Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-472_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 20–472.  Argued April 27, 2021—Decided June 25, 2021 

When  Congress  created  the  renewable  fuel  program  (RFP)  requiring 
most domestic refineries to blend renewable fuels into the transporta-
tion  fuels  they  produce,  see  42  U. S. C.  §7545(o)(1)(J),  (o)(1)(L),
(o)(2)(A)(i), it added features designed to lessen the impact of the pro-
gram’s mandates on small refineries.  At the outset, Congress created
a blanket exemption from RFP obligations for all small refineries until
2011.    §7545(o)(9)(A)(i).  Congress  also  directed  the  Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to “extend the exemption under clause (i)” for 
at least two years if the RFP obligations would impose “a dispropor-
tionate 
refinery.
§7545(o)(9)(A)(ii).  Finally, Congress offered the possibility of further 
relief in future years by providing that “[a] small refinery may at any
time  petition  . . .  for  an  extension  of  the  exemption  under  subpara-
graph  (A)  for  the  reason  of  disproportionate  economic  hardship.” 
§7545(o)(9)(B)(i). 

economic  hardship” 

on  a 

small 

given 

Here, three small refineries initially received an exemption, saw it
lapse for a period, and then again petitioned for an exemption under 
subparagraph (B)(i).  EPA granted the exemptions, and a group of re-
newable fuel producers objected.  The Tenth Circuit vacated EPA’s de-
cisions, concluding that the small refineries were ineligible for an “ex-
tension” under subparagraph (B)(i) because they had allowed previous 
exemptions to lapse. 

Held: A  small  refinery  that  previously  received  a  hardship  exemption 
may obtain an “extension” under §7545(o)(9)(B)(i) even if it saw a lapse
in exemption coverage in a previous year.  Pp. 4–16.

(a) The  key  term  here—“extension”—is  not  defined  in  the  statute.