Supreme Court Holds Small Refineries Remain Eligible for Renewable Fuel Standard Exemptions After Lapse

Legal Sidebari

Supreme Court Holds Small Refineries

Remain Eligible for Renewable Fuel Standard

Exemptions After Lapse

Updated June 28, 2021

In HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association, the Supreme Court held that small

refineries may receive small refinery exemptions (SREs) from the renewable fuel standard (RFS) even if

they have not received an exemption for every year of the program. Under the RFS, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires refineries and importers of non-renewable fuels to

blend a certain amount of renewable fuel into transportation fuel (or to obtain credits that fulfill this

requirement). Congress included exemption provisions in the RFS for small refineries, allowing those

refineries to petition EPA “at any time” “for an extension of the exemption . . . for the reason of

disproportionate economic hardship.” These exemptions have garnered attention from stakeholders and

Congress as the number of exemptions sought and granted increased significantly during the Trump

Administration. Several renewable fuels producers challenged EPA’s decisions to grant petitions to

exempt three small refineries. The Tenth Circuit vacated all three exemptions on several grounds, one of

which was appealed to the Supreme Court in HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining. The Supreme Court

reversed. This Sidebar provides background on the RFS, discusses the Tenth Circuit’s and Supreme

Court’s opinions, and explores its implications for Congress.

Small Refinery Exemptions Under the Renewable Fuel Standard

Under the Clean Air Act, the RFS generally requires EPA to ensure that increasing (i.e., market-forcing)

specified volumes of categories of renewable fuels are blended into transportation fuel in the United

States each year. In turn, EPA requires refineries and importers of non-renewable fuels (obligated parties)

to meet annual renewable volume obligations (RVOs) by either blending renewable fuels into

transportation fuel themselves or obtaining credits (renewable identification numbers or RINs) from other

entities that blended renewable fuels. Each obligated party’s individual RVO is based on its gasoline and

diesel production or imports and an annual percentage standard that EPA promulgates every year. The

annual percentage standards for each renewable fuel category are based on projected gasoline and diesel

consumption in the United States and the statutory volume requirements.

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

LSB10418

CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and

Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service

2

When the RFS was enacted in 2005, Congress included an exemption provision for small refineries.

Under the RFS, a refinery is considered a small refinery if it does not process more than 75,000 barrels a

day of crude oil on average in a calendar year. The RFS automatically exempted all small refineries from

RFS compliance until 2011 (i.e., through the 2010 compliance year). Congress required EPA to extend

this exemption for two additional years (i.e., through 2012) if, according to a study by the Secretary of

Energy, compliance with the RFS would subject small refineries to a “disproportionate economic

hardship.” In addition—and relevant to the Tenth Circuit decision—the RFS allows small refineries to

petition EPA “at any time” “for an extension of the exemption . . . for the reason of disproportionate

economic hardship.” The statute requires EPA to consult with the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding

any such petitions and to act on the petitions within 90 days of receiving them. If granted, the exemption

is only valid for a specified compliance year(s). Small refineries must petition for each compliance year

and demonstrate disproportionate economic hardship due to RFS compliance for that year.

EPA considers the information in small refinery exemption petitions (including the petitioners’ names)

and its decisions to grant or deny them to be confidential business information (CBI). As a result,

information about which refineries petitioned for the exemption, the outcome of those petitions, or the

analysis supporting EPA’s decision is only available to the extent the refinery itself discloses it. However,

EPA now publishes aggregate data on petitions received, grants issued, and volumes exempted on its RFS

Small Refinery Exemptions dashboard. According to the dashboard, EPA extended the small refinery

exemption for 24 small refineries for 2011 and 2012 pursuant to DOE’s study. EPA received as few as 13

petitions in 2014 and as many as 42 petitions in 2018 for small refinery exemptions. EPA granted the

fewest petitions in 2015, exempting seven small refineries, and the most to-date in 2017, exempting 35

small refineries. The increasing number of small refinery exemption petitions filed and granted beginning

with the 2016 compliance year has gained attention from a number of different stakeholders.

Tenth Circuit Opinion in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA

In the underlying Tenth Circuit litigation in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA, renewable fuels

producers challenged EPA’s decision to grant petitions to exempt three small refineries from the RFS for

specific compliance years: HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining LLC (Cheyenne) for 2016, HollyFrontier

Woods Cross Refining LLC (Woods Cross) for 2016, and Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC

(Wynnewood) for 2017. Despite the confidentiality of the exemption petition process, the petitioners

determined that the refineries had received the exemptions based on media reports and public company

filings. They challenged a number of aspects of EPA’s decisions, and the Tenth Circuit agreed with the

challengers with respect to two central legal issues.

