The governors of Louisiana and Alabama asked the EPA for a partial waiver of the 2027 RFS, citing high fuel prices. Biofuel groups and farmers rejected the request and warned that it would raise prices and reduce demand for corn and soybeans.
The governors of Louisiana and Alabama asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to partially waive the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) blending levels for 2027, arguing that those requirements make gasoline and diesel more expensive. The request immediately drew rejection from biofuel producer groups and farmers, who warned that the move would raise fuel prices and reduce demand for corn and soybeans.
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, a Republican, defended the request on social media: "Americans are paying more for gas and diesel because of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Meanwhile Europe pays zero for the American gas and diesel, and they export it! Time to put American drivers FIRST."
In a letter addressed to Lee Zeldin, EPA administrator, the governors argued that the 2027 biofuel rules would "severely harm" the economies of Louisiana and Alabama, as well as the Southeast region.
The Renewable Fuels Association flatly rejected that justification. "Any suggestion that ethanol blending compelled by the RFS is somehow raising gas prices is abjectly absurd and demonstrably false," said its CEO, Geoff Cooper. "Far from delivering 'relief' at the pump, a waiver of the 2027 RFS requirements would remove a dependable source of lower-cost, lower-carbon fuel from the marketplace and cause higher gas prices. It would also harm struggling corn and soybean farmers in Alabama, Louisiana, and across the country by undermining demand for their crops. EPA should swiftly and soundly reject these waiver requests."
Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, argued that the real solution to lowering fuel prices is to boost domestic supply through congressional passage of legislation allowing year-round, voluntary sales of E15, a higher ethanol-gasoline mix than the nationwide standard of about 10%.
Scott Irwin, an agriculture professor at the University of Illinois, said he was "very surprised" that both states used "severe economic harm" as the justification for the waiver petition. "That is a very high bar to meet, and the EPA has never approved a previous waiver request based on that justification," Irwin said. "By my count, the record is a perfect 0-4. Maybe other states will justify based on 'inadequate domestic supply,' which seems to me to be a lower bar to meet."
The American Soybean Association noted that national average costs of biofuel blends are lower than those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels, and that at least one petition "falsely claimed that a waiver would support agriculture and poultry producers, despite the economic benefits that strong renewable fuel demand provides to both industries and rural communities."
"Make no mistake: undercutting the RFS by waiving compliance would result in a giveaway to refineries that are making record profits while U.S. agriculture would be left holding the bag," ASA warned. Soybeans are heavily relied on to produce biodiesel and similar fuels, while corn is used to make ethanol, a gasoline additive.
The EPA's biofuel volume requirements for this year and next have triggered a revival in biomass-based diesel production and domestic soybeans. A biofuel boom that began about five years ago has led to billions of dollars in investment to ramp up the capacity of the U.S. to process soybeans and other ag-based feedstocks.
"This growth in domestic soybean processing creates jobs, improves local on-farm basis for farmers, and lowers the cost of soybean meal used by livestock producers as demand for soybean oil increases availability," ASA said. "Lower feed costs for animals translate into lower prices paid by consumers for meat, milk, and eggs." The group added that "U.S. oil and gas companies have made a record $160 billion in profits since April, an over 175% increase compared to last year," while "American farmers are struggling to support their farms and cannot afford another market loss."
The dispute comes after Democrats won control of the House and Senate for next year, with messages centered on restoring affordability amid higher prices for fuel and other items. Separately, some energy lobbyists believe those victories could embolden some environmental groups to speak up in their opposition to liquid biofuels. Republicans and Democrats from farm states are in favor of ag-based fuels.
On Monday, United Steelworkers members gathered at the Capitol to urge lawmakers to reform the RFS, arguing that rising compliance costs put upward pressure on fuel prices and place U.S. jobs at risk. "The midterm elections have put affordability front and center, and for working families, few costs are more visible than the price of gas," said Roy Houseman, USW legislative director. "Washington needs to recognize how federal fuel policies can affect what Americans pay at the pump and the good-paying jobs that support domestic fuel production."
Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, said rolling back the RFS would undo the "historic work" of the Trump administration to propel growth in biofuels and rural economies. "If EPA were to grant these states the special treatment they're asking for, it would increase fuel prices — not lower them — by reducing the amount of ethanol being blended into America's fuel supply," Skor said. "As any driver can see when they drive past a station that offers E15 or E85, the more ethanol in a fuel, the more affordable it is."
