Term: 2020
Docket: 20-472
Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining, Llc v. Renewable Fuels Association
- Pro
20-472 HOLLYFRONTIER CHEYENNE V. RENEWABLE FUELS ASSN. DECISION BELOW: 948 F.3d 1206 CERT. GRANTED 1/8/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Renewable Fuel Standard requires refiners, blenders, and importers of transportation fuel to blend increasing amounts of renewable fuels into their products each year. Recognizing that this mandate could harm small refineries, Congress provided that small refineries facing "disproportionate economic hardship" could petition EPA for an exemption "at any time." 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). The Tenth Circuit, however, interpreted this provision to add an additional requirement, namely that a small refinery may obtain an exemption only when it has received uninterrupted, continuous extensions of the exemption for every year since 2011-an interpretation that excludes nearly all small refineries. Accordingly, the question presented is: In order to qualify for a hardship exemption under § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, does a small refinery need to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-9533
In the case of HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, 2020, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of small refineries seeking exemptions from federal renewable fuel standards. The issue at hand was whether a refinery could only qualify for an exemption if it had received continuous annual waivers since 2011 or if it could get an extension even after a gap in coverage. In a 6-3 decision led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court sided with HollyFrontier and other small refineries arguing that they should be eligible for economic hardship exemptions to biofuel blending laws regardless of lapsed time between extensions. This ruling is significant as it impacts how much ethanol and biodiesel must be blended into America's gasoline supply under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which has been contentious among oil refiners and corn growers.
In the dissenting opinion for HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, Justice Barrett argued that the majority misinterpreted the word "extension" in relation to small refineries seeking exemptions from renewable fuel standards set by Congress. She contended that an extension logically requires continuity and thus a refinery cannot seek an 'extension' of an exemption if it has not continuously received this exemption in prior years. This interpretation is consistent with both ordinary language use and legal usage of 'extension'. Furthermore, she pointed out that Congress had made clear its intent to force all refineries towards compliance over time by making these exemptions temporary and subject to increasingly stringent conditions. Therefore, allowing a refinery which did not have or skipped obtaining such exemptions in previous years to now claim one would be contrary to Congressional intent.
