1. You know I could not let this E15 thing go. I am going to come at from a different angle this morning. I want to start by reviewing what I have previously stated as my general position on the RFS.
2. My position is that the RFS is the law of the land. Congressional intent when the RFS was passed could not be clearer. It was designed to force biofuels into the transportation fuel supply. The RFS is the law and ag should be able to expect the law to be enforced faithfully.
3. Don't take my word about Congressional intent for the RFS. Here is what a U.S. Federal Appeals Court said about the matter in July 2017. Could not be more clear cut. 
4. This is why I think that small refinery exemptions (SREs) w/out reallocation of volumes is a blatant contradiction of Congressional intent for the RFS. This essentially creates a backdoor general waiver authority for the RFS that is clearly not in the original statute.
5. So, if you think the RFS is a bad law, then get Congress to change it. If you can't get Congress to change it, then learn to live with it. Undermining the law by creating backdoor waiver authorities through SREs ultimately undermines the rule of law.
6. Now, we get to the RVP waiver for E15 that the President is proposing. Let's see what the Clean Air Act (CAA) statutory text says about the RVP waiver for ethanol.
7. The text below is from section 211(h) of the CAA. Notice the first sentence: "For fuel blends containing gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol, the Reid vapor pressure limitation...shall be one pound per square inch."
8. I realize that lawyers can be very creative in finding a way to say words mean one thing or another, but that seems pretty clear to me. How does this allow a one pound RVP waiver for 15 percent ethanol gasoline blends? I just don't see it.
9. Since the CAA is the law of the land, it seems to me that Congress will have to amend the CAA in order to grant a one pound RVP waiver to E15.
10. I think it would be a major contradiction for me to argue that the RFS is the law of the land and you cannot change it through administrative edicts and then turn around argue that it is fine and dandy to effectively change the CAA through administrative edict.
11. My bottom-line is that we should not undermine either the RFS or CAA as the law of the land.
12. Realized that I forgot to attach full citation of section 211(h) of the CAA. You will find it below.
