Court Opinion

ID: 9409523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 16:01:10.840742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:51.201029
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 19, 2023                Decided July 18, 2023

                        No. 22-1015

 WYNNEWOOD REFINING COMPANY, LLC AND COFFEYVILLE
      RESOURCES REFINING & MARKETING, LLC,
                   PETITIONERS

                             v.

          ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
                    RESPONDENT

            Consolidated with 22-1051, 22-1053

          On Petitions for Review of a Final Action
           of the Environmental Protection Agency

     Michael R. Huston argued the cause for petitioners. On
the briefs were Ian S. Shelton, Jonathan G. Hardin, Alexandra
Magill Bromer, Eric B. Wolff, and Karl J. Worsham.

    Jeffrey Hughes, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was
Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General.
                              2
    Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, PILLARD, Circuit
Judge, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD.

    Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Senior
Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.

     PILLARD, Circuit Judge: The Renewable Fuel Standard
Program codified in the Clean Air Act requires all
transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain an
annually determined volume of renewable fuel. As part of its
role in implementing the Program, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issues renewable fuel standards
announcing the annual quantity of renewables that must be sold
into United States commerce. The standards apply to the
businesses—refiners        and     importers—that    introduce
transportation fuels into the United States economy. To ensure
timely promulgation, Congress set annual deadlines in the Act
for the agency’s publication of those standards.

     EPA has not always met those deadlines. We have already
considered challenges to EPA’s belated issuance of renewable
fuel standards on three other occasions. In each case we upheld
EPA’s authority, provided that the agency reasonably
mitigated delay-related harm to obligated parties. Extending
obligated parties’ compliance deadlines has been a typical,
approved form of mitigation.

     EPA failed to meet its deadlines to publish the 2020-2022
renewable fuel standards. As part of its mitigation, EPA issued
a rule extending the corresponding compliance reporting
deadlines. The leeway provided in that Extension Rule ensures
that obligated parties will not have to file compliance reports
for 2020-2022 until after EPA has published the standards for
                                3
those years. To get the Program back on track, the Rule
compresses the intervals between the 2020, 2021, and 2022
compliance deadlines, leaving obligated parties less time
between compliance filings than they have had in the past. The
Rule also establishes a new compliance schedule for 2023 and
later years. In these consolidated petitions, a group of fuel
refineries (the Refineries) challenge the Extension Rule. They
argue that the Rule violates the Clean Air Act, or is at least
arbitrary and capricious, insofar as it provides obligated parties
less than 13 months’ compliance lead time (i.e., time from
EPA’s announcement of the relevant standard to the reporting
deadline), and compliance intervals (i.e., time between
reporting deadlines for successive compliance years) shorter
than 12 months.

     We deny the petitions for review. When EPA fails to
timely issue renewable fuel standards, the Clean Air Act does
not bind the agency to provide obligated parties a minimum of
13 months’ compliance lead time, nor does it require
compliance intervals of at least 12 months. We likewise reject
the Refineries’ claim that EPA acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in setting the compliance schedule in the Rule.
Rather, the agency reasonably exercised its authority to
establish the compliance timeframe for the Renewable Fuel
Standard Program under the circumstances.

                                I.

                               A.

     Congress established the Renewable Fuel Standard
Program (RFS Program or Program) in 2005 as part of a suite
of changes to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Energy Policy
Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594; Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140,
§§ 201-202, 121 Stat. 1492, 1519-28 (codified at 42 U.S.C.
                               4
§ 7545(o)) (amending the RFS Program provisions). The
Program sets requirements for the volume of renewable fuel
that our domestic transportation fuel supply must contain each
year. See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A), (B). In enacting the
Program, Congress sought “[t]o move the United States toward
greater energy independence and security” and “increase the
production of clean renewable fuels” by imposing a volume
requirement to stimulate demand for the renewables. Energy
Independence and Security Act, preamble, 121 Stat. at 1492.

     The Act vests EPA with primary responsibility for
implementing the Program. It charges EPA with issuing
regulations “to ensure that transportation fuel sold or
introduced into commerce in the United States,” excluding the
noncontiguous states and territories, contains at least a
specified volume of renewable fuel for each year. 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(o)(2)(A)(i). The Act prescribes annual volumes for
four categories of fuel: total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel,
cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel.                Id.
§ 7545(o)(2)(A)(i). For the years 2005 through 2022,
Congress set forth the “applicable volume” (i.e., the minimum
volume) of total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and
cellulosic biofuel; for the years after 2022, the Act requires
EPA to set those volumes by rule. See id. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(i),
(B)(ii). As for biomass-based diesel, Congress prescribed the
applicable volumes for 2005 through 2012 and instructed EPA
to set the annual applicable volume by rule for 2013 and
beyond. See id.

     To ensure the Program’s renewable fuel volume
requirements are met, EPA translates the applicable volumes
for each category of fuel for a given year into standards that
regulated parties must meet. Id. § 7545(o)(3)(B). EPA
calculates those standards by dividing the applicable volume
for each renewable fuel type by an estimate of the national
                               5
volume of gasoline and diesel that the U.S. market will
consume that year, subject to certain adjustments. See id.
§ 7545(o)(3)(A), (B)(i); 40 C.F.R. § 80.1405(c). The resulting
percentages inform obligated parties how much of their fuel
production must consist of renewable fuels. See Monroe
Energy, LLC v. EPA, 750 F.3d 909, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
(citing 40 C.F.R. § 80.1405(c)). To use a simple example, if
the applicable volume for a year is 15 billion gallons, and EPA
estimates that the national volume of transportation fuel
consumption for the year is 100 billion gallons, the applicable
percentage will be 15 percent. Id. In that year, obligated
parties must ensure that, for every gallon of nonrenewable fuel
they produce or import, they introduce an additional 15 percent
of that amount (0.15 gallons) of renewable fuel into the United
States’ fuel supply. See id.

     The Act establishes an annual deadline by which EPA
must publish the percentage standards for the upcoming year
through 2022. For the renewable fuel categories relevant here,
EPA must publish them by November 30 of the preceding
calendar year—i.e., one month before the year in which the
standards will apply. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(3)(B)(i). After
2022, the Act prescribes no deadline for when EPA must
publish the percentage standards. Id. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(i), (ii).
Instead, for 2023 and later years, the statute sets an annual
deadline for EPA to publish the applicable volumes of
renewable fuel (as distinct from the percentage standards). Id.
§ 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). For those years, the Act directs EPA to
publish the applicable volumes “no later than 14 months before
the first year for which such applicable volume will apply.” Id.

