Description: Challenge to EPA's final renewable fuel standard rule for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
-
Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/23/2020 Motion Download Motion filed by renewable fuels petitioners to enforce the mandate. Renewable Fuel Companies Asked D.C. Circuit to Compel Compliance with 2017 Decision on Volume Requirements. Renewable fuel companies and trade groups filed a motion requesting that the D.C. Circuit enforce the mandate more than three years after the court vacated EPA’s decision to reduce the total renewable fuel volume requirements for 2016 based on its “inadequate domestic supply” waiver authority. The movants contended that EPA’s delay in complying nullified the mandate and that the court could apply its mandamus power to compel compliance. The movants also urged the court to clarify that EPA could not retain the 2016 standards. 07/28/2017 Opinion Download Opinion issued remanding renewable fuel volume requirements. D.C. Circuit Remanded Renewable Fuel Volume Requirements to EPA. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded EPA’s decision to reduce the total renewable fuel volume requirements for 2016 based on its “inadequate domestic supply” waiver authority. The court held that the Clean Air Act Renewable Fuel Program’s waiver provision authorized EPA to consider “supply-side factors affecting the volume of renewable fuel that is available to refiners, blenders, and importers to meet the statutory volume requirements” but did not permit EPA to “consider the volume of renewable fuel that is available to ultimate consumers or the demand-side constraints that affect the consumption of renewable fuel by consumers.” The D.C. Circuit upheld other aspects of the renewable fuel volume requirements for 2014, 2015, and 2016, including EPA’s authority to issue late biomass-based diesel volume requirements, EPA’s use of actual volumes from 2014 and 2015 to minimize hardship to obligated parties, EPA’s 2016 cellulosic biofuel projections, and EPA’s interpretation and application of the cellulosic waiver provision, which the court said gave EPA discretion to consider demand-side constraints in the advanced biofuel marketplace. Because it remanded the final rule to EPA, the D.C. Circuit concluded it was not necessary to address the obligated parties’ contention that EPA was required to reconsider its choice to apply the renewable fuel requirements to refiners and importers but not to blenders. The court said EPA could address the obligated parties’ comments regarding this “point of obligation” issue on remand and noted that EPA also was in the process of reviewing petitions for reconsideration of its current point of obligation regulation. 12/15/2016 Brief Download Brief filed by EPA. EPA Defended Renewable Fuel Standards. EPA filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals defending the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) program’s annual standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016. EPA argued that the standards were neither too high nor too low, asserting that it had reasonably exercised its waiver authority to reduce the volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel required by the statute and that it used a reasonable methodology to set the standards. EPA also contended that its late promulgation of volume requirements for bio-based diesel was a reasonable exercise of its authority and satisfied its obligation to consider the relative benefits and burdens of the rule. EPA also argued that it was not required to reconsider its “point of obligation” regulation that made refiners and importers the obligated parties under the RFS program. 09/28/2016 Opposition Download Petitioner American Petroleum Institute filed opposition to motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae. On September 15, 2016, three motions were filed seeking leave to file amicus briefs in support of the petitioners. The movants were CVR Energy, Inc., the Small Retailers Coalition, and multiple “Biodiesel Associations.” Petitioner-intervenor American Petroleum Institute (API) opposed these motions, arguing that they should have been filed earlier and that the delay prejudiced API. API also said that the parties had not explained why they were not adequately represented by other parties. 09/08/2016 Brief Download Initial brief filed by Americans for Clean Energy. Opening Briefs Filed in Challenges to EPA’s Latest Renewable Fuel Standard Rule. Parties challenging various aspects of EPA’s final renewable fuel standard rule filed initial briefs in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The final rule established percentage standards for blending renewable fuels into motor vehicle gasoline and diesel produced and imported in 2014, 2015, and 2016. One brief filed by “obligated parties” (i.e., companies required to purchase credits to meet the rule’s volume requirements) argued that the 2016 cellulosic fuel volume requirement was unreasonable and unlawful and that EPA acted outside its authority in setting biomass-based diesel requirements. A second obligated-party brief argued that EPA arbitrarily and capriciously failed to obligate appropriate parties, namely by excluding blenders. Renewable energy companies and trade groups argued in their brief that EPA had improperly used a waiver to reduce the statutory volume requirements. In a separate brief, the National Biodiesel Board also argued that EPA had exceeded its waiver authority and argued that the final rule’s advanced biofuel volumes were arbitrary and capricious. 09/08/2016 Brief Download Initial opening brief filed by National Biodiesel Board. 09/08/2016 Brief Download Opening brief filed by obligated party petitioners on cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel. 09/08/2016 Brief Download Opening brief filed by obligated party petitioners on EPA’s refusal to consider the appropriate placement of the compliance obligation in the final rule. 02/05/2016 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed. More Companies Challenged Renewable Fuel Standard Rule. Additional parties joined the proceedings in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA’s final renewable fuel standard rule (RFS rule), which was published in December 2015. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) moved to intervene on the ground that was a leading supplier to the “first generation” ethanol industry and also that it had recently completed a “second generation” ethanol project—a cellulosic ethanol plant in Iowa. DuPont said it could bring the perspective of the “nascent cellulosic renewable fuel industry” to the proceedings. Monroe Energy, LLC, a petroleum products refiner, filed a separate petition for review, as did another group of refiners, the American Petroleum Institute, and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. Valero Energy Corporation, an energy company that refines transportation fuels and owns multiple ethanol plants, filed a petition for review challenging the RFS rule and also a separation petition seeking review of earlier EPA rulemakings concerning renewable fuel standard requirements, contending that the D.C. Circuit had jurisdiction to consider the challenges to the older rules because the petition was based on grounds that arose within 60 days after new grounds arose for challenging those rules. 01/13/2016 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers sought leave to intervene as a respondent, citing the rule’s direct regulation of its members and asserting that EPA could not adequately represent its membership’s interests. 01/08/2016 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Ethanol Industry Groups Sought Review of EPA Renewable Fuel Standards. Seven petitioners representing the ethanol and biofuel industry asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the final renewable fuel standard rule published in December 2015. In the final rule, EPA established percentage standards for blending cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel into motor vehicle gasoline and diesel produced and imported in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Citing “real-world challenges,” the rule set standards that are lower than would be required to meet statutory renewable fuel targets set in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. EPA said it was making use of the statute’s waiver provisions, and also noted that, after failing to meet statutory deadlines for issuing the renewable fuel standards for multiple years, it was returning to the statutory timeline. EPA said that the rule’s final volume requirements exceeded actual renewable fuel use in 2015 and that the required volumes would not result in stagnation in the growth of renewable fuel use. -
Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/09/2016 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/10/2016 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
American Petroleum Institute v. McCarthy
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/11/2016 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/11/2016 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
Valero Energy Corp. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/12/2016 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed.