Scottsdale, AZ — Today, at the 17^th annual Executive Leadership Conference (ELC), Growth Energy honored U.S. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa with the distinguished America’s Fuel Award —an award recognizing individuals who go above and beyond in championing renewable fuels. Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor commended Senator Ernst for her leadership and expressed gratitude for her commitment to advancing policies that support a bright future for American bioethanol.

“Senator Ernst has been one of the most effective biofuels champions in Congress, leading the charge to secure year-round E15, bolster the Renewable Fuel Standard, and enact programs that drive new investment in rural communities,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Always fighting for Iowa’s hardworking farmers, she has worked hard to expand opportunities for American agriculture, at home and abroad. She has been a champion in the truest sense of the word, and there is no doubt we will miss her voice in the Senate next year. We thank Senator Ernst for her unwavering commitment to homegrown fuels.”

Previous winners of the award include Dan Sanders, CEO of Front Range Energy, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen, former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and Raymond E. Defenbaugh, CEO and chairman of Big River Resources LLC in West Burlington, Iowa — along with many others who have made significant contributions to the U.S. bioethanol industry.

The post Growth Energy Honors U.S. Senator Joni Ernst with America’s Fuel Award appeared first on Growth Energy.

Growth Energy honors member excellence across the biofuels sector each year through its prestigious TOBI Awards, recognizing outstanding leadership in political advocacy, technical innovation, corporate and association leadership, communications, and global market development. These awards spotlight the individuals and organizations driving progress and advancing the industry’s impact nationwide and around the globe. Growth Energy is proud to celebrate the 2026 TOBI Award winners at its Executive Leadership Conference, set against the striking desert landscape of Scottsdale, Arizona.

“This year’s winners embody the vision, ingenuity, and determination propelling the biofuels sector forward,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Their leadership is not only strengthening rural economies but also advancing America’s energy security and reinforcing the critical role of bioethanol in our nation’s energy future.”

This year’s award for Membership was presented to Tom Solon. Solon has been a champion of biofuels and a leader across the industry, whether he’s in Washington, D.C. or his home state of Nebraska. Chief Executive Officer of Mid America Agri Products/Wheatland (MAAPW), he plays a critical role in advancing the goals of the industry and strengthening the collective voice and impact of Growth Energy.

The TOBI award for Advocacy was presented to Trevor Reuschel. A leader on Capitol Hill, in agriculture, and the biofuels industry, Reuschel has played a critical role in industry-wide negotiations and federal advocacy. As Vice President of Federal Government Relations for ADM his expertise has helped expand the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit, bolster the Renewable Fuel Standard, and advance progress on year-round E15.

The TOBI award for Public Affairs was presented to Bill Couser. Couser has been an effective messenger for the industry, conveying the impact of bioethanol on rural America. As President of Couser Cattle Company, President of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Foundation, and Vice President and Secretary of Lincolnway Energy, Couser brings the industry’s gains to life, earning support and winning over new allies along the way.

The 2026 TOBI award for Global Market Development was presented to Doug Berven. Berven has led the U.S. Grains and Bioproducts Council’s Ethanol Action Team on trade missions across the globe, using his mastery of the bioethanol and agriculture story to communicate the industry’s contributions to the global economy. As Vice President of Corporate Affairs at POET, Berven continues to be one of the industry’s strongest global advocates.

The TOBI award for Technical & Regulatory was presented to Dr. Bob McCormick. Dr. McCormick’s research has amassed over 16,000 citations and has been instrumental in advancing new ethanol markets, from mid-level blends to aviation and marine fuel. As a senior research fellow and platform leader for fuels and combustion research at the National Laboratory of the Rockies, Dr. McCormick’s expertise is critical to accelerating bioethanol adoption across all applications.

And finally, the Get Biofuel TOBI award was presented to Jen Franzoni. As the Public Relations Manager – Technology & Innovation at John Deere, Franzoni has been a formidable partner in executing a multi-faceted media effort to showcase renewable fuel’s impact on the ag economy, including during the NASCAR Iowa Corn 350 race weekend. Franzoni’s continued leadership drives a new level of innovation and creativity within the industry.

The post Growth Energy Honors Top Biofuel Industry Leaders with 2026 TOBI Award Ceremony appeared first on Growth Energy.

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.—Today, Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, welcomed industry leaders and innovators to The Phoenician in Scottsdale, Arizona, for the organization’s 17th annual Executive Leadership Conference (ELC). ELC gathers Growth Energy members from across the country to engage in executive-level educational programming, strategic planning, and networking within the biofuels industry. 

Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor kicked off the conference with a keynote address focused on the growing demand for American biofuels in the U.S. and around the world. 

“The entire country is focused on energy — and we stand apart for the unique benefits that we alone can inject into America’s future,” said Skor. 

One of the industry’s top policy priorities, according to Skor, remains securing permanent, year-round access to E15 — a more affordable fuel blend made with 15% American ethanol that can be used in 96% of cars on the road today. In her remarks, Skor emphasized that consumer demand for E15 continues to grow nationwide and that Congress must deliver a lasting solution. 

“We are not going to stop pushing until our lawmakers make law,” said Skor. 

Skor also highlighted the importance of a strong Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), expanding access to global markets, and policies that reward innovation and support growth across rural America. 

In addition to the keynote address, this year’s ELC features 19 executive-level educational panels and sessions with speakers from across the renewable fuels, retail, public, and agricultural sectors. The event is ongoing in Scottsdale, Arizona. Follow along on social media using the hashtag #ELC2026. 

The post Growth Energy Kicks Off 17th Annual Executive Leadership Conference appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, today called on lawmakers to act swiftly on E15 following another disappointing farm income forecast from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

“Rural America is hurting,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “Corn growers were already expecting a net loss of $180 per acre, and this latest USDA report confirms that the broader farm income isn’t faring much better. Our growers don’t want to depend on federal aid for their livelihood — they want strong, stable markets for their crops. That’s exactly what E15 delivers — an immediate source of demand for up to 2.4 billion additional bushels of corn — at no cost to taxpayers. Best of all, it means lower fuel prices for American drivers. Congress simply can’t afford to wait any longer to deliver a permanent fix for E15.”

The post Growth Energy Presses E15 Fix Following USDA Farm Income Forecast appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, today welcomed proposed rulemaking from the U.S. Treasury and U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the Section 45Z clean fuel production tax credit. The credit was enhanced and extended by the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) last summer, and Treasury’s proposed rule outlines eligibility requirements for farmers and biofuel producers seeking to expand production of American biofuels.

“American energy dominance runs through America’s heartland,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “A strong, well-implemented 45Z credit can unleash lower-cost fuels, rebuild farm income, and open long-term market opportunities for American manufacturing. We applaud the Department of Treasury and the Trump administration for working to advance this rulemaking to chart a clear path for billions of dollars in new investments in U.S. energy leadership.

“The proposed rule provides much-needed clarity around key issues, including how credits will be calculated and who is eligible. We are encouraged that Treasury’s latest draft reflects Growth Energy’s comments regarding the need to offer greater freedom and flexibility to producers around ‘qualified sale’, production of undenatured ethanol for export, and implementation of provisions from the One, Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB).

“However, some key questions still remain unresolved. Before the rule is finalized, we urge regulators to swiftly release an updated 45Z-CF GREET model that appropriately reflects the removal of indirect land use change and includes the use of farm practices to count toward carbon reduction goals.

“President Trump knows that American farmers and biofuel producers are ready to put more American-made fuel into the marketplace, hold down energy costs, and secure American energy leadership. Treasury’s proposal is an important step to help to make that vision a reality.”

The post Growth Energy Welcomes 45Z Progress appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, applauded a new United States–Guatemala Agreement on Reciprocal Trade. According to United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, the agreement will solidify new markets for U.S. exports and strengthen strategic economic ties in the Western Hemisphere. As part of the deal, Guatemala has agreed to transition to E10 ethanol blends for on-road use, and it shall endeavor to purchase at least 50 million gallons of ethanol from the United States annually.

“Every new market is another opportunity to close the gap between supply and demand for our farmers and fuel America’s energy leadership,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “We applaud Ambassador Greer and the Trump administration for working to ensure that U.S. biofuel exports remain a bright spot for trade — one that supports working-class jobs and strengthens American manufacturing. Exports of 50 million gallons to Guatemala would translate to a market for 17.2 million bushels of U.S. corn, and that number will only grow as more of our trading partners add more lower-cost ethanol to their fuel supplies.”

The post Growth Energy Applauds Trade Deal with Guatemala appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A broad coalition of trade groups representing ethanol producers, petroleum refiners, farmers, and retailers sent a letter to the co-chairs of the new E15 Rural Domestic Energy Council calling for swift action to deliver lower prices for consumers and a stable, efficient fuels marketplace. The letter outlines recommendations for consensus legislation to permit year-round, nationwide sales of E15 and improve long-term policy certainty across the transportation fuel sector.

“[T]he time window for arriving at a recommended legislative solution is short, with the council expected to submit legislative solutions to the full House by February 15th, only 16 days from today. We applaud this expedited time frame as fuel producers and retailers are making decisions now about product offerings over the next year, farmers are making planting decisions, and a legislative fix is needed as soon as possible to provide fuel producers and retailers with a predictable policy framework as we approach the summer driving season,” the organizations wrote.

To “achieve a solution in short order,” the groups urged lawmakers to build upon H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, that was amended and offered for consideration by Representative Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) last week before the Rules Committee. These include fixing outdated regulations on summer sales of E15 and limiting the marketplace distortions caused by Small Refiner Exemptions (SRE) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

“H.R. 1346 has broad support from the overwhelming majority of biofuels, agriculture, fuel retail, and oil refining interests, and is the most comprehensive pathway to a legislative solution,” the organizations wrote.

Signatories on the letter included the Agriculture Retailers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Petroleum Institute, Corn Refiners Association, Growth Energy, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, NATSO, National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers, Renewable Fuels Association, and SIGMA.

Full text of the letter can be found at GrowthEnergy.org.

The post Broad Coalition of Farm and Fuel Leaders Rally Behind Immediate E15 Fix appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Growth Energy today applauded President Trump on his remarks in Iowa, where he reiterated his support for E15, highlighting its vital role in supporting farmers, expanding U.S. exports, and delivering affordable fuel choices for consumers. Most notably, the President reaffirmed his promise to secure year-round access to E15, telling the crowd that House and Senate leadership are “very close to getting it done,” and pledging to sign the bill “without delay.”

“The President has championed E15 from his first term, on the campaign trail, and upon his return to the White House,” said Emily Skor, Growth Energy CEO. “His remarks today underscore his steadfast support, and we look forward to swift action in Congress and the President signing this when it comes to his desk.”

The White House quickly shared a video clip promoting the President’s remarks, available here.

The post Growth Energy Cheers President Trump’s Push for Year-Round E15 appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, issued the following statement after it was announced that a legislative fix for year-round E15 was dropped from the January government funding bill, and that Congress will instead form a “rural energy council” to formulate another compromise bill with petroleum interests, and with expectations for a vote in February.

“Congress picked foreign refiners over American farmers and drivers today. What a travesty,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “E15 delivers cost savings for consumers and generates long-term demand for American agriculture. These have been the facts during the twelve-year-long debate over the simple act of allowing consumers the choice to buy a better value fuel year-round. Failure to act will now lead to farmers missing out on a critical market during the worst farm crisis in 40 years. Consumers will also miss out on access to more affordable fuel choices. Instead of supporting farmers and affordability, Congress appears to have prioritized the demands of a few well-capitalized foreign refiners that plead poverty with lawmakers while boasting financial success with investors.

“This council must deliver a solution for year-round E15. It’s imperative that leaders in Congress focus their energies on getting this over the finish line in an expedited timeline.

“We especially want to thank our congressional champions who have fought to make this issue a top priority for Congress. While the creation of a council to work on E15 legislation falls short of the immediate action we need, Growth Energy intends to fully participate in this process and ensure our champions in Congress have the support they need to deliver a victory for rural America.

“If lawmakers want to show they can still deliver practical solutions—solutions that lower costs, strengthen domestic energy production, and meet Americans where they are—passing year-round E15 is the place to start.” 

