Supachot criticized the government for shifting the burden onto the public after unveiling plans to phase out gasohol 91 and 95 in favor of promoting E20 as the primary fuel. He revealed that the actual costs are nearly the same and warned that older vehicles and agricultural machinery risk having to switch to gasoline, leading to a 25% increase in fuel expenses.
On 11 Nov 2026, Supachot Chaisat, a party-list MP from the Prachachon Party, commented on the government's idea to gradually discontinue the sale of gasohol 91 and 95 to promote E20 as the main gasoline type nationwide. The government cited this as part of the energy transition to reduce reliance on imported crude oil and to support Thai farmers growing energy crops. Supachot said he does not oppose promoting biofuels like ethanol and acknowledges ethanol as part of the energy transition. However, he stressed that the government and Ministry of Energy must clearly explain how much the public will truly benefit from this transition and who will ultimately bear the real costs, highlighting at least three key issues requiring transparent public disclosure.
The first issue is whether E20 is cheaper because its actual production cost is lower or because the government uses special excise tax reduction measures. Currently, the government has reduced the excise tax on E20 from 6 baht to only 0.358 baht per liter for three months, resulting in retail prices for E20 significantly lower than gasohol 91 and 95. However, examining the fuel price structure as of 11 Nov 2026 reveals that the refinery gate cost for gasohol 95 is 22.72 baht per liter, gasohol 91 is 22.31 baht, and E20 is 22.66 baht per liter—showing the refinery costs among the three fuels are almost identical. E20's cost is only 6 satang per liter less than gasohol 95, yet its retail price is 8.04 baht per liter cheaper.
Supachot further explained that E20’s much lower retail price results from tax and fuel fund structures. Gasohol 91 and 95 pay an excise tax of 6.75 baht per liter, whereas E20 pays only 0.358 baht per liter—a difference of 6.392 baht per liter. Additionally, E20 contributes 0.67 baht less per liter to the fuel fund. Calculations show that when E20’s tax privileges end and it returns to the standard excise rate equal to gasohol 91 and 95, its retail price will jump from 31.30 baht to about 38.8 baht per liter, nearly matching gasohol 91 (38.97 baht) and gasohol 95 (39.34 baht). This indicates the current 7-8 baht price gap does not reflect a true difference in production cost efficiency.
“Also, remember that E20 has lower energy content per liter than E10, meaning typical vehicles may use slightly more fuel to travel the same distance. Therefore, a true cost-effectiveness comparison must consider cost per kilometer, not just price per liter. I do not oppose tax reductions to assist the public, but if the government uses temporary tax cuts to support nationwide fuel structure changes, it must clearly disclose whether E20 will remain cheaper and more cost-effective after these measures end, and how much tax revenue the state will lose if it chooses to maintain this price gap,” Supachot said. .
The second issue concerns whether older cars, motorcycles, and agricultural machinery that cannot use E20 will face higher fuel costs. Although newer vehicles are designed to support E20, many older cars, motorcycles, and agricultural engines cannot use it. If the government phases out gasohol 91 and 95, leaving only E20 and pure gasoline (gasoline 95), these users will be indirectly forced to buy gasoline 95, which is significantly more expensive. Those previously using gasohol 91 would pay an extra 9.86 baht per liter—about a 25% increase. Assuming 100 liters per month, this means an additional 986 baht monthly or nearly 12,000 baht annually. Gasohol 95 users would face a 9.49 baht per liter increase (24%). The government must accurately survey the number of vehicles incompatible with E20 and implement compensatory measures, rather than shifting extra costs onto the public due to state policies.
The third issue Supachot raised concerns whether promoting ethanol use truly benefits farmers or mainly advantages large investors. The government often claims increasing ethanol proportions helps sugarcane and cassava farmers, but the key question is how competitive Thailand’s ethanol industry is today, or if it is dominated by a few large producers. Increased ethanol demand does not guarantee fair distribution of income and benefits to small farmers if the raw material procurement mechanisms and market structure lack free competition.
“I do not oppose E20 or supporting farmers, but a good energy transition must not merely change the fuel type people use and call that energy transition. The government must prove that the policy lowers public travel costs, reduces reliance on imported oil, cuts greenhouse gas emissions, and fairly distributes benefits to farmers. The goal of energy transition is not to reduce public choice but to enable access to cleaner energy at fair prices without leaving anyone behind amid national changes,” Supachot said. Supachot concluded his remarks.