The first grounds on which the Tenth Circuit vacated the small refinery exemptions was appealed to the

Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the petitioners that small refineries are only eligible to

receive a small refinery exemption if they have previously received an SRE for every compliance year up

to the compliance year for which they seek an exemption. The statute allows small refineries to petition

EPA for “an extension of the exemption.” To interpret this phrase, the court considered the plain meaning

of the term “extension” as defined by various dictionaries. These definitions, it determined, generally

involved something being increased or added to, such as a period of time. The court reasoned, based on

these definitions and “common sense,” “that the subject of an extension must be in existence before it can

be extended.” In other words, a small refinery could only extend an exemption it already had received. In

reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished extending an exemption from renewing or restarting it.

Based on this understanding, the court held that “a small refinery which did not seek or receive an

exemption in prior years is ineligible for an extension, because at that point there is nothing to prolong,

enlarge, or add to.” The court determined that this interpretation would “funnel[] small refineries towards

compliance over time” to achieve the “aggressive and ‘market forcing’” renewable fuels targets set by the

statute. Finding that none of the three small refineries at issue had received an exemption every year prior

Congressional Research Service

3

to the compliance years at issue in the petitions, the court held that the petitions were improperly granted.

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, which had intervened in the Tenth Circuit case, filed a petition for

certiorari with the Supreme Court for review of this holding.

The Tenth Circuit also vacated the SREs by concluding that EPA had erred in its analysis of the SRE

petitions. This holding was not appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Reverses Tenth Circuit in HollyFrontier Cheyenne

Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s holding that small refineries must have obtained

continuous SREs to continue to be eligible for an “extension” of the exemption. Looking to the “ordinary

or natural meaning,” the majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch reasoned that it is “consistent with ordinary

usage” to allow for an extension after a time period has lapsed or expired. The Court pointed to examples

such as a student asking for an extension after a deadline, or coronavirus aid legislation allowing for the

extension of certain public benefits that had lapsed—without retroactively providing benefits for the

intervening period. While affirming that an extension could include a continuity requirement, the Court

relied on other statutory “clues”—such as the fact that small refineries may petition for an extension “at

any time”—to conclude that Congress did not intend to require continuity for SREs.

The Court rejected the Renewable Fuels Association’s contention that the exemption was intended to “end

as quickly as possible,” concluding that the statutory language would have been an “odd way to achieve”

a sunset scheme. Furthermore, even under the sunset theory, small refineries that did obtain an exemption

every year could continue receiving them indefinitely. The Court took this fact as evidence that the

provision was not intended to sunset quickly.

Noting that the remaining arguments revolve around legislative intent and public policy justifications, the

Court concluded that both sides present plausible policy arguments for their favored interpretations. After

identifying multiple policy arguments with plausible competing narratives, the Court stated that “neither

the statute’s text, structure, nor history afford [the Court] sufficient guidance to be able to choose with

confidence between the parties’ competing narratives and metaphors.” The Court concluded, therefore,

that it could not rely on such policy arguments as a basis for its decision and it must depend solely on the

statutory text. Holding that the statutory text does not “command[] a continuity requirement,” the Court

reversed the Tenth Circuit opinion.

Justice Barrett dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. The dissent concluded that even if it

were possible to interpret “extension” as not requiring continuing, the term is “most naturally read” to

“dictate that the subject of an extension must be in existence before it can be extended.”

Considerations for Congress

With the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Tenth Circuit’s opinion, small refineries that have not received

continuous exemptions from the RFS are once again eligible to petition for SREs. Small refinery

exemptions have been of interest to many in the 116th and 117th Congresses. In light of the Tenth

Circuit’s opinion and Supreme Court’s reversal, Congress could consider whether the Supreme Court’s

interpretation reflects the intent of Congress as to which small refineries may be exempt from RFS

compliance. In particular, Congress could consider whether the exemption was intended to be available

for any compliance year as market conditions and economic factors change over time, as the Court

interprets congressional intent, or intended as a temporary measure to allow small refineries more time to

comply. To the extent the Court’s opinion does not reflect congressional intent, Congress could consider

amending the small refinery exemption provision to provide more explicit directions.

Congressional Research Service

4

Beyond amending the RFS to directly address the issues that the Supreme Court considered, Congress

may also more broadly examine the economic burden the RFS imposes on obligated parties, which cause

small refineries to petition for exemptions. To the extent Congress determines that any such costs are

higher than anticipated or have not generated the intended market-forcing effect, it could consider

amending other provisions of the RFS to modify either the burdens imposed or the parties who bear them.

Author Information

Erin H. Ward

Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff

to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of

Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of

information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.

CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United

States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,

as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the

permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10418 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED