Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-472_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

1 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–472 
_________________ 

HOLLYFRONTIER CHEYENNE REFINING, LLC, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RENEWABLE 
FUELS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

[June 25, 2021] 

JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and 

JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

When  Congress  amended  the  Clean  Air  Act  to  add  the
Renewable Fuel Program (RFP), it gave small refineries a 
temporary  exemption  from  compliance.  Congress  then
vested  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  with 
authority to grant “extension[s] of the exemption” in certain
instances.  The  question  in  this  case  is  straightforward:
Does this provision limit EPA to prolonging exemptions cur-
rently in place, or does it enable EPA to provide exemptions 
to refineries that lack them?  The statute’s text and struc-
ture direct a clear answer: EPA cannot “extend” an exemp-
tion that a refinery no longer has.  Because the Court’s con-
trary  conclusion  caters  to  an  outlier  meaning  of  “extend”
and clashes with statutory structure, I respectfully dissent. 

I 

Refineries regulated by the RFP come in all shapes and 
sizes—ranging  from  those  run  by  Fortune-500  companies
like HollyFrontier to local outfits with less fuel-blending ca-
pacity and access to capital.  So, as the Court notes, Con-
gress  made  certain  accommodations  for  small  refineries 
that might otherwise struggle to satisfy their RFP obliga-
tions.