Description: Challenge to EPA’s final Renewable Fuel Standards for 2017 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2018.
-
Valero Energy Corp. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 05/18/2020 Order List Download Certiorari denied. Supreme Court Declined to Consider Cases Raising “Point of Obligation” Issue in Renewal Fuels Program. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decisions in three cases that concerned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) annual determination of obligations in the Renewable Fuel Standard program. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and Valero Energy Corporation had sought the Court’s review of the issue of whether EPA was required to consider the appropriate “point of obligation”—the parties to whom the obligations should apply (refineries, blenders, or importers)—on an annual basis. 04/20/2020 Reply Download Reply filed by petitioners. 04/03/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by respondent in opposition to petition for writ of certiorari. 12/30/2019 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed by Valero Energy Corporation and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. -
Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/30/2019 Opinion Download Petitions for review denied. D.C. Circuit Dismissed Challenges to Renewable Fuel Standard Rules. The D.C. Circuit rejected a set of challenges to Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program rules. First, the court upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) denial of petitions to reconsider its 2010 “point of obligation” rule that imposed RFS compliance obligations on refiners and importers but not on blenders. Second, the court upheld EPA’s decision not to reassess categories of “obligated parties” when it issued the 2017 annual standards. Third, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s cellulosic biofuel projection for 2017 and the decision not to use the entirety of the discretionary cellulosic waiver to lower the 2017 requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel. Fourth, the court rejected a claim that the 2018 volume for biomass-based diesel was too low. 05/29/2018 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers et al. 05/29/2018 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioner National Biodiesel Board. 04/23/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by respondents. 01/22/2018 Brief Download Opening brief filed by petitioner National Biodiesel Board. 01/22/2018 Brief Download Opening brief filed by petitioners American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers et al. 03/10/2017 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene in support of respondent filed by American Petroleum Institute. 03/10/2017 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene on behalf of respondents filed by National Biodiesel Board. 03/10/2017 Order Download Motion to hold case in abeyance granted. 03/06/2017 Motion Download Unopposed motion to hold case in abeyance filed. 02/09/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Challenges Filed to Renewable Fuel Standards for 2017 and 2018 Biodiesel Standard. Seven petitions for review were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of EPA’s final Renewable Fuel Standards for 2017 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2018. The lead case was brought by Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC and Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC, companies that operate refineries in Kansas and Oklahoma. Other petitioners included other refinery and energy companies, American Petroleum Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and National Biodiesel Board. -
American Petroleum Institute v. McCabe
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/09/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. In its petition seeking review of EPA’s final Renewable Fuel Standards for 2017 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2018, the American Petroleum Institute said that the standards were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and that they were in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations. API also said that EPA had not complied with procedural requirements. -
Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/09/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/10/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/10/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
National Biodiesel Board v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/10/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. -
Valero Energy Corp. v. EPA
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/10/2017 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed.