India is playing with fire by playing with ICE. In its relentless pursuit of biofuels, energy security and lower dependence on imported crude, India is changing what comes out of the fuel nozzle and goes into crores of engines. E20 petrol is already here, with a new generation of vehicles being designed to accommodate it. Now, there is talk of adding isobutanol into diesel. The intent may be laudable. The consequences, however, deserve more scrutiny than just another glorified headline and camera bytes.
Because fuel is not just fuel. It is a chemical cocktail designed to work within a precisely-engineered mechanical ecosystem. Change the cocktail and you change the conditions of the entire ecosystem. The uncomfortable question is not whether India should pursue cleaner, domestically produced fuels. It should. The question is whether we are asking the consumer to bear the risks of a transition whose costs and consequences have not been understood well, if at all.
And that is where India’s ICE story gets interesting. It is also getting overtly uncomfortable.
E20 has arrived
E20 is not an experiment anymore. It is the fuel motorists have no choice but to buy. The authorities claim the nationwide rollout has been tested, validated and lowered crude oil imports. But there is another side to the story. Motorists are complaining about mileage and performance, particularly with older vehicles, while the industry has spent the past few months trying to pat down a controversy that refuses to disappear. In July, E20 became the only petrol largely available at 90,000 fuel stations, while consumers were demanding clarity over compatibility and fuel choice.
This is not a social-media scare. In July, a consumer court ordered Maruti Suzuki to replace a Grand Vitara (or pay Rs 20 lakh) in a case in which the owner alleged E20-related damage. Maruti denied responsibility and said it would appeal, but the case is significant because it puts the question of fuel-related vehicle damage into a courtroom rather than a WhatsApp group.
Not sitting silently
To be fair, the Government has not been sitting silently while the controversy rages. It has rejected claims of E20 engine damage and says real-world service data does not support them – that automakers have serviced millions of vehicles, including older cars not certified for E20, without finding a pattern of fuel-related damage. Vehicles designed for E10 can see a 3-5 per cent reduction in fuel economy because ethanol contains less energy than petrol, it has been admitted.
That distinction matters. There is no case to be made that every E20-fuelled car is about to destroy its engine. The available evidence simply does not support such a claim. But neither should consumers be expected to shrug off every concern as misinformation. Therefore, the sensible position lies somewhere between panic and propaganda. And that is precisely where policy ought to operate.
And now, diesel
Even as the debate over petrol gets squawkier, the next experiment is already being discussed. For diesel – and the plan is to blend up to 15 per cent isobutanol with diesel. Isobutanol is being promoted as a next-generation biofuel, with ‘experts’ viewing it as a way of reducing fossil-fuel dependence while making use of biofuels. Pilot projects have been cited as “evidence of technical feasibility”.
There is nothing inherently wrong with researching it. In fact, India should research every credible alternative to imported fossil fuel. But research is one thing. Putting a new fuel into the tanks of crores of private vehicles is quite another. The first question should not be “How quickly can we blend it?” It should be: “What does it do to every component of the vehicle ecosystem it enters?”
And who pays?
We have to rise above ethanol, isobutanol, octane numbers and calorific values. India has spent decades building an ICE ecosystem – cars, motorcycles, trucks, tractors and commercial vehicles. Behind them are auto firms, workshops, mechanics, spare-parts businesses, insurers, financiers and used-vehicle markets. At the end of this chain is the consumer, who bought a vehicle believing it would run on the fuel legally sold at filling stations. He did not sign up for a fuel experiment.
This is not an argument against changing fuel policy; it is one seeking responsibility while changing it. If a Government mandates a fuel, it must ensure that vehicle compatibility is demonstrable and enforceable. If a transition adds maintenance costs, somebody must answer for them. If there is uncertainty, consumers deserve information and choice rather than reassurance after the fact.
The principle should be simple: The person who owns the machine should not be the person carrying the risk of changing the fuel.
The hidden irony
The irony is that India wants fewer ICE vehicles anyway, and is pushing EVs. Carmakers are investing in EVs, hybrids and alternative powertrains. The global auto sector is moving towards lower-carbon options. But that does not give anyone a licence to make existing ICE ownership uncertain.
An Indian who bought a petrol or diesel vehicle yesterday cannot be expected to wake up tomorrow and discover that the rules governing its fuel have changed. Nor can the ecosystem built around those vehicles simply be wished away because the industry has been given a new destination. Sure, India is entitled to change direction. But it is not entitled to make its citizens the guinea pigs of that change.
Playing with fire
There is a larger lesson here. A responsible transition is not about announcing a target, achieving a blending percentage or celebrating the reduction in crude imports. It is about carrying the citizen along with the policy. Biofuels may reduce imports, create rural incomes, lower emissions and strengthen energy security. All of that deserves consideration.
But so does the car sitting in an Indian driveway. The question is not whether we should move beyond fossil fuels. We must. The question is whether, in trying to reach that destination, we are making the journey uncertain for the people who have already paid for the vehicles that take us there. India is playing with ICE. And there is nothing wrong with playing with technology. But when crores of people’s money, mobility and machines are involved, playing with fire is not a strategy. It is a responsibility.