Pacifico Cedar Creek air registration found; expedited TCEQ review begins
HISTORICAL UPDATE — SUPERSEDED AUGUST 30: This article records what was publicly known when TCEQ's expedited review of Permit 185019 / Project 413471 began. Pacifico's principal 54-page application is now public and identifies 48 turbines and 1,326 MW of stated maximum nominal output. Registration 185019 remains pending. The older screening scenario and copy-ready requests below are preserved for context; use the released-application analysis and current action guide for present claims and filing language.
This dated article preserves what was known at publication. Pacifico's 54-page application is now public and identifies 48 turbines and 1,326 MW of stated maximum nominal output. Do not rely on older copy-ready filing language below. Read the latest project reconciliation, open the released-application analysis, and use the current action guide.
Pacifico entered a fast permit lane reserved for projects claiming they are not major pollution sources.
On August 14, TCEQ received Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC's initial registration to use an Electric Generating Unit Standard Permit and began EXPEDITED REVIEW the same day. It is pending as Permit 185019 / Project 413471 for 382 Earl Callahan Road in Cedar Creek.
Pacifico has not shown the public what equipment this filing covers, how much pollution it could legally emit, or why the publicly described 710 MW project qualifies for this streamlined route.
What kind of permit did Pacifico request?
The filing now visible is not an individual, case-by-case permit application. TCEQ identifies it as an initial registration under an Electric Generating Unit Standard Permit; the public record does not reveal whether it covers all 710 MW or only one phase.
Think of a standard permit as a prewritten statewide permit. Instead of TCEQ building a project-specific permit from the ground up, an applicant submits a registration claiming its project fits the template. If it truly qualifies, review can move faster and may provide much less site-specific public participation.
The filing is not literally titled a “minor-source permit.” But it is effectively a minor-source pathway: Texas law says a project that creates a new major pollution source or major modification cannot use a standard permit. By filing through this route, Pacifico is necessarily claiming that the equipment covered by Registration 185019 stays below those major-source triggers.
A faster review under prewritten statewide conditions.
Real, enforceable limits must keep the whole source eligible.
A case-specific process, including Prevention of Significant Deterioration review when required.
“Minor” does not mean small, harmless, or low-megawatt. It is a legal emissions category. The complete filing is needed to determine whether Pacifico actually fits it. The public record does not yet confirm which version of the EGU Standard Permit Pacifico invokes or whether this filing covers all 710 MW or only a phase.
What the TCEQ record establishes—and what it does not
The Central Registry connects the filing to RN102987831 and names Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC as the applicant. The project report marks the initial EGU Standard Permit registration pending and EXPEDITED. That status is not an approval.
The public status pages do not disclose the turbine count or models, generating capacity covered, operating limits, startup and shutdown assumptions, pollutant-by-pollutant calculations, controls, stack details, sitewide emissions, source-aggregation analysis, or TCEQ's written major-source determination.
How to retrieve the filing: On the air-permit status page, open the New Source Review search and use Project 413471 or Permit 185019. In Central Registry, open the CR Query and search Program ID 185019, or search regulated entities for RN102987831. TCEQ's record-detail addresses are session-based, so Lost Pines Watch links to the stable official search pages instead.
EXPEDITED REVIEW MAY PROCEED WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE OR INPUT
An ordinary EGU Standard Permit registration may move without a formal site-specific notice, comment period, public meeting, or contested-case hearing. Permit 185019 has not appeared in the Chief Clerk's notice database or eComments, and no public-participation deadline is posted.
This EXPEDITED filing may therefore be decided without the ordinary participation routes residents would receive in a full individual permit process. Residents can still send information, demand answers, and request oversight now. If TCEQ later publishes a formal notice, every method and deadline in that notice should be treated as controlling.
How can a proposed 710 MW plant enter a “minor-source” lane?
Megawatts measure electricity, not pollution, so 710 MW alone does not legally decide the issue. The decisive number is the plant's potential to emit: the maximum pollution it could legally produce at full capability after counting only restrictions that are binding and enforceable.
The older, turbine-capable EGU Standard Permit expressly contemplates gas turbines and has no stated ceiling on total megawatts or number of units. That explains how a large turbine proposal can enter the standard-permit lane. It does not prove Pacifico is legally eligible to remain there.
A forecast is not a pollution limit. Reduced hours count only if they are binding, enforceable, continuously tracked, and consistent with the plant Pacifico actually plans to operate.
If units legally form one co-located, commonly controlled source, their emissions must be counted together. Paperwork cannot divide one physical power campus into unrelated sources.
Then release the equipment, every pollutant and operating mode, sitewide calculations, and every restriction used to reach that result so the public can test it.
Section 116.610(b), in plain English, sends a new major source or major modification into full New Source Review instead of the standard-permit process.
