Peerapun denies saying E20 fuel is bad; he merely questions whether a three-month tax reduction on E20 can effectively reduce living costs for all, especially since most users still fill up with 91-95 octane fuels and some older cars do not support E20.
On 1 Nov 2026 GMT+7, Ms. Sasikarn Watthanajan, spokesperson for the United Thai Nation Party, stated that Peerapun Saleerutwipak, former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy and current party leader, posted on Facebook clarifying his views on the E20 excise tax cut measure. He emphasized that he never claimed E20 fuel is bad or that it damages engines but is questioning how broadly the tax cut actually reduces the public's expenses.
Peerapun said he never said E20 gasoline is bad or unsuitable for vehicles, as otherwise it wouldn't be widely produced and sold. What he intends to communicate is that current usage of E20 is still much lower than that of 91 and 95 gasoline, with E20 usage around 5–6 million liters per day out of total gasoline consumption of about 31–32 million liters daily. This means most users have not switched to E20 fuel.
"Therefore, an excise tax reduction exclusively on E20 gasoline will not directly ease expenses for the majority of fuel users, especially those who still need to use 91 or 95 gasoline. My concern is not about E20 being good or bad, but about the comprehensiveness of the government's measure." / Peerapun said,
Peerapun also addressed accusations that using E20 damages engines by stating that if all engines broke from E20, no one would dare use it, and engine manufacturers would not continue producing such vehicles. What he wants to explain is that not all vehicles that used 91 or 95 gasoline can immediately switch to E20.
He emphasized that some vehicle models are designed to support E20 and can switch without modification, but some older models not designed for 20% ethanol fuel blends may not operate properly and risk damage to the fuel system or engine.
Peerapun further explained that this is not his personal speculation; he has consulted experienced mechanics and has had some older vehicles modified to use E20 as advised, so he understands the limitations and associated costs. Thus, the question is whether it is worthwhile for owners of vehicles not compatible with E20 to pay for engine or fuel system modifications given the government's tax cut lasts only three months.
"I do not oppose using E20 fuel nor deny the benefits of biofuels, but I believe when the government introduces measures to ease living costs, it should consider how broadly the measure benefits the public and any limitations on access to those benefits." / Peerapun said,
He also stated that questioning the appropriateness and coverage of the measure does not mean devaluing E20 gasoline's quality. He advised anyone uncertain whether their vehicle can switch from 91 or 95 gasoline to E20 to check their vehicle manual or consult manufacturers and service centers to understand the facts and avoid unnecessary engine risks.