Ag Minute: E15 Fight Moves to the Senate

Spring has taken its time this year. Cool mornings, scattered rains, and plenty of waiting on field conditions have made planting feel like a slow crawl in some areas. But as the calendar moves deeper into May, fields are starting to dry out, temperatures are warming, and planters are beginning to roll with a little more urgency. At the same time, commodity markets have offered a little optimism of their own. Corn has flirted with the $5 mark, while soybeans have hovered around $12, giving farmers at least a small window of better pricing after a stretch of tighter margins. Weather, acreage, fertilizer costs, exports, and planting progress are all still driving the market, but another piece of the demand puzzle has been working its way through Washington: year-round E15. For corn growers, this isn’t just a matter of what kind of fuel is in the pumps during the summer, but the opportunity for another significant demand increase that could play a large role in market prices.

E15 is a gasoline blend that contains 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline. Most standard gasoline today contains 10% ethanol, so E15 represents a higher blend that uses more corn-based ethanol. The issue is that E15 sales have faced seasonal restrictions in many areas because of concerns tied to summer smog and fuel volatility. H.R. 1346, known as the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, would allow E15 to be sold year-round across the country. On Capitol Hill, the House passed the bill by a narrow 218 to 203 vote, with support and opposition split across both parties. Farm-state lawmakers and biofuel supporters argue that the bill would lower fuel costs, strengthen domestic energy production, and create more demand for corn. Opponents, especially some oil-state lawmakers and refiners, argue that it could raise compliance costs and add pressure to refiners. The same opponents also argue that there are concerns around fuel efficiency, food prices, and environmental impacts similar to the arguments against ethanol in the past. Because of the reasons for that split, this bill is not just a clean Republican versus Democrat fight but has the look of a corn-state versus oil-state fight. And within that division, environmental groups, refiners, livestock interests, soybean groups, and farm organizations are all looking at the bill through different lenses.

In the Agricultural Economics Department at the University of Missouri, there is an institute titled the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, more commonly known as FAPRI. Doing exactly what the name suggests, FAPRI evaluated H.R. 1346 and alternative provisions to better understand what the bill could mean for farmers’ bottom line. Their research shows why this issue is not as simple as “more ethanol equals more money.” Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners and fuel importers are required to blend renewable fuels into the fuel supply or purchase credits, called RINs, to prove compliance. When more E15 is sold, more ethanol is blended, which increases corn demand and creates more ethanol-related credits. In the E15-only scenario, FAPRI projects corn prices would increase by 3 cents per bushel in 2026/27 and eventually rise to 14 cents per bushel above baseline by 2035/36. The study also projects corn acreage would increase by more than 1 million acres above baseline in later years. That is where the benefit to corn growers becomes clear.

The more complicated part comes through soybeans and the small refinery exemption debate. Because the RFS allows different renewable fuels to help satisfy parts of the broader blending obligation, more ethanol can reduce the need for other fuels, including biomass-based diesel. Soybean oil is one of the major feedstocks used to produce biodiesel and renewable diesel, so if less biomass-based diesel is needed for compliance, demand for soybean oil can weaken. That can pressure soybean crush margins and eventually work its way back into soybean prices. FAPRI projects soybean prices could fall by 20 cents per bushel in 2026/27 and by roughly 38 to 43 cents per bushel in later years, depending on the scenario. The small refinery exemption itself is not new. It has been part of the Renewable Fuel Standard for years as a hardship provision for small refineries. The political fight is over what happens after EPA grants one. If those waived gallons disappear from the system, corn and ethanol groups argue that renewable fuel demand is reduced. If those gallons are reallocated to larger refiners, the overall biofuel target is protected, but refiners argue that compliance costs are pushed onto the rest of the industry. In FAPRI’s projections, net farm income is mixed under the E15-only scenario, falling slightly in several early years before improving later in the projection period. When small refinery exemption provisions are added, the early pressure becomes larger, with net farm income falling as much as $1 billion below baseline in one scenario before improving later on.

At first glance, year-round E15 sounds like an easy win for agriculture, and for corn growers it very well could be. More ethanol use means more corn demand, and in a tight margin environment, even small price improvements matter. But as the FAPRI projections show, agricultural policy rarely helps every sector equally. Gains for corn could come with pressure on soybeans, crush margins, and parts of the broader fuel industry. It is also important to remember that this bill has only passed the House. The Senate still has to weigh in, and the politics surrounding refiners, small refinery exemptions, and renewable fuel mandates are far from settled. For farmers, E15 is worth watching closely, but not overreacting to yet. Like so many things in agriculture, the final outcome will depend on weather, markets, politics, and whether Washington can turn another spring debate into actual policy.