Coos Bay, Oregon: Community accountability resource

PCIP
Watch

Coos Bay needs living-wage jobs. The South Coast deserves investment. But over $200 million has been committed to a project with no independent feasibility study and no committed shipping customers. The 2027 budget cycle decides what comes next.

📢
Upcoming community meeting: Empire & Barview residents
How will PCIP impact Empire/Barview residents?
Hear directly from the Port of Coos Bay.
Wednesday, March 25, 2026 6:00 – 7:00 PM The Dolphin Playhouse, Empire
The Port of Coos Bay confirmed this meeting in their March 2026 update, describing it as a "Concerned Citizens of Empire" engagement session. Ask questions about home values, environment, taxes, and quality of life. Bring your neighbors.
Get directions

Oregon has been here before. Simpson’s timber empire made Coos Bay one of the most productive ports in America, and left behind a community with nothing when the industry moved on. Jordan Cove consumed seventeen years before collapsing in 2021 without a single permanent job. PCIP is the third attempt. The question is whether Oregon will require proof this time before committing billions more.

17 yrsJordan Cove LNG was proposed in 2004 and abandoned in 2021, with zero permanent jobs created
430Fewer people employed in Coos County in the 12 months ending July 2025 (Oregon Employment Dept.)
336%Cost increase from the $1B initial proposal in December 2021 to the $4.36B worst-case in June 2024
$0State & federal funds committed
0%Coos County unemployment, July 2025
$0BPort’s own worst-case cost estimate
0Committed shipping customers, 2026
Cost escalation 2021 to 2024

From $1 billion to $4.36 billion in three years

All figures come from the project sponsors' own filings. No independent cost analysis has been conducted at any stage.

Dec 2021May 2022Oct 2024 (public)Jun 2024 (Corps filing)
Transparency watch

What PCIP's own website says and what the record shows

pcipproject.com has a dedicated "Myth Busting" page that addresses critics. Here is what each claim omits.

PCIP Myth Busting page: claims and the record

Source: pcipproject.com/myth-busting
PCIP website claims

"There is no market for shipping to Coos Bay, and the project won't pencil out." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Asian shipping companies are excited about the opportunity."

What the record shows

As of March 2026, no shipping line has signed a letter of intent to use the port. The Port's own Winter 2026 update confirms the market analysis by Rebel Consulting is still ongoing and not yet complete. The 2022 federal grant application was rejected partly because it lacked demonstrated market demand.

PCIP website claims

"This is just another boondoggle." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Unlike projects over the past 40 years, this project meets a significant national need."

What the record shows

Cost estimates have grown from $1B to a worst-case $4.36B in three years. No independent feasibility study exists. $200M+ in public funds committed before a single shipping customer has signed on. These are the defining characteristics of a boondoggle pattern, not refutations of it.

PCIP website claims

"Channel modifications will destroy the bay." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Any effects on habitat will be mitigated beyond the minimum requirements."

What the record shows

59% of Pacific Coast eelgrass mitigation projects have failed to achieve zero net loss. The Army Corps estimates 20 million cubic yards of dredging over three years. Estuaries sequester carbon 10 times faster than forests. "Beyond minimum requirements" is a standard the project has not yet been required to define or demonstrate.

PCIP website claims

"There is no cohesive plan or funding for this project." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Grants and private investment are funding the permitting and study process."

What the record shows

The FAQ page itself acknowledges: "design and permitting has yet to be completed on the rail and terminal portions of the project." The cost-benefit and environmental analysis for the terminal and rail is not yet done. The project is asking for construction funding before the planning is complete.

PCIP website claims

"There won't be any long-term jobs." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "2,500+ temporary construction jobs... over 8,000 workers directly and indirectly."

What the record shows

Original 2021 projections were 500 construction and 250 permanent jobs. The current figures are 5 to 10 times higher with no disclosed change in methodology. The 8,000 figure comes from indirect jobs across Coos Bay and Eugene, a category that depends entirely on whether the port attracts sustained cargo volume, which has not been demonstrated.

