Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program
- Partial Waiver of 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel
Volume Requirement:
Response to Comments
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program
- Partial Waiver of 2024 Cellulosic Biofuel
Volume Requirement:
Response to Comments
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using
data that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such
reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to
inform the public of technical developments.
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-25-008
June 2025
-------
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ii
List of Organizations Submitting Comments on the Proposed Rule iii
1. General Waiver Authority 1
2. Cellulosic Waiver Authority 3
2.1 General Support for Implementation of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority 3
2.2 Implementation of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority 4
2.3 Opposition to Implementation of Cellulosic Waiver Authority 6
2.3.1 General Opposition to Waiver 6
2.3.2 Availability of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority 10
2.3.3 Notice to Implement the Cellulosic Waiver Authority 13
3. Use of Both Waiver Authorities 14
4. Magnitude of the Partial Waiver 16
4.1 Consideration of RIN Deficits and Carryover RINs 16
4.2 Consideration of Small Refinery Exemption Volumes 18
5. Other Miscellaneous Comments 20
6. Calculation of Cellulosic Waiver Credit Price 22
7. Measurement of Renewable CNG/LNG Using Documentation 24
8. Beyond the Scope 25
i
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Numerous acronyms and abbreviations are included in this document. While this may not be an
exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this document and for reference purposes, the following
acronyms and abbreviations are defined here:
CAA
Clean Air Act
CG
conventional gasoline
CNG
compressed natural gas
CWA
cellulosic waiver authority
CWC
cellulosic waiver credit
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GWA
general waiver authority
LHV
lower heating value
LNG
liquefied natural gas
RBOB
reformulated gasoline before oxygenate blending
RFS
Renewable Fuel Standard
RIN
Renewable Identification Number
RVO
Renewable Volume Obligation
SRE
small refinery exemption
-------
List of Organizations Submitting Comments on the Proposed Rule
Docket Item
Number"
Commenter or Organization Name
0016
Michael Ravnitzky
0017
EcoEngineers
0018
City of Mesa, Arizona
0019
Clean Fuels Alliance America
0020
Beta Analytic, Inc.
0021
Ameresco, Inc.
0022
Paul Winters
0023
Vision RNG, L L C.
0024
Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA)
0025
American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)
0026
LF Bioenergy LLC
0027
Marathon Petroleum Company (MPC)
0028
Sustainable Advanced Biofuel Refiners Coalition
0029
Growth Energy
0030
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas (RNG Coalition)
0031
The San Antonio Refinery LLC (TSAR)
0032
Clean Energy
0033
Gevo, Inc.
0034
American Petroleum Institute (API)
0035
American Biogas Council (ABC)
0036
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)
0037
Maas Energy Works
0038
POET
0039
Waste Management (WM)
0040
California Bioenergy LLC
0041
Edeniq, Inc.
0042
STX Commodities, LLC
0043
Amp Americas
0044
Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P.
0045
Neogen Corporation
0046
DTE Vantage
0047
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
0048
City of Roseville, California
0049
Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) et al.
0050
Clean Energy Fuels, Trillium Energy, U.S. Venture, Waste Management
(WM)
0051
OPAL Fuels
0052
Anew Climate
0053
Small Refinery Coalition
0054
Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC
0056b
Iogen Corporation
111
-------
Docket Item
Number"
Commenter or Organization Name
0059b
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas (RNG Coalition)
a Individual comments from the public (and attachments submitted with comments) submitted to Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0411 are assigned a unique 4-digit docket number that follows the base docket
number (i.e., XXXX, where "XXXX" represents the unique 4-digit document docket number). For
example, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0411 -0025 is presented as 0025 in this table.
b Late comment submitted after the close of the comment period.
iv
-------
1. General Waiver Authority
Comment:
EPA received a range of comments regarding the proposal to use the general waiver authority
(GWA) provided by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(o)(7)(A). One commenter voiced general
support for use of this authority to alleviate the undisputed cellulosic biofuel production shortage
in 2024, while another commenter suggested that use of the GWA would be appropriate given the
inadequate domestic supply of cellulosic biofuel.
A majority of commenters, however, disagreed with EPA's proposed use of the GWA. Many
commenters suggested that EPA failed to adequately demonstrate that there is an "inadequate
domestic supply" of either cellulosic biofuel used for transportation purposes or renewable fuel
as required by the statute; one commenter submitted data to support their contention that there is
adequate supply. Commenters also stated that EPA failed to demonstrate that the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) has "severely harm[ed] the economy" as required by the statute, while others
believe that EPA incorrectly assessed the domestic supply of renewable fuel by considering
Renewable Identification Number (RIN) deficits and other demand-side factors rather than only
supply-side factors. Other commenters faulted EPA for not considering the availability of
renewable natural gas (RNG) in assessing the domestic supply of cellulosic biofuel. Another
commenter felt that the existing RFS programmatic flexibilities are adequate to allow obligated
parties to comply without a waiver. Other commenters opposed EPA's use of the GWA to
retroactively reduce previously established cellulosic biofuel volume obligations, believing that
only forward-looking use of the GWA is appropriate and to do otherwise would undermine the
goals of the RFS program.
Other commenters opposed use of the GWA, arguing that because it is discretionary, EPA failed
to properly assess the negative impacts of a potential waiver on the RFS program, the cellulosic
biofuel market, and RNG producers. Others suggested that in proposing to implement a general
waiver for 2024, EPA arbitrarily ignored the effects on the RFS market from its other initiatives,
including implementation of recent revisions to the RFS program's biogas regulations—which
has delayed the registration of new and existing cellulosic biofuel facilities and slowed cellulosic
RIN generation—EPA's failure to approve new pathways such as renewable electricity from
cellulosic sources, and the new Phase III truck regulations that discourage the use of RNG as a
transportation fuel for heavy-duty trucking.
And finally, some commenters suggested that EPA is unable to use the GWA as proposed based
on legal precedent from Americans for Clean Energy et al. v. EPA et al., 864 F. 3d 691 (2017), in
which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded EPA's decision to reduce the total
renewable fuel volume requirements for 2016 based on the GWA. The commenters highlighted
that the court held that the GWA provision authorized EPA to consider "supply-side factors
affecting the volume of renewable fuel that is available to refiners, blenders, and importers to
meet the statutory volume requirements" but did not permit EPA to "consider the volume of
renewable fuel that is available to ultimate consumers or the demand-side constraints that affect
the consumption of renewable fuel by consumers."
1
-------
Response:
In the final rule, EPA implements a partial waiver of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel requirement
using the CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) cellulosic waiver authority (CWA) and not the CAA section
211(o)(7)(A) GWA. Response to these comments is therefore unnecessary to support this final
action.
2
-------
2. Cellulosic Waiver Authority
2.1 General Support for Implementation of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority
Comment:
A number of commenters expressed support for EPA's implementation of the CWA. One
commenter stated that the CWA is the preferred mechanism over the GWA since it is designed
specifically to address cellulosic biofuel production shortfalls and that use of the CWA best
serves the purpose of the RFS program through balancing the market-forcing intentions of the
program and mitigating uncertainty around the supply of cellulosic biofuel. Another suggested
that use of the CWA is a "more targeted" and "narrow" approach. Others suggested that the CWA
is specific to cellulosic biofuel and thus preferred.
One commenter suggested that the CWA is mandatory, particularly in this circumstance where
EPA has identified that the necessary preconditions are met, and that EPA cannot substitute the
GWA to accomplish the same thing.
Response:
In this action we are implementing the CWA to reduce the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume
requirement. We appreciate commenters' support of this action. As noted in Preamble Section
II.B, the use of the CWA is mandatory when the "projected volume of cellulosic biofuel
production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under [CAA section
211(o)](2)(B)], as determined by the Administrator based on the estimate provided under
paragraph (3)(A)."
3
-------
2.2 Implementation of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority
Comment:
EPA received a number of comments regarding how the cellulosic waiver should be
implemented. One commenter suggested that if EPA implements the CWAto reduce the volume
of cellulosic biofuel for 2024, EPA should only reduce the volume to the level of production and
issue cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs).
Response:
In this action, EPA is implementing the CWA to reduce the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume to the
projected volume available in 2024, excluding consideration of any cellulosic carryover RINs or
cellulosic biofuel deficits carried forward from 2023. EPA is also making available CWCs as a
compliance flexibility, consistent with CAA section 211(o)(7)(D).
Comment:
A commenter suggested that if EPA implements the CWA for a given year, it should only make
CWCs available to obligated parties after December 31 of that compliance year, and only if
cellulosic RIN generation has fallen short of the Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) for that
year. The commenter believes this would ensure RVOs are binding while affording obligated
parties the opportunity to meet their obligations.
Response:
While EPA believes that this comment is beyond the scope of this action as it suggests how EPA
should act in the future, the commenter's suggestion that EPA may condition the timing and
number of CWCs it makes available in a given year is incorrect because CWCs are only
available to an obligated party at the time of its compliance demonstration (i.e., CWCs are
typically available after the compliance year, just prior to the applicable RFS annual compliance
reporting deadline). CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(ii) prescribes that whenever EPA reduces the
minimum cellulosic biofuel volume under this provision, EPA is to make CWCs available. CAA
section 211(o)(7)(D)(iii) and 40 CFR 80.1456(a)(2) provide the number of CWCs that EPA shall
make available can be no more than the reduced cellulosic biofuel volume.
Comment:
A commenter suggested that the use of the CWA by November 30 of the preceding year allows
obligated parties to plan for compliance, and that a late waiver would penalize producers and
obligated parties that made plans on the assumption that CWCs would not be available. The
commenter suggested that making CWCs available at this time would not further "EPA's goal of
providing a reliable, sustained market signal to cellulosic biogas producers and investors."
4
-------
Response:
In years where it is possible for EPA to determine that cellulosic biofuel production is going to
fall short of the RFS volume requirement for the following year, EPA agrees with this commenter
that doing so by November 30 of the preceding year is preferable. Nevertheless, EPA is required
to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume when the statutory criteria are met, as is the case for
2024.
5
-------
2.3 Opposition to Implementation of Cellulosic Waiver Authority
2.3.1 General Opposition to Waiver
Comment:
Several commenters suggested that EPA should not reduce the current 2024 cellulosic biofuel
volume of 1.09 billion RINs but should make CWCs available using the new pricing
mechanisms proposed, because these steps would encourage continued growth of the cellulosic
biofuels market. Another commenter suggested that the shortfall could be managed by the "CWC
mechanism" without explanation about how EPA could make CWCs available without use of the
CWA.
Response:
The commenters did not provide any legal analysis to support their suggestions that EPA has the
authority to make CWCs available if it does not waive the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement
using the CWA under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D).
EPA disagrees with these commenters because EPA does not have the statutory authority to issue
CWCs in the absence of implementing a waiver under the CWA. As we stated in our response to
comments on a past RFS rulemaking on similar comments:
While the statute does not explicitly prohibit the issuance of CWCs in circumstances
other than those articulated in CAA section 211(o)(7)(D), the statute's explicit direction
in CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) suggests that Congress did not intend for EPA to have the
authority to issue CWCs in other circumstances. We agree with the commenter we have
broad discretion to govern the RFS credit market, but we do not find we have authority to
issue CWCs in this rule because we are not exercising the cellulosic waiver authority.
While CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(iii) authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations
associated with governing the issuance of CWCs, we do not read this provision as
granting additional authority to issue CWCs in the absence of a waiver under CAA
section 211(o)(7)(D). Additionally CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(iii) expressly contemplates
that regulation promulgated under that authority would apply "in the event of a waiver.
Our regulations at 40 CFR 80.1456(a) and (b) also expressly contemplate CWC
availability only "[i]f EPA reduces the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel."1
Comment:
A commenter opposed the implementation of the CWA because there would be negative impacts
of waiving the cellulosic biofuel requirement, including reducing demand for cellulosic RINs
1 Section 2.2, "Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes Response to
Comments," EPA-420-R-23-014, June 2023 ("Set 1 Rule RTC").
6
-------
and decreasing cellulosic RIN prices, creating volatility in the market, and reducing potential
revenues, particularly for new and future projects.
Another commenter suggested opposition to implementation of the cellulosic waiver "many
months after the start of the compliance year," and in light of the "disconnect between the
cellulosic waiver mechanism and a true market signal to produce RNG."
Several commenters noted EPA's statements in the Set 1 Rule suggesting that "[rjevising
standards has the potential to decrease market certainty and create unnecessary market
disruption." Relatedly, commenters suggested that waiving volumes introduces market
uncertainty and harms producers' investments. Some commenters noted that obligated parties
anticipating a waiver could incentivize a "wait-and-see" approach to purchasing RINs in the
hope of a waiver, which would lead to pricing instability and threaten continued investment in
the market for cellulosic biofuel.
Response:
While we recognize the potential impacts on the cellulosic biofuel market and cellulosic RIN
prices, as well as EPA's delay in issuance of the partial waiver, the use of the CWA is mandatory
and thus we lack the discretion to consider the factors suggested by the commenters in
implementing the CWA to waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel requirement. We note that in the Set
1 Rule, EPA highlighted the potential availability of the waiver authorities, including the CWA.2
Additionally, the mandatory and prescriptive nature of the CWA should provide stakeholders
with certainty about the circumstances under which EPA would be required to implement a
waiver under the CWA.
As to commenters' suggestion that obligated parties might postpone cellulosic RIN purchases to
evoke a partial waiver of the cellulosic biofuel standard, we note that we have articulated a
similar concern in denying past requests for a waiver of the cellulosic biofuel standard.3
However, in contrast to the circumstances there, without this action, obligated parties would lack
the certainty of CWCs as an alternative compliance mechanism, and thus delaying cellulosic RIN
purchases would likely to be higher-risk option for obligated parties, were EPA to not ultimately
reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume using the CWA. Further, the cellulosic biofuel industry has
developed significantly in recent years. The relatively mature status of the RNG industry, along
with the relatively large number of potential buyers for RNG and other cellulosic biofuels,
reduce the risk that obligated parties would be able to directly influence cellulosic biofuel
production by delaying RIN purchases. Therefore, we believe the likelihood of such actions is
diminished.
2 88 FR 44479 (July 12, 2023) ("While we are establishing applicable volume requirements in this action for future
years that are achievable and appropriate based on our consideration of the statutory factors, we retain our legal
authority to waive volumes in the future under the waiver authorities should circumstances so warrant."). See also
Set 1 Rule RTC Section 2.2.
3 "Denial of AFPM Petition for Waiver of 2016 Cellulosic Biofuel Standard," January 17, 2017.
7
-------
Comment:
Several commenters suggested that EPA had not demonstrated that there is a shortfall in
cellulosic biofuel justifying a reduction in the 2024 cellulosic biofuel standard or that a proposed
waiver was premature. Many comments were made in the context of the meaning of "supply," as
EPA proposed to reduce the cellulosic biofuel requirement under the GWA. Some commenters
suggested there were "no constraints" on RNG production, and that there were 1.442 billion
ethanol equivalent gallons of operational RNG production, and no infrastructure-related
constraints. Another commenter suggested that there would be around "1.67 billion RINs
[available] if fully allocated to transportation use." A commenter suggested that EPA should
assess production data "including fuel produced that was ultimately is used outside the RFS
program." Some commenters were critical of EPA's use of "the number of cellulosic RINs
available to obligated parties" to assess the production of cellulosic biofuel and identified issues
with EPA's projection of cellulosic RINs available in the proposed rulemaking.
Response:
In the proposed rule, we projected the available volume of cellulosic biofuel for 2024 using the
data available at that time. In this final rule, we have complete information on the number of
cellulosic RINs generated in 2024 and available for use to demonstrate compliance with the 2024
cellulosic biofuel standard.4 We indicated our intention to use actual data for this final rule in the
proposed rule. Actual RIN generation data is the best source to determine the volume of
cellulosic biofuel available for compliance. This is consistent with EPA's past actions in
implementing the CWA after the compliance year has passed.5 Because we are using actual data
on 2024 RIN generation and availability, any comments related to the projection methodology in
the proposed rule are not relevant for this final rule.
We recognize that the RNG production capacity and total quantity of RNG produced in 2024 are
both higher than the number of 2024 cellulosic RINs generated for RNG. We do not, however,
think that it would be appropriate to set the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement at the
production capacity for RNG or the total quantity of RNG produced in 2024. When using the
CWA, CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i)directs EPA to "reduce the applicable volume of cellulosic
biofuel... to the projected volume available during that calendar year." There are many reasons
that the projected volume of RNG would fall short of the production capacity, including facility
downtime for maintenance and repairs, unexpected production stoppages, lower than expected
production yields, and poor weather conditions. The RNG production capacity is therefore not an
appropriate means for projecting the volume of RNG available during the calendar year.
Further, not all RNG qualifies as cellulosic biofuel. To qualify as cellulosic biofuel, RNG must
be produced from qualifying feedstocks and be used as transportation fuel. Total RNG
4 One commenter noted that changes to the regulations related to how RINs are generated for RNG derived from
biogas in the Set 1 Rule may result in a higher number of cellulosic RINs generated in November and December
2024 than EPA projected based on data from previous years. We acknowledge that the implementation of these
changes may have impacted the number of cellulosic RINs generated in late 2024. In using actual RIN generation
data for 2024 in this final rule, we are accounting for any impact the changes to these regulations had on cellulosic
RIN generation.
5 See 80 FR 77420, 77428 (December 14, 2015); 87 FR 39600, 39602-03 (July 1, 2022).
8
-------
production in the U.S. includes both RNG that is produced from non-cellulosic feedstocks (e.g.,
food waste) and RNG that is not used as transportation fuel (e.g., for electricity or process heat).
RNG produced from non-cellulosic feedstocks or not used as transportation fuel does not qualify
as cellulosic biofuel under the RFS program. It would therefore be inconsistent with the CAAto
determine the "projected volume available" for cellulosic biofuel based on total RNG
production, as not all RNG qualifies as cellulosic biofuel.
9
-------
2.3.2 Availability of the Cellulosic Waiver Authority
Comment:
Some commenters suggested that the CWA is only available to waive the statutory volumes and
that the reference to estimates from EIA only through 2021 (for the 2022 compliance year)
further indicates that the CWA cannot be used to waive cellulosic biofuel volumes that EPA has
"set" under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) for compliance years after 2022. A commenter
suggested that given the directive in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) that EPA set the cellulosic
biofuel applicable volume such that the administrator shall not need to issue a waiver, there is not
"a logical scenario where the CWA is applicable." Other commenters suggested that the
availability of the CWA is "not clear."
Others stated that even if the CWA is still available, the language of CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)
precludes it from being implemented to retroactively waive cellulosic biofuel volumes or make
CWCs available after November 30, 2023 (i.e., the statutory language is that EPA shall reduce
the established volumes prior to a compliance year to "the projected volume available" for that
year and it must do so "not later than November 30 of the preceding calendar year"). A
commenter suggested that the November 30 deadline "functions to provide certainty and stability
to the market for cellulosic biofuels and reflects the general policy against applying the cellulosic
waiver authority retroactively." Another commenter suggested that this interpretation is
appropriate because EPA's regulations are similarly written in prospective terms; for example,
the price of CWCs is to be based on data available "as of September 30 of the year preceding the
compliance period" and the inflation index "for June of the year preceding the compliance
period." The commenter believes this language is because CWCs are intended to serve as a price
stabilizer during the compliance year to avoid potential substantial increases in RIN prices while
cellulosic biofuel production ramps up. The commenter asserted this can't occur if EPA makes a
determination that CWCs can be available after the end of the compliance year.
One commenter further stated that EPA has failed to explain why the CWA is still available post-
2022, but that commenter did not provide any analysis of why it is not available. Some
commenters implied that EPA's decision not to implement the CWA to partially waive cellulosic
biofuel volumes in 2023 means that EPA recognized that "that the statute does not allow for
retroactive waivers" and it would be inconsistent to implement the CWA for 2024.
Response:
As described in Preamble Section II.B, the best reading of the statute is that the CWA remains
available to EPA to waive the volume requirements established under CAA section
211(o)(2)(B)(ii) and after the EIA estimates are no longer provided under CAA section
211(o)(3)(A).
In response to comments regarding availability of the CWA after the November 30, 2023,
deadline articulated in the statute for the 2024 cellulosic biofuel standard, we refer to Preamble
Section II.B.
10
-------
Additionally, the RFS program includes statutory deadlines for many of EPA's actions and,
historically, EPA has missed some of those deadlines. Courts have held that when we miss a
deadline, EPA retains its ability to act, but that in doing so EPA must act reasonably and mitigate
burdens on obligated parties.6 For example, EPA missed the deadline to act under the "reset
authority" under CAA section 211(o)(7)(E), which required EPA action to modify the volume
requirements by December 11, 2019.7 In that action, consistent with D.C. Circuit case law, EPA
reasonably considered and mitigated burdens on obligated parties caused by the issuance of these
rules after the statutory deadline.8 In NPRA v. EPA, the court suggested EPA must balance the
burden on obligated parties with the broader goal of the RFS program to increase renewable fuel
use.9 Here, as in the 2020-2022 RFS Rule where EPA exercised the reset authority after the
statutory deadline, we find that the late exercise of the CWA is appropriate and permissible.
We note first that use of the CWA is mandatory, and thus we are satisfying our statutory
obligation to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume in these circumstances. We acknowledge as
well that the statutory text of the CWA does contemplate a prospective waiver of the cellulosic
biofuel standard. This is not, however, different from other statutory authorities in the RFS
program, which also contemplate prospective actions, but nevertheless, we have exercised
retroactively, and which the D.C. Circuit has permitted upon review.10
Second, we provided notice of a potential waiver of the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement in
the proposal in December 2024. Relatively less time is needed to provide adequate notice to
obligated parties for the reduction of RFS standards because EPA is reducing the stringency of
the standard, which facilitates compliance by obligated parties. Earlier this year, we delayed the
2024 RFS compliance deadline until the next quarterly reporting deadline after the effective date
of this final rule.11 This will provide obligated with parties with no less than two months after the
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register, and no less than eight months after the
publication of the proposal, to comply with their 2024 obligations. Had we not adjusted the
compliance deadline, obligated parties would have needed to demonstrate compliance by March
31, 2025. Obligated parties will also retain compliance flexibilities such as the ability to use
carryover RINs and carry forward deficits into 2025. This action has the potential to preserve any
available cellulosic carryover RINs rather than require their use for compliance.
The direction provided by the CWA to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume to the "projected
volume available" reflects congressional intent for this RFS category as modified by use of the
CWA. Thus, the resulting volume will require the use of the available cellulosic RINs, without
requiring obligated parties to carry forward deficits or utilize carryover RINs. Because 2024 has
6 Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691, 720 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (ACE); Monroe Energy, LLC v. EPA, 750
F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Monroe Energy); Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass 'n v. EPA, 630 F.3d 145, 154-58
(D.C. Cir. 2010) (NPRA).
I 87 FR 39600 (July 1, 2022).
8 Id. at 39609, 39621-22.
9 630 F.3d at 154-58.
10 See, e.g., CAA section 211(o)(3)(B)(i) (requiring EPA to establish standards by November 30 of the preceding
year), section (o)(7)(E) (requiring EPA to modify the applicable volumes under the "reset authority" no later than
one year after the necessary conditions are triggered), and section (o)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring EPA to establish volumes
14 months before they apply). See, also, NPRA, Monroe Energy, and ACE.
II 90 FR 12109 (March 14, 2025).
11
-------
already passed, this rulemaking has no ability to affect actual production, import, or use of
cellulosic biofuel in 2024. While we lack discretion to adjust the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume
to anything other than the "projected volume available," the notice and delayed compliance
deadline provide mitigation of burdens for obligated parties.
As discussed in Preamble Section II.B, we read the statutory provisions in harmony to allow for
the continued availability of the CWA.
Based on this statutory construct, we disagree that EPA must evaluate whether there is a "logical
scenario" in which implementing the CWA is appropriate. Instead, EPA need only determine that
the conditions enumerated by CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) have been met for a given year; if they
have, the CWA must be used to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume.
