Economics of Blending 10 Percent
Corn Ethanol into Gasoline
ฃ% United States
Environmental Protect
Agency
-------
Economics of Blending 10 Percent
Corn Ethanol into Gasoline
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments.
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE
4>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-22-034
November 2022
-------
Abstract
The increase in ethanol blended into U.S. gasoline is often attributed to the Renewable Fuels Program
(RFS), however, other factors such as rising gasoline prices and the phase-out of MTBE were also factors
driving ethanol demand at the same time that the RFS program was being implemented. This study
conducts a detailed evaluation of ethanol's blending cost into E10 gasoline, including octane and
volatility costs, production cost and spot prices, distribution costs, and federal and state subsidies, while
omitting RIN values, to assess whether ethanol would have been economical to blend into gasoline
regardless of the RFS program. Based on this analysis, economic factors alone were sufficient to cause
the observed growth in ethanol use.
1
-------
Table of Contents
Key Words
Introduction
Methods
Ethanol Blending Economics Equation
Volume/ElO Blend Rate Comparison to Actuals
Corn Ethanol Production Costs
Results and Discussion
Historical Ethanol Blending Economics
Historical Ethanol Production Profitability
Future Ethanol Blending Economics
Conclusions
References
Appendix
Appendix 1 - Supporting Information
Appendix 2 - Response to Peer Reviews
Appendix 3 - Peer Review Document
Key Words
Renewable Fuels Standard
Ethanol Blending Cost
Ethanol Blending Value
Splash-Blending
Match-Blending
Blendwall
Octane Value
2
-------
Introduction
Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, which directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to expand the use of renewable fuels.1
2 EPA subsequently promulgated the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS1 and RFS2) rulemakings which
specified minimal renewable fuel volumes starting in 2006 (EPA 2007, EPA 2010). Some analyses have
concluded that the RFS program forced ethanol into the gasoline pool causing an increase in gasoline
prices and causing large increases in ethanol prices (GAO 2019; Christiane 2017). Another study
attributed higher corn prices to the increased corn demand for corn ethanol production and concluded
that these changes will increase the number of people at risk of hunger and poverty (Condon 2015). A
second study also found that the increased corn demand for ethanol production increased corn prices,
although for the most part, increased corn production satisfied corn ethanol plant corn demand rather
than compete for food production (Wallander 2011).
Other studies have researched a wide range of environmental impacts associated with the increased
use of corn ethanol. For example, life cycle analyses of corn ethawnol have estimated GHG emission
reductions which ranged from 21 to potentially over 50 percent when compared to gasoline sourced
from petroleum (Flugge 2017; Mueller 2016; CARB 2020). Others who have evaluated corn ethanol
argue that when reviewed in total, including impacts on land use and biodiversity and increased water
use and runoff pollution, ethanol does not provide a net positive environmental impact (Stecker 2014,
Wardle 2018).
Several observations and past analyses of ethanol blending economics concluded that while
increased corn ethanol use may have been controversial and may have led to many of these outcomes,
it is unlikely that the RFS program caused this increased use of corn ethanol. The volume of corn
ethanol blended into gasoline exceeded the RFS standards through 2012. In addition, despite small
refineries being granted RFS exemptions, the gasoline produced by these small refineries receiving the
exemptions still was blended with ethanol at 10 volume percent. These observations suggest that the
RFS program was not binding during the rapid increase in ethanol consumption from 2004-2013. The
economics of producing and using renewable fuels was evaluated by several analysts using the
combination of an existing world model and a second model dedicated to the US market (Abbott 2008;
Taheripour 2022). These analysts concluded that while economic factors were mostly responsible for
causing the increase the increased blending of corn ethanol up to the E10 blendwall, the RFS program
also played a role, despite the fact that very low Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN) prices
suggested that the RFS program was not binding. A separate study of the RFS program in 2013 and 2014
based its review solely on RIN prices, however, since the RFS volume requirements exceeded the volume
of ethanol that could be blended as E10 beginning in 2013, RIN prices have reflected the higher blending
costs of higher ethanol blends and biodiesel/renewable diesel fuel, not ethanol's use as E10 (Stock
2015).
To shed light on this discussion, a retrospective and prospective ethanol blending cost analysis was
conducted based on actual price data (retrospective) and projections (prospective) to assess the relative
economics of blending corn ethanol into gasoline as a function of the key relevant economic factors,
omitting the financial impacts of renewable Identification number (RIN) prices, to assess whether the
RFS rulemakings or other economic factors led to the increase in blending of corn ethanol. A second
analysis was conducted to evaluate the profitability of corn ethanol production to better understand the
1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, https://www.congress.gOv/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6.
2 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, https://www.congress.gov/bill/! 10th-congress/house-bill/6.
3
-------
economic incentives that existed to expand corn ethanol plant capacity. This paper summarizes this
corn ethanol blending cost and ethanol production profitability analyses for 10 percent ethanol blends.
The conclusions reached from this analysis have important implications for multiple issues
associated with the Renewable Fuels Program. For that reason, the report and the underlying analysis
which the report is based on were subjected to three independent peer reviews. The peer reviewers
largely supported the analysis and associated draft report, but they also contributed to some minor
improvements to the report, although the principal report conclusions remain unchanged. The peer
reviews and our analysis of those peer reviews are contained in the Appendix along with supporting
information for of this report.
Methods
This retrospective corn ethanol economic blending analysis was conducted each year from 2000 to
2020 and only assessed the economics for blending or replacing ethanol at 10 volume percent. The
most relevant period occurred from 2005 to 2013 when ethanol use in gasoline ramped up from low
volumes to nationwide E10. An additional analysis was conducted for future years using projections for
future year ethanol and gasoline prices. These analyses focus solely on the blending economics of corn
ethanol, not cellulosic or sugar cane ethanol. In all cases the use of the term ethanol means denatured
ethanol. All prices are reported in nominal dollars.
Ethanol Blending Economics Equation
A number of key factors must be considered when evaluating the relative economics of blending
corn ethanol into gasoline. These factors depend on the point in the ethanol production and
distribution system at which the economics of ethanol and gasoline are compared, the type of gasoline
the ethanol is blended into, the season or year, and tax policies. Since ethanol is blended into gasoline
at the gasoline distribution terminal, it is most straightforward to consider those factors that come into
play at that point. From that vantage point, the relative economics of blending ethanol into gasoline, or
value of replacing ethanol in gasoline with other components, can be summarized by the equation
below. This equation allows us to break down these factors by year, by state and by gasoline type,
enabling a detailed assessment of the relative blending economics of corn ethanol to gasoline over time
and by location. If the resulting ethanol blending cost is less than zero it is assumed to be cost-effective
to blend ethanol. Gasoline is marketed based on volume, not energy content. E10 gasoline contains
about 3% less energy content than E0 gasoline, and the cost of lower energy dense gasoline is paid by
consumers through lower fuel economy and more frequent refueling. Since this small change in energy
content is largely imperceptible to consumers, refiners are able to price ethanol based on its volume
(unlike E85 which must be priced lower at retail due to its lower energy density). Thus, energy density
is not a factor in this blending cost equation for E10.
4
-------
Ethanol Blending Cost Equation:
EBC = (ESP + EDC - ERV - FETS - SETS) - GTP
Where EBC is ethanol blending cost; ESP is ethanol plant gate spot price; EDC is ethanol distribution
cost; ERV is ethanol replacement value; FETS is federal ethanol tax subsidy; SETS is state ethanol tax
subsidy; and GTP is gasoline terminal price; all are in dollars per gallon.
The terms used in the equation are defined as:
Ethanol Plant Gate Spot Price (ESP) - The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) collects corn
ethanol plant gate pricing data which is the price paid to corn ethanol producers when they sell their
ethanol.3 This spot price generally represents the production cost for corn ethanol plus some profit
margin. It also captures price anomalies associated with market factors, such as high demand relative to
supply, which could increase the price above the production cost and would factor into real-time
decisions of whether to blend ethanol. Ethanol's spot prices over the analysis period ranged from $1.12
to $2.70 per gallon and tended to be higher when crude oil prices were high.
Ethanol Distribution Cost (EDC) - This factor represents the added cost of moving the corn ethanol from
the production plants to gasoline distribution terminals, reflecting its different modes of transport.
Because corn ethanol is primarily produced in the Midwest and distributed longer distances to the rest
of the country, the terminal price of corn ethanol is usually lower in the Midwest than other parts of the
country. Ethanol distribution costs were estimated for EPA on a regional basis, and these costs were
interpolated or extrapolated to estimate the costs on a state-by-state basis (ICF 2018). Additional per-
gallon capital costs of up to 6.5 cents per gallon (c/gal) were added through 2014 to account for building
the ethanol distribution infrastructure (EPA 2010). Ethanol's estimated distribution costs ranged from
11 c/gal in the Midwest to 29 c/gal when moved to the furthest distances to the U.S. East and West
coast, and nearly 51 c/gal when shipped to Alaska and Hawaii.
Ethanol Replacement Value (ERV) - Ethanol has properties which provide value (primarily octane) or
cost (vapor pressure impacts) when it is blended into gasoline. We use the term "ethanol replacement
value" to refer to the sum of the costs due to these properties, including properties that increase and
decrease ethanol's blending value. Depending on where and when the ethanol is used, the ethanol
blending value is an important consideration when gasoline production is modified to take into account
the subsequent addition, or potential removal, of ethanol. For the early years covered by this analysis
ethanol was "splash-blended" into conventional gasoline, meaning that terminals blended the ethanol
into already finished gasoline. This resulted in the final blend being higher than the minimum octane
requirements. This also resulted in a nominal 1 psi Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) increase in the resulting
ethanol-gasoline blend which must be offset by blending the ethanol into lower vapor pressure gasoline
in some seasons and regions, increasing refining costs. When ethanol is splash-blended into gasoline,
ethanol's blending value does not apply.
Essentially all E10 blending in the U.S. now occurs by "match-blending" where the base gasoline is
modified to account for the subsequent addition of ethanol. In this case ethanol's blending value is
important. When ethanol is being blended into reformulated gasoline (RFG), the refiner produces a
blendstock (called a Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending or RBOB) which has both a lower
3 USDA Economic Research Service; US Bioenergy Statistics. 2019. Table 14 Fuel ethanol, corn and gasoline prices
by month.
5
-------
octane and lower RVP tailored to still meet the RFG standards after the addition of ethanol. This has
been typical for ethanol-blended RFG since the mid-1990s. As ethanol's use expanded into the
conventional gasoline market, a similar match-blending process began to be used there as well,
replacing splash-blending. A Conventional Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending (CBOB) is now produced
by refiners for match-blending with ethanol to make conventional gasoline. Conventional gasoline is
now also adjusted to account for ethanol's octane, but unlike RFG, most is not adjusted for RVP due to
an RVP waiver provided for ethanol blends in most locations. When RBOB and CBOB are produced, the
refiner makes the decision that ethanol will be blended into their gasoline since the BOBs cannot be sold
as gasoline without adding 10 percent ethanol, but the ethanol is still blended into the gasoline at the
terminal. It is likely that refiners base their decision on producing BOBs based on the economics of
producing finished gasoline at terminals. In the case of such match blends, the economic value of
ethanol relative to gasoline includes a consideration of not only its value on a volumetric basis as a
substitute for gasoline volume, but also the blending value of ethanol resulting from its higher octane,
low sulfur and benzene, and in some cases, its impact on volatility.
Ethanol's full value is best reflected by the cost associated with meeting all of the gasoline
standards and requirements through some means other than blending ethanol, including any capital
costs to produce ethanol's replacements. To assess this, ICF conducted refinery modeling for EPA for
removing ethanol from the gasoline pool (ICF 2019). After aggregating the ICF refinery cost modeling
output, ethanol's replacement cost in regular grade conventional and reformulated gasoline is
estimated to be 100 to 165 c/gal to refiners in the summer and 51 to 67 c/gal during the winter. The
analysis results reported below rely on ethanol's replacement costs which applies to reformulated
gasoline and conventional gasoline match-blended with ethanol.
The ethanol replacement costs were estimated based on ICF modeling of a certain set of
conditions (year 2020 gasoline production with crude oil priced $72/bbl). The economics for replacing
ethanol, however, would be expected to vary over time based on changing market factors such as the
market value for RVP control costs, crude oil prices, and particularly the market value for octane. Since
octane is ethanol's most valuable property, the ICF ethanol replacement cost results were adjusted for
different years based on the historical premium-regular grade gasoline bulk price differential. It likely
provides a reasonable estimate of how refiners would value ethanol's octane content over time.
However, as an alternative to using the octane price differential, crude oil price was also used to
scale ethanol's replacement costs to different years, since in addition to replacing ethanol's octane, it is
necessary to replace ethanol's volume. The ICF refinery modeling estimated that refineries may need to
purchase and refine more crude oil for replacing ethanol with high octane replacements. While octane
prices generally vary proportional to crude oil prices, in some years they do not, therefore, octane prices
may not capture one aspect of the cost to replace ethanol.
Ethanol's RVP blending cost is estimated separately from ethanol's replacement cost. Crude oil
prices were used to adjust ethanol's RVP blending cost in different years. In the case of summertime
RFG, ethanol's RVP blending cost are added to ethanol's replacement cost.
For 2020, when gasoline demand decreased dramatically due to the COVID pandemic, the
analysis used a much lower ethanol blending value based on its blending economics while blended into
gasoline instead of its replacement values, which likely better represents ethanol's value in that year.
This is discussed more below in the Results and Discussion section, and in the Supporting Information
document in Appendix 1.
6
-------
Federal and State Ethanol Tax Subsidies (FETS and SETS) - Various federal and state tax subsidies have
been provided for the use of ethanol. These tax subsidies incentivize the blending of ethanol into the
gasoline pool and directly impact the decision of whether to use ethanol. The federal tax subsidy was
54 c/gal at the start of the analysis period (2000) through 2004, decreased to 51 c/gal from 2005 to
2008, and decreased again to 45 c/gal from 2009 to 2011, after which it expired (Duffield 2015). Iowa
and Illinois offer an ethanol blending subsidy of 25 and 29 c/gal, respectively.4 California's Low Carbon
Fuel Standard (LCFS) is estimated to provide corn ethanol a blending credit which began to take effect in
2012 at an estimated 4 c/gal, increasing to 33 c/gal in 2019.5 6 Several states also have ethanol use
mandates which require the use of ethanol regardless of the economics for doing so.7 These cannot be
factored into this breakeven cost equation, but were accounted for in the overall analysis by including
the ethanol volume in gasoline in these states regardless of the blending economics. Other federal and
state subsidies such as ethanol production subsidies, loan guarantees, grants and any other subsidies,
were not considered by this analysis.
Gasoline Terminal Price (GTP) - Gasoline spot prices were used to represent the economic value of
gasoline to gasoline blenders. For this analysis we used refinery gasoline rack price data from the
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) sales for resale category. Since this is terminal price data, it
therefore would already include the distribution costs for moving the gasoline to downstream terminals.
8 This gasoline price data was collected by state and represents the average gasoline price for all the
terminals in each state.9 Gasoline prices ranged from $1 to $3/gallon over the years of this analysis.
Gasoline volume data was also collected by state.
This paper provides an overview of the analysis; additional detail is provided in the Supporting
Information in Appendix 1.
Volume/ElO Blend Rate Comparison to Actuals
This analysis estimates the total volume of ethanol which was economical to blend into gasoline
in any year based on a simple assumption. If the ethanol blending cost is negative for any type of
gasoline in any state, it means that it was cheaper to produce gasoline with 10 percent ethanol (E10)
than it was to produce finished gasoline without ethanol and ethanol is assumed to be blended into this
gasoline. The cumulative volume of ethanol economic to blend into gasoline is totaled and reported out
as a percent of the total gasoline pool. If ethanol is less costly to blend than gasoline for the entire US
gasoline based on its replacement cost, this analysis assumes that the E10 blendwall would be met
based solely on ethanol blending economics ignoring the logistical challenges to produce or distribute
this volume of ethanol in any given year.
This analysis provides a sense, based solely on blending economics, whether factors apart from
the RFS program were driving increased ethanol use. This is achieved by comparing the volume of corn
4 States' Biofuels Statutory Citations; The National Agricultural Law Center; University of Arkansas,
https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-compilations/biofuels/
5 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Fuel Pathway Table; LCFS Pathway Certified Carbon Intensities;
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-pathwav-certified-carbon-intensities: downloaded September 2020.
6 Weekly LCFS Credit Transfer Activity Reports; California Air Resources Board;
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/credit/lrtweeklvcreditreports.htm: downloaded September 2020.
7 States' Biofuels Statutory Citations; The National Agricultural Law Center; https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-
compilations/biofuels/
8 Energy Information Administration; Spot Prices; https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_sl_a.htm
9 Energy Information Administration; Prime Supplier Sales Volume;
https://www.eia. gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_m. htm.
7
-------
ethanol, which this analysis estimates is cost-effective to blend into gasoline, to the actual volume of
ethanol blended into US gasoline in that same year as reported by the Energy Information
Administration.10 The economic "drive" to expand ethanol blending is evaluated by reporting out the
marginal ethanol blending cost at the actual ethanol consumption volume.
Corn Ethanol Production Costs
While spot prices typically provide the best information as inputs into the ethanol blending cost
equation, they do not indicate the profitability associated with producing the ethanol. When ethanol
spot prices are high and production costs are low, it would result in significant ethanol production profit
margins and create an incentive for its increased production and use. This will be apparent in our
discussion of the results of the analysis contained in the Results and Discussion section. Therefore, we
also benchmarked ethanol production costs against ethanol spot prices to assess the likely profitability
of ethanol production over the time frame of this analysis.
To estimate the year-by-year corn ethanol production costs, the corn, corn oil, DDGS prices and
utility prices were obtained for each year from 2000 to 2018.11 12 13 14 15 Information for corn ethanol
plant feedstock and utilities inputs and production output was obtained for two different years, 2006
and 2016 (EPA 2010; Mueller 2013; Irwin 2018). The amount of ethanol produced per bushel of corn
increased, and the natural gas and electricity demand decreased, between 2006 and 2016, and these
differences are interpolated and extrapolated to all years of the analysis.
The corn ethanol production cost for each year of this analysis was based on a typical sized, 76
million gallon per year, dry mill plant. The corn ethanol production cost analysis did not consider the
differences in plant sizes or configuration, nor did it consider how corn ethanol plant sizes may have
changed over time. Today, corn ethanol plant capacities range from 10 to 300 million gallons per year.
Thus, this corn ethanol plant production cost analysis may not exactly represent the average production
costs of corn ethanol plants in each year, nor would it capture the range in production costs, but it does
provide a typical production cost which serves as a benchmark against corn ethanol plant gate spot
prices.
While corn ethanol plant managers may expect to receive a profit margin above the operating
and capital costs estimated for these plants, this potential additional charge was not included in this
analysis. Conversely, this corn ethanol production cost analysis assumes that capital cost charges
continue indefinitely, however after several years to pay back loans to build the plants, the capital
charge that could occur to replace failing equipment may be reduced, perhaps significantly.
10 Fuel Ethanol Overview: Ethanol Consumption; Alternative Transportation Fuels; Renewable and Alternative
Fuels, Energy Information Administration; https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/secl0_7.pdf
11 Energy Information Administration United States Industrial Natural Gas Prices.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPGO_PIN_DMcf_a.htm
12 Energy Information Administration, United States Industrial Electricity Prices; Electricity Data Browser;
https://www.eia. gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=l,0&geo=wwwwwwo&endsec=2&freq=A&start=2
001 &end=2019&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0
13 USDA Economic Research Service; US Bioenergy Statistics; Table 14 Fuel ethanol, corn and gasoline prices by
month; December 2019. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-bioenergy-statistics/
14 USDA Economic Research Service; Feed Grains Database: Custom Query Results; DDGS;
https://data.ers.usda.gOv/FEED-GRAINS-custom-querv.aspx#ResultsPanel
15 USDA Economic Research Service; Oil Crops - all Tables; Table 32; https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-
crops-vearbook.aspx.
8
-------
Results and Discussion
The spot prices and volume information, the ethanol subsidies and state mandates and blending
values were applied using the Ethanol Blending Cost equation to estimate relative value of blending
ethanol into gasoline for each year analyzed on a volumetric basis. While E10 gasoline contains about
3% less energy content than EO gasoline, this small change in energy content is largely imperceptible to
consumers and is not reflected in retail pricing.
The analysis is performed on a state-by-state basis for different gasoline types, for both summer
and winter periods to derive an ethanol blending cost curve to identify the range in ethanol blending
economics across the country, and to find the breakeven cost point with gasoline. The analysis first
analyzes ethanol's historical blending economics and resulting projected use over the years 2000 to
2020, comparing its use to actual consumption. Then using projected ethanol and gasoline spot prices
and projected ethanol production costs, the analysis assesses the ethanol's future blending economics
and use.
Historical Ethanol Blending Economics
The results of the analysis are shown in the figures below. In Figure 1 ethanol's blending cost
into gasoline is shown along with crude oil prices. Ethanol's blending cost is shown as a range with the
most expensive market for blending ethanol shown by the top green dotted line, the least expensive
market for blending ethanol shown by the bottom green dashed line. The green solid line indicates
ethanol's marginal blending cost at the average volume of ethanol being blended into gasoline that year
- the various solid and dashed green lines were generated by scaling ethanol's replacement cost with
octane costs, while the line indicated by long blue dashes used crude oil prices to scale ethanol
replacement costs. Figure 2 repeats ethanol's marginal blending cost, although eliminating the
minimums and maximums, and adds the percent of E10 blendwall based on the cumulative volume of
ethanol when ethanol's estimated marginal cost equals that of gasoline. Figure 2 also depicts the actual
percent of E10 blendwall based on actual ethanol consumption volumes, as well as the percent of E10
blendwall mandated by the RFS volume standards.
9
-------
Figure 1 Ethanol blending cost and crude oil prices
2000 2002 2 004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2 018 2020
Year
Relative Ethanol Blending Cost - adj. using crude prices
Relative Ethanol Blending Cost - adj. using octane prices
Low
High
Crude Oil Spot Price
.a
.a
w
a>
u
o
a.
i/i
-------
estimated the marginal blending value of ethanol in 2011 to be 80 cents per gallon cheaper than
gasoline when accounting for all the factors affecting its relative value. One likely reason for this
discrepancy between these two studies is that our study accounted for ethanol's replacement value,
which was particularly high in 2011 due to a spike in octane prices greatly improving ethanol value as a
gasoline blendstock.
