The amendment seeks to capitalize on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision in March, which allowed certain gas stations to sell high-ethanol fuel blends from May 1 through May 20, despite summer restrictions. This waiver aimed to curb rising fuel prices amid ongoing tensions related to the Iran Conflict, with E15 typically costing less than standard gasoline blends. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin noted that the 20-day waiver represents the maximum duration permissible under current regulations.

Under the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), enacted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act during George W. Bush’s presidency, most gasoline includes up to 10% ethanol. E15, containing up to 15% ethanol, is promoted by Fischbach and other supporters as a straightforward way to boost farmers’ incomes without increasing the farm bill’s expenses.

However, the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with this financial assessment. On Tuesday, they informed Politico that the amendment would raise the bill’s cost by “single digit billions” over a decade. Including the current language would hinder House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson’s (R-Pa.) objective of passing a revenue-neutral bill unless additional revenue sources are identified.

Most gasolines contain up to 10% of ethanol under the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 during the George W. Bush administration. Given that E15 contains up to 15% of ethanol, Fischbach and some other supporters of the amendment have pushed it as an easy way to give farmers a money infusion without raising the cost of the farm bill.

Billions In Costs Added To The Farm Bill

But the Congressional Budget Office disagrees, telling Politico on Tuesday that the provision would increase the bill’s score by “single digit billions” of dollars over a 10-year period. Including the language as currently drafted would put an end to House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson’s (R-Pa.) goal of moving a bill that is revenue-neutral absent some offsetting revenue.

“This is billions of dollars that won’t be paid for that will be added to the farm bill, which is extraordinary to me,” Jim McGovern (Mass.), top Democrat on the House Rules Committee said in response to the news from CBO. It’s a level of scoring damage that would normally be the death knell for any amendment, but opponents remain concerned this one could live on due to the array of heavy hitting lobbying interests lined up in support.

Among those opponents are the Small Refineries of America (SRA), a coalition representing that segment of the U.S. refining industry. In an April 23 letter to House Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Fox and Ranking Member Jim McGovern, SRA says Amendment 289 would “jeopardize our nation’s vitally important small refineries, the workers and communities that depend on them, and the nation’s energy security—while ultimately increasing costs for consumers.” SRA adds that the amendment “advances policies that would take away existing statutory protections for small refineries and put them at risk of closure—at a time when preserving domestic refining capacity is critical to stabilizing fuel prices.”

Writing at the National Interest, Nick Loris, executive vice president of Policy at C3 Solutions reinforces the small refiners’ position, noting that compliance with the RFS can be one of the most significant costs for those companies. “According to an August 2025 analysis by Turner, Mason, & Company,” he writes, “the mandate could cost refiners nearly $70 billion annually, nearly double what it cost refiners in 2023. Whether small or large, refiners must absorb the economic hit or pass costs onto consumers.”

Loris further points out that granting these smaller refiners expanded exemptions from RFS mandates would also help ease prices at the pump. It’s a strong point, one that would not be limited to the 20-day time frame which applies to the E15 waiver.

Extending E15 In The Farm Bill Would Be A ‘Bipartisan Failure’

Travis Fischer, Director of Energy and Environmental Policy Studies for the libertarian CATO Institute, takes the argument further, advocating that congress ought to be having an honest debate about whether to repeal the RFS entirely instead of using it to pump more money to farmers by removing prime farmland from the food system to manufacture unneeded fuel. He and CATO believe the RFS through its long existence and the constantly rising mandates for ethanol volumes invoked under it have farmers “hooked on an expensive habit of federal support.”

“The persistence of the RFS is a bipartisan failure,” Fischer added in an email on Tuesday. “Ethanol subsidies in particular make no sense because we have an abundance of domestic hydrocarbon fuels, and the environmental justifications used to promote the use of ethanol blends over pure gasoline are weak at best. But the real tragedy is that the politics of RFS exemptions have divided the interests of big and small refiners, who should be united in the effort to repeal this awful policy.”

But any repeal is unlikely to happen given the complex politics surrounding ethanol and the sometimes emotional attachment some key members of the House and Senate – perhaps most notably, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley – have to the mandates which they believe benefit farmers in their home state and districts.

It all serves to highlight the longstanding reality that the U.S. oil and gas industry, due to its thousands of participants of all shapes and sizes, is seldom fully unified on matters of public policy. Individual companies are much like nation states which prioritize their own security interests above more global considerations. Thus, we see the divide on this issue between the big refiners who are also in the retail business and the small independent refiners spilling over into the farm bill, thanks to the societal decision to remove prime farmland from the food system to produce fuel.