Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA

American Petroleum Institute v. EPA 

13-1267D.C. Cir.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/08/2013
Petition
Petition for review filed.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. EPA 

13-1268D.C. Cir.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/10/2013
Petition
Petition for review filed.

Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA 

13-1265D.C. Cir.8 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
07/16/2014
Decision
Order issued denying rehearing
06/20/2014
Petition For Rehearing
Petition for rehearing filed.
Respondent-intervenor National Biodiesel Board (NBB) filed a petition for rehearing of a portion of the D.C. Circuit’s decision. NBB sought reconsideration of the holding that Monroe Energy, LLC had Article III standing to challenge the RFS. NBB argued that Monroe Energy’s claimed energy was higher compliance costs resulting from third-party actions, and that Monroe Energy had produced no evidence that a decision in its favor would have redressed such an injury. NBB urged a rehearing to prevent the use of annual challenges to the RFS to raise questions about “fundamental precepts” of the program.
05/06/2014
Decision
Opinion issued.
The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-15/pdf/2013-19557.pdf">rule</a> establishing the 2013 renewable fuel standards. In the final rule, which was issued months past the statutory deadline, EPA maintained the volumes for total renewable fuels and advanced biofuels established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. EPA reduced the statutory volume for cellulosic biofuel from 1.0 billion gallons to 6 million gallons. The D.C. Circuit rejected petitioner’s contentions that EPA had acted arbitrarily or unreasonably by not reducing the total renewable fuel quota despite having substantially reduced the volume for cellulosic biofuel and despite the constraints posed by the “E10 blendwall” created by the inability of U.S. vehicle engines to use gasoline consisting of more than 10% ethanol. The court also said that EPA’s failure to meet the statutory deadline for setting the RFS was not a basis for vacating the rule since obligated parties had been put on notice by the volumes set in the statute and EPA’s assertion in the proposed rule that it would not waive statutory volumes other than for cellulosic biofuel and because EPA had extended the compliance deadline by four months.
03/11/2014
Decision
Order issued granting motion to sever and hold in abeyance.
The court granted an unopposed motion by EPA to sever and hold in abeyance issues pertaining to the cellulosic biofuel standard, which EPA agreed to reconsider after learning that producers had lowered their production estimates. The D.C. Circuit established a new case (No. 14-1033) and required status reports on EPA’s reconsideration of the cellulosic biofuel standard every 60 days, starting on March 28. Oral argument on the challenge to other aspects of the 2013 renewable fuel standard was scheduled for April 7, 2014.