This case originated in 2020 when Clean Fuels Alliance America and Growth Energy challenged the EPA's 2020 Renewable Fuel Standard percentage standards. The petitioners argued that the EPA failed to account for past retroactive exemptions granted to small refineries, which they claimed created a shortfall in renewable fuel volumes that the 2020 standard should have corrected. The case was held in abeyance for three and a half years. During this time, the EPA issued a 2022 Rule that recalculated the 2020 standards and reaffirmed its formula for projecting future exemptions, but it did not adjust for past ones. Simultaneously, the Clean Air Act was amended, shifting the authority to set annual renewable fuel volume targets from a fixed congressional schedule to the EPA Administrator's discretion. When the case was removed from abeyance in 2024, the petitioners abandoned their request to fix the 2020 standard and instead asked the court to declare the EPA's policy of ignoring past exemptions unlawful for future rulemakings.
Circuit Judge Garcia, writing for the panel, applied the mootness doctrine to dismiss the petitions. The court explained that while the 2022 Rule superseded the 2020 Rule, petitioners argued their challenge to the EPA's 'policy' remained live. The court rejected this, distinguishing prior cases where challenges were not moot because they sought to set aside specific agency actions. Here, petitioners asked for a purely prospective opinion to guide future action, which the court characterized as an impermissible request for an advisory opinion. The court identified three key reasons the case was moot. First, the petitioners disclaimed any request to set aside the 2022 Rule or any specific past action, seeking only guidance on future policy. Second, the legal landscape had materially changed; the statute no longer mandates specific volume targets but grants the EPA broad discretion to weigh environmental and economic factors, meaning the legal analysis required to evaluate the petitioners' claim no longer exists. Third, the EPA was actively considering whether to account for past exemptions in upcoming 2026 and 2027 rulemakings, creating uncertainty about whether the alleged 'policy' even continued. The court concluded that the default rule for superseded agency action applied, as the petitioners' challenge was not 'equally applicable' to future rulemakings given the statutory changes.
The consolidated petitions are dismissed, leaving the EPA's 2022 Rule and its current methodology for calculating renewable fuel standards in place. The dismissal does not prevent petitioners from challenging the EPA's approach in the context of a specific future annual rulemaking once the agency acts. However, the ruling highlights that challenges based on the 2020 statutory framework are no longer viable given the EPA's expanded discretion to set volume goals.