This legislation would further entrench a federally managed anti-free-market fuel mandate regime.
May 12, 2026
The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries:
The undersigned organizations write to express our opposition to H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025, and any effort to permanently authorize nationwide year-round E15 gasoline sales without substantial reform to, or repeal of, the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).
Proponents portray H.R. 1346 as a free-market measure that expands consumer choice. In reality, the legislation would further entrench a federally managed fuel mandate regime that has distorted energy markets, burdened consumers, harmed independent refiners, and expanded corporate welfare for politically connected ethanol interests.
Congress should not mistake an expansion of ethanol mandates for genuine free-market energy reform.
The debate over year-round E15 misses the more fundamental question of why Congress continues to preserve and expand the Renewable Fuel Standard itself. After two decades of federal mandates, subsidies, waivers, tax preferences, and regulatory favoritism, the ethanol industry remains dependent on government intervention to sustain demand and maintain market share.
If higher ethanol blends were truly competitive on their own merits, they would not require federal blending mandates, compliance credit schemes, seasonal waivers, infrastructure subsidies, and special regulatory carveouts to survive in the marketplace.
The RFS functions as a hidden tax on American consumers. Refiners are forced to purchase Renewable Identification Number (RIN) compliance credits under a volatile and opaque regulatory system, with those costs ultimately passed through to fuel prices. Independent refiners and small businesses are disproportionately harmed by these mandates and market distortions, threatening domestic refining capacity, energy reliability, and manufacturing jobs.
Recent findings from the EPA Office of Inspector General further underscore concerns regarding the integrity of the RIN market and the federal government’s inability to adequately prevent fraudulent credit generation and abuse within the RFS program.
The economic and practical drawbacks of expanded E15 are substantial. Ethanol contains significantly less energy per gallon than conventional gasoline, resulting in lower fuel economy for consumers. Higher ethanol blends are also incompatible with many older vehicles, boats, motorcycles, and small engines, creating risks of misfueling, equipment damage, and additional consumer costs.
The Renewable Fuel Standard has also failed to deliver on many of its original promises. Despite decades of mandates and subsidies, corn ethanol still displaces only a small fraction of America’s transportation fuel energy demand while diverting enormous quantities of corn and other agricultural resources away from food and feed markets. Americans continue to face higher grocery prices and increased agricultural market distortions as a result.
Even under the program’s own stated objectives, the RFS has failed to justify its expansion. Multiple analyses, including findings acknowledged by federal agencies themselves, have concluded that the program has contributed to increased land-use conversion, higher criteria pollutant emissions, and increased water consumption.
At its core, H.R. 1346 represents another attempt to expand a federal policy framework that rewards politically favored industries at the expense of consumers, taxpayers, and free-market competition.
Americans deserve fuel freedom grounded in open competition, not government-imposed fuel preferences. Congress should reject H.R. 1346 and instead pursue meaningful reforms that phase down and ultimately repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard, eliminate market-distorting mandates and subsidies, and allow all fuel sources to compete on a level playing field based on price, performance, and consumer demand.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
AMAC Action
American Energy Association
American Commitment
The Center for Urban Renewal and Education
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Conservative Partnership Institute
Consumers’ Defense
The Energy & Environment Legal Institute
Heartland Impact
The Heartland Institute
Life: Powered
National Center for Energy Analytics
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Truth in Energy & Climate
4 Comments