Instructions for Submitting Comment & Contested Case Hearing

---

Following these guidelines ensures that your comments are not disregarded by TCEQ on procedural and relevance grounds.

Keep in mind our goal is to create enough delays in the permitting process to meaningfully impact their timeline and business model enough for them to decide to abandon the project. Our actual goal is not to convince TCEQ to not issue the permit.

Remember that CO2 emissions are not in scope of, or directly relevant to, the contested case hearing. We can mention CO2 only in limited contexts.

The Commission may only grant a request for a contested case hearing on issues the requester submitted in their timely comments that were not subsequently withdrawn. If a hearing is granted, the subject of a hearing will be limited to disputed issues of fact or mixed questions of fact and law relating to relevant and material air quality concerns submitted during the comment period. 

Issues such as property values, noise, traffic safety, and zoning are outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction to address in this proceeding.  Arguments like “we don’t want it”, property rights, and questions about Beacon’s business prospects are not in scope.

(1).  Your name (or for a group or association, an official representative), mailing address, and daytime phone number;

(2).  Applicant’s name and permit number - Westline Tx Holdings LLC, Permit Numbers: 184380, PSDTX1710

(3).  The statement “[I/we] request a contested case hearing”; 

(4).  a specific description of how you would be adversely affected by the application and air emissions from the facility in a way not common to the general public. 

Relevant points include:

· Excessive dust due to the increased construction traffic 

· Methane from natural gas purges

· Toxic combustion products from SF6 in the event of a fire.

· Human health issues from inhaling pollutants

· Human health impacts of CO infiltration of homes during low wind conditions

· Potential crop damage

· Livestock impacts potentially due to the emissions. 

· Having not seen the air dispersion modeling yet, we believe there will be significant and additional air impacts in the surrounding areas.

Remember that Issues such as CO2, property values, noise, traffic safety, and zoning will not be considered.

(5).  the location and distance of your property relative to the facility; 

(6).  a description of how you use the property which may be impacted by the facility; and 

(7).   a list of all disputed issues of fact that you submit during the comment period. If the request is made by a group or an association, one or more members who have standing to request a hearing must be identified by name and physical address. The interests the group or association seeks to protect must also be identified. 

You may also submit your proposed adjustments to the application/permit which would satisfy your concerns.

About This Resource
The information below is intended to help members of the public identify issues they may wish to consider when reviewing the permit application and preparing comments to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). These observations are based on publicly available permit documents, public records, and publicly available statements. They are provided for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as a determination that any law or regulation has been violated. Compliance determinations are made solely by TCEQ and other appropriate regulatory authorities. Members of the public are encouraged to review the source materials for themselves and submit comments based on their own understanding, concerns, and conclusions.

The air emissions permit application is incomplete in that it does not include or address numerous emissions sources.

1. Construction of the natural gas pipeline that is being constructed and operated SOLEY for the Westline facility. Westline will be the sole customer for 100% of the gas flowing through the new pipeline. As such, the pipeline is wholly integral to Westline’s emissions units and operations.

Under 30 TAC § 122.10 and 30 TAC § 116.12, the proposed pipeline and the primary facility constitute a single source and must be authorized under PSD and NSR permitting prior to construction of emissions sources, including the pipeline as a "support facility" under TCEQ and EPA precedent. However, neither permit 184380 or PSDTX1710 include emissions related to the pipeline other than on-site emission point number [EPN] NG FUG.

A. The pipeline is being constructed solely to serve a single customer, who will consume 100% of the gas. The Applicant has publicly stated that the facility cannot be constructed or operated without this specific pipeline. It is therefore a textbook "support facility" and cannot be omitted from construction permitting.

B. The pipeline physically connects directly to the facility’s emission units, satisfying the contiguous/adjacent property requirement.

C. While a third party may hold the underlying deed or contract to build and operate the line, the pipeline's entire operational existence, flow rate, and economic purpose are completely dictated by, and under the de facto control of, Westline.

By omitting the pipeline’s emissions, including but not limited to compressor stations and maintenance emissions – other than those on Westline’s property (EPN NG FUG), Westline has artificially segmented the project to understate its true Potential to Emit (PTE), in violation of 30 TAC § 116.111. TCEQ must require the Applicant to include all pipeline-related emissions within the application for Permit Numbers 184380, PSDTX1710 to ensure proper air dispersion modeling, health effects reviews, and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) compliance.

