Federal Appeals Court Finds EPA’s Analysis of the Climate Change Impact of Renewable Fuels Arbitrary and Capricious

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in the challenge to the renewable fuel volume obligations set by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the years 2023-2025. The court found that arguments made by the National Wildlife Federation had merit. It agreed that “EPA failed to adequately explain why — for purposes of addressing lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with crop-based biofuels — it reused the results of an admittedly outdated study instead of newer data collected from EPA’s literature review of the most reliable post-2010 findings.”

Carrie Apfel, Attorney at Earthjustice and counsel for petitioner National Wildlife Federations, said, “We’re glad the court found arbitrary and capricious EPA’s analysis of the climate change impact of this rule – and especially the climate effects of increasing the use of crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and soy-based diesel. The massive use of food crops as fuel destroys wildlife habitat, degrades air and water quality, and offers no demonstrated climate change mitigation benefits, all while imposing billions of dollars of increased food and fuel costs on consumers. Today’s decision holds that EPA cannot arbitrarily ignore evidence of the higher greenhouse gas emissions associated with these fuels when setting renewable fuel standards. We hope EPA will keep this harsh impact in mind as it moves forward with setting the volumes for 2026 and 2027.”

“We are glad the Circuit Court agreed with our arguments that the EPA ignored the latest science in justifying its reckless expansion of the biofuel mandate,” said David DeGennaro, senior policy specialist for climate and energy at the National Wildlife Federation. “By continuing to increase the renewable fuel standards volumes each year, the agency is adding pressure to the destruction consuming tropical rainforest and dwindling native grasslands in the name of ‘renewable fuels.’”

The Court also agreed with arguments made by the Center for Biological Diversity and rejected all the arguments made by the refiners of petroleum products, a renewable fuel producer (Neste), and a trade association representing certain biodiesel stakeholders.