Assemblymember Bonta urges new CEQA reviews for large coal terminals with AB 40

Assemblymember Mia Bonta introduced AB 40, the "Community First Coal Review Act," saying the measure would require a full California Environmental Quality Act environmental impact report before granting discretionary approval for any new or expanded large-volume coal terminal (the bill text as explained to the committee sets a threshold for applicability). Bonta told the Assembly Natural Resources Committee the bill is a response to federal actions to encourage coal export infrastructure and that updated review is needed when "coal type or quantity changes significantly."

"If there is a new plan with new material and new coal, there should also be a new environmental impact report," Bonta said during her presentation, arguing prior environmental reviews predated current science and did not analyze coal at today’s proposed scales. Supporters said the bill was narrowly tailored to the biggest bulk coal facilities and would require mitigation when significant air-quality impacts are identified.

Margaret Gordon of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project testified in support and described long-term community health burdens linked to cumulative pollution. She said her community has faced decades of exposure and urged the committee to require a new EIR so that mitigation measures address fugitive coal dust and related harms. "A child born and raised in West Oakland has a life expectancy at least 15 years shorter than a child in a wealthier part of Oakland," Gordon said during her remarks.

Colin O'Brien, deputy managing attorney with Earthjustice, told the committee the bill had been amended to apply only to the largest coal facilities. He cited a recent CARB-funded study measuring particulate pollution at an existing Richmond terminal and said developers propose handling about 10–12 million tons per year at some sites, a scale not examined in prior reviews. "Under these circumstances, common sense dictates that an updated, meaningful environmental review should be completed," O'Brien said.

Opponents including Horacio Gonzalez of the California Business Roundtable and a representative for Insight Terminal Solutions argued the 2012 EIR addendum and subsequent reviews already studied bulk commodities and that courts have affirmed the project complied with state and federal requirements. Alfredo Medina, reading remarks for ITS, said the EIR addendum analyzed up to 50 million tons annually and that retroactive statute would signal that approvals and litigation outcomes are not final.

Committee members questioned whether the regional air district had issued permits and what dust-abatement equipment would be required; the record showed no final air district construction permit had been issued and that any future authorization would require a discretionary air permit subject to district oversight. Vice Chair Ellis asked whether coal would be trans-shipped and about PM2.5 controls; opponents acknowledged prior mitigation measures and noted that air-permit approval remained a necessary step.

After testimony and questions, committee members moved the measure and recorded roll-call votes; the committee chair announced the bill as "out" of the committee following the recorded action. The bill's supporters said it does not change CEQA's framework but requires project-specific analysis where coal handling at large scale was not previously studied.