Oakland, California

From Voices in the Dust
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why this Information Is Important: Led by No Coal in Oakland, a broad coalition of local environmental justice organizations, labor unions, health scientists, youth activists, faith leaders, and environmental groups, residents fought against coal export through the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT). In response to this activism, the Oakland City Council passed an ordinance banning coal handling, storage, and transport with the City's limits. However, because the City of Oakland had already agreed to OBOT's proposed coal activities, the City was successfully sued by OBOT for breach of contract.

Attention: Activists and advocates, researchers, policymakers

Overview

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.[1] In the December 2013, in an Oakland Army Base newsletter, OBOT developer Phil Tagami promised he would not export coal through OBOT, writing: "It has come to my attention that there are community concerns about a purported plan to develop a coal plant or coal distribution facility as part of the Oakland Global project. This is simply untrue... [we are] publicly on record as having no interest or involvement in the pursuit of coal-related operations at the former Oakland Army Base."[2] Tagami made the same commitment in private meetings with the Sierra Club, elected officials, and others.

In 2015, it emerged that Tagami had quietly agreed to ship up to 10 million tons of coal per year through OBOT.[3]

In response, the No Coal in Oakland movement formed as a coalition of local environmental justice organizations, labor unions, health scientists, youth activists, faith leaders, and environmental groups, including the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU), Sierra Club, Communities for a Better Environment, Baykeeper, and Asian Pacific Environmental Network.

No Coal in Oakland held large rallies and hearings to demand that the City of Oakland prohibit OBOT from exporting coal to protect public health, climate, and local jobs. In June 2016, facing community pressure, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to pass a local ordinance to ban the handling, storage, and transport of coal and petroleum coke within the city limits, which included OBOT. The Council cited risks to air quality, residents' health, and environmental justice in West Oakland neighborhoods.

Litigation

  • Photograph: Activists rally against coal export at OBOT outside a U.S. District Court, San Francisco, January 10, 2018. Photograph by Tara Siler.[4]
    Photograph: Activists rally against coal export at OBOT outside a U.S. District Court, San Francisco, January 10, 2018. Photograph by Tara Siler.[4]

Federal District Court, 2016–2020

In December 2016, OBOT sued the City of Oakland alleging breach of their 2013 Development Agreement when Oakland City Council banned coal handling at OBOT.[5]

In January 2018, a U.S. District Court in San Francisco decided that the City of Oakland lacked "substantial evidence" showing that a coal export terminal actually posed a significant health or safety risk. The court ruled that Oakland's ban on coal violated the Development Agreement and it was declared it invalid.[6][7] On May 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld this ruling, affirming the lower court's decision.

State Court, 2018–2025

After the U.S. District Court decision, OBOT's ground lease required the City of Oakland and OBOT to hit certain development milestones by August 14, 2018. When the City terminated the lease for missing a deadline, OBOT, and its sub-tenant OGRE, sued the City in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming the City's coal ban triggered force majeure. Force majeure is a clause often included in contracts that frees both parties from liability or obligation when there is an extraordinary event or beyond the control of either party that prevents one or both parties in the contract from meeting their obligations.

In October 2023, in the initial liability phase of the case, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Noël Wise sided with the OBOT, finding the City liable for breach of contract. Judge Wise ruled the City's delays and refusal to cooperate prevented OBOT from meeting its obligations, triggering six separate force majeure events, including the passage of the coal ban and the City's failure to execute a rail access agreement.[8]

In January 2024, during the remedy phase of the case, Judge Wise ruled against OBOT, who were seeking nearly $160 million from the City in lost profits. This was because OBOT's projected profits were deemed too speculative.[9]

California Court of Appeal, June 2025

The City of Oakland appealed Judge Wise's decision, but, on June 27, 2025, the First Appellate District Court affirmed Judge Wise's ruling.[10][11] This court ruling reopened the possibility of exporting coal through OBOT. As of July 1, 2025, the City was considering seeking review of the Court of Appeal's decision by the California Supreme Court.[12][13]

No Coal In Oakland

No Coal in Oakland is a grassroots coalition of residents, activists, advocates, and local, state, and national organizations focused on preventing coal export in Oakland.[14] No Coal in Oakland has large rallies and hearings and drawn attention to local issues as well as their connection to global climate changes and energy dynamics. No Coal in Oakland has also coordinated efforts across diverse interest groups. Despite losses in court, No Coal in Oakland continues to fight against coal export at OBOT.

