Rival Fuel-Makers Unite In Opposing Biden’s Electric-Car Push

by Joel Rosenblatt (Bloomberg) Renewable fuel producers join Valero unit in court challenge; EPA rule governs release of carbon dioxide from car tailpipes -- The gasoline industry and alternative fuel makers, frequent foes, put aside their differences for court challenges to a Biden administration rule imposing limits on automobile greenhouse-gas emissions.

Renewable fuel advocates and at least one oil refiner joined together Monday saying they’d asked a federal appeals court in Washington to review the Environmental Protection Agency standards, which promise to boost the sale of electric vehicles and could shrink the market for liquid fuels, whether made of petroleum or plants.

Corn growers, ethanol technology company ICM Inc. and Valero Renewable Fuels Company LLC said that the rule effectively mandates the production and sale of electric cars. In their own court filing, soybean groups and Diamond Alternative Energy LLC, a Valero Energy Corp. subsidiary, faulted the EPA rule for favoring electric vehicles over renewable fuels and other technologies for reducing emissions.

A separate petition for review was jointly filed Monday by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative advocacy group, and a group of oil producers known as the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, which is led by billionaire Harold Hamm, founder of Continental Resources Inc.

“EPA is trying to transform the motor vehicle market from gas-powered to electric vehicles by making gas-powered cars more expensive,” CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in the statement, arguing the rule exceeds the agency’s authority.

The rule requires fleet-wide fuel economy values of 55 miles (89 kilometers) per gallon in model year 2026, forcing automakers to pare 22.6% more carbon dioxide emissions from their fleets.

The cases are The State Soybean Associations et al v. EPA, 22-1033, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Competitive Enterprise Institute et al v. EPA, 22-1032; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. EPA, 22-1034. READ MORE

Excerpt from DTN Progressive Farmer: In a statement to DTN, the groups filing the lawsuits said they are not opposed to the expansion of electric vehicles.

"We support actions to reduce GHG emissions and do not oppose electric vehicles," the groups told DTN.

"However, we are opposed to regulatory actions attempting to mandate a single technology solution to reduce GHG emissions. The most significant reductions in GHG emissions from the transportation sector have been accomplished with U.S.-produced liquid fuels -- including low-carbon ethanol and renewable diesel."

The groups added, "Our nation's farmers, renewable fuels producers and traditional fuel manufacturers are dedicating significant resources to supplying the energy our nation needs to sustain the economy and protect our national security in ways that also reduce carbon emissions. Indeed, liquid fuels such as ethanol and renewable diesel compete and even outperform most technologies on a full carbon life-cycle basis."

The groups said EPA chose to "exceed its statutory authority" by designing new standards with the "open intent to begin to force one technology upon U.S. consumers -- electrification.

"EPA's GHG calculations intentionally ignore the significant carbon emissions associated with the production and operation of electric vehicles, their batteries and other components while denying credit for the carbon reductions associated with using low-carbon liquid fuels," the groups said in a statement.

"These actions run contrary to the Clean Air Act and directly contradict the law passed by Congress to promote renewable fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard."

The groups said if the goal is to reduce transportation emissions, "We need regulations that recognize and encourage all low carbon technologies in order to achieve that aim.

"If EPA's goal is to unilaterally phase out liquid fuels, it must seek congressional authorization to do so. Absent that, EPA must stay within its legal limitations and recognize all pathways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector -- including liquid fuels."

The state soybean associations said in their petition the EPA exceeded its authority in "favoring one technology, electric vehicles" at the behest of others including biofuels.

"In designing a rule to intentionally favor one greenhouse gas-reducing technology (electrification) over others (for example, high-octane, low-carbon fuels made with ethanol), EPA has claimed a new authority to unilaterally transform the U.S. transportation fuel infrastructure -- a transformation that Congress did not authorize in the Clean Air Act and that conflicts with the Renewable Fuel Standard." READ MORE