Club has sued. Essentially, Defendants argument is that they cannot be enjoined for conduct that is now lawful. Sierra Club v. TVA, 592 F.Supp.2d 1357, 1376-77 (N.D.Ala.2009) (dismissing as moot Sierra Club lawsuit over past opacity violations because plant was in compliance with it current permit— “A case seeking injunctive relief based on conduct that has become lawful due to a change in the law rendered moot by the change in law.”) (citations omitted). Plaintiff argues that its claim for injunctive relief is not moot because the permit promulgated by 30 Texas Administrative Code § 101.222(h) is of no effect since § 101.222(h) has been rejected by the EPA and therefore not incorporated into the Texas SIP. Luminant Generation Co., LLC v. U.S. E.P.A, 699 F.3d 427, 448 (5th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Because § 101.222 is not part of the Texas
holding epa did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner by rejecting incorporation of  101222 into the texas sip holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies holding that a court is to factor an insurers dual role into its review under the arbitrary and capricious standard though the standard remains arbitrary and capri cious holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability recognizing that arbitrary and capricious decision making by the factfinder implicates an error of law