Section 116.610(c) bars artificial limitations used to get around New Source Review. Genuine limits must be real, enforceable, and provable—not assumptions in a spreadsheet.
“Aggregation” asks whether turbines and other units on the same or adjacent property, in the same industrial grouping, and under common control form one stationary source.
710 MW × 0.14 pounds of NOx per MWh × 8,760 hours ÷ 2,000 = about 435 tons per year. That uses the publicly described full buildout, 100% annual utilization, and the standard permit's 0.14 lb/MWh NOx ceiling. It was a pre-application arithmetic screen—not Pacifico's reported potential to emit or a regulatory baseline. The subsequently released application reports 233.61 tons per year of NOx using its modeled operating schedules; the current analysis addresses how those filed annual limits and compliance methods would operate source-wide.
The Environmental Integrity Project and Sierra Club have challenged other 900–930 MW Texas gas plants using this same 2007 standard-permit pathway where claimed operating-hour assumptions were not written as enforceable limits in the registrations. That does not prove Pacifico used the same approach. It shows why TCEQ must release and defend the full eligibility analysis before acting.
1. Request the complete registration file
Submit a Public Information Act request through TCEQ's designated online form or email it to openrecs@tceq.texas.gov. Ask for electronic rolling production so available documents are not held while TCEQ searches for later correspondence.
Please provide the complete TCEQ file for Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC, Cedar Creek facility, Air Permit/Registration 185019, Project 413471, RN102987831, 382 Earl Callahan Road, Cedar Creek, Bastrop County.
This request includes the initial registration and all forms, supplements, amendments, attachments, plot plans, process diagrams, equipment and vendor data, turbine manufacturer/model/count and ratings, pollutant-by-pollutant emissions calculations, maximum- emission-rate tables, operating-hour and startup/shutdown assumptions, proposed controls, stack parameters, dispersion or impacts analyses, standard-permit eligibility analyses, PSD/NNSR and Title V analyses, source- and project-aggregation determinations, expedited-review materials, deficiency and completeness letters, reviewer notes, meeting records, and all correspondence with the applicant or its consultants.
Please include related air authorizations at the same regulated entity, address, or project campus. Please produce responsive records electronically and on a rolling basis. If anything is withheld, identify the legal basis and release all reasonably segregable parts.
2. Ask the Air Permits Division to explain why Pacifico qualifies
This is not another records request. Send the questions below to airperm@tceq.texas.gov or call 512-239-1250. Ask TCEQ to put its major-source finding—and whether any artificial limit is being used to avoid full review—in plain language and in writing before it acts.
An email to program staff does not replace a formal comment or hearing request if TCEQ later opens one. It creates a record now, while the EXPEDITED REVIEW MAY PROCEED WITHOUT FORMAL PUBLIC INPUT.
Subject: Permit 185019 / Project 413471 — written standard-permit eligibility determination requested
To the TCEQ Air Permits Division:
I am a Bastrop County / Cedar Creek resident [and/or nearby property owner]. I am writing about Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC's pending Air Registration 185019, Project 413471, RN102987831, at 382 Earl Callahan Road.
TCEQ's database says the filing was received August 14 and EXPEDITED REVIEW began the same day. Before TCEQ acts, please provide the complete registration and written answers in plain language:
- Which exact Electric Generating Unit Standard Permit and version does Pacifico seek to use?
- What equipment, turbine count, and total MW does Registration 185019 cover, and how does it relate to the publicly described 710 MW buildout?
- What is the sitewide potential to emit for every pollutant, including startup, shutdown, and other operating modes?
- What hours, load, fuel, production, or emissions restrictions are used to remain below major-source thresholds, and how will each be binding, monitored, recorded, reported, and enforced?
- Which turbines, phases, companies, and co-located emission units did TCEQ determine must be counted together, which did it exclude, and why? Please provide the source- and project-aggregation analysis.
- Please explain TCEQ's major-source finding under Section 116.610(b) and whether any artificial limit is being used to avoid full review, as prohibited by Section 116.610(c).
- Does this EXPEDITED registration provide public notice, comment, a public meeting, or a contested-case hearing? If not, what is the legal basis, and will TCEQ voluntarily accept meaningful resident input before acting?
- Who is the assigned reviewer, what is the current stage, and what is the anticipated decision schedule?
Please respond in writing and add me to every available mailing list for this registration and any related Cedar Creek air authorization.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[City / ZIP]
[Email and phone, optional]
No public money while the air-permit question remains unresolved
August 24 is not a TCEQ permit hearing. Bastrop County Commissioners do not decide Permit 185019, and they cannot stop TCEQ's review by themselves. The connection is financial: the County separately controls whether Pacifico receives county tax abatements, reinvestment-zone treatment, infrastructure assistance, or other discretionary benefits.