PCIP website claims

"This is an out-of-town corporation that doesn't care about us." [listed as a myth]. Their response: "Local Oregonians have ownership stake in the project."

What the record shows

NorthPoint Development is a Kansas City-based real estate company that has never built an ocean shipping terminal. Its primary business is warehouse and logistics real estate. The Port of Coos Bay is Oregon-based and is the land owner. NorthPoint would develop and operate the terminal under a lease agreement.

The PCIP FAQ page also acknowledges: "Has a cost-benefit and environmental analysis been done? The project has completed significant design and environmental review on the channel modification; however, design and permitting has yet to be completed on the rail and terminal portions." The channel modification has a cost-benefit analysis. The terminal and rail, which represent the majority of the project by cost, do not.

The 2027 budget cycle decides whether hundreds of millions more are committed. Residents who want accountability measures in place need to act before that window closes.

Satellite map: North Spit, Coos Bay

The proposed terminal site and what PCIP requires

Click the numbered markers for details. Satellite imagery via OpenStreetMap.

Map data: OpenStreetMap contributors. Marker positions based on: Port of Coos Bay Channel Modification Report (June 2024); pcipproject.com project area documentation; BLM North Spit map.

Key locations

Click a marker or list item

  • 1
    PCIP Terminal site175-acre proposed terminal on the North Spit. Ship-to-rail direct transfer. No trucks.
  • 2
    Federal navigation channelProposed deepening from -37 to -45 ft MLLW, widening from 300 to 450 ft. Approximately 20 million cubic yards of dredging over 3 years to river mile 8.2. Annual maintenance: 832,000 to 1,166,000 cu yds.
  • 3
    The Hollering PlaceCulturally significant to the Hanis Coos and Miluk Coos peoples. Adjacent to terminal footprint. Used for cross-estuary communication and canoe culture revival.
  • 4
    Coos Bay Rail Line110-mile Class 3 line to Eugene. Requires upgrading 122 bridges and 9 tunnels. Cost: up to $1.4 billion per project documentation.
  • 5
    Coos estuary eelgrass bedsNOAA-designated essential salmon nursery habitat. 59% of Pacific Coast mitigation projects have failed to achieve zero net loss.
What proponents promise

The stated case

The Port of Coos Bay and NorthPoint Development project 2,600 temporary construction jobs and over 2,500 permanent positions, with total project cost estimated at $2.3 billion.

The terminal would be the first fully ship-to-rail facility on the U.S. West Coast. Two ship berths would handle up to 1.2 million TEU initially, with capacity for 2 million TEU annually. Containers would travel by rail to Eugene and on to the Midwest.

What the record shows

The questions that remain

The 2021 projections were 500 construction jobs and 250 permanent, five to ten times lower than current claims, with no change in methodology disclosed.

The 8,000 indirect job figure cited on the project's own myth-busting page depends entirely on whether the port sustains cargo volume. The comparison to Prince Rupert omits that Prince Rupert operates passenger, grain, petroleum, coal, and wood terminals that PCIP would not have. Of the projected positions, approximately 750 were in ground transportation, a category that does not apply to a rail-only operation.

In 2025, the Oregon Legislature allocated $100 million for channel dredging in the same session that allowed the Eelgrass Action Bill and Rocky Habitat Stewardship Bill to die in committee, despite 308 public testimonies in support, bipartisan sponsorship from 17 legislators, and endorsements from two coastal Tribal nations.
Independent analysis, January 2026

The strongest pro-PCIP case in the public record

Michael Hobson, a Coos Bay native with a Cornell economics background, published the most rigorous publicly available argument for PCIP in January 2026. Four key claims, each with context.

