STATEMENT: Over 30 Organizations Issue Letter to US Senate Opposing Year-Round Ethanol 'E15' Proposal

WASHINGTON (July 14, 2026) - A group of over 30 environmental organizations shared the below open letter with the U.S. Senate opposing proposed "year-round E15" legislation that would allow gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol to be sold throughout the year, an increase from the common 10 percent blend.

Letter text:

The undersigned organizations write to express strong opposition to proposals advancing "year-round E15." On May 13, the House passed legislation which would effectively override key provisions of the Clean Air Act by permitting gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol (E15) to be sold throughout the year-an increase from the common 10 percent (E10) blend. Given prior indications of Administration support for E15, which could then lead EPA to mandating it, enactment of this legal change could drive a ~50% expansion in ethanol use. This would ultimately lead to higher food and fuel costs for American families, as well as negative impacts on climate and the environment.

Higher Fuel and Food Costs. Although the current average price at the pump for E15 is lower than E10, the cost savings are an illusion. Ethanol's energy content is one-third lower than that of gasoline, meaning that fuel efficiency of E15 is lower than that of E10, so drivers using E15 have to fill up more often. Wholesale prices of ethanol averaged 66 cents higher than gasoline per gallon between 2007-2025, once adjusting for ethanol's lower energy content. However, subsidies and low consumer demand have helped keep E15 prices at the pump low.¹ In addition, gas stations will need massive investment because E15 is more corrosive-and those costs will likely get passed to consumers to the tune of billions of dollars nationwide. More than 95% of US gas stations do not currently sell E15, and the average upgrade would cost $133,000 per gas station.² The EPA estimated that even a more modest increase in biofuel use would impose around $41 billion in additional fuel and food costs over a 3-year period.³ The $41 billion includes $24 billion in higher fuel costs, and $17 billion in higher food prices, as elevated corn prices from E15 demand for corn cascade into the many food products that include corn or use it for animal feed (e.g., meat, dairy, poultry). At a time when American families are already confronting elevated costs, year-round E15 would ultimately impose additional burdens both at the pump and at the grocery store, along with huge costs for the businesses that would have to store and sell E15.

Climate and Environmental Impacts. A 50% expansion of ethanol use would require dedicating nearly 13 million additional acres to ethanol⁴-an area exceeding half the size of Indiana-with serious consequences for climate, natural resources, and wildlife. When Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2007, it required that qualifying biofuels achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. However, a growing body of scientific evidence now indicates that biofuels derived from food and feed crops probably result in higher emissions than conventional fossil fuels. This emerging science led the European Union, which had adopted large biofuel targets, to place much lower caps on crop-based biofuels. Similarly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board reported in 2023 that recent estimates of corn ethanol emissions exceed those of gasoline.⁵ Reflecting these findings, even as the EPA increased biofuel requirements at the direction of the Trump Administration, it declined to conclude that food-based biofuels reduce emissions, even when combined with additional lower-emission biofuels derived from waste.

The emissions associated with corn ethanol stem not only from fossil energy inputs during production-which offset much of its purported benefit-but also from land-use changes. As cropland expands to replace food production diverted to fuel, forests and grasslands get converted to crop production, releasing massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere.⁶ All told, land-use changes related to agricultural expansion account for approximately 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.⁷ In a world where agricultural yield growth is not keeping pace with rising food demands, increasing biofuels requires either increasing hunger⁸ or exacerbating emissions-neither of which is acceptable.

Beyond climate concerns, crop-based biofuels are associated with a range of additional environmental harms. These include heightened water pollution, increased strain on limited water supplies, and the conversion of millions of acres of valuable wildlife habitat into cropland. Such impacts have been documented extensively in the scientific literature⁹ and acknowledged by federal agencies.¹⁰

Distributional Effects. While EPA has found biofuel policies transfer billions of dollars from consumers to the agricultural sector, the benefits are unevenly distributed. Rising crop prices are quickly reflected in higher land values and rents. Over the past two decades, inflation-adjusted cropland values in states like Iowa have increased by 250%¹¹, in part due to biofuel demand. Because a majority of farmland in the Corn Belt is leased¹²-and nearly 80% of that land is owned by non-farming landlords-most of the financial gain accrues to investors rather than working farmers.¹³

For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to oppose efforts to expand year-round E15 and instead support more effective, sustainable approaches to energy and transportation policy. We should not commit additional land, resources, or taxpayer dollars to policies that increase costs for American families, undermine our climate goals, and strain our natural systems.

Sincerely,

350 Seattle
American Bird Conservancy
Biofuelwatch
Center for Environmental Health
Clean Wisconsin
Climate Justice Alliance
Climate Reality Project, Sacramento Chapter
Conservation Law Foundation
CURE
Earthjustice Action
Endangered Habitats League
Food & Water Watch
Friends of the Earth US
Green America
Hip Hop Caucus
Inland Ocean Coalition
Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors, Inc.
Kettle Range Conservation Group
League of Conservation Voters
Mighty Earth
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Next 100 Coalition
One Mississippi
Partnership for Policy Integrity
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Prairie Rivers Network
Public Citizen
Regenerative Agriculture Coalition
Sierra Club
Sunflower Alliance
Waterkeeper Alliance
World Resources Institute

Sources:

¹ "California Now Allows More Ethanol In Gasoline: Is This Going to Save Drivers Money?" ARE Update 29(2): 9-12 (2025). University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
² EPA, "Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes, Regulatory Impact Analysis" (June 2023), p. 80 for gas station revamp costs and fuel economy, p. 342 for total number of retail stations, and p. 345 for number of stations selling E15.
³ EPA (2023), p. 369 for estimates of food costs, and p. v for estimates of energy costs.
⁴ This assumes additional demand of 2.4 billion bushels of corn per year and a corn yield of 186.5 bushels per acre (USDA 2026).
⁵ Letter to Michael Regan from EPA Science Advisory Board, "Commentary on the Volume Requirements for 2023 and Beyond under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program" (RIN 2060-AV14) (September 29, 2023).
⁶ "Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119(9) (2022); "Choices in Land Representation Materially Affect Modeled Biofuel Carbon Intensity Estimates." Journal of Cleaner Production 349 (May 2022): 131477.
⁷ "Global Carbon Budget 2021." Earth System Science Data 14, 1917-2005 (2022).
⁸ The land use and biofuel model favored by the biofuel industry estimates low land use change in part because it estimates that roughly half of the calories are not replaced because higher crop prices lead to reduced food consumption. "Do Biofuel Policies Seek to Cut Emissions by Cutting Food?" Science 347:1420-22 (2015).
⁹ "Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119(9) (2022); "Cropland Expansion in the United States Produces Marginal Yields at High Costs to Wildlife." Nature Communications 11:1 (2020); "US Agricultural Policy, Land Use Change, and Biofuels: Are We Driving Our Way to the next Dust Bowl?" Environmental Research Letters 10, no. 5 (2015).
¹⁰ EPA, "Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: Standards for 2023-2025 and Other Changes, Regulatory Impact Analysis" (June 2023).
¹¹ USDA, Iowa Farmland Rental Rates 1994-2025 (accessed May 4, 2026).
¹² USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service's 2022 Census of Agriculture.
¹³ "Millions Of Acres of U.S. Farmland Rented," Farms.com (March 13, 2026).

• Christina DeConcini

  Director, Government Affairs