    The Act does not set compliance deadlines. Instead, the
CAA empowers EPA to promulgate regulations that “contain
compliance provisions” to “ensure” the annual renewable fuel
volumes are met. Id. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(iii). Existing EPA rules
                               6
require obligated parties to submit compliance reports on an
annual basis demonstrating that they have met a given year’s
standards. 40 C.F.R. § 80.1451(f)(1).

     Two components of the compliance framework
established by EPA bear particular relevance here. First, what
we call “compliance lead time” is the period between EPA’s
announcement of a renewable fuel standard and the relevant
compliance reporting deadline. So, if EPA were to announce
the 2020 renewable fuel standards on November 30, 2019, and
require obligated parties to submit their compliance reports for
that year on January 1, 2021, that schedule would provide
obligated parties with roughly 13 months’ compliance lead
time. Second, what we refer to as “compliance intervals” are
the periods between the reporting deadlines for consecutive
compliance years. For instance, if EPA were to set the
reporting deadlines for the 2020-2022 compliance years as
January 1 of 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively, that
compliance schedule would provide obligated parties with 12-
month compliance intervals. The lead times and compliance
intervals set by EPA directly affect obligated parties’
compliance burdens: The former governs how much notice
obligated parties receive in preparing to meet their renewable
fuel obligations for a given year, and the latter determines how
long obligated parties have between reporting deadlines to take
the steps necessary to satisfy their obligations across
successive compliance years.

     As for how obligated parties demonstrate compliance, the
Act establishes a market-based program through which parties
can purchase and trade credits. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(5). The
credits in this system are known as “Renewable Identification
Numbers” or “RINs.” See 40 C.F.R. § 80.1425. RINs are
unique numbers that represent a given volume of renewable
fuel. Id. § 80.1401; see Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 913. In
                               7
effect, RINs serve as the currency of the RFS Program. Parties
acquire RINs and then demonstrate compliance with their
renewable fuel obligations for the year by “retir[ing]” (i.e.,
submitting) them to EPA by the compliance filing deadline. Id.
§ 80.1427(a).

     The statute and regulations describe how RINs become
available. A party that produces or imports renewable fuel for
use in the United States thereby generates a quantity of RINs
corresponding to the volume of ethanol-equivalent fuel gallons
(a standardized measure across different fuel types) that it has
introduced into the U.S. economy. See Monroe Energy, 750
F.3d at 913; 40 C.F.R. §§ 80.1415(a), 80.1425, 80.1426. When
an entity blends renewable fuel into conventional
transportation fuel (e.g., gasoline or diesel), the RINs from the
blended renewable batch are deemed “separated,” meaning
they may be traded in the market or used to demonstrate
compliance. See Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 913 (citing 40
C.F.R. § 80.1426(e), 80.1429(b)). Parties may thus acquire
“separated” (i.e., usable) RINs either by blending renewable
fuel into conventional transportation fuel themselves or buying
separated RINs from another entity that did so. See id. The
Act provides that RINs are “valid to show compliance for the
12 months as of the date of generation.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(o)(5)(C).

     To provide compliance flexibility, the Act permits
obligated parties “unable to generate or purchase sufficient
credits to meet the [renewable fuel] requirements” for the given
year to carry forward a “renewable fuel deficit” into the next
compliance year. Id. § 7545(o)(5)(D). Any party carrying
forward a deficit under this provision must accumulate
sufficient credits the next year to pay off that deficit. Id. We
refer to this provision as the deficit carry-forward provision.
                                8
     Finally, as relevant here, the Act permits small refineries,
which are defined in terms of their average daily crude oil
throughput, id. § 7545(o)(1)(K), to petition for exemptions
from Program requirements based on “disproportionate
economic hardship,” id. § 7545(o)(9). EPA must grant or deny
such petitions “not later than 90 days after the date of receipt.”
Id. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(iii).

                               B.

     This case centers on EPA’s authority to alter obligated
parties’ compliance deadlines when the agency has fallen
behind in administering the RFS Program and seeks to catch
up.

     A series of EPA delays precipitated the challenge before
us. While these delays are not the subject of the Refineries’
petitions here, we briefly recount them as context helpful to
understanding the challenged Extension Rule. First, for the
2020-2022 compliance years, EPA failed to timely issue the
Program’s renewable fuel standards. The statutory deadlines
for EPA to issue those standards fell on November 30 of 2019,
2020, and 2021, respectively. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(3)(B)(i).
EPA initially issued the 2020 standard approximately two
months late, on February 6, 2020. See Renewable Fuel
Standard Program: Standards for 2020 and Biomass-Based
Diesel Volume for 2021 and Other Changes, 85 Fed. Reg.
7016, 7069 (Feb. 6, 2020). EPA then issued a revised, more
lenient version of the 2020 standard on July 1, 2022—i.e., 31
months after its statutory due date. See Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules, 87 Fed. Reg.
39,600 (July 1, 2022) (July 2022 Rule). EPA issued the 2021
and 2022 standards in that same July 2022 Rule, see id. at
39,601—so those announcements were late by 19 and 8
months, respectively, see 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(3)(B)(i).
                               9
     Notably, those were not the first times EPA had missed its
statutory deadlines to publish renewable fuel standards for a
given year. See Ams. for Clean Energy v. EPA (ACE), 864 F.3d
691, 718-21 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at
919-20; Nat’l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass’n v. EPA, 630
F.3d 145, 154-58 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Given EPA’s track record,
we have wondered in past cases whether some of the standard-
setting deadlines Congress prescribed may be “unrealistic” in
view of EPA resources and the nature of the task. Nat’l
Petrochemical, 630 F.3d at 156.

     The Refineries also emphasize that EPA did not timely
resolve many small refinery petitions for exemption from RFS
Program requirements for the 2016-2021 compliance years.
See Notice of June 2022 Denial of Petitions for Small Refinery
Exemptions Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 87
Fed. Reg. 34,873, 34,873-74 (June 8, 2022) (Notice of June
2022 SRE Denial); April 2022 Denial of Petitions for Small
Refinery Exemptions Under the Renewable Fuel Standard
Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,300, 24,300 (Apr. 25, 2022). As of
early 2022, those petitions remained pending while EPA
reevaluated its overall policies for adjudicating small refinery
exemption petitions. See Notice of Opportunity to Comment
on Proposed Denial of Petitions for Small Refinery
Exemptions, 86 Fed. Reg. 70,999, 71,000 (Dec. 14, 2021)
(December 2021 Notice).