Figure 2 Percent of E10 blendwall based on economics and relative ethanol blending cost
Year
Predicted Ethanol % of Blendwall
Actual Ethanol % of 6 lendwall
RFS1 Minimum Volumes
RFS2 Minimum Volumes
Relative Ethanol Blending Cost -adj. uang octane prices
RefctrveEthanolBlendingCost-adj. using crude prices
-100
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010 2012
2014 2016
-110
2018 2020
There is a notable deviation in the predicted ethanol percent of blendwall trend line in 2006 due
to the phase-out of MTBE which warrants additional discussion. The phase out of MTBE played a key
role in causing increased ethanol demand and likely impacted corn ethanol spot prices as shown below
in Figure 3. The phase out of MTBE from the RFG pool occurred over the years from 2003 to 2006 due
to the adoption of state MTBE bans, the end of the federal RFG oxygenate requirement, Congress'
decision not to enact requested liability protections, and changing economic factors which favored
blending ethanol over MTBE into gasoline (Lidderdale 2011). An analysis is provided in the Supporting
Information which shows that as crude oil prices increased, federally subsidized ethanol would have
become a lower cost gasoline blendstock than MTBE, so it is possible that ethanol would have replaced
MTBE over time even without the MTBE bans and threats of litigation. All these factors resulted in the
removal of MTBE from the U.S. gasoline pool, but did not mandate the addition of ethanol into RFG.
However, the result was a de facto requirement for ethanol. With the suddenness at which MTBE
needed to be removed and within the constraints of the RFG performance standards refiners could not
make up the lost volume (11 volume percent) by increasing crude oil throughput or the lost octane from
refinery operational changes to offset the removal of MTBE (see the Supporting Information and
Response to Comments Documents in Appendix 1 and 2). For this reason, to continue to meet RFG
11
-------
demand and the RFG regulations, RFG refiners needed to blend ethanol into their RFG, and rapidly built
out ethanol blending capability (tankage, rail/truck offloading facilities, blending equipment, etc.) at
gasoline terminals in RFG areas. The MTBE bans in Connecticut, New York and California took effect at
the beginning of 2004 and likely contributed to the increase in ethanol blending in 2004, despite the
slightly higher ethanol blending costs. Most of RFG switched from MTBE to ethanol in 2006, and this
sudden change caused increased ethanol imports and drove up ethanol spot prices to the point that
ethanol was priced at parity with gasoline despite its much lower production costs.
The period of very low crude oil prices (average of $43/bbl) in 2016 is also of significant interest.
During this year the federal ethanol blending subsidy was no longer in place, although all refiners were
now match-blending all their gasoline with ethanol, taking advantage of ethanol's high-octane value.
Despite the large, sudden drop in crude oil prices, it was still generally more economical to blend
ethanol than to replace it with any of the other petroleum-based alternatives, such as alkylate,
reformate and isomerate. For this primary case, we adjusted ethanol replacement cost based on octane
because the gasoline market highly valued octane value in 2016, despite very low crude oil prices. The
alternative analysis which adjusted ethanol's replacement cost based on crude oil prices found that
about 4 billion of the more than 14 billion gallons of ethanol being blended into gasoline would not have
been economical to blend into gasoline. A separate study seemed to have reached a conclusion similar
to our alternative case, finding that about 2 billion gallons of corn ethanol was not economical to blend
in 2016 presumably due to the steep decline in crude oil prices. (Taheripour 2022).
Despite the drop of crude oil prices, and even if crude oil prices had dropped further in 2016
rendering ethanol less economical than its petroleum-based replacements in some gasoline markets,
other factors would have caused refiners to continue to blend corn ethanol into their gasoline at 10
volume percent. Just as the decisions to start blending ethanol in earlier years required the expectation
of it to be profitable over the long term and required time to materialize, the same is true when looking
at 2016. To stop blending ethanol, nearly all refiners would likely have needed to invest in crude oil
distillation, octane producing units, and other refinery unit expansions to accommodate the lost ethanol
volume and octane (ICF 2019). These investments take time - at least a year for unit debottlenecking,
and three or more years for greenfield plants, and even more time to recoup their investments.
Refiners may have been able to simply turn up the severity of their existing reforming units to replace
ethanol's octane, but this would further reduce gasoline volume compounding the lost ethanol volume,
potentially making compliance with fuel quality standards difficult, and also lead to a shortfall in
gasoline supply. To move away from E10 ethanol blending would require the expectation that the
continued use of ethanol would be economically unfavorable for years to come to pay off these needed
capital investments. Based on crude oil forecasts before and during this time period, crude oil prices
were expected to be sufficiently high for the long term to allow ethanol to remain economical. For
example, the reference case for ElA's AEO 2014 projected Brent crude oil prices to average above $90
per barrel for all future years modeled.
Even if refiners would have thought that crude oil prices would remain low, and ignoring the
needed refinery investments and impact on gasoline supply, the logistical inertia of match-blending
ethanol into gasoline would have kept ethanol into the gasoline pool for some time. Terminals are
limited on the number of products they can store in their product storage tanks, thus, it is unlikely that
they would have been able to handle both sub-octane BOBs and finished E0 gasoline. For this reason,
entire gasoline markets would likely need to convert over to not using ethanol at the same time to
enable the switchover from using ethanol. Such a significant changeover would take time to coordinate
and most likely would not occur for what likely was perceived to be a relatively short term drop in crude
oil prices. Thus, while refiners may have found that some corn ethanol may not have been economical
12
-------
to blend into gasoline in 2016, other more critical factors likely ensured corn ethanol's continued use.
For this reason, the predicted ethanol percent of blendwall curve in Figure 2 which shows ethanol being
blended at 100% of the blendwall in 2016 is the expected result, despite the possibility that some
refiners may have temporarily found ethanol to not have been economical to blend into their gasoline in
the absence of the RFS program. The effect on the predicted ethanol percent of blendwall ethanol
demand in 2016 based on adjusting ethanol replacement cost using crude prices and solely considering
economics is also shown as a dashed line in Figure 2 - these assumptions show about 4 billion gallons
less ethanol demand in 2016.
Another interesting year is 2020, the first year of the COVID pandemic when crude oil prices
averaged in the low $40 per barrel range and gasoline demand dropped in 2020 by 12 percent. Refiners
likely would have had adequate refinery unit capacity to replace both ethanol's volume and octane, and
their situation would have provided a strong incentive for many refiners to remove E10 ethanol.
However, our analysis found that E10 use continued to be economical for refiners to blend nonetheless.
Competition among corn ethanol producers in a much smaller and now oversupplied gasoline market
both domestically and internationally caused ethanol plant gate prices to fall well below their
production costs - our estimate is that plant gate prices were 57 cents per gallon lower than their
production costs in 2020. Consequently, even without the RFS program in place, we believe that the
market prices for ethanol compared to gasoline would still have supported blending ethanol as E10 into
gasoline. In commenting on the report and its underling analysis, two of the peer reviewers commented
that the presence of the RFS program may have affected market prices and therefore affected our
ability to reach the correct conclusions. After analyzing their comments, we believe that any bias caused
by the RFS program on market prices would most likely cause our analysis to be conservative, further
supporting our conclusions for all the years of our analysis. The one possible exception would be 2020.
Because of how distorted the fuels market had become in that year, it is difficult to conclude with
certainty how refiners would have reacted if the RFS program was not in place. However, as abnormal
as 2020 was for the fuels industry, their economics returned to something much more close to normal in
2021.
Historical Ethanol Production Profitability
In addition to assessing whether it was economical over time for refiners to blend ethanol into
gasoline, it is also important to understand whether it was economical for corn ethanol plants to
produce ethanol, and invest in additional ethanol production capacity. Ethanol production economics
were estimated by comparing year-by-year ethanol production costs for a typical sized corn ethanol
plant to ethanol spot prices. When spot prices are higher than production costs producers are making a
higher profit margin. High profit margins can be a signal of a supply shortfall which can entice producers
to expand their production capacity. Figure 3 provides a plot of both estimated ethanol production
costs and ethanol spot prices. Figure 3 also shows the existing corn ethanol plant capacity, and a total of
existing plant capacity and plant capacity construction, as documented by the Renewable Fuels
Association indicating the market's expectations of profitability in the future.
13
-------
Figure 3 Corn ethanol production cost versus ethanol spot price and ethanol plant capacity
3.0
00 2.5
D
u
ฃ 2.0
o
Q.
(/)
1.5
01
>
V,
o
(_>
c
o
1.0
0.5
0.0
16
14 c
o
12
10 s.
>-
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
-Estimated Production Cost
-Operating Ethanol Plant Capacity
Ethanol Spot Price
- Ethanol Plant Capacity Plus Capacity Under Construction
Figure 3 shows that for many years of the economic analysis, the ethanol spot price tracks the
estimated corn ethanol production cost. However, there were some important deviations, such as the
years 2005, 2006 and 2007. As stated above, this time period was associated the phase-out of MTBE
which caused a step increase in the demand for ethanol. This drove up ethanol spot prices relative to
the calculated production cost. At its peak in 2006, the profit margin for a typical corn ethanol plant
exceeded $1 per gallon and averaged about 70 c/gal from 2004 to 2006. The total ethanol blending
incentive to the fuels industry is the sum of ethanol's spot price above production cost and ethanol's
blending cost. For example, in 2005, ethanol's spot price was about 50 c/gal above its estimated
production cost, and ethanol's blending cost was about -20 c/gal - thus, the total ethanol blending
incentive to the fuels industry was about 70 c/gal. It should come as no surprise that a tripling of new
corn ethanol plant capacity occurred over this period. An average ethanol plant owner would have
earned $173 million in profit over those three years. A similar sized greenfield corn ethanol plant was
estimated to cost $114 million in 2006, thus, the payback period for a greenfield corn ethanol plant was
less than 2 years.
During this period the refining industry also had a significant incentive to blend more ethanol as
corn ethanol's marginal blending value was more than 20 c/gal less expensive than gasoline in 2005,
2007 and 2008. Refining net margins averaged about 7 c/gal over this period (EIA 2011), and ethanol's
blending value alone would have accounted for about one quarter of this profit. Given the low ethanol
blending cost and ethanol industry profitability, corn ethanol would likely have been blended up to the
blendwall in a similar timeframe regardless of the RFS standards.
14
-------
Other years of high profit margins for corn ethanol producers include 2010, 2011 and 2014.
However, in these years corn ethanol production capacity was already nearing the E10 blendwall, which
likely resulted in reduced investment in additional corn ethanol production facilities. Higher ethanol
blends (E85 and E15) can be used above the E10 blendwall, although they are generally less economical
than E10, and limited by the need for special retail equipment and vehicles that can use them.
Production expansion that did occur in these later years supported growth in export volumes. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the relative economics of higher ethanol blends or the export
market.
The years 2015 through 2020 was another interesting time period for corn ethanol producers.
This analysis suggested that a typical sized corn ethanol plant would not have had a profit margin in
2015 through 2017, and negative profit margins in 2018 and 2019 and even more negative profit
margins in 2020. Two different analyses of the profitability of corn ethanol plants showed a similar
profitability curve for corn ethanol plants (Irwin, 2019).16 The Farmdoc author concluded that the
reason for the lower corn ethanol plant margins in recent years has been the excess capacity and over
production of corn ethanol in the U.S (Irwin, 2019). This analysis does not attempt to assess the ethanol
supply-demand market for these more recent years. Thus, we cannot confirm or deny that author's
assessment, but it seems reasonable.
Future Ethanol Blending Economics
Using future projections for corn ethanol and gasoline wholesale prices, the future blending
economics of corn ethanol was assessed using the methodology described above. Both the Food and
Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) project
future ethanol plant gate spot prices and using them both is interesting because the two projections are
quite different, particularly in the early years (FAPRI 2022, EIA 2022). Since FAPRI only projects prices
out to 2026, this information was compiled through 2026 for both data sets. ElA's ethanol prices
increase from $1.45 to $1.72 per gallon from 2021 to 2026, respectively, while FAPRI's ethanol prices
start out higher at $2.43 per gallon and they decrease to $1.62 per gallon in 2026. Future gasoline
prices are estimated by Energy Information Administration's AEO 2022 for 2021 through 2026 and are
national average prices. The EIA projected national average gasoline price, after adjusting to nominal
dollars, start out at $2.25 decreasing down to $1.90 per gallon in 2023, and increasing to $2.20 per
gallon in 2026. For estimating future gasoline prices state-by-state and for each fuel type and season, all
the state-by-state gasoline prices in any one year were adjusted from the 2018 gasoline prices using a
value determined by the difference between the projected national average wholesale gasoline price in
that year compared to a national average wholesale gasoline price in the year 2018. This maintained
the state-by-state distribution of gasoline price estimates for each gasoline type in each season for the
analysis.
Based on projected corn ethanol and gasoline prices by FAPRI and EIA, Figure 4 summarizes the
projected corn ethanol blending costs at the blendwall for 2021 through 2026.
16 Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (AgMRC); Prices and Profitability Models - Ethanol Profitability; Iowa
State University; https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energv/prices-and-profitabilitv-models. downloaded September
2020.
15
-------
Figure 4 Projected ethanol-gasoline cost difference at the blendwall
&D
ts
o
o
CtD
C
T3
C
_0J
co
o
c
ro
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
a;
> -120
JS 2021
GJ
2022
2025
2023 2024
Year
ฆ Using FAPRI Projected Ethanol Prices Using EIA Projected Ethanol Prices
2026
Figure 4 shows that corn ethanol would continue to be economical to blend up to the E10 blendwall.
While still negative, ethanol's blending cost based on FAPRI's projected higher corn ethanol prices in
2021 approaches parity with gasoline.
Conclusions
After conducting this detailed, state-by-state, gasoline-specific analysis which factored in both
economic and market drivers the following conclusions can be drawn:
Economic and market factors alone were more than sufficient to drive the expansion of
corn ethanol plants and increased blending of corn ethanol as E10 since the mid-2000s.
Looking out into the future, the economic drivers are expected to remain sufficient to
result in the continued nationwide blending of corn ethanol as E10 without any added
incentive from the RFS program.
If corn prices are priced more like their historical average, this analysis reveals that
when crude oil prices decrease below about $40 per barrel, corn ethanol starts to
become uneconomical to blend into parts of the nationwide gasoline pool.
Even if crude oil were to decrease below $40 per barrel corn ethanol would remain
economical in much of the country, especially in states with subsidies or in places closer
to where it is produced in the Midwest.
16
-------
Even in those parts of the country where blending corn ethanol might be uneconomical,
logistical hurdles would be expected to cause corn ethanol to continue to be blended
into the gasoline pool despite a short-term period of poorer blending economics.
-------
References
Abbott, Philip C. and Christopher Hurt and Wallace E. Tyner. 2008. What's Driving Food Prices?, Farm
Foundation Issue Report.
Christiane J.S. Baumeister & Reinhard Ellwanger & Lutz Kilian. 2017. "Did the Renewable Fuel Standard Shift
Market Expectations of the Price of Ethanol?," NBER Working Papers 23752, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc..
Condon, Nicole, Heather Klemick and Ann Wolverton. 2015. "Impacts of ethanol policy on corn prices: A
review and meta-analysis of recent evidence," Food Policy 51: 63-73.
Duffield, James A. and Robert Johansson and Seth Meyer. 2015. US Ethanol: An Examination of Policy,
Production, Use, Distribution, and Market Interactions; Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, US Dept of
Agriculture.
Flugge, M.; Lewandrowski, J.; Rosenfeld, J.; Boland, C.; Hendrickson, T.; Jaglo, K.; Kolansky, S.; Moffroid, K.;
Riley-Gilbert, M.; and Pape, D. 2017. "A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based
Ethanol." Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. 1617. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/.
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI). 2022. U.S. Baseline Outlook, Projections for
Agricultural and Biofuels Markets, University of Missouri.
ICF Incorporated. 2018. Modeling a No-RFS Case, Work Assignment 0-11 & 1-11, EPA contract EP-C-16-020.
ICF Incorporated. 2019. Analysis of the Effects of Low-Biofuel Use on Gasoline Properties: An Addendum to
the ICF "No-RFS" Study, Work Assignment 2-11, EPA contract EP-C-16-020.
Irwin, Scott. 2019. How tough of a Year was 2018 for Ethanol Production Profits? Farmdoc Daily (9):26,
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2019/02/how-tough-of-a-year-was-2018-for-ethanol-production-
profits.html
Irwin, Scott. 2019. Why are Ethanol Prices so Low? Farmdoc Daily 9:(23) Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2019/02/why-are-ethanol-prices-so-low.html
Irwin, Scott. 2018. Weekly Output: Ethanol Plants Remain Barely Profitable, Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Lidderdale, Tancrid. 2003. Motor Gasoline Outlook and State MTBE Bans. Energy Information Administration.
Mueller, Steffen and Kwik, John. 2013. 2012 Corn Ethanol: Emerging Plant Energy and Environmental
Technologies. University of Illinois - Chicago Energy Resources Center. Available online:
http://www.erc.uic.edu/PDF/mueller/2012_corn_ethanol_draft4_10_2013.pdf
18
-------
Mueller, Steffan. 2016. Request for Correction of Information: Concerning the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Lifecycle Analysis of Ethanol and Gasoline Under the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Stecker, Tiffany. 2014. Biofuels Might Hold Back Progress Combatting Climate Change; ClimateWire;
scientificamerican.com.
Stock, James. 2015. The Renewable Fuel Standard: A Path Forward; Center of Global Energy Policy, School of
International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.
Taheripour, Farzad & Baumes, Harry S. & Tyner, Wallace E. 2022. "Economic Impacts of the U.S. Renewable
Fuel Standard: An ex-post evaluation." Frontiers in Energy Research.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2011. Performance Profiles of Major Energy Producers 2009;
DOE/EIA-0206(09).
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2011. Performance Profiles of Major Energy Producers 2009,
DOE/EIA-0206(09).
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. Annual Energy Outlook 2022, Table 12 Petroleum and
Other Liquids Prices.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Select Pathways,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/select-ghg-results-table-vl.pdf
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuels
Program, 40CFR Part 80, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to
Renewable Fuel Standard Program, 40CFR Part 80, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory
Impact Analysis, EPA-420-R-10-006.
US Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2019. Renewable Fuel Standard - Information on Likely Program
Effects on Gasoline Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, US
Senate.
Wallander, Steven, Roger Claassen, and Cynthia Nickerson. 2011. The Ethanol Decade: An Expansion of U.S.
Corn Production, 2000-09, EIB-79, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Wardle, Arthur. R.; A. 2018. Review of the Environmental Effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard's Corn
Ethanol Mandate. Policy Paper 2018.002, Center for Growth and Opportunity, Utah State University.
19
-------
Appendix 1 - Supporting Information
Appendix 1 contains supporting information for the technical report entitled "Economics of Blending 10 Percent Corn
Ethanol into Gasoline."
A.l. Ethanol Plant Gate Spot Price
The ethanol plant gate spot price represents the price corn ethanol producers charge when they sell their
ethanol. USDA collects monthly plant gate ethanol spot price data and reports this data in a report available to the
public.17 Unfortunately, there is no state-specific ethanol spot price data, so ethanol spot price data was gathered and
assumed to represent the average of all the corn ethanol plants which are mainly located in the Midwest. The monthly
data for each year was averaged together to develop annual average ethanol spot prices. Table A1 summarizes
ethanol's annual average plant gate spot prices as reported by USDA.
Table Al. Ethanol Plant Gate Spot Prices
Year
Ethanol Spot Price
($/gal)
2000
1.35
2001
1.48
2002
1.12
2003
1.35
2004
1.69
2005
1.80
2006
2.58
2007
2.24
2008
2.47
2009
1.79
2010
1.93
2011
2.70
2012
2.37
2013
2.47
2014
2.34
2015
1.61
2016
1.55
2017
1.45
2018
1.23
2019
1.26
2020
0.86
17 USDA Economic Research Service; US Bioenergy Statistics; Table 14 Fuel ethanol, corn and gasoline prices by month; July 2021.
20
-------
A.2. Ethanol Distribution Costs
Ethanol distribution costs are the operating costs and capital charges for infrastructure needed to move the
ethanol from the production facility to terminals. As part of an effort by ICF Incorporated under contract to EPA, ICF
estimated ethanol distribution costs.18 ICF estimated that the ethanol distribution costs are represented by the
difference in plant gate spot prices and the downstream ethanol spot prices that are available from the marketplace for
the years 2016 and 2017. For example, the spot price for ethanol was 23 cents per gallon higher in Los Angeles than the
plant gate spot prices reported by USDA which would represent the distribution cost for moving the ethanol from the
Midwest to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles price is at a unit train receiving terminal.
Once the ethanol is moved to a unit train or manifest train receiving terminal, there are many other terminals in
these areas which must also receive the ethanol. Ethanol must then be moved either by truck or, if further away, by
manifest rail, from the unit train receiving terminals to the other terminals. ICF estimated that, on average, that the
further distribution of ethanol from these unit train receiving terminals to the rest of the terminals would cost an
average of 11 cents per gallon. While the analysis conducted by ICF was by PADD, ICF provided some cost information
by certain states of the PADDs and this information was used to estimate the distribution costs to individual states.
Table A2 summarizes the distribution cost data summarized by the contractor.
Table A2. Contractor-Estimated Distribution Costs
Location
Distribution Cost to:
Total
Hub/Terminal (0/g)
Blending
Terminal
(0/g)
To
Chicago
From
Chicago
PADD
Area
(0/g)
($/b)
PADD 1
Florida/Tampa
17.8
11.0
35.8
15.0
Southeast/Atlanta
11.7
11.0
29.7
12.5
VA/DC/MD
9.7
11.0
27.7
11.6
Pittsburgh
6.2
11.0
24.2
10.2
New York
7.7
11.0
25.7
10.8
PADD 2
Chicago
7.0
0.0
11.0
18.0
7.6
Tennessee
9.7
11.0
27.7
11.6
PADD 3
Dallas
4.5
11.0
22.5
9.5
PADD 4
6.2
11.0
24.2
10.2
PADD 5
Los Angeles
16.4
9.0
32.4
13.6
Arizona
16.4
9.0
32.4
13.6
Nevada
12.4
9.0
28.4
11.9
Northwest
12.4
9.0
28.4
11.9
The distribution costs estimated by ICF was interpolated and extrapolated for this analysis to represent the
distribution costs to individual states. Based on peer review comments, we removed the 7 c/gal cost for moving the
ethanol to Chicago prior to loading the ethanol onto unit trains on the basis that most corn ethanol plants usually
initiate unit trains from their own production facilities. Table A3 summarizes the estimated average ethanol distribution
cost by groups of states which are estimated to have about the same corn ethanol distribution costs.
18 Modeling a No-RFS Case; ICF Incorporated; Work Assignment 0,1-11, EPA contract EP-C-16-020; July 17, 2018.
21
-------
Table A3. Average Ethanol Distribution Cost by State
Region
States
Average Ethanol
Distribution Cost (c/gal)
PADD 1
New York, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia
18.7
District of Columbia,
Connecticut, Delaware,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, Rhode Island,
Virginia
20.7
Georgia, South Carolina
Vermont, New Hampshire,
North Carolina
22.7
Florida, Maine
28.8
PADD 2
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, Ohio, South
Dakota, Wisconsin
11.0
Kentucky, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Tennessee
15.6
PADD 3
Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas
22.5
Alabama, New Mexico
20.7
PADD 4
Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Utah, Wyoming
17.2
PADD 5
Oregon, Washington
21.4
Arizona, California, Nevada
25.4
Alaska, Hawaii
51.0
In addition to the freight costs for moving the ethanol from the midwest to different states, it is necessary to
build out the infrastructure to make ethanol distribution possible. The infrastructure needs include rail cars, tank trucks,
and barges for moving the ethanol, rail and marine receipt facilities for water transport, and storage tanks and blending
equipment at terminals. The costs of these facilities were estimated for the 2010 RFS2 rulemaking.19 These costs, based
on 2007 dollars, were adjusted to 2017 dollars and amortized over the volume of gasoline modeled in the particular
scenario modeled for RFS2. The scenario modeled in the RFS2 rulemaking was increasing ethanol consumption from
7.05 billion gallons of ethanol in 2010 to 22.2 billion gallons of ethanol in 2022. The E85 retail costs included in that
analysis were omitted for this analysis. Table A4 summarizes the various infrastructure categories modeled, their
19 Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis; Table 4.2-3; EPA-420-R-10-006; February 2010
22
-------
estimated and adjusted costs, and the costs for amortizing the capital additions over the gasoline pool, which is 6.5
cents per gallon.20
Table A4. Capital Investments needed to Enable the Distribution of Ethanol
Distribution Infrastructure Type
2007$
2017$
Rail Cars
1279
1704
Barges
77
103
Tank Trucks
154
205
Storage Tanks at terminals
1243
1656
Blending equipment at terminals
1064
1418
Unit train Receipt Facilities
586
781
Manifest Rail Receipt Facilities
20
27
Marine Receipt Facilities
130
173
Import Receipt Facilities
53
71
Total
c/gal amortized over all gasoline at 10%
aftertax ROI
4606
6138
6.5
The ethanol distribution costs would be lower in previous years due to inflation and the different value of
capital. The Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index was used to adjust the investment costs in Table A4 and the CPI
Inflation Index was used to adjust the state-specific ethanol freight costs shown in Table A3.21 Table A5 summarizes the
cost factors used to adjust the ethanol distribution costs.
20 The infrastructure capital was amortized using a 10 percent after-tax return on investment which results in a 0.16 amortization factor
- 0.16 is multiplied times the total capital cost to develop an average, annual capital charge, which is then divided by the volume of
gasoline modeled to develop a per-gallon cost estimate.
21 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumers Price Index, https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
23
-------
Table A5. Cost Adjustment Indices
Year
Chemical
Engineering
Plant Cost Index
Bureau of Labor
Statistics CPI
Inflation Index
2000
394.1
0.7
2001
394.3
0.73
2002
395.6
0.73
2003
400.2
0.75
2004
444.2
0.77
2005
468.2
0.79
2006
499.6
0.83
2007
525.4
0.85
2008
575.4
0.89
2009
521.9
0.88
2010
550.8
0.89
2011
585.7
0.92
2012
584.6
0.94
2013
567.3
0.95
2014
576.1
0.97
2015
556.8
0.97
2016
541.7
0.98
2017
567.5
1
2018
603.1
1.03
2019
607.5
1.05
2020
596.2
1.05
The distribution capital costs are phased out over time as the ethanol distribution system is fully built out and
the capital costs are sunk. Both ethanol storage and blending facilities (storage tanks, blending equipment and ethanol
receipt facilities), and ethanol transportation equipment (rail cars, barges, tank trucks) are needed. Once the blendwall
was reached, which occurred in the 2010 to 2013 timeframe, additional ethanol blending and transportation equipment
were no longer needed. The effect on ethanol spot prices likely continued as the capital costs, which were being
amortized over the price of ethanol, were still being collected. This cost/price effect was assumed to disappear as the
capital costs are paid down - in this analysis they are assumed to phase out in 2015.22
A.3. Ethanol Blending and Replacement Value
Estimating Ethanol's Replacement Cost
Ethanol has physical properties which affect its value as a gasoline blendstock. Ethanol has a very high octane
which contributes to its blending value and a high blending Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), both relative to the gasoline pool
that it is blended into. Ethanol's blending octane is approximately 115 octane number (research plus motor octane
divided by 2). Ethanol's neat RVP is around 2 pounds per square inch, however, because of its nonideal blending
properties when blended with hydrocarbons, it has an equivalent RVP of roughly 19 pounds per square inch when
blending into gasoline at 10 volume percent.
22 The need for additional distribution system capital investments would have started in 2004 when MTBE started to phase out, and
wrap up starting in 2010 as nationwide E10 was realized, which would provide sufficient time by 2015 to pay down the distribution
system capital investments. Furthermore, several years were identified as high profit for the fuels industry for blending corn ethanol,
including distribution providers, which would have allowed ethanol distributors to rapidly pay down their capital investments.
24
-------
These properties vary somewhat and have a different cost impact depending on the gasoline into which it is
blended (match blend versus splash blend, RFG versus CG, winter versus summer, premium versus regular). These
physical properties are also valued differently from a refiner's perspective compared to that of the consumer. Refiners
can take advantage of ethanol's octane by lowering the octane of the gasoline that the ethanol is blended into, reducing
refining costs. Refiners account for ethanol's high blending RVP, if the gasoline they are producing does not receive the
1 psi waiver, by removing some volatile, low-cost gasoline blendstock material (usually butane) to accommodate the
ethanol.
Based on refinery modeling analyses conducted by ICF/Mathpro, it is possible to determine ethanol's value as a
gasoline blendstock in two different ways. In the first way, ethanol is valued simply based on its blending value as a
gasoline blendstock when it was already blended into gasoline. In this case, ethanol's value is estimated by marginal
values (also called shadow values) as determined by the refinery model.23 Using this approach, the estimated ethanol
blending value does not take into consideration what it would take to actually replace it in gasoline, since ethanol and
other high-octane gasoline blendstocks are all sharing gasoline's octane demand. There is thus sufficient volume and
capacity of these high-octane blendstocks and no added cost associated with making up for ethanol's volume and
octane. While this is one way to value ethanol's blending value, it does not capture ethanol's full blending value.
A second set of ethanol blending values was also estimated based on the cost of meeting all of the gasoline
standards and requirements by removing and replacing the ethanol from the conventional gasoline pool with high-
octane, petroleum-based replacements such as alkylate and reformate. Ethanol blending values determined in this
manner reflect not just the octane value and RVP cost for replacing ethanol, but includes paying for the refinery
modifications and their operating costs for replacing the ethanol. This further refinery modeling analysis by
ICF/Mathpro revealed that ethanol's replacement value is considerably higher than simply its blended octane value, RVP
cost, and volume extender value.24 Reflecting ethanol's full replacement value is important for understanding the
economics for using or replacing corn ethanol already blended into gasoline, and understanding how ethanol
consumption figures into the cost of the RFS program.
There are several reasons why ethanol's replacement cost differs from its blending value. A primary reason is
the capital costs associated with the refinery unit expansions or installations necessary to replace ethanol's volume and
octane. Ethanol has been used for decades in part of the conventional gasoline pool and then replaced MTBE in the
reformulated gasoline pool. Those refineries using MTBE, which was replaced by ethanol, designed their refineries
around the volume and octane provided by these two high-octane oxygenates. In more recent years, as the price of
crude oil increased, ethanol was blended more widely into the conventional gasoline pool. To be able to continue to
produce the same gasoline volume if refiners wanted to remove the ethanol, refiners would have to add refinery unit
capacity to produce the additional gasoline volume. But in addition to replacing ethanol's volume, the added refinery
units would also need to make up for the lost octane. However, none of the refinery-sourced volume and octane
replacements have nearly as much octane as ethanol. For example, alkylate, which is the most cost-effective octane
replacement, typically has an octane number in the low to mid-90s, compared to ethanol's much higher octane value of
about 115. Therefore, refineries would need to replace several times more of ethanol's volume with high-octane
gasoline replacements to make up for ethanol's octane, which then increases the needed refinery investments.
Due to the options available to refiners to replace ethanol's octane, ICF/Mathpro ran two ethanol replacement
cases. In the lower per-gallon cost case, the refinery model principally relied on increased alkylate production. But to
be able to replace all of ethanol's octane, the refinery model estimates that refiners would also increase the octane of
reformate (through increased reformer severity) and increase production of isomerate, even if the primary octane
replacement is alkylate. The refinery model estimates that for this alkylate-centric case over 7.6 millon barrels per day
of new refinery unit capacity would need to be added by refiners.
23 Modeling a No-RFS Case; ICF Incorporated; Work Assignment 0,1-11, EPA contract EP-C-16-020; July 17, 2018.
24ICF Incorporated. 2019. Analysis of the Effects of Low-Biofuel Use on Gasoline Properties: An Addendum to the ICF "No-RFS"
Study, Work Assignment 2-11, EPA contract EP-C-16-020.
25
-------
ICF/Mathpro modeled a second case. Instead of relying on large butane purchases for producing alkylate, the
model increased the throughput to, and turned up the severity of, existing reforming units to increase the octane of
reformate, the product stream of the reformer. This case still relied on other octane producing unit additions, including
alkylate and isomerate, but increased reformate volume and octane was the principal method. This second reformate-
centric refinery modeling case was less capital-intensive, but still added 3.7 million barrels per day of additional refinery
unit capacity and was more costly on a per-gallon basis. Increasing the severity of reformers is relatively more expensive
because of the cost associated with the production of two by-products of the reforming process which increase as the
severity of the reformer is increased. Hydrogen is a by-product of reforming, but reformer-produced hydrogen is much
more expensive than hydrogen produced from natural gas because natural gas has been priced much lower than crude
oil. Fuel gas is another reformer by-product which is usually used for refinery process heat, but displaces much cheaper
purchased natural gas. For short-term octane needs refiners would likely need to rely on increasing reformate severity
to avoid or minimize the amount of new refining unit capacity additions, but given the higher cost overall cost, this
would not be a preferable long-term solution.
Table A6 summarizes gasoline's marginal costs for the reference case, and ethanol's marginal costs for two
ethanol removal cases, for different gasoline types and refinery regions. For the two ethanol removal cases the refinery
modeling for both the reference case (all gasoline with ethanol) and the low biofuel cases (conventional gasoline
without ethanol), which replaced ethanol in the gasoline pool with refinery sourced alternatives, low biofuel #1 is the
reformate-centric case while biofuel #2 is the alkylate-centric case. The lower marginal values for PADD 1 can be
explained because Mathpro forced PADD 3 refineries to satisfy PADD l's need for replacing ethanol's volume and octane
through PADD's 3 exports into the PADD 1 after initial refinery model runs showed PADD l's marginal costs for replacing
ethanol were exceedingly high.
26
-------
Table A6. Gasoline Marginal Values for Reference Case and Ethanol Marginal Values for the No-Biofuel Cases
($/bbl)
PADD
of
Gasoline
Origin
Gasoline
Marginal
Values
Type | Grade [summeii Winter
Ethanol Marginal Values
Low-Biofuel #1
Summer j Winter
Low-Biofuel #2
Winter
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
PADD 4
PADD 5
RFG
Conv.
RFG
Conv.
RFG
Conv.
Conv.
I Low RVP|
RFG
Conv.
Prem I 95.74
Reg 91.45
Prem 92.68
Reg I 88.93
Prem I 88.09
Reg 84.80
Prem 85.55
Reg | 82.46
Prem I 85.42
Reg 81.86
Prem 83.64
Reg I 79.97
Prem | 79.76
Reg 77.37
Prem 81.78
Reg I 81.70
Prem I 96.89
Reg 91.61
Prem 77.63
Reg I 73.38
83.94
81.35
83.89
81.35
81.68
79.77
81.25
79.45
78.31
76.39
78.78
76.76
77.01
75.07
82.07
81.99
83.68
82.01
83.00
81.12
Average
121.69
134.67
133.95
146.78
135.49
149.05
136.55
150.10
37.68
62.46
118.14
126.14
135.00
89.77
94.48
89.91
94.55
103.12
110.01
99.00
The gasoline-ethanol difference in marginal values is calculated and summarized on a cents per gallon basis in
Table A7.
27
-------
Table A7. Marginal Ethanol Replacement Cost by Gasoline Type and Season (cents/gallon)
PADD
I Marginal Cost for Replacing Ethanol in the
of
Gasoline Pool (c/gal)
Gasoline
Gasoline
[ Reformate-centric
Alkylate-centric
Origin
__ ^
Grade
^Summer
Winter |
Summer
Winter
PADD 1
RFG |
Prem
j 30.07
40.35
Reg
j 58.41
58.62
Conv.
Prem
| 72.23
40.43
Reg
j 113.10
58.42
PADD 2
RFG
Prem
| 105.56
68.08
60.39
35.55
Reg
| 144.23
86.31
90.61
52.00
Conv.
Prem
| 151.27
69.44
98.08
35.73
Reg
| 187.51
86.52
126.41
51.15
PADD 3
RFG
Prem
j 86.35
39.08
78.77
27.29
Reg
| 125.74
52.52
117.69
43.07
Conv.
Prem
j 119.78
38.93
108.86
26.50
Reg
| 159.07
I
51.68
147.69
42.38
PADD 4
Conv.
Prem
\
\ 132.70
90.86
167.45
62.16
Reg
| 170.67
116.41
216.07
83.19
Low RVP
Prem
| 100.19
0.00
135.02
0.00
Reg
! 123.27
i
0.00
168.77
0.00
PADD 5
RFG
Prem
| -140.97
29.46
Reg
i -69.39
36.56
Conv.
Prem
| 96.44
35.73
Reg
I 125.61
39.43|
The regional ethanol replacement costs are volume-weighted together to develop national-average ethanol
replacement costs by gasoline grade and season. These costs are only presented for the conventional gasoline pool
since the ethanol was only replaced in the conventional portion of the gasoline pool. Table A8 summarizes these
estimated ethanol-replacement costs.
Table A8 National Average Ethanol Replacement Cost by Gasoline Grade and Season (c/gal)
| Reformate-centric
Alkylate-centric
iSummer (Winter
Summer iWinter
Conv.
Prem
I 124.58 50.79
112.041 32.65
Reg
I 165.11 66.83
144.23) 48.19
In the process of conducting this analysis, corn ethanol was found to typically be cost-effective for refiners to
blend it into gasoline. Thus, this analysis is most interested in scenarios when refiners would consider removing ethanol
from the gasoline pool. These situations occurred when crude oil prices dropped to low levels for short periods of time,
and for this reason, the low capital investment, reformate-centric ethanol replacement cost from Table A8 was used to
estimate ethanol replacement costs.
While the ethanol replacement cost was estimated through the removal of ethanol from the conventional
gasoline pool, these costs likely apply to the RFG pool as well since both gasoline pools must meet the same fuel
28
-------
standards, except that summertime RFG must also meet a stringent volatility standard.25 Thus, it was necessary to
estimate a volatility cost of summertime RFG to add onto the CG-estimated ethanol replacement costs, to enable
estimating the summertime RFG ethanol replacement cost. The ICF refinery modeling case provided an estimate of the
RFG volatility cost by comparing the ethanol marginal values for blending ethanol into RFG versus blending ethanol into
CG. Table A9 contains the refinery model estimated marginal values estimated for the year 2020 for ethanol for the
various Petroleum Administration Districts for Defense (PADDs) and gasoline types (the states included in each PADD are
shown in Table A3) based on Mathpro's refinery economic optimization model output.
Table A9 Marginal Ethanol Values for the Year 2020 (dollars per barrel)
PADD
Ethanol
of
Marginal
Gasoline
Gasoline
Values
Origin
Type
Grade
($/bbl)
PADD 1
RFG
Prem
100.11
Reg
104.70
Conv.
Prem
109.85
Reg
115.23
PADD 2
RFG
Prem
92.25
Reg
96.53
Conv.
Prem
101.84
Reg
105.85
PADD 3
RFG
Prem
88.72
Reg
93.66
Conv.
Prem
98.03
Reg
102.91
PADD 4
Conv.
Prem
93.81
Reg
97.67
Low RVP
Prem
94.47
Reg
98.33
PADD 5
RFG
Prem
44.83
Reg
45.29
Conv.
Prem
103.63
Reg
107.88
To estimate the volatility cost, ethanol's marginal values in Table A9 for RFG are subtracted from those for CG,
although the values are calculated separately for premium and regular grade gasolines. These calculated values are
summarized in Table A10. Although this analysis could have separately analyzed RVP-controlled conventional gasoline
without a waiver, it did not since its gasoline volume was less than 2% of the total gasoline pool.
25 Both RFG and CG must meet the same sulfur and benzene federal fuel standards, as well as ASTM fuel property consensus
standards. However, summertime RFG typically is 7.1 RVP after ethanol is blended into gasoline while conventional gasoline
typically is 10 RVP after ethanol is blended into gasoline and the 1 psi waiver is applied. When complying with the more stringent
summertime RFG volatility standard, refiners typically remove butanes, and in some cases they may need to remove some pentanes as
well.
29
-------
Table A10. Ethanol's RVP Blending Cost in Reformulated Gasoline in 2020 by PADD ($/gal)a
PADD
RFG-CG
of
Marginal
Gasoline
Gasoline
Values
Origin
Type
Grade
($/bbl)
PADD 1
RFG
Prem
9.74
Reg
10.53
Conv.
Prem
Reg
PADD 2
RFG
Prem
9.59
Reg
9.32
Conv.
Prem
Reg
PADD 3
RFG
Prem
9.31
Reg
9.25
Conv.
Prem
Reg
PADD 4
Conv.
Prem
Reg
Low RVP
Prem
Reg
PADD 5
RFG
Prem
58.79
Reg
62.59
Conv.
Prem
I Reg I
The ethanol RVP blending cost estimated by the refinery model are volume-weighted together to develop
national-average values, and ethanol's RVP blending costs are calculated separately for premium and regular grades of
summertime RFG and summarized in Table All. The PADD 5 RFG, which is California RFG, is modeled to have a volatility
cost which is five time higher than other RFG areas. The cost of complying with California RFG standards may be higher
than that for other RFG areas, but a factor of five seemed much too high and was considered an outlier.26 Therefore,
the modeled California RFG ethanol marginal costs, which should reflect ethanol's volatility cost, were omitted from this
analysis and the PADD 1-3 costs were volume-weighted together and used for all RFG areas, including California.
26 California's relies on ethanol blended at 10 volume percent for compliance with its Low Carbon Fuel Standard, thus, removing E10
ethanol from California gasoline is an unlikely possibility.
30
-------
Table All. Marginal Values and Calculated RVP Blending Costs by Fuel Grade ($/gallon)
Grade
c/gal
$/bbl
Agregagted
Cost
Prem
Reg
22.5! 9.46
22.8; 9.57
The impacts of the COVID pandemic on fuel markets presented a lower economic challenge for blending
ethanol. While the drop in crude oil prices to the low $40 per barrel range presented one challenge, the 12% drop in
gasoline demand presented a unique challenge which would be expected to impact ethanol's blending value. The large
drop in gasoline demand would likely provide refiners adequate refining capacity to cover ethanol's volume and octane
using existing refinery capacity and not require capital investments to enable replacing ethanol's octane and volume,
thus, using ethanol's replacement cost described above would not seem appropriate. Consequently, for 2020 a
different set of blending values were estimated for ethanol which accounted for ethanol's value while blended into the
gasoline pool, and therefore excludes replacing ethanol in the gasoline pool. These ethanol blending values are
estimated by subtracting ethanol's marginal value in Table A9 by gasoline's marginal values in S6, volume-weighting the
different PADDs by gasoline type. The resulting values are then adjusted to 2020 values using crude oil prices and
converted to cents per gallon, which results in the estimated values summarized in Table A12. These values are used,
along with the estimated RVP costs, in the blending cost equation, but solely for the year 2020.
A12 Ethanol's Estimated Blending Values for 2020
Summer
Winter
Aggregated CG
Cost (c/qal)
Prem
Reg
21.5
32.2
12.2
18.2
Adjusting Ethanol Replacement and RVP Costs
The ethanol replacement costs reported in Table A8 and ethanol's' RVP costs reported in Table All were
estimated from a refinery modeling study based on a certain set of assumptions which included modeling the year 2020
and assumed a crude oil price of $72/bbl. The economics for replacing ethanol, however, would be expected to vary
over time based on changing market factors such as the market value for RVP control costs, crude oil prices, and
particularly the market value for octane. For example, crude oil averaged about $43/bbl in 2016 and therefore was the
most challenging year for corn ethanol over the years analyzed. As explained in more detail below, ethanol
replacement costs were adjusted using both octane prices and crude oil prices to capture how the two varies in certain
years, while RVP costs were adjusted solely using crude oil prices.
Ethanol's most important property for its replacement is its octane value, therefore, ethanol's replacement cost
is likely to track octane value changes over time. To estimate ethanol's replacement cost in different years, the relative
cost of premium and regular grade gasolines, which have a known octane difference, were used to scale ethanol's
replacement cost in other years. Refinery bulk gasoline prices were used because they likely best reflect refinery
production costs of these fuels, and therefore best reflect refinery octane price differences between these fuels. Table
A13 summarizes the bulk regular and premium gasoline grade prices and shows the difference between these two
prices.
31
-------
Table A13. Regular and Premium Gasoline Grade Bulk Prices ($/gal)
Regular
Bulk
Price
Premium
Bulk
Price
Difference
2000
0.87
0.93
0.05
2001
0.79
0.83
0.04
2002
0.74
0.80
0.07
2003
0.89
0.96
0.07
2004
1.18
1.27
0.09
2005
1.57
1.70
0.13
2006
1.87
1.99
0.12
2007
2.07
2.21
0.14
2008
2.53
2.69
0.16
2009
1.67
1.82
0.15
2010
2.07
2.19
0.11
2011
2.76
2.87
0.11
2012
2.84
3.10
0.27
2013
2.75
3.01
0.26
2014
2.52
2.78
0.26
2015
1.60
1.85
0.24
2016
1.35
1.54
0.18
2017
1.62
1.83
0.20
2018
1.92
2.11
0.18
2019
1.71
1.97
0.26
2020
1.19
1.32
0.12
The difference in the bulk premium and regular grade gasoline prices is used to adjust ethanol's replacement
cost by a ratio of the price difference in a year relative to the price difference in 2018. The year 2018 was chosen as a
base year because the crude oil price in that year averaged nearly the same $72/bbl price that Mathpro used in its
refinery cost study. For example, the premium-regular price difference in 2004 is half the value in 2018, so ethanol's
replacement cost in 2004 is estimated to be half the value estimated by ICF/Mathpro.
Adjusting the ICF/Mathpro results based solely on octane, however, may not appropriately capture the impacts
of ethanol on volume. This is particularly a concern because in the key year in question for this analysis, 2016, the
premium-regular grade bulk price differential was the same as in 2018 despite crude oil prices averaging just $43/bbl
compared to $72/bbl in 2018. Normally the premium-regular grade bulk price differential would be expected to be
correlated with crude oil price, however, this was not the case in 2016. Yet one of the inputs into refineries as modeled
by the ICF/Mathpro refinery model for the ethanol removal case was crude oil. Therefore, as another means to adjust
the ethanol replacement values calculated from the ICF modeling over time, we proportioned them based on crude oil
prices relative to $72/bbl using the crude oil prices summarized in Tables A20 and A21.
Since ethanol's RVP costs were estimated separately from ethanol's replacement costs, it was also necessary to
estimate how to adjust ethanol's estimated RVP blending costs to other years. RVP costs are directly associated with
butane's price relative to gasoline because removing butane is the most likely strategy refiners use to adjust RVP to
accommodate the added ethanol. As crude oil prices increase, gasoline's price margin above butane prices increases,
and gasoline's price margin above butane decreases as crude oil prices decrease. Thus, the relative crude oil price for a
year being analyzed to the crude oil price in 2018 is used to estimate ethanol's RVP cost in that year. Again, Brent crude
oil spot prices are used for these adjustments.
While reformulated gasoline blended with ethanol was always match-blended, conventional gasoline was
initially splash-blended with ethanol and transitioned to match blending as infrastructure changed to accommodate it.
32
-------
Our understanding from conversations with industry is that the transition to CBOBs began in the mid-2000s by some
refineries at their co-located distribution terminals, but that the large-scale transition to CBOBs did not occur until the
pipeline systems transitioned to carrying CBOBs, which in turn varied by pipeline system across the country. For the
purposes of this analysis, we have made the simplifying assumption that the change-over occurred all at once in 2010.
By this time the vast majority of gasoline in the country contained ethanol. In addition, precision on this factor during
this time period may not be necessary as around 2010, the economics were so favorable for blending ethanol due to
high crude oil prices in most years that it would not make any difference to the conclusions of this study whether match-
blending for conventional gasoline started as soon as 2008 or as late as 2014. Blending ethanol would have been
economical even absent its blending value.
A.4. Federal and State Subsidies and Mandates
There were several ethanol blending subsidies which were in place over the period of this analysis. A 54 cent
per gallon federal subsidy was already in place at the beginning of the analysis period which continued through 2010,
although the value decreased to 51 cents per gallon in 2005 and decreased again to 45 cents per gallon in 2009 until it
expired at the end of 2011.27 Iowa, Illinois and Oklahoma all provided ethanol blending subsidies which applied in those
respective states.28 California established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in 2009.29 The LCFS established E10
California Reformulated Gasoline as its baseline. From 2010 to 2020, the LCFS required increasing reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions from California's fuels which provided additional incentive for using corn ethanol as reflected
in the increasing credit price over this time period.30 31 32 Table A14 summarizes the federal and state subsidies which
applied during the analysis period.
Table A14. Federal and State Ethanol Blending Subsidies
Years
Amount (c/gal)
Federal Subsidy
2000 - 2004
54
2005 - 2008
51
2009 - 2010
45
State Subsidies
Iowa
2002 to Present
29.5
Illinois
2003 to Present
25.5
Oklahoma
2006 to Present
1.6
California
2011 to Present
LCFS
State Mandates
Florida
2011 to 2013
-
Hawaii
2007 to 2015
-
Minnesota
2000 to Present
-
Missouri
2008 to Present
-
Oregon
2007 to Present
-
Table A15 provides the estimated LCFS subsidy effect based on the average LCFS credit value for each year,
assuming that all corn ethanol achieves a carbon intensity (CI) score of 72.9 grams of carbon dioxide per mega joule of
27 Duffield, James A et as.; US Ethanol: An Examination of Policy, Production, Use, Distribution, and Market Interactions; US Dept
of Agriculture; September 2015.
28 States' Biofuels Statutory Citations; The National Agricultural Law Center; https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-
compilations/biofuels/
29 California Air Resources Board; Low Carbon Fuel Standard; httos ://ww2.arb.ca. gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-
standard/about.
30 Monthly LCFS Credit Trading Activity Report for January 2014;
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/credit/lrtmonthlvcreditreports.htm.
31 Monthly LCFS Credit Trading Activity Report for January 2017;
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/credit/lrtmonthlvcreditreports.htm.
32 Monthly LCFS Credit Trading Activity Report for January 2019;
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/credit/lrtmonthlvcreditreports.htm.
33
-------
ethanol, and petroleum gasoline achieves a CI score in the mid-90s.33 34 For projecting the future blending economics of
corn ethanol, the LCFS corn ethanol credit is assumed to remain the same as that in 2019.
Table A15. Corn Ethanol's LCFS Credit
EthanolCI Score
Gasoline CI Score
Average LCFS
LCFS Credit
(gC02/MJ)
(gC02/MJ)
Credit ($/ton)
($/gal)
2012
72.9
95.4
14
0.03
2013
72.9
98.0
56
0.11
2014
72.9
98.0
28
0.06
2015
72.9
98.0
51
0.10
2016
72.9
96.5
100
0.19
2017
72.9
95.0
89
0.16
2018
72.9
93.6
168
0.28
2019
72.9
93.2
197
0.33
2020+
0.33*
* Projected LCFS credit value for 2020 and later years.
There were also a number of state ethanol production subsidies which applied during the analysis period. It
seems that Hawaii, Maine, South Dakota and Kansas all offered production subsidies. Also, two other states,
Pennsylvania and Montana also offered production subsidies only if certain ethanol production thresholds were met,
but it was unlikely that this occurred. Since this analysis concerned whether the corn ethanol was economical to use,
the spot price, the downstream distribution costs and the blending subsides were the most important factors in
assessing the economics of using corn ethanol. The marginal corn ethanol producer usually sets the spot price. While
impacting where the ethanol was produced, these production subsidies likely did not have a significant effect on
ethanol's pricing.
Certain states mandate the use of ethanol in the gasoline sold in their state.35 If a state mandated the use of
corn ethanol blended at 10 volume percent, the analysis assumed that the gasoline in that state was E10 regardless of
the blending economics. Federal and California RFG programs which started in the mid-1990s mandated the use of
oxygenates. Table A16 lists RFG areas, which are mainly metropolitan statistical areas or parts of states which had a
chronic pollution problem. During the early years, some of the RFG areas satisfied their oxygenate requirement with the
use of ethanol (mainly Chicago and Milwaukee), however, most RFG areas initially relied upon the use of methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE). Due to the reports that MTBE was contaminating groundwater in areas where it was used, states
began to ban the use of MTBE and then in 2005, the federal government rescinded the oxygenate requirement and
combined with some other factors (section A7 contains more discussion about MTBE bans), caused refiners to stop using
MTBE in the U.S. gasoline altogether. Although refiners were no longer required to use oxygenate in RFG, because their
gasoline production included the octane and volume of oxygenates and they continued to need to meet the applicable
emission standards for RFG, they needed to substitute the MTBE with a similar replacement. Ethanol was the next best
and available replacement to MTBE. Refiners had a choice between blending 5.7 volume percent (vol%) ethanol and 10
vol% ethanol. Due to improving economics for blending in subsidized ethanol, and likely because 10 vol% ethanol nearly
completely replaced MTBE which comprised 11 vol% of the gasoline pool, these factors likely led refiners to choose to
blend ethanol at 10 vol%. The one exception was California which blended in ethanol at 5.7 vol% until their Predictive
Model was modified in 2008 to allow for blending ethanol at 10 vol%. California, Connecticut and New York banned the
33 Fuel Pathway Table; LCFS Pathway Certified Carbon Intensities; California Air Resources Board;
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-pathwav-certified-carbon-intensities: downloaded September 2020.
34 Weekly LCFS Credit Transfer Activity Reports; California Air Resources Board;
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/credit/lrtweeklvcreditreports.htm: downloaded September 2020.
35 States' Biofuels Statutory Citations; The National Agricultural Law Center; https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-
compilations/biofuels/
34
-------
use of MTBE earlier than other states and were assumed to switch over to ethanol starting in 2004. The rest of the RFG
areas which were still using MTBE were assumed to switch over to using ethanol in place of MTBE in 2006.
Oxygenated Fuel (oxyfuel) areas were required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to contain 2.7%
oxygen during the wintertime to reduce the emissions of carbon monoxide from light-duty vehicles. Some of these
areas used MTBE, while others used ethanol as the oxygenate. Three of the oxyfuels areas, Los Angeles, Phoenix and
Tuscon were also covered by RFG program which already required 2.0 wt% oxygen. The non-RFG oxyfuels areas
comprised about 5% of the U.S. population, however, since these areas were only required to use oxygenates during the
winter, their impact on overall oxygenate use was more limited. Most of these areas, after having come into compliance
with the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide, and in the wake of MTBE groundwater concerns,
also rescinded their mandates before and during the first few years of the RFS program. Due to their small volume and
variability, this analysis did not try to reflect potential impacts on ethanol demand of the oxyfuel area mandates.
35
-------
Table A16. RFG Programs and Oxyfuel Areas
Years
Federal and California
Phoenix, Arizona (opted into CA RFG)
Oxygenate mandate in place
Reformulated Gasoline
Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and San
Juaquin Valley - California
1995 to 2005a
Connecticut (entire state)
Sussex - Delaware (entire state)
Washington D.C. - D.C. & Maryland & Virginia
Atlanta - Georgia
Chicago - Indiana & Illinois
Covington and Louisville - Kentucky
Baton Rouge - Louisiana
Baltimore - Maryland
Kent/Queen Anne's - Maryland
Springfield, Boston - Massachusetts (entire state)
& New Hampshire
St. Louis - Missouri
Warren County, Atlantic City - New Jersey (entire
State)
Essex, Long Island - New York & Connecticut &
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Philadelphia - Pennsylvania & Delaware &
Maryland & New Jersey
Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth - Texas
Norfolk, Richmond - Virginia
Milwaukee - Wisconsin
Federal Oxyfuel Areas
Anchorage-Alaska (Ended in 2004)
Wintertime only for these
Phoenix and Tucson - Arizona e
urban areas
Los Angeles - California e
Denver/Boulder, Longmontand Fort Collins-
Colorado (ended in 2007, 2007 and 2003)
Missoula - Montana
Las Vegas and Reno - Nevada (Las Vegas ended in
2010)
Albuquerque - New Mexico
Portland - Oregon (ended in 2007)
El Paso - Texas
Ogden & Provo/Orem - Utah (ended in 2001 and
2005)
Spokane - Washington (ended in 2005)
a The Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) program included an oxygenate mandate, which was met using ethanol in the RFG areas located in the
Midwest - Chicago and Milwaukee, while other RFG areas relied on the use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). As state MTBE bans took effect,
RFG areas in those states switched to ethanol. Finally, when Congress rescinded the Federal RFG oxygenate requirement in combination with other
factors, the remaining RFG areas switched over to ethanol.
b Minnesota put in place a statewide oxygenate requirement in 1997 that lasted until 2002. In 2003, the oxygenate requirement was changed to a
10 volume percent ethanol requirement, and then changed again in 2013 to a 10 volume percent conventional biofuel requirement.
c The State of Washington requires that its state's gasoline contain 2 volume percent ethanol, which resulted in at least 20% of the gasoline
containing 10 volume percent ethanol.
d The State of California put into place the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in 2007, which did not require the use of ethanol, per se, but since the LCFS
compliance costs are lower with corn ethanol than other renewable fuels, the LCFS acted like a mandate for corn ethanol. Up until 2008,
California's Predictive Model only allowed up to 5.7 volume percent ethanol. The Predictive Model was changed to permit 10 volume percent
ethanol in 2008.
36
-------
e CA and Phoenix, AZ were also covered by RFG program oxygenate mandate.
A.5. Corn Ethanol Production Costs
Corn ethanol plant demand (i.e., feedstock, utilities) and production output information was obtained for two
different years, 2006 and 2016. This allowed us to model how corn ethanol plant economics have changed over time by
interpolating and extrapolating the plant economics to other years.
For the 2016 corn ethanol plant, the operating costs and plant yields were based on a 2012 survey of corn
ethanol plants.36 Capital costs are based on a review of corn ethanol construction costs for a 100 million gallon per year
corn ethanol plant in 2016. For this analysis the capital costs were scaled to the US average sized corn ethanol plant
with a nameplate capacity of 85 million gallons per year assumed to operate at 90% of nameplate capacity, therefore
producing 76 million gallons of ethanol per year.37 Since the capital cost is based on the total construction cost of
already constructed corn ethanol plants, no contingency cost factors are applied to the capital costs. The capital costs
are amortized based on an after-tax 10% return on investment. For a year 2006 corn ethanol plant, we used cost
information from USDA which was the basis for the cost analysis used for the 2010 RFS2 rulemaking.38 It is worth noting
that the USDA information shows no corn oil extraction for dry mill corn ethanol plants, as this was a development
which occurred after 2006. Corn ethanol plants produce a byproduct primarily used for animal feed termed distillers
dried grains with solubles (DDGS). The DDGS prices are from Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)
associated with the University of Missouri.39 Corn prices are farm gate prices and a transportation spreadsheet was
used to estimate a cost of 6 cents per bushel to transport the corn to a corn ethanol plant.40 Of the corn ethanol plants
in the 2012 survey, 74% were separating and selling corn oil so selling corn oil was assumed for 70 percent of the plant
capacity.
Table A17 contains the plant demand and outputs and capital costs for the 2006 and 2016 year corn ethanol
plants based on the historical cost information for the various inputs and outputs.
36 Mueller, Steffen; 2012 Corn Ethanol: Emerging Plant Energy and Environmental Technologies; April 29, 2013.
37 Irwin, Scott; Weekly Output: Ethanol Plants Remain Barely Profitable; 3/16/2018.
38 Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis; EPA-420-R-10-006; February 2010; EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0161-2726.
39 U.S Baseline Outlook - Projections for Agricultural and Biofuels Markets; Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute
(FAPRI); March 2018.
40 Edwards, William; Grain Truck Transportation Cost Calculator (a3-29graintransportation.xlsx version 1.4 82017); Iowa State
University.
37
-------
Table A17. 2006 and 2016 Corn Ethanol Plant Demands, Production Levels and Capital Costs
2006
2016
Ethanol Yield
2.77 Gal/Bu
2.82 Gal/Bu
DDG Yield
18.4 Lbs/Bu
15.7 Lbs/Bu
Corn Oil Yield
0 Lbs/Bu
0.53 Lbs/Bu
Thermal
Demand
34,200 BTU/Gal
23,800 BTU/Gal
Electricity
Demand
0.90 KWh/Gal
0.75 KWh/Gal
Water Use
2.7 Gal/Gal
2.7 Gal/Gal
Labor Cost
0.06 $/Gal
0.07 $/Gal
Capital Cost
(100 MM
Gals/Yr)
1.50 $/Gal Plant Cap.
2.11 $/Gal Plant
Cap.
Capital Cost (76
MM Gals/Yr)
2.34 $/Gal Plant
Cap.
Annual Fixed
Cost
5.5% of Total Cap
Cost
5.5% of Total Cap
Cost
Denaturant
5 volume percent
2 volume percent
To estimate the year-by-year corn ethanol production costs, the corn, corn oil, DDGS prices and utility prices
were obtained for each year from 2000 to 20 20.41 42 43 44 45 These are summarized in Table A18.
41 United States Industrial Natural Gas Prices; Energy Information Administration.
42 United States Industrial Electricity Prices, Energy Information Administration.
43 USDA Economic Research Service; US Bioenergy Statistics; Table 14 Fuel ethanol, corn and gasoline prices by month; December
2019.
44 USDA Economic Research Service; Feed Grains Database: Custom Query Results; DDGS; https://data.ers.usda.gov/FEED-
GRAINS-custom-querv. aspx#ResultsPanel
45 USDA Economic Research Service; Oil Crops - all Tables; Table 32; https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-
vearbook.aspx; Inedible distillers corn oil price used for 2013 - 2018, and the average of the ratio of inedible to edible corn oil price is
applied to edible corn oil prices for the years prior to 2013.
38
-------
Table A18. Corn, DDGS, Corn Oil, Electricity and Natural Gas Prices for the Years 2000 to 2020
Year
Natural
Electricity
Corn
DDGS
Inedible
Gas
(c/kwhr)
Prices
Prices
Corn Oil
($/KFt3)
($/bushel)
($/dry
Prices
ton)
(c/lb)
2000
4.45
4.64
1.92
89
14.7
2001
5.24
5.05
1.95
82
11.1
2002
4.04
4.88
2.19
89
15.7
2003
5.89
5.11
2.33
108
23.2
2004
6.53
5.25
2.53
69
23.4
2005
8.56
5.73
2.02
79
22.9
2006
7.87
6.16
2.34
115
20.7
2007
7.68
6.39
3.45
159
26.2
2008
9.65
6.96
4.84
122
57.1
2009
5.33
6.83
3.81
117
26.9
2010
5.49
6.77
3.89
195
32.3
2011
5.13
6.82
6.07
229
50.0
2012
3.88
6.67
6.73
251
46.2
2013
4.64
6.89
6.19
196
36.8
2014
5.62
7.10
4.17
155
31.6
2015
3.93
6.91
3.76
136
26.8
2016
3.51
6.76
3.54
105
26.2
2017
4.08
6.88
3.36
150
28.1
2018
4.21
6.92
3.47
146
36.8
2019
3.90
6.91
3.50
138
24.7
2020
3.32
6.66
3.50
169
28.5
Other factors were used to estimate the year-by-year corn ethanol production costs. The capital costs were
adjusted using the Chemical Engineering Cost Index. Once the 2016 capital costs were adjusted back to year 2006
capital costs, there was still a cost difference with the capital costs for the 2006 plant costs. One difference is that the
2006 capital costs were for a plant producing 40 million gallons of ethanol per year plant, versus a plant producing 76
million gallons of ethanol per year for 2016. In addition, most dry mill corn ethanol plants added corn oil extraction
after 2006 to further improve the economics of their plants which would add to the capital costs for the facilities. The
natural gas consumption is much lower and electricity consumption is somewhat lower for the more recent corn ethanol
plant which suggests that energy efficiency improvements were made to corn ethanol plants over time. The additional
difference in capital costs beyond the Chemical Engineering Cost Index adjustment is summarized in Table A19. The
capital adjustments to account for corn oil extraction are made between 2016 and 2006, and then are assumed to be
flat prior to 2006. The amount of ethanol produced per bushel of corn increased between 2006 and 2016, and this
difference is interpolated and extrapolated to all years. Natural gas and electricity demand varied between 2006 and
2016 and was interpolated and extrapolated to all years. Table A19 summarizes these year-by-year inputs.
39
-------
Table A19. Year-by-Year Capital Cost Adjustments, Utility Demands and Ethanol Production
Chemical
Engineering
Cost Index
Other
Capital
Cost
Adjustment
Ethanol
Production
from Corn
(gal/bushel)
Fraction
of Corn
Ethanol
Plants
Extracting
Corn Oil
Natural
Gas
Demand
Electricity
Demand
(Kwhr/gal)
2000
394.1
0.8
2.74
0
40338
0.99
2001
394.3
0.8
2.75
0
39311
0.98
2002
395.6
0.8
2.75
0
38284
0.96
2003
400.2
0.8
2.75
0
37258
0.95
2004
444.2
0.8
2.76
0
36229
0.93
2005
468.2
0.8
2.76
0
35201
0.92
2006
499.6
0.8
2.77
0
34174
0.90
2007
525.4
0.82
2.78
6
33147
0.89
2008
575.4
0.84
2.79
12
32119
0.87
2009
521.9
0.85
2.78
19
31092
0.86
2010
550.8
0.87
2.79
25
30064
0.84
2011
585.7
0.89
2.79
31
29037
0.83
2012
584.6
0.90
2.79
37
28010
0.81
2013
567.3
0.92
2.80
43
26982
0.80
2014
576.1
0.93
2.80
49
25955
0.78
2015
556.8
0.95
2.81
56
24927
0.77
2016
541.7
0.97
2.81
62
23900
0.75
2017
567.5
0.98
2.82
68
22873
0.73
2018
603.1
1.0
2.82
74
21845
0.72
2019
607.5
1.0
2.82
0.80
21845
0.72
2020
596.2
1.0
2.83
0.86
21845
0.72
Finally, this production cost analysis did not consider any state/local facility grants, tax breaks, nor subsidized
loans which would effectively reduce the production costs for producing corn ethanol. Thus, this corn ethanol plant
production cost analysis may not exactly represent the typical or average production costs of corn ethanol plants, but
the intent of this analysis is to benchmark production costs versus ethanol spot prices to assess the likely profitability of
ethanol production over the time frame of this analysis.
The comparison of corn ethanol production cost to corn ethanol price provides an estimate of corn ethanol
plant profit for a typical sized corn ethanol plant. The estimated corn ethanol plant profit margin is shown in Table A20
by subtracting corn ethanol plant gate prices from the estimated production cost. The table also shows the existing corn
ethanol plant capacity and the announced increases in corn ethanol plant capacity and totals the two together to
highlight the planned total production capacity once the capacity expansions are realized. The table then compares the
current and planned total corn ethanol capacity with the RFS standards which applied in each year. Because there was
such large profit margins and corn ethanol plant capacity was increasing much faster than the RFS program volume
requirements, this comparison supports our conclusion that economics, rather than the RFS program requirements, was
the primary driver for increasing corn ethanol plant capacity. This information is represented in Figures 2 and 3 in the
report.
40
-------
Figure A20 Corn Ethanol Plant Capacity, Profit and RFS Standards
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Ethanol Marginal
Blending Cost
-4
1
-23
21
-31
-37
-13
-36
-29
-18
Corn Ethanol
Plant Profit
Margin
0.25
0.37
0.57
1.33
0.73
0.27
0.12
0.41
0.50
0.03
Plant Capacity
3.1
3.6
4.3
5.5
7.9
12.4
13.0
14.1
14.9
14.9
Announced New
Plant Capacity
0.6
0.8
2.0
6.1
5.5
2.1
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.1
Actual Plant
Capacity plus
Announced Plant
Capacity
3.7
4.4
6.3
11.6
13.4
14.5
14.5
14.6
15.0
15.0
US Ethanol
Consumption
2.8
3.6
4.1
5.5
6.9
9.7
11.0
12.9
13.2
13.4
RFS1 Standard
-
-
-
4.0
4.7
5.4
6.1
6.8
7.4
7.5
EISA/RFS2
Standard
9
10.5
12
12.6
13.2
Ethanol
Consumption
above RFS Std.
1.5
2.2
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.2
Existing Ethanol
Plant Capacity
above RFS Std.
1.5
3.2
4
4
2.6
2.3
1.7
Existing and
Announced Plant
Capacity above
RFS Std.
7.6
8.7
5.5
4.0
2.6
2.4
1.6
A.6. Gasoline Prices and Volumes
Gasoline prices at terminals were obtained from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Their gasoline
"Sales for Resale" category of gasoline prices best represents the sales prices of gasoline from terminals.46 The Sales for
Resale gasoline price data for both regular and premium gasoline types was downloaded from ElA's website for each
state and for each year from 2000 to 2020. Some of the data is withheld (shown in greyscale in the table) so it was
46 Energy Information Administration; Refiner Gasoline Prices by Grade and Sales Type;
https: //www. eia. gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_refmg_dcu_nus_a. htm.
41
-------
necessary to estimate the prices for those situations. In some cases, the gasoline prices for an adjacent state was used
for the missing data, and for other cases the spot price of Brent crude oil, shown at the top of the regular grade prices
tables, was used to estimate the gasoline prices for that state from a previous or following year.47 Tables A21 through
A24 summarize the gasoline pricing data and the estimated gasoline prices for the withheld data.
47 Energy Information Administration; Spot Prices; https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_sl_a.htm
42
-------
Table A21. State-by-State Regular Grade Sales for Resale Gasoline Prices for years 2000 to 2009 ($/gal)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Brent ($/bbl)
28.66
24.46
24.99
28.85
38.26
54.57
65.16
72.44
96.94
61.74
Alaska
1.10
1.09
1.03
1.22
1.50
1.86
2.17
2.31
3.20
2.46
Alabama
0.88
0.78
0.75
0.92
1.22
1.62
1.90
2.11
2.57
1.71
Arkansas
0.89
0.83
0.78
0.94
1.22
1.62
1.90
2.14
2.53
1.71
Arizona
1.01
0.95
0.87
1.15
1.43
1.81
2.06
2.21
2.66
1.80
California
1.06
1.00
0.91
1.17
1.48
1.79
2.10
2.31
2.68
1.92
Colorado
0.95
0.91
0.83
0.98
1.27
1.70
1.99
2.21
2.58
1.71
Connecticut
0.99
0.88
0.83
1.02
1.33
1.66
1.99
2.18
2.54
1.76
DC
0.96
0.87
0.82
0.98
1.27
1.68
1.99
2.16
2.59
1.74
Delaware
0.97
0.86
0.80
0.98
1.26
1.66
1.99
2.13
2.48
1.75
Florida
0.90
0.80
0.78
0.94
1.24
1.64
1.92
2.12
2.59
1.76
Georgia
0.89
0.80
0.77
0.94
1.25
1.66
1.92
2.14
2.56
1.73
Hawaii
1.16
1.17
1.01
1.21
1.42
1.78
2.19
2.38
2.91
2.01
Iowa
0.93
0.88
0.82
0.98
1.25
1.65
1.98
2.22
2.55
1.72
Idaho
1.01
0.92
0.85
1.03
1.33
1.70
2.00
2.22
2.69
1.76
Illinois
0.97
0.92
0.84
1.00
1.27
1.65
1.96
2.19
2.56
1.75
Indiana
0.94
0.88
0.81
0.97
1.26
1.64
1.93
2.17
2.56
1.75
Kansas
0.91
0.86
0.80
0.95
1.22
1.62
1.91
2.19
2.46
1.70
Kentucky
0.94
0.86
0.81
0.97
1.27
1.68
1.95
2.18
2.61
1.79
Louisiana
0.87
0.77
0.74
0.89
1.19
1.56
1.88
2.08
2.50
1.67
Massachusetts
1.02
0.91
0.85
1.03
1.29
1.68
2.00
2.16
2.56
1.77
Maryland
0.99
0.90
0.84
1.00
1.28
1.70
2.02
2.17
2.60
1.74
Maine
0.94
0.79
0.79
0.95
1.25
1.62
1.92
2.15
2.61
1.75
Michigan
0.96
0.89
0.82
0.99
1.26
1.64
1.91
2.18
2.55
1.75
Minnesota
0.97
0.93
0.86
1.01
1.28
1.64
1.96
2.22
2.53
1.72
Missouri
0.94
0.88
0.82
0.98
1.27
1.67
1.96
2.17
2.59
1.72
Mississippi
0.86
0.77
0.76
0.91
1.21
1.60
1.89
2.08
2.53
1.71
Montana
0.99
0.94
0.85
1.01
1.29
1.68
1.95
2.22
2.59
1.75
North Carolina
0.88
0.79
0.77
0.92
1.23
1.63
1.90
2.11
2.55
1.71
North Dakota
0.95
0.90
0.83
0.99
1.26
1.65
1.96
2.24
2.55
1.74
Nebraska
0.93
0.88
0.81
0.97
1.24
1.64
1.96
2.22
2.49
1.71
New
0.98
0.87
0.83
1.00
1.27
1.66
1.98
2.14
2.55
1.62
New Jersey
0.96
0.85
0.80
0.97
1.25
1.61
1.90
2.11
2.51
1.71
New Mexico
0.95
0.87
0.82
0.99
1.27
1.73
2.03
2.25
2.66
1.82
Nevada
1.08
0.94
0.83
1.12
1.44
1.79
2.08
2.25
2.66
1.81
New York
0.97
0.88
0.84
1.01
1.31
1.66
1.96
2.16
2.58
1.77
Ohio
0.94
0.87
0.81
0.97
1.25
1.63
1.90
2.17
2.58
1.75
Oklahoma
0.88
0.83
0.77
0.91
1.19
1.61
1.87
2.18
2.55
1.69
Oregon
1.02
0.91
0.83
1.04
1.33
1.70
2.03
2.26
2.64
1.84
Pennsylvania
0.93
0.82
0.78
0.97
1.25
1.62
1.91
2.12
2.55
1.73
Rhode Island
0.99
0.89
0.83
1.00
1.27
1.66
1.99
2.16
2.51
1.76
South Carolina
0.88
0.79
0.77
0.92
1.24
1.65
1.91
2.11
2.56
1.71
South Dakota
0.94
0.89
0.83
0.99
1.26
1.66
1.96
2.23
2.53
1.73
Tennessee
0.88
0.81
0.77
0.93
1.23
1.64
1.90
2.11
2.53
1.71
Texas
0.87
0.79
0.75
0.90
1.19
1.59
1.91
2.09
2.53
1.68
Utah
0.99
0.91
0.84
1.03
1.29
1.64
1.96
2.19
2.59
1.70
Virginia
0.94
0.85
0.80
0.96
1.25
1.66
1.96
2.14
2.57
1.74
Vermont
0.96
0.82
0.80
0.98
1.27
1.64
1.92
2.14
2.56
1.63
Washington
1.03
0.93
0.83
1.03
1.32
1.72
2.03
2.23
2.61
1.83
Wisconsin
0.94
0.90
0.83
1.00
1.26
1.66
1.97
2.19
2.55
1.75
West Virginia
0.91
0.79
0.79
0.95
1.25
1.63
1.90
2.14
2.56
1.73
Wyoming
0.98
0.93
0.85
1.00
1.29
1.72
2.00
2.23
2.61
1.70
43
-------
Table A22. State-by-State Regular Grade Sales for Resale Gasoline Prices for years 2010 to 2020
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Brent ($/bbl)
80
111
112
109
99
52
44
54
71
63
41
Alaska
2.82
3.94
3.95
3.28
3.20
2.24
1.87
2.31
2.52
2.90
2.88
Alabama
2.11
2.82
2.83
2.71
2.52
1.58
1.35
1.56
1.83
1.68
1.19
Arkansas
2.11
2.81
2.84
2.72
2.53
1.61
1.36
1.58
1.87
1.70
1.19
Arizona
2.20
2.85
2.98
2.82
2.62
1.74
1.45
1.69
2.06
2.00
1.45
California
2.26
2.94
3.07
2.93
2.73
2.10
1.67
1.93
2.30
2.37
1.77
Colorado
2.12
2.81
2.86
2.77
2.60
1.65
1.40
1.67
1.96
1.85
1.33
Connecticut
2.16
2.89
2.98
2.87
2.66
1.66
1.42
1.64
1.93
1.77
1.30
DC
2.15
2.86
2.91
2.79
2.58
1.62
1.38
1.61
1.88
2.26
2.24
Delaware
2.12
2.84
2.94
2.84
2.62
1.66
1.40
1.62
1.91
1.74
1.25
Florida
2.14
2.84
2.88
2.77
2.58
1.64
1.39
1.63
1.88
1.72
1.26
Georgia
2.13
2.83
2.86
2.74
2.57
1.61
1.36
1.57
1.84
1.69
1.20
Hawaii
2.47
3.45
3.46
3.08
2.97
1.84
1.54
1.91
2.38
2.76
2.74
Iowa
2.16
2.90
2.91
2.74
2.53
1.63
1.35
1.61
1.89
1.73
1.18
Idaho
2.28
2.84
2.86
2.78
2.65
1.80
1.49
1.76
2.13
1.92
1.43
Illinois
2.14
2.85
2.91
2.81
2.60
1.67
1.40
1.63
1.88
1.75
1.19
Indiana
2.11
2.83
2.88
2.78
2.57
1.62
1.37
1.58
1.85
1.72
1.16
Kansas
2.11
2.83
2.84
2.74
2.52
1.60
1.34
1.57
1.87
1.71
1.17
Kentucky
2.16
2.86
2.92
2.78
2.60
1.67
1.44
1.65
1.90
1.75
1.25
Louisiana
2.09
2.78
2.82
2.70
2.50
1.58
1.35
1.58
1.85
1.66
1.18
Massachusetts
2.18
2.90
2.99
2.85
2.68
1.66
1.41
1.64
1.91
1.75
1.25
Maryland
2.16
2.88
2.93
2.80
2.61
1.63
1.39
1.61
1.89
1.74
1.23
Maine
2.15
2.84
2.97
2.86
2.67
1.71
1.46
1.67
1.98
1.83
1.30
Michigan
2.13
2.84
2.90
2.78
2.59
1.63
1.40
1.60
1.87
1.74
1.21
Minnesota
2.14
2.85
2.83
2.71
2.50
1.61
1.33
1.59
1.87
1.73
1.17
Missouri
2.13
2.85
2.87
2.75
2.55
1.63
1.37
1.60
1.88
1.74
1.19
Mississippi
2.09
2.80
2.79
2.70
2.53
1.55
1.36
1.58
1.87
1.69
1.16
Montana
2.20
2.83
2.84
2.72
2.57
1.71
1.45
1.70
2.01
1.84
1.33
North Carolina
2.11
2.81
2.83
2.70
2.52
1.57
1.35
1.56
1.83
1.69
1.19
North Dakota
2.21
2.92
2.90
2.73
2.56
1.66
1.37
1.61
1.92
1.77
1.20
Nebraska
2.17
2.87
2.91
2.77
2.54
1.63
1.35
1.61
1.89
1.74
1.19
New
2.15
2.70
3.04
2.86
2.67
1.69
1.46
1.64
1.95
2.33
2.31
New Jersey
2.12
2.85
2.95
2.81
2.60
1.60
1.36
1.59
1.88
1.72
1.24
New Mexico
2.20
2.83
2.86
2.72
2.57
1.69
1.40
1.65
1.94
1.82
1.29
Nevada
2.23
2.88
2.96
2.80
2.67
1.96
1.50
1.74
2.12
2.11
1.48
New York
2.16
2.88
2.98
2.84
2.65
1.66
1.40
1.63
1.93
1.78
1.30
Ohio
2.13
2.84
2.89
2.77
2.60
1.61
1.38
1.58
1.84
1.73
1.19
Oklahoma
2.11
2.80
2.84
2.78
2.50
1.61
1.34
1.59
1.88
1.72
1.17
Oregon
2.27
2.93
3.01
2.83
2.67
1.80
1.45
1.76
2.10
1.95
1.43
Pennsylvania
2.13
2.86
2.95
2.81
2.58
1.59
1.36
1.60
1.88
1.72
1.21
Rhode Island
2.15
2.89
3.01
2.87
2.71
1.66
1.42
1.64
1.93
1.78
1.30
South Carolina
2.11
2.81
2.82
2.71
2.54
1.58
1.35
1.57
1.83
1.69
1.20
South Dakota
2.19
2.88
2.88
2.77
2.54
1.65
1.35
1.61
1.90
1.75
1.22
Tennessee
2.11
2.81
2.83
2.70
2.52
1.58
1.36
1.56
1.83
1.68
1.19
Texas
2.09
2.80
2.85
2.73
2.52
1.59
1.35
1.60
1.88
1.72
1.22
Utah
2.26
2.81
2.84
2.75
2.60
1.79
1.42
1.68
2.10
1.86
1.40
Virginia
2.14
2.85
2.89
2.77
2.56
1.62
1.38
1.60
1.88
1.73
1.23
Vermont
2.14
2.79
3.04
2.86
2.66
1.68
1.46
1.67
1.92
1.76
1.28
Washington
2.26
2.91
2.96
2.79
2.63
1.76
1.45
1.76
2.11
1.97
1.42
Wisconsin
2.14
2.84
2.88
2.77
2.57
1.65
1.37
1.61
1.87
1.75
1.17
West Virginia
2.11
2.82
2.90
2.76
2.62
1.59
1.38
1.59
1.88
1.75
1.20
Wyoming
2.16
2.82
2.80
2.69
2.57
1.67
1.35
1.60
1.95
1.78
1.26
-------
Table A23. State-by-State Premium Grade Sales for Resale Gasoline Prices for years 2000 to 2009
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Alaska
1.20
1.14
1.19
1.37
1.56
1.91
2.24
2.42
3.19
2.56
Alabama
0.99
0.89
0.86
1.03
1.33
1.72
2.04
2.31
2.74
1.93
Arkansas
0.97
0.90
0.86
1.02
1.32
1.72
2.00
2.24
2.70
1.88
Arizona
1.14
1.07
1.00
1.27
1.56
1.93
2.19
2.39
2.79
1.96
California
1.19
1.14
1.04
1.30
1.61
1.92
2.23
2.48
2.80
2.08
Colorado
1.04
0.99
0.92
1.06
1.35
1.77
2.08
2.36
2.70
1.88
Connecticut
1.10
1.01
0.96
1.15
1.45
1.77
2.18
2.39
2.71
1.97
DC
1.08
0.99
0.94
1.10
1.39
1.80
2.16
2.37
2.78
1.97
Delaware
1.08
0.95
0.91
1.09
1.38
1.79
2.07
2.26
2.73
1.88
Florida
1.02
0.93
0.90
1.06
1.36
1.75
2.07
2.30
2.77
1.96
Georgia
1.00
0.91
0.88
1.05
1.36
1.77
2.09
2.33
2.70
1.95
Hawaii
1.25
1.30
1.09
1.30
1.49
1.85
2.29
2.50
3.01
2.15
Iowa
1.02
0.96
0.91
1.09
1.36
1.77
2.10
2.41
2.70
1.92
Idaho
1.11
1.02
0.95
1.13
1.42
1.79
2.11
2.38
2.82
1.94
Illinois
1.12
1.08
1.00
1.15
1.41
1.79
2.12
2.37
2.73
1.96
Indiana
1.04
0.99
0.93
1.08
1.37
1.76
2.08
2.31
2.63
1.91
Kansas
0.99
0.93
0.88
1.05
1.32
1.72
2.05
2.39
2.62
1.88
Kentucky
1.03
0.95
0.91
1.07
1.37
1.76
2.08
2.36
2.76
1.97
Louisiana
0.92
0.87
0.82
0.96
1.29
1.66
2.02
2.24
2.62
1.88
Massachusetts
1.13
1.04
1.00
1.17
1.42
1.82
2.19
2.37
2.76
1.98
Maryland
1.10
1.02
0.96
1.13
1.41
1.82
2.18
2.38
2.79
1.96
Maine
1.04
0.89
0.90
1.05
1.36
1.76
2.12
2.35
2.93
1.96
Michigan
1.07
1.00
0.94
1.11
1.37
1.75
2.06
2.33
2.68
1.93
Minnesota
1.05
1.00
0.95
1.09
1.35
1.73
2.09
2.37
2.66
1.86
Missouri
1.04
0.97
0.93
1.08
1.37
1.78
2.10
2.35
2.76
1.91
Mississippi
0.96
0.86
0.85
1.01
1.31
1.70
2.03
2.25
2.64
1.90
Montana
1.11
1.07
0.98
1.15
1.41
1.80
2.09
2.36
2.71
1.93
North Carolina
0.98
0.89
0.87
1.03
1.33
1.74
2.04
2.30
2.73
1.91
North Dakota
1.04
0.99
0.93
1.09
1.35
1.75
2.10
2.42
2.69
1.93
Nebraska
1.02
0.96
0.90
1.07
1.35
1.75
2.07
2.40
2.72
1.93
New Hampshire
1.11
0.99
0.96
1.13
1.38
1.77
2.18
2.34
2.76
1.75
New Jersey
1.09
1.01
0.96
1.13
1.40
1.77
2.07
2.26
2.73
1.88
New Mexico
1.05
0.96
0.91
1.09
1.36
1.82
2.15
2.42
2.81
2.01
Nevada
1.21
1.06
0.97
1.24
1.57
1.92
2.22
2.40
2.77
1.98
New York
1.11
1.05
1.00
1.19
1.48
1.84
2.18
2.39
2.81
1.99
Ohio
1.06
0.98
0.93
1.09
1.36
1.74
2.05
2.34
2.71
1.93
Oklahoma
0.95
0.90
0.85
1.01
1.29
1.67
2.02
2.32
2.59
1.85
Oregon
1.16
1.05
0.97
1.18
1.48
1.83
2.18
2.44
2.83
2.05
Pennsylvania
1.03
0.93
0.90
1.08
1.36
1.74
2.12
2.32
2.71
1.92
Rhode Island
1.10
1.01
0.96
1.13
1.40
1.80
2.18
2.37
2.73
1.99
South Carolina
0.98
0.89
0.88
1.03
1.34
1.76
2.05
2.30
2.73
1.90
South Dakota
1.03
0.97
0.94
1.10
1.37
1.81
2.16
2.43
2.82
1.97
Tennessee
0.98
0.91
0.87
1.03
1.33
1.74
2.06
2.30
2.78
1.91
Texas
0.96
0.87
0.84
1.00
1.30
1.72
2.06
2.31
2.72
1.88
Utah
1.08
1.01
0.93
1.13
1.39
1.74
2.07
2.33
2.73
1.88
Virginia
1.05
0.96
0.92
1.07
1.37
1.78
2.13
2.35
2.77
1.98
Vermont
1.05
0.92
0.91
1.09
1.38
1.77
2.12
2.34
2.78
1.96
Washington
1.17
1.07
0.98
1.17
1.47
1.86
2.18
2.41
2.78
2.03
Wisconsin
1.04
1.01
0.94
1.11
1.37
1.77
2.10
2.36
2.73
1.94
West Virginia
1.01
0.88
0.89
1.05
1.35
1.74
2.05
2.32
2.72
1.92
Wyoming
1.07
1.02
0.94
1.10
1.39
1.83
2.14
2.42
2.78
1.94
45
-------
Table A24. State-by-State Premium Grade Sales for Resale Gasoline Prices for years 2010 to 2020
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
20199
20200
Alaska
2.98
3.47
3.60
3.49
3.36
2.48
2.05
2.33
2.60
2.44
1.85
Alabama
2.33
3.04
3.11
3.07
2.90
2.02
1.82
2.01
2.26
2.11
1.61
Arkansas
2.30
3.02
3.11
3.04
2.85
1.96
1.70
1.88
2.15
2.03
1.48
Arizona
2.38
3.02
3.17
3.02
2.82
1.99
1.71
1.93
2.30
2.29
1.71
California
2.42
3.10
3.24
3.10
2.88
2.31
1.93
2.18
2.54
2.61
2.01
Colorado
2.31
3.00
3.06
3.03
2.88
1.99
1.79
2.06
2.36
2.26
1.71
Connecticut
2.35
3.11
3.24
3.16
2.95
2.04
1.77
1.98
2.23
2.09
1.59
DC
2.36
3.09
3.20
3.14
2.91
1.98
1.70
1.91
2.16
2.54
2.52
Delaware
2.29
3.07
3.22
3.07
2.87
1.92
1.60
1.82
2.12
2.02
1.46
Florida
2.34
3.05
3.15
3.12
2.94
2.06
1.80
2.03
2.27
2.07
1.60
Georgia
2.35
3.04
3.12
3.09
2.93
2.02
1.78
2.00
2.26
2.10
1.60
Hawaii
2.61
3.65
3.66
3.26
3.16
2.01
1.67
2.08
2.50
2.88
2.86
Iowa
2.33
3.10
3.16
3.08
2.90
2.05
1.69
1.89
2.20
2.06
1.39
Idaho
2.47
3.02
3.04
2.97
2.84
2.00
1.73
2.00
2.38
2.21
1.75
Illinois
2.33
3.06
3.24
3.17
3.00
2.19
1.90
2.02
2.25
2.17
1.55
Indiana
2.28
3.01
3.16
3.08
2.95
2.10
1.85
1.98
2.26
2.16
1.54
Kansas
2.27
3.03
3.04
3.03
2.76
1.94
1.64
1.80
2.09
1.97
1.37
Kentucky
2.33
3.05
3.16
3.10
2.99
2.11
1.91
2.07
2.30
2.16
1.60
Louisiana
2.26
3.01
3.09
3.05
2.84
1.93
1.63
1.88
2.10
1.92
1.44
Massachusetts
2.37
3.11
3.23
3.09
2.91
1.97
1.70
1.90
2.13
2.00
1.49
Maryland
2.37
3.10
3.21
3.14
2.91
1.96
1.67
1.88
2.13
2.00
1.44
Maine
2.34
3.08
3.25
3.11
2.93
2.06
1.72
1.96
2.24
2.17
1.56
Michigan
2.29
3.05
3.17
3.09
2.96
2.16
1.99
2.11
2.39
2.26
1.66
Minnesota
2.27
3.04
3.09
3.06
2.82
1.98
1.62
1.80
2.12
2.01
1.37
Missouri
2.29
3.05
3.12
3.11
2.88
2.02
1.75
1.93
2.19
2.08
1.46
Mississippi
2.27
2.91
3.11
2.99
2.78
1.88
1.58
1.91
2.23
2.09
1.56
Montana
2.40
3.03
3.06
3.00
2.90
2.05
1.86
2.16
2.48
2.30
1.78
North Carolina
2.30
3.01
3.10
3.05
2.89
1.99
1.76
1.97
2.23
2.07
1.56
North Dakota
2.38
3.13
3.15
3.16
2.95
2.07
1.78
1.98
2.31
2.18
1.48
Nebraska
2.33
3.08
3.15
3.08
2.91
2.06
1.70
1.89
2.17
2.55
2.53
New
2.34
2.97
3.25
3.09
2.91
2.06
1.72
1.90
2.24
2.62
2.60
New Jersey
2.30
3.07
3.22
3.07
2.85
1.91
1.61
1.84
2.12
2.91
1.47
New Mexico
2.39
3.01
3.06
2.95
2.81
1.98
1.73
1.98
2.28
2.18
1.63
Nevada
2.38
3.05
3.14
2.97
2.83
2.17
1.72
1.96
2.35
2.36
1.72
New York
2.37
3.11
3.26
3.14
2.94
2.01
1.72
1.95
2.26
2.14
1.62
Ohio
2.29
3.03
3.14
3.05
2.97
2.09
1.91
2.04
2.31
2.21
1.60
Oklahoma
2.26
2.97
3.05
3.03
2.80
1.95
1.59
1.82
2.09
1.94
1.34
Oregon
2.46
3.13
3.21
3.04
2.88
2.04
1.73
2.02
2.38
2.26
1.73
Pennsylvania
2.32
3.09
3.16
3.05
2.80
1.92
1.62
1.85
2.13
2.04
1.45
Rhode Island
2.34
3.13
3.27
3.16
2.94
2.04
1.77
1.90
2.16
2.54
2.52
South Carolina
2.29
3.00
3.10
3.06
2.90
2.00
1.76
1.97
2.24
2.09
1.58
South Dakota
2.38
3.08
3.13
3.09
2.93
2.14
1.75
1.92
2.23
2.10
1.47
Tennessee
2.29
3.00
3.10
3.05
2.87
1.95
1.73
1.92
2.18
2.03
1.51
Texas
2.27
2.98
3.12
3.04
2.81
1.87
1.61
1.86
2.11
1.98
1.41
Utah
2.45
2.99
3.03
2.95
2.80
2.00
1.64
1.91
2.33
2.13
1.70
Virginia
2.36
3.09
3.19
3.14
2.91
2.00
1.74
1.93
2.19
2.06
1.51
Vermont
2.34
2.97
3.25
3.11
2.93
2.06
1.72
1.90
2.24
2.13
1.58
Washington
2.45
3.11
3.17
3.03
2.85
2.02
1.75
2.06
2.42
2.30
1.75
Wisconsin
2.34
3.10
3.21
3.21
3.04
2.25
1.92
2.01
2.31
2.24
1.60
West Virginia
2.29
3.01
3.15
3.07
2.95
2.00
1.82
2.06
2.29
2.13
1.56
Wyoming
2.37
3.09
3.01
2.96
2.88
2.02
1.72
1.99
2.43
2.18
1.66
46
-------
The prices in the above tables represent year-round prices for both reformulated and conventional types of
gasoline. Separate gasoline prices for summertime and wintertime, and for reformulated and conventional gasoline
types were estimated from this gasoline price data. Based on national average gasoline price data, summer gasoline
averaged 5 cents higher than winter gasoline. This average summer/winter price differential for the annual average
price data was assumed for each state. Reformulated gasoline prices averaged 6 cents more than conventional gasoline
nationally and this price relationship was assumed for all states which consumed both reformulated and conventional
types of gasoline. If the state solely consumed conventional or reformulated gasoline types, no price adjustment was
necessary.
