The government’s E20 policy is facing a massive backlash from its own voter base because it is burning a direct hole in their pockets through reduced mileage and vehicle damage. As the Centre aggressively pushes ethanol-blended fuel across the country, a nationwide survey has revealed deep anxiety and skepticism among consumers.
Also read: FIR against four influencers over E20 posts targeting Gadkari
On the latest episode of AI With Sanket, The Federal spoke to Khalid Akhter, Editor of CVoter, to unpack the startling findings of their latest survey on public perception of E20 fuel.
According to the CVoter survey, 48.2 per cent of the NDA’s own supporters do not support the government’s policy of blending ethanol with petrol. How do you explain this high level of opposition from the ruling party’s core base?
First, let me tell you about the methodology of the survey we conducted. We initiated this in the wake of the controversy when news reports started emerging that people were showing dissatisfaction and anger about their vehicles getting damaged and their mileage dropping. We conducted a survey and spoke to more than 1,600 people to capture their opinions.
Now, coming to the responses of the respondents who voted for or support the NDA, we see that the majority of them do not support the policy. The most surprising aspect is that even the majority of NDA supporters do not approve of blending ethanol up to 20 per cent.
If you look at the history of the ethanol policy, it was not just brought in by Nitin Gadkari (Union Transport Minister). The ethanol blending policy in India was actually launched as a pilot project in 2001, and then formally launched in 2003. It continued during the UPA regime as well, but during that time, the blending level was kept under 2 per cent.
Since then, Nitin Gadkari has spoken extensively on this issue, although it is not his ministry’s mandate; decisions on this policy are actually taken by the Petroleum Ministry. However, E20 has been recently approved, allowing blending up to 20 per cent. Following this, a lot of problems and news reports started coming in about the issues people were facing. We conducted our survey in this context, and surprisingly found that even the NDA supporters do not approve of this 20 per cent blending of ethanol with petrol. This is the key takeaway of our findings.
Also read: E20 petrol row: Gadkari says only dealers, not consumers, can check mileage
The government claims extensive research has gone into this policy, but your survey shows that 54.4 per cent of NDA supporters believe the E20 policy has been implemented in a hurry. Why is there such a massive gap in perception between the government and its own voters?
If you look at the overall response to this question, the percentage of people saying it has been launched in a hurry actually goes up to 60 per cent. But even among NDA supporters, it is as high as 54.4 per cent. This response has everything to do with public perception, which has been shaped by numerous news reports of people complaining about vehicle damage or falling mileage.
Even in one of his interviews, Nitin Gadkari accepted in a way that mileage can go down, though he suggested that people do not know this themselves and should approach the manufacturing companies.
There is a common saying: “Na baap bada na bhaiya, sabse bada rupaiya” (neither father nor brother is greater than money). When NDA supporters, who are bike riders and car users, start feeling that their mileage is going down, they will naturally respond this way. They feel this policy is being imposed on them without giving them a choice, causing them to consume more petrol than they normally would. This leads to the perception that the policy was launched in a hurry without adequate research, or at least that they should have been properly informed about the potential side effects of ethanol blending.
More than half of the NDA’s own supporters (52.5 per cent) say they would not prefer to use E20 petrol in their vehicles. Why are consumers rejecting this, especially when they have very little choice at the fuel pump?
This response is entirely in line with the previous findings. People are not approving of this policy because it is costing them much more than any of the benefits the government is trying to showcase. They are not being given choices, and the prices of fuel have not been lowered. On top of that, there are widespread complaints of mileage dropping.
Under such circumstances, why would people approve of a policy that offers them no tangible benefits? Had the government reduced the prices, we would have seen very different answers. But that is not the case. The general public feels that this policy is being pushed through and imposed on them without any warning about the side effects or any alternative choices.
Whether they support the INDIA alliance, the NDA, or other parties, if citizens do not benefit from a government policy—and worse, if it causes them a financial loss in their day-to-day lives—they are bound to oppose it. At the end of the day, the middle class and lower-middle class are the worst affected. Ethanol blending directly impacts petrol users, which includes a vast number of two-wheeler riders who generally belong to the lower-middle or lower classes. If a government policy causes a dent in their hard-earned money, they are not going to support it, regardless of their political affiliation. That is exactly why we are seeing these responses in our survey.
While the government admits to a minor drop in mileage, it strongly denies that E20 causes any damage to vehicles. Yet, nearly 50 per cent of the NDA’s own voter base believes that ethanol-blended petrol damages most vehicles. How should the government address this widespread anxiety?
These numbers explain the responses to the earlier questions. This widespread fear of damage is the core reason why people do not approve of the E20 blending policy. People are actively complaining about damages, whether it is to rubber parts, air filters, or other engine components.
In India, the most famous advertising tagline used by automobile manufacturers has always been “Kitna mileage deti hai?” (How much mileage does it give?). This is the primary pitch used to sell vehicles because manufacturers keep the spending capacity of the Indian consumer in mind. If a policy reduces mileage and causes physical damage to the vehicle—even if it is just requiring more frequent cleaning of filter pumps—people will definitely reject it.
When nearly 50 per cent of the government’s own supporters say they are facing vehicle damages, the government must relook at the policy. They need to speak to automobile manufacturers about the side effects of this blending and put the actual data on record. They should collect and release records from service stations and manufacturers showing how many vehicles have reported problems specifically due to E20 fuel. If they do not do this, they cannot simply claim they are unaware of the issue because of a lack of official reports. As far as public perception is concerned, this is already causing significant damage to the NDA government’s image.
Your survey shows that consumers feel there is a lack of clear and accurate information about E20 compatibility from automobile manufacturers. Who is responsible for this communication gap?
There is definitely a significant gap. While automobile companies might claim they provide detailed instructions in their user manuals, the reality is that most consumers do not read them. Our understanding of a vehicle is largely based on what the salesperson tells us at the showroom. In my experience, sales representatives rarely provide adequate information about which petrol is compatible, or what the impact of using blended petrol will be on the vehicle.
Automobile companies might show us a booklet, much like how Arvind Kejriwal reads from a manual, but how many of us actually read a user manual from cover to cover? Personally, I have never read one for any vehicle I have bought. We simply trust what we are told, and only learn about issues when we take the vehicle to a service station after a breakdown.
When something as critical as a new fuel standard is introduced, automobile companies have a responsibility to proactively inform consumers about its potential impacts. This is especially true for older vehicles that were not manufactured with E20 compatibility in mind. For the owners of these older vehicles, making this fuel mandatory is deeply unfair, as many respondents have rightly pointed out.
A staggering 72.4 per cent of the NDA’s own supporters believe the government should offer consumers a genuine choice between E20 and regular, unblended petrol. Is forcing E20 onto the public a major political misstep?
This clearly shows that people are facing genuine problems with the E20 policy. When even the government’s own supporters are refusing to accept the policy and demanding a choice, it is a clear warning sign. Why force it on them?
The government should take note of these survey findings. They must give people an option. Those who believe E20 is not causing any harm to their vehicles will naturally opt for it, while those who want to stick to the older, regular petrol should have the freedom to do so. If forcing a policy creates a hole in the consumer’s pocket, distorts their household budget, and causes economic distress, no one will support it—be it an NDA supporter or a UPA supporter. The government needs to listen to this feedback.
A massive 75.6 per cent of NDA supporters believe E20 petrol should be sold at a cheaper rate than regular petrol. Why hasn’t the government passed on the financial benefits of domestic ethanol production to the consumer?
This is the fundamental issue driving the public’s dissatisfaction. The core argument for launching the ethanol blending policy was to cut down India’s massive petroleum import bills, as we are the world’s third-largest importer of petroleum products.
If we are successfully blending up to 20 per cent locally produced ethanol using sugarcane juice and molasses, the cost of production should go down. Why, then, is E20 petrol being sold at the exact same high price as the older, unblended petrol? When the public is being offered a blended fuel that potentially compromises their vehicle’s performance, they should at least get the benefit of lower prices. Selling it at the same rate makes no economic sense to the consumer, and that is precisely what our survey respondents have highlighted.
The government often highlights that the ethanol blending policy has significantly benefited India’s farmers, particularly sugarcane growers. Do you think the policy’s intentions are being overshadowed by its rushed execution?
There is certainly nothing wrong with the government’s original intentions. The NITI Aayog’s March 2020 report on ethanol blending clearly highlights how the policy has benefited sugarcane farmers and helped sugar mills clear their dues much faster than in the past. It is also true that achieving a 20 per cent blend will significantly reduce our crude oil import bill.
However, the problem lies in the rushed execution. The government seems to be in a tremendous hurry to implement this, and that haste is what has triggered this widespread public backlash. While the policy has macro-economic and agricultural benefits, the immediate negative impact on the average vehicle owner has been ignored, creating this massive disconnect.
Your survey shows a deep disconnect, with even the most loyal supporters of this government demanding a policy reversal or revision. What is your final advice to the policymakers based on these findings?
Surveys like this are critical indicators of the public mood. When more than 72 per cent of your own loyal constituency feels that regular fuel must be made available and that they are facing economic distress, it is a signal that no politician can afford to ignore.
Ultimately, governments are elected to run the country for the benefit of its citizens. If a policy is clearly not benefiting the people and is instead causing widespread anxiety and financial loss, the government must show the flexibility to revisit its decisions. They should analyse this feedback, re-evaluate their timeline, and implement adjustments that genuinely protect and benefit the public.
Comments are closed.