    That brings us to the challenged rule: As part of its efforts
to mitigate the harm caused by its delayed standard-setting and
the continued uncertainty surrounding its small refinery
exemption policies, EPA issued the Extension Rule in
February 2022. See Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program:
Extension of Compliance and Attest Engagement Reporting
Deadlines, 87 Fed. Reg. 5,696 (Feb. 2, 2022) (Extension Rule
                               10
or Rule). The Rule makes two principal sets of changes to the
Program’s compliance schedule.

     First, the Rule extends obligated parties’ 2019-2022
compliance deadlines. It extends the 2019 compliance
reporting deadline for small refineries from November 30,
2021, to the next quarterly reporting deadline after the effective
date of the 2021 renewable fuel standards—i.e., September 1,
2022. See id. at 5,698-99; Extension of 2019 and 2020
Renewable Fuel Standard Compliance and Attest Engagement
Reporting Deadlines, 86 Fed. Reg. 17,073, 17,073 (Apr. 1,
2021); July 2022 Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 39,600. The Rule also
pushes back the 2020 and 2021 compliance deadlines for all
obligated parties to the next quarterly reporting deadline after
the prior compliance year’s reporting deadline. See Extension
Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,699. And for 2022, the Rule sets the
compliance deadline as the later of the next quarterly reporting
deadline after (1) the effective date of the 2023 renewable fuel
standards or (2) the compliance deadline for 2021. See id.

     To put things more simply, those changes ensure obligated
parties will not have to submit their 2020-2022 compliance
reports before knowing their renewable fuel obligations for
those years. The Rule also ensures small refineries will not
have to submit their 2019 compliance reports before the agency
resolves the pending small refinery exemption petitions—i.e.,
before those small refineries know whether they are exempt
from compliance reporting requirements.

    Second, the Extension Rule establishes a new compliance
schedule for 2023 and ensuing years. It sets the compliance
deadline for each year starting in 2023 as the latest of (a) March
31 of the following calendar year; (b) the next quarterly
reporting deadline after the effective date of the next
compliance year’s standards; or (c) the next quarterly reporting
                              11
deadline after the compliance deadline for the prior compliance
year. See id. at 5,700. In practical terms, this provision
automatically extends obligated parties’ compliance reporting
deadlines in the event EPA fails to timely issue the renewable
fuel standards for a given year in the future.

     Beyond the Extension Rule, EPA undertook several
additional steps to mitigate the effects on regulated parties of
its delays during the 2019 to 2022 compliance cycles. In the
rule setting the 2020-2022 standards, EPA adjusted the 2020
renewable fuel volume downward to reflect the “volumes of
renewable fuel actually used in” that year. July 2022 Rule, 87
Fed. Reg. at 39,618. EPA anticipated that this downward
adjustment would decrease the risk of scarcity of RINs for
obligated parties to use for compliance, which would in turn
reduce the risk of “disrupt[ions] [to] the functionality of the
RIN market.” Id. EPA likewise eased the 2021 requirements,
setting the “2021 volumes at the volumes of renewable fuel
actually used in 2021.”        Id.    Separately, the agency
promulgated a rule that allows small refineries to opt into an
alternative schedule giving them more time to satisfy their
2020 renewable fuel obligations. Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) Program: Alternative RIN Retirement Schedule for
Small Refineries, 87 Fed. Reg. 54,158, 54,161 (Sept. 2, 2022)
(Alternative Retirement Schedule). EPA offered that option to
small refineries to “facilitate their transition into full
compliance with the RFS program” following EPA’s denial of
their exemption petitions. Id. at 54,161.

                              C.

    Several fuel refineries petitioned for review of the
Extension Rule. We consolidated their petitions. Order, No.
22-1015, Dkt. No. 1941984 (Apr. 5, 2022). With the exception
                                12
of one refinery, Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing,
LLC, all petitioners are small refineries under the CAA.

     Shortly after filing their petitions, the Refineries moved
for a stay of the Rule pending review, which EPA opposed. We
held that the petitioners had not shown a likelihood of success
on their claims, so denied the motion.

                                II.

     We begin by confirming the Refineries’ standing to seek
review of the Extension Rule. In support of Article III
standing, the Refineries noted that, “[a]s obligated parties,”
they are “subject to annual RFS compliance deadlines, 40
C.F.R. § 80.1406, and thus are directly regulated by the
Extension Rule.” Pets. Br. 18. Although EPA does not
question it, we have an independent obligation to satisfy
ourselves of our own jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for
a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998).

     To meet the requirements of Article III standing in a case
challenging agency action, a petitioner must show,
supplementing the administrative record as needed, (1) that it
suffered an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or
imminent; (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged agency action; and (3) that judicial relief would
likely redress the injury. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992); Ams. for Safe Access v. Drug Enf’t
Admin., 706 F.3d 438, 442 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In evaluating a
petitioner’s standing, we must assume it will prevail on the
merits of its claims. Ams. for Safe Access, 706 F.3d at 443;
accord NB ex rel. Peacock v. District of Columbia, 682 F.3d
77, 82 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

    “[T]here is ordinarily little question” that a regulated entity
has standing to challenge a rule under which it is regulated.
                                13
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61; accord State Nat. Bank of Big
Spring v. Lew, 795 F.3d 48, 53 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Corbett v.
Transp. Sec. Admin., 19 F.4th 478, 483 (D.C. Cir. 2021). And,
where a petitioner’s standing is “self-evident[,] no evidence
outside the administrative record is necessary for the court to
be sure of it.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C.
Cir. 2013); cf. Concerned Household Elec. Consumers Council
v. EPA, No. 22-1139, 2023 WL 3643436, at *2 (D.C. Cir. May
25, 2023) (unpublished judgment) (faulting petitioners, who
were not “directly regulated by the challenged rule,” for failing
to submit evidence to establish their standing) (quoting Am.
Fuel & Petrochemical Mfrs. v. EPA, 3 F.4th 373, 379 (D.C.
Cir. 2021)).