To estimate the volume of ethanol which could be blended into each state's gasoline it was necessary to
estimate each state's gasoline consumption. The conventional and reformulated, regular and premium grade gasoline
volume for each state was obtained from ElA's Prime Supplier gasoline sales data for 2016.48 Table A25 summarizes the
gasoline Prime Supplier Sales Volumes for 2016.
48 Energy Information Administration; Prime Supplier Sales Volume; https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_m.htm.
47
-------
Table A25. Prime Supplier Gasoline Sales Volume for 2016 (Thousand Gallons per Day)
Conventional
Reformulated
Regular
Mid
Premium
Regular
Mid
Premium
Total
Alaska
639
18
69
726
Alabama
5,971
120
542
6,633
Arkansas
3,611
56
283
3,950
Arizona
2,543
57
299
4,559
102
666
8,227
California
30,489
1,032
8,444
39,966
Colorado
4,801
147
997
5,946
Connecticut
3,678
86
567
4,331
DC
147
8
34
189
Delaware
1,098
16
129
1,244
Florida
17,885
341
2,480
20,707
Georgia
11,703
352
1,454
13,509
Hawaii
975
67
269
1,311
Iowa
2,853
101
327
3,281
Idaho
1,694
26
276
1,996
Illinois
4,394
85
230
7,491
122
1,027
13,349
Indiana
6,935
112
444
1,147
26
108
8,773
Kansas
4,002
61
312
4,375
Kentucky
4,030
64
251
1,111
20
100
5,575
Louisiana
6,736
76
560
7,372
Massachusetts
6,253
151
888
7,291
Maryland
509
5
39
4,319
88
754
5,713
Maine
739
4
62
1,085
17
64
1,970
Michigan
11,655
88
729
12,472
Minnesota
5,896
188
509
6,593
Missouri
4,695
83
356
2,408
46
216
7,804
Mississippi
4,312
70
413
4,795
Montana
1,622
77
319
2,018
North Carolina
10,594
296
1,196
12,086
North Dakota
958
36
101
1,095
Nebraska
1,895
53
229
2,177
New Hampshire
330
3
24
1,074
22
110
1,562
New Jersey
9,371
159
1,447
10,978
New Mexico
2,296
89
304
2,688
Nevada
2,423
93
594
3,109
New York
5,942
81
543
7,095
255
1,612
15,528
Ohio
11,976
182
862
13,020
Oklahoma
5,126
71
470
5,666
Oregon
3,918
38
534
4,490
Pennsylvania
5,094
95
443
2,248
55
353
8,286
Rhode Island
1,503
36
207
1,746
South Carolina
6,296
204
659
7,159
South Dakota
1,026
35
109
1,169
Tennessee
8,396
210
879
9,485
Texas
20,081
290
1,820
14,693
315
2,148
39,347
Utah
2,814
62
738
3,613
Virginia
3,814
80
333
4,499
119
829
9,675
Vermont
779
10
65
854
Washington
6,275
109
1,202
7,585
Wisconsin
4,733
78
386
1,956
30
164
7,347
West Virginia
1,836
32
100
1,968
Wyoming
808
22
153
983
-------
Two different adjustments were made to the 2016 gasoline sales volume data. The midgrade volume was less
than 2 percent of the total gasoline pool and modeling this relatively small volume separately would not have made a
material difference in the conclusions of the analysis. Therefore, the midgrade gasoline volume shown in the Table A25
was subdivided equally and half was added to the regular gasoline grade and the other half to the premium gasoline
grade. For this analysis, we needed the state-by-state granularity provided by ElA's Prime Supplier sales data. However,
EIA also publishes gasoline Product Supplied data (not reported on a state-by-state basis) which they believe more
accurately captures overall gasoline sales volumes (the Prime Supplier sales data may miss some sales from small
terminals and bulk plants). Comparing the Prime Supplier Sales data to the volume of gasoline Product Supplied shows
that the Prime Supplier sales data to be about 4.5 percent lower.49 To account for this shortfall, the 2016 Prime Supplier
data summarized in Table A26 was increased by 4.5 percent.
Gasoline sales data for years other than 2016 was estimated using by a ratio of the total US gasoline demand for
the respective year relative to that for 2016.50 For example, the U.S. gasoline demand in 2014 was about 7 percent
lower than that in 2016, thus, the 2014 gasoline sales for each state and each gasoline type was reduced by 7 percent
relative to the base 2016 volumes.
Table A26. US Total Gasoline Volumes for Years 2000 to 2020 (thousand gallons per day)
2000
353,899
2001
361,723
2002
370,312
2003
370,939
2004
372,310
2005
378,473
2006
377,608
2007
376,636
2008
362,968
2009
362,798
2010
365,247
2011
354,951
2012
347,234
2013
348,657
2014
346,707
2015
361,056
2016
371,725
2017
375,118
2018
374,602
2019
367,306
2020
322,498
A.7. MTBE Bans and MTBE Blending Economics
The phase out of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from the RFG pool, which occurred over the years from
2003 to 2006, occurred as a result of the adoption of state MTBE bans, the end of the federal RFG oxygenate
requirement, and the failure of liability protections to be enacted by Congress.5152 Table A27 lists the states which
enacted MTBE bans, the year of their bans and the volume of MTBE consumed in each state in the year 2001.
49 Energy Information Administration; Prime Supplier Sales Volume; https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_m.htm.
50 Energy Information Administration; Product Supplied; https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm.
51 Lidderdale, Tancrid; Motor Gasoline Outlook and State MTBE Bans; Energy Information Administration; April 6, 2003.
52 Some state MTBE bans took effect as early as the year 2000, but there was no reported MTBE use in the states which enacted the
earliest state MTBE bans.
49
-------
Table A27. State MTBE Bans
State
Ban Date
RFG
MTBE Consumption in 2001
Program
(thousand barrels/day)
California
Jan. 1, 2004
Yes
79.7
Connecticut
Oct. 1 2003
Yes
9.4
Kentucky
Jan. 1, 2006
Yes
2.2
Missouri
Jul. 1, 2005
3.2
New York
Jan. 1, 2004
Yes
21.1
Illinois
Jul. 24, 2004
Yes
0
Colorado
May 1, 2002
0
Indiana
Jul. 24, 2004
Yes
0
Iowa
May 11, 2000
0
Kansas
Jul. 1, 2004
0
Michigan
Jun. 1, 2003
0
Minnesota
Jul. 1, 2005
0
Nebraska
Jan. 1, 2004
0
Nevada
Jan. 1, 2001
0
Ohio
Jul. 1, 2005
0
South Dakota
Jul. 1, 2000
0
Washington
Jan. 1, 2004
0
Of the 17 states which enacted MTBE bans, only 5 of them showed any MTBE consumption in the year 2001, and
actually 9 of them showed no MTBE consumption even in years prior to 2001 (the MTBE consumption data prior to 2001
was not included in the table). Of the states which were blending MTBE into their gasoline in 2001, 4 out of 5 of them
had RFG programs in their state which required the use of an oxygenate. After the federal government rescinded the
RFG oxygenate requirement in 2005 and bills providing liability protection to refiners failed, MTBE was no longer
blended into the RFG pool. Table A28 summarizes the phase down of MTBE in gasoline, and also summarizes the
increased blending of ethanol into gasoline. There is generally a one-to-one relationship such that the volume of MTBE
removed from gasoline is matched by the volume of ethanol newly blended into gasoline.
Table A28 Summary of MTBE and Ethanol Volumes by Year
MTBE and Ethanol Blended into Gasoline (billion gallons)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
MTBE
Volume
4.4
4.1
3.1
2.4
2.1
0.6
0
Ethanol
Volume
1.7
2.1
2.8
3.6
4.1
5.5
6.6
While the state MTBE bans and the liability issues associated with using MTBE were the primary causes for the
removal of MTBE from the gasoline pool, the blending economics of MTBE vs ethanol may have also played a role. The
blending economics of MTBE was assessed by an Abt Associates (Mathpro) refinery modeling study conducted for EPA
50
-------
when the phase-out of MTBE was being contemplated early in the 2000's.53 The Abt refinery modeling study assessed
MTBE's blending economics for the year 2007. However, it was conducted in 2002 and therefore did not take into
consideration the increase in crude oil prices that occurred during the last part of the 2000 to 2010 time period. Abt
used an MTBE price of $40.63 per barrel (96.7 cents per gallon) and projected a crude oil price of $23.25 per barrel in
2007. Abt also provided a breakeven cost curve for MTBE based on the feedstock price of butanes which is shown in
Figure Al.
53 Refinery Modeling: Legislative and Regulatory Developments: Effects on Gasoline Supply; Subtask 4.1: Federal Oxygenate
Cases; Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency by Abt Associates under subcontract from ICF Consulting; September 30,
2002.
51
-------
Figure Al. MTBE Breakeven Costs Provided by Apt Associates
52
48
44
8 40
ฆe
a
a
32
28
24
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Butane Price ($/bJ
Butane
Price
Breakeven Product Price ($/b)
MTBE
Alkylate
Iso-
Octene
Octane
12
27.28
23.9S
30.96
30,75
14
29.09
26.54
33.75
33.47
18
30.63
29.13
36.54
38.16
13
32.78
31.73
39.33
38.90
2D
34.59
34.32
42.13
41.61
21.89
36.33
36.77
44.76
44.18
22
38.43
36.91
44.92
44.33
24
38.28
39.50
47.71
47.04
28
40.09
42.08
50.50
49.76
Note Breakeven prices reflect subsidization of retrofit investments.
1 For Federal Oxygenate Case #1.
When the $21.89 per barrel butane price which Abt used in its refinery modeling analysis is applied to the
breakeven cost curve, the breakeven MTBE breakeven cost is estimated to be $36.3 per barrel The MTBE price used by
Abt is $4.3 per barrel, or 10 cents per gallon, higher than the MTBE breakeven price. This price likely represents MTBE's
higher octane value above that of gasoline (high octane gasoline blendstocks are typically priced higher than gasoline
based on their relative octane value). To enable a comparison between MTBE and ethanol's blending value, MTBE's
blending value was adjusted to represent its blending value in any year using the crude oil price in that year relative to
the crude oil price used by Abt. The MTBE breakeven price is estimated assuming that butane is priced at 80 percent of
Chart A-3.15: Breakeven Product Prices for
Merchant, Field Butane-Based MTBE Plant1
52
-------
crude oil based on how butane was priced relative to crude oil since the early 2000s, which is a lower price than that
used by Abt.54 Table A29 summarizes the MTBE-ethanol blending cost comparison.
Table A29. MTBE-Ethanol Blending Cost Comparison
Year
Mathpro
2007
Case
Study
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Crude Oil Price ($/bbl)
28.66
24.46
24.99
28.85
38.26
54.57
65.16
23.25
Butane Price ($/bbl)
22.9
19.6
20.0
23.1
30.6
43.7
52.1
21.89
MTBE Breakeven $/bbl
37.3
34.2
34.6
37.4
44.3
56.3
64.0
36.3
MTBE Breakeven ($/gal)
0.89
0.81
0.82
0.89
1.06
1.34
1.52
Actual MTBE price ($/gal)
0.99
0.91
0.92
1.00
1.18
1.50
1.71
0.97
Ethanol Blending Cost ($/gal)
1.20
1.35
1.00
1.23
1.57
1.68
2.46
Ethanol Blending Cost based on
Production Cost ($/gal)
0.82
0.89
0.91
0.98
1.20
1.11
1.13
The MTBE blending analysis shows that MTBE was a lower cost gasoline blendstock than corn ethanol over the
2000 to 2006 timeframe. Between 2000 and 2006, the estimated actual MTBE price starts at $0.99/gal and rises to
$1.71 per gallon. In comparison, the ethanol blending cost over this time period is $1.20 increasing to $2.46 per gallon.
However, the ethanol blending cost increased dramatically in 2005 and 2006 due to the phase out of MTBE which likely
caused an acute ethanol supply shortage.
The ethanol blending cost based on production cost (instead of spot prices) is summarized as well to understand
what ethanol blending costs might be if ethanol prices had not spiked due to the MTBE phase out.55 Over this time
period, the ethanol blending cost was as low as 10 cents per gallon above the ethanol production cost. If we add that to
the ethanol blending cost based on the production cost, the ethanol blending cost could have been as low as $1.11 and
$1.13 per gallon for 2005 and 2006, respectively. Both of these estimated blending costs are lower than even the MTBE
price breakeven prices for those two years. It could be, that ethanol would have been priced lower than MTBE starting
in 2005 if the MTBE phase out due to groundwater concerns did not occur and ethanol perhaps would have started a
more gradual process to replace MTBE in the RFG market.
A.8. Projection of Future Ethanol Blending Economics
Table A30 summarizes projected ethanol spot prices which are estimated by both Food and Agricultural Policy
Research Institute (FAPRI) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 56 57Table A30. Projected Ethanol Spot Prices
($/gaI, nominal dollars)
54 Keller, Anne; Midstream Energy Group; November 2010.
55 The ethanol blending cost based on production cost substitutes the estimated ethanol production cost for the ethanol spot prices in
that year - this removes the large profit gained by ethanol producers which occurred the year of the MTBE phase-out.
56 U.S. Baseline Outlook, Projections for Agricultural and Biofuels Markets; Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI),
University of Missouri; April 2022
57 Annual Energy Outlook 2022, Table 12 Petroleum and Other Liquids Prices, Energy Information Administration.
53
-------
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
FAPRI 2022
2.43
1.80
1.67
1.64
1.61
1.62
EIA AEO 2022
1.45
1.49
1.55
1.65
1.59
1.72
In AEO 2020, EIA projects the wholesale price of gasoline for future years and this information was also compiled
through the year 2028. The EIA wholesale gasoline price projections are only reported in 2021 dollars, so they were
converted to nominal dollars using the EIA inflation projections. Table A31 contains the EIA projected wholesale price
projections and the adjusted values in nominal dollars.
Table A31 Gasoline Wholesale Price Projections
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Brent Spot Prices ($/bbl)
72
72
63
70
73
77
Gasoline Spot Prices AEO 2022 (2021$)
2.25
2.13
1.82
1.81
1.79
1.82
EIA Inflation Adjustment
3.7
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
Gasoline Nominal Spot Prices (dollars)
2.25
2.18
1.90
1.93
1.95
2.03
For estimating future gasoline prices state-by-state and for each fuel type and season, all the state-by-state
gasoline prices in any one year are adjusted from the 2018 gasoline prices using a value determined by the difference
between the projected national average wholesale gasoline price in that year compared to a national average wholesale
gasoline price in the year 2018. For example, the projected national average wholesale gasoline price in 2026 is 2.03
cents per gallon, which is 33 cents per gallon higher than the 1.98 cents per gallon average wholesale gasoline price in
2018. For the gasoline prices for each gasoline type and season, 5 cents per gallon is added to the respective 2018
wholesale gasoline price to estimate the year 2028 wholesale gasoline prices.
The ethanol blending value, both octane and RVP, are adjusted to future years using ElA's projected Brent spot
price in nominal dollars, using the same method used for estimating corn ethanol's historical RVP blending value as
described in Section A3. The projected Brent spot prices are also summarized in Table A29. Distribution costs are
adjusted higher based on the inflation factors shown in Table A29.
A9. Ethanol Blending Cost Tables
The following tables summarize the results of the ethanol blending cost analysis year-by-year from the year
2000 to 2020. Because of the number of gasoline types/grades/seasons being modeled, each year's results are reported
in three separate tables to avoid tables breaking across multiple pages. The gasoline code is shown in a A-BBB-CCCC
configuration, where the "A" represents the season (S is for summer or W is for winter), the "BBB" represents the
gasoline type (CG is conventional gasoline, RFG is reformulated gasoline) and "CCCC" represents the gasoline grade (reg
is regular grade, Prem is premium grade). Ethanol's blending cost is summarized in the third column from the right,
generally organized from lowest cost (usually negative indicating that ethanol is cheaper to use than gasoline) to highest
cost. The Ethanol's Blending Cost is calculated by totaling the values in the Gasoline Price through State Subsidy
columns in the table. At the top of the table are the gasolines which are controlled by a state mandate or RFG mandate,
and these gasolines and their data are highlighted in a light grey color. In the early years, the reformulated gasolines
(RFG) which relied on MTBE and which were presumed to not be candidates for blending ethanol are listed at the end of
the table highlighted in a darker grey color. The two right-most columns in the tables summarize the ethanol volume
which comprises 10 volume percent of the gasoline type being analyzed and the cumulative ethanol volume from the
lowest cost to highest blending cost gasolines. The cumulative ethanol volume in the table which matches the actual
ethanol volume consumed in that year is indicated by a dark line border around that cumulative ethanol volume. In
these tables, the baseline ethanol replacement costs are adjusted to other years using octane prices, as opposed to
crude oil prices The table numbering methodology is different for these tables. The table number refers to the year
54
-------
analyzed followed by a letter A or B or C indicating whether it is the first, second or third portion of the data table for
that analysis year.
