Divided US appellate court upholds Biden's biofuel rule
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023-2025 renewable fuel standards were not thrown out by a federal appeals court on Friday. However, the court concluded that regulators had failed to assess the impact the rule could have on climate changes and endangered species. The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ruled 2-1 in favor of environmental groups and refiners. It also ruled that a renewable fuel manufacturer was not allowed to challenge the fuel volume requirements set by the EPA for corn ethanol. The requirements increased how much biofuel oil refiners had to blend into the country's fuel mix.
The majority of the panel found that only two environmental groups, among them Center for Biological Diversity, had a valid case.
They argued that the EPA did not adequately explain why they relied on a study outdated when addressing greenhouse gases associated with crop-based fuels, and argued that the U.S. The Fish and Wildlife Service failed to adequately explain why it concluded that the rules had no impact on endangered species.
The majority of the panel agreed that the EPA’s analysis of climate change effects under the Clean Air Act is arbitrary and the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to explain how it came to the conclusion that there would be “no impact” on habitats if the land was converted to grow soybeans and corn.
U.S. U.S.
Maggie Coulter is a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity. In a statement, she called the ruling a “big win,” saying that the agencies will now have to assess fully the harms caused by the renewable fuels programs to protected species and their habitat.
The EPA has not responded to any requests for comments.
U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas - who Republican President Donald Trump nominated in his first term - dissented, and said that he would have set aside the rule, stating "the requirements are deeper than my colleagues realize."
He said that the EPA only considered how much renewable fuel an industry could produce without considering costs and benefits.
(source: Reuters)