PCIP competes with East Coast ports, not West Coast
Hobson argues West Coast capacity will be insufficient by 2035 for Midwest-bound Asian cargo.
▾
Hobson cites USACE projections of 3.25% annual Far East trade growth, arguing the region will be roughly 3 million TEUs short by 2035. This is the most substantive reframing of the market argument in the public record. However, the projections come from the Port’s own Corps filing, not an independent forecast. The Rebel Consulting analysis, once published, would be the first external test of this claim.
NorthPoint’s warehouse network is a supply chain differentiator
170 million sq ft of industrial real estate. $19B assets under management.
▾
Hobson argues that NorthPoint’s integration of a terminal with its nationwide warehouse network would offer clients reliable inventory management, reducing the scheduling risk that plagues West Coast ports. This is a plausible and genuine differentiator. However, NorthPoint has no prior experience building or operating a shipping terminal, so the capability is unproven in this context.
Job estimates may be in the ballpark
Hobson’s USDOT-based analysis suggests 3,000 to 6,000 direct jobs, a more credible benchmark than the Prince Rupert comparison.
▾
Using USDOT port performance data, Hobson estimates 3,000 to 6,000 direct jobs, compared to the Port’s 2,500 figure. He explicitly acknowledges this is not a robust economic analysis and calls for an independent study. Critics have demanded the same thing. Both Hobson and the critics agree: an independent economic impact study is needed before major construction funds are released.
Cost is high but within range for comparable projects
Corpus Christi: $625M. New LA terminal: $5.4B. PCIP worst-case: $4.36B.
▾
Hobson’s cost comparisons are useful context. His 6:1 savings-to-cost ratio comes from the USACE economic analysis submitted in support of the Port’s own permit application, not an independent study. Hobson acknowledges this directly. The central unresolved issue, which he agrees on, is the absence of a completed independent cost-benefit analysis.
Hobson discloses that he interned for Caddy McKeown, now employed by NorthPoint in a community relations capacity. He states he has not spoken with her about PCIP. He calls for independent economic analysis, the same accountability measure this site advocates for. Read the full piece: michaelhobson.substack.com
The concerns

What independent experts are saying

Market

No committed customers

No major importer or shipping line has committed to using the port. Existing West Coast ports currently have unused capacity. Multiple competitor ports have announced or completed expansion plans since PCIP was first proposed.

Environment

Irreversible estuary damage

20 million cubic yards of dredging over three years. 59% of Pacific Coast eelgrass mitigation projects fail. Estuaries sequester carbon 10 times faster than forests. Damage cannot be undone.

Cost risk

Rail overrun history

Rail projects carry the highest cost overrun rates of any infrastructure type. Oregon lost $70 million on rail terminals in Millersburg and Nyssa that independent experts had warned would fail.

The case for it

Why supporters have real reasons

Research

Port employment is real

A study of 560 European regions found port throughput significantly increases regional employment. Spanish port research found 221 to 354 new jobs per million additional tons of cargo handled.

Supply chain

PCIP competes with East Coast, not West Coast

A January 2026 economic analysis by a Cornell-trained economist argues the real competition is East Coast ports for Midwest-bound Asian cargo, not Seattle or LA. The Army Corps projects Far East trade growth of 3.25% annually, creating roughly 1 million additional TEUs per year that West Coast capacity will not be able to absorb by 2035.

Export opportunity

Empty containers = new opportunity for Oregon producers

A February 2026 market feasibility presentation to the Port Commission (described as Rebel Consulting in the official update) found the West Coast container system is heavily import-driven, limiting empty container access for exporters. PCIP could open global markets for Oregon agriculture, timber, seafood, and manufacturing sectors outside major metro areas.

Need

The South Coast has no alternatives

Unemployment hit 6.2% in July 2025. Healthcare is the only stable sector. The community has been waiting for economic recovery since the timber bust. Supporters understand what is at stake.

It's a lot of money for something that is completely unproven. Economics is like gravity. It always wins in the end.

