Travis Fisher
Congress has a terrific opportunity to get sober on energy policy. Today, the House Committee on Rules will consider several amendments to the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. A bipartisan amendment offered by Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R‑MN)—and cosponsored by dozens of members—would set up a huge giveaway to the agriculture lobby and large refiners at the expense of taxpayers, small refiners, and gasoline consumers.
The vote follows the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) announcement last month that it would grant fuel providers (e.g., gas stations) an emergency waiver to sell high-ethanol gasoline blends for a short period. Each of these moves would entrench the government’s already substantial participation in the transportation fuel business. America’s corn growers and biofuels producers are hooked on an expensive habit of federal support, and taxpayers should do what any compassionate friend or family member would do: stop giving them money and help them overcome their addiction.
Why Mandate Ethanol in Gasoline?
Even without the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which forces refiners to blend certain volumes of biofuels into hydrocarbon fuels, Americans would still likely use some ethanol in gasoline because it increases octane ratings. Beyond performance benefits, supporters of ethanol mandates say higher-ethanol blends can reduce gasoline prices and support American farmers, especially corn growers, by creating stronger and more stable demand for their crops. Interestingly, some supporters cite the “homegrown” nature of ethanol, even though the US has been the world leader in oil production since 2017.
But trade-offs abound, and consumers should be free to decide what type of fuel they buy. More importantly, there is no defensible reason to subsidize or mandate the production or blending of ethanol into transportation fuels. Typical justifications for government intervention, such as the infant industry argument or concerns about environmental impacts (whatever one thinks of those in the abstract), are off base when it comes to corn ethanol. Ethanol has been used in internal combustion engines since at least 1860 (not an infant), and it creates new environmental concerns. For example, the National Center for Energy Analytics recently found that the RFS actually increased emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases.
The RFS still mandates ever-higher ethanol volumes, as it has for 20 years, despite the failure of pro-RFS arguments on their merits. But perhaps the best argument against the RFS is that it fosters fraud. In 2023, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General found:
The EPA has strengthened controls over the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, program since its inception, primarily in response to several instances of companies generating and selling fraudulent Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs. However, further controls are needed to ensure that only valid RINs are generated and sold on the RIN market. The EPA has not implemented controls to prevent a producer from entering more RINs than the producer is able to generate based on its registered capacity.
The E15 Debate Misses the Point
E15 fuel—also called “Unleaded 88”—contains between 10.5 and 15 percent ethanol. Typical gasoline sold today contains 10 percent ethanol or less (E10), and some engines require ethanol-free gasoline. Pure gasoline or E0 is common in marinas because ethanol can damage boat engines. Ditto for the small engines in everything from lawnmowers to motorcycles. Further, antique car owners prefer E0 because cars weren’t originally designed to use high-ethanol fuel blends, and the water damage and fuel-line corrosion in vintage cars caused by E10 can be explosive.
The EPA emergency waiver and the congressional proposals to expand E15 use miss the opportunity to have a real debate, which should address a more fundamental question: Why keep the RFS at all? As my Cato colleague Chris Edwards has noted, President Trump “has a first-term record of defending ethanol subsidies and handing out more than $20 billion to the agricultural industry.” The E15 campaigns in Congress and at the EPA hijack an otherwise deregulatory agenda—and legitimate concerns over clean air and high gasoline prices—to expand the cronyism established by the RFS. It is the latest example of a “bootleggers and Baptists” coalition—only this time, the corn ethanol will fuel a car rather than a night on the town.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, and others are not fighting for free markets in their coalition letter supporting year-round E15 and Rep. Fischbach’s amendment. To put it bluntly, farmers want to expand their subsidies, and large refiners want to make life harder for the small refiners they compete with. In a letter to Congress, the Small Refiners of America strongly opposed Fischbach’s amendment. Hence, a debate that once pitted the biggest players in the agriculture and oil industries against each other has unified them against small businesses, consumers, and taxpayers—not to mention the notion of a limited federal government.
Conclusion
Executive waivers and legislative workarounds are no substitute for real reform. Congress should abolish the entire RFS program. E15 should be available year-round for people who want it, of course, but the government should get out of the transportation fuel business altogether and let ethanol find its rightful place in the market. American farmers are exceptional, and they deserve our support. However, if we really want to support corn growers, we should refuse to pay for their destructive addiction to ethanol subsidies.