Ethanol offers for ESY 2026–27 have moved the OMC procurement process into its next stage: producers have submitted quantities above the oil marketing companies’ indicative requirement. Maize dominates the proposed supply, while the state-wise and quarterly breakdowns show where competition for allocations could be strongest.
According to industry sources, the provisional offer compilation shows producers’ response to the joint OMC tender. These are quantities offered before capacity-based truncations and eligibility adjustments—not final allocations, purchase orders or completed deliveries.
This follows the procurement invitation covered in Bioenergy Business’s original ethanol tender explainer for ESY 2026–27. That article explains the prices, eligible feedstocks and allocation framework; this follow-up examines the offers now received and what they mean for producers.
Ethanol offers for ESY 2026–27: Key numbers
| Measure | Volume or calculation | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Total offers | 1,934.5 crore litres | Provisional compilation; before eligibility adjustments and truncations |
| Indicative OMC requirement | 1,100.0 crore litres | Procurement requirement used in the comparison |
| Offers above requirement | 834.5 crore litres | Calculated difference; not surplus stock already produced |
| Offer-to-requirement ratio | 1.76 times | Calculated from the annual totals |
| Offers above requirement, in percentage terms | 75.9% | Excess divided by requirement; rounded |
| Maize share of total offers | 58.9% | Calculated from the source’s annual figures |
| Grain-based share of total offers | 95.0% | Maize, FCI rice and damaged food grains combined; rounded |
Oversubscription describes bids relative to demand. It does not establish that the offered ethanol is in storage, that every offer is eligible or that the entire amount will be bought.
Which feedstocks account for the offers?
| Feedstock | Offers (crore litres) | Share of annual offers |
|---|---|---|
| Maize | 1,140.4 | 58.9% |
| SFG: surplus rice procured from FCI | 457.8 | 23.7% |
| DFG: damaged food grains | 239.6 | 12.4% |
| CHM: C-heavy molasses | 96.7 | 5.0% |
| Total | 1,934.5 | 100.0% |
Shares are Bioenergy Business calculations using the annual total shown in the source. The grain-based categories dominate the proposed supply mix; C-heavy molasses represents the residual molasses route shown in the compilation.
Maize offers alone exceed the overall indicative OMC requirement. This does not mean maize can replace every other feedstock or that all maize offers will be accepted. Allocation operates within tender conditions, preferences, eligible capacity and feedstock restrictions.
Quarter-wise and feedstock-wise ethanol offers
| Feedstock / measure | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHM | 45.2 | 34.2 | 13.1 | 4.2 | 96.7 |
| SFG (FCI rice) | 148.2 | 155.2 | 154.4 | 0.0 | 457.8 |
| DFG | 56.7 | 59.8 | 60.1 | 62.9 | 239.6 |
| Maize | 242.0 | 249.6 | 263.0 | 385.8 | 1,140.4 |
| Total offers | 492.1 | 498.8 | 490.6 | 452.9 | 1,934.5 |
| Indicative OMC requirement | 300.0 | 300.0 | 250.0 | 250.0 | 1,100.0 |
| Offers / requirement | 1.64× | 1.66× | 1.96× | 1.81× | 1.76× |
| Quarter | Period |
|---|---|
| Q1 | November 2026–January 2027 |
| Q2 | February–April 2027 |
| Q3 | May–July 2027 |
| Q4 | August–October 2027 |
The largest absolute offer volume is in Q2. The highest ratio of offers to requirement is in Q3, because the indicative requirement is lower than in the first two quarters. A smaller quarterly offer total can therefore still represent stronger oversubscription.
Rounding note: the annual total is reproduced as published. The displayed quarterly totals sum to 1,934.4 crore litres, compared with the stated annual total of 1,934.5 crore litres. Some state and feedstock subtotals also differ slightly when added. The rounded source figures have been preserved rather than silently adjusted.
Why does Q4 have a different feedstock mix?
| Feedstock / measure | Q4 offers (crore litres) | Share of Q4 offers |
|---|---|---|
| Maize | 385.8 | 85.2% |
| DFG | 62.9 | 13.9% |
| CHM | 4.2 | 0.9% |
| SFG (FCI rice) | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 452.9 | 100.0% |
The source table shows no FCI rice-based offers in Q4. The original tender did not permit offers from this category for that quarter. This is a procurement-window restriction; it is not proof that no rice exists or that all forms of rice-based ethanol production cease.
With FCI rice absent from this part of the offer basket, maize has a much larger role in the final quarter. That makes maize procurement, conversion economics and reliable plant operations especially relevant to the proposed supply mix. It does not establish that the final delivered mix will match the offers.
State-wise ethanol offers by feedstock
| State / source label | CHM | SFG (FCI rice) | DFG | Maize | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karnataka | 23.3 | 101.1 | 15.0 | 123.1 | 262.5 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 27.0 | 54.3 | 18.3 | 158.1 | 257.8 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 1.9 | 42.7 | 38.2 | 123.0 | 205.7 |
| Maharashtra | 36.8 | 18.6 | 15.7 | 54.1 | 125.2 |
| Punjab | 0.0 | 28.7 | 17.8 | 72.2 | 118.7 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 0.0 | 23.5 | 19.8 | 72.6 | 115.9 |
| Haryana | 0.1 | 26.9 | 14.5 | 72.3 | 113.9 |
| Bihar | 5.5 | 21.6 | 9.3 | 70.5 | 106.9 |
| West Bengal | 0.0 | 22.3 | 7.9 | 68.8 | 98.9 |
| Chhattisgarh | 0.0 | 12.6 | 18.8 | 44.6 | 76.0 |
| Telangana | 0.4 | 20.1 | 8.6 | 34.3 | 63.4 |
| Jharkhand | 0.0 | 11.6 | 7.2 | 43.6 | 62.4 |
| Gujarat | 0.1 | 12.6 | 4.2 | 44.0 | 60.9 |
| Odisha | 0.0 | 11.8 | 25.1 | 22.7 | 59.6 |
| Rajasthan | 0.0 | 11.6 | 5.1 | 38.6 | 55.4 |
| Uttarakhand | 1.4 | 14.9 | 5.1 | 23.3 | 44.6 |
| Assam | 0.0 | 7.6 | 2.3 | 25.9 | 35.8 |
| Tamil Nadu | 0.1 | 5.2 | 0.0 | 21.7 | 27.0 |
| Himachal Pradesh | 0.0 | 3.7 | 3.1 | 9.7 | 16.5 |
| Meghalaya | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 3.7 | 5.0 |
| State not identified | 0.0 | 5.3 | 3.2 | 13.8 | 22.3 |
| All India | 96.7 | 457.8 | 239.6 | 1,140.4 | 1,934.5 |
The table includes every state row in the provisional compilation, including “State not identified”. This unassigned category is retained rather than attributed to a state. State totals reflect quantities offered, not verified production or final OMC purchases.
| Measure | Leading state | Offers (crore litres) |
|---|---|---|
| Overall offers | Karnataka | 262.5 |
| Maize offers | Uttar Pradesh | 158.1 |
| FCI rice offers | Karnataka | 101.1 |
| Damaged food grain offers | Madhya Pradesh | 38.2 |
| C-heavy molasses offers | Maharashtra | 36.8 |
| Combined offers from the top five states | Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Punjab | 969.9 |
The top five states contribute approximately half of the national offer total. This concentration helps explain where much of the proposed supply originates, but it does not identify the OMC destinations or establish transport costs.
State-wise ethanol offers by quarter
| State / source label | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karnataka | 69.1 | 76.3 | 70.1 | 47.0 | 262.5 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 63.7 | 69.5 | 66.0 | 68.6 | 257.8 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 51.2 | 51.1 | 52.0 | 51.5 | 205.7 |
| Maharashtra | 46.8 | 32.7 | 24.9 | 20.8 | 125.2 |
| Punjab | 29.6 | 29.2 | 30.4 | 29.6 | 118.7 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 26.8 | 28.8 | 30.4 | 29.9 | 115.9 |
| Haryana | 28.1 | 28.0 | 28.9 | 28.9 | 113.9 |
| Bihar | 25.6 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 26.8 | 106.9 |
| West Bengal | 23.6 | 24.7 | 25.5 | 25.1 | 98.9 |
| Chhattisgarh | 19.1 | 18.7 | 19.1 | 19.1 | 76.0 |
| Telangana | 15.9 | 15.6 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 63.4 |
| Jharkhand | 15.7 | 15.3 | 15.7 | 15.7 | 62.4 |
| Gujarat | 14.6 | 15.3 | 15.5 | 15.5 | 60.9 |
| Odisha | 14.4 | 14.8 | 15.2 | 15.2 | 59.6 |
| Rajasthan | 12.3 | 14.1 | 14.5 | 14.5 | 55.4 |
| Uttarakhand | 11.2 | 11.1 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 44.6 |
| Assam | 9.0 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 35.8 |
| Tamil Nadu | 5.1 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 27.0 |
| Himachal Pradesh | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 16.5 |
| Meghalaya | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 5.0 |
| State not identified | 5.0 | 5.2 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 22.3 |
| All India | 492.1 | 498.8 | 490.6 | 452.9 | 1,934.5 |
A state’s annual rank does not describe its seasonal pattern. Karnataka’s displayed offers decline in the final quarter, while Uttar Pradesh maintains a more even profile. These are patterns in the submitted offer compilation, not forecasts of actual output.
