NACS Responds to U.S. House Committee on Blend Wall, RFS

April 10, 2013

The Association for Convenience & Fuel Retailing, NACS sent a response to questions (PDF) from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce white paper on the blend wall and Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). See our previous blog where the House requested responses.

NACS’ response stated: “In general, NACS believes that the fundamental assumptions that guided Congress’ decision to expand the RFS in 2007 have changed. At that time, most expected the nation’s fuel demand and reliance on imported energy supplies to continue on an unrelenting upward trajectory. Today, these assumptions are no longer accurate — yet the program enacted in 2007 remains unchanged.

“The domestic fuels market is dynamic and conditions are ever changing. As such, it is important any long-term fuels policy be constructed with inherent flexibility to accommodate such changing market conditions. If not, the market is bound to encounter unintended consequences, most of which will be very difficult and potentially expensive to overcome. Ultimately, all expenses incurred by the market will be borne by the consumer. We are beginning to encounter such challenges with the implementation of the RFS and it is appropriate that Congress begin asking questions about the implementation strategy and the effect this program will have on the market.”

The response outlined in detail answers to questions about the effect of the blend wall on gasoline retail prices and the impact of E15. Learn more about NACS interest in and activity on legislation and regulations that affect the production, distribution, price and supply of motor fuels and the c-stores’ specific responsibility to securely store and dispense motor fuels, at the NACS Issues – Government Relations – Motor Fuels page.

“It has been more than five years since the RFS was last revised, and we now have a wealth of actual implementation experience with it,” the white paper explains. “In some respects, the RFS has unfolded as expected, but in others it has not. Several implementation challenges have emerged that received little if any consideration prior to passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Furthermore, the overall energy landscape has changed since 2007. It is time to undertake an assessment of the RFS.”