Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-472_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 28

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

(EPA can “issue an order to reduce, for up to a 60-day pe-
riod,  the  quantity  of  biomass-based  diesel  required . . .  ”).
Elsewhere, the statute authorizes EPA to “waive, in whole 
or  in  part,  the  renewable  fuel  requirement[s]”  following  a
finding  that  compliance  would  have  a  significant  adverse 
impact  on  consumers  at  the  outset  of  the  program.
§7545(o)(8)(D)(i). 

Together,  these  nearby  RFP  provisions  show  that  Con-
gress had an “easy way” to delegate standalone waiver au-
thority when it wished.  Advocate Health Care Network v. 
Stapleton, 581 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 8).  Yet Con-
gress  “did  not  adopt  that  ready  alternative”  in  subpara-
graph (B)(i)—it instead used “language whose most natural 
reading” does not contemplate freestanding waiver author-
ity.  Ibid.  See also ante, at 8 (looking to “the absence of any 
parallel . . . language” as an interpretive “clue”). 

Third, note that when assessing petitions for an “exten-
sion of the exemption,” EPA must consider “the findings of
the  study  under  subparagraph  (A)(ii)”—i.e.,  the  Depart-
ment  of  Energy  study  to  be  completed  by  2008.  See 
§§7545(o)(9)(B)(i)–(ii).    The  Court’s  reading  will  require 
EPA  to  examine  the  2008  study  when  evaluating  “exten-
sion” petitions filed decades from now—say, in 2050—even
though the refinery may have had long stretches of compli-
ance in the interim.  If Congress intended exemption “ex-
tension[s]”—or  waivers,  as  the  Court  treats  them—to  re-
main  available  for  decades,  why  would  it  instruct  EPA  to 
keep evaluating them in light of a 2008 study?  Respond-
ents’ reading makes more sense of this instruction because 
it embraces the possibility, even the likelihood, that exemp-
tions would not be available forever.  Funneling refineries
toward  compliance  means  that  it  would  be  surprising  ra-
ther than expected for EPA to be considering a 2008 study 
in 2050. 

Fourth,  other  provisions  help  ease  the  burden  on  small 
refineries  in  times  of  economic  hardship.    To  ensure  that