55
-------
Table A2000A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2000
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
Slate
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1254
1.02
1.35
0.12
0.40
0.54
0.26
0
-74.6
125.4
125
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
181
1.17
1.35
0.12
0.28
0.54
0.26
0
-77.5
18.1
144
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
193
1.01
1.35
0.12
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
-48.7
19.3
163
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
327
1.01
1.35
0.12
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
-48.6
32.7
196
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
20
1.12
1.35
0.12
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
-47.4
2.0
198
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
30
1.11
1.35
0.12
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
-46.5
3.0
201
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
219
1.12
1.35
0.12
0.15
0.54
0.26
0
-59.5
21.9
222
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1517
0.97
1.35
0.12
0.20
0.54
0.26
0
-49.3
151.7
374
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
24
1.07
1.35
0.12
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
-29.4
2.4
376
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
233
0.96
1.35
0.12
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
-23.4
23.3
400
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
396
0.96
1.35
0.12
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
-23.3
39.6
439
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
36
1.06
1.35
0.12
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
-28.5
3.6
443
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
100
1.07
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-14.3
10.0
453
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
121
1.02
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-9.3
12.1
465
Minnesota
S-CG- Reg
995
0.99
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-6.6
99.5
565
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1203
0.94
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-1.6
120.3
685
Missouri
S- RFG-Reg
404
1.00
1.35
0.12
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-47.7
40.4
725
Rhode Island
S-RFG- Reg
253
1 02
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0 00
0
0
-42.3
25.3
751
DC
S-RFG- Reg
25
0 99
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-39.2
2.5
753
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
45
1.11
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-43.3
4.5
758
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
63
1.04
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-40.9
6.3
764
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
55
1.06
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-38.3
5.5
769
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
76
0.99
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-35.9
7.6
111
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
482
0.96
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-32.5
48.2
825
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
737
0 96
1.35
0.12
0.00
0 54
0.26
0
0
-28.3
73.7
899
Iowa
W-CG-reg
583
0 91
1.35
0.12
0.00
0 54
0 30
0
0
-27.5
58.3
957
Illinois
W-CG-reg
891
0 91
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-23 3
89.1
1,046
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
106
1 23
1.35
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20 3
10.6
1,057
Washington
S-CG-Prem
209
1.19
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.1
20.9
1,078
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
92
1 19
1 35
0.19
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-18.5
9.2
1,087
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
128
1 09
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.6
12.8
1,100
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
48
1 13
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.0
4.8
1,105
Montana
S-CG-Prem
59
1 13
1.35
0.16
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-15.9
5.9
1,110
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
129
1 18
1.35
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-15.3
12.9
1,123
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
158
1 08
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-15.2
15.8
1,139
Washington
W-CG-Prem
252
1.14
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.1
25.2
1,164
Utah
S-CG-Prem
128
1 11
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-13.7
12.8
1,177
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
111
1 14
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-13.5
11.1
1,188
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
83
1 06
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.3
8.3
1,197
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
27
1 10
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12 8
2.7
1,199
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
71
1.05
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.4
7.1
1,206
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
1 05
1.35
0.12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-12 3
2.1
1,208
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
42
1.05
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-11 7
4.2
1,213
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
155
1.04
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-11 6
15.5
1,228
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
66
1.04
1.35
0.12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-11 5
6.6
1,235
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
58
1.08
1.35
0.16
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-11 0
5.8
1,241
Montana
W-CG-Prem
72
1.08
1.35
0.16
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10 9
7.2
1,248
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
191
1.03
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.2
19.1
1,267
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
178
1 07
1.35
0.16
0.00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-9 7
17.8
1,285
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
54
1 12
1.35
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9 3
5.4
1,290
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
57
1 02
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.0
5.7
1,296
Utah
W-CG-Prem
154
1 06
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.7
15.4
1,311
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
100
1 01
1.35
0.12
0.00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-8.3
10.0
1,321
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
33
1 05
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.8
3.3
1,325
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
58
1.07
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.7
5.8
1,330
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
1 07
1.35
0.19
0.00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-7.7
0.7
1,331
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
85
1 00
1.35
0.12
0.00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-7.4
8.5
1,340
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
1 00
1 35
0.12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-7 3
2.5
1,342
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
410
1 10
1 35
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.3
41.0
1,383
New York
W-CG-Prem
117
1 05
1 35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-7 0
11.7
1,395
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
50
1 28
1 35
0.40
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-6 8
5.0
1,400
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
51
1 00
1 35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6 7
5.1
1,405
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
20
1 06
1 35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6 6
2.0
1,407
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12? 1.08
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6.6
1.2
1,408
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
284
1 04
1 35
0.16
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-6 6
28.4
1,437
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
80
0 99
1 35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6 5
8.0
1,444
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1051
1 06
1 35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5 8
105.1
1,550
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
1943
0 98
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5 6
194.3
1,744
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
81
1 04
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5 5
8.1
1,752
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
47
1 05
1 35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5 0
4.7
1,757
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
62
1.04
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.9
6.2
1,763
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
19
1 03
1 35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.8
1.9
1,765
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
215
1 02
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 7
21.5
1,786
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
654
1 05
1 35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 6
65.4
1,852
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
66
1 07
1 35
0.22
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-4 3
6.6
1,858
Montana
S-CG-Reg
276
1 01
1 35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.1
27.6
1,886
Utah
S-CG-Reg
473
1 01
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 1
47.3
1,933
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
69
0 97
1 35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 0
6.9
1,940
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2004
0 97
1 35
0.12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-3 9
200.4
2,141
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
52
1 00
1 35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.7
5.2
2,146
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
173
0 96
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3 5
17.3
2,163
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
136
1 00
1 35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3 3
13.6
2,177
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
1.04
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.2
0.5
2,177
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
70
1.02
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.7
7.0
2,184
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
8
1.02
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.7
0.8
2,185
-------
Table A2000B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2000
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
319
0.95
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.6
31.9
2,217
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
74
0.99
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.6
7.4
2,224
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1161
0.95
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.5
116.1
2,340
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
793
0.95
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.4
79.3
2,420
Nevada
W-CG-reg
496
1.05
1.35
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2 3
49.6
2,469
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
61
1.23
1.35
0.40
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1 8
6.1
2,475
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
1.23
1.35
0.40
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1 7
1.3
2,477
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
24
1.01
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1 6
2.4
2,479
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
1.03
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.6
1.4
2,480
Idaho
W-CG-reg
343
0.99
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.6
34.3
2,515
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
100
1.01
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.5
10.01 2,525
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
787
0.94
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
o
o
-1.5
78.7
2,603
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
670
0.94
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
o
o
67.0! 2,670
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
271
1.02
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
o
o
-1.0
27.1
2,697
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
163
1.01
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.0
16.31 2,714
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
810
0.98
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.8
81.01 2,795
Washington
W-CG-reg
1271
1.01
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
o
o
-0.8
127.1
2,922
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2350
0.93
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
o
o
-0.6
235.0I 3,157
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
98
0.99
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.5I 9.8
3,167
Texas
S-CG-Prem
326
0.96
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.1
32.6
3,199
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
57
1.00
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
o
o
0.0
5.7
3,205
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
75
0.99
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.1
7.5
3,213
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
23
0.98
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.2
2.3
3,215
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
84
0.98
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.02
0
0
0.4
8.4
3,223
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
126
1.01
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
o
o
0.4
12.6
3,236
Oregon
W-CG-reg
791
1.00
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.4
79.1
3,315
Florida
S-CG-Prem
440
1.05
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.5
44.0
3,359
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
223
1.00
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.7
22.3
3,381
Montana
W-CG-reg
334
0.96
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.9
33.4
3,415
Utah
W-CG-reg
571
0.96
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.9
57.1
3,472
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2424
0.92
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.1
242.4
3,714
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
99
0.95
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.1
9.9
3,724
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
62
0.95
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.3
6.2
3,730
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
210
0.91
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.5
21.0
3,751
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
389
0.98
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1 7
38.9
3,790
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
164
0.95
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1 7
16.4
3,807
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
162
0.97
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
24
16.2
3,823
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
130
0.99
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
24
13.0
3,836
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
386
0.90
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4
38.6
3,874
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
90
0.94
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4
9.0
3,883
New York
S-CG-Reg
994
0.96
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4
99.4
3,983
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1404
0.90
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.5
140.4
4,123
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
168
1.18
1.35
0.40
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.6
16.8
4,140
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
958
0.90
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.6
95.8
4,236
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
1.03
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.7
1.1
4,237
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
1.18
1.35
0.40
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.3
1.6
4,238
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
121
0.96
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.5
12.1
4,251
Missouri
W-CG-reg
951
0.89
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.5
95.1
4,346
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
427
0.99
1.35
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.7
42.7
4,388
Kansas
W-CG-reg
810
0.89
1.35
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.9
81.0
4,469
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
85
0.96
1.35
0.19
0.00I 0.54
0.00
0
0
3.9
8.5
4,478
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
327
0.97
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.0
32.7
4,511
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
198
0.96
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.0
19.8
4,530
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
604
0.92
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.0
60.4
4,591
Colorado
W-CG-reg
979
0.93
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.2
97.9
4,689
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
675
0.95
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.4
67.5
4,756
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
55
0.96
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.7
5.5
4,762
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
854
0.93
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.8
85.4
4,847
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
308
0.93
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.9
30.8
4,878
Texas
W-CG-Prem
395
0.91
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.9
39.5
4,917
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
101
0.93
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.02
0
0
5.4
10.1
4,927
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
153
0.96
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.4
15.3
4,943
Florida
W-CG-Prem
532
1.00
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.5
53.2
4,996
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
270
0.95
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.7
27.0
5,023
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
120
0.90
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.1
12.0
5,035
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1125
0.89
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.5
112.5
5,148
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
470
0.93
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.7
47.0
5,195
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
640
0.93
1 35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.9
64.0
5,259
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
722
0.89
1 35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.0
72.2
5,331
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
857
0.91
1 35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.02
0
0
7.2
85.7
5,416
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
196
0.92
1 35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.4
19.6
5,436
Vermont
W-CG-reg
157
0.94
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.4
15.7
5,452
New York
W-CG-reg
1202
0.91
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
74
120.2
5,572
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
203
1.13
1.35
0.40
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
76
20.3
5,592
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
0.98
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.7
1.3
5,594
Arizona
W-CG-reg
517
0.94
1.35
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.7
51.7
5,645
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1412
0.91
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
CO
CO
141.2
5,786
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
108
1.12
1.35
0.40
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
CO
CO
10.8
5,797
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3360
0.87
1.35
0.15
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
CO
CO
336.0
6,133
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1002
0.91
1.35
0.19
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
8.9
100.2
6,233
Maryland
W-CG-reg
103
0.91
1.35
0.19
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
8.9
10.3
6,244
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
731
0.87
1 35
0.15
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
9.0
73.1
6,317
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
816
0.90
1.35
0.19
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
9.4
81.6
6,398
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
1973
0.91
1.35
0.20
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
9.7
197.3
6,596
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
67
0.91
1.35
0.20
0.00
0 54
0.00
0
0
9.7
6.7
6,602
57
-------
La/
>line
ฆne
a Is
1033
372
1063
1784
1361
774
873
1037
123
2999
1707
130
4062
1211
2386
1285
2158
149
3627
1488|
289!
40
160;
119]
201
1331
1800;
3491
48;
1011
371
971
51501
254;
63;
193;
10511
18;
148;
144;
6 J
23;
12001
24
1601
766;
618;
41
7251
123;
45
1861
1801
3781
307;
761
221
179;
184;
8|
3831
28;
7571
15701
24671
12!
488;
4631
6228|
1271;
182;
1451;
15!
926;
747;
8761
305|
225;
218;
4571
222!
916;
30;
18981
2983|
220:
Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
0.88
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
9.8
103.3
6,705
0.88
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
9.9
37.2
6,743
0.91
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.3
106.3
6,849
0.91
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.4
178.4
7,027
0.84
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.5
136.1
7,163
0.88
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.9
77.4
7,241
0.84
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.0
87.3
7,328
0.86
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.02
0
0
12.2
103.7
7,432
0.93
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.3
12.3
7,444
0.92
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.1
299.9
7,744
0.86
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.8
170.7
7,915
1.07
1.35
0.40
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.8
13.0
7,928
0.82
1.35
0.15
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.8
406.2
8,334
0.86
1.35
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.9
121.1
8,455
0.86
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.7
238.6
8,694
0.86
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.3
128.5
8,822
0.86
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.4
215.8
9,038
0.88
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.3
14.9
9,053
0.87
1.35
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
18.1
362.7
9,416
1.21
1.35
0.22
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-46.4
148.8
9,564
1.16
1.35
0.17
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-46.1
28.9
9,593
1.10
1.35
0.12
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-45.6
4.0
9,597
1.16
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-44.2
16.0
9,613
1.18
1.35
0.22
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-43.4
11.9
9,625
1.15
1.35
0.20
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-42.4
2.0
9,627
1.13
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.9
13.3
9,640
1.16
1.35
0.22
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.4
180.0
9,820
1.11
1.35
0.17
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.1
34.9
9,855
1.05
1.35
0.12
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-27.6
4.8
9,860
1.12
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.0
10.1
9,870
1.12
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.0
3.7
9,874
1.10
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.0
9.7
9,884
1.08
1.35
0.22
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-45.8
515.0
10,399
1.11
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-39.7
25.4
10,424
1.10
1.35
0.17
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-39.7
6.3
10,430
1.11
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.2
19.3
10,450
1.05
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-45.2
105.1
10,555
1.11
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-39.2
1.8
10,557
1.10
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-39.0
14.8
10,571
1.13
1.35
0.22
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-25.4
14.4
10,586
1.10
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-38.8
0.6
10,586
1.10
1.35
0.19
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-38.6
2.3
10,589
1.02
1.35
0.17
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-43.8
120.0
10,709
1.10
1.35
0.20
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-24.4
2.4
10,711
1.08
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.9
16.0
10,727
1.05
1.35
0.22
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-42.5
76.6
10,804
1.02
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-42.4
61.8
10,865
1.09
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.2
0.4
10,866
1.02
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-42.4
72.5
10,938
1.07
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.0
12.3
10,951
1.07
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.0
4.5
10,955
1.01
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.9
18.6
10,974
1.02
1.35
0.20
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.6
18.0
10,992
0.99
1.35
0.17
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.5
37.8
11,030
1.06
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.7
30.7
11,060
1.05
1.35
0.17
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.7
7.6
11,068
1.06
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.2
2.2
11,070
1.05
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.0
17.9
11,088
0.99
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-40.0
18.4
11,106
1.05
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.8
0.8
11,107
1.02
1.35
0.15
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-34.2
38.3
11,145
1.05
1.35
0.19
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.6
2.8
11,148
0.99
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-39.3
75.7
11,224
0.98
1.35
0.19
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-38.9
157.0
11,381
0.93
1.35
0.15
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-37.4
246.7
11,628
1.09
1.35
0.24
0.28
0.54
0.00
0
0
-31.5
1.2
11,629
0.95
1.35
0.12
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.4
48.8
11,678
0.97
1.35
0.15
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.2
46.3
11,724
1.03
1.35
0.22
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.5
622.8
12,347
1.00
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.9
127.1
12,474
0.99
1.35
0.24
0.40
0.54
0.00
0
0
-34.0
18.2
12,492
0.97
1.35
0.17
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-18.5
145.1
12,637
1.04
1.35
0.24
0.15
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.5
1.5
12,638
1.00
1.35
0.22
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.2
92.6
12,731
0.97
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.1
74.7
12,806
0.97
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.1
87.6
12,893
0.97
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.0
30.5
12,924
0.96
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.6
22.5
12,946
0.97
1.35
0.20
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.2
21.8
12,968
0.94
1.35
0.17
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.2
45.7
13,014
0.94
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.7
22.2
13,036
0.94
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.0
91.6
13,128
0.94
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.9
3.0
13,131
0.93
1.35
0.19
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.6
189.8
13,320
0.88
1.35
0.15
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.1
298.3
13,619
0.94
1.35
0.24
0.20
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.7
22.0
13,641
-------
Table A2001A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol (Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2001
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price (DistCost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal l$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
185
1.12
1.481 0.12
0.23
0.54
0.26
0
-54.3
18.5
18
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1282
0.97
1.481 0.12
0.32
0.54
0.26
0
-48.6
128.2
147
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
223
1.07
1.481 0.12
0.12
0.54
0.26
0
-39.0
22.3
169
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
335
0.97
1.481 0.12
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
-23.1
33.5
202
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
197
0.95
1.48] 0.12
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
-21.8
19.7
222
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
30
1.07
1.481 0.12
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
-23.9
3.0
225
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.07
1.4sj 0.12
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
-23.5
2.1
227
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1550
0.92
1.481 0.12
0.16
0.54
0.26
0
-27.4
155.0
382
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
37
1.02
1.48] 0.12
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
-8.7
3.7
386
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
25
1.02
1.481 0.12
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
-8.3
2.5
388
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
405
0.92
1.481 0.12
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
-1.9
40.5
429
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
238
0.90
1.481 0.12
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
-0.6
23.8
453
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
102
1.03
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
3.2
10.2
463
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
124
0.98
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
8.2
12.4
475
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
1017
0.96
1.48| 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
10.4
101.7
577
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1230
0.91
1.48J 0-12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
15.4
123.0
700
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
46
1.06
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-25.7
4.6
705
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
64
0.99
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-22.0
6.4
711
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
56
1.01
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-20.7
5.6
717
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
78
0.94
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-17.0
7.8
724
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
493
0.91
1.48] 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-14.1
49.3
774
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
753
0.91
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-10.2
75.3
849
Iowa
W-CG-reg
596
0.86
1.48) 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-9.1
59.6
909
Illinois
W-CG-reg
911
0.86
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-5.2
91.1
1,000
Montana
S-CG-Prem
61
1.09
1.481 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.4
6.1
1,006
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
51
1.33
1.481 0.41
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.7
5.1
1,011
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
131
1.02
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.8
13.1
1,024
Washington
S-CG-Prem
213
1.10
1.481 0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.0
21.3
1,045
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
72
1.01
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.7
7.2
1,053
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
85
1 01
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.1
8.5
1,061
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
162
1 00
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.0
16.2
1,077
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
94
1 08
1 48 0 20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.1
9.4
1,087
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
28
1 04
1 48 0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.3
2.8
1,089
Montana
W-CG-Prem
73
1 04
1 48 0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.4
7 3
1,097
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
49
1 04
1 48 0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.5
4 9
1,102
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
0 99
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.6
2.1
1,104
Utah
S-CG-Prem
130
1 03
1 48 0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.5
13.0
1,117
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
62
1 28
1 48 0 41
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.7
6 2
1.123
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
109
1 09
1.481 0.23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.9
10 9
1,134
New York
S-CG-Prem
99
1 04
1.481 0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.0
9 9
1,144
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
43
0 98
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.0
4.3
1,148
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
68
0 98
1.48! 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.4
6.8
1,155
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
159
0 97
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.8
15.9
1,171
Washington
W-CG-Prem
258
1 05
1.481 0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
9.0
25 8
1,197
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
182
1 01
1.48! 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
9.2
18.2
1,215
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
87
0 96
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
9.7
8.7
1,223
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
103
0 96
1.48! 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.1
10.3
1,234
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
58
0 96
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.3
5.8
1,239
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
196
0 95
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.0
19.6
1,259
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
113
1.03
1.481 0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.1
11.3
1,270
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
56
1 05
1.48! 0.23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.1
5.6
1,276
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
34
0 99
1.48! 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.3
3.4
1,279
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
59
0.99
1.48? 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.5
5 9
1,285
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
20
1 02
1.481 0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.6
2 0
1,287
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
26
0 94
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.6
2 6
1,290
Utah
W-CG-Prem
158
0 98
1.48! 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.5
15 8
1,306
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
131
1 04
1.481 0.23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.9
13 1
1,319
New York
W-CG-Prem
120
0 99
1.481 0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.0
12 0
1,331
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
52
0 93
1.48! 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.0
5.2
1,336
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
82
0 93
1.48! 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.4
8 2
1,344
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
0 99
1.48! 0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.7
0.7
1,345
Montana
S-CG-Reg
282
0 97
1.481 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.0
28 2
1,373
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
220
0 96
1.48! 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.2
22 0
1,395
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
177
0.92
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.3
17.7
1,413
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
1986
0 91
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.6
198.6
1,611
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
59
0 98
1.481 0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.7
5.9
1,617
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
139
0 96
1.48! 0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.7
13 9
1,631
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
70
0 91
1.48! 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.3
7.0
1,638
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
810
0.91
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.4
81 0
1,719
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
171
1.19
1 48 0 41
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.8
17 1
1,736
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
326
0.90
1.481 0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.9
32.6
1,769
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
290
0 95
1 48 0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.9
29 0
1,798
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
67
1 00
1 48 0 23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.1
6.7
1,805
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2049
0 90
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.5
204.9
2,010
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
24
0 97
1 48 0 19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.6
2 4
2,012
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
53
0 93
1 48 0 16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.6
5 3
2,017
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
48
0 96
1 48 0 19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.6
4.8
2,022
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1187
0 89
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.7
118.7
2,141
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
828
0 93
1 48 0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.3
82 8
2,224
Utah
S-CG-Reg
483
0 93
1 48 0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.3
48.3
2,272
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
685
0 89
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.4
68.5
2,340
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
83
0 94
1 48 0 18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17 7
8 3
2,349
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1074
0 96
1 48 0 20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
18.0
107.4
2,456
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
804
0 88
1 48 0 12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
18.1
80.4
2,537
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
63
0.95
1.481 0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00! o
0
18.2
6.3
2,543
-------
Table A2001B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Gate Price
$/gal
Etha E
Dist B
i$/gai ii/gc
anol
aing
Federal
Subsidy
$/gal
State i State
RFG i
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2001
Code
Volume
MMgals
Price
$/gal
Subsidy i Mandate
$/gal i
'Mandate"! Blending
i Cost c/gal
Volume
MMgals
Eth Vol
MMgals
State
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
0.96
1.48
0.21 S
0.19!
0 00
0 00
0.54
0.54
0.00!
0.00!
0
0
o o
18.2
18.7
0.4
2,543
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
0.94
1.48
0.9
2,544
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
1.16
1.48
0.41!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
18.8
1.3
2,545
Montana
W-CG-reg
341
0.92
1.48
I 0.17!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
19.0
34.1
2,580
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
214
0.87I 1.48
I 0.121
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
19.3
21 4
2,601
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
86
0.92
1.48
1 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.02!
