Court rules EPA can't mandate nonexistent biofuels

The Hill:
A federal court delivered a blow to the biofuel industry Friday when it ruled the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must lower certain targets in a key biofuel-blending rule.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with the American Petroleum Institute (API), saying the EPA cannot set forward-leaning blending projections for cellulosic biofuel when supplies aren't available to meet the requirements.

“[W]e agree with API that EPA’s 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency’s statutory authority. We accordingly vacate that aspect of the 2012 RFS (renewable fuel standard) rule and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the court said in its decision.

A biofuel trade group official familiar with the case told The Hill that the court decision creates uncertainty for investment in cellulosic biofuels, a type of “advanced” biofuel made from non-edible feedstock.

The cellulosic portion is one component of the renewable fuel standard, the linchpin for the domestic biofuel industry. The petroleum trade group is trying to get Congress to repeal the rule while also fighting it on the legal front.

The Friday court decision on the cellulosic portion amounts to the oil-and-gas lobby's first major victory in that effort.

The rule requires refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuel into traditional transportation fuel by 2022. Of that total, the EPA had called for refiners to blend 10.45 million ethanol equivalent gallons last year — but producers pumped out just 22,000.

API said refiners were forced to buy credits for phantom gallons of cellulosic biofuel to meet the EPA’s targets. It said the EPA should bring its projections in line with actual production levels.

The court agreed with that opinion on Friday.

...
The EPA requirement made no sense and appear to be a way to generate revenues for the failure to use the nonexistent fuels and a blatant attempt to try to get gas producers to help generate the fuel.  The main reason it is not being produced is that it is not cost effective to produce it.

In a response to the ruling the API said:
...
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine the mandated volume of cellulosic biofuels each year at “the projected volume available.” There was no commercial supply of the fuel in 2012, according to EPA’s own records. EPA’s mandate would have required refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to pay over $8 million for credits to cover the 2012 mandate of 8.65 million gallons of the nonexistent biofuels. The court said that EPA is not allowed “to let its aspirations for a self-fulfilling prophecy divert it from a neutral methodology.” The court also pointed out the fundamental flaw with the overall biofuel mandates when it summarized this part of the program as, “[d]o a good job, cellulosic fuel producers. If you fail, we’ll fine your customers.”

...
I think the court should have invoked sanctions against the EPA for this extortion attempt.  This is another example of the regulatory overreach of the EPA under the Obama administration.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more