Can coal still move through Oakland? What the new law changes

Drive onto the Bay Bridge from Oakland and look right just before the toll plaza. That flat, fenced stretch of old asphalt is the West Gateway of the former Oakland Army Base, and for a decade it has been the most fought-over vacant lot in the East Bay. A developer wants to ship coal through it. The city has spent ten years trying to stop that and mostly losing.

Last week the picture changed twice. On September 30, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 40, which forces a full state environmental review before any large coal terminal in California can get a discretionary approval. Days later, a federal judge in Kentucky threw out a $1 billion lawsuit against Oakland over the same terminal.

Neither one bans coal. Each one does change the odds for the West Oakland blocks closest to the site, where Houseberry data puts the typical home at about $627,300 in Prescott as of early October 2026, about $350,000 below Oakland's citywide typical price.

What AB 40 changes

The law is short.

It adds one section to the state's environmental review law, and the chaptered text says a "large-volume bulk coal facility," defined by a design capacity above 5 million short tons a year, needs a full environmental impact report before any discretionary approval. A new report is required if the type of coal changes, if the volume rises significantly, or if an existing facility crosses the threshold. The review has to study and mitigate coal dust.

The Oakland project is far above that line. Earthjustice, which sponsored the bill with the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, puts the planned volume at 12 to 13 million tons a year, about three 100-car trains a day, according to its statement on the signing. Trump described it in June as "12 million tons of clean, beautiful coal per year."

The bill passed the Senate 30-10 on August 25 and the Assembly 50-17 on August 28. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, whose state's mines would supply much of the coal, has asked his attorney general to look at a legal challenge, Cowboy State Daily reported.

What the law does not do is say no. It makes the project produce a public study of dust, trains, storage and health, and that study can be challenged in court. That is a slower road, not a closed one.

The court win, and the losses before it

Oakland's record in this fight is mostly losses, which is why this one matters.

The timeline draws on the No Coal in Oakland coalition's case history, checked against KTVU and KQED.

Insight Terminal Solutions, which holds the sublease, had sued in Kentucky, where it filed for bankruptcy in 2019. Beaton declined to hear the case and said it belongs in California courts, writing that the Kentucky filing "carries at least a whiff of forum shopping." The company can appeal or refile in California. The city's lawyers told KQED, "we're pleased with the result."

The numbers behind the terminal

The project has also grown more expensive on paper. A $488,000 feasibility study commissioned for the Utah counties that want to invest put the cost at $430 million to $625 million, against the developer's estimate of about $250 million, and estimated 53 months from engineering to first shipment, FreightWaves reported. It also describes open-air coal piles of about 150,000 tons each. The developer had long described the operation as enclosed.

We think AB 40 is the right tool for this. Open coal piles of that size on the upwind edge of a neighborhood are exactly what an environmental review exists to examine, and the developer has a construction deadline less than 18 months away that it now has to meet in public.

What West Oakland already carries

West Oakland is about 26,000 people living beside the port, three freeways and a rail yard. The Air District's community action plan found diesel exhaust makes up more than 90 percent of the cancer risk from local sources. Alameda County health data presented to the state in 2018 showed asthma emergency room visits at 1,048 per 100,000 residents in West Oakland, nearly double the county's 555.

Houseberry scores the neighborhoods nearest the Army Base low on its overall scale, which weighs schools, safety and amenities. None of the six scores above 2.2 out of 5. Prices are well under the city's.

The middle of the four West Oakland neighborhoods with their own sales data is about $640,000, roughly 35 percent below the Oakland figure, by Houseberry's count. Two of the four rose over the year and two fell. Scores come from Houseberry's Oakland ranking, and the full pages for Ralph Bunche and McClymonds show the price history month by month.

We looked for research tying the terminal fight to West Oakland home prices and found none, so we will not guess at one. What buyers can see is closer to home. The neighborhood is getting Mandela Station at West Oakland BART, 762 homes and a 31-story tower, at the same time a coal export terminal is still on the books a short drive west.

Where it goes from here

The next steps are spread across three states. Utah's infrastructure board is expected to vote this month on about $45 million for the terminal. Wyoming may sue over AB 40. The developer can appeal Beaton's ruling. And any permit the project needs after January 1 triggers the new review.

For West Oakland, the deadline that matters is the one in the lease: March 2028. If you are weighing a home in Prescott, Acorn or the Lower Bottoms, compare the scores and price trends across every Oakland neighborhood with that date in mind.

Sources

• AB 40 chaptered text, Chapter 864, Statutes of 2026
• Governor's legislative update, September 30, 2026
• KQED, Newsom signs coal terminal law as Oakland wins key court fight
• Oaklandside, coal company's $1 billion lawsuit against Oakland dismissed
• Bay Area Air District, West Oakland Community Action Plan
• Alameda County Public Health presentation to CARB, March 2018