As discussed Preamble Section II.B, though CAA section 211(o)(7)(D)(i) requires EPA to make a
determination "based on the estimate provided [by EI A]," the D.C. Circuit, in evaluating this
provision held that the Act "[pjlainly . . . [does not] contemplate slavish adherence by EPA to the
EIA estimate," and had Congress so intended "it could have skipped the EPA 'determination'
altogether."12
We also disagree with a commenter's suggestion that CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) cannot be
harmonized with use of the CWA under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D) for the applicable volumes
established under EPA's "set authority." Given that, per the statute, EPA is to set the applicable
volumes "14 months before they will apply," it is entirely possible that EPA could set standards
based on a projection of the cellulosic biofuel standard that, at the time the standard is
established, EPA understands would not need to be waived, but for which changed circumstances
at a later point in time indicate that a waiver is required. Regarding comments about the effect of
EPA's decision to not waive the 2023 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement, in evaluating the
request from AFPM to do so, EPA did not address whether the conditions for use of the CWA to
waive the cellulosic biofuel requirement were met, but instead stated that "[t]he statute does not
specify that it authorizes petitions to waive cellulosic biofuel volumes under CAA section
211(o)(7)(D). Accordingly, we do not consider AFPM's request to waive volumes under CAA
section 211(o)(7)(D) to be properly before the Agency. Accordingly, to the extent the AFPM
Petition raises issues relating solely to CAA section 211(o)(7)(D), we do not address those issues
in this document." Therefore, we disagree with the commenters' assertion that EPA
acknowledged that the statute does not allow for retroactive waivers, as EPA made no such
assertion in the Denial of AFPM Petition for a Partial Waiver of2023 Cellulosic Biofuel
Standard ("AFPM 2023 Denial").
12 API, 607 F.3d at 478. See also Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc. v. EPA, 396 F.3d 628, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
12
-------
2.3.3 Notice to Implement the Cellulosic Waiver Authority
Comment:
Several commenters asserted that EPA's request for comment on the use of the CWA is not
sufficient notice to use the authority to partially waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume
because changes to that standard require amending the regulations through notice-and-comment
rulemaking. A commenter stated that EPA has not justified a legal or factual basis to implement
the CWA instead of relying on volumes of other advanced biofuels to make up the shortfall in
production of cellulosic biofuel consistent with the D.C. Circuit's opinion in API. Another
commenter asserted that use of the CWA would violate 40 CFR 80.1456, but did not specify how
or why that would be the case.
Response:
In the proposal, EPA made it clear that a reduction of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume was
necessary. While EPA proposed to use its GWAto do so, we also specifically sought comment on
whether the CWA was available to EPA to do the same or whether both authorities should be
used in conjunction.13 In addition to seeking input from stakeholders on the potential use of the
GWA and CWA, we also provided information on the resulting volume after reductions
implementing the waiver under either authority.14 EPA also proposed edits to the data source
used to calculate the CWC price, even though CWCs are only available in circumstances where
EPA waives the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement under the CWA. Taken together, EPA
believes that the proposal provided parties with ample notice that EPA was considering the use of
either or both the GWA and the CWA. We also note that the statutory text of the CWA, in
contrast to the GWA, does not require EPA to provide notice and opportunity for public
comment. Nevertheless, EPA did provide sufficient notice and opportunity for comment in the
NPRM.
As to one commenter's assertion that EPA has not justified a "legal or factual basis" to
implement the CWA, we understand the comment to be related to EPA's request for comment on
discretionary reductions in the advanced and total renewable fuel standards under the CWA. As
we are not finalizing reductions in the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards in this
action, we need not address this comment.
Comments suggesting EPA's actions are inconsistent with 40 CFR 80.1456 lacked specificity and
thus do not require further response.
13 See 89 FR 100442, 100447-49 (December 12, 2024).
14 Id. at 100448 ("If applied alone in the current circumstances—that is, if EPA were to use only the cellulosic
waiver authority to reduce the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and exclude consideration of the 0.09
billion total cellulosic RIN deficit from 2023 carried into 2024—then EPA could only reduce the cellulosic biofuel
volume requirement to the projected volume available of 0.97 billion RINs in 2024.")
13
-------
3. Use of Both Waiver Authorities
Comment:
Several commenters suggested that EPA should use both the GWA and the CWA to waive the
2024 cellulosic biofuel requirement. These commenters suggested that the reduction to the
"projected volume available" under the CWA is insufficient to address the shortfall, particularly
in light of deficits carried forward from 2023. The commenters also suggested that the evidence
supports a conclusion that there is an inadequate domestic supply of cellulosic biofuel and that
EPA "should waive an additional 90 million RINs to address the 2023 cellulosic biofuel RIN
deficit" under the GWA. Doing so, the commenters suggest, would prevent noncompliance by
obligated parties who carried a RIN deficit into 2024 from their 2023 obligations. A commenter
stated that EPA should waive additional volumes to restore the number of available cellulosic
carryover RINs and suggested an additional volume of 9-17% of the 2025 cellulosic biofuel
mandate would be appropriate.
Response:
We do not believe that additional reductions in the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement
are justified or appropriate. As discussed in Preamble Section III, reductions under the CWA
trigger the availability of CWCs as a compliance mechanism. CWCs, used in conjunction with
advanced or BBD RINs, are equivalent to cellulosic RINs for compliance purposes. There are
sufficient advanced and BBD RINs in the market to be used in conjunction with CWCs to make
up the 2023 cellulosic RIN deficit. Therefore, we do not believe that additional reductions under
the GWA are justified or appropriate on this basis.
As to the concept of reducing the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume further to inflate the number of
cellulosic carryover RINs, EPA has never used its waiver authorities to do so. While EPA
acknowledges the important role of carryover RINs, we do not find that inflating the number of
carryover RINs at this time through the use of the GWA would be appropriate, particularly in
light of EPA's use of the CWA for 2024 and the corresponding availability of CWCs.
Comment:
A commenter suggested that reductions below the projected volume available through the use of
the GWA would "disproportionately harm[] the remaining obligated parties that have worked
diligently to meet their RVO obligations." Other commenters suggested EPA should not use both
waiver authorities.
Response:
In this action, EPA is only using the CWA to waive the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume
requirement to the projected volume available.
14
-------
Comment:
One commenter opposed implementation of the GWA and CWA sequentially rather than
concurrently to calculate volume requirements, opining that doing so would reduce the demand
for cellulosic RINs and decrease cellulosic RIN prices, thereby creating volatility in the biofuels
market and potentially affect the viability of new biofuels projects. Another commenter
suggested that EPA can use the GWA in tandem with the mandatory CWA. Other commenters
voiced confusion regarding how the two waiver authorities would be implemented either
concurrently or sequentially, to what levels the cellulosic volume requirements would be
reduced, and why CWCs should be available for purchase if obligated parties are not required to
purchase them.
