A new bill from Assemblymember Mia Bonta marks the first concrete legislative counterattack on a coal export project that has survived years of court battles, community opposition, and a city government that tried and failed to kill it.

On two tracks simultaneously, Bay Area legislators are now trying what Oakland's city attorneys could not: using environmental review law in Sacramento and the federal appropriations process in Washington to stop a coal export hub from taking shape near one of the Bay Area's most polluted communities. The project received $75 million from the Trump administration this month.

On two tracks simultaneously, Bay Area legislators are now trying what Oakland's city attorneys could not: using environmental review law in Sacramento and the federal appropriations process in Washington to stop a coal export hub from taking shape near one of the Bay Area's most polluted communities.

California Assemblymember Mia Bonta introduced legislation Monday that would require a full environmental impact report before any local agency may approve a new or expanded coal terminal capable of handling more than 5 million short tons per year — a threshold the West Oakland project would far exceed.

The bill would also trigger a mandatory new environmental review whenever the type or quantity of coal changes, or when an existing report is 10 or more years old. That provision is particularly significant for the Oakland project: developers last completed an environmental impact report over a decade ago, and Bonta told the Oaklandside the existing review doesn't account for the specific type of coal now planned for the terminal.

"The beautiful people of West Oakland, Alameda, and Emeryville have fought for clean air, for their children's health, and for their right to breathe for generations," Bonta said in a press release. "Donald Trump used a Cold War emergency law to try to override all of that. He will not succeed."

The "Cold War emergency law" she's referencing is the Defense Production Act, a 1950 statute granting the president broad authority to direct industrial investment in the name of national security. The Trump administration invoked it on June 4, announcing $75 million for the construction of a marine export terminal in Oakland as part of a $700 million national coal investment package.

On the federal side, Congresswoman Lateefah Simon filed an amendment to an energy and water appropriations bill that would block use of funds for coal projects, including the one in Oakland, according to the Oaklandside. That bill was expected to be taken up by the House this week.

The coal terminal project has had a turbulent history. Developer Phil Tagami's Oakland Bulk Oversized Terminal spent years in litigation after the city tried to block construction. In 2023, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that Oakland had breached its lease agreement with the developer. The California Supreme Court last year declined to review the case, leaving the developer's right to the West Gateway site near the former Oakland Army Base intact. Tagami did not respond to a request for comment from the Oaklandside.

A sublease operator, Insight Terminal Solutions, is currently suing the city in federal court, alleging Oakland drove the company into bankruptcy through its opposition. According to a Department of Energy filing, Insight plans to finalize design, secure permits, and complete the terminal for cargo shipments by the end of 2028. The terminal would initially handle 9 to 10 million tons of coal annually, shipping Utah and Wyoming coal to Asian markets.

Environmental groups have long warned that coal dust from trains and loading operations would reverse years of air quality progress in West Oakland, a community that already contends with elevated asthma rates and pollution from the Port of Oakland and nearby freeways.

"We're proud of the decades of hard work we and our neighbors have invested to clean up West Oakland's air," said Veronica Eady, executive director of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, in a statement. "We're not going to let this coal facility move forward without a thorough examination of how it might impact our health and drag our progress backward."

Bonta told the Oaklandside she also believes a new environmental study is warranted because peer-reviewed research on coal dust health risks has advanced significantly since the original report, including a 2023 study examining the impact of coal trains moving through Richmond.

"I don't believe we should have Oakland continue to be the dumping ground for toxic chemicals in our state," Bonta said.

Whether the legislation reaches the governor's desk — and whether Simon's amendment survives the House — remains unclear. But both moves signal that the state and federal pushback against the Oakland terminal has shifted from rallies and legal appeals to active legislative strategy.

Primary reporting by Eli Wolfe, the Oaklandside.