that they're seeking to withdraw their perks certificate so i'm therefore going to focus on the texas project although the claims are similar and as i'll explain withdrawal of the assuming it was a terrific it is withdrawn that won't influence the other claims in these cases  does that render this petition moot or unripe do we still have jurisdiction for the case specifically against the nova i think that if that petition is challenge deals with cumulative impacts of the projects and that's the way that the environmental impact statement was drafted why am i mean why should we go forward with evaluating environmental impact statement that may actually be obsolete in that for may choose to redo court to announce for the other projects that it was withdrawing the certificates for the texas and the rio grande projects to reconsider its analysis in light of the potential for going to cancellations another project then for its action to withdraw their certificates or the other project i suppose might render those other cases moot but as of right now forecast outstanding certificates for the rio grande and the texas projects that would allow construction to proceed on those projects and if that construction proceeds her product was responsible for about seven percent of the ozone precursor emissions per considered and it's cumulative impact analysis so using the methodology to defer used to calculate potential ozone impacts subtracting  than the seventy part per one million standard set by the national i mean air quality standards so we still have serious concerns about the cumulative impact of just the other two projects even if an over doesn't go forward thank you so much related lee how there is the change in the design of the project since you are briefs were filed and and i understand that that change is itself the subject of an of an appeal that you filed in this court as well so why should we deal with the project design objections you've made since the design has changed in your records is going to hurt the problems in that case elsewhere another case for that there has been a change in the design of the texas or you know over projects that are in the cases yes it's a real  so i i'm happy to discuss that now or we can discuss rio grande separately if it's going to get argued separately we are concerned that the proposed changes in design even if they are adopted don't actually resolve our concern that's correct what we are also concerned though that for cas you know as of right now we have a lot of concerns with the design of the certificate as it has been approved for its decision was improper  en issued and not all of those claims are impacted by the change in design the change in design reduces the scale of the project by going from six trains to five right that reduces the footprint well it reduces the amount of construction for the project one of the concerns is they haven't actually reduced the project footprint it doesn't reduce impact related to that marine vessel traffic so they're still conduct exports out of  natural gas and many of our concerns have to do with the ships moving through the shipping channel and in fact i think just assume for the moment that the ships are not are within our jurisdiction or within the st or section let's just assume that for the minute i know we have contest us to address a situation that has changed to some degree about which we know little about which there will be a full development in a case coming along pretty soon well i me it's just asking the court to address something that no longer no longer matters to the same degree and that will be addressed  whether as approved it is unlawful that they need to stay but as is inadequate but if the where where it's a reduction in the scale of the of the project it would seem to follow that if the i ask was adequate for the larger project then it certainly is or almost certainly as for the lesser project so why we should resolve the question of  is adequate for the for the larger project when we don't know whether the weather and how that change is going to effect an escape something i don't believe that any of the parties have contended that but the change actually that there has been a meaningful change with respect to several of our claims and you know as we argue here heart of the concern of the change is about the foreseeability a future x expansion which is another issue that has actually been made more pertinent rather than less by the change in design we argued in case  as possible as we said before that they can produce the authorized volumes with only five units but the design is still leaving a place for and they have continued to inform investors in the public that they may build a sick strain and therefore increase y includes infrastructure that can only be justified for an increase in output later on the terminal footprint which includes filling about two hundred dollars acres of wetlands include space for six liquefaction you know the only justification for which would be to do an increase in output if you weren't going to build a six unit and you didn't plan on increasing output you could build a smaller facility that wouldn't require filling all two hundred dollars acres of well and some other construction projects so if a circus authorising that wetlands destruction now then and the only justification for that well and destruction is to lay a foundation for a future increase in output then st need to consider the consequences of that future action now even though for hasn't actually authorized building on the foundation and completing the six train until a future proceeding am i correct in recalling that they said that in light of their life of the space created by going from six to five that that space will be used for the construction equipment and so on while they have that empty space they will put the construction equipment there but there's no suggestion that they actually need that space or that they couldn't shrink the footprint they say we're going to save space for a six train and you can see that because when they originally proposed the design they were filling a whole bunch of extra well and to make construction space for a while they built a six train originally but they don't need that much extra space just for staging a construction see question about those own issue and that cuts across both cases to some extent and in particular on just hypothetically speaking i know you resist the premise but just bear with me for a nd hypothetically speaking if if i thought that the treatment of cumulative impacts was enough and the rio grande order that rehearing order but that treatment hasn't been necessarily incorporated expressly or made its way over to the orders and texas then let's assume that i was in the case for now and of then where am i at that point because it seems it's what impact of three projects all three projects have been kind of length throughout this in fact the orders issued on the same day the initial orders were issued on the same day and is there something to is there something to be done if there wasn't a sort of x present corporation but the analysis is pretty apparently applicable to all just the premise and i don't mean for you to assume anything but so for your purposes if we were to think that the rio grande treatment of people of impacts was enough you don't have an independent claim that nonetheless the lack of the express incorporation in texas and over as something that is actionable because presumably the same analysis will just be then stamped over and that's correct ok i see that i'm into my  issue of the ramifications of the novas announcement now i do want to make clear that the commission stand on its orders in the texas elenchi case and i'm i'm glad to talk about those orders the cumulative effects now says that it did in that case was appropriate complied with need at the time the commission did that environmental and alice's and that reduced but that isn't the reasoning that i'm necessarily asking this court to affirm the orders we believe that those orders were correct at the time they were issued and i'm glad to talk about further details on this action yesterday of the withdrawal of to nova facility if your honor is referring to the e i a s in texas and that is correct your honor the this is the commission that them i will go away but on he will have impacts there's just nothing in those orders on cable the impacts on ozone there's a reference to it and the discussion about communities yes you're so that there is an analysis impacts we don't think pose an issue with going forward with this project but it's just doesn't do that it just goes on then to talk about the impact on minority and low income populations which is a different issue it's related but it's a different issue required under the clean air act under the requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration so and ozone analysis wasn't actually necessary floor  for this project or i know of but but again i think that's the and the other thing i would add that i don't do you think you at least have to engage with c observation to that effect but if you actually make intersectional argument i didn't understand it and i don't ever remember you citing the jurors anything that said that we didn't have jurisdiction over it because it wasn't properly flag for rehearing but i might i might well be misremembering just correct me if i'm wrong no i don't think we slowly develop them it's all about the argument but just that it was a stand and that just goes the region so did you not say i thought you did that therefore it wasn't properly before the court but it would have been so easy to do something other than mention the stat the seventy six point five number from rio grande and then do nothing else cause that they could person who is not well versed in all this would necessarily know didn't stop with acknowledging and incorporating the analysis from the ground there is there's also that mission also relied on that and specifically and obviously in the environmental justice section which is where it came but i'm not i'm aware as far as i know some of this record these projects are moving forward existed at the time what happens if we were man this case you apply a regulation that's been amended or rescinded and instead of the one that's now in place i was  that the commission didn't address this regulation in its orders here and the commission has held in previous cases that it doesn't apply in this context and i would quote your hono regulation does not apply in the greenhouse gas significance context where the question is ascribing significance to an impact on a particular environment a resource commission's   the commission explained that there isn't a model to meaningfully help the commission decide the question of significance but that does not mean all i can say now is that the commission has said that this doesn't apply that this this regulation doesn't apply to that the information is provided and the next commission did explain that it doesn't have a model and this includes the social cost of carbon that is useful for determining significance of a decision and what the commission said the regulation doesn't apply post date this case or is it a pre believe what the commission and this is what the commission was saying was the information lacking doesn't go to the environment in the environmental impacts but t a model or a standard that the commission could rely on to make a meaningful determination as to significance i do want to emphasize your honour's that that the commission engaged in a robust discussion here of rehab suggests including the relationship between greenhouse g emissions and the environmental consequences and that included quantifying the emissions for this project which told the commission informed the commission exactly the role played by in the rag it's not limited simply to re numbering but it's not possible to determine on the fly like this whether the various word changes are significant for the purposes of this case so you might take a look at that while we're hearing from opposing counsel i think you might be able to direct you more specifically  benefit of counseling for my colleagues that even though the nd case is going to be largely a continuation of this and certain measures we have different counsel coming for intervener and four for the commission so we will do our normal arguments are intertwined with our environmental justice argument so i agree that in a rehearing request in the texas air when the project we are dressed i was on in the context of a normal justice but but we are greste oh zone and actually adequately predicting what the analysis rather than how it was packaged but i agree that what the commission did here was not according to the normal procedures on social cost of carbon exams one second if we if we back the ships out of this what's left know zone if we just back the ships out and just look at pretty clear from two cases in this court that now we don't take into account mobiles we don't require work to take into account mobile sources that are within the the purview of the d o a and for which it has no control and could not prevent them i don't believe that for core any part in this case is argue that the other missions from the ships are outside  missions that get you to that so that kind of looks like the commission itself after that and they stand and a figure that it came up with and they're hearing orders and in the nanos analyses in environmental impact statement the commission had also considered vessel emissions ok well what why don't we switch to the nd animal a related case at this point let's my colleagues up for the question for you hon you're about to stand right back up thank you that will take this case under submission