White House edges toward decision on controversial biofuel waiver dispute

The discussions indicate that the Trump administration is nearing a decision on whether larger refiners should be required to compensate for any of the waived volumes — a ruling originally expected by the end of October but delayed due to the government shutdown.
The outreach highlights the administration’s efforts to balance the competing demands of two politically influential groups: the oil industry, which argues that federal blending mandates threaten refinery jobs, and the agricultural sector, which contends that the waivers have undermined demand for corn-based ethanol and other biofuels.
The outcome could affect fuel prices, farm incomes, and broader energy policy in the run-up to next year.
The meetings — which included trade groups representing the largest US refiners and biofuel companies — also addressed ways to make petrol containing 15% ethanol, known as E15, available throughout the year. According to the sources, the administration may link this measure with reforms to the small refinery waiver programme to secure support from both industries.
Under the US Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend billions of gallons of biofuels into the national fuel supply each year or purchase compliance credits, known as RINs, from others who do. The law permits small refiners to apply for waivers — known as small refinery exemptions — if they can demonstrate economic hardship.
The Environmental Protection Agency has cleared a backlog of more than 180 small refinery exemption requests dating back to 2016 — a significant move that required the agency to propose a method for accounting for the waived obligations. The EPA’s proposal stated that the agency will have waived blending obligations equivalent to 2.18 billion RINs from 2023 through 2025.
Biofuel groups want refiners that are not exempt to compensate for the full 2.18 billion RINs to prevent reduced demand for renewable fuels. Refiners, however, oppose any reallocation on the grounds that it would increase regulatory costs.












