The EPA says it is “working expeditiously” to finalize Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes after proposing record-high blending requirements for biomass-based diesel earlier this year — levels that could deliver a major boost in domestic soybean demand. But with rumors swirling about potential delays or softened requirements, agriculture stakeholders are asking: Is EPA reversing course?
In an exclusive interview with U.S. Farm Report, EPA deputy administrator David Fotouhi says the agency is committed to getting the RFS rule “exactly right,” and strongly disputes reports suggesting the administration may scale back or delay the proposed increases.
EPA Still Won’t Commit to a Date, But Says Final RFS Rule Is “On Track”
While agriculture groups continue pressing for clarity on when EPA will finalize its Renewable Fuel Standard volumes orignally proposed in June, the agency maintains that the process remains on schedule — though it’s still without a specific public release date.
The deputy administrator emphasizes the RFS rulemaking has been a top priority since the new EPA leadership took office in January.
“We understand how important it is to get this exactly right,” he says. “From day one, administrator Zeldon has been laser focused on ensuring that the RFS strikes the right balance and carries out our statutory obligation to set volumes, considering the factors that are in the Clean Air Act.”
He notes the original proposal, which was unveiled in January, and the June update were shaped under difficult circumstances.
“When we came to the agency here in January, we had an unprecedented backlog of small refinery exemptions that the Biden administration had failed to consider,” he explains. “We also had a Renewable Fuel Standard program that was behind on setting volumes.”
To address that, EPA not only advanced its main proposal but also issued a supplemental notice proposing how to reallocate volumes connected to those outstanding small refinery exemption decisions.
“We’ve invested a lot of time and effort in the proposal that you just described, as well as the supplemental notice on reallocation of those SRE-exempted volumes,” he says. “That comment period just recently closed, and we’re looking at all the comments we received on the initial proposal from the summer, as well as on the supplemental notice that we just issued.”
The comments are now being reviewed collectively as EPA weighs what the final RVOs should look like.
“We’re taking all of that on board and considering that when deciding how to set the final RVOs,” he continues. “And we are working expeditiously to do that because we know farmers across the country and all the other stakeholders implicated by this program need certainty.”
Pressed on whether the final rule could realistically land this winter or slip into spring, he again declined to give a specific timeframe but reiterated the agency’s urgency.
“What I can say is that we’re working expeditiously to provide that level of certainty,” he says. “We know that we need to set these volumes so that stakeholders can adjust and act accordingly and start meeting the standards. We are working as quickly as we can to take final action on that proposal.”
EPA Slams Reuters Report on Imported Biofuel Incentives
EPA’s frustration with outside reporting was on full display when asked about a Reuters article suggesting the administration is considering delaying proposed cuts to incentives for imported biofuels — a key piece of EPA’s June proposal that was intended to prioritize domestic production. Reuters reported refiners had pushed the administration to dial back or postpone the shift, prompting widespread speculation that EPA might be reversing course.
The deputy administrator forcefully rejects that narrative.
“What I can say now is that there are a lot of rumors and speculation about what we might or might not do,” he says. “We can’t prejudge the outcome of where we’re going. We’re still looking at all of the public comments.”
He made it clear the agency views the Reuters report as misleading and potentially harmful to agricultural markets.
“It’s very frustrating, frankly, when a news agency like Reuters comes out and spreads rumors and innuendo about where we may or may not be going,” he says. “They do it in a way that actually moves markets and causes commodity prices to be affected before we’ve even made a decision.”
The deputy administrator stressed the imported biofuel incentive changes laid out in June remain on the table — and nothing has been rolled back behind the scenes.
“As you said, it was an integral part of our proposal,” he notes. “We’ve received a lot of public feedback on it that we are reviewing from stakeholders across the board, and we’ve made no final decisions yet on that issue.”
He went even further, directly questioning the appropriateness of the Reuters reporting.
“It is irresponsible for Reuters to be speculating about that at this time,” he says. “We are taking this seriously, we are reviewing the comments, and we will make a decision based on the law and the record — not based on rumor.”
The agency’s direct pushback underscores the sensitivity surrounding EPA’s final RVO decision. Every signal about imported biofuels, biomass-based diesel volumes or domestic versus foreign supply carries major implications for commodity markets, soybean crush demand and the renewable fuel industry.
EPA’s message to farmers: Ignore the rumors, wait for the rule and understand that:
- No decisions have been finalized
- Public comments are still being reviewed
- Reports of policy shifts are premature
- Certainty for farmers is a guiding priority
More Background on the RFS Proposal
As Farm Journal originally reported in June, EPA’s proposed rule is a potential game changer for farmers. The proposal would increase biomass-based diesel requirements, from 3.35 billion gallons in 2025 to 5.61 billion gallons in 2026, supporting American row-crop growers in the process.
The proposal includes at least three key regulatory shifts that would accompany the volume increases:
- Heightened quotas for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD) and advanced biofuels.
- Prioritization of soybean oil and ethanol produced in the U.S. Imported biofuels would earn just 50% of the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) value compared to U.S.-based fuels.
- Removal of renewable electricity (eRINs) as a qualifying fuel, reinforcing liquid biofuels as the RFS centerpiece.
EPA Signals a Broader Deregulatory Strategy
Beyond the RFS, the agency is emphasizing cost-cutting and regulatory relief as core priorities — offering a stark contrast to Biden-era policy approaches.
In August, EPA finalized its decision not to impose new wastewater discharge rules on meat and poultry processors, reversing a previous proposal the deputy administrator says would have cost facilities “millions, if not tens of millions of dollars” with limited environmental benefit.
He argues the change is part of a coordinated administration-wide effort to reduce the cost of living, noting that avoiding new regulatory burdens could help keep grocery prices lower.
Earlier this year, EPA also announced what it called the largest deregulatory action in agency history, spanning 31 changes intended to reduce energy and regulatory costs for farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.
“One of our biggest focuses is reducing the cost of energy,” he says. “We’re working across agencies — USDA, DOE, Interior — to identify ways to lower input costs for producers. That’s a priority for the president.”