Court Rules EPA Biofuel Standards Harm Wildlife: 15 Billion Gallons Create Chemical Runoff and Ocean Dead Zones

A federal appeals court has ruled that government agencies failed to properly consider how biofuel requirements harm endangered animals and their habitats. The June 20 ruling marks a significant shift in how environmental impacts of renewable fuels must be assessed.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) didn’t adequately consider threats to wildlife when setting biofuel blending requirements for 2023-2025. The court sent the rule back to both agencies, telling them to redo their environmental analysis.

“This is a big win for people and wildlife over the misguided, damaging renewable fuel standard,” said Maggie Coulter, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, which brought the case.

The court specifically criticized two major flaws in the government’s approach. First, it found the Fish and Wildlife Service’s conclusion that biofuel standards would have “no effect” on endangered species was “arbitrary and capricious” – legal language meaning the decision lacked reasonable justification. This finding came despite the EPA’s own models predicting significant land conversion and potential harm to numerous threatened species.

Second, the court ruled the EPA used outdated information from a 2010 study when analyzing climate impacts of crop-based biofuels like corn ethanol and soy biodiesel. Meanwhile, the agency used newer (and often higher) emissions estimates for other fuel types. This inconsistent approach meant the EPA likely underestimated environmental damage from the mandated biofuels.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires specific amounts of biofuels to be blended into the nation’s fuel supply each year. For 2023-2025, the EPA mandated 15 billion gallons of conventional corn ethanol annually, plus increasing amounts of advanced biofuels – 5.9 billion gallons in 2023, rising to 7.3 billion by 2025.

While originally intended to reduce foreign oil dependence and lower greenhouse gas emissions, the court ruling highlights serious environmental trade-offs of biofuels that weren’t properly considered.

Growing corn and soybeans for fuel often involves fewer restrictions on pesticides and fertilizers than food crops. These chemicals wash into waterways during rainstorms, harming aquatic wildlife. For example, this pollution threatens the endangered pallid sturgeon in the Mississippi River. Fertilizer runoff also creates ocean “dead zones” where oxygen levels drop so low that most marine life cannot survive, threatening sea turtles and other species.

Another major concern is habitat loss. As demand for biofuel crops increases, more natural land gets converted to farmland. Wetlands and grasslands – critical habitats for many species – are often the first casualties. This conversion displaces wildlife and reduces biodiversity.

Similar Posts

“For decades, the EPA has incentivized growing corn and soybeans for fuel, ignoring or discounting this program’s harms to wildlife,” Coulter said.

The ruling doesn’t immediately stop the current biofuel requirements. The court declined to throw out the standards entirely, instead requiring more thorough environmental assessment. This means the biofuel blending mandates remain in effect while agencies conduct new analyses.

The case reflects ongoing debate about whether crop-based biofuels deliver the environmental benefits originally promised. While reducing tailpipe emissions compared to gasoline, the full environmental footprint of biofuels includes land conversion, fertilizer use, and water pollution – impacts that some studies suggest can offset or even exceed their climate benefits.

The case was decided by a 2-1 panel majority, with two Democratic-appointed judges supporting the remand while a Republican-appointed judge argued the rule should have been completely set aside due to deeper flaws.

Seven other challenges to the rule from oil refiners were dismissed by the court. Growth Energy, an ethanol interest group, celebrated these dismissals, calling the oil industry arguments “fatally flawed.”

As federal agencies now revisit their analysis, they must better account for biofuels’ full environmental impact, especially on threatened and endangered species. The agencies will need to use current data and more thoroughly consider habitat loss, water pollution from agricultural runoff, and worsening ocean dead zones – all potential consequences of increased biofuel production.

This story highlights the complex balance between renewable energy goals and wildlife conservation, with courts now demanding more rigorous environmental assessment before setting future biofuel policies.