Larry Gross, intermodal freight consultant, 40+ years in the field

We should not forgo a once-in-a-generation opportunity out of fear, particularly when there are multiple off-ramps if the business case fails.

Val Hoyle, former U.S. Representative for Oregon's 4th Congressional District

While the PCIP carries real risks, it has more promise than its critics suggest, and those risks are calculated ones worth taking in a capable community with dwindling economic options.

Michael Hobson, Cornell economics graduate and Coos Bay native, January 2026 (Substack: "I Hope So, and I Think So Too")
Where both sides agree: Supporters and critics both want sustainable living-wage employment for the South Coast. Both want a healthy bay. The disagreement is about process and proof, not whether Coos Bay deserves investment.
Most rigorous pro-PCIP analysis, January 2026
Michael Hobson: "I Hope So, and I Think So Too"
Cornell economics graduate, Coos Bay native. The most data-driven public case for PCIP. Published January 20, 2026 on Substack.
▾
His strongest arguments
  • PCIP competes with East Coast ports for Midwest cargo, not West Coast ports, a fundamentally different market than critics describe
  • West Coast capacity insufficient by 2035 if Far East trade grows at projected 3.25% annually
  • NorthPoint’s warehouse network could offer integrated inventory management, a genuine differentiator no other port can match
  • USDOT data suggests 3,000 to 6,000 direct jobs, a more credible benchmark than the Prince Rupert comparison
What Hobson himself acknowledges
  • His job analysis is not a robust economic study. He calls for an independent one.
  • The 6:1 cost-benefit ratio comes from the Port’s own Corps filing, not independent analysis
  • USACE trade projections are from the Port’s permit application, not an independent forecast
  • Discloses he interned for Caddy McKeown, now employed by NorthPoint
Read the full piece at michaelhobson.substack.com →
A community proposal

A Momentum and Safeguards framework for PCIP funding

Note on framing: This framework is a proposal, not current policy. It draws on research into megaproject accountability (Baerenbold, 2023), the specific evidentiary gaps in PCIP's current public record, and the Rogerian argument structure of presenting common ground between supporters and critics of the project. Oregon has not adopted any such framework. The goal of this page is to present what responsible conditional funding would look like before the 2027 budget cycle.

This page presents a proposed framework for how Oregon should structure PCIP funding before the 2027 budget cycle. It is not current policy. It is a proposal drawn from the research on megaproject accountability and the specific gaps in PCIP's current evidence base.

The $25 million INFRA grant and $29 million rail grant are scoped for planning and environmental review and should proceed. The proposal is specifically about what should be required before any major construction appropriation is released in 2027 or beyond.

Proposed milestones before construction funding is released

0 of 5 currently met as of March 2026
✗
Independent feasibility study
Rebel Consulting's market and economic analysis was briefed to the Port Commission in February 2026 but has not been published. No publicly available independent feasibility study exists as of March 2026.
In progress, unpublished
✗
Third-party cost verification
Benchmarked against comparable completed port and rail projects, not the sponsor's own projections.
Not done
✗
At least one committed shipping customer
A signed letter of intent from a major importer or shipping line. None as of March 2026. The Port's own Winter 2026 update confirms Rebel Consulting's market analysis is still in progress.
Not done
◌
Quarterly public reporting with go/no-go criteria
The Port now holds dedicated PCIP commission meetings on the first Tuesday of every month at 8:00 AM, Port Commission Chambers, 125 Central Avenue, Coos Bay. The PCIP project is not discussed at regular Port Commission meetings. These are separate, focused sessions. Agendas and materials are posted in advance. Source: portofcoosbay.com/port-of-coos-bay-board-of-commissioners. This is a transparency improvement. However, no defined go/no-go funding criteria tied to construction release have been established.
Partial, improving
◌
Environmental and cultural protection standards
Developed with Tribal nations before any dredging begins. Mandatory funding pauses if standards cannot be met.
Not established