      Applying those principles, we conclude the Refineries
have standing to challenge the Extension Rule. The Refineries
have suffered an injury-in-fact caused by EPA’s challenged
actions. Assuming for purposes of the standing inquiry that the
Refineries will prevail on their claim, the Extension Rule
financially burdens the Refineries by requiring them to
purchase RINs to satisfy their 2020-2022 renewable fuel
obligations within a compressed timeframe. We need not
credit any assertions that EPA’s rulemaking caused an increase
in RIN prices to recognize the burden of the shorter compliance
interval: Instead of having three years to purchase RINs to
meet those obligations—as the Refineries claim the CAA
requires—the Extension Rule leaves Refineries potentially as
little as nine months to do so. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,699. The
cost of acquiring RINs for one compliance year often reaches
into the tens of millions of dollars for small refineries, and it is
readily apparent that expecting them to acquire enough RINs
within a substantially shorter timeframe imposes a financial
burden on them. One petitioner commented in opposition to
the Extension Rule that abiding by the Rule’s compliance
schedule “would be an extreme financial shock to the system
                               14
of any obligated party, much less [small refineries].” See RFS
Extension of Compliance and Attest Engagement Reporting
Deadlines: Response to Comments, EPA-420-R-22-001, at 15
(Jan. 2022) (RTC) (Comment of Coffeyville) (J.A. 17); accord
id. at 12 (Comment of Small Refiners Coalition) (J.A. 14).
That financial burden is a cognizable injury-in-fact fairly
traceable to the Extension Rule. See Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d
at 915.

     Finally, an order from this court would likely redress the
Refineries’ asserted injury. If we were to hold that the statute
guarantees obligated parties a minimum of 12 months between
compliance deadlines and 13 months’ compliance lead time, as
the Refineries contend, EPA could not impose the compressed
compliance schedule set forth in the Extension Rule. Nor could
EPA simply revert to the preexisting 2020-2022 compliance
deadlines: Those deadlines also gave less than 13 months’
compliance lead time. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 23,670. Rather, if
the Refineries were to prevail, EPA would be required to either
provide obligated parties more time to submit their 2020-2022
compliance reports or offer obligated parties relief from their
renewable fuel obligations for those years by, for instance,
waiving their renewable fuel requirements. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(o)(7). Thus, assuming for purposes of the standing
inquiry that the Refineries will succeed on the merits of their
claims, their claimed injury is redressable. We therefore
proceed to the merits.

                              III.

     We review the Extension Rule pursuant to section
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Under
that section, we may reverse an agency action if it is arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with
law. Id. § 7607(d)(9)(A).
                              15
    The Refineries challenge two aspects of the Extension
Rule: the 2019-2022 compliance deadlines and the compliance
schedule for 2023 and ensuing years. They argue both sets of
provisions are contrary to law or, in the alternative, arbitrary
and capricious. We address each set of provisions in turn.

                              A.

     We begin with the Refineries’ challenge to the Extension
Rule’s 2020-2022 compliance deadlines. The Refineries
contend that, in light of EPA’s late standard setting, the
Extension Rule violates the CAA by giving obligated parties
insufficient time to meet their compliance obligations. In
particular, they argue that the Act requires EPA to afford
obligated parties a minimum of 13 months’ compliance lead
time and a 12-month compliance interval, regardless of
whether EPA timely issues the renewable fuel standards for the
compliance years in question. They also contend that the
agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in setting the 2020-
2022 compliance schedule.

     Neither argument carries the day. We hold that, when
EPA issues untimely renewable fuel standards, the CAA does
not entitle obligated parties to 13 months’ compliance lead
time, nor does it require a minimum 12-month compliance
interval. The agency, moreover, did not act arbitrarily and
capriciously in establishing the 2020-2022 compliance
schedule. Rather, the lead times and intervals are reasonable
and reasonably explained.

                               1.

     The Refineries’ argument that the CAA binds EPA to an
inflexible compliance schedule contravenes the statutory text
and our precedent. The CAA calls on EPA to design a
compliance regime for the RFS Program. It charges EPA with
                              16
“promulgat[ing] regulations to ensure that gasoline sold or
introduced into commerce in the United States” contains at
least the annual applicable volumes of renewable fuel required
by the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(i). Further, the Act
calls for regulations that “contain compliance provisions
applicable to refineries, blenders, distributors, and importers,
as appropriate, to ensure that the requirements [of the Program]
are met.” Id. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(iii)(I). Importantly, the Act
itself contains no compliance deadlines or intervals for
obligated parties. See id. § 7545(o). Thus, rather than task
EPA with overseeing a fixed compliance schedule, the Act
gives EPA flexibility to craft and adjust a compliance regime
in service of the Act’s core mandate: to ensure the Act’s annual
renewable fuel volumes are met. See id. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(i).

     Our precedent establishes that, when EPA misses its
statutory deadline to issue the renewable fuel standards for a
given year, the agency may—and in fact should—adjust
compliance deadlines. We have thrice held that EPA is
authorized to issue annual RFS standards after the statutory
deadline, so long as it takes reasonable steps to mitigate any
harm to obligated parties from the delay. ACE, 864 F.3d at
718-21; Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 919-20; Nat’l
Petrochemical, 630 F.3d at 154-58. As relevant here, on two
of those occasions we characterized EPA’s extension of the
Program’s compliance reporting deadlines and compression of
compliance intervals as vital to mitigating the harm to
obligated parties caused by EPA’s delay.

     In ACE, for instance, we rejected a challenge to EPA’s late
issuance of the RFS Program’s 2014-2017 annual volumes for
biomass-based diesel. 864 F.3d at 719-21. We concluded EPA
had “adequately considered various ways to minimize the
hardship caused to obligated parties by virtue of EPA’s delay,”
based in part on EPA’s “very extensive extensions of the
                              17
normal compliance demonstration deadlines” for the 2014 and
2015 compliance years. See id. at 721, 722 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Those extensions, like the ones at issue here,
provided less than 13 months’ compliance lead time and a
compliance interval of less than 12 months. See Renewable
Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016
and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017, 80 Fed. Reg.
77,420, 77,491 (Dec. 14, 2015).