Response:
In this final action, EPA is exclusively implementing the CWA to reduce the 2024 cellulosic
biofuel volume. Response to these comments is therefore not needed to support this action.
15
-------
4. Magnitude of the Partial Waiver
4.1 Consideration of RIN Deficits and Carryover RINs
Comment:
EPA received many comments about the magnitude of the reduction in the 2024 cellulosic
biofuel volume. Many comments suggested that EPA should factor RIN deficits and carryover
RINs into its consideration of an appropriate reduction of 2024 cellulosic biofuel volumes,
particularly in the context of EPA implementing a reduction under the GWA.
Regarding the magnitude of the volume reduction using the CWA, some commenters pointed out
that the D.C. Circuit found that EPA may only consider supply-side factors in assessing whether
there is sufficient supply to meet the volume requirement, while others stated that EPA must only
consider the supply of renewable fuel and cellulosic biofuel available for refiners, blenders, and
importers to meet their volume obligations, not the factors affecting the demand for renewable
fuel, excluding carryover RIN deficits.
Another commenter recommended that it would be inappropriate for EPA to consider the
carryover RIN deficit from 2023 as proposed, because it would go against EPA's prior stance on
the topic as stated in the AFPM 2023 Denial:
"[w]e expect that some obligated parties may carry forward a cellulosic RIN deficit from
2023 into 2024, as obligated parties have done in the past. We are unaware of any reason
why carrying forward a relatively small number of cellulosic RIN deficits into 2024 . . .
would be expected to disrupt the functioning of the RIN market."
On the other hand, the same commenter felt it would be appropriate and necessary to consider
the number of carryover 2023 RINs, pointing to EPA's statement in the AFPM 2023 Denial:
"Although carryover RINs are not a constituent of the 'supply,' EPA has nevertheless considered
the availability of carryover RINs as a relevant factor when determining whether to issue a
waiver of total renewable fuel volumes on the basis of an 'inadequate domestic supply' of
physical gallons of renewable fuel produced in the relevant compliance year."
A commenter suggested that EPA's past statements regarding qualifying renewable fuel should
not limit its assessment of available cellulosic biofuel to fuel for which RINs have been
generated. The commenter stated that "RNG is qualifying fuel that can generate RINs," and thus
EPA should include it, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright.
Another commenter suggested that if a reduction to the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume is
required, it should only be lowered to 0.97 billion cellulosic RINs—the amount of cellulosic
biofuel projected in the proposal—through the use of the EPA's CWA along with making CWCs
available to obligated parties, because this would reduce disproportionate harm to the remaining
obligated parties that have worked diligently to meet their RVO obligations.
16
-------
Response:
EPA is reducing the 2024 cellulosic biofuel requirement under the CWA, which is prescriptive as
to the level at which EPA is to set the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement. CAA section
211(o)(7)(D) states that EPA is to reduce the applicable cellulosic biofuel volume to "the
projected volume available," which EPA has consistently interpreted to mean the projected
volume of qualifying cellulosic biofuel production. In doing so, EPA does not increase the
volume to include carryover RINs from 2023, nor does it reduce the volume to account for 2023
RIN deficits that need to be fulfilled in 2024.
We recognize that some commenters suggested that the statutory criteria for a waiver under the
GWA were not met as there was not an "inadequate domestic supply" of cellulosic biofuel. The
commenters pointed to sufficient supply of RNG (as opposed to cellulosic RINs, or qualifying
cellulosic biofuel) and suggested that assessing "supply" by looking at RIN generation
improperly considered "demand side factors." When reducing volumes under the CWA, EPA is
not required to consider "supply" nor are we bound by the case law dictating the meaning of
"supply." Instead, the trigger for use of the CWA is that the "projected volume of cellulosic
biofuel production is less than the minimum applicable volume established under [CAA section
211(o)(2)(B)]." In determining the "projected volume of cellulosic biofuel production" and "the
projected volume available," EPA has historically only included qualifying cellulosic biofuel.15
RNG, in contrast to qualifying cellulosic biofuel, could be used in non-transportation fuel
endpoints, and thus would not properly be counted as "cellulosic biofuel production" in the
context of the RFS program, which has specific statutory requirements for renewable fuel,
including that it be used as transportation fuel, and not some other non-transportation fuel use.
As for the commenter who suggested that EPA reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume to 0.97
billion RINs as proposed, since EPA issued that proposal in December 2024, EPA has updated its
projection of the number of cellulosic RINs produced in 2024 from 0.97 billion RINs to 1.01
billion RINs. EPA has therefore reduced the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume to 1.01 billion RINs.
15 See "Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules Response to Comments," EPA-420-R-22-009,
June 2022, Section 3.1 (explaining the need to ensure a "qualifying feedstock," and "use[] as a transportation fuel"
prior to including a fuel in our estimates.) See also 88 FR 44468, 44481-82 (July 12, 2023) (describing our
assessment of the rate of production of qualifying cellulosic biofuel).
17
-------
4.2 Consideration of Small Refinery Exemption Volumes
Comment:
One commenter suggested that the likelihood that small refinery exemptions (SREs) will be
granted for the 2023 and 2024 compliance years should be taken into consideration when
determining the number of RINs that will be available for 2024 compliance. At the time the
commenter submitted their comment, there were 12 and 15 outstanding pending SREs for 2023
and 2024, respectively. While the exact volume of cellulosic RINs that represents is unclear due
to lack of publicly available information, the commenter estimated it could range from 40-60
million RINs.
Another commenter suggested that EPA's assumption that no SREs would be granted for 2024
was improper given the number of pending exemption requests, and the potential for the grant of
exemptions impacting the number of RINs available.
Another commenter suggested EPA should make a decision on SREs prior to considering a
waiver. The commenter suggested that EPA should project exempt gasoline and diesel volumes
due to SREs in the calculation of the percentage standard, as well as "correct many of the
variables" used in the percentage standard equation due to the inclusion a 3.5% adjustment factor
from the Set 1 Rule and provided numerical values for some terms in the formula.
Commenters also suggested that recent court decisions remanding SRE petitions to EPA could
result in RINs being returned to the market through SREs. A commenter highlighted
uncertainties in the number of RINs that "might be returned to the market through small refinery
exemptions," or other forms of relief, including through congressional action.
