Published on: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:45:33 GMT
Original Story: Even $75M from Trump may not save Oakland’s embattled coal terminal – grist.org

Oakland’s Coal Terminal: Where Even $75 Million from Trump’s Orbit Can’t Buy You Love (or a Port)

Well, isn’t this just a delightful little slice of American political theater? You’ve got a progressive bastion, Oakland, California, locked in a bare-knuckle brawl over a proposed coal export terminal. And who, pray tell, rides into this dusty, carbon-choked arena, not on a white horse, but with a whopping $75 million from the great state of Utah, all thanks to some backroom maneuvering during the Trump administration? Why, none other than the ghosts of fossil fuels past, present, and apparently, future, if certain individuals have their way. It’s a tale as old as time, or at least as old as the 2010s: big money, bigger ambitions, and the decidedly inconvenient reality of local opposition and, you know, climate change.

The gist? Despite a reported $75 million from Utah — money that was ostensibly for port development but, let’s be real, is clearly earmarked to breathe life into this zombie coal terminal project — Oakland isn’t budging. They’ve looked at this offer, presumably scoffed, and then remembered they’ve had a ban on handling and storing coal since 2016. It’s almost as if the city had, you know, principles. Who’d have thought?

The Anatomy of a Carbon-Fueled Fiasco

Let’s unpack this for a moment, because it’s a wonderfully intricate mess. The project in question involves a company called Insight Terminal Solutions, which is trying to develop the Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (OBOT) at the former Oakland Army Base. Their grand vision? To ship coal, among other things, to Asian markets. Because, apparently, the global supply chain for things we really, really don’t need more of isn’t robust enough.

Oakland, being Oakland, wasn’t exactly thrilled with the idea of becoming a global coal hub. Health concerns, environmental impacts, the general griminess of coal dust floating through neighborhoods – you know, the usual buzzkill stuff. So, in 2016, the City Council said, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and passed an ordinance banning the handling and storage of coal and petcoke within city limits. A pretty straightforward act of local autonomy, right? Wrong. In America, nothing is ever that simple when money and political agendas collide.

Insight Terminal Solutions, bless their hearts, decided they didn’t much care for Oakland’s rules. They sued. And sued. And sued some more. Their argument, in essence, is that Oakland’s ban infringes on their development rights and that the city didn’t prove that coal would pose a substantial health or safety risk. Because, clearly, the health and safety risks of a substance known for causing respiratory illness and contributing to, oh, just the small matter of global climate change, are wildly exaggerated. Right. Just a little soot, what’s the big deal?

The Utah Connection: A Deal with the Devil (or Just a Bad Idea)

Now, enter the $75 million from Utah. This isn’t just random charity. Back in 2018, during the Trump administration, the state of Utah somehow convinced the feds to grant them $53 million (which has since reportedly swelled to $75 million with interest, because money just *grows* when it’s earmarked for fossil fuel infrastructure, apparently) for a port development project. The catch? It was explicitly tied to shipping coal from Utah through a California port. Talk about an end-run around local governance. It’s like buying a plot of land in your neighbor’s yard because you want to park your monster truck there, even though they’ve got a strict HOA about, well, *anything* that isn’t a Prius.

This is where the political machinations get really juicy. Trump, throughout his presidency, was a self-professed champion of coal. He routinely promised to bring back coal jobs, despite the industry’s steep decline due to market forces and cheaper natural gas. He talked about “beautiful clean coal” (a phrase that still makes environmentalists — and anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry — wince). This Oakland terminal, from a certain perspective, was a perfect cog in that fossil-fueled machine: a way to get Utah coal to foreign markets, boosting a dying industry and sticking it to those pesky environmental regulations in California.

The main theme here is quite clear: the relentless, often absurd, push to prop up dying fossil fuel industries, even when faced with overwhelming local opposition, environmental imperatives, and basic economic realities. It’s a fight between antiquated industrial ambition and the urgent need for a sustainable future. And it’s being fought, quite literally, in the courts.

Trump’s Flip-Flop: Local Control for Me, But Not for Thee

This whole situation highlights a particularly rich vein of hypocrisy that we’ve come to know and… well, know. Throughout his 2016 campaign and presidency, Donald Trump was a vocal proponent of “states’ rights” and “local control,” particularly when it came to environmental regulations. He consistently railed against federal “overreach” and promised to “get the federal government out of the way” of businesses and states. Remember all those speeches about how the EPA was stifling economic growth and how local communities should decide their own fate? He even declared in a 2016 rally in Wyoming that he would “end the EPA intrusion into your lives and into your businesses,” framing it as a matter of empowering states to manage their own resources.

Yet, here we are, watching his administration’s legacy, via a very significant $75 million carrot (or stick, depending on your perspective), attempting to strong-arm a city in California into accepting a coal terminal. This isn’t Utah deciding its own energy future; it’s Utah, with federal backing from the previous administration, trying to dictate California’s and, specifically, Oakland’s. So much for local control when it doesn’t align with the broader pro-fossil fuel agenda. It seems “local control” only applies when the locality wants to *frack* or *drill*, not when it wants to, you know, *breathe clean air* or address a global climate crisis. Classic.

The Grim Reality Check

The harsh truth for those pushing this terminal is that even with $75 million, the deck is stacked against them. Oakland has won multiple legal battles upholding its coal ban. The city’s position is that the developer (Insight Terminal Solutions) hasn’t demonstrated that the project wouldn’t pose significant health and safety risks, and the city has the right to regulate land use for public welfare. Go figure, a city caring about its citizens. What a novel concept.

Furthermore, the economics of coal are, frankly, in the dumpster. Demand is declining globally, especially in developed nations. Renewable energy sources are becoming cheaper and more prevalent. Investing in new coal export infrastructure in 2024 is like investing in Blockbuster Video in 2010. It’s not a forward-thinking strategy; it’s clinging to a bygone era with both hands and a whole lot of magical thinking. The world is moving on, even if some politicians and companies aren’t getting the memo.

This isn’t just a local spat; it’s a microcosm of the larger battle for America’s energy future. Do we double down on the fuels that are actively destroying our planet and our health, simply because they represent a comfortable, albeit declining, industry for some? Or do we, like Oakland, stand firm and say, “No, thanks, we’ll take the future, please”? The answer, for anyone with a modicum of sense, seems pretty clear.

Snarky Takeaway

So, here we are: Oakland, a city with the audacity to protect its residents’ health and the planet, facing down a $75 million coal-dusted bribe from a former administration’s allies. It’s a testament to the sheer, unyielding commitment of some to drag us back to the carboniferous period, even as the rest of the world (and most of California) is sprinting towards renewables. Good luck, Oakland. May your legal fees be manageable and your air remain relatively coal-dust free. As for the other side? Maybe it’s time to read the room, or at least a basic climate science report. Some things, it turns out, money truly can’t buy – like common sense, or a viable future for coal.