The post Congress’ “Rural Energy Council” is a Disgrace appeared first on Growth Energy.

In a letter sent today to congressional leadership, a coalition of more than 70 biofuel groups and agricultural organizations called for the immediate passage of legislation to allow year-round nationwide sales of the American-made E15 fuel blend, containing 15 percent ethanol. Year-round E15 would benefit drivers with savings of 10 to 30 cents per gallon and improve markets for America’s farmers.

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects a record 16.8-billion-bushel corn harvest in 2025—up roughly 13 percent from 2024,” the groups wrote. “While this demonstrates the strength and productivity of America’s farmers, it also intensifies pressure on corn prices and farm incomes. Expanding E15 access is one of the most immediate and practical ways to address this imbalance. When fully scaled, year-round, nationwide E15 is poised to create new domestic demand for billions of bushels of corn and sorghum, help stabilize markets, support farmers, and deliver consumer savings at the pump.”

The letter was led by Growth Energy, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, and the Renewable Fuels Association.

In recent years, the organizations noted, E15 availability during the summer driving season has depended on temporary emergency waivers. While these annual actions provide short-term relief, they are not a sustainable or reliable solution. Year-to-year uncertainty discourages investment in fuel infrastructure, confuses consumers, and undermines confidence among retailers and refiners.

“With a record corn crop filling bins across America, farmers cannot afford another season of uncertainty and negative margins. Markets need consistency and predictability, which requires permanent legislative action by Congress. We respectfully urge you to act this year to pass year-round E15 legislation,” the groups wrote.

Read the full letter here.

The post Ag, Biofuel Groups Continue Call for Year-Round Sales of Lower-Cost E15 appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, expressed its support today for regulatory amendments proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that streamline the regulatory process, addressing unnecessary barriers that have the potential to undermine the benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a clean energy program that drives economic and environmental benefits by promoting the use of American biofuels. 

FWS and NMFS proposed a rulemaking that clarifies how Section 7 consultations are conducted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This is relevant to the RFS because some organizations have argued that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct costly and time-consuming “formal” ESA consultations regarding the agency’s proposed RFS renewable volume obligations (RVOs)—despite findings by several agencies that such consultations are unnecessary.  

“A strong RFS drives economic growth while making fuel more affordable—these amendments clarify that agencies like EPA can help the RFS deliver those benefits without unnecessary regulatory hurdles,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “We commend FWS and NMFS for proposing these changes and look forward to seeing them finalized. We’ll continue to work with Congress and the Administration to maximize the positive impact of the RFS on drivers, the economy and the environment.” 

Read Growth Energy’s comments to FWS and NMFS here. 

The post Growth Energy: Amendments to ESA Rules Would Strengthen the RFS  appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, applauded the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today after the agencies published a notice for taxpayers seeking to claim the 45Q tax credit for carbon sequestration.  

American ethanol producers, and Growth Energy’s members in particular, are leaders in the deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) technology. Today’s notice provides a safe harbor that allows taxpayers to verify carbon sequestration, making it easier for participating biofuel producers to claim the 45Q tax credit for 2025. 

“American ethanol producers have always been on the cutting edge of carbon capture technology,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “This safe harbor affirms the investments our members have made in CCUS today and supports more investment in CCUS in the future. We applaud the IRS and Treasury for working quickly to provide certainty for the 2025 tax year and look forward to working with them to continue supporting innovation and investment in rural communities across the U.S.”  

Read the IRS announcement here. 

Background 

Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would reconsider the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, a part of which companies would use to verify and report their geologic carbon sequestration for the 45Q tax credit. Concerned about the impact of this proposal on those that rely on the program for verification, Growth Energy filed comments with EPA in November urging the agency to “do no harm” until a solution can be put in place by the Department of Treasury. With today’s action, IRS has provided such a solution, giving taxpayers a safe harbor to verify carbon sequestration they can use to claim the credit in 2025.  

The post Growth Energy Commends IRS for Finalizing 45Q Safe Harbor appeared first on Growth Energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy today congratulated Julie Callahan on her confirmation as the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) chief agricultural negotiator.

“As the Trump Administration works to strengthen America’s hand in global trade and deliver new opportunities for U.S. agriculture, Julie Callahan’s leadership will be essential,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “Her deep experience at USTR and strong command of the issues facing our farmers and biofuel producers make her an outstanding choice for this critical role.”

“We look forward to continue working with her to advance trade opportunities and expand export markets for biofuels, and to support continued growth and certainty for rural communities across the country.” 

The post Growth Energy Congratulates Julie Callahan on Her Confirmation as USTR Chief Ag Negotiator appeared first on Growth Energy.

DENVER, COLO. and ATLANTA, GA.—Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, filed briefs in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and 11th Circuits yesterday urging the courts to reject attempts by refiners to circumvent recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent on venue by bringing challenges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) August 2025 small refinery exemption (SRE) decision in those two circuits, rather than in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in EPA v. Calumet, which addressed Clean Air Act venue, or, in other words, the proper court in which to bring certain Clean Air Act challenges. The Court held that SRE decisions EPA issued in April and June 2022 were based on determinations that have “nationwide scope or effect,” and therefore must be litigated in the D.C. Circuit, whose decisions on agency actions often cover the entire U.S.

Refiners have now brought new challenges, outside of the D.C. Circuit, to EPA’s August 2025 SRE decisions. The refiners argued that the determinations on which those decisions were based do not fit within the parameters for D.C. Circuit venue established under Calumet. In support of EPA’s own briefing opposing the refiners, Growth Energy argued that the refiners’ challenges rested on a “fundamental misunderstanding” of EPA’s decisions.

“The facts in this case are clear. EPA’s August 2025 SRE decisions were based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect and should be litigated in the D.C. circuit,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “The courts should dismiss or transfer these challenges to the circuit where they belong, and avoid creating a patchwork of inconsistent case law that ultimately increases market uncertainty and undermines the strength of American farmers and biofuel producers.”

Read Growth Energy’s briefs in the 10th Circuit here and here. Read Growth Energy’s briefs in the 11th Circuit here and here. 

The post Growth Energy Urges Courts to Reject Refinery SRE Challenges appeared first on Growth Energy.

Ethanol industry highlights ethanol deficit in Chinese purchases under Phase One Agreement as USTR reviews compliance.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—As the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) heard testimony today on its Section 301 investigation into China’s implementation of the Phase One trade agreement, Growth Energy’s written comments highlighted significant shortfalls in Chinese purchases of U.S. ethanol and other agricultural commodities, and urged the administration to ensure Beijing is held to its commitments to American farmers and biofuel producers.

“The Trump Administration is right to closely scrutinize China’s failure to meet its agricultural purchase commitments,” said Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor. “America’s ethanol producers and corn growers stood ready to deliver on the market access promised under Phase One. When China committed to substantial agricultural purchases, our industry invested and prepared accordingly. We appreciate USTR’s leadership in examining these shortfalls and look forward to working with the administration to ensure American ethanol producers receive the fair treatment and market access they deserve.”

In comments submitted to USTR’s Section 301 investigation, Growth Energy detailed major gaps between China’s commitments and actual purchases:

Overall Agricultural Shortfalls:

• China’s agricultural purchases reached only 82 percent of committed levels in 2020 and 84 percent in 2021.

• Total agricultural gap: $12 billion below Phase One commitments.

• The additional $5 billion per year China agreed to “strive for” never materialized.

Ethanol-Specific Deficits:

• China was the third largest export market for U.S. ethanol in 2016

• U.S. ethanol exports to China fell 39 percent below the 2017 baseline in 2020, despite China committing to a 64 percent increase in overall agricultural purchases.

• Estimated cumulative ethanol purchase deficit: $88.6 million during the Phase One implementation period.

• Since 2021, ethanol exports to China have essentially disappeared.

Signed in January 2020, the Phase One agreement committed China to $32 billion in additional agricultural purchases over two years above 2017 levels. Although the agreement did not specify commodity-specific targets, ethanol was explicitly included as an eligible agricultural product.

Growth Energy represents 97 U.S. ethanol plants producing 9.5 billion gallons annually, along with 130 associated businesses. Its members are among the nation’s leading exporters, supporting nearly two billion gallons of ethanol exports to more than 60 countries worldwide.

Growth Energy’s complete comments to USTR are available here.