2. Facility construction will be a major undertaking requiring significant amounts of building materials that are either not readily available nearby in needed volumes, or which may be cost prohibitive to purchase from a vendor. These materials include, but are not limited to:

• Dirt/fill
• Crushed rock
• Cement
• Asphalt

The application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 does not include or address emissions from construction support operations which will likely include

Large temporary concrete batch plant(s)

• Large temporary asphalt plant(s)
• Large temporary rock crushing plant(s)
• Large diesel-powered generators for electricity during construction
• Significant emissions from painting/architectural coating activities

In Form PI-1, General, the question “Are there any standard permits, standard exemptions or PBRs to be incorporated by reference?” was answered “No”, indicating that the PSD/NSR permit application is intended to reflect all site operations.

3. Other significant emissions from the major construction activities include fugitive dust emissions from both land clearing/moving and the significant increase in truck and construction worker traffic on roads that serve both the local community and access to the construction site. Extended drought conditions in West Texas show that natural rainfall cannot be counted on to reduce dust emissions. Excess dust emissions during construction will disperse along a large area, settling on adjacent croplands, blocking sunlight and inhibiting crop growth in an already challenging (drought-stricken) area. 

Excessive emissions also meaningfully impact the health of livestock run on adjacent and nearby agricultural land, as well as downwind as far as airborne pollutants carry away from the facility. These impacts are omitted from the application.

Because of drought conditions, strain on water resources and existing water rights and limits for long-standing agricultural use, dust control must not rely on water spraying. Options must include foam, polymers, and other long lasting technologies that are both effective and not water-dependent.

4. The application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 does not include emissions from the planned permanent brackish water or wastewater treatment plants. Westline has not submitted an application for a TPDES permit, but construction of any emissions units – including those emitting fugitive emissions – is prohibited prior to approval of the NSR/PSD permits. Similar to the natural gas pipeline, Westline has artificially segmented the project to understate its true Potential to Emit (PTE), in violation of 30 TAC § 116.111. TCEQ must require the Applicant to include all water/wastewater-related emissions within the application for Permit Numbers 184380, PSDTX1710 to ensure proper air dispersion modeling, health effects reviews, and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) compliance.

5. There is an inconsistency or omission in the Form PI-1 for the Bergen units. Each engine is listed as a separate emissions point source, each assigned a unique EPN. There are no EPNs for consolidated or shared stacks for the Bergen engines, therefore the 240 Bergen engine EPNs represent the point source emissions. However, the column in Form PI-1, General Application, Unit Types – Emission Rates titled “Include these emissions in annual (tpy) summary?” is answered “No” for all Bergen engines and the “Long Term Difference (tpy)” in is empty. This error/omission may result in an incomplete or erroneous review of the application by TCEQ.

6. The application’s PTE is based on equipment operational limitations Westline claims to accept on a voluntary basis. The difference between operationally unconstrained PTE and PTE based on voluntary operating limitations is significant:

Criteria Pollutant: PTE based on  Voluntary Operating Limitations (TPY) | Operationally   Unconstrained PTE (Worst Case PTE) – TPY* | Difference (TPY)

CO: 1177.2 | 1368 | 190.8

NOx: 419.3 | 456 | 36.7

VOC: 446.8 | 528 | 81.2

Ammonia: 570 | 548,000** | 547,430

HAPs (total): 697.4 | 1411.3 | 713.9

* Analysis of 20260612-01_calculations spreadsheet and 20260614-01_EXEC_SUMMARY.pdf

** Derived from Line 21, Tab “BERGEN SINLGE UNIT SUMMARY”, 20260612-01_calculations spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contains emissions for a single Bergen unit, including 2,740tpy for ammonia alone. The  permittee plans 240 such units, of which Beacon/Westline claims “[t]he typical operating scenario for the Facility includes concurrent operation of a maximum of 200 RICE engines (i.e., typically 10 engines per engine hall), with each engine typically running at or near 80 percent load.” Counting all 240 Bergen units at 2,740 tpy, the operationally unconstrained PTE equates to 657,600 tpy.

Ammonia presents a particular concern. According to the Application, “A review of the RBLC was conducted to identify air permits that have been recently issued for RICE engines. Only one project was identified, involving an ‘other case-by-case’ analysis for an internal combustion engine, which specified an ammonia limit of 5.0 ppmvdc… This level of emissions will be achieved through effective process control.” (See points #6 and #7 below). This indicates there is little precedent/experience with RICE SCR technology. There is therefore uncertainty whether Beacon/Westline will achieve effective process control, and whether such controls will meet 5.0 ppmvdc in RICE application. 

Form PI-1 BACT for the Bergen engines states the ammonia BACT is “maintain ammonia slip at 5 ppmvd @ 15% O2 by controlling the urea injection for the SCR to minimize slip”, however, Form PI-1 Monitoring states that the only monitoring to be undertaken for ammonia emissions from the Bergen engines will be “track fuel use or hours of operation” – no monitoring of SCR operation or urea injection is proposed for monitoring even though those parameters are fundamental to maintaining proposed operating emissions limits.

7. There is reason to question Beacon’s/Westline’s commitments, public statements and voluntary operating constraints. This Canadian company has no experience building or operating any facilities – in the US or in its home country of Canada. Of the six projects listed on Beacon’s website, none are currently under construction or operational. Nadia Partners/Beacon Data Centers formed in only 2024. The company is privately held and not subject to regulatory financial disclosures. 

They do not have an internal or on-staff environmental manager or executive. According to LinkedIn, the technical contact listed in their permit application is a “Project Analyst with a B.S. in Construction Management and hands-on experience in commercial and residential projects, including mission-critical data center work. Skilled in MOP development, scheduling, subcontractor coordination, executive reporting, and project documentation” who received his Bachelor’s degree in December 2023. The company has no established track record of compliance or operating.

At the June 2 Tom Green County Commissioners’ Court meeting, representatives of the company described the project as “embryonic” and did not answer questions about the project’s scope. However, on that date the company was very advanced in the development of their TCEQ permit application - filed only 10 days after the Commissioners’ Court meeting. Revision dates on drawings included in the permit application demonstrate that detailed technical information had been developed as early as April 2026. The application contains no information that is withheld from the public as proprietary or business confidential, so there is no basis for Beacon/Westline to have withheld information at the Commissioners’ Court meeting.

The data center industry has continually demonstrated a lack of regard for environmental compliance mandates, instead following the Silicon Valley mantra of “move fast and break things.” A few examples inside Texas and beyond:

• Covington, Georgia (Serverfarm & VoltaGrid) — Air Permit Pre-Construction Violation
• In July 2026, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) issued formal Notices of Violation and an immediate stop-work order to data center developer Serverfarm and its microgrid partner, VoltaGrid. The companies broke state law and the federal Clean Air Act by starting construction, installing a 90-megawatt "pop-up" power plant consisting of 33 natural gas internal combustion engines and 37 diesel emergency generators before final air pollution permits were legally approved or issued.
• Southaven, Mississippi / Memphis, Tennessee (SpaceXAI) — Unpermitted Gas Turbines
• SpaceXAI was found operating 27 large, unpermitted gas turbines at tis Colossus 2 facility to meet its massive electricity demands. Regulators and internal communications confirmed that potential emissions from the site far exceeded federal Clean Air Act major source thresholds, entirely bypassing required preconstruction and operating permits.
• Abilene, Texas (Stargate Data Center) — Permitting Loophole Exploitation
• Operators deployed a highly contested "small first, big later" strategy to bypass the rigorous reviews required for major emissions sources. By securing segmented, rubber-stamped "minor source" permits, the facilities deployed thousands of unreviewed emissions sources, entirely circumventing the Clean Air Act's mandatory public notice and community environmental review periods.
• Lima, Ohio (Google Data Center) — Fugitive Dust Violations
• The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) cited a Google facility for letting massive clouds of Lime Kiln Dust leave the property boundary. The facility failed to maintain basic dust-suppression and containment protocols.
• Northern Virginia — SPCC Non-Compliance
• EPA regional compliance inspections across Virginia’s primary data corridor have targeted Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) failures related to generator diesel and oil storage, several operators have been penalized for failing to maintain adequate secondary containment walls, missing mandated weekly inspection logs, and ignoring leaks from large on-site storage tanks.

