PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 29, 2010
Consumer Fuels Choice Act of 2010 - Requires the Secretary of Energy to make grants to major fuel distributors to pay the federal share of costs to install blender pump fuel infrastructure at majority-owned stations and branded stations: (1) for the direct retail sale of ethanol fuel blends (including E-85 fuel), including blender pumps and storage tanks; and (2) to directly market such fuels to gas retailers, including in-line blending equipment, pumps, storage tanks, and loadout equipment.
Provides for infrastructure installation subgrants to direct retailers of ethanol fuel blends (including E-85 fuel) as well as blender pumps and storage tanks.
People & committees
Rep. Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [D-SD-At Large] · D–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5632 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5632 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5632 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5632 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.