US lawmakers are weighing a proposal that would make it harder for oil refiners to win exemptions from annual biofuel mandates but still let regulators decide which companies deserve relief.
The US House of Representatives last month punted on legislation that would allow year-round sales of 15pc ethanol gasoline (E15) and revamp the biofuel quota program, instead tasking a "rural domestic energy council" of more than 20 Republican lawmakers with hashing out reforms. One provisional plan circulated by the council this week would cap the total volume of future exemptions, according to four people familiar with the proposal and a draft framework shared with Argus.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires oil companies to annually blend biofuels or buy Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits from those that do, while letting small refineries bid for hardship exemptions that can save them tens of millions of dollars. Exemption decisions have varied wildly over time, from mass denials under former-president Joe Biden to generous exemptions under President Donald Trump that has frustrated farmers.
450mn RIN cap
The House task force's proposal would make the program somewhat more predictable. EPA would initially have to exempt 450mn RINs from annual biofuel obligations but no more, prioritizing companies that prove the most hardship.
That would be a substantial drop from the nearly 1bn RINs the Trump administration has already exempted from 2024 quotas, initially set at 21.5bn credits. If mandates rise over time, EPA must proportionally raise that 450mn RIN cap.
One gallon of corn ethanol generates 1 RIN, while more energy-dense fuels like renewable diesel earn more. Unexpected exemptions can hurt RIN prices, cutting into biorefinery margins and curtail demand for crops like corn and soybeans.
Other changes would limit — but not entirely eliminate — EPA's discretion. Regulators would have to largely stick to their current system for measuring hardship, which factors in criteria like a refinery's access to capital. EPA would also have to consider "additional materials" determined by the council to limit "abuse", though the framework does not elaborate on what this would entail.
An earlier proposal backed by the American Petroleum Institute and ethanol groups would have restricted exemptions to companies with limited collective refining capacity, angering some larger companies that would have lost the ability to win exemptions for smaller units they own. The latest proposal would leave it to EPA to decide which facilities deserve relief, letting small companies, mid-sized refiners like Delek and even oil majors like Chevron still compete for a smaller pool of exemptions.
EPA could not force larger oil companies to blend more biofuels to offset exemptions for their smaller rivals and would have to automatically extend exemptions if it takes more than six months to weigh a company's new request. The framework would also keep the program focused around fuels that retailers can easily blend, blocking EPA from ever reviving a Biden plan to credit biogas that powers electric vehicles.
The proposal shared with Argus makes no explicit mention of removing summertime limits of E15, though that is the top priority for farm-state lawmakers on the council keen to help corn farmers. Trump has made clear too he wants to expand E15 access. The framework would require EPA to finalize E15 labeling and storage standards.
The proposal includes no details on timing. Some biofuel advocates have pushed delaying any changes to 2028, worried that near-term shifts could delay the Trump administration's goal of finalizing new biofuel quotas before April.
Not final, still an uphill battle
The framework is just one idea the council is weighing and could change. A legislative source familiar with the debate told Argus that "nothing definitive has been decided".
The council has a goal of aligning around fuel market reforms by 15 February. Afterwards, any plan would likely need to be added to larger legislation to have a chance of passing, such as a farmer aid package.
Advocates of the plan face an uphill battle. Some Republicans, including in the US Senate, have long pushed for more substantial reforms to the biofuel mandates than what the task force has contemplated. The framework only alludes to these concerns, requiring a government watchdog agency to regularly study how the program impacts fuel prices and US refining capacity.
Democrats, already frustrated they were left off the council, could also resist permanently excluding electricity.
