IBJNews

U.S. invalidates 33.5M renewable fuel credits after fraud

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it has invalidated 33.5 million renewable-fuel credits sold by an Indiana company for biofuel it didn’t produce, the fourth time the agency has alleged fraud in the program.

The filing Wednesday follows fraud charges filed against the former owners of the Middletown-based E-Biofuels LLC in September. The U.S. Justice Department accused them of falsely claiming its products qualified under government incentives for renewable fuels. At Wednesday’s value of about 40 cents each for biodiesel, the invalidated RINs would have been worth about $13.4 million.

The EPA move, which was posted on its website, may further roil the market for credits used by refiners such as Valero Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. to meet government renewable-fuel requirements. Before Wednesday’s action, the agency had said three companies produced a total of 140 million fraudulent Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs.

“EPA unfortunately continues to hold obligated parties responsible for illegal activities perpetrated by biodiesel producers such as E-Biofuels,” Charles Drevna, the president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a Washington-based lobbying group, said in a prepared statement. “The industry remains unfairly exposed to a system that actually penalizes the victim of fraud.”

Under U.S. law, refiners such as Exxon and Valero must blend ethanol or other biofuels into their fuels. EPA rules allow refiners to buy credits from other producers to fulfill their obligations in lieu of making the fuel themselves.

The market in credits for the cleaner fuel seized up last year after federal prosecutors accused Clean Green Fuels LLC of selling 32 million fraudulent certificates, and EPA forced refiners to pay fines for the fake renewable credits they held. A second company, Absolute Fuels LLC, was issued a notice of violation in February for allegedly selling 48 million bogus certificates.

In the fraud case involving a third company, Green Diesel LLC, the EPA reached administrative settlements with 39 companies including Exxon and Valero. In that case, for example, Exxon agreed to pay a penalty of $165,407, according to the settlement document posted on the EPA’s website.

After the first reports of fraud were discovered, the EPA developed a proposal to tighten oversight of the renewable fuels program, or RFS, and that regulation is set to be issued next year, the EPA said Wednesday in an e-mail.

“This fraud is disappointing for everyone, but it is important to remember that these are isolated cases from several years ago,” Ben Evans, a spokesman for the National Biodiesel Board, said in an e-mail. “Despite what RFS critics would like us to believe, they do not show that the RFS is broken any more than an isolated case of trading fraud shows the stock market is broken.”

A telephone listing for E-Biofuels LLC is disconnected. Thomas Farlow, a lawyer representing the former owners didn’t return a telephone message left seeking comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • huh
    I read this article 5 times and still don't understand it. Did the US EPA revoke E-Biofuels RINs specifically or did the author lump them into the article? Is a RIN a tax credit? Exxon's $160000 settlement is in response to what exactly? They were accused of falsifying how much? This is a very confusing article on a very interesting topic.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT