Another EPA secret: Agency hides, refuses to disclose identity of lone refinery exempted from ethanol blending rules

Kim Strassel reports in the Wall Street Journal:

The big news was that the EPA issued—finally—its infamous annual quota for renewable fuels. That mandate tells the nation’s refineries how much renewable fuel (ethanol) must be blended annually into gasoline, a quota that is becoming a pernicious driver of gas prices. The EPA was supposed to release the 2013 quota last November but decided to leave the industry in panicked uncertainty until now.

The 89-page rule is dull reading, until you get to page 11. Tucked on that page is one short sentence, which reads: “EPA has approved a single small refinery/small refiner exemption for 2013, so an adjustment has been made to the standards to account for this exemption.” In English: Of the nation’s 143 refineries, one (and only one) lucky player somehow had the pull to win itself a free pass from this government burden. Not only that, the rest of the industry gets to pick up its slack.

An exemption is no small privilege. Congress, in its limited wisdom (and fealty to corn farmers), passed legislation in 2007 requiring that the U.S. use of renewable fuels increase to 36 billion gallons annually by 2022. This year’s EPA quota is 16.5 billion gallons, and the requirements keep ratcheting up even though U.S. gasoline use is falling.

As demand for these credits skyrockets, so has the price—jumping from a few pennies a gallon last year to close to $1 a gallon today. Oil refiner Valero has said the credits could raise its cost by a stunning $750 million this year, a hit that will be passed on to consumers. PBF Energy just told investors that its disappointing second-quarter earnings were rooted in the mandate, noting that the $200 million it expects to fork over for ethanol credits this year will exceed the salaries and wages that it pays to operate all three of its refineries.

Some refineries are lowering production simply to mitigate the credit costs. Others are beginning to export products to avoid the mandate. Both moves could tighten U.S. supplies and lead to higher prices at the pump. Most every refinery is hurt by this rule.

So an exemption from today’s mandate is far more than a perk—it is a lifeline, an outright payday. Making this indulgence even more curious is that it is being issued by the Obama EPA, an agency that isn’t exactly known for doing favors for beastly carbon producers.

So who is the lucky dog? Who could make this happen? That’s the best part. The EPA won’t say. The agency not only refused to name the refinery in its rule, but also obscured certain numbers in the document to hide the beneficiary’s identity. An EPA press officer would not give me the name, citing “confidentiality restrictions.”

The agency did send me a 2011 document that shows it granted exemptions at that time to 13 small refineries. But that exemption applied only to 2011 and 2012—and the 13 refineries had been recommended by a public Department of Energy analysis, which laid out reasons for the exemptions. The EPA rule this week said this exemption had been granted under EPA’s authority to evaluate refineries on a “case by case” basis. The press officer said DOE was involved in the evaluation.

What was the actual process? It’s a worthy question, given that the refinery sector is no stranger to politics. As hard times have hit, politicians have become deeply involved in protecting their home-state refineries. Many are unionized, which raises the question of whether Big Labor engaged in an exemption request.

Read more at the WSJ ($ubscription required).

5 thoughts on “Another EPA secret: Agency hides, refuses to disclose identity of lone refinery exempted from ethanol blending rules”

  1. Love buying fuel from the rigorously government calibrated, temp compensated pump that “contains up to 15%” ethanol. When Shell Canada finally answered my repeated emails as to what percentage of low-energy ethanol the mystery mix I am purchasing actually contains, they admitted they could not say: ” We just have to meet a national annual bulk quota”.

    Try selling cream or milk that “may contain some % of milk fat” and you go to jail.

  2. You can be sure that it isn’t owned by anyone being investigated by the IRS for being in the Tea Party.

  3. There is no discernible benefit to ethanol as a transport fuel and much clear harm. It’s more expensive than the equivalent amount of gasoline and its production probably produces more real pollution than it displaces, along with more CO2 than it displaces.
    Regardless of any lobby, it’s time Congress shut down this rent-seeking monstrosity that robs every American, but especially the poorest Americans, at every transaction we make. Let the corn go to bacon, roasts, KFC and soda.
    But yeah, who is this lucky operator who gets to skip the ethanol beast?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.