     Similarly, in Monroe Energy, we affirmed EPA’s
authority to issue the 2013 renewable fuel standards after the
statutory deadline, based in part on EPA’s decision to “extend
the compliance deadline by four months.” 750 F.3d at 920; see
id. at 920-21. EPA had determined “that the best way to
balance obligated parties’ interest in regulatory certainty with
EPA’s statutory obligation to ensure the renewable fuel
volumes are annually met was to extend the compliance
demonstration deadline by four months,” while also shortening
the parties’ compliance interval. Id. at 920. Even with the
extension, obligated parties received less than 13 months’
compliance lead time. See Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards, 78 Fed. Reg.
49,794, 49,800, 49,823 (Aug. 15, 2013). We concluded that
“EPA’s decision to preserve the 2013 fuel standards while
extending the compliance deadline to June 30, 2014[,] was
reasonable.” Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 921.

    Our decisions in ACE and Monroe Energy thus
contemplate that, when EPA misses its statutory deadlines, the
agency may adjust obligated parties’ compliance deadlines in
order to mitigate the effects of its lateness.

     EPA’s extension of the 2020-2022 compliance deadlines
in the Extension Rule heeds the guidance in those decisions.
As noted, by the time EPA issued the Extension Rule it had
                              18
missed its statutory deadlines to publish the 2021 and 2022
renewable fuel standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(3)(B)(i);
Extension Rule, 87 Fed. Reg at 5,697. The Extension Rule
stated that EPA planned to issue a revised version of the 2020
standard, meaning publication of the final version of that
standard would be late as well. See Extension Rule, 87 Fed.
Reg at 5,697. Per our precedent, when publishing standards
after the statutory deadline, EPA must “reasonably mitigate[]
any burdens that its lateness [had] impose[d] on obligated
parties.” ACE, 864 F.3d at 717; see also id. at 718-21. In the
Extension Rule, EPA sought to do just that: It endeavored to
mitigate the harm caused by its “continued delay” in
promulgating the final 2020-2022 standards by extending the
compliance reporting deadlines for those years. Extension
Rule, 87 Fed. Reg at 5,697.

     And, rather than create a permanent lag in compliance
deadlines as a result of those extensions, EPA established a
timeline going forward that would enable the agency to get the
Program’s compliance cycle back on track. See Extension
Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,698-99. To do so, EPA provided less
than 13 months’ compliance lead time and less than a full year
compliance interval, see Extension Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,698-
99—as it had done in the rules we considered in ACE, see 864
F.3d at 719-22; 80 Fed. Reg. at 77,491, and Monroe Energy,
see 750 F.3d at 920-21; 78 Fed. Reg. at 49,800, 49,823.

     Notwithstanding our prior rulings, the Refineries argue
that the Extension Rule’s “compressed” compliance timeline
violates the CAA. Pets. Br. 19; see id. at 24-25. According to
the Refineries, the Act “guarantees obligated parties at least a
year between annual compliance deadlines and more than a
year between the date EPA sets the volumes and the date
obligated parties must comply with them.” Id. at 17. The
Refineries acknowledge that, if EPA misses its statutory
                              19
deadline, their theory prevents the agency from getting the
Program back on track without excusing or reducing the
parties’ renewable fuel obligations for that year. See Reply Br.
6. In other words, the Refineries read the CAA to require EPA,
when it fails to timely publish a renewable fuel standard, to
either remain persistently behind schedule from year to year,
or to catch up by abandoning its statutory duty “to ensure” the
Program’s annual renewable fuel volumes are met for the
affected year. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(i). We do not read
the Act to prioritize the timeframes the Refineries see as
implicit in the statute over EPA’s express statutory obligation
to implement the requisite use of renewable fuels.

     To make their case that the Extension Rule abbreviates
timeframes the Act implicitly prescribes, the Refineries first
contend that EPA’s annual statutory deadline to issue
renewable fuel standards by November 30 before the start of
the applicable compliance year means that they are entitled to
13 months’ compliance lead time.               See 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(o)(3)(B)(i). The Refineries claim that, “[b]ecause the
earliest possible deadline for compliance for any particular
calendar year is the following January 1, obligated parties are
entitled [to] at least 13 months’ lead time between publication
of the final annual volume obligation and the deadline for
reporting compliance with that obligation.” Pets. Br. 22.

     That argument fails to persuade. We note, at the outset,
that the Act contains no express requirement that EPA refrain
from requiring any compliance reporting until the entire
compliance year has elapsed. See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o). Even
assuming arguendo the Refineries are correct that the statute
anticipates 13 months’ lead time in the normal course, it does
not follow that the Act binds EPA to that timeframe in the event
EPA misses its statutory deadline. As discussed, such a
reading of the Act would effectively preclude EPA from
                              20
fulfilling its primary mandate whenever it is late in setting a
renewable fuel standard. In the Refineries’ view, falling
behind in setting the RFS for a given year would automatically
curtail EPA’s compliance authority: It could either protect the
Refineries’ compliance lead time by remaining equally far
behind in subsequent years, or get the Program back on track
by relieving parties’ renewable fuel obligations for the
compliance year at issue. Absent an express 13-month
minimum requirement in the Act’s text, we are not persuaded
Congress intended EPA to abdicate its core statutory duty in
service of that inflexible compliance lead time. To the
contrary, Congress explicitly directed EPA to craft a
compliance regime “as appropriate, to ensure that the
requirements [of the Program] are met”—thereby mandating
that any compliance framework work in service of the Act’s
renewable fuel goals, not against them.                     Id.
§ 7545(o)(2)(A)(iii)(I).   In enacting the RFS Program,
“Congress’ focus [was] on ensuring the annual volume
requirement [is] met regardless of EPA delay.” Monroe
Energy, 750 F.3d at 920 (quoting Nat’l Petrochemical, 630
F.3d at 163).

     The Refineries next point to the Act’s use of the term
“calendar year” in setting the renewable fuel volume
requirements as evidence that the statute mandates 12-month
intervals between compliance deadlines. 42 U.S.C.
§ 7545(o)(2)(B); see Pets. Br. 20; Reply Br. 3. But Congress’s
specification that the Act’s volume requirements be set on an
annual basis does not mean that obligated parties’ compliance
reports must be submitted at 12-month intervals. Rather, the
Act grants EPA the authority to establish reporting deadlines
and compliance intervals “as appropriate, to ensure” the Act’s
requirements are met. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(A)(iii)(I).
                               21
     The Refineries also contend the Act’s deficit carry-
forward provision supports their view that 12-month
compliance intervals are “mandatory.” Pets. Br. 20; see id. at
20-21. That provision permits any entity that lacks sufficient
credits to meet its renewable fuel obligations for a given year
“to carry forward a renewable fuel deficit,” provided that, in
the next year, the entity “(i) achieves compliance with [its]
renewable fuel [obligations]; and (ii) generates or purchases
additional renewable fuel credits to offset the renewable fuel
deficit of the previous year.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(5)(D). The
Refineries claim that the Extension Rule’s compliance timeline
renders the Act’s deficit carry-forward provision “useless,”
because parties will only have three or five months rather than
the full ensuing year to satisfy their deficit from a prior year.
Pets. Br. 21.

