Biofuels Producers React to D.C. Circuit decision on RFS.
January 30, 2013 -
D.C. Circuit decided to vacate 2012 cellulosic biofuel standard and affirm 2012 advanced biofuel standard. In reaction, biofuel organization comprised of ABFA, AEC, ACE, BIO, Growth Energy, and RFA made joint statement in which it was noted, “although we disagree with the court’s decision vacating the 2012 cellulosic volumes, today’s decision once again rejects broad-brushed attempts to effectively roll back the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)."
Original Press release
Biotechnology Industry Organization
1201 Maryland Ave., SW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC, 20024
Joint Statement: Biofuels Producers React to Mixed D.C. Circuit Decision on RFS
WASHINGTON--The D.C. Circuit issued a narrow, but mixed decision today, vacating the 2012 cellulosic biofuel standard and affirming the 2012 advanced biofuel standard. Reacting to that decision, leading organizations representing biofuel producers — who had intervened in the litigation to defend the rulemaking — noted that although the court vacated the cellulosic standard, it also rejected API’s argument that EPA was required to follow the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s projections in setting its own. Similarly, the court rejected API’s argument that EPA was not entitled to consider information from cellulosic biofuel producers in setting its projection, finding that cellulosic producers were, of course, an “almost inevitable source of information” for EPA. According to the biofuel organizations, these were important decisions that give EPA flexibility in setting cellulosic biofuel volumes in the future.
“although we disagree with the court’s decision vacating the 2012 cellulosic volumes, today’s decision once again rejects broad-brushed attempts to effectively roll back the federal Renewable Fuel Standard.”
Nonetheless, the court vacated the cellulosic biofuel standard because it believed that EPA had impermissibly set the volume with the objective of promoting growth in the industry, rather than simply making an accurate prediction. The biofuels organizations strongly disagree with the court’s characterization of what EPA did — EPA did not determine a reasonably achievable volume and then inflate it. Rather, it set the volume based on the best information available to it at the time. Regardless, under the D.C. Circuit’s decision, EPA is free to reinstate the volumes that it had established, as long as the information available at the time would support the agency’s conclusion that those volumes were reasonably achievable. The court’s decision does not now require, or permit, EPA to set volumes based on hindsight.
The D.C. Circuit also affirmed the EPA’s decision not to reduce the advanced biofuel volume, categorically rejecting API’s arguments that EPA must be support its decision not to reduce the applicable volume of advanced biofuels with specific numerical projections.
In a joint statement, the biofuel organization stated that “although we disagree with the court’s decision vacating the 2012 cellulosic volumes, today’s decision once again rejects broad-brushed attempts to effectively roll back the federal Renewable Fuel Standard.”
The biofuel organizations include the Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA), Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC), American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Growth Energy, and Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). They are reviewing the court’s decision and assessing next steps in the matter.
Biotechnology Industry Organization
Paul Winters, 202-962-9237