Statement from Chet Thompson: A plain reading of the RFS makes clear that Congress intended for the small refinery hardship program to be a lasting safety net. There is no “use it or lose it” provision.
The Supreme Court is set to review RFS small refinery relief—what’s required to qualify and whether any small refinery can be forever disqualified.
AFPM recently submitted comments to EPA in support of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) general waiver petitions submitted by the governors of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania.
"Smaller” biofuel mandates due to compliance waivers have not reduced the volume of ethanol consumed in the United States — a fact government data affirms. Here’s why.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, AFPM issued the following statement on the final RFS volumes announced for 2020 and EPA’s related decision on its supplemental proposal.
In the final days before EPA issues the 2020 volumes for the federal biofuel mandate and makes a ruling on the supplemental proposal offered in October, it’s critical to acknowledge that all available data shows there are no “lost gallons” of ethanol that need to be reallocated as part of these announcements.
It should come as a surprise to congressional supporters of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), that their 2007 votes to expand the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to advance “homegrown energy” would lead to historic U.S. imports of biodiesel