America Court docket of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC) has dominated in opposition to the Environmental Safety Company’s (EPA) rejection of small refineries’ functions for exemption from renewable gasoline obligations.
Two years in the past the federal company rejected 69 petitions for small refinery exemptions (SRE) from the Renewable Gasoline Commonplace for a number of of the compliance years between 2016 and 2021. The Clear Air Act (CAA) mandates the EPA to set annual minimal volumes of renewable fuels that refiners, blenders and gasoline importers should produce. These firms might meet their required volumes by mixing renewable fuels resembling ethanol with fossil fuels, in addition to by buying RFS credit.
In a choice made July 26, 2024, however solely printed publicly Wednesday, the DC Circuit defined that the EPA has been directed by Congress to permit exemptions on the grounds of “disproportionate financial hardship” for refineries that produce fewer than 75,000 barrels a day on common.
- Advertisement -
In its denial choice, the EPA cited a precedent case by which the Tenth Circuit had dominated that such exemptions might solely be granted if the financial hardship emanates from compliance with the RFS. “After reviewing greater than a decade of RFS market information, public feedback on a proposal EPA issued in December 2021, and confidential info submitted by petitioners, EPA concluded that not one of the 69 SRE petitions demonstrated disproportionate financial hardship attributable to compliance with the RFS program”, the EPA stated in a press release on its web site June 3, 2022.
Nonetheless, the attraction ruling penned by DC Circuit judges Florence Y Pan, Cornelia TL Pillard and Neomi Rao stated, “EPA’s definition of disproportionate financial hardship is inconsistent with the plain which means of the hardship exemption and contradicts different provisions within the CAA”.
“The Denial Actions solely centered on compliance prices as an alternative of financial hardship, uncared for the CAA’s directive to think about ‘different financial elements’ and launched an excessively strict causation requirement”, acknowledged the judgment, accessible on the official on-line portal of the nation’s courts.
“Prices can actually impose a hardship, however the financial hardship imposed by a regulatory motion can prolong past prices”, it stated. “Many issues, from geographic to refinery-specific elements, might end in the identical compliance prices affecting refineries in another way”.
The DC Circuit agreed with a Supreme Court docket choice that Congress’ provision of exemptions acknowledged, per the language of the Supreme Court docket, “the chance that small refineries may apply for exemptions in numerous years in gentle of market fluctuations and altering hardship circumstances”.
The court docket additionally disagreed with the EPA that hardship have to be attributable to RFS compliance. “Whereas the required financial hardship have to be attributable to RFS compliance, the statute nowhere means that this have to be the only real explanation for the hardship”, it stated, referring to the Clear Air Act.
It added, “EPA additionally erred by concluding that nonratable RIN purchases couldn’t be thought-about a ‘disproportionate financial hardship’ as a result of they aren’t attributable to RFS compliance.
RINs, or Renewable Identification Numbers, function the foreign money for RFS compliance by the use of credit. RINs are assigned to renewable fuels produced in or imported into the U.S. The EPA stated in a rule interpretation issued April 2022, “Obligated events might use a RIN to reveal compliance for the compliance yr by which the RIN is generated, or for the next compliance yr (for as much as 20 % of an obligated occasion’s obligations)”.
The DC Circuit disagreed with the EPA that RIN prices couldn’t be a floor for hardship aid as these are handed onto prospects. “Insofar because the CAA addresses the timing of RIN purchases, it expressly acknowledges the provision of nonratable RIN buying”, it defined. “The RIN deficit carryover provision permits refineries which are ‘unable to generate or buy enough credit to satisfy the [RFS] necessities… to hold ahead a renewable gasoline deficit’ beneath sure circumstances”.
“The refineries might then fulfill these RFS necessities via RIN purchases over the following yr”, the court docket added.
The case now determined is a consolidation of a number of ones launched over the EPA’s denial choice.
Whereas reversing the EPA’s denial of the petitions for RFS exemption, the DC Circuit dominated in opposition to a movement by ethanol producers’ affiliation Development Power to have an EPA different compliance pathway declared illegal. “We dismiss Development Power’s petition as a result of Development Power has did not reveal that it has standing to problem the Different Compliance Actions”, it stated.
Two refineries, Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co. and Wynnewood Refining Co., additionally pleaded the court docket to overturn the choice compliance pathway arguing it didn’t provide the businesses satisfactory aid. “We deny on the deserves Sinclair’s petition difficult the April [2022] Different Compliance Motion, and we dismiss Wynnewood’s petition as a result of it doesn’t problem a closing company motion”, the DC Circuit stated.
In a reply to a request for remark by Rigzone, the EPA stated it’s “reviewing the choice however has no additional info so as to add”.
To contact the creator, e-mail jov.onsat@rigzone.com
