior coal ban triggered force majeure rights and breached implied duties of good faith No Coal in Oakland
  • The trial covered both liability and remedies. In October 2023, Judge Noël Wise found Oakland liable for breach of contract and implied covenant. She concluded the City's delays and refusal to cooperate prevented OBOT from meeting its obligations and triggered six separate force majeure events, including passage of the coal ban itself, failure to execute a rail access agreement, and not completing public improvements
  • In January 2024, Judge Wise reinstated OBOT’s lease, extended performance deadlines by 2.5 years, and denied OBOT’s $159.6 million damage claim—but granted equitable relief to resume development

California Court of Appeal (Decision issued June 27, 2025)

  • The City appealed that decision. On June 27, 2025, the First Appellate District affirmed Judge Wise’s ruling.[7] The court rejected the City’s arguments regarding the force majeure clause, implied covenant limits, claim preclusion, and OGRE’s right to sue. It concluded OBOT and OGRE were entitled to relief, and that the lease termination was improper.[8]
  • Although OBOT lost on its monetary damages claim, the victory in court reopened the possibility of reviving terminal development
  • As of July 1, 2025, The City may seek review of the Court of Appeal’s decision by the California Supreme Court.[9]

Documents

References

  1. ↑ oaklandexplore. (2025, June 11). West Oakland Air Pollution Trends: 20 Years of Data, Health Impacts & Demographic Shifts - Oakland Explore. Oakland Explore.
  2. ↑ Siler, T. (2018, January 16). Oakland, Port Developer Head to Trial in Dispute Over Coal Ban. Kqed.org; KQED. ‌
  3. ↑ Wolfe, E. Oakland loses appeal in coal legal battle. The Oaklandside. June 30, 2025‌
  4. ↑ Fight for a Coal-free Oakland. Sierraclub.org. 2018.
  5. ↑ Our Campaign. No Coal in Oakland. ‌2018.
  6. ↑ BondGraham, D. Judge Rules in Favor of Oakland Coal Project | East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda. East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda. May 15, 2018.
  7. ↑ Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland. Justia Law. 2025.
  8. ↑ Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland. FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO. June 27, 2025.
  9. ↑ City Loses Appeal in State Court Lawsuit. No Coal in Oakland. July 1, 2025.
Retrieved from "https://voicesinthedust.org/index.php?title=Oakland,_CA&oldid=1709"