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)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe