Opinion ID: 6317007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Supplemental Briefing

Text: After oral argument, Producers of Renewables filed a notice of supplemental authority under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) to highlight our court’s decision in Renewable Fuels Association v. EPA, 948 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2020). Of note, Producers of Renewables contends that in Renewable Fuels we rejected arguments similar to ones raised by the refineries in this case, which contested the petitioners’ standing to sue. For two reasons, we find that Renewable Fuels has no bearing on our obligation to ensure that Producers of Renewables “had Article III standing at the outset of [this] litigation.” Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180. First, the petitioners in Renewable Fuels—four organizations that make up the Biofuels Coalition—challenged an agency decision distinct from what is at stake in this appeal. There, the petitioners argued the EPA exceeded its statutory authority in granting extensions of several small refinery exemptions. We are confronted with a different issue. Unlike the petitioners in Renewable Fuels, Producers of Renewables does not challenge the validity of the EPA’s decision to grant HollyFrontier and Sinclair hardship exemptions. But in Renewable Fuels, the Biofuels Coalition argued the EPA improperly conducted its “disproportionate economic hardship” evaluation for certain small refineries. 948 F.3d at 1252. In so doing, the Biofuels Coalition claimed the EPA should never have granted these hardship 22 Appellate Case: 19-9532 Document: 010110648841 Date Filed: 02/23/2022 Page: 23 exemptions in the first place. That is not contested in this case. In order to effectuate the hardship exemptions to ensure it provided relief to HollyFrontier and Sinclair, the EPA granted the small refineries replacement compliance credits. As such, Producers of Renewables only challenges the decisions to grant replacement RINs—not the underlying small refinery exemptions. These differences have implications for our standing analysis. For example, in Renewable Fuels, we vacated the EPA’s grant of three small refinery extension petitions. But in this case, a remand would only reverse the chosen remedy—not the hardship exemptions. Therefore, the EPA would still need to fashion another solution so that the exemptions offer the refineries meaningful relief. It is this case-specific reason that influences our conclusion that a judgment against the EPA would not be substantially likely to redress Producers of Renewables’ alleged injuries. Second, the petitioners in Renewable Fuels met their burden of persuasion to prove their standing to bring suit. They detailed before our court their injury. And unlike Producers of Renewables, the Biofuels Coalition delineated how the challenged small refinery exemptions caused their injuries. Toward that end, one of the petitioners’ economists “identifie[d], as a percentage [of total renewable fuel obligations for the refineries in question], what the [contested] extensions granted to the Refineries represent[ed] in terms of all exempted volumes.” Id. at 1232. He also provided specific calculations for estimated revenue reductions for some of the petitioners’ members “due to the Refineries’ extensions.” Id. at 1232–33. The economist even “attest[ed] that ethanol prices would have been $0.08 per gallon higher in February 2018 absent these 23 Appellate Case: 19-9532 Document: 010110648841 Date Filed: 02/23/2022 Page: 24 extensions.” Id. at 1233. In contrast, Producers of Renewables provides no more than a broad, macro analysis of the RIN market.