Why offers will not equal final allocations
The distinction between an offer, an eligible quantity, an allocation and a delivery is central to reading this data. Approved capacity and feedstock-specific restrictions can reduce the quantities eligible for allocation.
| Stage | Meaning | What remains uncertain |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted offer | A bidder proposes a quantity for a feedstock and period | Whether the full quantity satisfies tender conditions |
| Eligible / capacity-adjusted quantity | The offer is assessed against approvals, permissible capacity and applicable limits | Whether demand and allocation rules permit acceptance |
| Allocation and contractual documents | OMCs assign accepted quantities and issue the relevant award / order documents | Operational scheduling, revisions and contractual performance |
| Actual supply | Ethanol is delivered and accepted under the contract | Whether the full allocated quantity is ultimately supplied |
For the balance requirement, the tender’s allocation framework considers feedstock categories in ascending ex-mill price order. Among the categories in these offer tables, that sequence is CHM, FCI rice, DFG and maize. The process also incorporates the prescribed supplier preferences, eligible quantities and other tender conditions; price order alone does not determine every allocation.
The original tender establishes procurement rates and quantity-allocation rules. These offer tables do not show a new price auction or announce revised ethanol prices. Readers should use the detailed tender guide for the underlying framework and check later official amendments.
What does oversubscription mean for ethanol producers?
| Issue | What the data suggests | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| Competition for allocations | Offers exceed the indicative requirement across all quarters | That every producer will face the same reduction |
| Maize exposure | Maize is the largest proposed feedstock route | That every maize plant will receive an allocation or earn a particular margin |
| Feedstock availability | Producers are expressing willingness to supply | That all required grain is already purchased or secured |
| Regional concentration | A small group of states accounts for much of the offer pipeline | That those states will receive equivalent purchase allocations |
| Working capital and logistics | Procurement, dispatch and delivery planning remain important | That an offer establishes contracted revenue |
| Weather risk | Feedstock supply and costs can change with crop conditions | A quantified production loss attributable to any particular weather event |
A large offer pipeline does not remove feedstock risk. Producers still need to secure grain or molasses, manage conversion costs and meet delivery schedules. The tables do not quantify crop losses or establish a weather forecast, so they should not be used to claim that all raw-material requirements are already secured.
The national offer-to-demand ratio should not be applied as a uniform acceptance rate to individual plants. Feedstock rules, capacity adjustments, procurement preferences and location allocation can lead to different outcomes.
Frequently asked questions
Select a question to expand its answer.
How much ethanol has been offered for ESY 2026–27?
The provisional compilation shows 1,934.5 crore litres against an indicative OMC requirement of 1,100.0 crore litres. These are offers before capacity-based truncations, not final awards.
What does 1.76 times oversubscription mean?
Total offers are approximately 1.76 times the indicative requirement. That is about 75.9% above the requirement, not 176% above it.
Which feedstock has the largest share?
Maize leads with 1,140.4 crore litres, or approximately 58.9% of the annual offers. It is followed by FCI rice, damaged food grains and C-heavy molasses.
Which state has offered the most ethanol?
Karnataka leads the displayed annual state totals, followed by Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The complete state-wise figures are set out in the tables above.
Why are there no FCI rice offers in Q4?
The original tender did not permit offers from FCI surplus rice in Q4. This explains the procurement category’s absence from the source table; it does not establish a general absence of rice.
Are these final OMC allocations?
No. These are provisional offers before truncations. Eligible quantities, allocations, orders and actual supplies are separate stages of the OMC procurement process.
Does the offer total prove feedstock is available?
No. A quantity offer is not evidence that all the necessary feedstock has been secured or that the ethanol has already been produced.
Have ethanol procurement prices changed because of these offers?
The compilation does not announce a price revision. It reports quantities offered. Applicable prices and incentives must be checked against official procurement terms and amendments.
Why do some table totals differ slightly?
The source displays rounded figures. For example, the quarterly totals sum slightly below the reported annual total. This article preserves those figures and explains the discrepancy.
How does this follow the original ethanol tender?
The original tender invited producers to offer ethanol quantities. This follow-up examines the offers received. Read our original ESY 2026–27 ethanol tender explainer for prices, feedstock eligibility and allocation rules.
Data note and tender background
Data source: Industry sources. The tables are based on a provisional offer compilation for the ESY 2026–27 Cycle 1 tender, covering all-India feedstock offers, state-wise feedstock offers and state-wise quarterly offers. The figures precede capacity-based truncations and should not be treated as a final official OMC allocation statement.
Context: Bioenergy Business’s original tender explainer and report on the tender deadline extension.
Method: source volumes are reproduced to the displayed precision. Percentages, excess volume and aggregate comparisons are Bioenergy Business calculations. Minor rounding differences are retained. Final allocations and supplies should be assessed against subsequent official releases.