No Coal in Oakland has extensively cataloged the organization's activities, perspectives, documents, and related media attention. It is a model of community record-keeping for action for environmental justice. We do not reproduce those record here, but instead direct readers to the No Coal in Oakland website.

Relevance and Conversations with the Repair Lab

In 2023, Repair Lab team members met with community organizers and lawyers involved in the No Coal for Oakland campaign to learn from their experiences about what could work in Southeast Newport News and Lambert's Point, Norfolk in Virginia.[15][16]

No Coal in Oakland required organizers to build strong, diverse alliances very quickly. The environmental organizations readily joined in, but other groups, including labor unions, faith groups, and public health groups required concerted outreach. No Coal in Oakland organizers found OTOB was paying or attempting to pay some community leaders to gain their support.

Oakland organizers decided to focused on changing policy at the local government level because the land where OTOB was located was owned by the city. They also mentioned that rail was regulated by the federal government, making that harder to influence. The decision to focus on Oakland City Council motivated the large coalition of No Coal in Oakland, in part to demonstrate that council members could not be re-elected if they angered such a large groups of constituents.

Lastly, No Coal in Oakland focused on the health concerns associated with coal dust pollution and climate change rather than only the impacts of burning coal on climate change broadly. The idea was that the agreement between the City of Oakland and OBOT could not be undone unless there were health concerns. At least on lawyer involved in the lawsuit continues to disagree with the U.S. District Court decision that their was insufficient evidence of potential harm.[16]

Resources and Materials: See for Yourself and Dig Deeper

Court Documents

Other Resources

Repair Lab Conversations

Visit Next

Local Ordinances Richmond, California

The Front Porch and Community Action

Have a question? Want to start a conversation or share an observation? Join the discussion: Front Porch

Do you have photographs or stories to add to this page? Add Your Voice

You can also email the Repair Lab at editor@voicesinthedust.org or call, text, or send a voice memo to (757) 317-0356. If you prefer, a Repair Lab team member can record your story in person or collect physical materials to digitize and then return them to you.

Sources

  1. ↑ Siler, Oakland, Port Developer Head to Trial in Dispute Over Coal Ban, KQED, January 16, 2018.
  2. ↑ Fight for a Coal-free Oakland, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay, Press Release, Undated.
  3. ↑ Wolfe, Oakland Loses Appeal in Coal Legal Battle, The Oaklandside, June 30, 2025‌.
  4. ↑ Siler, Oakland, Port Developer Head to Trial in Dispute Over Coal Ban, KQED, January 15, 2018.
  5. ↑ Fight for a Coal-free Oakland. Sierraclub.org. 2018.
  6. ↑ Our Campaign, No Coal in Oakland, ‌2018.
  7. ↑ BondGraham, Judge Rules in Favor of Oakland Coal Project, East Bay Express, May 15, 2018.
  8. ↑ Klein, Despite Trial Decision, Hope Remains to Keep Coal Out of Oakland, Sierra Club San Francisco, Press Release, March 29, 2024.
  9. ↑ Johnson, Judge Denies Developer's $160 Million Suit Against Oakland in Ongoing Coal Terminal Battle, KQED, January 23, 2024.
  10. ↑ Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland, California Courts of Appeal Decisions, 2025.
  11. ↑ Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC, vs. City of Oakland, First Appellate District Division Two, June 27, 2025.
  12. ↑ City Loses Appeal in State Court Lawsuit, No Coal in Oakland, July 1, 2025.
  13. ↑ Oakland Effort To Block Fossil-Fuel Exports Suffers Second Judicial Setback, U.S Coal Exports, 2020.
  14. ↑ Our Campaign. No Coal in Oakland. ‌2018.
  15. ↑ No Coal in Oakland Meeting with Repair Lab Team Members, March 27, 2023
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Marie Logan Meeting with Repair Lab Team Members, May 17, 2023.
Retrieved from "https://voicesinthedust.org/index.php?title=Oakland,_California&oldid=6240"