from Feedstuffs.com
Monday the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's Renewable Fuels Standard 2 (RFS2) rule. The RFS2 rule was finalized and published in the Federal Register March 26.
The groups are challenging the legality of EPA's actions because the agency made the rule effective on July 1, 2010, but combines the 2009 and 2010 biomass-based diesel volumes and makes the rule retroactive to January 1, 2010.
The organizations both state they don't question the role renewable fuels can play in the nation's transportation fuel mix. In fact, API's statement said the U.S. oil and natural gas industry is the biggest consumer of ethanol and other biofuels. Almost 80% of all gasoline now produced in the United States contains ethanol. API said it supports a "realistic and workable RFS."
“While the U.S. oil and natural gas industry recognizes and appreciates the role of ethanol and other biofuels in the fuel marketplace, we are deeply concerned that the Environmental Protection Agency’s final RFS2 rule could result in higher consumer costs. By setting retroactive requirements, refiners, and ultimately consumers, will be penalized for EPA's inability to get this rule out on time as directed by Congress," API said.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required EPA to promulgate and finalize certain standards under the RFS2 program by specific dates in 2008 and 2009. The agency, however, failed to meet those statutory deadlines. Instead, in its recently published RFS2 final rule, "EPA retroactively and unlawfully imposed RFS2 compliance burdens on obligated parties, many of whom are NPRA members," the organization noted
“Simply put, the fact that EPA failed to meet its statutory obligations under current energy law does not give the Agency license to impose retroactively additional compliance burdens on obligated parties," said NPRA President Charles Drevna. "At the least, such action calls into serious question the fundamental fairness of EPA’s RFS2 rulemaking process."