What this proposed framework would protect

1
Public funds. Under this framework, no construction money would be released until the project demonstrates market demand exists. Oregon would retain its off-ramp at every stage.
2
The estuary. Environmental and cultural standards would need to be verified before irreversible dredging begins. Damage to eelgrass beds and the Hollering Place cannot be undone regardless of what standards are established afterward.
3
Community trust. Quarterly public reporting would allow residents to track every step with defined benchmarks. This community has been asked to trust promises before. This framework would require proof instead.
4
The project itself. Requiring proof of demand before construction would improve PCIP's own odds of lasting success by preventing the overoptimism that reference class forecasting research identifies as the primary cause of megaproject failure.

If you support requiring these conditions before construction funding is released, the 2027 budget cycle is the window to say so. Contact your state legislator now.

Get involved

Support responsible development for the South Coast

This site is not against PCIP. We want Coos Bay to thrive. We want living-wage jobs, a healthy estuary, and a port that actually works. What we are asking for is transparency and evidence before billions more are committed, the same standard that would make PCIP stronger if it succeeds. The 2027 budget cycle is the window to say so.

Legislators respond to constituents from the affected community. A 45-second call or a short email asking for accountability milestones before construction funding is released is a meaningful action.

Calling (about 45 seconds)

Go to oregonlegislature.gov and enter your address to find your state representative and senator. Coos Bay is in Senate District 5 and House District 9.

For federal contacts: Congressman Cliff Bentz (R) represents Oregon's 2nd District including Coos Bay, bentz.house.gov/contact. Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Jeff Merkley both represent all of Oregon.

Upcoming public meetings:
Community meeting: March 25, 6 PM, Dolphin Playhouse, Empire
PCIP Commission Meeting: April 7, 8 AM, Port offices, 125 Central Ave, Coos Bay
Email pcipinfo@portofcoosbay.com to schedule a meeting with Port staff.

"Hi, my name is [your name] and I am a constituent in Coos Bay. I am calling about the Pacific Coast Intermodal Port project. I support investing in the South Coast economy, but I am concerned that Oregon is committing construction funding before basic accountability measures are in place. There is no independent feasibility study, no committed shipping customers, and cost estimates have grown from $1 billion to a worst-case $4.36 billion. I would like [name] to support a requirement that verifiable milestones be met before the 2027 construction appropriation is released. Thank you."

Emailing

Subject: Please require accountability milestones for PCIP before 2027 construction funding

Dear Representative / Senator [last name],

I am a Coos Bay resident writing about the Pacific Coast Intermodal Port. I want economic investment in the South Coast. Our unemployment rate hit 6.2 percent in 2025 and this community needs living-wage jobs. But I am concerned Oregon is moving toward a major construction commitment without the basic evidence this project can succeed.

As of early 2026, no independent feasibility study exists, no major shipping customer has committed, and cost estimates have grown from $1 billion to a worst-case $4.36 billion in the Port's own Corps of Engineers filing.

Before the 2027 budget cycle releases construction funding, I am asking you to support requirements for a completed feasibility study, third-party cost verification, and at least one committed customer.

Thank you. [Your name and address]
Upcoming public meetings

Show up. Your presence matters.

Mar
25
Community
Empire / Barview Community Meeting
6:00 PM, Dolphin Playhouse, Empire
Hear directly from Port of Coos Bay representatives.
Mar
25
Housing Study
Eastside Housing Open House #2
6:00 PM, Eastside Elementary Cafeteria, 370 2nd Ave
Questions: Zach Pelz, pelzz@aks-eng.com
Apr
7
PCIP Commission
Monthly PCIP Commission Meeting
8:00 AM, Port Commission Chambers, 125 Central Ave
Open to the public. First Tuesday of every month.