    That argument ignores the function that the carry-forward
provision continues to serve under the Extension Rule.
Obligated parties may carry forward a deficit into the following
compliance year to satisfy their obligations even when the
compliance interval is less than 12 months. For instance, under
the Extension Rule, eligible obligated parties may carry
forward a renewable fuel deficit from the 2020 compliance
year into the 2021 compliance year—and thus avail themselves
of the compliance flexibility envisioned by the Act—even
when the compliance reporting dates for those years are set at
quarterly rather than annual intervals. See Extension Rule, 87
Fed. Reg. at 5,698-99; 40 C.F.R. § 80.1428(c); RTC 19 (EPA
Response) (J.A. 21). The deficit carry-forward provision thus
plays a useful role even when compliance intervals are
compressed.

     Accordingly, we hold that, when EPA issues renewable
fuel standards after the applicable statutory deadline for a given
year, the agency is not statutorily bound to provide a minimum
                              22
of 13 months’ compliance lead time or 12 months between
compliance reporting deadlines. Rather, it may reasonably
adjust the RFS Program’s compliance schedule as appropriate
to mitigate the harm caused by EPA’s delay and to ensure the
requirements of the Program are met. We thus reject the
Refineries’ claim that the Extension Rule’s 2020-2022
compliance schedule violates the CAA.

                               2.

     Next, we turn to the Refineries’ argument that the
Extension Rule’s 2020-2022 compliance deadlines are
arbitrary and capricious. Under the deferential arbitrary and
capricious standard, we evaluate whether the challenged
agency       action   is    “reasonable     and      reasonably
explained.” POET Biorefining, LLC v. EPA, 970 F.3d 392, 409
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (quoting Cmtys. for a Better Env’t v. EPA, 748
F.3d 333, 335 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). Our role is not to substitute
our policy judgments for those of the agency. Id. at 414.
Rather, we “must exercise our ‘narrowly defined duty of
holding agencies to certain minimal standards of
rationality.’” Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Ass’n v. EPA, 11
F.4th 791, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Murray Energy Corp.
v. EPA, 936 F.3d 597, 608 (D.C. Cir. 2019)).

     The Refineries contend that the Extension Rule is arbitrary
and capricious because it fails to “reasonably mitigate” the
harm caused by EPA’s delays in taking other actions. Pets. Br.
2, 20, 25-29. They argue that the agency’s delays in issuing
the 2020-2022 standards and belated denial of a group of small
refinery exemption petitions have subjected refineries,
especially small ones, to a host of hardships. They assert that
RIN market instability and elevated RIN prices add to the costs
of compliance. According to the Refineries, “the only
reasonable mitigation” under the circumstances is to give
                               23
obligated parties some form of reprieve from their renewable
fuel obligations. Id. at 28. They suggest EPA could offer
parties an alternative compliance demonstration approach that
would reduce their obligations, exercise its waiver authority to
eliminate their obligations entirely, or provide small refineries
credits to compensate for changes in RIN prices. By failing to
undertake these measures in the Extension Rule, the Refineries
argue, EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

     The Refineries’ reasonable-mitigation argument is
misdirected. It is true that, in evaluating challenges to late-
issued renewable fuel standards, we have looked to whether
EPA reasonably mitigated any hardship to obligated parties
caused by its delay in issuing those standards. See ACE, 864
F.3d at 718-19; see Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 920; Nat’l
Petrochemical, 630 F.3d at 166. But other agency actions that
could bear on refineries’ obligations are not before us here.
EPA’s delayed issuance of the 2020-2022 standards is subject
to a separate pending challenge, Sinclair Wyoming Refining
Co. v. EPA, No. 22-1210 (D.C. Cir.), as is EPA’s denial of
several small refinery exemption petitions, Sinclair Wyoming
Refining Co. v. EPA, No. 22-1073 (D.C. Cir.); Hunt Refining
Co. v. EPA, No. 22-11617 (11th Cir.); Calumet Shreveport
Refining LLC v. EPA, No. 22-60266 (5th Cir.). Any questions
whether EPA has reasonably mitigated the asserted hardships
caused by those delays are not before us in this case. Needless
to say, we take no position on the merits of those petitions. The
agency action on review here is limited to EPA’s decision to
alter obligated parties’ compliance deadlines in the Extension
Rule.

    To the extent the Refineries argue that the specific
compliance lead times and compliance intervals set forth in the
Extension Rule are arbitrary and capricious, we reject that
argument. The 2020-2022 compliance schedule established by
                              24
the Extension Rule is both reasonable and reasonably justified
by the agency.

     With respect to the compliance lead times set forth in the
Extension Rule, EPA reasonably determined that obligated
parties would have adequate notice and time to comply with
the 2020-2022 standards. For the 2020 renewable fuel
obligations, obligated parties had more than two-and-a-half
years’ advance notice of the original 2020 standard before the
compliance deadline set by the Extension Rule, see 85 Fed.
Reg. 7,016 (Feb. 6, 2020); Extension Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at
5,698—well beyond the 13 months’ lead time the Refineries
seek. Although EPA issued revised 2020 standards in July
2022, see 87 Fed. Reg. at 39,602, it modified parties’
obligations downward, making it easier for obligated parties to
comply, and thereby justifying the shorter increment of
compliance lead time following its revision, see ACE, 864 F.3d
at 718-19.

