Lion Oil Co. v. Envt'l Protction Agency, No. 14-3405 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseLion Oil, a small Arkansas refinery, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for an exemption from the 2013 Renewable Fuel Standard program, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o), under which refineries must blend their share of renewable fuel or buy credits from those who exceed blending requirements. Congress exempted “small” refineries—75,000 barrels of crude oil or less per day—from RFS obligations until 2011. The exemption can be extended. Lion cited disruption to a key supply pipeline and argued that RFS compliance would cause disproportionate economic hardship. Before EPA considered the petition, the Department of Energy determined that Lion Oil did not score high enough on the viability index to show disproportionate economic hardship. EPA “independently” analyzed the pipeline disruption and Lion Oil’s blending capacity, projected RFS-compliance costs, and financial position. EPA denied the petition. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, first holding that it could consider the matter because EPA had not “published” a determination of nationwide scope or effect. The denial was not arbitrary or inadequately explained.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Gruender and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Environmental law. The court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7607(b)(1) to hear this petition for review of the denial of an exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard Program for while the EPA denominated the decision as a final agency action of nationwide scope and effect, it did not publish its decision on the public record and the case can be heard by this regional circuit as opposed to the D.C. Circuit; the EPA's use of the Department of Energy's scoring system to deny Lion's request for an exemption from the Renewable Fuel Standard program was not arbitrary, nor was the decision to deny the exemption arbitrary; the EPA's interpretation of "disprortionate economic hardship" was not unreasonable.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.