Sources

Jaquiss, Nigel. "If You Build It, Will They Come?" Oregon Journalism Project, 16 Dec. 2025.  |  Merrill, Annie, and Ashley Audycki. "The False Solution in Coos Bay." Ridgeline Magazine, 31 Mar. 2025.  |  Merrill, Annie. "Reflections on the 2025 Legislative Session." Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, 7 July 2025.  |  Baerenbold, Rebekka. "Reducing Risks in Megaprojects: The Potential of Reference Class Forecasting." Project Leadership and Society, vol. 4, 2023.  |  "Coos Bay Channel Modification Project Main Report." Port of Coos Bay, June 2024.  |  Oregon Employment Department. "Employment in South Coast: July 2025." QualityInfo.org, 19 Aug. 2025.  |  Hodder, Jan. "An Honest Update on NorthPoint's Fact Sheet." Oregon Legislative Information System, May 2023.  |  "FAQs" and "Myth Busting." PCIP Project, pcipproject.com, 2025.  |  "About the Pacific Coast Intermodal Port." pcipproject.com.  |  NorthPoint Development. Fact Sheet: NorthPoint Development Coos Bay. 2021.  |  Beckham, Stephen Dow. "Asa Mead Simpson, Lumberman and Shipbuilder." Oregon Historical Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 3, 1967.  |  Welsh, Michael. Review of Hard Times in Paradise: Coos Bay, Oregon 1850–1986. Environmental History Review, vol. 14, 1990.  |  Bottasso, Anna, et al. "The Impact of Port Throughput on Local Employment." Transport Policy, vol. 27, 2013.  |  Hidalgo-Gallego, Soraya, and Ramón Núñez-Sánchez. "The Effect of Port Activity on Urban Employment." Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 108, 2023.  |  Oregon Governor's Office. "Governor Kotek Releases Statement on $25 Million Award for Port of Coos Bay." Oregon.gov, 17 Oct. 2024.  |  Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. "Port of Coos Bay Secures $25 Million INFRA Grant." portofcoosbay.com, 17 Oct. 2024.  |  Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. "Winter 2026 PCIP Project Update." portofcoosbay.com, 11 Mar. 2026.  |  "Coos Bay, OR." Data USA, datausa.io, 2024.  |  Hobson, Michael. "I Hope So, and I Think So Too." Substack, 20 Jan. 2026.  |  Port of Coos Bay Board of Commissioners. PCIP Regular Meeting presentation (Rebel Group). Feb. 2026.  |  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coos Bay Channel Modification Project: Economics Appendix. June 2024. (cited in Hobson 2026)  |  Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. Facebook posts, March 2026 (D.C. delegation meetings; Empty containers export opportunity).  |  Cribbins, Melissa / PCIP Executive Director. Winter 2026 PCIP Project Update newsletter. 11 Mar. 2026.  |  Oregon International Port of Coos Bay. Community Engagement Plan. portofcoosbay.com, 2025.  |  PCIPinfo.com. "Plans for the Coos Bay Terminal." pcipinfo.com, 2025.

Every few months the Port of Coos Bay releases an official project newsletter. The Winter 2026 update, published March 11, is the most recent. These updates are written by the project team and describe progress. This page places each claim alongside what the independent record shows, so you can read both together.

Mar 25Community meeting, Dolphin Playhouse, Empire, 6:00 PM
Apr 7PCIP Commission Meeting, 8 AM, 125 Central Ave, Coos Bay
May 2026Oregon lottery bond sale of $20M anticipated — per Port Commission meeting, Jan. 6, 2026
Upcoming public meetings

Mark your calendar

Mar
25
Community
Empire / Barview Community Meeting
6:00 PM, Dolphin Playhouse, Empire
Hear directly from Port of Coos Bay. Ask about home values, environment, taxes, quality of life.
Mar
25
Housing Study
Eastside Housing Open House #2
6:00 PM, Eastside Elementary Cafeteria, 370 2nd Ave
Geotechnical findings, financial analysis, development alternatives.
Apr
7
PCIP Commission
Monthly PCIP Commission Meeting
8:00 AM, Port Commission Chambers, 125 Central Ave
First Tuesday of every month. Agendas posted in advance at portofcoosbay.com.
Winter 2026 Update at a glance

