Fuel options at a Sioux Falls, South Dakota gas station on August 22, 2025. The nationwide average price for a gallon of gasoline was $4.55 on May 22, 2026, up from $3.20 a year ago. The surge has turned some lawmakers’ attention to alternative fuels such as ethanol. (Photo: John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
Ethanol supporters, including lawmakers in corn-growing states, say year-round sales of a gasoline blend containing 15 percent biofuel would provide consumers with a cheaper fueling alternative, boost energy supplies and benefit agricultural interests.
So why didn’t Congress allow it?
There is credible skepticism about these claims and opposition from strange allies in the form of environmentalists and lawmakers from states where the main industries are oil production and refining. As a result, expanding the availability of E15, as the mixture is called, has become a row in Congress with no predictable results.
The outcome of that debate, which will continue in June when Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess, depends largely on whether a push for year-round E15 exploit can gain 60 votes in the U.S. Senate after the House of Representatives passed legislation this month authorizing it and the White House signaled its support.
“I don’t know if I can get 60 to be honest,” he added. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said committee chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, in an interview.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered some hope.
“We are looking for 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.”
War in Iran increases support
Federal regulations restricted the sale of E15 from June 1 to September 15 due to its impact on air quality.
However, the turmoil caused by the Iran war provided an vital impetus to Congress’s efforts to pass year-long E15 legislation.
AAA reported that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline was $4.55 a gallon on Friday, down from $3.20 a year earlier.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued waivers this year to allow for the extension of sales of the mixture. E15, often sold at gas stations as 88 unleaded, will become widely available this summer “among other things as a result of ongoing issues in the Middle East,” the EPA said in a statement.
“Unique Deal”
The view on this issue ‘depends on which study you look at’ Chairman of the Senate for Agriculture John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, said in an interview.
On the one hand, there is the historically influential coalition of agricultural, retail and oil interests.
“This legislation reflects a unique area of agreement across the fuel and agricultural supply chain,” said industry groups letter of May 11.
“While our industries may not always see eye to eye, we are united in our belief that these policy reforms provide needed certainty, protect consumer choice, and support both agriculture and the energy economy,” they said.
The Renewable Fuels Association claims that E15 is “fully approved for use in passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans and other light vehicles” manufactured after 2000.
Industry officials say consumers can save 10 to 30 cents per gallon compared to regular 87-octane gasoline. Last weekend in Pennsylvania, 88 unleaded gas was selling for 50 cents a gallon less in some cases.
Critics of E15
Many environmental groups maintain that ethanol costs more to produce than regular gasoline, and that these costs are passed on to consumers not only at the pump but in a variety of agricultural products.
“Increasing ethanol sales is a short-sighted approach that ignores the environmental costs of industrial agriculture,” said Patrick Drupp, Sierra Club director of climate policy.
He said much of the corn used to produce E15 is grown in Midwestern states that “already struggle with severe aquifer depletion and water shortages, and rising ethanol production will only increase the strain on their water resources, farmlands and ecosystems.”
Eight ecological groups wrote an open letter on May 8, concerned that “we should not dedicate additional land, resources, or taxpayer dollars to policies that undermine our climate goals, burden our natural systems, and increase costs for American families.”
Groups that include the World Resources Institute and the Sierra Club have pushed back against the idea that consumers will benefit.
“Corn ethanol production costs typically exceed gasoline costs except during periods of unusually high oil prices, and even then ethanol prices tend to rise with global energy markets,” they said.
This would mean even higher prices not only of fuel, but also of food, the organizations wrote.
One analysis that doesn’t take sides is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as it said in a May 12 letter analysis that because E15 requires separate or specialized tanks and pumps, “retailers wishing to sell E15 would face additional costs associated with installing new equipment.”
It further stated that “some refineries will incur additional costs by adapting their refining processes to produce suitable gasoline for E15 blending.”
What will Congress do?
The congressional coalitions for and against year-round E15 are as extraordinary as the outside groups supporting and opposing them.
Home 218-203 on the May 13 ballot, 122 Republicans, 95 Democrats, and one independent voted “yes,” while 113 Republicans and 90 Democrats voted “no.”
The Yes coalition has largely united rural lawmakers with more urban residents who see the change as helping consumers.
“This debate is about much more than fuel,” said Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meekssaid the Iowa Republican. “Agriculture is suffering right now.”
She was joined by New Jersey Republican Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill “lowers prices for American drivers, supports farmers and promotes investment in cleaner transportation fuel,” he said.
On the other side was Rep. Chip Roy of Texas.
“If we need to do something to support farmers, let’s talk about it directly. Extending E15 is simply the wrong direction,” he said.
A similar partisan divide threatens in the Senate.
After the vote in the House Senator Deb Fischer, R-Neb., who has fought for the change for years, hailed the approval as “a major step toward providing stability and certainty for American producers and consumers — without any government mandates.”
South Dakota’s Thune sympathizes with year-round E15.
At a press conference this week, he called E15 “a way to create additional demand for agricultural goods in this country and create additional fuel supply.
“And when that happens, at least in my part of the country, it means ethanol bought at the pump is much cheaper,” he said.
He faces a powerful skeptic Senate: Majority Whip John Barrasso from Wyoming, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate.
“Congress is currently discussing new mandates — mandates that will push more and more ethanol into our fuels,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor the day after the House vote.
“I oppose mandatory year-round E15,” he said. “I oppose this because it harms small oil refineries and all the people who work in them.”
Small refineries
There are about 30 miniature refineries across the country, usually 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 plants.
Small refineries can submit petitions EPA exemption from annual renewable fuel obligations due to “disproportionate economic difficulties”.
For 2025, 33 exemption applications have been submitted. About 17 of these plants would not qualify under the proposed rules because they are owned by companies with more than one refinery. Instead of focusing on one facility, the bill requires all facilities to be aggregated together.
The House bill would allow a 75% exemption instead of the current full exemption. It could also halve the number of miniature refineries currently eligible for the exemption.
Without the ability to receive waivers, most miniature refineries would face operating constraints because they would have to exploit most of their cash flow to meet annual mandates, said Peter Whitfield, a partner at Sidley Austin, a law firm representing America’s Small Refineriesin an interview
Many senators want assurances that miniature refineries will not be harmed.
“I’m interested in this little piece of the refinery,” Capito said.
That concern is another reason why Capito now expresses doubt that the House bill can get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.
