Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-472_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

court of appeals’ judgment involves surmise about legisla-
tive  purpose  and  arguments  from  public  policy.    Like  the 
Tenth  Circuit,  they  emphasize  that,  by  the  time  the  peti-
tioners sought new exemptions in 2017 and 2018, small re-
fineries already “had many years to ponder . . . whether it 
made  sense  to  enter  into  or  remain  in  the  market.”    948 
F. 3d, at 1247.  The respondents argue that subparagraph
(B) was adopted for the purpose of “funnel[ing] small refin-
eries toward compliance over time.”  Id., at 1246.  And they 
submit  that  enforcing  a  continuity  requirement  helps
advance congressional goals such as increasing “biofuel pro-
duction,  energy  independence,  and  environmental  protec-
tion.”  Ibid. 

The dissent seemingly agrees.  It acknowledges that Con-
gress provided other ameliorating provisions to address var-
ious challenges to the fuel market.  Post, at 8–10.  For ex-
ample and as we have already seen, §7545(o)(7)(A) grants 
EPA authority to waive RFP obligations at any time across 
an  entire  State  or  region  to  address  severe  hardships  or
shortages.  Section 7545(o)(7)(E)(ii) provides a more limited 
waiver  with  respect  to  biomass-based  diesel  fuels.   And 
§7545(o)(8)(D)(i)  provided  a  waiver  authority  to  address
hardships for consumers “in calendar year 2006.”  But on 
the  dissent’s  view,  everything  else  in  the  statute  aims  to 
“[f]unnel[ ]  refineries  toward  compliance.”    Post,  at  9.  In-
deed, the dissent finds it “odd” that our reading would per-
mit hardship relief only to small refineries in existence in 
2008 and not to new ones, post, at 13—and  that our reading 
“will require EPA to examine the 2008 study” when review-
ing extension applications “decades from now,” post, at 9. 

But, as usual, the other side presents a plausible compet-
ing narrative.  On the petitioners’ account, the statute seeks
to increase production of renewable fuel while also offering
a  “safety  valve”  each  year  for  small  refineries  that  might 
otherwise face extinction.  According to the small refineries, 
the respondents’ competing “funnel” metaphor makes little