The post Growth Energy Urges Swift Action on China’s Unfulfilled Agricultural Purchases appeared first on Growth Energy.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations in response
to the November 6 Biofuels Land Use Change Public Forum. Growth Energy is the world’s
largest association of bioethanol producers, representing 97 producer plants, more than
130 associate members up and down the supply chain, and tens of thousands of biofuels
supporters across the country. Together, we are working to bring better and more
affordable choices at the fuel pump to consumers, improve air quality, and protect the
environment for future generations.
As our comments during the rulemaking for the 2024 Amendments to the LCFS
repeatedly noted, the long-outdated LUC value for bioethanol codified in the previous
and current LCFS regulations warrants reconsideration.
A Large Body of Credible Scientific Evidence Supports a Lower LUC Value for
Corn Bioethanol.
Since the inception of the LCFS, CARB has over-penalized crop-based biofuels due to
the agency’s misconceptions of the nature of their impact on land use change. Initially,
in 2009, corn starch bioethanol was assigned a 30 gCO2e/MJ penalty1
, a number our
industry argued was unsupported by credible evidence and lacking an empirical basis.
In the rulemaking process that produced this hyper-conservative figure, scientists
emphasized that there was “much uncertainty in measuring indirect emissions related
to” biofuels, creating unresolved difficulties on “whether and how to calculate” indirect
1 Even this value illustrates how LUC estimates decrease as models are refined. In the 2009 rulemaking process,
CARB’s estimate decreased from 35 gCO2e/MJ to 32 gCO2e/MJ and finally to 30 gCO2e/MJ as new model inputs
were incorporated into the model. See Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard (March 5, 2009), at IV-31
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2009/lcfs09/lcfsisor1.pdf
land use change.2 CARB then acknowledged 30 gCO2e/MJ overstated estimated LUC
and revised the figure downward to 19.8 in 2016, which, almost a decade later, remains
the codified value.
Over the last decade, the models and underlying data sets used to estimate land use
change have been greatly refined, resulting in a clear downward trend. For example, a
2021 review of the scientific literature derived a central best LUC estimate of 3.9
gCO2e/MJ for corn bioethanol.3 The U.S. Department of Energy, in conjunction with
multiple federal agencies, recently updated the model for federal tax credit purposes
under Section 45Z; that 2025 model incorporates a LUC estimate of 5.75 gCO2e/MJ for
corn bioethanol while relying on the same basic suite of models as CARB’s 2015
figure.
4
And a November 2025 analysis published by Dr. Stefan Unnasch and
economist Brian Healy of Lifecycle Associates evaluated a range of recent models with
“updated data and refined treatment of co-products, livestock, and soil carbon,” and
concluded that such refinements result in LUC estimates of “roughly 5 gCO2e/MJ.”
In addition, recent testimony from Dr. Tristan Brown during the rulemaking process for
New Mexico’s Clean Transportation Fuel Standard provides a number of examples of
updated data sets using more recent science than what is currently used by the LCFS
for crop-based biofuels.5 Since 2014, the LCFS uses a combination of GTAP-BIO and
AEZ-EF modeling for land use change. Even in 2014, the data used in AEZ-EF was
based on 8-year-old international GHG inventory methods and default values. In written
testimony to New Mexico’s Environmental Improvement Board, Dr. Brown notes there
have been “steady improvements made to both the GTAP-BIO model and the overall CI
score calculation methodology.” Additionally, given GREET’s status as the “primary
means of calculating lifecycle GHG emissions”, Argonne National Laboratory created
the Carbon Calculator for Land Use Change from Biofuels Production (CCLUB). CCLUB
is intended to “replace[s] the obsolete AEZ-EF model” and utilize the latest land use
change research and observable data. Examples of these observations include a
leveling-off, and in some cases, a decline in the acres harvested for corn bioethanol, all
while yield increased. When using the most up-to-date research (GTAP-BIO + CCLUB),
Dr. Brown concludes that corn bioethanol’s LUC value is 6.1 gCO2e/MJ.
2 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/BARCU/barcu-attach-old/lcfs09.archive/251-2009_liska_perrin_bbb.pdf
3 Scully, et. al. Carbon intensity of corn ethanol in the United States: state of the science, 16 Environ. Res. Lett. 4
(2021).
4 45ZCF-GREET Model (January 2025), https://www.energy.gov/eere/greet
5 https://www.env.nm.gov/opf/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/09/2025-09-02-EIB-25-23-Growth-Energys-NOIpj.pdf
Each of these four recent analyses are closely aligned around an estimated LUC range
of 3.9 – 6.1 gCO2e/MJ; far lower than the decade-plus old 19.8gCO2e/MJ currently
used in the LCFS.
Even these improved estimates likely overestimate LUC impacts. To elaborate, LUC
theory assumes that biofuels consumption in California can and will increase crop
commodity prices to a sufficient degree to drive farmers’ planting and land conversion
decisions across the globe. However, it is not possible in the real-world to isolate
impacts of California biofuels consumption from the multitude of other factors that may
more directly impact global crop commodities markets, including, for example, the
impact of agricultural, tariff, and land use policies implemented by other state and
foreign governments. This is particularly true in the context of corn bioethanol in
California, where CARB projects that bioethanol demand will decline as light-duty
electric vehicle penetration increases.6
Where bioethanol demand is declining, it simply
does not create any price signal that would drive increases in corn production.
Moreover, even if bioethanol demand were to remain steady or increase modestly,
analysis of existing trends demonstrates that over 600 million gallons of additional
bioethanol could be produced using the same corn acreage currently in production
today as a result of yield increases and other efficiency improvements.7
Indeed,
separate analyses by both Stillwater Associates and Ramboll have concluded (in the
context of the federal RFS program) that increased bioethanol demand in the U.S. has
very little to no impact on global corn prices.8
This is further affirmed by a growing body
of empirical evidence: for example, a 2022 International Energy Agency report
evaluated real-world data from 2005–2015 and found “no link” between increased U.S.
biofuel production and corn production or deforestation in Brazil.9
Instead, the report
casts doubt on any relationship between biofuel production and corn prices or livestock
production.
Despite the best available science converging around LUC estimates near 5 gCO2e/MJ
and the lack of empirical evidence to validate LUC theory, CARB concerningly relies on
6 CARB Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment, 2024 LCFS Amendments (Dec. 19, 2023) at 18, Fig. 4.
7 Stillwater Associates, LLC, RFS Set II Proposal Analysis at 17, https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OAR2024-0505-0646/attachment_3.pdf. See also
8
Id. at 9 (finding that “the actual effect on corn prices” from the most recent RFS program volume incentives “is
close to 0%.”); Ramboll and Net Gain Ecological Services, Review of Environmental Effects and Economic
Analysis of Corn Prices: EPA’s Proposed RFS Standards for 2023-2025 at 23-24, Figure 3-5, 3-6 (finding that “the
statistical dependency between corn prices and RFS volumes is either non-existent or very weak”).
9
IEA Bioenergy, Towards an improved assessment of indirect land-use change, Task 43 – Task 38 Report (October
2022).
repeatedly debunked studies from Searchinger et. al.10 and Lark et. al.11 for the Forum,
indicating an institutional unwillingness to consider more recent scientific evidence. In
contrast, we believe it is long past time for CARB to update the LUC values for cropbased biofuels in the LCFS consistent with the work of Dr. Brown, the U.S. DOE, and
other credible researchers.
Sustainability Requirements Render LUC Penalty Obsolete
In the most recent amendments to the LCFS, CARB implemented requirements for
crop-based biofuels purportedly to prove their sustainability, namely, to ensure that no
feedstocks for LCFS pathways came from land converted into cropland after 2008, and
verification processes to confirm sourcing.
12
In the most recently rulemaking, CARB’s Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)
acknowledges potential direct and indirect land use change “is at least partially (and
potentially fully) accounted for by the LUC scores added to crop-derived pathways.”13
This acknowledgement renders the need for a sustainability certification moot and must
be accounted for in CARB’s current reconsideration of the LUC estimate appropriate to
apply to bioethanol.
This double penalty is particularly unbalanced where CARB denies bioethanol
producers the ability to utilize a wide range of on-farm practices to demonstrate GHG
reductions. It should be noted that many of those on-farm practices are recognized by
other California state agencies as tools to reduce the release of soil carbon.14
The
combination of an inflated LUC penalty untethered from the best available science with
10 See, e.g. Zilberman, D, Indirect land use change: much ado about (almost) nothing. GCB Bioenergy, 9(3), 485-
488. (2017) (“Searchinger et al. (2008) results may now be seen as fundamentally flawed not just because the ILUC
is uncertain and estimates vary considerably, but also because it fails to capture the basic features of agricultural
industries and land resources.”); see also https://growthenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Net-Gain-Rambollstudies.pdf
11See, e.g. Taheripour, et al., Comments on “Environmental Outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard” (Mar.
21, 2022) (identifying “extreme” and “difficult to rationalize” inconsistencies in Lark et al. studies); Taheripour et
al., Response to comments from Lark et al. regarding Taheripour et al. March 2022 comments on Lark et al.
original PNAS paper (May 25, 2022) (reaffirming “major deficiencies, problematic assessments, and
misinterpretation” and determining that “the Lark et al. paper is more problematic than what we initially
evaluated”); Review of Recent PNAS Publication on GHG Impacts of Corn Ethanol, USDA (Dec. 14, 2022) (noting
“major methodological flaws” and observing that Lark’s findings “cannot be corroborated with USDA site level,
modeled, or national datasets.”).
12 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/atta1_finalcomparison_070125.pdf
13 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2024/lcfs2024/recirculated_draft_eia.pdf
14 https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/10/07/governor-newsom-launches-innovative-strategies-to-use-california-land-tofight-climate-change-conserve-biodiversity-and-boost-climate-resilience/
the failure to acknowledge scientifically-supported low-carbon agricultural practices
creates a significant distortion in bioethanol carbon intensity scores that unfairly harms
producers and California consumers.
Corn Acreage Unchanged Despite Increased Bioethanol Demand
Even as demand for bioethanol increased, the number of acres of corn planted and
harvested have remained largely unchanged. As we have referenced in multiple
previous comments during the most recent LCFS amendment rulemaking, the growth in
corn production in the United States has come from improvements in yield while the
number of acres used to produce corn are roughly the same number of acres used in
1900.
Since 1900, the top 25 years with the most increase in acreage relative to the nation’s
average of 77.745 million acres of corn production all occurred in or before 1933.15
15 https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/data/data_source/10337/10337_corn_yield_acres.xlsx
Analysis of more recent trends again demonstrates that corn plantings have remained
stable while yield increased. The amount of land required to produce one billion gallons
of bioethanol has decreased from 3.1 million acres in 2007 to 1.9 million acres in
2024.16
Over this time, corn acres planted have remained constant, illustrating that both
the LUC penalty and the burdensome sustainability requirements are unnecessary for
corn starch bioethanol:
Conclusion and Recommendations
With the temporary approval of E15 via AB 30 and the subsequent rulemaking for
permanent approval, liquid fuels with higher bioethanol content have the potential to
significantly improve the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuel mix. CARB
has a legal and policy imperative to expeditiously incorporate the best available science
16 Stillwater Associates, LLC, RFS Set II Proposal Analysis at 9, https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OAR2024-0505-0646/attachment_3.pdf
on land use change estimates for bioethanol. As summarized above, the weight of the
credible scientific evidence requires a substantial downward shift in bioethanol’s LUC
value.
Growth Energy also encourages CARB to allow the use of climate-smart agricultural
practices, some of which include precision application of fertilizer, use of low CI fertilizer,
no or low-till farming practices, and the use of cover crops.17
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on land use change. We urge CARB to
recognize the role biofuels have played and can continue to play in decarbonizing
California’s transportation fuel supply.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Bliley
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
Growth Energy
17 https://growthenergy.org/policy-priority/climate-smart-agriculture/

December 4, 2025
Matt Botill
Division Chief
Industrial Strategies Division
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Via electronic submission
RE: Biofuels Land Use Change Public Forum
Mr. Botill:

The post Comments in Response to California Biofuels Land Use Change Public Forum appeared first on Growth Energy.

Dear Mr. President:
We write on behalf of organizations representing ethanol producers, oil refiners, fuel
marketers, travel plazas, truck stops, and convenience store retailers to express the need
for long-term policy certainty across the transportation fuel sector. Our diverse group of
industries often have unique policy priorities and market concerns, but we have always
shared a common goal to provide affordable, reliable liquid fuels for consumers. However,
our collective ability to continue to do so is being threatened by the ongoing uncertainty
regarding the sale of year-round E15 and the administration of Small Refinery Exemptions
(SREs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program.
E15 continues to play an expanding role in the fuel marketplace, but unpredictable shortterm waivers, seasonal and geographic restrictions, and regionally unique summer
gasoline specifications in the Midwest have created a shifting regulatory environment that
complicates planning and investment. Legislation allowing the year-round, nationwide
sale of E15 would improve fungibility and substantially reduce many of the complexities
that arise for our industries as we operate in a national marketplace.
In addition, we believe Congress must take legislative action to reform the Small Refinery
Exemption program. The current SRE structure has encouraged a system of winners and
losers that distorts the marketplace, creates instability, and ultimately, hurts consumers.
A more consistent and narrowly applied SRE structure would create a far more predictable
regulatory environment.
The absence of nationwide E15 and the administration of the SRE program present varying
challenges for our industries. They both impact investment and compliance planning,
blending decisions, and the stability of national fuel supply chains. Addressing these two
issues through clear legislation would provide a more coherent and durable policy
foundation, reduce volatility, and enhance confidence for all participants in the
transportation fuel sector.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to support legislation that brings lasting
certainty to these fuels issues and supports a stable, efficient marketplace.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Our organizations remain committed to
supporting constructive solutions as Congress evaluates next steps.
Sincerely,
American Petroleum Institute
Growth Energy
National Association of Convenience
Stores
NATSO, Representing America’s Travel
Centers and Truck Stops
Renewable Fuels Association
SIGMA: America’s Leading Fuel Marketers
CC:
The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
Minority Leader, U.S. House of
Representatives
The Honorable John Thune
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Chuck Schumer
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Doug Burgum
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
The Honorable Brooke Rollins
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Honorable Chris Wright
Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy
The Honorable Lee Zeldin
Secretary, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

December 4, 2025
President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re: E15 Negotiations

The post Industry Letter to White House on E15 Negotiations appeared first on Growth Energy.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment as part of a Section 301 investigation into China’s
implementation of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (“Phase One
Agreement”).
We appreciate the support and assistance of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
on this important issue as well as the agency’s continued engagement with foreign governments
to expand market access for U.S. ethanol. Growth Energy is the nation’s largest association of
ethanol producers, representing 97 U.S. plants that each year produce 9.5 billion gallons of lowcarbon, renewable fuel; 130 businesses associated with the production process; and tens of
thousands of ethanol supporters around the country. Growth Energy represents the leading
exporters in the ethanol industry, helping to support nearly 2 billion gallons of ethanol exports to
over 60 countries around the world.
In January 2020, China committed to substantial purchases under the Phase One Agreement,
including for agricultural commodities. These commitments have not been fulfilled. We
welcome USTR initiating this investigation.
The 2017 baseline for U.S. agricultural exports to China amounted to $19.6 billion1
. The Phase
One Agreement does not specify how the additional agricultural purchases would be
proportioned per commodity, although ethanol is specifically included in the “other” category.
China agreed to $32 billion in additional agricultural purchases over two years ($12.5 billion in
2020 and $19.5 billion in 2021) above the 2017 baseline and agreed to strive for a further $5
billion in additional imports per year of agricultural products. Thus, China’s minimal purchase
commitment of $32.1 billion in 2020 and $39.1 billion in 2021 not including the strived-for $5
billion.
However, the actual U.S. agricultural exports to China in 2020 ($26.4 billion) and in 2021 ($32.8
billion) were far below these commitments and the added annual $5 billion also never
materialized. Actual exports only amounted to 82 percent of minimal commitments in 2020 and
84 percent of minimal commitments in 2021.
1 Trade data compiled from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Global Agricultural Trade System.
The 2017 baseline for U.S. ethanol was 55 million gallons valued at $83 million. However, this
baseline is well below U.S. ethanol exports to China in 2016, which amounted to 198 million
gallons valued at $313 million. In 2020, U.S. ethanol exports were valued at $50.9 million (32
million gallons) and in 2021 were valued at $162.4 (100 million gallons). Since then, no
meaningful volumes have been exported, including in 2022 while other agricultural commodities
were still generally increasing in export value to China.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
U.S. Ethanol Exports to China
(in thousands of dollars)
0.00
100,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
300,000,000.00
400,000,000.00
500,000,000.00
600,000,000.00
700,000,000.00
800,000,000.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
U.S. Ethanol Exports to China (liters)
China committed to a 64 percent increase over the 2017 baseline for 2020 and a 99 percent
increase over the 2017 baseline for 2021 in its agricultural purchase commitments under the
Phase One Agreement. No specific dollar or volumes were noted for ethanol purchases.
However, using these percentages, an estimate of ethanol purchases can be extrapolated had
China adhered to its commitments. Accordingly, ethanol purchases fell below what was expected
considering the overall percentage increase of commitments over the 2017 baseline.
In 2021, U.S. ethanol exports experienced a 95 percent increase over the 2017 ethanol baseline,
which is aligned with the agreement’s overall commitment percentage increase applied to
ethanol purchases. However, in 2020, U.S. ethanol exports of $50.9 million was 39 percent lower
than the 2017 ethanol baseline of $83.2 million. The actual amount of U.S. ethanol exports in
2020 was below the anticipated $136.3 million in ethanol purchases if considering the
agreement’s overall 2020 purchase commitment percentage increase of 64 percent over the 2017
baseline.
Under this approach, there was an $85 million purchase deficit of U.S. ethanol by China in 2020
and a $3.2 million purchase deficit in 2021, for a combined total of $88.6 million in nonmartialized purchases of U.S. ethanol by China.
A second way to consider if China fulfilled its purchase commitments related to U.S. ethanol is
comparing the overall share of U.S. ethanol to other agricultural purchases. In 2017, U.S. ethanol
accounted for 0.4 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to China. Of the additional $32 billion in
additional agricultural purchases China committed to, 0.4 percent would mean $135.5 million of
the additional purchase commitments would be of U.S. ethanol. Factoring in the 2017 ethanol
baseline and actual exports, this method shows an $88.6 million U.S. ethanol purchase deficit by
China under the Phase One Agreement.
Both assumptions show deficits higher than the value of U.S. ethanol exports to China in 2017.
The above assumptions also did not include the additional $5 billion in agricultural purchases
China agreed to strive for.
2017
Baseline
Additional
Purchase
Commitments
Total
Purchase
Commitment
Percentage
Increase Over
Baseline
(Commitment)
Actual
Exports
Percentage
Increase
Over
Baseline
(Actual)
Difference in
Commitment
vs. Actual
Agriculture (billions)
2020 $19.6 $12.5 $32.1 64% $26.4 35% -$5.7
2021 $19.6 $19.5 $39.1 99% $32.8 67% -$6.3
Total $32.0 $71.2 $59.2 -$12.0
Ethanol (millions)
2020 $83.2 $53.1 $136.3 64% $50.9 -39% -$85.4
2021 $83.2 $82.4 $165.6 99% $162.4 95% -$3.2
Total $135.5 $301.9 $213.3 -$88.6
Thank you for your consideration of these comments related to our concerns that China has not
followed through on its agricultural purchases under the Phase One Agreement, neither generally
nor on ethanol specifically. Growth Energy looks forward to working further with USTR to
resolve unfairness issues facing U.S. ethanol.
Sincerely,
Chris Bliley
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
Growth Energy

December 1, 2025
Ms. Jennifer Thornton
General Counsel
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508
Docket ID: USTR-2025-0007
Dear Ms. Thornton:

The post Growth Energy Comments on 301 Investigation into China Phase One Agreement appeared first on Growth Energy.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations in response
to the October 14 E15 Scoping Workshop. Growth Energy is the world’s largest
association of ethanol producers, representing 97 producer plants, more than 130
associate members up and down the supply chain, and tens of thousands of biofuels
supporters across the country. Together, we are working to bring better and more
affordable choices at the fuel pump to consumers, improve air quality, and protect the
environment for future generations.
Given our experience and expertise in the regulation of ethanol and our efforts to expand
the domestic market for higher blends, we have provided the following recommendations
for the state of California to consider so that consumers can benefit from E15 access as
soon as possible.
E15 Should Be Considered and Regulated as California RFG (CaRFG)
In every market E15 is available, it is treated and regulated as gasoline fuel. It is also
offered alongside E10 gasoline. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) should align
with its sister agency the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA) Division
of Measurement Standards1 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)2
in
1 https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dms/programs/Petroleum/docs/e15_faq.pdf
2 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U/part-1090/subpart-A/section-1090.80
2
characterizing E15 as gasoline rather than a flex fuel or alternative fuel. In particular,
Growth Energy supports CARB’s codification of the practical approach to implementing
AB 30 that it took in initial guidance at the October 14 Scoping Workshop on E15 Use in
California (Workshop). Specifically, CARB requires the petroleum, CARBOB portion of
E15 to meet normal California reformulated gasoline regulations, allows blending with
10.5% and 15% ethanol, and requires the finished E15 to meet normal CaRFG standards,
except for oxygen content.3 We appreciate CARB’s reiteration of this in the AB 30
Frequently Asked Questions document released on November 10.4 Formalizing this
interim approach through codification of CaRFG specifications for E15 is both efficient
and consistent with other jurisdictions’ and other California agencies’ treatment of the fuel.
Were CARB to regulate E15 as an alternative fuel, it would create more uncertainty and
raise more questions regarding the dispensing of E15. For instance, without significantly
and unnecessarily overhauling a number of fuel regulations, the only fuel retail stations in
California that would be capable of dispensing E15 without costly equipment upgrades
may be stations already offering E85. The expense to upgrade equipment to dispense
E15 as an alternative fuel would be prohibitive to widespread adoption in the California
market. Therefore, for ease of adoption and in line with the federal definition of E15 as a
gasoline, we strongly encourage CARB to regulate E15 as a CaRFG fuel.
Growth Energy disagrees with comments made during the Workshop suggesting that
were E15 regulated as CaRFG, the fuel specification for CaRFG would have to change
such that E15 would be mandated and E10 would no longer be eligible for sale in the
state. This is incorrect as a regulatory matter and a mischaracterization of precedent in
other states. CARB retains discretion to promulgate fuel specifications for CaRFG under
both E10 and E15 formulations. Moreover, a multitude of markets requiring low-RVP and
RFG fuels offer E15 alongside E10.5 Currently, there are 556 retail locations in 11 RFG
jurisdictions offering E15 alongside E10. Not dissimilar to California today, states with
RFG markets are able to maintain fuel specifications for E10 and E15 simultaneously by
incorporating ASTM standards by reference, such as D4814 (Standard Specification for
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel)
6 and D4806 (Standard Specification for
Denatured Fuel Ethanol)
7
, with some including supplemental tabulated values that govern
3 Oct. 14 Workshop Slides at 14.
4 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-30-frequently-asked-questions
5https://www.getbiofuel.com
6 https://store.astm.org/d4814-25.html
7 https://store.astm.org/d4806-25.html
3
fuel properties and components. One recent successful example is Arizona, which
incorporated E15 into its cleaner burning gasoline regulations.8
In sum, continuation of
CARB’s interim policy that treats E15 as a gasoline product is the best path forward for
regulatory efficiency and to ensure market certainty for fuel suppliers and retailers.
Addressing Retail Equipment Compatibility
Currently, CARB, the State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB), the Office of the
State Fire Marshal (OSFM), and other associated agencies require retail fuel storage and
dispensing equipment to be certified by Underwriter’s Laboratory (UL) or a similar
nationally recognized laboratory for approval to dispense fuel in the state. During the
federal approval process for E15, the Obama administration’s EPA allowed for a
manufacturer’s statement of compatibility or a manufacturer’s warranty statement for E15
in lieu of UL testing and certification for Underground Storage Tank (UST) systems.
9
Manufacturers have long provided statements of compatibility for tanks of various design
and materials of construction, with many rated up to E100.
10 This has proven safe and
effective in all 34 states in which E15 is sold. Also, a recent advisory provided by the
WRCB to Unified Program Agencies and UST Owners and Operators provided guidance
that allows the use of manufacturer’s statements as a method to demonstrate
compatibility of numerous components within the UST system.11
Retail fuel dispensing equipment also has a robust history of compatibility with E15. More
than 90 percent of dispensers in-use nationwide are from companies with equipment
warrantied for E15 or higher: All Wayne dispensers in service today carry a warranty for
and are compatible with E15. Meanwhile, all Gilbarco dispensers installed since 2008
have the same warranty. Additionally, hanging hardware (hoses, nozzles, breakaways,
etc.) is also often compatible with E15. This is evidenced by manufacturer’s warranty
statements indicating compatibility, including numerous from the CARB Phase II
Enhanced Vapor Recovery program. This enhanced compatibility is largely due to
materials of construction for this equipment having been developed in accordance with
aggressive test fuels and often certified using fuels with safety margins extending up to
8 https://apps.azsos.gov/public_services/register/2023/5/contents.pdf
9 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I/part-280/subpart-C/section-280.32
10 https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ethanol_handbook.pdf
11 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/docs/2025/ust-e15-letter.pdf
4
(or beyond) 15 volume percent ethanol. Aggressive test fuels contain increased aromatic
and ethanol content with higher inclusion rates of contaminants such as water, peroxides,
or acids, according to SAE J1681.
12 An example of a test fuel containing higher safety
margins of ethanol content is ASTM Reference Fuel H, used in UL330 for hose and hose
assemblies.
13
Overall, these characteristics have allowed authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) to
approve equipment using a manufacturer’s statement in addition to, or in lieu of, existing
certifications. This method of approval is also supported by equivalency language
provided in NFPA30/30A.14,15 Alternatively, in states such as Iowa, the State Fire Marshal
used enforcement discretion, based on information provided by UL regarding its testing
parameters16, to accept all UL87 listed equipment compatible with E10 as also compatible
with E15. This determination is noted on page 5 of the Class 2 Waiver for the Iowa E15
Access Standard17, and provided by the authority granted in Iowa Code Section
455G.31.
18 To date, Iowa has reported no adverse effects from this regulatory decision
on compatibility.
The thorough nature of design requirements for California fuel dispensing hardware,
combined with policy such as requiring the permanent closure of single-walled
underground storage tanks, places the state in a position to leverage relatively modern
fueling infrastructure and minimize cost and schedule for fuel retailers to effectively offer
E15.
We urge CARB, OSFM, and other involved agencies to continue the acceptance of
manufacturer’s statements of compatibility, or manufacturer’s warranties, for approval to
store and dispense E15 in California, bringing the state in line with federal guidance and
the regulatory and approval practices of the 34 states currently offering E15.
12 https://www.sae.org/standards/j1681_202305-gasoline-alcohol-diesel-fuel-surrogates-materials-testing
13 https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=38520
14 https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-30-standard-development/30
15 https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-30a-standard-development/30a
16 https://www.cspdailynews.com/fuels/ul-announces-new-e15-dispensing-directive
17 https://iowaagriculture.gov/sites/default/files/weights/E15_Class2_Waiver_Information.pdf
18 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/455G.31.pdf
5
Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery
With California’s unique requirements on enhanced vapor recovery (EVR) and the
inability previously to offer E15, there are currently no EVR systems approved for E15 in
the state. Given the lower volatility of E15 compared to E10, current E10-approved EVR
systems will easily suffice. As described in the Tier I Report of the E15 MME, previous
literature review and testing of RVP characteristics for both E10 and E15 have
demonstrated that the two fuels are indistinguishable.19 The Tier II Report of the E15 MME
also found that differences in evaporative emissions of E10 and E15 are statistically
insignificant.20
Vapor Balance Phase II EVR systems represent a vast majority of the market and should
be approved under the same standards as vacuum-assisted systems due to the
similarities of E10 and E15 and the proven history of compatibility of E10 listed equipment
to store, handle, and dispense E15.
CARB’s AB 30 FAQ referenced the need to certify EVR systems for use with E15. Given
the “statistically insignificant” differences in evaporative emissions, we recommend CARB
re-issue Executive Orders VR-20321 and VR-20422, and others as necessary, to ensure
that maximum ethanol concentrations of 15 volume percent are allowed for all Phase II
Vapor Recovery systems. This will help accelerate E15 adoption in the state without the
need for retailers to wait while testing is conducted on EVR equipment for a fuel with
evaporative emissions that are statistically indistinguishable from its approved fuel of E10.
CARB’s Concerns Over Misfuelling Are Unfounded, Mitigated by EPA Regulations
During the Workshop, CARB requested feedback on misfuelling incidents and whether
California should consider “any additional restrictions beyond” what is required by the
EPA to prevent misfuelling. As we noted in 2022 comments to the EPA on the Renewable
Fuel Standard, “even EPA has acknowledged that misfuelling fears are speculative and
likely unfounded.”23 Indeed, EPA cited “no evidence that misfuelling commonly occurs or
19 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/E15_Tier_I_Report_June_2020.pdf
20 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/E15_MME_Tier_II_Report_July_2023.pdf
21 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/vr203AD_lgl_c.pdf
22 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/vr204ad_lgl.pdf
23 https://growthenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Growth-Energy-RVO-Comment_Exhibits.pdf
6
is otherwise a legitimate concern.” In fact, over the course of a ten-year period, data
shows there have been no incidents attributing the use of E15 to engine damage or
“inferior performance.”24
EPA currently requires fuel retailers offering E15 to follow a rigorous blueprint that
includes plans on how to mitigate and prevent misfuelling and a compliance survey plan,
while fuel and fuel additive manufacturers are required to register their product with the
EPA under 40 CFR Part 79.25
We appreciate CARB and their partner agency CDFA’s release of documentation showing
that only the federal label prescribed in 40 CFR 1090.1510 is required.26 We believe the
combination of the required Misfuelling Mitigation Plan and the required federal label
provide sufficient and robust protections for consumers and retailers. Any additional
labels, warnings, or guidance beyond those requirements are unwarranted and would
unnecessarily confuse California drivers and dissuade them from using an acceptable
and compatible fuel.
E15 Adoption Rates, Potential Cost Impacts Largely Depend on Regulatory
Decisions
Among the questions raised during the Workshop is the value to California consumers
and the costs to retailers for infrastructure improvements. The cost to retailers and its
impact on E15 adoption rates will ultimately be determined by the decisions made and
actions taken by CARB, OSFM, and other regulatory agencies involved.
We have seen significant growth in the number of fuel retail locations in states that have
embraced E15, treating it as a gasoline rather than alternative fuel. In 2019, there were
just over 2,000 fuel retail locations in the country offering E15. That number has since
grown to more than 4,500 locations in just six years.
24 https://www.americasfuel.com/engine-performance
25 https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/e15-fuel-registration#mmp
26 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U/part-1090/subpart-P/subject-groupECFR5fdfb67ce1d6cec/section-1090.1510
7
As we have detailed above, there are simple and uncontroversial equipment compatibility
determinations that CARB and OSFM can make for dispensing equipment and Phase II
EVR systems that leverages existing infrastructure and streamlines equipment
compliance, unlocking savings for consumers while providing necessary and appropriate
environmental protections. Taking the wrong approach on how E15 is regulated,
equipment compatibility decisions, and methods of dispensing will effectively lock E15 out
of wide swaths of California’s fuel market.
1. Requiring new dispensers could easily escalate typical E15 conversion costs by
more than four times, while requiring new tanks could escalate conversion costs
by well over fifteen times.27 Utilizing manufacturer’s statements as proof of
compatibility, ensuring that E15 may be dispensed from shared infrastructure with
E10, and regulating E15 as a gasoline product, have been a proven way to keep
conversion costs very low while maintaining safe operation and robust fuel quality.
2. Failing to amend Executive Orders VR-203 and VR-204 or taking other expeditious
action to clear vapor recovery-related barriers will cause a lengthy delay in E15’s
entry into California’s fuel market with no animating environmental cause of
concern. As mentioned above, testing during the multimedia evaluation of E15
27 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/02/f59/USDRIVE_FWG_PotentialImpactsIncreasedEthanolBlendLevel.pdf
8
yielded no statistically significant differences in evaporative emissions between
E10 and E15. In fact, as ethanol content of a fuel increases, its evaporative
emissions decrease.28 As a result, E15 is more than suitable for Phase II EVR
systems currently approved for E10, a slightly more volatile gasoline.
3. Of the 34 states in which E15 is being offered, regulating agencies have accepted
manufacturer’s statements of compatibility in lieu of a UL certification or
certification from a nationally recognized laboratory. As mentioned above, more
than 90 percent of dispensers in use nationwide are from companies with
equipment warrantied for E15 or higher. We urge CARB, OSFM, and other involved
agencies to accept the manufacturer’s statements of compatibility or
manufacturer’s warranties for approval to dispense E15 in California in lieu of UL
listing, bringing it in line with federal guidance and the regulatory and approval
practices of the 34 states currently offering E15.
28 https://growthenergy.org/policy-priority/e15-and-higher-ethanol-blends/
9
Conclusion
California has the opportunity to utilize E15 with a greater environmental and climate
benefits than any other state currently allowing its sale. Given California’s status as a
mandatory RFG state, E15 can be sold year-round without annual summer RVP waivers
or other EPA regulatory action. With the passage and signing into law of AB 30, California
has the opportunity to provide energy cost savings at the pump with a lower carbon fuel
in as little as a few weeks, provided the correct regulatory decisions are made. We
encourage CARB to align its regulatory approach with the other states currently offering
E15, providing certainty, clarity, and uniformity in the market without any negative
environmental or economic impacts.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Bliley
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
Growth Energy

November 17, 2025
Matt Botill
Division Chief
Industrial Strategies Division
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Via electronic submission
RE: E15 Scoping Workshop Public Comments
Mr. Botill:

The post Growth Energy Public Comments on California E15 Scoping Workshop appeared first on Growth Energy.

Growth Energy is the world’s largest association of biofuel producers, representing 97
biorefineries that annually produce 9.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel. Growth Energy’s
members produce more than 60% of all ethanol sold in the United States, most of which is used
to comply with the RFS. Growth Energy previously submitted comments on EPA’s proposed
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2026 and 2027, Partial Waiver of 2025
Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement, and Other Changes (hereinafter “Set 2 proposal” or
“NPRM”).1
Here, Growth Energy respectfully submits these supplemental comments on the
EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2026 and 2027, Partial Waiver
of 2025 Cellulosic Biofuel Volume Requirement, and Other Changes; Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (hereinafter “supplemental proposal” or “Supplemental NPRM”).2

In the supplemental proposal, EPA proposes to increase the 2026 and 2027 national
Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) standards so as to reallocate 100% or 50% of the RFS
obligations that are covered by the small-refinery exemptions (“SREs”) that EPA granted for
compliance years 2023-2025.3
EPA also solicits comment on reallocating other amounts,
including 0%.4
The SREs EPA granted for 2023-2024 freed 1.4 billion RINs from needing to be
retired for those years and made them available for compliance going forward.5
In the
supplemental proposal, EPA states that it projects granting SREs for 2025 covering about 780
million RINs.6
Thus, 100% reallocation would entail raising the 2026 and 2027 standards by
about 2.18 billion gallons in the aggregate.
I. Growth Energy appreciates and firmly supports EPA’s proposal to reallocate
100% of the exempt 2023-2025 obligations. The logic underlying the proposed reallocation is
that the RINs associated with the 2023-2025 SREs will be available for compliance in 2026-
2027, and thus they will reduce the binding force of the 2026-2027 RFS standards one for one
and allow obligated parties to use those RINs in lieu of the required volume of renewable fuel,
creating a renewable-fuel shortfall. That logic is sound and requires 100% reallocation. If the
RINs associated with the 2023-2025 SREs are not fully drawn down for compliance in 2026 and
2027, they will merely recreate the problems in future years: any rolled-over RINs associated
with those SREs will suppress the binding force of the 2028 RFS standards (one for one) and
accordingly allow obligated parties to create a renewable-fuel shortfall in 2028 to that extent.
This process will continue until all the SRE-associated RINs have inevitably been used in lieu of
renewable fuel, ultimately creating a 2.18-billion-gallon renewable-fuel shortfall equal to the
entire exempt renewable-fuel volume. Only 100% reallocation can avoid that outcome.
1
90 Fed. Reg. 25,784 (June 17, 2025).
2
90 Fed. Reg. 45,007 (Sept. 18, 2025).
3
Supplemental NPRM at 45,009:3.
4 Ibid.
5 Id. at 45,009:2.
6 Ibid.
2
II. Given the effects of the 2023-2025 SREs, EPA is required as a matter of law to
reallocate 100% of the exempt 2023-2025 obligations. That is required by EPA’s “core
mandate” under the CAA to set standards reasonably designed to “ensure” that the applicable
volumes are met. And that is required by EPA’s duty to engage in reasoned decisionmaking.
III. But even if reallocation were not mandatory, EPA would at least have discretion
to reallocate the exempt 2023-2025 obligations under both its “ensure” duty and its “Set” power.
IV. And insofar as EPA is exercising its discretion, it would be arbitrary and
capricious for EPA to reallocate less than 100% of those obligations. First, 100% reallocation
best serves Congress’ intent that the RFS program force the market to increase its renewable-fuel
use and best achieves the public benefits Congress sought to achieve by creating the RFS
program: increasing U.S. energy security and independence, decreasing greenhouse-gas
emissions, and promoting job growth and rural economic development. Full reallocation is also
most consistent with EPA’s analysis of the various statutory Set factors and with EPA’s
conclusion that those factors overall favor the proposed applicable volumes. Second,
reallocation—even 100%—would not harm non-exempt obligated parties because they can avoid
all net RIN costs, and if there were any portion of those costs that they could not avoid, that
portion would be far too small to justify non-reallocation. But at most, that unavoidable portion
cost could justify only the same proportion of non-reallocation. Third, no statutory Set factor is
affected adversely by reallocation. And fourth, it would be irrational for EPA to decline 100%
reallocation in order to preserve or increase the carryover-RIN bank for the future.
V. There is no reason to treat the exempt cellulosic-biofuel obligations differently.
The cellulosic-waiver standard plays no role when setting applicable volumes for 2023 or later
years. And anyway, reallocation is not inconsistent with accounting for the cellulosic-waiver
standard at this stage.
3
DISCUSSION
I. TO THE EXTENT THE 2023-2025 SRE OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT REALLOCATED, THEY
WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERMINE FUTURE RFS STANDARDS AND WILL EVENTUALLY
CREATE AN EQUIVALENT RENEWABLE-FUEL SHORTFALL
EPA “project[s] that a total of 2.18 billion RINs will not need to be retired as a result of
SREs for 2023-2025.”7
As EPA notes correctly, the availability of those additional RINs will
reduce the binding force of the 2026-2027 RFS standards one for one, which in turn could result
in lower renewable-fuel usage in 2026-2027. The supplemental proposal, however, mistakenly
treats the possibility that this usage reduction will not be fully experienced in 2026-2027 as
possible justification for reallocating less than 100% of the exempted 2023-2025 obligations. To
the extent that the SRE-based RINs are not used to reduce renewable-fuel usage in 2026-2027,
they will continue to undermine the binding force of RFS standards in the future and will
eventually reduce renewable-fuel usage by the entire exempt volume, i.e., the projected 2.18
billion gallons. In other words, any SRE-based RINs not drawn down in 2026-2027 to achieve
compliance in lieu of renewable-fuel use will be rolled forward to 2028, where the process on
which EPA rests its reallocation proposal will repeat, suppressing the effective RFS standards
and depressing RIN prices until the SRE-based RIN-bank inflation has been fully drawn down
through an aggregate renewable-fuel shortfall of 2.18 billion gallons. This is the inevitable
product of the RFS program’s structure and basic economic principles—structure and principles
that EPA recognizes in the supplemental proposal (as it has recognized on prior occasions).
In the supplemental proposal, EPA correctly recognizes that the 2023-2025 SREs will
make additional carryover RINs available for compliance in 2025-2027. The RINs associated
with the 2023-2024 SREs “no longer need to be retired for compliance” with the now-closed
2023-2024 obligations, and therefore they can be carried over.8
Although the RINs made
available by 2023 SREs will have expired by the end of 2024 and therefore not be directly
available for compliance with the 2025-2027 standards, they will in effect be extended for
compliance with the 2025 standards through the “rolling” process that EPA describes in the
supplemental proposal and has described before: obligated parties will use all the carryover 2023
RINs for 2024 compliance and instead bank additional 2024 RINs for 2025.9
This rolling will
necessarily happen because otherwise obligated parties would allow their valuable RINs to
expire worthless—which no profit-maximizing economic entity would do. The only limit on this
rolling is that carryover RINs can be used to meet only 20% of the obligations, but that limit has
no practical force now because the 2023 SRE RINs are less than 20% of the 2024 obligations.10
Similarly, the RINs made available by the 2024 SREs will be carried over to 2025. Thus, the
2023-2024 SREs will inflate the RIN bank in 2025.
7
Supplemental NPRM at 45,009:2.
8
Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:2.
9
Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:2; 85 Fed. Reg. 7,016, 7,021 n.15 (Feb. 6, 2020); Renewable
Fuels Ass’n v. EPA, 948 F.3d 1206, 1236 (10th Cir. 2020).
10 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:2; 85 Fed. Reg. 7,016, 7,021 n.15 (Feb. 6, 2020).
4
In 2025, the bank inflation from 2024 carryover RINs caused by the 2023-2024 SREs
could affect obligated parties’ actions in two ways. First, obligated parties “could choose to use
[those] carryover RINs to comply with their [2025] RVOs in lieu of acquiring renewable fuel
produced in [2025], thereby reducing the demand for renewable fuel production and use in [that]
year[].”11 In other words, those SREs could create a renewable-fuel shortfall relative to the 2025
applicable volumes and national percentage standards. This would draw down the RIN bank
because obligated parties would retire the 2024 carryover RINs but not replace them with 2025
RINs, i.e., would not roll the 2024 carryover RINs into 2025 carryover RINs for use in 2026.
Second, obligated parties could use the volume of renewable fuel required by the 2025 standards
and avoid creating a renewable-fuel shortfall in 2025. In contrast to the first scenario, this
second scenario would maintain the bank inflation from the 2023-2024 SREs because obligated
parties would retire the 2024 carryover RINs but roll them into new 2025 RINs, which they
would carry over to 2026. Obligated parties could also do a bit of both: partially draw down the
SRE-based bank inflation, creating some degree of renewable-fuel shortfall, and partially roll the
2024 RINs into 2025 RINs, which they would carry over into 2026. Again, the 20% limit on
using carryover RINs would have no force because it would exceed the total number of
carryover RINs. Moreover, for the same reasons, the 2025 SREs would make additional 2025
RINs available to be carried over into 2026.
So far, this description of the effects of the 2023-2025 SREs accords with the description
in the supplemental proposal. It also accords with prior EPA statements. For example, during
the Set 1 rulemaking, EPA noted: “SREs generally affect[] the demand for RINs in the calendar
year in which they were granted and the following years, rather than in the RFS compliance year
to which they applied.”12 EPA explained that “a small refinery that was granted an exemption
[might] continue[] to blend renewable fuel into its own gasoline and diesel due to the economic
attractiveness of doing so. In such cases, the total number of RINs generated may not have been
reduced by the SRE, but the carryover RIN bank may have increased.”13 Thus, for example,
“lower D6 RIN prices”—reflecting lower demand for conventional renewable fuel—“[a]fter
2018 … [we]re largely the result of: (1) Small refinery exemptions (SREs) granted
[retroactively] in 2018 [for the 2016 and 2017 compliance years], which reduced the total
number of D6 RINs needed for compliance with the RFS obligations …; and (2) The large
11 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:3.
12 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules, Regulatory Impact Analysis at
7 (June 2022).
13 Ibid.
5
number of carryover RINs available.”14 Independent economic analysis confirms this
reasoning.15
The supplemental proposal then tries to determine the specific year in which “the effect
of these [SRE-based] RINs is likely to be most acute.”16 EPA surmises the most acute effect will
likely be “in 2026 and 2027” because “only a few months remain in” 2025.17 EPA seems to
have in mind that the bank inflation caused by the 2023-2025 SREs is unlikely to cause an actual
renewable-fuel shortfall in 2025 because there is too little time remaining for obligated parties to
reduce their renewable-fuel use and rely on those RINs instead—in fact, by time EPA finalizes
its supplemental proposal, 2025 could be over. Instead, EPA expects that “the effect of these
RINs is likely to be most acute in 2026 and 2027.”18 EPA reaches this conclusion based on the
same programmatic and economic logic just described. EPA explains:
SREs granted for 2023-2025 will result in lower-than-anticipated RVOs for [2026
and 2027] and, all else being equal, will result in a higher number of carryover
RINs available for use in 2026 and future years. Increased numbers of carryover
RINs can negatively impact the demand for renewable fuel and the associated
RINs. This is because obligated parties can use carryover RINs years to meet
their compliance obligations in 2026 and 2027 in lieu of acquiring RINs generated
in these years. An increase in the availability of carryover RINs to meet obligated
14 Id. at 40. In the Set 1 rulemaking, EPA erred, however, in stating that “higher-than-projected
gasoline and diesel demand could offset the effect of SREs to some degree.” Id. at 7. That could
be true relative to the nominal applicable volumes but that is false with respect to the volumes
implied by the percentage standards. The point of a percentage standard is that the required
volume of renewable fuel varies in proportion to the volume of transportation fuel used. So, if
more transportation fuel was used than projected, the RFS correspondingly requires that
proportionally more renewable fuel also be used. Absent reallocation, SREs will necessarily
create a shortfall relative to the volumes required by the percentage standards, regardless of
whether transportation-fuel usage exceeds the projected volumess on which the standards were
initially based.
15 Edgeworth Economics, The Impact of EPA’s Policies Regarding RVOs and SREs at 2 (Aug.
30, 2019) [Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM, Ex. 7 at 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-
0646] (as EPA granted much greater amounts of SREs in 2018 and 2019, “D6 RIN prices fell
[to] the lowest level since 2013, and the RIN bank once again expanded as obligated parties
began to generate excess RINs” in light of the SREs); id. at 8 (those SREs “adversely affected
ethanol demand by reducing the incentive to sell E85” and “[t]he remaining impact likely was
absorbed by the RIN bank”).
16 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:2.
17 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:2.
18 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:2.
6
parties’ compliance obligations in 2026 and 2027 could decrease the demand for
current-year RINs.19
EPA is probably correct that the 2023-2025 SREs’ effect is likely not to be felt in 2025
and is likely to be most acute in 2026 and 2027. And that prediction correctly prompts EPA to
propose reallocating the exempt 2023-2025 obligations through the 2026 and 2027 RFS
standards: “Thus, failure to mitigate the market impacts of the increased number of carryover
RINs due to the 2023-2025 SREs could result in a decrease in demand for renewable fuel
produced in 2026 and 2027. … The co-proposed SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027
are intended to prevent increased numbers of carryover RINs from decreasing demand for
renewable fuel below the proposed applicable volumes for 2026 and 2027 in the Set 2
proposal.”20
So far, so good. But then EPA recognizes the possibility that the RINs made available by
the 2023-2025 SREs in 2026-2027 will not cause an equivalent reduction in renewable-fuel use
in 2026-2027, and this is where the supplemental proposal goes wrong: it mistakenly treats that
possibility as a potential justification for reallocating less than 100% of the exempted
obligations. The supplemental proposal states: “Obligated parties holding few or no carryover
RINs may have an incentive to hold any carryover RINs attributable to 2023-2025 SREs as a
compliance flexibility for future years rather than using them towards their 2026 or 2027
compliance obligations. If obligated parties hold, rather than use, these carryover RINs, we
