Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC v. EPA

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decisions in three cases that concerned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) annual determination of obligations in the Renewable Fuel Standard program. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and Valero Energy Corporation had sought the Court’s review of the issue of whether EPA was required to consider the appropriate “point of obligation”—the parties to whom the obligations should apply (refineries, blenders, or importers)—on an annual basis.

The D.C. Circuit rejected a set of challenges to Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program rules. First, the court upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) denial of petitions to reconsider its 2010 “point of obligation” rule that imposed RFS compliance obligations on refiners and importers but not on blenders. Second, the court upheld EPA’s decision not to reassess categories of “obligated parties” when it issued the 2017 annual standards. Third, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s cellulosic biofuel projection for 2017 and the decision not to use the entirety of the discretionary cellulosic waiver to lower the 2017 requirements for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel. Fourth, the court rejected a claim that the 2018 volume for biomass-based diesel was too low.

In its petition seeking review of EPA’s final Renewable Fuel Standards for 2017 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2018, the American Petroleum Institute said that the standards were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and that they were in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations. API also said that EPA had not complied with procedural requirements.