A few weeks ago some of you may recall that I wrote a couple of blog posts on the Iowa B5 mandate-which, by the way is on hold until the next session since the legislature recently adjourned-and in those posts I pointed out how dirty the oil companies and trucking firms were playing in Iowa's great intrastate debate. And how they speak out of both sides of their mouths by saying they support renewable fuels like biodiesel and ethanol, clearly taking advantage of the public relations benefits alternative fuels provides them, yet at the same time vigorously opposing biofuel mandates. 
 
 On the federal level, immediately after U.S. EPA published the final RFS2 rule on March 26, both the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association filed lawsuits against EPA on what appears to be the retroactive aspect of the rule. For biomass-based diesel this means the oil lobby and its constituents do not like the fact that 2009 obligations to blend 500 million gallons of biodiesel weren't overlooked but, in fact, they were upheld by EPA. The entire rule is retroactive back to Jan. 1, 2010. API calls this "unreasonable," "unlawful," and "unfair." 
 
 The organizations state that this lawsuit is not challenging the overall standard, just the retroactive part. The argument appears to be, EPA missed its deadlines set forth by Congress by a year and a half and "does not give the Agency license to impose retroactively additional compliance burdens on obligated parties." 
 
 All we in the biodiesel industry have been hearing is how, even though the standard for biomass-based diesel this year is 1.15 billion gallons (2009+2010 mandated volumes), the actual amount necessary to be blended this year is significantly lower due to the fact that blended volumes or RINs from 2009 can count toward this year's requirements, and retired RINs that were not eligible under the RFS1 program (e.g., off-road, etc.) can be revived and put toward obligated parties' requirements this year; in addition to being able to carry forward up to 20 percent of RINs from 2008. So my question is, if obligated parties already have a jump on meeting this year's mandate with all of these flexibilities, why are they filing suit and crying foul? Does it point to insufficient accounting and paper trails? 
 
 For those oil companies that did not keep up pace with biodiesel blending in 2009 or cannot prove that they did, are these lawsuits more about the fear of being required to blend biodiesel now at a much higher cost than a year ago, since the tax credit is in limbo? Surely the oil companies would pass any added cost on to the consumer, but what about those oil companies that are closer to meeting their obligations than others, they would at this point have a competitive advantage over the companies that are scrambling to meet their requirements with higher priced biodiesel and/or higher priced RINs.

Adding some perspective to the RFS2 lawsuits

Adding perspective to the RFS2 lawsuits

Upcoming Events

North American SAF Conference & Expo

2026 International Biomass Conference & Expo

Adding perspective to the RFS2 lawsuits.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}

Upcoming Events

North American SAF Conference & Expo

2026 International Biomass Conference & Expo

Adding perspective to the RFS2 lawsuits