Court Opinion

ID: 9941810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-17 01:01:51.211269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:03.869847
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60556      Document: 247-1         Page: 1   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit
                             ____________                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                              No. 22-60556
                                                                         FILED
                                                                  February 16, 2024
                             ____________
                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
Port Arthur Community Action Network,                                    Clerk

                                                                  Petitioner,

                                   versus

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Jon
Niermann, in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality,

                                                                Respondents.
               ______________________________

        Appeal from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
                      Agency No. 2021-0942-AIR
              ______________________________

                  ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
                    AND REHEARING EN BANC

Before Wiener, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
      The petitions for rehearing en banc and petition for panel rehearing
are DENIED. Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35. We withdraw our
previous opinion and substitute the following:

                              *      *        *
Case: 22-60556        Document: 247-1      Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                  No. 22-60556

         Port Arthur Community Action Network (PACAN) petitions this
court for review of a decision by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) not to impose certain emissions limitations on a new liquid
natural gas (LNG) facility that it previously imposed on another such facility.
The petition raises the question of whether Texas’s definition of “best
available control technology” encompasses air pollution control methods
that TCEQ has permitted but that are not yet in operation. Specifically, we
are asked to determine whether the term “proven to be operational” means
currently in operation or capable of operation. Because we cannot confidently
make an Erie guess, we CERTIFY the question to the Supreme Court of
Texas.
         Texas administers the federal Clean Air Act through TCEQ. In turn,
TCEQ is tasked with issuing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permits before any “major stationary source” of pollution may be
constructed in an area that has attained EPA clean air standards. 40 C.F.R. §
52.21(a)(2)(i). To receive a PSD permit, an applicant must demonstrate that
its facility will satisfy “best available control technology,” or BACT. 42
U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4); Tex. Health & Safety Code § 382.0518(b)(1).
Texas law defines BACT as a pollution-control method that “through
experience and research, has proven to be operational, obtainable, and
capable of reducing or eliminating emissions.” Tex. Admin. Code §
116.10(1). When considering whether to issue a permit, TCEQ’s Air Permit
Reviewer Reference Guide requires it to consider limits “previously
accepted as BACT” in recently approved permits and, if it declines to follow
those limits, justify any deviation.
         In this case, TCEQ issued a permit to Intervenor Port Arthur LNG to
construct an LNG plant with certain emissions limits. PACAN, a non-profit
organization focused on environmental issues, challenged the permit in a
proceeding before TCEQ. It argued that Port Arthur LNG must adopt the

                                       2
Case: 22-60556        Document: 247-1     Page: 3     Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                 No. 22-60556

emissions limits of another planned facility, Rio Grande LNG, or that TCEQ
must justify the deviation from Rio Grande LNG’s limits.
       TCEQ rejected this argument, explaining that Rio Grande LNG’s
limits “do[] not satisfy the EPA’s or the TCEQ’s definition of BACT,”
because there is no “operational data to prove that their permitted limits are
achievable.” In other words, TCEQ concluded that Rio Grande LNG’s
limits were not “proven to be operational” because the plant was not
completed. PACAN timely petitioned this court for review.
       This case turns on whether Rio Grande LNG’s emissions limits were
BACT under Texas law. If so, then TCEQ should have either applied those
limits to Port Arthur LNG’s PSD permit or explained why the limits were
not technically feasible.
       The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize the Supreme
Court of Texas to “answer questions of law certified to it by any federal
appellate court if the certifying court is presented with determinative
questions of Texas law having no controlling Supreme Court precedent.”
Tex. R. App. P. 58.1. The issues presented here satisfy those conditions.
They also satisfy the three factors that the Fifth Circuit uses in deciding
whether to certify:
       1) [T]he closeness of the question and the existence of
          sufficient sources of state law;
       2) [T]he degree to which considerations of comity are relevant
          in light of the particular issue and case to be decided; and
       3) [P]ractical limitations on the certification process:
          significant delay and possible inability to frame the issue so
          as to produce a helpful response on the part of the state
          court.

                                      3
Case: 22-60556       Document: 247-1         Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                   No. 22-60556

In re Gabriel Inv. Grp., 24 F.4th 503, 507 (5th Cir. 2022). Here, we are
presented with a novel question that requires us to interpret a Texas statute.
“[A]ny Erie guess would involve more divining than discerning.” McMillan
v. Amazon.com, Inc., 983 F.3d 194, 202 (5th Cir. 2020). Comity interests also
favor certification because the resolution of this case impacts the procedures
of a major state regulator. And we are aware of no practical limitations on
certification.
                               *        *         *
       Accordingly, we CERTIFY the following determinative question of
law to the Supreme Court of Texas:
       Does the phrase “has proven to be operational” in Texas’s
       definition of “best available control technology” codified at
       Section 116.10(1) of the Texas Administrative Code require an
       air pollution control method to be currently operating under a
       permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental
       Quality, or does it refer to methods that TCEQ deems to be
       capable of operating in the future?
       We disclaim any intention or desire that the Supreme Court of Texas
confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the question certified. We
will resolve this case in accordance with any opinion provided on this
question by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Clerk of this Court is directed
to transmit this certification and request to the Supreme Court of Texas in
conformity with the usual practice.
       QUESTION CERTIFIED.

                                        4