expect a much smaller impact, and potentially even no impact, on the RIN and renewable fuel
markets. We are therefore co-proposing SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and 2027 equal to
50 percent of the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs”21 and soliciting comment on reallocating 75%,
25%, and 0% of the 2023-2025 exempted obligations.22
In suggesting less than 100% reallocation of the exempt 2023-2025 obligations, EPA
contradicts its own analysis of the effects of the 2023-2025 SREs and the ineluctable
programmatic and economic logic underlying that analysis. That logic dictates that the 2023-
2025 exempt obligations must be fully reallocated. As EPA acknowledges, RINs made available
by the 2023-2025 SREs—if not used in lieu of renewable fuel—can be “roll[ed] … forward to
the 2025 compliance year and beyond”23 and can be “available for use in 2026 and future
years.”24 The “beyond” is not necessarily confined to 2026 and 2027, as the plural “future
years” after 2026 implies. To the extent that the bank inflation caused by the 2023-2025 SREs
remains in 2028, those available RINs will repeat the effects first felt in 2026-2027. They will
reduce the volume of renewable fuel that must be used in 2028 (one for one). At that point,
obligated parties will face the same choice they will face in 2026 and 2027: whether to use those
19 Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:1:2; see also Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:3.
20 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:3; Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:1.
21 Supplemental NPRM at 45,011:1; see also Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:3-45,015:1.
22 Supplemental NPRM at 45,009:3.
23 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:2 (emphasis added).
24 Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:1 (emphasis added).
7
RINs in lieu of using renewable fuel—i.e., whether to create a present renewable-fuel shortfall—
or whether to roll them into 2029. To the extent that obligated parties roll them into 2029, the
effects will continue and the choice will repeat in 2029, and so on, every year, until eventually
every RIN originally made available by the 2023-2025 SREs has been used in lieu of renewablefuel usage. And this eventual renewable-fuel shortfall equal to the SRE volume is inevitable
given the logic of the RFS program and obligated parties’ economic interests. In short, the entire
volume of SREs—2.18 billion, according to supplemental proposal’s estimate—will necessarily
create an equivalent renewable-fuel shortfall of 2.18 billion gallons over the course of the RFS
program unless fully reallocated.
Consequently, as explained below in Parts II and III, EPA must reallocate 100% of the
2023-2025 exempt obligations.
II. BOTH EPA’S DUTY TO SET RFS STANDARDS THAT “ENSURE” THE REQUIRED
VOLUMES WILL BE MET AND ITS DUTY TO ENGAGE IN REASONED DECISIONMAKING
REQUIRE EPA TO REALLOCATE THE SRES FULLY
EPA is legally required to reallocate 100% of the exempt 2023-2025 obligations. This
legal duty comes from two independent sources.
First, as EPA and the D.C. Circuit have recognized, EPA’s “core mandate[ is] to ensure
the Act’s annual renewable fuel volumes are met.”25 This means that EPA “must set percentage
standards that … are reasonably designed … to meet the target volumes for th[e] upcoming
year.”26 This mandate continues throughout the life of the RFS program, even after 2022. The
statutory provisions articulating the “ensure” duty are not time-limited; on the contrary, one
expressly states that EPA’s regulations must comply with the “ensure” duty “[r]egardless of the
date of promulgation.”27 Moreover, it would make no sense for EPA’s “core mandate” to
evaporate while the program continues. EPA itself has recognized that its “ensure” duty
continues for the duration of the RFS program. EPA invoked this overarching “ensure” duty in
the 2020 rulemaking as authority for modifying the percentage formula to account for projected
retroactive SREs for all future years, not just for 2020 or 2020-2022.28 EPA’s 2022 Rule did
likewise in reaffirming that modification.29 Indeed, the 2022 rule expressly stated that the
25 Wynnewood Refining Co., LLC v. EPA, 77 F.4th 767, 779 (D.C. Cir. 2023); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(o)(2)(A)(i), (iii)(I) & (3)(B)(i); 85 Fed. Reg. at 7,050:3, 7,051:2.
26 Br. for Respondents at 27, 29, Clean Fuels Alliance America v. EPA, No. 20-1107, ECF
#2112942 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 25, 2025).
27 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(iii)(I).
28 85 Fed. Reg. at 7,050:3 & nn.158-159.
29 87 Fed. Reg. 39,600, 39,632:2-39,633:1 & nn.185-186 (July 1, 2022).
8
revised percentage formula “would in fact better ‘ensure’ that the volumes are met” if EPA
“grant[s] SREs for some future compliance year,” i.e., after 2022.30
In the supplemental proposal, EPA correctly recognizes that insofar as carryover RINs
made available by the 2023-2025 SREs are rolled into 2026 and 2027, they will diminish the
binding force of the standards EPA sets for those years one for one because obligated parties
could use those RINs in lieu of the corresponding volume of renewable fuel. In other words, if
EPA sets the total applicable volume for 2026 to 24.02 billion gallons and there are 2.18 billion
carryover RINs available from the 2023-2025 SREs, the percentage standard EPA establishes
will actually require obligated parties to use 24.02 minus 2.18 billion gallons of renewable fuel,
i.e., 21.84 billion gallons. If obligated parties use more than 21.84 billion gallons of renewable
fuel in 2026, that will be a voluntary choice they make, not an act mandated by the 2026 RFS
standards. In short, as long as there are RINs for compliance in 2026 or 2027 made available by
the 2023-2025 SREs, the standards EPA establishes for 2026-2027 will not be reasonably
designed to meet the required applicable volumes EPA sets for 2026-2027 unless the associated
exempt obligations are fully reallocated. To fulfill its “ensure” duty, EPA must reallocate all the
exempt 2023-2025 obligations.
In fact, EPA previously recognized this logic in modifying the percentage formula to
account for retroactive SREs, and the D.C. Circuit upheld that analysis. In that rulemaking, EPA
correctly explained that “should [it] grant [exemptions] without accounting for them in the
percentage formula, those exemptions would effectively reduce the volumes of renewable fuel
required by the RFS program, potentially impacting renewable fuel use in the U.S.”31 Raising
the standards to reallocate retroactively exempt obligations, EPA declared, has “the effect of
ensuring that the required volumes of renewable fuel are met when small refineries are granted
exemptions from their [RFS] obligations after the issuance of the final rule.”32 The D.C. Circuit
affirmed EPA’s position, concluding that EPA’s statutory duty “to ‘ensure’ that the applicable
volumes ‘are met’” supplies EPA with “the authority to adjust the percentage standards to
account for small refinery exemptions.”33 The Court added that reallocating retroactive SREs
30 87 Fed. Reg. at 39,633:1. The “ensure” duty expressed in § 7545(o)(3)(B)(i) is not time
limited. The phrase “calendar years 2005 through 2021” only specifies when the establishment
of percentage standards is no longer governed by the deadline specified in the preceding phrase:
“Not later than November 30 of each of.” § 7545(o)(3)(B)(i). For post-2022 calendar years, the
CAA establishes a different deadline: “no later than 14 months” before the year begins.
§ 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). Nor does the phrase “calendar years 2005 through 2021” time limit EPA’s
duty to issue percentage standards (as opposed to applicable volumes) for 2023 and later years.
The RFS could not function without percentage standards, as EPA acknowledged when it
decided to continue using them after 2022, 88. Fed. Reg. at 44,519:2-3—a decision expressly
based on EPA’s recognition that its continuing “ensure” duty continues after 2022, id. at
44519:2.
31 85 Fed. Reg. at 7,050:3.
32 Ibid.
33 Sinclair Wyoming Refining Co. v. EPA, 101 F.4th 871, 891, 893 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
9
“helps prevent undercompliance by ensuring that the leeway afforded to small refineries does not
lead to percentage standards that undershoot the target renewable fuel requirements.”34
Second, EPA is separately “required to engage in reasoned decisionmaking,” not
arbitrary or capricious decisionmaking.35 That means that in setting RFS standards, EPA must
“consider [all] important aspect[s] of the problem” and “examine the relevant data and articulate
a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found
and the choice made.”36 If EPA sets RFS standards without accounting for carryover RINs still
available because of the 2023-2025 SREs, it will knowingly set standards that will not require
the volume of usage that they purport to require, i.e., it will knowingly set ineffectual standards
by blinding itself to obvious circumstances regarding how those standards will operate. That
would not reflect reasoned decisionmaking.
As explained above, the programmatic logic underlying these twin legal duties does not
end in 2026, or even 2027. Rather, it continues to all subsequent years as long as the RIN bank
remains inflated to any degree because of the 2023-2025 SREs. For example, if 1 billion of the
2.18 billion RINs estimated to be available in 2026 because of the 2023-2025 SREs are drawn
down for compliance in 2026 in lieu of using additional renewable fuel, then the remaining 1.18
billion RINs that are rolled forward into 2027 will reduce the effective requirement of the 2027
standards by an equivalent 1.18 billion gallons. If 500 million of those 1.18 billion RINs are
then drawn down for compliance in 2027 in lieu of using additional renewable fuel, then the
remaining 680 million RINs will be rolled forward into 2028 and will reduce the effective
requirement of the 2028 standards by an equivalent 680 million gallons. This process will
continue until all the SRE-based RINs are drawn down in lieu of renewable fuel use. Each year,
EPA would set the standards in violation of its duties to “ensure” that the standards will require
the specified volume of renewable fuel and in violation of its duty to engage in reasoned
decisionmaking. The only way to avoid those violations is to reallocate 100% of the exempt the
2023-2025 obligations.
III. EPA’S “ENSURE” DUTY AND THE “SET” PROVISION AT LEAST GIVE EPA DISCRETION
TO REALLOCATE THE SRES
Even if EPA were not statutorily required to reallocate 100% of the exempt 2023-2025
obligations, EPA would at least have statutory discretion to do so. Here again, there are two
sources of such authority.
First, EPA’s “ensure” “mandate” (described above) at a minimum gives EPA permission
to reallocate the SRE obligations. As the D.C. Circuit has held, EPA finds “authority to account
34 Ibid.
35 Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 750 (2015); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9)(A); 5 U.S.C.
§ 706(2)(A).
36 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S.
29, 43 (1983).
10
for the small refinery exemptions in the statutory language directing EPA to promulgate
regulations to ‘ensure’ that the applicable volumes ‘are met.’”37
Second, as the supplemental proposal explains, the CAA’s “Set” provision also
authorizes EPA to reallocate exempt obligations when establishing annual standards. That
provision requires EPA to set volume requirements “based on a review of the implementation of
the program during [prior] calendar years … and an analysis of” an array of statutorily specified
factors.38 The supplemental proposal correctly recognizes that this framework allows EPA to
reallocate the exempt 2023-2025 obligations in setting the 2026-2027 volume requirements.
As described above, the history of the RFS program shows that, if not reallocated, SREs
ultimately suppress renewable-fuel usage—either immediately in the year for which they are
granted or later by inflating the RIN bank, which then displaces renewable-fuel usage in
subsequent years. EPA can and should heed this lesson in exercising its power under the Set
provision, and EPA rightly acknowledges that in the supplemental proposal: “under our directive
to review the implementation of the program, … the SREs granted for 2023-2025 … have a
direct impact on the RFS obligations … for all [non-exempt] obligated parties in aggregate
(which can now retire a greater number of carryover RINs and fewer current year RINs to satisfy
their combined RFS obligations for 2024 and 2025). … [B]ecause obligated parties can now use
the carryover RINs that otherwise would have been retired for compliance but for the 2023-2025
exemptions, SREs granted in one year can have an impact on the market for RINs and renewable
fuel in future years.”39
The supplemental proposal also accounts for the various statutory factors EPA must
consider in setting volume requirements after 2022. In its initial Set 2 proposal, EPA
determined, based on its consideration of the various statutory factors, that the market could
produce, distribute, and use the proposed volumes of renewable fuel, and that the other factors
were generally enhanced by or consistent with achieving such volumes.40 Because full
reallocation of the exempt 2023-2025 obligations would preserve the intended binding force of
the proposed volume requirements, and thus the intended level of renewable-fuel demand, full
reallocation is supported by and consistent with EPA’s analysis of the statutory factors. EPA
rightly acknowledges this in the supplemental proposal: “the statutory factors that the EPA must
consider when establishing the applicable volumes for years after 2022 are impacted by the
production and use of renewable fuel and are not impacted by the use of carryover RINs.”41
The supplemental proposal states that the CAA “gives EPA considerable discretion to
weigh and balance the various factors required by statute.”42 It is true that EPA has significant
37 Sinclair Wyoming, 101 F.4th at 891-892.
38 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii).
39 Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:2.
40 See NPRM at 25,812:1-25,834:3.
41 Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:2-3.
42 Supplemental NPRM at 45,011:2.
11
discretion in exercising its power under the Set provision, and that discretion is sufficiently broad
to include the proposed reallocation. However, as Growth Energy explained in its initial
comment on the Set 2 proposal, that discretion is not unlimited: specifically, EPA must set the
volume requirements at the maximum volume of renewable-fuel use that can be achieved in
response to the RFS’s incentives, unless achieving that volume would likely trigger the
conditions for a general waiver based on severe economic or environmental harm.43 This
constraint supports the supplemental proposal because reallocation helps ensure that the required
volumes are not effectively reduced when they are readily achievable (as the initial Set 2
proposal shows they are).
IV. IF EPA HAS DISCRETION REGARDING WHETHER TO REALLOCATE THE 2023-2025
SRES, IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS NOT TO EXERCISE THAT
DISCRETION TO REALLOCATE THE EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS FULLY
As explained above, EPA is statutorily required to fully reallocate the exempt 2023-2025
obligations, but at a minimum, EPA has discretion to do so. Under the circumstances, any
reallocation that is less than 100% would be arbitrary and capricious.
A. Full Reallocation Would Best Serve All the Statutory Objectives That EPA
Found Would Be Served by Achieving the Proposed Volumes
Congress created the RFS program “to force the market” to “replace” fossil fuel with
“greater and greater volumes of renewable fuel each year.”44 Congress adopted this “marketforcing policy” to “move the United States toward greater energy independence and security,”
“to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” and to promote “job creation … [and] rural economic
development.”45
In its initial Set 2 proposal, EPA determined that the proposed applicable volumes would
further the achievement of these congressional objectives. First, EPA assessed that its proposed
