EPA Grants Small Refinery Exemptions, Reaffirms Partial Relief

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for 2026-27 did more than just set renewable fuel mandates for the next two years, they included dramatic shifts in the way that imported fuels and feedstocks are handled and raised the likelihood of higher compliance costs during a time in which the federal government has been focused on keeping prices under control. In today’s RBN blog, we look at the critical changes that will affect imported biofuels and feedstocks and the potential cost impact. 

Over the past few weeks, publicly traded independent refining companies reported their latest quarterly results, and nearly all lamented on a common theme: the cost of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) is out of control. However, the financial burden is not felt equally across the industry, as companies with integrated marketing operations (refining, blending and retailing) don’t face the same RINs-cost albatross as merchant refiners who don’t have retail operations. Today we review the escalating RIN costs that obligated parties have endured this year and explain how the degree of financial pain depends on the level of refiners’ downstream integration.

Last month, in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest ruling in a long-running dispute with refiners over the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), EPA denied 36 petitions from refiners seeking exemptions to their obligation to blend renewables like ethanol into gasoline for the 2018 compliance year. At the core of this dispute are two contradictory premises about Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs. One premise says the RINs system adds cost that hurts refiners’ profitability, while the other says refiners’ profitability is not affected. Can two seemingly contradictory premises be true? In today’s RBN blog, we begin an examination of the issues surrounding RINs and the degree to which the cost affects refiners’ and blenders’ bottom lines.