A TCEQ air authorization would not obligate Bastrop County to grant financial benefits, and it would not resolve the County's other lawful decisions concerning the project. Taxpayers should not subsidize Pacifico while an EXPEDITED AIR REVIEW MAY MOVE WITHOUT FORMAL SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT.
- Pacifico's complete air registration is public.
- TCEQ issues a written explanation of major-source eligibility, potential to emit, operating limits, and whole-site aggregation.
- Every claimed limit is binding, enforceable, monitored, and consistent with the project Pacifico actually plans to operate.
- Independent experts and the public receive adequate time to review the record.
Subject: Deny Pacifico tax abatements while Permit 185019 remains unresolved
Judge Klaus and Commissioners:
Please deny Pacifico's pending county tax-abatement applications and provide no reinvestment zone, incentive agreement, infrastructure assistance, or other discretionary financial benefit while Air Permit 185019 remains unresolved.
Pacifico is using an EXPEDITED standard-permit pathway that may provide no formal site-specific public input, yet the public still cannot determine what portion of the 710 MW project is covered, whether it qualifies as a minor source, what operating restrictions it claims, or whether the turbines and phases were properly evaluated under the whole-site counting rules.
No complete registration, no written major-source determination, and no independent review should mean no taxpayer assistance.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[City / ZIP]
The August 24 agenda is still pending. This is the first regular Commissioners Court meeting since the air filing became public and one of the most important opportunities yet to demand no public subsidy. The scheduled location is the Commissioners Courtroom, second floor, Bastrop County Courthouse, 804 Pecan Street. Confirm the time and agenda before attending. If Pacifico is not listed, residents can raise this demand during citizen comments and ask for a future posted agenda item, but the Court generally cannot debate or vote on an unposted subject. Fill out the County's public-participation form and present it to the County Clerk before the relevant item or citizen-comments period begins.
3. Ask what rights exist—and request EPA review
TCEQ's Office of Public Interest Counsel can identify which participation or review routes may apply. EPA Region 6 can be asked to examine whether Texas is applying the federally approved major-source safeguards correctly. These messages do not replace any formal filing or deadline that may later appear.
Call 512-239-6363. OPIC can explain legal process; it does not represent individual residents.
I am seeking procedural guidance concerning Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC's pending EGU Standard Permit Registration 185019, Project 413471. Please identify every public-participation, Commission- review, reconsideration, appeal, or other route that could apply if TCEQ approves this registration without site-specific public notice. Please identify the event that starts each deadline and explain how residents may raise major-source eligibility, artificial-limitation, and aggregation issues.
TCEQ Office of Public Interest CounselSubject: Review request — Pacifico Permit 185019, Cedar Creek, Texas
Please review whether TCEQ's proposed use of an Electric Generating Unit Standard Permit for Pacifico CCK Energy 1 LLC complies with Texas's federally approved major-source bar and its rule against artificial limits used to avoid full review, including enforceable potential-to-emit limits and whether legally related turbines and phases must be counted together. Public descriptions identify approximately 710 MW of gas generation, but the complete registration and TCEQ's eligibility analysis are not public. Please obtain and review the complete record before TCEQ acts.
Email EPA Region 6 Air PermitsOfficial Region 6 air-permitting page4. Document nearby homes, children, wells, and outdoor activity
Nearby property owners should document property boundaries, residences, wells, and regular outdoor-use areas now. Earth Native can document the preschool roundhouse, teaching areas, student ages, enrollment, schedules, and hours spent outdoors. Once the filing supplies turbine and stack coordinates, measure distance from the actual emissions points—not merely from the edge of the broader tract.
Do this only from public locations or private property where you have permission. Do not trespass or confront workers. Exact proximity, very young students, and prolonged outdoor exposure are critical facts for agency review, elected officials, and any later challenge.
5. Follow the notice—not social-media summaries
- Record the publication date and exact deadline stated in the notice.
- Submit through TCEQ eComments or the written route named in the notice.
- Identify Permit 185019, the applicant, and the specific air-quality issues in dispute.
- Describe your location, distance, property use, and how emissions could affect you differently from the general public.
- Request a public meeting and contested-case hearing if the notice makes those remedies available.
- Keep the submission receipt and a complete copy of everything filed.
What remains unresolved
As of August 15, the status pages do not reveal the exact EGU Standard Permit version Pacifico invokes, whether Registration 185019 covers the full 710 MW buildout or one phase, the turbine models or count, any enforceable hours or output limits, sitewide emissions, controls, or TCEQ's source- and project-aggregation decision. They show no approval, public notice, comment deadline, public meeting, or hearing opportunity.
Get urgent local alerts without relying on social feeds.
Join for meaningful meeting, permit, record, and decision updates. This is a focused local list, not a daily newsletter.