volumes would force the market to increase its renewable-fuel usage above the amount that the
market would use without the RFS program.46 Specifically, EPA proposed to require about
6.514 billion gallons of renewable fuel above the “No RFS” level in 2026 and about 6.900 billion
gallons of renewable fuel above the “No RFS” level in 2027.47 Second, EPA’s analysis found
that “the proposed volume standards” would yield “benefits” in terms of “jobs, rural economic
43 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 6-11, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
44 Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691, 696-697, 710 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
45 Americans for Clean Energy, 864 F.3d at 696-697, 705; 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(II)
& (VI); see also, e.g., NPRM at 25,829:3.
46 Growth Energy, however, maintains that EPA’s proposed implied conventional volumes are at
least 1 billion gallons too low. See Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 11-17, EPAHQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
47 Compare NPRM at 25,811 Table III.D.1-1 (estimated No RFS use of 17.506 bil gal and
17.560 bil gal) with id. at 25,829 Table V.F-1 & Table V.F-2 (proposed RFS use of 24.02 bil gal
and 24.46); see also id. at 25,785:3, 25,788:3.
12
development, energy security …, and … climate” through reduction in greenhouse-gas
emissions—the very benefits that Congress intended the RFS to achieve by forcing the market to
increasingly replace petroleum with renewable fuel.48 Further, EPA considered the costs of
achieving the proposed volumes, consistent with the statutory Set factors, and found in its initial
Set 2 proposal that “the proposed volumes are appropriate under EPA’s statutory authority as an
outcome of balancing all relevant factors.”49
Again, 100% reallocation of the exempt 2023-2025 obligations would simply preserve
this analysis and thus preserve these positive overall consequences consistent with Congress’
objectives and the statutory factors. As EPA notes, full reallocation will “not … increase the
production and use of renewable fuel beyond the volumes previously proposed for 2026 and
2027”; rather, full reallocation will simply require that the RIN bank inflation resulting from the
2023-2025 SREs be drawn down, and “the statutory factors that the EPA must consider when
establishing the applicable volumes for years after 2022 … are not impacted by the use of
carryover RINs.”50 On the other hand, less than full reallocation would diminish or eliminate the
statutory benefits: as discussed above, less than full reallocation would reduce renewable-fuel
usage, which in turn would diminish the reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, diminish the
enhancement of U.S. energy security and independence, and diminish job growth and rural
economic development.
In sum, full reallocation best accounts for the statutory factors and best serves the central
objectives that Congress sought to achieve through the RFS program.
B. Reallocation Would Not Harm Non-Exempt Obligated Parties
Although reallocation would increase the obligations for non-exempt obligated parties,
those increased obligations would not impose additional net financial cost on non-obligated
parties. As Growth Energy explained in its initial comment, obligated parties incur no net
compliance cost under the RFS program, or at most a de minimis net cost.51 EPA recognizes this
is in the supplemental proposal: “We do … expect that, on average at the national level,
obligated parties would pass on the costs of purchasing additional RINs to consumers.”52
Indeed, objections that small refineries have raised to their ability to fully recoup their RIN costs
are not only incorrect but also would generally not apply to non-exempt obligated parties
anyway.
Even a de minimis cost cannot justify anything less than 100% reallocation, given that
any such lesser reallocation would reduce renewable-fuel use and the associated congressionally
desired benefits. But at most, if obligated parties would absorb some portion of the net
compliance cost of the reallocated obligations, that would warrant non-reallocation only to that
48 NPRM at 25,829:3; see id. at 25,830:1-25,831:1.
49 NPRM at 25,788:2.
50 Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:2; see also id. at 45,015:1.
51 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 25-36, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
52 Supplemental NPRM at 45,015:1.
13
proportional extent. For example, if obligated parties would have to bear 0.5% of the net RIN
costs from complying with the reallocated obligations, then EPA could decline to reallocate only
0.5% of those obligations. A disproportionately large non-reallocation would be economically
irrational, unfair to renewable-fuel producers, and detrimental to the achievement of the
congressionally desired objectives of the RFS program.
To summarize the key points regarding compliance costs from Growth Energy’s initial
comment:
 Extensive empirical study has found that obligated parties pass at least 98% of their
marginal RIN costs down the supply chain. The principal study finding less than
100% pass-through suffered from methodological flaws that understated the passthrough, but even if its finding were sound, that would mean that obligated parties
absorb, at most, only a miniscule portion of the RIN cost.53
 All obligated parties can fully avoid net RIN costs through readily available RIN
contracts. As with virtually any other financial instrument or commodity, actors in
financial markets make contracts available for RINs to manage price fluctuations over
time. Through such contracts, obligated parties can match their incremental RIN
purchases and associated price risk to their incremental fuel sales, and thereby
achieve consistent, reliable, and complete RIN-cost pass-through.54
 Even if obligated parties achieve only incomplete pass-through of their RIN costs,
that does not necessarily mean they incur a net cost. RIN prices can rise or fall, and
so incomplete pass-through of RIN costs can result in either a net cost or a net gain to
the obligated party. And the history of the RIN market shows that RIN prices
regularly rise and fall to a roughly equal extent, meaning that the gains will generally
offset the costs overall. In any event, there is no a priori reason to conclude that the
costs will exceed the gains overall, and EPA could conclude that the reallocation will
inflict a net cost on obligated parties only if EPA finds that obligated parties’
unpassed-through RIN costs will exceed their unpassed-through RIN gains, but there
is no empirical evidence of that.55
 There is no reason an obligated party would lack sufficient working capital to fully
pass through its RIN costs. Obligated parties never need to “pre-purchase”—i.e., lay
out capital for—RINs before selling the corresponding fuel, and thus they will always
have the capital from the sale of their fuel available to finance the corresponding RIN
acquisition. In fact, obligated parties can use strategies for acquiring RINs that are
accretive to their working capital.56
53 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 27-28, 32, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
54 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 28-31, 32-34, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
55 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 27, 33-34, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
56 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 34, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
14
 Small merchant refineries have argued that they cannot achieve full pass-through of
their RIN costs because of certain features unique to their small size or the small size
of the local markets in which they operate. Those arguments are refuted by both the
empirical evidence and economic theory. But in any event, those arguments
generally would not apply to non-exempt obligated parties, which are typically
integrated, are typically larger, and typically operate in larger markets.57
C. No Statutory Set Factors Weigh Against the Proposed Reallocation
In the supplemental proposal, EPA identifies only one statutory factor that might be
affected adversely by reallocating the exempt 2023-2025 obligations: retail fuel prices for
consumers (precisely because of RIN-cost pass-through). EPA explains: “We do … expect that,
on average at the national level, obligated parties would pass on the costs of purchasing
additional RINs to consumers, and that this action could increase the cost of transportation fuel
to consumers.”58 But as EPA correctly recognizes, this effect does not alter EPA’s initially
proposed analysis of the “cost to consumers” statutory factor or the broader Set factor analysis.
Again, even 100% reallocation would merely preserve the binding force of the previously
proposed volumes. In the Set 2 proposal, EPA already assessed the cost of those volumes to
consumers and found it to be outweighed by the benefits Congress sought to achieve. The
supplemental proposal’s cost analysis confirms that even 100% reallocation would not increase
the cost to consumers above what EPA had already accounted for.59
Moreover, as the D.C. Circuit has held, “in enacting the Renewable Fuel Standards
Program, Congress made a policy choice to accept higher fuel prices in order to reap the benefits
of greater energy independence and … reduced greenhouse gas emissions.”60 “If it were
otherwise, the RFS Program would be largely superfluous; the market would independently
incentivize the production and consumption of renewable fuels.”61 So, as a matter of law, the
very small cost to consumers associated with achieving the full proposed volumes (with
reallocation or not) cannot outweigh the statutory benefits associated with those volumes.
D. Any Desire to Maintain or Grow the RIN Bank as a Safety Valve Cannot
Justify Any Non-Reallocation
Asserting that “[c]arryover RINs provide obligated parties compliance flexibility for
substantial uncertainties in the transportation fuel marketplace,” EPA states in the supplemental
proposal: “Because of the limited number of carryover RINs available [apart from the 2023-2025
SREs], it may not be necessary or appropriate to propose SRE reallocation volumes for 2026 and
57 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 34-36, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
58 Supplemental NPRM at 45,015:1.
59 Supplemental NPRM at 45,015:2-3.
60 Sinclair Wyoming, 101 F.4th at 889.
61 Sinclair Wyoming, 101 F.4th at 889.
15
2027 equal to the full magnitude of the 2023-2025 exemptions to maintain the intended
renewable fuel use in 2026 and 2027.”62 This notion is wrong and should be rejected.
First, even 100% reallocation of the exempt 2023-2025 obligations would not affect nonexempt obligated parties’ ability to comply with their 2026-2027 RFS obligations or draw down
any carryover RINs that would be available irrespective of the 2023-2025 SREs. To meet the
additional obligations resulting from the reallocation, obligated parties would, by definition, need
to draw down only the RINs made available by the 2023-2025 SREs.63 And EPA already
determined that the initially “proposed volumes [for 2026 and 2027] could be met with
renewable fuel produced and used in 2026 and 2027,” without the use of carryover RINs.64
Second, if EPA is suggesting that less than 100% reallocation might be warranted to
enable obligated parties to increase the RIN bank for after 2027, then EPA’s suggestion is
mistaken. For one thing, as explained above, that tactic would simply transfer the problems that
100% reallocation would resolve to a future year: again, the RIN bank inflation from the 2023-
2025 SREs would reduce the efficacy of a future year’s standards and would eventually lead to a
renewable-fuel shortfall in a future year.65 That would subvert Congress’s market-forcing policy
and Congress’ intent to use that policy to achieve important public benefits. For another thing,
as Growth Energy previously showed, EPA completely misunderstands the proper role of
carryover RINs, and intentionally setting RFS standards to preserve or increase the number of
carryover RINs contradicts Congress’ purpose and the CAA’s text.66
In any event, it would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to implement less than 100%
reallocation in order to increase the RIN bank without a concrete analysis of what size the RIN
bank should be. But EPA has not presented any such analysis. Indeed, EPA has never analyzed
whether any particular RIN-bank size—5 billion? 20 billion?—was necessary for the wellfunctioning of the RFS program.
V. EPA SHOULD NOT TREAT CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL DIFFERENTLY FOR PURPOSES OF
REALLOCATING EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS
In the supplemental proposal, EPA asks whether it “should include all, some, or none of
[the exempt 2023-2025 cellulosic biofuel] volumes in the SRE reallocation volumes.”67 EPA
must and should include all of those volumes.
62 Supplemental NPRM at 45,010:3-45,011:1.
63 See Supplemental NPRM at 45,014:2 (“We project that the portion of the RFS obligations
represented by the SRE reallocation volumes would be met with carryover RINs attributable to
the 2023-2025 exempted RVOs.”).
64 Supplemental NPRM at 45,009:3.
65 Supra Pt. I.
66 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 40-42, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
67 Supplemental NPRM at 45,011:3.
16
EPA wonders whether it may account for the carryover cellulosic RINs made available
by the 2023-2025 SREs given that the “projected volume available”—a phrase used in the
CAA’s cellulosic-waiver provision—excludes carryover RINs.68 This question is inapt for two
separate reasons.
First, the cellulosic-waiver standard plays no role in setting the cellulosic biofuel volumes
for years after 2022. As Growth Energy explained in its comment on the initial Set 2 proposal,
EPA misunderstands the CAA’s directives regarding how to set the cellulosic biofuel volumes
for those years. EPA must set those volume requirements without regard to whether a cellulosic
waiver will be triggered, i.e., EPA must set the volume requirement to the maximum achievable
level of cellulosic biofuel production in response to RFS incentives (just as it must do for the
other categories of renewable fuel); EPA may exercise the cellulosic waiver later, on the eve of
the compliance year, if it turns out that the market was unable to achieve the specified level of
production.69
Second, even under EPA’s mistaken interpretation of the cellulosic-waiver standard, that
standard is not implicated by the reallocation of the exempt 2023-2025 cellulosic biofuel
volumes. The reallocation would increase the percentage standards to draw down cellulosic
RINs made available by the 2023-2025 SREs, but that is not because those carryover RINs
would be included in the projection of cellulosic-biofuel production. Rather, EPA’s approach
would first determine the projected production and provisionally establish the volume
requirements at that level, but then independently adjust the standards to preserve the efficacy of
the production-based volume requirements that EPA otherwise determines are appropriate.
These conclusions are unaffected if EPA determines that the achievable cellulosic
volumes are actually higher than it initially proposed.70 In that case, EPA must still set the
cellulosic volume requirements to that level and then adjust the standards to account for the
reallocation of the 2023-2025 cellulosic volumes.
But if EPA were to exclude the exempt 2023-2025 cellulosic obligations from the
reallocation, it should not correspondingly reduce the total volume requirement because, as
Growth Energy has shown, there is ample additional conventional ethanol to backfill the
cellulosic shortfall beyond the volume on which EPA based its proposed total volume
requirements.71
68 Supplemental NPRM at 45,011:3; see 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(D)(i).
69 Growth Energy Comment on Set 2 NPRM at 10-11, EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0505-0646.
70 Supplemental NPRM at 45,011:3.
71 See supra n.46.

The post Growth Energy Comments on EPA 2026-27 RVOs and Reallocation Proposal appeared first on Growth Energy.