8. Following the above point, Beacon/Westline recently indicated they are “evaluating the integration of the project with the regional electricity grid to offer excess electricity to the market … subject to approval from ERCOT.” Should ERCOT approve this, Beacon/Westline will be incentivized – if not contractually obligated – to operate well beyond the operating constraints contained in the permit application. The permit application does not contemplate producing “excess electricity” – or any power used beyond the data center’s own needs. According to the application executive summary:

“Westline intends to manage energy demand for the data center by establishing a 12-month rolling average limit of 1,752,000 ‘engine-hours’ for the Facility (i.e., 200 engines x 8,760 hours), rather than per-engine operating limits.”

Unless they also submit a revised PSD/NSR permit application that includes the additional operating parameters, Beacon/Westline cannot operate in excess of the constraints in the current application even if ERCOT approves “offer[ing] excess electricity to the market”.

9. The application wholly omits an entire class of chemical emissions. Beacon/Westline states that its “engine halls [ ] are climate controlled”. The application contains no discussion of the cooling technology to be used for the halls. However, research indicates that data centers frequently use refrigerant-based cooling systems similar to comfort cooling or process refrigeration systems. These systems require maintenance and experience leaks, ruptures, etc. Some refrigerants may be HAPs and almost all are Greenhouse Gases with extremely high GWP. 

Closing Note

The observations in this guide are intended to help members of the public review the permit application and identify topics they may wish to address in their own comments to TCEQ. Readers are encouraged to review the publicly available application materials and supporting documents and submit comments that reflect their own observations, concerns, and conclusions. This guide is provided for educational purposes only.

By all measures, this is a massive facility with massive emissions because Westline is planning to generate 100% of their electrical needs on-site rather than connecting to the grid. Based on TCEQ 2024 state-wide emissions data (the most recent year publicly available) and assuming Westline/Beacon actually stays within the operational constraints to which it claims to commit:

• Ammonia emissions (570 tons/year) are more than 1.5 times the amount of ammonia emissions from the state’s #1 highest ammonia emitter 
• PM2.5 emissions (642 tons/year) would be second highest in the state.
• SF6 emissions would be second highest in the state
• NOx emissions would be 66th highest in the state 
• CO emissions would be 17th highest in the state

Based on the above facts and questions of law, Beacon/Westline cannot segregate the facility and construction into distinct units or permitting phases for purposes and must:

• Modify the application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 to include emissions related to the pipeline as a "support facility”.
• Modify the application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 to include emissions from construction support facilities/operations.
• Modify the application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 to include emissions related to brackish water and wastewater treatment as a "support facility”.
• Modify the application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 to correct the error/omission in Form PI-1, General Application, Unit Types – Emission Rates titled “Include these emissions in annual (tpy) summary?” for all Bergen engines and the empty “Long Term Difference (tpy)” field.
• Modify the application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 to include emissions from the engine hall climate control technology/chemicals.
• Modify the application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 to include additional operating conditions associated with integrating the facility with the regional electricity grid to offer excess electricity to the market in accordance with agreements with ERCOT, which may include mandatory generation periods and volumes.
• Modify the application for Permit 184380 and PSDTX1710 to include improved monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for SCR operation/urea injection to ensure ammonia emissions are controlled as stated.
• Evaluate emissions associated with planned climate control technologies and include in the revised permit.
• Explicitly review and consider construction dust dispersion/settling impacts from construction and operation activities on livestock and crops within at least a 5 mile radius of the site (the radius may need to be modified based on initial modeling results).
• Explicitly review and consider operating emissions impacts on livestock within at least a 5 mile radius of the site (the radius may need to be modified based on initial modeling results).
• Conduct and publicly release in a timely manner associated air impact/dispersion modeling for current planned operations and impacts as well as alternatives. 
• Submit alternative operating models to meaningfully reduce operating emissions more than 20%. Alternatives should include reducing the number, sizes, operating hours and fuel sources for the emissions units, as well as meaningfully controlling fugitive dust emissions to reduce offsite settling, aligned with the results of the dispersion modeling and agricultural impact results.
• Hire a qualified,  senior-level environmental executive with assigned environmental responsibility for the company and the site.
• Given the company’s lack of operating experience and public transparency, agree to additional punitive measures in the event Beacon/Westline intentionally operates beyond the operating constraints contained in the application, unless a revised permit application is submitted to and approved by TCEQ.