To lower gas prices, suspend the ethanol mandate

Washington's Premier Newspaper, The Washington Times ^ | 7 August 2026

[WhiteHatBobby0701]

In a moment that surprised approximately no one, President Donald Trump recently complained that oil companies are making too much money, and they ought to give some of it back. Left unsaid, of course, is that oil companies are making money because of increased prices for the product they sell. Those increased prices are a direct result of a conflict that the companies did not start and almost certainly would rather not have.

This follows on the president’s order to the Justice Department in June to investigate big oil companies for not bringing gasoline prices down fast enough, as crude oil prices temporarily dropped. For context, the average U.S. retail gasoline price is now north of $4 per gallon, up from less than $3 per gallon before the United States launched attacks against Iran in February.

The American Petroleum Institute gave it the old college try, noting that prices are the result of global supply and demand, and continued uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz. In other words, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

The good news is that if the current administration is concerned about gasoline prices, there is a simple, immediate solution: Suspend the ethanol mandate (also known as the Renewable Fuel Standard). That mandate requires refineries to blend an amount of ethanol and other bio-based fuels into the gasoline supply equal to about 10% of the total fuel consumed each year.

It will probably not surprise you to discover that this government mandate, like all government attempts to “manage” the marketplace, increases costs and reduces performance. According to some, the ethanol mandate costs drivers and their families about 45 cents per gallon, or, if you like big numbers, the total annual economic cost is projected at about $88 billion.

---

TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energytruth; ethanol; fuel; governmentwaste

[WhiteHatBobby0701]

Eliminate the "Harkin Mandate" of years ago. Get rid of food in our fuel. Food as fuel has created this mess. I learned that on radio years ago.

[bicyclerepair]

Ethanol gas is garbage!

[rarestia]

It’ll never happen. The corn subsidies are bolstering “Big Ag” and the auto industry by allowing planned obsolescence. So many issues with modern vehicles could be curtailed by removing ethanol from our fuel, but it just won’t happen.

[alternatives?]

But ethanol free gas costs about 75 cents more at the pump.

[equaviator]

If it’s at all doable then by all means, let’s do it!

[albie]

Suspend it? End it! Obliterate it! Never happen. Too much money being made

[WhiteHatBobby0701]

Agree. Racing Fuel is one thing but not street gas.

[donozark]

Exactly! I use non-ethanol in my truck and all lawn equipment. Especially the old stuff. Runs much better and starts quicker with non-ethanol. But farmers will raise nine kinds of hell if the mandate is done away with.

[READINABLUESTATE]

My old 2006 Silverado is one of the first flex-fuel capable chevy’s produced.
I always ran premium in the past, but now I’m re-fueling with E-85 for $1.99 per gallon. Less mileage, but more power.
It works for me.

[NautiNurse]

I only use corn-free gasoline in my cars.

[Dr. Sivana]

I do not like the ethanol mandate. Trump campaigned as pro-Ethanol since Iowa in 2015-2016.

I was extremely disappointed that when I went to the new Buc-cees in Goodyear, AZ, they had 200 pumps, and not one was ethanol-free. In fact, for some reason in Maricopa County it is impossible to find (non-racing fuel) 92 or 93 octane. It tops out at 91.

That said, our system is presently built around ethanol use, and cutting it off right now could turkey would hurt a lot of people who raise grain, operate processing, with no benefit to the price of fuel (though quality would be better for many cars).

I want to use grain for food, not fuel, but a phase out would be the prudent way to go. That won’t happen with either Trump OR the present Congress.

[Republican Wildcat]

Every source I have looked up says “non-ethanol gas is more expensive because it is more complicated to produce and costly.” Every single one says something like that. How could that be? Since the ethanol is added later and is obviously not part of the oil it is produced from, how could it be more “more complicated”, let alone, “more costly”?

[Merrick]

We need to get rid of ethanol in gas. But doing this would just shift how you pay. We’d “bail out” all the farmers supplying corn for ethanol and all of the ethanol producers.

Now, it might make Bubba happy before the election...

[Merrick]

Lucky you. Most of us don’t have easy access. M6 nearest source is over 60 miles away.

[Merrick]

I don’t like it, either, but he’s not talking out both sides of his mouth...

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Yes, and that makes no sense at all. Just a penalty for not going along with the flow .

[9422WMR]

To lower fuel prices remove the federal and state tax.
Easy peezy but it will not be done.

[thegagline]

Canada suspended all of its federal gas tax from April 20-September 7.

[marktwain]

Every source I have looked up says “non-ethanol gas is more expensive because it is more complicated to produce and costly.” Every single one says something like that. How could that be?

---

Sounds like a lie to me. The only reason ethanol is cheaper is because of government subsidies.

[Dr. Sivana]

To lower fuel prices remove the federal and state tax.
Easy peezy but it will not be done.

Fuel taxes are one of the few taxes that have some relation to reality (road and transportation support. Unfortunately that usually include trains in urban areas). There is already a great pressure to impose per mile taxes because of electric cars. Getting rid of gasoline taxes will provide even more of such pressure.