Response:
While we recognize the uncertainty surrounding SREs, EPA does not account for SREs in
determining the RFS volume requirements themselves. This is particularly true for the cellulosic
biofuel volume when reduced under the CWA. The CWA prescribes that EPA must set the
volume at the projected volume available, and thus EPA cannot include consideration of SREs in
determining that volume.
Because we lack information at this time that would allow us to consider the impact of potential
SREs on the market dynamics, and we are not considering 2023 RIN deficits in determining the
2024 projected volume available, we do not need to adjust our assessment of 2024 cellulosic
biofuel production to account for potential SREs. Our assessment of the projected volume
available reflects the total number of cellulosic RINs available for compliance with the 2024
cellulosic biofuel volume requirement and thus is not impacted by SREs. Given this, we do not
believe that it is necessary to resolve pending SRE petitions prior to the issuance of this final
rule.
The commenter that provided numerical values for exempt gasoline and diesel volumes due to
SREs for calculation of the revised cellulosic biofuel percentage standard did not provide further
18
-------
explanation as to how the values were calculated. As stated in the proposal, EPA is using the
same values for the variables in the cellulosic biofuel percentage standard formula as were used
to calculate all the 2024 RFS percentage standards in the Set 1 Rule.16 This approach ensures that
the same values for these variables—including gasoline and diesel projections—are used for the
calculation of all four 2024 RFS percentage standards with which obligated parties must comply.
Due to the nested nature of the standards, it is appropriate to use the same values for the
variables used in calculating the percentage standards for all four 2024 RFS standards.
Furthermore, the gasoline and diesel volumes provided by the commenter (G and D,
respectively) appear to be approximately the same as those used by EPA in the Set 1 Rule and the
proposal for this rule without the 3.5% adjustment factor. As discussed in the Set 1 Rule, using
unadjusted, lower gasoline and diesel values results in an overly stringent percentage standard.17
And notably, this commenter suggested only a partial correction of the volumes at issue, making
the suggested approach incomplete.18
Nevertheless, the 3.5% adjustment factor was adjust adopted by EPA in the Set 1 Rule and was
not reopened by EPA in the proposal and is beyond the scope of this final rule.
16 89 FR 100449 (December 12, 2024).
17 "Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes Regulatory Impact
Analysis," EPA-420-R-23-015, June 2023 ("Set 1 Rule RIA), Chapter 1.11. The 3.5% adjustment factor is used to
correct the petroleum portions of gasoline and diesel projected by EIA. Because the EIA projections of gasoline and
diesel include volumes of renewable fuels blended into those fuels (e.g., ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable diesel),
the petroleum portions of gasoline and diesel are calculated in the percentage standard equations as (G - RG) and (D
- RD), respectively (i.e., the adjustment factor is applied to each of G, D, RG, and RD).
18 The commenter here only provided "corrected" values (i.e., without the 3.5% adjustment factor) for G and D. The
commenter did not provide "corrected" values for the estimates of renewables in gasoline and diesel (RG and RD,
respectively). Use of the original (or "uncorrected") RG and RD values with the "corrected" G and D values from
the commenter would increase the percentage standard as compared to using "corrected" RG and RD values (i.e., it
would make the percentage standard overly stringent).
19
-------
5. Other Miscellaneous Comments
Comment:
Several commenters expressed concern about the precedent-setting nature of waiving established
cellulosic biofuel volumes and the impact on the RFS program goals to "drive production and
innovation of biofuels."
Response:
Under CAA section 211(o)(7)(D), the CWA requires EPA to reduce the required cellulosic
biofuel volume for a given year if projected production falls short of the minimum required
volume established under CAA section 211(o)(2)(B). For compliance years after 2022, CAA
section 211(o)(2)(B)(iv) requires that "the applicable volume of cellulosic biofuel established by
the Administrator shall be based on the assumption that the Administrator will not need to issue a
waiver for such years under paragraph (7)(D)." As such, in determining the applicable cellulosic
biofuel volume, EPA will strive to set a volume that does not need to be waived. Given this
provision, the statute directs EPA to evaluate each year on a case-by-case basis, thereby reducing
the precedential value of the implementation of the CWA in any given year.
Comment:
AFPM, in its comments, noted its November 1, 2024, petition for a partial waiver of the 2024
cellulosic biofuel requirement.
Response:
This final rule reduces the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume using the CWA and makes cellulosic
waiver credits available as an additional compliance flexibility. We acknowledge that AFPM's
November 1, 2024, petition made the same request; however, as a result of this independent
action taken by EPA, we believe that petition is moot.
Comment:
Several commenters supported the proposal to not implement corresponding reductions in the
advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume requirements under the CWA.
Response:
In this action, EPA is not reducing the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume
requirements.
Comment:
Several commenters suggested that by reducing the 2024 cellulosic biofuel volume and not
making corresponding reductions in advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes, EPA is
20
-------
requiring additional non-cellulosic advanced biofuel, which is likely to be met with soy-based
biodiesel. The commenters suggested that soy-based biodiesel would result in significant costs
on taxpayers, consumers, and the environment.
Response:
As proposed, EPA is not adjusting the 2024 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes
in this action. The CWA provides that when EPA reduces the cellulosic biofuel volume, EPA may
also reduce the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes by the same or a lesser
amount. We are electing not to do so in this action. While the CWA requires EPA to reduce the
cellulosic biofuel volume, corresponding reductions in the advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel volumes are discretionary.
We elect not to reduce the 2024 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes for several
reasons. First, the market has provided sufficient advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel to
meet the 2024 standards even after the reduction in the cellulosic biofuel volume. As discussed in
Preamble Section III. A, the supply of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel in 2024
exceeded the volume requirements by a significant amount. Reducing the advanced biofuel and
total renewable fuel volumes at this time would therefore only serve to inflate the number of
carryover RINs.
Second, the 2024 compliance year has passed and the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel
volumes have already been produced and used in the market. This limits the impact of retaining
the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards as such fuels have already been
produced and any impacts have already occurred.
