Sierra Club v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Tenaska Trailblazer Partners, LLCAppeal from 201st District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed August 1, 2013 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00040-CV __________ SIERRA CLUB, Appellant V. TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND TENASKA TRAILBLAZER PARTNERS, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 201st District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-11-000763 MEMORANDUM OPINION Sierra Club, Appellant, has filed in this court an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal as moot pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). In the motion, Appellant states that this appeal from the trial court s order granting a plea to the jurisdiction is moot because Tenaska Trailblazer Partners, LLC has terminated the proposed power plant and . . . requested that the Texas Commission [on] Environmental Quality void the air permits that are the subject of this appeal. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality duly voided the air permits on July 8, 2013, and there is no live case or controversy to appeal. In the motion, Appellant also requests that, pursuant to Texas Foundries v. International Moulders & Foundry Workers Union, 248 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Tex. 1952), we vacate the trial court s order due to its mootness. Courts of this state have no jurisdiction to render advisory opinions in a case that has become moot. Speer v. Presbyterian Children s Home and Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1993). Therefore, in accordance with Appellant s unopposed motion and because a live controversy no longer exists, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and dismiss this case as moot. See id. We grant Appellant s unopposed motion to dismiss as moot. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court and dismiss this appeal. PER CURIAM August 1, 2013 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.