Tag: E15

E15 Misdirection (WSJ letter from farm-state US senators)

“The market has spoken” is misleading. The senators argued that consumer demand demonstrates E15 is a success. The critique responds that ethanol markets are heavily shaped by government policies—including the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), blending mandates, tax incentives, and regulations—so current market outcomes do not reflect a fully competitive market.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Is” certainly does not equal “ought.” The market has not spoken. The senators do not have an intellectual case for agricultural rent-seeking and crony capitalism. The way forward, as Travis Fisher of the Cato Institute explains, is to abolish the mandate and let a free market determine the right (lower) amount of ethanol needed as an oxygenate.

Apologists for uneconomical, government-dependent energies (a federally mandated ethanol mandate in this case) must use the best arguments they can conjure up, especially any that might appear plausible to the short-attention-span reader. The half-truth can do this, with the truth part setting up the deception. Another ploy is the “is” as if it is “ought.”

Consider the letter published in the Wall Street Journal last month by five farm state senators [1], “The Market Has Spoken: E15 Is a Net Positive” (June 4, 2026). It concerns the federal ethanol mandate that violates natural market choices. My comments follow each paragraph.

“Regarding your editorial ‘An Ethanol Extortion Play‘ (May 11): When we talk with our constituents, we hear about high gas and diesel prices. We have a solution that will bring down fuel prices for Americans: E15 fuel, 15% ethanol, 85% gasoline. Legislation allowing year round, nationwide sales of E15 has bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Opponents, the most vocal of which are a handful of oil refineries, are trying to stop it. Your editorial mirrors their misguided talking points.”

Comment: “We have a solution that will bring down fuel prices” is a sneaky half-truth. The lower price for ethanol is cancelled out and more by less fuel economy versus a higher gasoline blend. As AI states:

“While high-ethanol blends (like E15) frequently cost less at the pump, they do not reliably save motorists money. Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than pure gasoline, resulting in a 2-3% drop in fuel economy for E10 and up to a 5% drop for E15, ultimately erasing the pump savings.”

If ethanol really saves consumers money, other things the same, then there would not need to be a quota backed by the letter’s legislative bodyguards.

“Expanding E15 availability lowers gas prices by 20 to 40 cents per gallon on average. That could mean around $400 per year in savings for a U.S. household—precious dollars that could be spent on other needs.”

Comment: This is flatly incorrect because the authors do not factor in the fuel-economy disadvantage of ethanol–and the opportunity cost of filling up more often. Nor do they bring up the issue of engine damage for small motors and older vehicles from the mandate–or the effect on food prices from the food-to-fuel substitution. The complexity of the Renewable Fuel Standard (the governing name for the mandate) has also been ripe for fraud.

“E15 has been in the marketplace by presidential waiver for eight years. In that time, not one refinery has closed because of E15 availability. And, for all the talk of smog worries, data from Growth Energy shows E15 reduces smog forming pollutants. Likewise, despite concerns voiced in some quarters, existing fuel infrastructure can be used for E15, just as it can for the E10 fuel Americans usually buy.”

Comment: The environmental case for a higher ethanol blend is, at best, ambiguous. Summer usage increases smog in many major cities. CO2 reductions at the combustion stage compared to gasoline are offset by land usage and conversion for corn. Environmental groups generally oppose the ethanol mandate for these reasons.

“The market has spoken: E15 is a net positive. We know E15 will lower prices at the pump, and we’re committed to providing affordable options for families. Securing year round, nationwide E15 is at the forefront of our agenda.”

Comment: “Is” certainly does not equal “ought.” The market has not spoken. The undersigned do not have an intellectual case for agricultural rent-seeking and crony capitalism. The way forward, as Travis Fisher of the Cato Institute explains, is to abolish the mandate and let a free market determine the right (lower) amount of ethanol needed as an oxygenate.

[1] SENS. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R., IOWA), JONI ERNST (R., IOWA), DEB FISCHER (R., NEB.), PETE RICKETTS (R., NEB.) AND ROGER MARSHALL (R., KAN.)

How the eco-Left tried to sneak a little Green New Deal into your gas tank

As Congress recently considered the 1,500+ page continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government, there was a sneaky provision tucked away in the bill designed to hit Americans where it hurts most: at the gas pump. Hidden in the text was a measure to allow for the year-round use of E15, a fuel blend containing 15% ethanol. It was clearly a Trojan horse provision for costly ethanol mandates that will drive up fuel prices and harm everyday consumers.

From CFACT

By Larry Behrens

We dodged an economic bullet aimed at your car’s gas tank.

As Congress recently considered the 1,500+ page continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government, there was a sneaky provision tucked away in the bill designed to hit Americans where it hurts most: at the gas pump. Hidden in the text was a measure to allow for the year-round use of E15, a fuel blend containing 15% ethanol. It was clearly a Trojan horse provision for costly ethanol mandates that will drive up fuel prices and harm everyday consumers.

Special interest groups immediately celebrated the idea, presumedly because there was a payout along with it. Keep in mind, these are the same groups that hailed President Biden’s controversial Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), “This initiative will help jump-start climate progress, while delivering more savings at the pump,” they said in 2022. The reality? Nationally, gas prices continue to hover around $3 or more per gallon, even as the administration touted its so-called climate wins. They were wrong about the IRA two years ago, and they’re wrong about E15 in the old CR.

States that have adopted similar fuel standards offer a stark warning. Last March, the average price of gas in states with stricter standards reached $4.28 per gallon—nearly a dollar more than the national average. California, often the poster child for these policies, now sees families paying $1.30 more per gallon compared to the rest of the country. It’s no coincidence. The cost of compliance with E15 and other “green” mandates disproportionately falls on smaller fuel processors, driving up expenses that are inevitably passed on to consumers.

Proponents of E15 argue that it’s an eco-friendly solution that will save consumers money in the long run. But the facts tell a different story. Ethanol production requires substantial amounts of energy, often from non-renewable sources. Furthermore, blending ethanol into gasoline can make it less efficient, meaning drivers need to fill up more often. Far from delivering savings, E15 could end up costing Americans more at the pump while offering negligible environmental benefits.

The broader context of this failed provision reveals a calculated strategy by the Biden administration. Over the past few weeks, the administration has shoveled billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of eco-left allies under the guise of advancing climate progress. These bloated contracts and subsidies are designed to be difficult for any future administration to unwind, effectively “Trump-proofing” their agenda. The E15 measure was no different. By locking in ethanol mandates, the administration tried to tie the hands of future policymakers, ensuring the continuation of their costly and misguided agenda.

Thankfully, the provision didn’t make the cut in the newer, and much smaller version of the CR.

American families are already struggling with rising costs across the board. The last thing they need is another policy that makes filling up the gas tank even more expensive. Additionally, the incoming Trump Administration would have faced significant hurdles in trying to rein in gas prices—and Democrats then would be quick to pin the blame on their successors when prices inevitably stay high.

This isn’t just about ethanol or a CR. It’s about standing up to special interests, protecting American consumers, and ensuring that energy policy works for everyone—not just a select few with the ear of the waning administration. Not surprisingly, those groups immediately demanded the E15 rule be added back in

For now, the ethanol provision is history. But with a month left in office, there’s no telling what the eco-left and their friends in the Biden Administration will try sneak in next.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy