Segment 1 — The Cold Open

In 2014, more than twenty million flex-fuel vehicles sat in American driveways, each one built with a special credit that let its manufacturer meet fuel-economy rules without burning a single gallon of E85. The Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 had offered those credits to push ethanol into the market and cut oil imports. Instead, the credits mainly helped Detroit keep selling larger gasoline engines while E85 pumps remained rare outside the Midwest.

Segment 2 — The Good Intention

Congress passed the Alternative Motor Fuels Act in 1988 after the oil shocks of the 1970s and the farm crisis of the 1980s. Lawmakers wanted to stretch gasoline supplies and give corn growers a new outlet. The act let automakers count each flex-fuel vehicle as far more efficient than it actually was by applying a 0.15 divisor to the alternative-fuel portion of its performance. At the time, that seemed a straightforward way to reward companies for building vehicles that could run on ethanol blends up to E85. Policymakers expected rising ethanol use to follow the vehicles onto the road. The arithmetic worked like this: if a vehicle achieved 15 miles per gallon on E85, the formula multiplied that figure by roughly 6.67 before averaging it with the gasoline-only figure, producing a large boost to the manufacturer’s overall fleet average. Because the cap on the credit was set at 1.2 miles per gallon per fleet, the incentive remained modest in absolute terms yet large enough to matter when standards tightened by a few tenths of a mile per gallon each year. Rational legislators therefore viewed the divisor as a low-cost lever that aligned three goals—energy security, agricultural support, and emissions reduction—without requiring new taxes or direct spending on fuel stations.

Segment 3 — The Implementation

Automakers responded quickly once the credits appeared in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy calculations. By the mid-1990s, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler offered flex-fuel versions of popular trucks and SUVs. The credits were capped at 1.2 miles per gallon per fleet, yet that margin proved valuable when meeting tightening standards. Early fleet data showed steady growth in the number of certified models. Proponents pointed to the rising count of dual-fuel vehicles as proof the policy worked. A few analysts noted that E85 pumps were still concentrated in only a handful of states, but the credits kept flowing regardless of actual fuel use. The implementation relied on the existing gasoline distribution network: manufacturers simply added corrosion-resistant fuel lines, modified injectors, and a sensor that detected ethanol content, changes that added only a few hundred dollars per vehicle. Because the regulatory credit did not require proof that any particular vehicle ever used E85, the same hardware could be installed on high-volume truck platforms without changing dealer inventories or consumer behavior. Early success metrics therefore tracked production numbers rather than fuel throughput at pumps.

Segment 4 — The Unintended Consequences

By 2014 the fleet had passed twenty million flex-fuel vehicles, according to the Governors’ Biofuels Coalition. Yet the Alternative Fuels Data Center counted just over four thousand public E85 stations nationwide, mostly in corn-belt states. Drivers almost never filled up with E85 because the stations were too far apart and the fuel often cost more per mile. Manufacturers therefore treated the vehicles as gasoline-only for real-world planning and used the regulatory credits to offset larger, thirstier engines in the same lineup. The result was slower improvement in overall fleet efficiency than the raw CAFE numbers suggested. Ethanol demand grew far more slowly than the 1988 projections had assumed. Corn growers saw modest new markets, but the hoped-for broad shift away from gasoline did not occur. Second-order effects appeared in station economics: without steady volume, fuel retailers outside the Midwest had little reason to install E85 tanks and pumps. The chicken-and-egg problem was self-reinforcing; a driver who considered buying a flex-fuel truck could calculate that the nearest E85 station lay beyond the vehicle’s comfortable range on a single tank, so the truck was operated exclusively on gasoline. Third-order effects showed up in later CAFE rulemakings, where regulators had to tighten the very credits that had once seemed generous. Because the credits had already been banked against larger engine families, any sudden removal would have forced abrupt redesigns of best-selling pickups and SUVs. The policy therefore locked in a fleet composition that continued to favor gasoline powertrains even after the statutory phase-out began.

Segment 5 — The Aftermath

The credits phased out after model year 2019 under the original statutory schedule. By 2022 only a handful of flex-fuel models remained in dealer showrooms. The Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center recorded roughly twenty-one million flex-fuel vehicles still on the road, yet the number of new E85 stations grew only modestly to about forty-three hundred. Some Midwest states kept investing in infrastructure, but national momentum had faded. The 2020 EPA technical correction clarified how future dual-fuel vehicles would be counted, removing the old incentive structure. No new wave of flex-fuel introductions followed. The remaining vehicles on the road continued to operate almost entirely on E10 blends, so the original goal of displacing large volumes of gasoline with higher ethanol blends stayed unmet. Infrastructure programs that did appear later focused on electric charging rather than liquid-fuel pumps, illustrating how policy attention had shifted to a different technology pathway.

Segment 6 — The Lesson

When Congress wrote the 1988 credits, it rewarded the act of certifying a vehicle rather than the act of delivering alternative fuel at scale. Automakers therefore optimized for certification volume, not for the network that would make E85 convenient. Later regulators learned that infrastructure must be addressed at the same time as vehicle design if the fuel shift is to happen. The same pattern appears today when credits are offered for vehicles that rely on charging or hydrogen networks that are still thin on the ground. How might today’s efficiency or emissions rules change if they measured actual energy delivered instead of vehicles placed in service?

Sources

• congress.gov — Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
• governorsbiofuelscoalition.org — Ethanol & Automakers—Time for a New Collaboration
• epa.gov — Direct Final Rule: Technical Correction to the Flex-fuel Vehicle Provisions in CAFE Regulations
• afdc.energy.gov — Ethanol Blends: Providing a Renewable Fuel Choice
• afdc.energy.gov — Alternative Fuels Data Center: Flexible Fuel Vehicle Availability
• ecfr.gov — eCFR :: 49 CFR Part 536 -- Transfer and Trading of Fuel Economy Credits
• eia.gov — Ethanol explained - use of ethanol
• nhtsa.gov — CAFE Public Information Center | CAFE PIC | NHTSA

💬 Reply to this email — Patrick reads every one.

Share: X · LinkedIn · WhatsApp

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here — it's free.