Indian public-sector oil marketing companies (OMCs) Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (HPCL) have rejected the Karnataka government’s claim that petrol sold at certain retail outlets in the state contained between 26% and 31% ethanol. The companies have questioned the sampling and testing procedures used by the state and called for an independent verification exercise.
In a joint statement issued on 6 November 2026, the three companies said the findings from Karnataka’s October testing exercise were not supported by the prescribed statutory and technical procedures. They maintained that E20 petrol supplied across India, including Karnataka, complies with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) specification IS 17021 for ethanol-blended motor gasoline.
The dispute follows an announcement by Karnataka’s Department of Food, Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Legal Metrology, which reported ethanol concentrations above the 20% level in samples collected from selected petrol stations. State Food and Civil Supplies Minister Rizwan Arshad said the testing covered outlets in Bengaluru, Kolar, Chikkaballapura, Bengaluru Rural, Ramanagara, Mangaluru and Tumakuru.
According to the state government’s findings, some samples recorded ethanol content as high as 31.2%. The reported results included 11 samples out of 14 exceeding the 20% blending level, prompting the state to raise concerns about fuel quality and potential effects on vehicle performance.
OMCs question sampling and testing procedures
IOC, BPCL and HPCL said the sampling and testing process must follow the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, alongside the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) 2024.
According to the companies, the prescribed procedure requires six one-litre samples to be collected. Two are handed to the dealer against acknowledgement, two are retained by the oil company or the department, and two are sent to a laboratory specified under the Control Order or notified in the Official Gazette. Sample labels must also be jointly signed, with test results communicated to the relevant parties within the stipulated period.
The OMCs said the samples collected during Karnataka’s October exercise were drawn without the participation of their representatives. They also stated that they had not received the corresponding retention samples, complete outlet-wise details or laboratory reports, despite requesting the documentation through the State Level Coordinator.
The companies further questioned the use of certificates from a third-party laboratory rather than testing at a laboratory specified under the applicable Control Order. They said the certificates did not provide sufficient technical information to independently verify the reported ethanol concentrations against the method prescribed under IS 17021.
OMCs cite 893 samples tested across 27 states and UTs
To support their position, the three companies referred to a Quality Coordination Cell (QCC) exercise overseen by the Centre for High Technology (CHT) under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
The exercise covered 893 E20 petrol samples collected across 27 states and Union Territories. The sample set comprised 330 samples from IOC, 280 from BPCL and 283 from HPCL. According to the OMCs, all 893 samples recorded ethanol content within the prescribed range of 19–21%.
The companies also said that all 56 samples tested in Karnataka were within the specified range, recording ethanol content between 19% and 20%, with an average of 19.30%. They cited these results as evidence that their fuel blending and quality-control processes were operating within the required limits.
The OMCs said ethanol blending is carried out through automated and calibrated systems at refineries and depots, rather than through arbitrary manual addition. They argued that these processes, together with quality-control checks, are intended to maintain consistency in the final fuel blend.
Dispute also raises questions about E20 performance and consumer impact
The disagreement extends beyond the reported ethanol concentrations to the potential impact of higher-than-prescribed blending on consumers.
Karnataka has raised concerns that excessive ethanol content could reduce vehicle fuel efficiency and affect components such as fuel filters, pumps, injectors, hoses and seals. The OMCs, however, disputed estimates of large-scale consumer losses and referred to studies by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) and an inter-ministerial committee.
According to the companies, E20 fuel generally results in mileage reductions of around 1–2% in vehicles optimised for the blend and 3–6% in some other vehicles. These figures were cited by the OMCs in response to estimates of consumer losses; they do not establish the effect of petrol containing ethanol concentrations above the E20 specification.
The companies said they had requested the Karnataka government to provide the complete sampling records, outlet-wise laboratory reports and testing methodology. They also sought access to the corresponding samples for independent testing at an authorised laboratory, using the prescribed method and with representatives of both sides present.
The OMCs said they were willing to participate in a joint and transparent testing exercise and maintained that any deviation confirmed through the prescribed procedures would be addressed under the applicable regulatory guidelines.
Bioenergy Business Analysis
The dispute highlights the importance of transparent fuel-quality monitoring as India expands its ethanol-blending programme. While higher blending levels support demand for domestically produced ethanol and reduce reliance on conventional petrol, compliance with fuel specifications remains essential to maintaining confidence among consumers, vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers.
The conflicting test results also underline the need for a common and verifiable sampling process. The Karnataka government’s reported findings and the OMCs’ QCC results relate to different testing exercises, and the companies have challenged the procedures used in the state’s October exercise. Neither set of reported figures, on its own, resolves the disagreement.
A joint retest using retained samples, authorised laboratories and the prescribed BIS method could help establish whether any retail outlets supplied petrol outside the permitted ethanol range. Until the results are independently reconciled, the reported excess blending should be treated as an allegation disputed by the OMCs, rather than a confirmed nationwide fuel-quality issue.