What the March 11 update tells us

What is progressing
Grant reporting is current for RCE and CRISI grants. The INFRA grant contracting is being finalized. Meetings with the Build America Bureau are ongoing. Legislative outreach in Washington D.C. has occurred. A Rebel Consulting market analysis was briefed to the Port Commission in February 2026.
What is still missing
No committed shipping customer. No published market analysis. No Environmental Impact Statement initiated. No independent cost verification. The INFRA grant was awarded October 2024. Contracting is still being finalized 17 months later.
What is genuinely new
The Rebel Consulting analysis is the first external commercial study mentioned in official communications. One finding has been released: PCIP may compete with East Coast ports for Midwest-bound cargo, not just West Coast ports. The full report has not been published.
For those who want to go deeper

Full Winter 2026 Update analysis

Each section below quotes the update directly and provides sourced context.

Funding and financing
Grant reporting complete. INFRA contracting still being finalized. RRIF loan options under evaluation.
▾

What the update says: “Quarterly performance and financial reporting have been completed for both the Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) and CRISI grants. Work is also underway to finalize contracting for the previously awarded INFRA grant.”

Context: The $25M INFRA grant was awarded in October 2024. As of March 2026, 17 months later, contracting is still being finalized. The grant covers planning and engineering only, not construction.

What the update says: “The project team meets twice monthly with the Build America Bureau to evaluate potential RRIF loan options.”

Context: A RRIF loan would be federal low-interest debt for the rail line, meaning more public obligation, not private investment. Meeting to evaluate options is not the same as secured financing. The project still has no identified funding source for the majority of its $2.3B to $4.36B total cost.

Commercial strategy and market analysis
Rebel Consulting analysis briefed to Commission in February 2026. Not yet published.
▾

What the update says: “Rebel Consulting remains on schedule with its updated comprehensive market and economic analysis for PCIP. The analysis updates earlier feasibility work.”

Context: This is the first mention of an external commercial analysis in official communications. Independent freight economists Larry Gross and Steve Hughes both stated in late 2025 that no credible independent feasibility study existed. The Rebel Consulting report has not been published. Its full conclusions, methodology, and whether it was commissioned by the Port or produced independently are not yet known.

What the update says: “The updated analysis continues to reinforce that PCIP is designed to provide incremental ship-to-rail capacity that complements existing West Coast gateways.”

Context: This characterization comes from the project team, not from the report itself. West Coast ports currently operate with significant unused capacity. No shipping line has committed to using PCIP. Note: Port documents use both “Rebel Consulting” and “Rebel Group” interchangeably for the same contract.

Public outreach
LWV questions answered. First dedicated PCIP commission meeting held. Empire community meeting planned.
▾

What the update says: “Some technical questions require additional design and engineering work before definitive answers can be provided.”

This sentence explains why the Port could not fully answer questions submitted at the November 2025 League of Women Voters forum. Over $200 million in public funds have been committed to a project where basic technical questions about the terminal and rail cannot yet be answered. The March 25 Empire meeting is a direct result of community pressure from residents closest to the proposed terminal site.

Key questions the Winter 2026 Update does not address
No committed customer
The update describes outreach to ocean carriers and rail providers. It does not announce a single committed customer. The Rebel Consulting analysis is still being refined.
No updated cost estimate
The last public estimate remains $2.3B with a worst-case of $4.36B. The update does not address the gap or provide any independent cost verification.
No EIS initiated
No Environmental Impact Statement has been started. The INFRA grant that funds it is still being contracted 17 months after it was awarded in October 2024.

If you support requiring verifiable milestones before construction funding is released, the 2027 budget cycle is the window to act.

Port commission meetings