Tell the EPA: RFS reallocation is going to harm American refiners and consumers

While the Trump administration works to advance American energy, a failure to rein in historic Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) costs could undermine this important objective.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current RFS proposal for 2026-2027 is the largest, most expensive in history, set to cost Americans about $70 billion each year. Now, EPA is poised to make another costly mistake in the form of a “reallocation” proposal that would add billions to Americans’ RFS bill over the next two years.

Will you take just a minute to contact EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and urge him to say NO to this RFS reallocation proposal?

Copy the sample comment from the text box below and click the button “Take Action Now” to submit your comment on Regulations.gov .

I work in the United States refining industry and that means my employer is an “obligated party” under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Please do not further increase the 2026-2027 RFS proposal with reallocation.

As currently proposed, the 2026-2027 RFS could cost Americans as much as $70 billion each year. Reallocating 100% of the cost of relief granted to small refineries onto the obligations of refineries in the years ahead could potentially add billions more to the RFS price tag. That means a total RFS bill over $140 billion over the next two years.

Reallocation will cost both American consumers and refineries, and it won’t increase U.S. biofuel production in the near term. In fact, it will make our country even more reliant on foreign biofuel and feedstocks.

EPA believes consumers will pay the most for RFS and reallocation costs. The agency noted recently, “[RFS] compliance costs are passed through to consumers in higher prices on the gasoline and diesel subject to the renewable volume obligation." This runs contrary to the administration’s larger goal of making energy more affordable for American families.

Refineries also pay significantly. In fact, many spend more on RFS regulatory credits than they do on company payroll and utilities. That means I’m already getting hit twice by the RFS: Once, whenever I fill up my car and, again, whenever my company has to spend more on RFS red tape.

I urge you to say no to any and all RFS reallocation. To me, reallocation is akin to my neighbor claiming a tax deduction and the IRS showing up at my house to collect the bill. It’s simply wrong.

At the same time, please take steps to cut the 2026-2027 RFS price tag by setting the implied conventional mandate in line with the blend wall and tying the advanced biofuel mandate to actual domestic fuel and feedstock availability.

A $140+ billion RFS is a threat to American energy dominance, refining industry jobs and family budgets.

Take action

Copy the text on this page
Go to regulations.gov
Enter your comment and submit it directly at regulations.gov

Tell the EPA: RFS reallocation is going to harm American refiners and consumers

Take action

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers

Stand With Us