     For the 2021 compliance year, EPA calibrated the
compliance lead time that it chose based on the renewable fuel
standards it planned to set. The agency planned to (and
ultimately did) set the 2021 volumes “at actual renewable fuel
use in the [United States],” RTC 19 (EPA Response) (J.A. 21);
see 87 Fed. Reg. at 39,602-03. This approach guards against
RIN shortages by ensuring that the quantity of RINs already
generated during the relevant year will be adequate to satisfy
the renewable fuel standards for that compliance year. See 87
Fed. Reg. at 39,622; ACE, 864 F.3d at 718-19 (citing 80 Fed.
Reg. at 77,430, 77,439-40). Given that no further RIN
generation would be required, and that “all RINs for [the] 2021
renewable fuel production ha[d] already been generated and all
gasoline and diesel fuel production ha[d] already occurred,”
EPA concluded it was not necessary to provide obligated
parties with a full year of compliance lead time to demonstrate
                              25
compliance with 2021 obligations. RTC 32 (EPA Response)
(J.A. 34). Instead, by the Refineries’ own count, the Extension
Rule ultimately provided obligated parties 10 months between
EPA’s publication of the 2021 standard and their compliance
reporting deadlines. See Extension Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,698;
Pets. Br. 24. Notably, EPA had given obligated parties
approximately eight months’ lead time in the past when setting
the volumes at actual renewable fuel use—for instance, in the
rule we considered in ACE, see 864 F.3d at 722-23; 80 Fed.
Reg. at 77,491—and EPA drew on that “past practice” in
crafting the 2021 timeline, RTC 32 & n.12 (EPA Response)
(citing, inter alia, 80 Fed. Reg. at 77,512-14) (J.A. 34). The
agency’s decision to provide a similar timeline under similar
circumstances was not unreasonable.

     Regarding the 2022 compliance year, the Refineries
acknowledge that EPA afforded obligated parties at least 12
months’ lead time, just one month short of the 13-month period
they request. See Pets. Br. 24; Extension Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at
5,698; July 2022 Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 39,602-03. The
Refineries offer no reason why that one-month discrepancy
renders EPA’s 2022 deadline unreasonable. See Pets. Br. 22-
24. Moreover, the Rule provided that obligated parties might
ultimately receive more than 13 months’ lead time for the 2022
compliance year under the Extension Rule, depending on when
EPA issues the 2023 renewable fuel standards. See Extension
Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,698 (setting the 2022 compliance
deadline as the later of either the next quarterly reporting
deadline after the 2021 compliance deadline or the effective
date of the 2023 standards). We thus conclude EPA reasonably
balanced its statutory responsibility to ensure the Program’s
annual fuel requirements are met with its need to extend the
2020-2022 compliance deadlines as part of its efforts to
mitigate the harm caused by its delay in issuing those
standards.
                             26
     Finally, as for the compliance intervals set by the Rule,
EPA drew on its relevant experience. See RTC 9 (EPA
Response) (J.A. 11). As EPA explained, “[o]ur past experience
administering this program has indicated that, where the RFS
annual rules have been delayed, [a] 60-day window between
compliance deadlines is a workable amount of time for
obligated parties to develop their compliance strategy and
acquire sufficient RINs to demonstrate compliance.” Id.;
accord Extension Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,699-700 & n.19.
EPA further noted that “this amount of time was generally
sufficient for obligated parties to comply with the 2013-2016
standards, which had a similar compliance schedule to the one
finalized in this action.” RTC 9 (EPA Response) (J.A. 11); see
id. at 46-47 & n.17 (EPA Response) (J.A. 48-49); 80 Fed. Reg.
at 77,513-14.

     The Refineries counter that a recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Report calls into question
assumptions about RIN market functionality that EPA relied
on in crafting the Extension Rule. See Reply Br. 12-13 (citing
GAO, Renewable Fuel Standard: Actions Needed to Improve
Decision-Making in the Small Refinery Exemption Program,
No. GAO-23-105801 (Nov. 3, 2022) (2022 GAO Report));
Oral Arg. 2:55-3:20, 55:00-40. GAO issued that report after
EPA promulgated the Extension Rule, however. See 2022
GAO Report 1; 87 Fed. Reg. at 5,696. And we “judge the
reasonableness of an agency’s decision on the basis of the
record before the agency at the time it made its decision.”
NTCH, Inc. v. FCC, 950 F.3d 871, 881 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (per
curiam) (quoting Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095,
1107 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, the report focuses on
EPA’s policies for resolving small refinery exemption
petitions, see 2022 GAO Report 1-2, 26, which are not
challenged here.
                               27
     To sum up, we conclude that the 2020-2022 compliance
lead times and intervals set forth in the Extension Rule are
neither arbitrary nor capricious. We take no position on
whether EPA has reasonably mitigated the harm borne by
obligated parties due to its delayed issuance of the 2020-2022
standards. Nor do we opine on the lawfulness of EPA’s small
refinery exemption policies and decisions. Rather, we hold
simply that the Extension Rule’s compliance schedule is
reasonable and reasonably explained.

                               B.

     That leaves the Refineries’ challenge to the Extension
Rule’s future compliance schedule.            We refer to this
component of the Rule as the Post-2022 Provision. It
establishes that, beginning in 2023, the compliance deadline
for each year will be the latest of (a) March 31 of the following
calendar year; (b) the next quarterly reporting deadline after the
effective date of the subsequent compliance year’s standards;
or (c) the next quarterly reporting deadline after the compliance
deadline for the prior compliance year. Extension Rule, 87
Fed. Reg. at 5,700-01. In effect, this provision automatically
extends obligated parties’ compliance reporting deadline for a
given compliance year in the event EPA delays in publishing
the renewable fuel standards for the following year, or if EPA
extends the prior year’s compliance deadline.

     The Refineries cast this provision as an “attempt to re-
write the statute.” Pets. Br. 30. They argue that it “expressly
anticipates” EPA may miss its statutory deadlines for issuing
renewable fuel standards in 2023 and beyond, and therefore
contravenes the Act. Id. at 31.

     That argument breaks down on closer scrutiny. As an
initial matter, the CAA does not set a deadline for EPA to
publish the renewable fuel percentage standards beyond
                              28
2023. See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii). Recall that, through
2022, the Act requires EPA to publish the percentage standards
for three categories of renewable fuel (total renewable fuel,
advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel) for a given
compliance year “no later than November 30” of the preceding
year. Id. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(i). But the Act is silent as to when
EPA must publish those renewable fuel standards
thereafter. See id. Instead, beginning in 2023, the Act requires
EPA to publish the “applicable volumes” of renewable fuel—
i.e., the minimum volumes of the relevant renewable fuel types
that must be introduced into the U.S. fuel supply in a given
year—“no later than 14 months before the first year for which
such applicable volume will apply.” Id. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(ii)
(emphasis added). The Refineries identify nothing in the
Extension Rule that expressly anticipates EPA will fail to meet
its statutory deadlines to publish those applicable volumes,
negating the conflict they see between the Extension Rule and
the Act’s text.

