In an opinion piece in The Indian Express, Nageswaran, the CEA, who co-authored it with Akash Poojari, a consultant in the Department of Economic Affairs, argued that the debate over E20 should move beyond concerns over possible engine damage and focus on the wider food-versus-fuel trade-off, including the implications of diverting land and water towards ethanol production.
CEA on Bringing Back E10
He noted that India has roughly 75-80 million older two-wheelers built before BS4 standards that run on carburettors. A carburettor cannot sense the extra oxygen in the fuel blend and adjust for it, while older rubber seals may not be rated for ethanol and can degrade with prolonged contact with fuel.
Retrofitting these vehicles with ethanol-compatible seals is possible but costly, Nageswaran said, adding that retrofitting 75-80 million vehicles could take years.
The CEA said restoring a lower blend at the pumps could address the issue for older vehicles without abandoning the E20 programme.
“Bring back a lower blend, such as E10, for the older fleet of vehicles. Fix the price and water distortions that unintentionally favour maize over other crops, relook at the import duty on edible oil to support the push towards domestic self-sufficiency, and hold at E20 until India has thoroughly costed the food-versus-fuel trade-off, rather than assuming it away.
#E20 in focus | Restoring lower blends like $E10, alongside option to buy $E20, would calm most public concern, bring back a lower blend, such as e10, for the older fleet of vehicles: Chief Eco Advisor on #E20
Hold at E20 until India has costed food vs fuel trade-off, rather… pic.twitter.com/HBq2C6jck4
— CNBC-TV18 (@CNBCTV18Live) August 17, 2026
The engine row we witnessed was never the real argument. The real one is about what we choose to grow, and what we will not be able to take back,” the authors wrote.
The government has, however, maintained that E20 will remain the standard petrol blend and has ruled out offering E10, E20 and pure petrol simultaneously, citing the additional cost and logistical complexity of maintaining multiple fuel grades. The government has also said E10-designed vehicles may see an efficiency reduction of about 3-5% when using E20, but has found no significant evidence of engine damage.
Nageswaran and Poojari also questioned how much further ethanol blending should go, arguing that moving from E20 to E27 or E30 would be a different decision because that is where fuel could begin to crowd out food.
The authors noted that the feedstock mix has shifted, with maize now supplying about half of India’s ethanol. Maize competes with soybean, groundnut and mustard for the same fields, they said.
Concern Over Water Resources In Sugar Growing States
They argued that two forces are pushing land towards maize. First, ethanol from maize is procured at a fixed price, which can keep the crop attractive irrespective of market prices. Second, the leftover grain from distillation is sold as animal feed, undercutting soybean meal and weakening the incentive for oilseed farmers.
Water use is another concern. The authors distinguished between green water, or rainfall that would otherwise be available to crops, and blue water drawn from rivers, canals, groundwater pumps and wells. They noted that sugarcane in Maharashtra and Karnataka already draws heavily on stressed water resources and argued that water rules should target blue-water use rather than the headline ethanol-blending figure alone.
The climate case for going beyond E20 also remains unsettled, the authors said. Grain life-cycle studies do not necessarily show ethanol to be cleaner than alternatives once cultivation and processing are taken into account.
At the same time, they acknowledged that the ethanol programme has delivered material gains. It has cleared sugarcane dues, supported rural incomes and created an assured market for ethanol, while also helping absorb sugar surpluses.
But the authors argued that policy must weigh those gains against the longer-term consequences of committing land and water to fuel production.
“Once land and water are committed to fuel, and distilleries and cropping patterns are built around it, pulling back can be slow and painful,” they said, arguing that reversible decisions should be taken first while irreversible ones should be held back until a thorough cost-benefit analysis is completed.
They concluded that the central question is not simply how far India should push ethanol blending, but “what we choose to grow, and what we will not be able to take back.”
Also Read: Rupee edges lower: What RBI’s premature FCNR(B) swap window closure means for the currency
