Louisiana and Alabama have asked EPA to reduce certain renewable-fuel obligations for 2027. Their request does not suspend the requirements. The important questions are what relief the governors actually seek, what evidence the law requires, and how EPA would put a decision into effect.
The November 9 petition signed by Governors Jeff Landry and Kay Ivey invokes the Clean Air Act’s severe-economic-harm provision. It also presents a question that deserves close attention: the requested relief concerns fuel produced or consumed in the two states, while the statute describes a reduction in national renewable-fuel volumes.
What the governors asked EPA to do
The two-page letter asks for a partial waiver for 2027 only, expressly leaving 2026 obligations undisturbed. Its concluding requests are to waive RFS requirements for obligated fuels produced or consumed in the petitioning states, adjust the applicable 2027 percentage standards, and grant other relief necessary to address the asserted economic harm. The petition does not specify a numerical reduction in gallons or a replacement percentage. Signed petition, pages 1–2 (page 1; page 2).
The governors attribute harm to the RFS’s effect on fuel costs and identify agriculture, poultry and livestock, timber, trucking, and manufacturing as affected industries. Those are the petitioners’ arguments. A signed request establishes what they seek; it does not establish that EPA has accepted their economic conclusions.
The November 10 Reuters report describes the request and opposing views from biofuel advocates. The legal process requires an agency decision supported by its record, not simply a choice between competing public statements.
The showing EPA must make
Under 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A), EPA may reduce national renewable-fuel requirements, in whole or in part, after consultation with Agriculture and Energy. The general-waiver grounds are severe harm to the economy or environment of a state, region, or the country, or inadequate domestic supply. Both require public notice and an opportunity to comment. The governors invoke the severe-harm ground. Clean Air Act § 211(o)(7).
EPA’s 2012 waiver decision, 77 Fed. Reg. 70752, explains why that distinction matters. In rejecting requests made during a severe drought, EPA required the RFS itself to cause severe economic harm, while evaluating its effects within existing market conditions. General economic distress was not enough. That earlier decision does not decide the 2027 petition; it identifies reasoning EPA would need to address in evaluating a new record.
For this request, useful evidence would compare the expected market with the 2027 requirements against the expected market under a specified waiver. A workable comparison should identify the amount of relief, how compliance costs would change, whether those changes would reach fuel purchasers, and how effects on refiners, farmers, renewable-fuel producers, and other businesses fit into the claimed harm to a state or region. A projected compliance cost and a demonstrated reduction in retail prices answer different questions.
State-specific relief under a national standard
The petition’s geographic wording should not be treated as an automatic exemption for every Louisiana refinery, distributor, or fuel purchaser. The cited provision operates by reducing the national quantity required. EPA would need to explain how any relief it grants fits that authority and translates into enforceable obligations. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A).
For example, would a decision reduce national volumes, change percentage standards, or attempt to distinguish particular fuel volumes by origin or destination? How would the relevant volumes be identified without counting the same fuel twice? Those are implementation questions raised by the requested relief, not findings that the request is either lawful or unlawful. The agency’s actual proposal and decision will matter.
The 90-day clock begins with EPA’s receipt
Section 7545(o)(7)(B) directs EPA to approve or disapprove a petition within 90 days after receipt. Under subsection (C), a general waiver expires after one year, subject to renewal following agency consultation. Statutory timetable and duration.
The letter is dated November 9 and marked as sent by email. That is not an EPA acknowledgment of receipt. The sources cited here do not establish an agency receipt date, a petition-specific comment deadline, or a final decision. A calendar deadline should therefore not be calculated from the letter’s date alone. The 90-day provision also does not say that agency silence automatically grants the request.
EPA’s 2026–2027 final-rule page supplies the existing volume and percentage framework. A petition seeking to change that framework is not itself the change. Anyone responsible for compliance should look for the operative agency action and its effective terms before altering compliance plans.
Four processes that should not be confused
Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Process | What distinguishes it |
|---|---|
| This state petition | A general waiver request based on alleged severe economic harm, invoking § 7545(o)(7)(A)(i). |
| Small-refinery exemption | A refinery-specific request based on disproportionate economic hardship under § 7545(o)(9). It is a separate statutory route. |
| Annual RFS standards | The rule establishing applicable volumes and percentage standards. EPA’s March 2026 final rule addresses 2026 and 2027. |
| Emergency fuel-specification waiver | Temporary relief from specified fuel controls under § 7545(c)(4)(C), with separate prerequisites. It is not the general RFS waiver requested here. |
Sources: 42 U.S.C. § 7545(c)(4)(C), (o)(7), and (o)(9); EPA’s final standards. Labels such as “fuel waiver” can conceal these differences. Identify the statutory authority and the actual decision before drawing a conclusion about which obligations changed.
The records worth following
- The complete submission and receipt record. Keep the signed letter, attachments, transmission email, EPA acknowledgment, and any supplemental economic analysis. A later submission may clarify the requested quantity or scope.
- The notice and docket. Check EPA’s RFS announcements, the Federal Register, and Regulations.gov for the Louisiana–Alabama petition. Use the docket and deadline in the actual notice; do not assume an unrelated RFS comment period covers this request.
- The economic evidence. Look for the baseline, proposed waiver amount, price assumptions, treatment of compliance credits, and competing analyses. Preserve the dates and versions of models rather than relying on a summary of their conclusions.
- The final decision. Read the relief granted or denied, reasons, effective dates, affected fuel categories and obligations, and any review instructions. A press release may omit qualifications in the operative document.
For federal records not available in the public docket, EPA’s Freedom of Information Act process provides a separate records route. For records held by Louisiana public bodies, our Louisiana public-records guide explains how to identify the custodian, request existing documents, and address withholding. A records request does not substitute for a comment or preserve a litigation deadline.
The same distinction between a proposal, an application, and a final agency decision also matters in Louisiana industrial permitting; see our LNG approvals and public-records guide. More guides are collected in Louisiana Legal Research. This article addresses the public record and governing procedure, not a prediction of EPA’s decision or an individual business’s compliance obligations.