Finally, we note that the actual cost of biofuel in 2024 was lower than the cost EPA projected in
the Set 1 Rule.19 We justified the volume requirements at higher costs in the Set 1 Rule for the
reasons discussed there; we also use the same reasoning to justify our decision not to reduce the
2024 advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume requirements today at lower costs. As to
the environmental impacts, commenters were not specific as to the impacts of the proposed
action on the environment. Nevertheless, we find that the small increase in the advanced biofuel
requirement as a result of this action is not likely to result in environmental impacts that would
justify reducing additional advanced biofuel or total renewable fuel volumes.20
19 EPA projected production costs of biodiesel in 2024 that ranged from $4.59 to $6.59 per gallon in the Set 1 Rule
RIA. According to data from Argus, the actual price for biodiesel (B100) in 2024 was approximately $4.20 per
gallon.
20 According to the USDA's Oil Crops Data: Yearbook Tables, domestic soybean oil production in 2024 was
approximately 27.5 billion gallons. The quantity of soybean oil needed to produce 80 million RINs (53 million
gallons) of biodiesel is approximately 425 million pounds. This represents about 1.5% of total soybean oil
production in the U.S. in 2024.
21
-------
6. Calculation of Cellulosic Waiver Credit Price
Comment:
A number of commenters stated their support of EPA's proposal to update the data sources used
for the average wholesale price of gasoline to be used in the calculation of the CWC price, as
well as the specific data sources and weighting factors proposed by EPA.
Several of these commenters, however, expressed concern regarding the use of Los Angeles
reformulated gasoline before oxygenate blending (RBOB) prices as representative of RBOB
prices nationwide. One commenter suggested that EPA re-evaluate the data sources and
weighting factors used in the CWC price formula in the future, while another commenter
suggested that EPA rely solely on the U.S. Gulf Coast conventional gasoline (CG) price as
representative of the nationwide average wholesale price of gasoline.
Another commenter supported the proposed gasoline spot price data sources because they are
likely the best source of wholesale gasoline prices publicly available today, but nonetheless
questioned the weighting factors EPA used, suggesting that the illustrative 2024 CWC price of
$1.61 EPA calculated in the proposal was significantly less than CWC prices for the previous
five years and urged EPA to evaluate and confirm the appropriateness of the EIA data sources
and weighting factors used to calculate the CWC price.
A commenter noted that the CWC credit price formula is "completely removed from the cost
structure of cellulosic biofuel."
Response:
We thank the commenters for their support and are finalizing as proposed the new data source for
the CWC price calculation. We appreciate the concerns raised by the commenters regarding the
specific data sources proposed by EPA, including the use of Los Angeles RBOB price as
representative of RBOB prices nationwide, and the acknowledgement that there are very limited
public data sources available for EPA to use to calculate a nationwide average wholesale price of
gasoline.
In response to suggestions that EPA re-evaluate the data sources and weighting factors used in
the CWC price formula, as well as the suggestion that EPA rely solely on the U.S. Gulf Coast CG
price as representative of the nationwide average wholesale price of gasoline, we conducted an
analysis of the accuracy of the proposed new data sources and weighting factors compared to the
previous data source.21 This analysis shows that, over a 10-year period (2012 to 2022, which is
the last year for which the previous EIA U.S. Total Gasoline Bulk Sales Price by Refiners data is
available), the proposed new data sources and weighting factors had an average difference of
$0.01 (or 0.7%) compared to previous data source. Using only Gulf Coast CG prices, however,
resulted in an average difference of $0.08 (or 4.7%) compared to the previous data source. Thus,
our analysis shows that it would be less accurate to rely solely on Gulf Coast CG spot prices as
21 See "CWC Wholesale Price of Gasoline Analysis," is available in the docket for this action.
22
-------
the data source for determining the nationwide average wholesale price of gasoline. This analysis
also shows that the proposed new data sources and weighting factors provide a reasonable
estimate of this price and we are therefore finalizing the new data sources and weighting factors
as proposed.
Finally, as discussed in Preamble Section IV, the CWC price formula is specified in CAA section
211(o)(7)(D)(ii). EPA does not have the authority to deviate from this pricing formula.
23
-------
7. Measurement of Renewable CNG/LNG Using Documentation
Comment:
Several commenters stated their support of EPA's proposal to allow RNG RIN separators to
measure natural gas or renewable compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas
(LNG) using documentation such as pipeline or utility statements. Commenters also requested
that EPA clarify that scale tickets and bills of lading are also acceptable documentation,
particularly for LNG.
In addition, one commenter noted that documentation is not always provided in Btu and
requested that EPA specify conversion factors for scf to Btu LHV (for CNG) and pounds to Btu
LHV (for LNG). The commenter suggested using data sources from EIA and GREET to develop
the conversion factors for scf to Btu LHV and pounds to Btu LHV, respectively.
Response:
We thank the commenters for their support and have added the suggested additional examples of
documentation to establish volume for LNG (scale tickets and bills of lading) to 40 CFR
80.155(a)(5).
Regarding the conversion factors for CNG and LNG, we agree that it is appropriate to specify
specific conversion factors that all parties must use. For CNG, we agree with the general
approach suggested by the commenter to develop the conversion factor. Specifically, we used
EIA data from 2019-2024 to calculate the average heat content of natural gas consumed was
1,037 Btu/scf.22 Using the 0.9004 conversion factor from ASTM D3588 specified by the
commenter to convert from Btu HHV to Btu LHV results in an energy content of 934 Btu
LHV/scf for CNG.
For LNG, we believe that the most appropriate data source for the LNG conversion factor is the
U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), rather than the GREET
model suggested by the commenter.23 Specifically, the AFDC specifies an energy content of
21,240 Btu LHV/lb for LNG.
We have included both conversion factors in 40 CFR 80.155(f).
22 https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng cons heat a EPGO VGTH btucf a.htm.
23 https://afdc.energv.gov/fuels/properties?fuels=LNG.
24
-------
8. Beyond the Scope
Comment:
Commenters addressed numerous additional topics, including but not limited to the following:
Adjusting the BBD and advanced biofuel standards upward.
- El5 approval.
The 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement.
- Future RFS volume requirements.
- Renewable fuel pathways and registrations.
- Lifecycle emissions modeling.
- Regulatory amendments related to cellulosic RIN generation.
Response:
These comments are all beyond the scope of this rulemaking. While we did propose several
changes to the RFS program as part of this action, we did not propose any of the changes
described above or otherwise seek comment on these issues. The other changes to the RFS
program proposed but not finalized in this final rule are also beyond the scope of this action.
Several of these issues, moreover, are being addressed in separate proceedings. These topics are
not further addressed in this document.
25
------- |