Will changing the point of obligation improve the RFS?

September 28, 2016

BY John Campbell

The U.S. EPA has set off a debate within the petroleum industry by suggesting that the point of obligation for compliance with the renewable fuel standard (RFS) be moved from the hands of a few petroleum refiners to the hands of many petroleum blenders. This dispute is gaining momentum, going round-and-around like a carrousel. 

Small refiners who do not have downstream assets argue that they are being held up by big refiners who have blending and retail assets. Some independent refiners who generate their own renewable identification numbers (RINs) through ownership of biofuel plants have expressed support for moving the point of obligation. Large refiners have said “no.” Due to the vast difference of opinion within the petroleum industry, it is highly unlikely that EPA will make a change. But that does not mean the problem of some refiners being forced to buy high-priced RINs will go away. 

Although it might reduce some of the trading hanky-panky going on, moving the point of obligation would not change RIN supply and demand fundamentals. There may be a better way to improve the ride: EPA should reconsider allowing biofuel producers to separate the RIN from the physical gallon. 

RINs: Your ticket to ride

To get a handle on this issue it is helpful to understand why we have RINs in the first place. When Congress created the first federal RFS in 2005, some feared there could be logistical issues if the government required that every gallon be blended with a specific percentage of biofuel. Others feared that crop variables might lead to a shortfall of corn and cause a squeeze. So, legislators and regulators came up with safeguards and off-ramps for the EPA administrator to use if needed. 

One of these safeguards was the creation of credits, now known as RINs. The RINs allowed for inter-year and year-to-year banking and trading of credits to account for different fuel needs and infrastructure throughout the country. It meant that biofuels could be used where it made the most sense and allowed a marketplace to develop in the buying and selling of RINs.

Unfortunately, as you might see with any new program, a few problems have emerged that have made the RIN market controversial. They are time, transparency and trading.

Time: Waiting in line takes too long

Although RINs have a limited two-year lifespan, EPA has had difficulty making yearly RFS decisions and has sometimes made decisions many months late. As a result, EPA has moved the compliance deadlines accordingly. The importance of this is that the market does not know which renewable fuel bucket refiners will fill with which RINs. For example—we still do not have compliance data for 2014. This means is that the market can only guess about the supply and demand for RINs, and that there is a long time to trade RINs before compliance deadlines. This often leads to speculative trading.

Advertisement

Transparency: Blindfolded until the music stops

The market knows within about 30 days when a RIN is created. The market does not know its final resting place until the obligated party deadline (see Time). This could be two years later or more. In the meantime, a RIN could be on a fast and furious ownership run, trading hands several times before an obligated party drops it into one of many RFS compliance buckets. During this volatile period of ownership nobody knows who owns what. This is because once the “blender” is allowed to separate the RIN from the physical gallon, it becomes blindfolded musical chairs until the music stops and everybody tries to takes a seat (RIN compliance deadline). This tends to favor business people who have a trading desk and a big balance sheet.

Trading: Who gets to grab the brass ring?   

Trading was envisioned by Congress and regulators but the RIN system was never intended to become an unregulated and unsupervised speculative ride. The view was that nobody would be interested in this archaic piece of digital data and that trading would occur primarily between obligated parties. For many years RIN values were just pennies, mostly reflecting transportation differentials between regions. Today the RIN values are much higher, so the cost of compliance just got a lot pricier.

So far, much of debate has been about who wins and who loses as RIN values go up and down. In the futures market for other commodities, winners and losers must equal out to net zero. Similarly, a holder of RINs may just as easily lose if the price goes down from where they were purchased, but we really don’t know who is winning or losing other than by digging through the financial reports of publicly traded players. While there are definitely winners and losers, any net cost for RINs are ultimately passed on to the consumer. It is a cost of doing business—just like taxes (which vary greatly from company to company too) or any other cost.

One thing for sure is that all this booty is not going to the biofuel producer. You can look at the margins for publicly traded biofuel companies and see that the vast majority of RIN value is carved up among the players downstream from the biofuel producer. Some say that injured refiners should just buy biofuel producers if they have a problem with RINs. That is like telling a biofuel producer to buy a refiner if they don’t like the price of fuel. It is not that easy—even though around one-third of the biofuel industry is already owned by petroleum companies.

How can we fine-tune the ride?

Assuming the point of obligation stays the same, there are other alternatives that might improve the situation:

1. EPA must make their decisions on time. This will: A) Give the market less time to speculate about what EPA might do, and B) Put the compliance deadlines back on track—less time to trade RINs. EPA might even consider forcing the obligated party to do an initial compliance report on a monthly basis so everyone can see how each obligated party intends to comply rather than waiting 14 or more months to find out.

2. Increase transparency. Each time a RIN trades, the new owner needs to be identified immediately. These trades are already on automated data systems through an EPA clearinghouse, so making the data available should not pose a huge problem. This information exists but EPA has not published it since 2013. EPA could also develop and publish a cumulative, real-time balance sheet for RINs.

Advertisement

3. Limit trading. Other traded agricultural commodities have position limits, daily price movement limits, and the status of the ownership is known (commercials versus noncommercials, for example). While not exactly comparable, RINs trading could be limited to those with a nexus to the industry and the status of ownership (obligated party versus nonobligated party) could be made known immediately. There could be other practical ideas to reduce the speculative aspect of trading.

The end of the line

Rather than changing the point of obligation, EPA should reevaluate allowing biofuel producers to separate the RIN from the physical gallon. Under current rules only the blender can separate the RIN. Decoupling RINs at the point of manufacture would not solve many of the problems listed above, but small refiners could at least deal directly with biofuel producers rather than having to buy from their petroleum competitor or a speculative holder.

We may not be able to stop the merry-go-round of RIN compliance, but we can set it at a better pace, and keep the big kids from jumping the line.

Author: John Campbell

Managing Director, Ocean Park Advisors

310-670-2093

jcampbell@oceanpk.com

 

 

Related Stories

CVR Energy Inc. released fourth quarter financial results on Feb. 18, reporting reduced renewable diesel production. The company also said it is pausing development of SAF capacity pending clarity on government subsidies.

Read More

CARB on Feb. 18 announced that amendments to its LCFS program that were approved in November 2024 have been put on hold following the California Office of Administrative Law’s decision to disapprove the amendments due to clarity issues.

Read More

The U.S. EIA reduced its forecast for 2025 biodiesel production in its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, released Feb. 11. The forecasts for renewable diesel production and the production of other biofuels, including SAF, were maintained.

Read More

Calumet Inc. on Feb. 18 announced that its subsidiary Montana Renewables LLC has received the first drawdown of approximately $782 million from its $1.44 billion U.S. DOE loan guarantee. The loan will fund the expansion of SAF production capacity.

Read More

Neste Corp. on Feb. 13 released fourth quarter financial results, reporting that its renewables segment was impacted by both market and operational challenges during the three-month period. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) sales, however, were up.

Read More

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our e-newsletter!

Advertisement

Advertisement