California's retroactive block on the Oakland coal terminal is an arbitrary, dangerous attack that Wyoming is justified in fighting
Source: "California’s war on Wyoming coal is a fight we’re prepared to take on | Fox News." October 23, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
The authors say California changed the rules on a coal export terminal in Oakland after it had already passed every test, just because politicians dislike coal and President Trump. They argue this could happen to any builder in California, that Asia will buy coal anyway so it might as well be American, and that Wyoming will fight back with every tool it has.
Conclusion
Wyoming is justified in using every available tool, including legal action, to oppose California's effort to block the Oakland coal export terminal and keep mining and exporting its coal.
Premises
- The Oakland terminal passed California's strict environmental review, won years of litigation, and received hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, including more than $240 million from California taxpayers.
- After the project succeeded under existing rules and received a $75 million Defense Production Act investment from President Trump, California legislators passed a bill adding new environmental review explicitly meant to stall it and defy the president.
- If lawmakers can retroactively void approved permits because they dislike a product or the president backing it, no approval in California is safe for any builder, whether of refineries, factories, or housing.
- Asia's demand for electricity is rising, and those countries will burn coal regardless of California's stance, so the only open question is whether the coal is American.
- Wyoming has over 600 years of coal reserves, and exporting American coal supports Wyoming jobs and communities, strengthens U.S. energy security, and gives the U.S. diplomatic leverage abroad.
- California's governor prioritizes wasteful, failed projects like high-speed rail, which has cost $15 billion with no track laid and has a projected cost of $126-231 billion, while sacrificing economic growth and jobs to climate policy.
Assumptions
- Changing regulatory rules after a project has completed approval is inherently illegitimate or unfair, not a legitimate exercise of state authority.
- The new California bill is motivated by hostility to coal and to President Trump rather than by legitimate environmental or public-health concerns.
- Coal exports from Oakland would not meaningfully worsen global emissions, because buyers would simply purchase coal elsewhere.
- Economic and energy-security benefits to Wyoming and the U.S. outweigh local environmental and health concerns in Oakland.
- California's high-speed rail failures are relevant evidence about the soundness of its coal-terminal decision.
- Wyoming has a legitimate interest and legal standing to challenge California's regulation of a facility within California.