      In any event, even assuming the Extension Rule could be
read to anticipate that EPA will miss a statutorily prescribed
deadline, the Refineries’ argument is foreclosed by our
precedent. Because we have held that EPA may, under certain
conditions, lawfully issue renewable fuel standards even after
its statutory deadlines to do so, see ACE, 864 F.3d at 718-21,
Monroe Energy, 750 F.3d at 919-20; Nat’l Petrochemical, 630
F.3d at 154-58, the Post-2022 Provision does not contravene
the Act by virtue of accounting for that possibility.

     The Refineries next contend that the Post-2022 Provision
conflicts with the CAA insofar as it enables EPA to provide
less than the minimum compliance lead time that the Refineries
claim the Act requires. However, to the extent the provision
could result in a compression of obligated parties’ time to
comply should EPA fail to timely issue the renewable fuel
                              29
standards for a given year, that compression does not
contravene the Act for the same reasons discussed in Part
III.A.1 supra.

     Finally, the Refineries argue that EPA failed to reasonably
justify the post-2022 compliance schedule, rendering it
arbitrary and capricious. They claim EPA’s sole justification
for the automatic extension feature of the Post-2022 Provision
is that it is necessary to “ensure that obligated parties know
[next year’s] obligations before complying with [the current
year’s] obligation.” Pets. Br. 32 (quoting Extension Rule, 87
Fed. Reg. at 5,700). Because the compliance schedule they
claim the statute requires “already achieves” that goal, they
argue, EPA’s explanation is insufficient. Id.

     The Refineries’ argument is belied by the record. The
explanation they identify is not the only one EPA provided in
support of the post-2022 compliance schedule. EPA also stated
that it will provide greater “regulatory certainty for obligated
parties” by establishing predetermined extensions for a given
year’s compliance reporting deadline in the event obligated
parties are still waiting on EPA to publish the next year’s
renewable fuel standards. Extension Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at
5,701. And EPA justified the particular compliance intervals
and lead times envisioned by the Post-2022 Provision based on
its past experience. See RTC 41 (EPA Response) (J.A. 43).
The Refineries offer no reason why those explanations are
insufficient or otherwise unreasoned. See Pets Br. 30-32. We
thus reject the Refineries’ challenge to the Extension Rule’s
compliance timeline for 2023 onwards.

                        * * *
     For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petitions for
review.
                                             So ordered.
     RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in the
judgment: We should have dismissed the Refineries’ petitions
for judicial review for the same reasons we dismissed the
petitions in Concerned Household Electricity Consumers
Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023 WL 3643436
(D.C. Cir. May 25, 2023) (per curiam): the Refineries have
failed to establish their standing to sue. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
292 F.3d 895, 899–90 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

     The traditional standing elements are injury-in-fact,
causation, and redressability. “[U]nless standing is clear from
the administrative record, the party must submit evidence to
prove it.” Viasat, Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 47 F.4th 769,
781 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 899; D.C. Cir. R.
28(a)(7) (codifying this requirement in our local rules). In this
context as elsewhere, “barebones” statements do not suffice.
Twin Rivers Paper Co. v. SEC, 934 F.3d 607, 613–14 (D.C. Cir.
2019). To establish standing when it is not self-evident, the
petitioner “may carry its burden of production by citing any
record evidence relevant to its claim of standing and, if
necessary, appending to its filing additional affidavits or other
evidence sufficient to support its claim.” Sierra Club, 292 F.3d
at 900–01.

    That the Refineries are regulated by EPA’s extension rule
does not make their standing self-evident. See, e.g., Am.
Chemistry Council v. Dep’t of Transp., 468 F.3d 810, 813–15,
819 (D.C. Cir. 2006). At best, the administrative record suggests
one harm from EPA’s extension of compliance deadlines:
increased RIN prices. See, e.g., Joint Appendix 7. But the
Refineries have not shown that the extension or compression of
compliance deadlines has caused an injury-in-fact – there is no
evidence that RIN prices increased after EPA’s rulemaking and
there is no evidence the Refineries purchased RINs at higher
prices. Even if RIN prices increased, the Refineries have not
                                   2

shown that EPA’s extension rule was the cause.1 See
Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 970 F.3d
372, 381–82, 385 (D.C. Cir. 2020). And even if the Refineries
could show injury-in-fact and causation, they have not shown
that setting EPA’s extension rule aside would remedy their
harms.2

     The majority opinion purports to identify an injury-in-fact
from two sentences in the administrative record. See Maj. Op.
13–14. But it was the Refineries’ burden to show injury and
they have not done so. Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 900; Twin
Rivers, 934 F.3d at 613. That in itself “is a sufficient ground to
dismiss . . . for lack of standing.” Concerned Household Elec.
Consumers Council, 2023 WL 3643436, at *2. Moreover, the
two assertions the majority invokes are in the nature of
allegations made in comments on the extension rule. See Maj.
Op. 14; Joint Appendix 14, 17. The statements are not backed
up with evidence. Under Sierra Club and a long line of cases in
this circuit, that is not sufficient to establish standing. 292 F. 3d
at 898–901. To hold otherwise is to disregard those precedents.
See Twin Rivers, 934 F.3d at 613 (collecting cases).

        1
          Counsel for the Refineries conceded this point, stating that
the extension of the compliance deadlines did not increase RIN prices.
Oral Argument at 2:47–50, Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC, et
al. v. EPA, No. 22-1015 (consl. 22-1051, 22-1053) (“The thing that
has caused RIN prices to rise is not the extension [rule].”).
        2
          If we set aside the extension rule, the Refineries would
likely be immediately out of compliance with EPA’s requirements.
Compare 40 C.F.R. § 80.1451(a) (Mar. 30, 2021), with 40 C.F.R.
§ 80.1451(f)(1)(i) (Jan. 31, 2022). As to redressability, all the
majority opinion comes up with is the possibility that EPA might offer
the Refineries some form of relief if their petitions for judicial review
were granted. Maj. Op. 14–15.