New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Biofuels Mandate Survives Oil Industry Challenge in Court

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday threw out an oil industry challenge to the Obama administration's 2013 biofuel mandate, ruling that the government has "wide latitude" to decide whether to modify renewable fuel use targets, and by how much.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected arguments from refiners that the Environmental Protection Agency had not thoroughly considered how renewable fuel credits are used to satisfy federal targets.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The ruling could have broad implications for the biofuel mandate, as various groups weigh challenges to EPA's management of the program. The EPA's final 2014 quotas are due out in June.

The Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing amounts of biofuels such as ethanol to be blended into U.S. gasoline and diesel supplies through 2022.

U.S. refiners need to accumulate credits, or Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), to prove they have blended their share of renewable fuels into gasoline and diesel. If they do not blend, they need to buy RINs.

The oil industry unsuccessfully urged the EPA to lower the federal mandate to use 16.55 billion gallons of biofuels in 2013, saying it would unduly burden refiners.

In its challenge PBF Energy said EPA should not consider the use of left over ethanol credits from 2012 when setting targets for 2013.

"This contention is meritless," the court said, adding that "EPA was entitled to conclude, as it did, that it had wide latitude to consider a range of factors as appropriate."

Monroe Energy, a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines that operates the Trainer refinery complex in Pennsylvania, said the EPA's decision not to cut 2013 biofuel targets did not take into account that companies might need to carry over some ethanol credits for use in 2014, when it finalized the 2013 targets.

The company said the spike in RIN prices last year could cost Monroe more than $100 million.

But the court ruled that expensive fuel credits were not enough to warrant vacating the target and that there was "no ground to conclude the 2013 standards are unlawful simply because RINs are costlier than in prior years."

The court added that higher RIN prices should provide an incentive to invest in more fueling infrastructure and in diversification of the fuel supply.

Other challenges to the 2013 biofuel rule have not yet been ruled upon, the court noted.

The biofuel mandate was conceived at a time when fuel demand was expected to rise steadily.

But a slow economy and rising auto efficiency have kept fuel use stagnant, putting the nation on a course where the biofuel mandate will require more use of ethanol than U.S. fuel markets can currently absorb.

It was the approach of this so called "blend wall" that boosted RIN prices in 2013.

 

(Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller, Ros Krasny and Diane Craft)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe