This transcript is automatically generated
Follow this story was first brought to you last -- -- money showcasing.
The egregious example of government gone wild there is an EPA mandate requiring oil refiners to use a specific amount of bio fuel are paid huge fines.
-- want pretty big catch though the -- -- loss at bio fuel does not exist.
Yeah refiners have been find fourteen million -- so far.
Well the American Petroleum Institute is fighting back slapping the EPA with a lawsuit over the so called phantom fuel with me now is the president of hijacked your exact.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
Thank you Melissa it's -- did talk to you still go for -- you're gonna -- -- 88 EPA because they're requiring your members to use this -- that doesn't exist what's gonna response so far.
Well that we do work with EPA for a number of years now trying to get them to understand the reality of this absurd regulatory policy.
Just as you stated as we started the program here.
The US refineries are penalized for not using the fuel.
That does not exist.
And what they're able to do this gives EPA taxing authority.
They have charged -- companies millions of dollars because we haven't blended this fuel that doesn't exist.
So they're out they're charging us they make arbitrary decisions.
And each year assess us a -- So were tired of this were tired -- trying to work through we hope the courts would give us relief.
I mean what's so arbitrary about this in particular is that they required a certain amount of fuel it's not out there are so they sort of acknowledge that and they lowered the requirement.
To some other arbitrary number which is kind of ridiculous because not out there anyways they acknowledge can't get a for the -- well you still should use this much that's -- Fourteen million dollars actually isn't a lot.
For the whole industry there you see -- -- it should have been 250 million gallons.
And instead they lowered that to this new number because they realize it's not even out there why don't they just do away with it altogether -- feel like I know the answer to.
Well well that's a real question Melissa I mean it's -- like we say it's an absurd regulatory policy.
We worked with them throughout 2011 saying we don't think there's -- -- be any -- a loss -- about fuel produced this year.
And their basic message was well let's wait till the end of the year.
We got to the end of the year the CIA the energy information agency confirmed there was no Saudi -- -- biofuel produced.
And we petition them and said -- was really produced.
Please don't penalize us don't tax us for not using something that doesn't exaggerate its air denied our petition and just went on and impose the -- -- -- anyway.
Since basically just attacks when they call it that they just want -- tax you.
Fourteen million dollars what are -- -- that.
Well at the end of the day with so absurd about the policy is here's a regulatory agency that's supposed to be an environmental regulator.
Is essentially been in doubt now -- taxing policy.
With no rhyme or reason how they come up with these numbers but the ultimate person that gets hit is that consumer.
They pay for these costs and all of this is a pass through from our industry -- the federal treasury.
And ultimately consumers pay without knowing.
This is our government run -- -- You're right and I'm so glad you made that point is that is exactly -- our audience should care about that's.
They may not have a lot of sympathy for the big oil companies out there -- they should understand that when the EPA passes on attacks or find you guys.
You -- on to the consumer so it's we are actually paying this to the -- that's a great point Jack thank you for joining us and please keep us and you know what happens what that's.
We will thank you.