Fuel options at a gas station in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on August 22, 2025. The national average price for a gallon of gasoline was $4.55 on May 22, 2026, up from $3.20 a year ago. The pointed escalate has drawn the attention of some lawmakers to alternative fuels such as ethanol. (Photo by John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
Ethanol advocates, including lawmakers from corn-growing states, say year-round sales of a gasoline blend that contains 15% of the biofuel would give consumers a cheaper alternative to filling up their gas tanks, boost energy supplies and benefit agricultural interests.
So why didn’t Congress allow it?
There is credible skepticism about these claims — and resistance from the oddball fellow environmentalists and lawmakers from states where oil production and refining are major industries. As a result, expanding the availability of E15, as the blend is called, has become a congressional brawl with no foreseeable outcome.
The outcome of that debate, which continues in June when Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, largely depends on whether the push for year-round utilize of E15 can get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill allowing it this month and the White House signaled its support.
“I don’t know if it can reach 60, to be honest.” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said in an interview.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered hope.
“We are looking at ways to move it,” he told reporters. “We have people here representing states that also have refineries, and that is a factor in this conversation.”
The Iran War strengthens support
Federal regulations restricted the sale of E15 from June 1 to September 15 due to its impact on air quality.
But the unrest sparked by the war in Iran was a major boost to Congress’ efforts to pass full-year E15 legislation.
AAA reported that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline was $4.55 per gallon Friday, up from $3.20 last year.
The Environmental Protection Agency have issued exemptions this year to allow the mixture to be sold for longer. E15, often sold at gas stations as unleaded 88, will be widely available this summer, “in part as a result of ongoing problems in the Middle East,” the EPA said in a statement.
“Unique agreement”
Your own view on the topic “depends on which study you look at” Chairman of the Senate for Agriculture John Boozman, a Republican from Arkansas, said in an interview.
On one side is a historically influential coalition of agricultural, retail and oil interests.
“This legislation reflects a unique area of consensus across the fuel and agriculture supply chain,” said organizations representing those industries a letter dated May 11th.
“While our industries may not always agree, we agree that these policy reforms provide needed certainty, preserve consumer choice, and support agriculture and the energy industries alike,” they said.
The Renewable Fuels Association states that E15 is “fully approved for use in cars, pickup trucks, vans and other light commercial vehicles” manufactured after 2000.
Industry officials say consumers can save 10 to 30 cents per gallon compared to regular 87-octane gasoline. In Pennsylvania, Unleaded 88 was sometimes sold for 50 cents per gallon less last weekend.
The E15 critics
Many environmental groups claim that ethanol is more pricey to produce than regular gasoline, and that this cost is passed on to consumers not only at the pump but also in various agricultural products.
“Expanding ethanol sales is a short-sighted approach that ignores the environmental costs of industrial agriculture,” said Patrick Drupp, Sierra Clubs Director of Climate Policy.
He said much of the corn used to make E15 is grown in Midwestern states “that are already facing severe aquifer depletion and water shortages, and expanding ethanol production would only increase the strain on their water supplies, farmland and ecosystems.”
Eight environmental groups wrote an open letter on May 8 worrying: “We should not devote additional land, resources or taxpayer dollars to policies that undermine our climate goals, strain our natural systems and increase costs for American families.”
The groups, which include the World Resources Institute and the Sierra Club, disputed the idea that consumers would benefit.
“The cost of producing corn ethanol typically exceeds the cost of gasoline, except during periods of unusually high oil prices – and even then, ethanol prices tend to rise in tandem with global energy markets,” they said.
That would mean even higher prices not only for fuel, but also for food, the organizations write.
One analysis that doesn’t take either side is that of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which said in a May 12 report analysis Because E15 requires separate or specialized tanks and pumps, “retailers wanting to sell E15 face additional costs to install new equipment.”
And it said: “Some refineries will incur additional costs as they adapt their refining processes to produce the appropriate gasoline for blending with E15.”
What will Congress do?
The congressional coalitions for and against year-round E15 are as unusual as the outside groups that support and oppose them.
The house 218-203 In the May 13 vote, 122 Republicans, 95 Democrats and one Independent voted “yes,” while 113 Republicans and 90 Democrats voted “no.”
The Yes coalition united largely rural lawmakers with more urban members who see the change as helping consumers.
“This debate is about much more than just fuel,” the MP said. Mariannette Miller Meeksan Iowa Republican said. “Agriculture is doing badly at the moment”
She was joined by Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill “lowers prices for American drivers, supports farmers and encourages investment in cleaner transportation fuel,” he said.
On the other side was Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas.
“If we need to do something to support farmers, let’s talk about it directly. Expanding E15 is simply the wrong way to go,” he said.
The same type of party split is also emerging in the Senate.
After the vote in the House of Representatives Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., who has fought for the change for years, hailed the approval as “a major step toward ensuring stability and security for American producers and consumers – without government mandates.”
Thune from South Dakota is positive about year-round E15.
At a press conference this week, he called E15 “a way to create additional demand for agricultural commodities and create additional supply of fuels in this country.”
“And if that happens, at least in my part of the country, that means that ethanol, if you buy it at the pump, will be significantly cheaper,” he said.
He faces a powerful skeptic Senate: Majority Leader John Barrasso of Wyoming, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate.
“Congress is currently debating new mandates — mandates that would force more and more ethanol into our fuels,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor the day after the House vote.
“I am against the year-round E15 mandate,” he said. “I am against it because it hurts small oil refineries and all the people who work there.”
Small refineries
There are about 30 diminutive refineries across the country, mostly inland, and about half could face problems under the House bill.
Small refineries are those that produce less than 75,000 barrels of oil per day, compared to 300,000 barrels or more at larger facilities.
The diminutive refineries can apply an EPA exception from annual renewable fuel obligations due to “disproportionate economic hardship”.
33 exemption applications were submitted for 2025. About 17 of those facilities would be ineligible under the proposed legislation because they are owned by companies with more than one refinery. Instead of focusing on a single facility, the bill proposes aggregating all facilities.
The House bill would allow for a 75% exemption instead of the current full exemption. It could also cut in half the number of diminutive refineries currently eligible for an exemption.
Most diminutive refineries would be operationally constrained without the ability to obtain exemptions because they would have to utilize much of their cash flow to meet annual requirements, said Peter Whitfield, a partner at Sidley Austin, a law firm that represents the refineries Small refineries in Americain an interview
Many senators want assurances that diminutive refineries will not be harmed.
“I’m interested in the little refinery piece,” Capito said.
This concern is another reason. Capito said she currently doubts the House bill can get the required 60 votes in the Senate.
