- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of ...
Collection
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland ↗
3:16-cv-07014N.D. Cal.13 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
05/15/2018
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff.
The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that the City of Oakland’s adoption of an ordinance that barred coal operations at a bulk cargo shipping terminal breached the City’s agreement with a developer for the conversion of an old army base into the terminal. The development agreement provided that regulations adopted after the agreement’s signing would not apply to the terminal unless the City determined, based on “substantial evidence,” that the failure to apply the new regulation would pose a “substantial danger” to the health or safety of the people of Oakland. The court found that the record before the City Council did not contain sufficient evidence to support a determination that coal operations would pose a substantial danger. The court rejected the City’s primary argument that particulate matter from coal operations posed such a danger, and also found that the record did not support a determination that fire hazards, worker safety, or greenhouse gases would pose a substantial danger. The court noted that “[t]he hostility toward coal operations in Oakland appears to stem largely from concern about global warming.” The court said the argument that global warming allowed it to invoke the development agreement’s “substantial danger” exception “barely merits a response.” The court stated: “It is facially ridiculous to suggest that this one operation resulting in the consumption of coal in other countries will, in the grand scheme of things, pose a substantial global warming-related danger to people in Oakland.”
01/09/2018
Decision
Order issued regarding summary judgment hearing.
During the week of January 15, the federal district court for the Northern District of California held a three-day bench trial in an action challenging the City of Oakland’s prohibition on the transportation and export of coal and petroleum coke to and through a rail and marine terminal for bulk and oversized cargo under development on land owned by the City. The bench trial concerned the terminal developer’s claim that the prohibition breached a development agreement that granted the developer the right and obligation to develop the land. The City argued that the development agreement allowed it to impose regulations on the development based on “substantial evidence” that regulation was necessary to avoid placing occupants, users, or neighbors of the project “in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety.” While the developer argued that the City could not rely on concerns regarding the potential for terminal operations to contribute to climate change because climate change is an issue of global scale, the City argued that “the unique, global nature of climate change doesn’t mean communities cannot or should not consider local, incremental contributions to climate change.” The City also cited other public health and safety concerns, including coal dust emissions. Prior to the trial, the court heard oral arguments on whether the City’s prohibition violated the dormant Commerce Clause because it interfered with or discriminated against interstate or foreign commerce. Also at issue in the case is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, or the Shipping Act of 1984 preempt the City’s action.
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland ↗
18,16105, 18-161419th Cir.20 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
08/03/2020
Decision
Petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court’s decision affirming that the City of Oakland could not bar coal-related operations at a terminal being developed at a former Army base due to an agreement between the City and terminal’s developer that existing regulations would apply to the facility.
07/20/2020
Amicus Motion/Brief
Brief filed by California as amicus curiae supporting petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
–
07/17/2020
Amicus Motion/Brief
Amicus brief filed by the League of California Cities and East Bay Regional Park District in support of City of Oakland's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
–
07/17/2020
Amicus Motion/Brief
Brief filed by amici curiae West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project et al. in support of petitions for rehearing en banc.
–