Such measures are unnecessary and often counterproductive. The economy and consumers are best served when all fuels openly compete, on a level playing field, without advantage of mandates or subsidies.
People can then buy fuels solely on the basis of price and performance.
This minimizes costs for families, businesses and the economy, which, in turn, strengthens competitiveness, living standards and job growth. Proponents of subsidies and mandates say that they're needed to improve the environment, enhance energy security, spur economic development and replace dwindling supplies of oil. However, subsidies and mandates for alternatives, which are usually more expensive than conventional petroleum fuels, raise costs and reduce economic well-being. In addition, they have little impact on the environment, produce limited energy security benefits, and aren't justified by the fact that oil supplies are finite. Many states also have laws or regulations that promote alternatives.