0
Oi
19.5
8 6
2,610
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2402
0.86
1.48
0 12
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
19.6
240 2
2,850
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
71
0.93
1.48
I 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0^
19.7
7.1
2,857
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
168
091
1.48
! 0.17!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Oj
19.7
16.8
2,874
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
0.95
1.48
! 0.21!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
19.9
1 2
2,875
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
167
0 93
1.48
! 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Oi
20.0
16.7
2,892
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
668
0 94
1.48
I 0.20!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Oi
20.0
66.8
2,958
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
419
0.97
1.48
I 0.23!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
OI
20.0
41.9
3,000
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
102
0.89
1.48
! 0.16!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Oi
20.3
10.2
3,010
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
980
0.86
1.48
! 0.12!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0|
20.4
98.0
3,108
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
166
0.93
1.4S
I 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
20.6
16.6
3,125
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
207
1.141 1.4S
! 0.41!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
ol
20.8
20.7
3.146
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
394
0.85
1.4S
i 0.12!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
20.9
39 4
3,185
Idaho
W-CG-reg
350
0.90
1.4S
I 0.17!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
20.9
35 0
3,220
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
76
0.88
1.4S
! 0.16!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OI
21.1
7.6
3,228
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
20
0.90
1.4S
! 0.18!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0\
21.2
2.0
3,230
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
277
0.93
1.4S
0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
21.3
27.7
3,257
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2477
0.85
1.4S
0.12!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
21.5
247.7
3,505
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
64
0.88
1.4S
i 0.16i
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
21.6
6 4
3,512
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
58
0.91i 1.4S
0 19
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
21.6
5 8
3,517
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1435
0.84
1.4S
! 0.12!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
21.7
143 5
3,661
Texas
S-CG-Prem
334
0.87
1.48
0 16
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
22.0
33.4
3,694
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
102
0.91
1.48
I 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0^
22.1
10 2
3,704
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1001
0.88
1.48
! 0.17!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
22.3
100.1
3,805
Utah
W-CG-reg
584
0.88
1.48
i 0.17!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
oi
22.3
58.4
3,863
Kansas
W-CG-reg
828
0 84
1.48
! 0.12!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
oi
22.4
82.8
3,946
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
101
0.89
1.48
! 0.18!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
ฐj
22.7
10.1
3,956
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
129
0.92
1.48
! 0.21!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
oi
22.9
12.9
3,969
Washington
W-CG-reg
1299
0.91
1.48
! 0.20!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
23.0
129.9
4,099
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
228
0 92
1.48
0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
23.1
22.8
4,121
Missouri
W-CG-reg
972
0.83
1.48
0.12|
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
ฐl
23.1
97.2
4,219
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
77
0.90' 1 48
0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
23.2
7.7
4,226
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
0.91
1.48
0.211
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
ol
23.2
0.5
4,227
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
437
0 93
1.48
0 23
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
23.4
43.7
4,271
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
397
0 90
1.48
! 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
23.5
39.7
4,310
Florida
S-CG-Prem
450
0 95
1.4S
! 0.25!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
23.8
45.0
4,355
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
1.11
1.4S
0.41!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
23.8
1.6
4,357
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
110
1 11
1.4S
! 0.41!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
24.0
11.0
4,368
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
618
0.85
1.4S
i 0.16i
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
24.1
61.8
4,430
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
104
0.87
1.4S
! 0.19!
0.00
0.54
0.02!
0
oi
24.5
10.4
4,440
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
0 90
1.4S
! 0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
24 9
1.4
4,441
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
202
0 88
1.4S
0 19.
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
25 0
20 2
4.462
New York
S-CG-Reg
1016
0 87
1.4S
! 0.18!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
25.0
101.6
4,563
Oregon
W-CG-reg
808
0 89
1.4S
! 0.20!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
25.0
80.8
4,644
Nevada
W-CG-reg
507
0 92
1.4S
0 23
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
ol
25.0
50 7
4,695
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
123
0 84
1.4S
0 16
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
25.3
12 3
4,707
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
200
0 88
1.4S
! 0.19!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
oi
25.6
20.0
4,727
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
876
0.86
1.4S
i 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.02!
0
OS
25.7
87.6
4,815
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
690
0.87
1.4S
0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
25.7
69.0
4,884
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
87
0.87
1.4S
0.19!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
25.9
8.7
4,892
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
92
0 83
1.48
! 0.16!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
26.1
9 2
4,902
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
0 85' 148
0 18
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
26.2
2 4
4,904
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
335
0 88
1.48
! 0.211
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
26.3
33 5
4,937
Texas
W-CG-Prem
403
0 82
1.48
0 16
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
27.0
40.3
4,978
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
124
0.86
1.48
! 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0^
27.1
12.4
4,990
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
156
0 87
1.48
! 0.21!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0\
27.9
15 6
5,006
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
276
0.87
1.48
! 0.21!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
28.1
27.6
5,033
Arizona
W-CG-reg
528
0 88
1.48
! 0.23!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
28.4
52 8
5,086
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
480
0 85
1.48
! 0.19!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
28.5
48.0
5,134
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
873
0.83
1.4S
! 0.18!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0!
28.8
87.3
5,221
Florida
W-CG-Prem
544
0.90
1.4S
! 0.25!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
o]
28.8
54.4
5,276
Alaska
W-CG-reg
133
1 06
1.4S
0.41!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
29.0
13.3
5,289
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
747
0.80
1.4S
! 0.16!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
29.1
74 7
5,364
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
56
0 85' 1 4S
! 0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
29.3
5 6
5,369
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
738
0 80
1.4S
i 0.16!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
29.4
73.8
5,443
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
654
0.84
1.4S
0 19
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
29.5
65 4
5,509
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1150
0 80
1.4S
! 0.16!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
29.7
115.0
5,624
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1443
0.83
1.4S
! 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0\
29.8
144.3
5,768
New York
W-CG-reg
1228
0.82
1.4S
0.18!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
30.0
122.8
5,891
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
314
0.82
1.4S
0.18!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
30.0
31.4
5,922
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3434
0.79
1.4S
i 0.16i
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
30.1
343 4
6,266
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
133
0.84
1.4S
i 0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
30.4
13 3
6,279
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1060
0.81
1.4S
! 0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.02!
0
OS
30.7
106.0
6,385
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
834
0.82
1.4S
0 19
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
30.7
83.4
6,468
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
0.88
1.4S
0.25!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
0^
30.8
1.1
6,469
Maryland
W-CG-reg
105
0.82
1.4S
0.19!
0 00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
30.9
10.5
6,480
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2017
0.83
1.4S
0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
Of
32.1
201.7
6,681
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1024
0 81
1.4S
0.19!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
01
32.6
102.4
6,784
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1086
0 82
1.48
0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
32.7
108.6
6,893
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1824
0.82
1.48
0.21!
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
OS
33.0
182.4
7,075
-------
)line
me
lals
1055
68
892
791
1391
1745
380
4152
161
13
3065
2439
1238
1313
2205
126
3707
152
1521
295
41
122
164
136
1840
38
357
259
49
104
19
6
65
151
20
147
413
198
164
23
5264
391
46
313
125
23
783
8
78
499
182
25
1226
1074
6365
190
741
258
28
473
632
386
12
184
26
946
774
2521
188
1483
1299
1605
230
896
312
764
467
223
31
936
3049
227
15
1940
186
2241
Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
ice
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
1.48
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
33.8
105.5
7,180
1.48
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
34.3
6.8
7,187
1.48
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
34.4
89.2
7,276
1.48
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
34.5
79.1
7,356
1.48
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
34.7
139.1
7,495
1.48
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
34.8
174.5
7,669
1.48
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
35.0
38.0
7,707
1.48
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
35.1
415.2
8,122
1.48
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
35.4
16.1
8,139
1.48
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
35.8
1.3
8,140
1.48
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
36.3
306.5
8,446
1.48
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
37.1
243.9
8,690
1.48
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
37.6
123.8
8,814
1.48
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
37.7
131.3
8,945
1.48
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
38.0
220.5
9,166
1.48
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
40.9
12.6
9,178
1.48
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
41.3
370.7
9,549
1.48
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
45.9
15.2
9,564
1.48
0.23
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.4
152.1
9,716
1.48
0.18
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.6
29.5
9,746
1.48
0.12
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.2
4.1
9,750
1.48
0.23
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.5
12.2
9,762
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-15.5
16.4
9,779
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.9
13.6
9,792
1.48
0.23
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.1
184.0
9,976
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.1
3.8
9,980
1.48
0.18
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5.3
35.7
10,016
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.8
25.9
10,042
1.48
0.12
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5.0
4.9
10,046
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.5
10.4
10,057
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.0
1.9
10,059
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-11.0
0.6
10,059
1.48
0.18
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.9
6.5
10,066
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.4
15.1
10,081
1.48
0.21
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.4
2.0
10,083
1.48
0.23
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.2
14.7
10,098
1.48
0.12
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.4
41.3
10,139
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.2
19.8
10,159
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.4
16.4
10,175
1.48
0.19
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.3
2.3
10,177
1.48
0.23
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-18.7
526.4
10,704
1.48
0.16
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6.6
39.1
10,743
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.2
4.6
10,748
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.5
31.3
10,779
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.8
12.5
10,791
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.3
2.3
10,794
1.48
0.23
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-15.0
78.3
10,872
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.2
0.8
10,873
1.48
0.18
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.3
7.8
10,881
1.48
0.12
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.8
49.9
10,930
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.8
18.2
10,949
1.48
0.21
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.8
2.5
10,951
1.48
0.18
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.4
122.6
11,074
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.0
107.4
11,181
1.48
0.23
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.5
636.5
11,818
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.7
19.0
11,837
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.5
74.1
11,911
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-11.2
25.8
11,937
1.48
0.19
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.0
2.8
11,939
1.48
0.16
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.7
47.3
11,987
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.7
63.2
12,050
1.48
0.18
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.7
38.6
12,089
1.48
0.25
0.23
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.2
1.2
12,090
1.48
0.21
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.2
18.4
12,108
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.1
2.6
12,111
1.48
0.23
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.2
94.6
12,205
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.0
77.4
12,283
1.48
0.16
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.3
252.1
12,535
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.7
18.8
12,554
1.48
0.18
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.8
148.3
12,702
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.2
129.9
12,832
1.48
0.19
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6.8
160.5
12,992
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.5
23.0
13,015
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.7
89.6
13,105
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.0
31.2
13,136
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.5
76.4
13,213
1.48
0.18
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.5
46.7
13,259
1.48
0.21
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.0
22.3
13,282
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.1
3.1
13,285
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.2
93.6
13,378
1.48
0.16
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.9
304.9
13,683
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.5
22.7
13,706
1.48
0.25
0.12
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.4
1.5
13,707
1.48
0.19
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.4
194.0
13,901
1.48
0.25
0.32
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4
18.6
13,920
1.48
0.25
0.16
0.54
0.00
0
0
23.6
22.4
13,942
-------
Table A2002A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
State
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Wisconsin
Indiana
Wisconsin
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Indiana
Wisconsin
Indiana
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Illinois
Iowa
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Illinois
Illinois
Michigan
South Dakota
Montana
Ohio
Wisconsin
Indiana
New York
Idaho
Missouri
Nebraska
Washington
Wyoming
Oregon
Alaska
Michigan
South Dakota
Utah
Kansas
Montana
Ohio
Wisconsin
Colorado
Indiana
North Dakota
Nevada
New York
Idaho
Arizona
Missouri
Nebraska
Washington
Wyoming
Oregon
New Mexico
Alaska
Maryland
Utah
Kansas
WestVirginia
New Hampshire
Arkansas
South Dakota
Vermont
Michigan
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Mississippi
Colorado
Virginia
North Dakota
Nevada
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Ohio
Idaho
Wyoming
Arizona
Montana
Tennessee
Missouri
Hawaii
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
Code
Volume
MMgals
Price
$/gal
Gate Price
$/gal
Dist Cost
$/gal
Blending
$/gal
Subsidy
$/gal
Subsidy
$/gal
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Cost c/gal
Volume
MMgals
Eth Vol
MMgals
S-RFG-Prem
189
1.05
1.12
0.12
0.37
0.54
0.26
0
1
-96.3
18.9
19
S-RFG-Reg
1313
0.89
1.12
0.12
0.51
0.54
0.26
0
1
-95.3
131.3
150
W-RFG-Prem
229
1.00
1.12
0.12
0.18
0.54
0.26
0
1
-72.6
22.9
173
S-RFG-Reg
343
0.89
1.12
0.12
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
1
-70.3
34.3
207
S-RFG-Reg
202
0.88
1.12
0.12
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
1
-69.1
20.2
227
S-RFG-Prem
31
1.01
1.12
0.12
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
1
-66.8
3.1
231
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.00
1.12
0.12
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
1
-66.6
2.1
233
W-RFG-reg
1587
0.84
1.12
0.12
0.24
0.54
0.26
0
1
-62.9
158.7
391
W-RFG-Prem
38
0.96
1.12
0.12
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
1
-43.2
3.8
395
W-RFG-Prem
25
0.95
1.12
0.12
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
1
-42.9
2.5
398
W-RFG-reg
414
0.84
1.12
0.12
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
1
-37.8
41.4
439
W-RFG-reg
244
0.83
1.12
0.12
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
1
-36.7
24.4
464
S-CG-Prem
105
0.97
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-26.4
10.5
474
W-CG-Prem
127
0.92
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-21.4
12.7
487
S-CG-Reg
1041
0.88
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-17.5
104.1
591
W-CG-reg
1259
0.83
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-12.5
125.9
717
S-CG-Prem
47
0.99
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-53.4
4.7
721
S-CG-Prem
66
0.94
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-52.8
6.6
728
W-CG-Prem
57
0.94
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-48.4
5.7
734
W-CG-Prem
79
0.89
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-47.8
7.9
742
S-CG-Reg
505
0.84
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-43.1
50.5
792
W-CG-reg
610
0.79
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-38.1
61.0
853
S-CG-Reg
771
0.83
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-37.9
77.1
930
W-CG-reg
932
0.78
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-32.9
93.2
1,023
S-CG-Prem
134
0.97
1.12
0 12
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-26.1
13.4
1,037
S-CG-Prem
22
0.97
1.12
0 12
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-25.9
2.2
1,039
S-CG-Prem
62
1.00
1.12
0 17
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-25.3
6.2
1,045
S-CG-Prem
166
0.95
1.12
0 12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-24.6
16.6
1,062
S-CG-Prem
74
0.95
1.12
0 12
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-23.9
7.4
1,069
S-CG-Prem
87
0.94
1.12
0 12
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-23.7
8.7
1,078
S-CG-Prem
101
0.99
1.12
0 18
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-22.7
10.1
1,088
S-CG-Prem
50
0.98
1.12
0 17
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-22.7
5.0
1,093
S-CG-Prem
69
0.93
1.12
0 12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-22.5
6.9
1,100
S-CG-Prem
44
0.93
1.12
0 12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-22.3
4.4
1,104
S-CG-Prem
218
1.00
1.12
0 20
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-22.0
21.8
1,126
S-CG-Prem
28
0.97
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.6
2.8
1,129
S-CG-Prem
96
1.00
1.12
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.4
9.6
1,139
S-CG-Prem
14
1.21
1.12
0.41
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.2
1.4
1,140
W-CG-Prem
162
0.92
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.1
16.2
1,156
W-CG-Prem
26
0.92
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.9
2.6
1,159
S-CG-Prem
134
0.96
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.7
13.4
1,172
S-CG-Prem
59
0.91
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.3
5.9
1,178
W-CG-Prem
75
0.95
1.12
0.17
0 00
0 54
0.00
0
0
-20.3
7.5
1,186
W-CG-Prem
200
0.90
1.12
0.12
0 00
0 54
0.00
0
0
-19.6
20.0
1,206
W-CG-Prem
89
0.90
1.12
0 12
0 00
0 54
0.00
0
0
-18.9
8.9
1,215
S-CG-Prem
186
0.94
1.12
0 17
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-18.9
18.6
1,233
W-CG-Prem
105
0.89
1.12
0 12
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-18.7
10.5
1,244
S-CG-Prem
21
0.96
1.12
0 19
0 00
0 54
0.00
0
0
-18.2
2.1
1,246
S-CG-Prem
111
0.99
1.12
0 23
0 00
0 54
0.00
0
0
-18.0
11.1
1,257
W-CG-Prem
123
0.94
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.7
123
1,269
W-CG-Prem
61
0.93
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.7
6 1
1,275
S-CG-Prem
57
0.99
1.12
0.23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.6
5.7
1,281
W-CG-Prem
84
0.88
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.5
84
1,289
W-CG-Prem
54
0.88
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.3
5.4
1.295
W-CG-Prem
264
0.95
1.12
0 20
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.0
26.4
1,321
W-CG-Prem
34
0.92
1.12
0 17
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.6
3.4
1,325
W-CG-Prem
116
0.95
1.12
0 20
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.4
11.6
1,336
S-CG-Prem
60
0.94
1.12
0 19
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.2
6.0
1,342
W-CG-Prem
16
1.16
1.12
0 41
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-16.2
1.6
1,344
S-CG-Prem
7
0.93
1.12
0 19
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-15.8
0.7
1,345
W-CG-Prem
161
0.91
1.12
0.17
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-15.7
16.1
1.361
W-CG-Prem
72
0.86
1.12
0 12
0 00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-15.3
7.2
1,368
S-CG-Prem
20
0.92
1.12
0 18
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-15.3
2.0
1,370
S-CG-Prem
4
0.94
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-15.1
0.4
1,370
S-CG-Prem
54
0.88
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.5
5.4
1,376
S-CG-Reg
181
0.85
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.5
18.1
1,394
S-CG-Prem
12
0.94
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.3
1.2
1,395
S-CG-Reg
2033
0.85
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.1
203.3
1.599
S-CG-Prem
49
0.92
1.12
0 19
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-14.1
4.9
1,603
S-CG-Prem
85
0.90
1.12
0 18
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-14.0
8.5
1,612
S-CG-Prem
78
0.88
1.12
0 16
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-13.9
7.8
1,620
W-CG-Prem
225
0.89
1.12
0 17
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-13.9
22.5
1,642
S-CG-Prem
65
0.91
1.12
0 19
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-13.3
6.5
1,649
W-CG-Prem
25
0.91
1.12
0 19
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-13.2
2.5
1,651
W-CG-Prem
135
0.94
1.12
0.23
0 00
0.54
0 00
0
0
-13.0
13.5
1,665
S-CG-Reg
829
0.83
1.12
0 12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-12.8
82.9
1,748
S-CG-Reg
334
0.83
1.12
0 12
0 00
0 54
0 00
0
0
-12.8
33.4
1,781
S-CG-Reg
2097
0.83
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.8
209.7
1,991
S-CG-Reg
297
0.88
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.7
29.7
2,020
S-CG-Reg
142
0.88
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.7
14.2
2,035
W-CG-Prem
69
0.94
1.12
0.23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.6
6.9
2,042
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
289
171
823
53
0.87
0.90
0.83
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
0.17
0.19
0.12
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
-12.2
28.9
2,070
o o o
-12.1
-12.0
-11.9
17.1
82.3
5.3
2,088
2,170
2,175
62
-------
Table A2002B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State | State
IRFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2002
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy [Manaa
te ("Man
ate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal I
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1215
0.82
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
o.oo|
0!
0
-11.7
121.5
2,297
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
283
0.91
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00?
0;
0
-11.6
28.3
2,325
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
701
0.82
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-11.4
70.1
2,395
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
73
0.89
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-11.2
7.3
2,402
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
104
0.85
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.oo|
0!
0
-10.9
10.4
2,413
Utah
S-CG-Reg
494
0.86
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0;
0
-10.9
49.4
2,462
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
132
0.90
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-10.8
13.2
2,475
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
0.88
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-10.8
0.9
2,476
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
234
0.90
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00]
Oi
0
-10.5
23.4
2,500
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
105
0.88
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0;
0
-10.3
10.5
2,510
WestVirginia
W-CG-Prem
24
0.87
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-10.3
2.4
2,513
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
0.89
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-10.1
0.5
2,513
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
847
0.85
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-10.1
84.7
2,598
Texas
S-CG-Prem
342
0.84
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00I
Oi
0
-9.8
34.2
2,632
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
88
0.87
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-9.5
8.8
2,641
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
65
0.83
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.ooj
Oi
0
-9.5
6.5
2,647
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
219
0.80
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-9.5
21.9
2,669
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
0.89
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-9.3
1.5
2,671
Florida
S-CG-Prem
461
0.93
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-9.1
46.1
2,717
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2459
0.80
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-9.1
245.9
2,963
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
59
0.87
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-9.1
5.9
2,969
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
103
0.85
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
o.oo;
Oi
0
-9.0
10.3
2,979
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
94
0.83
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.oo|
o|
0
-8.9
9.4
2,988
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
78
0.86
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-8.3
7.8
2,996
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1003
0.78
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
o|
0
-7.8
100.3
3,096
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
404
0.78
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
o|
0
-7.8
40.4
3,137
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2536
0.78
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-7.8
253.6
3,390
Idaho
W-CG-reg
359
0.83
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-7.7
35.9
3,426
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
172
0.83
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00;
Oi
0
-7.7
17.2
3,444
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
170
0.85
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
0:
0
-7.6
17.0
3,460
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1100
0.86
1.12
0.20
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-7.3
110.0
3,570
Montana
W-CG-reg
349
0.82
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-7.2
34.9
3,605
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
207
0.85
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00)
oi
0
-7.1
20.7
3,626
Missouri
W-CG-reg
996
0.78
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-7.0
99.6
3,726
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
684
0.85
1.12
0.20
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-6.9
68.4
3,794
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
64
1.07
1.12
0.41
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-6.9
6.4
3,800
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1469
0.77
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
0.00)
Oi
0
-6.7
146.9
3,947
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
343
0.86
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00?
0;
0
-6.6
34.3
3,982
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
407
0.84
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-6.6
40.7
4,022
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
632
0.81
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-6.6
63.2
4,085
Kansas
W-CG-reg
847
0.77
1.12
0.12
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-6.4
84.7
4,170
New York
S-CG-Reg
1040
0.83
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00?
0;
0
-6.3
104.0
4,274
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
126
0.80
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-5.9
12.6
4,287
Utah
W-CG-reg
598
0.81
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-5.9
59.8
4,347
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
160
0.85
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-5.8
16.0
4,363
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
0.89
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.005
0;
0
-5.6! 1.1
4,364
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
282
0.85
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-5.5
28.2
4,392
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
113
1.05
1.12
0.41
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-5.5
11.3
4,403
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
126
0.83
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-5.3
12.6
4,416
WestVirginia
S-CG-Reg
322
0.82
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-5.3
32.2
4,448
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1025
0.80
1.12
0.17
0.00
0.54
O.OOj
oi
0
-5.1
102.5
4,550
Texas
W-CG-Prem
413
0.79
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00!
oi
0
-4.8
41.3
4,592
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
447
0.86
1.12
0.23
0.00
0.54
o.oo|
o|
0
-4.7
44.7
4,636
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
106
0.82
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
o|
0
-4.5
10.6
4,647
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
429
0.86
1.12
0.23
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-4.5
42.9
4,690
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
706
0.82
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-4.4
70.6
4,761
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
756
0.78
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-4.1
75.6
4,836
Florida
W-CG-Prem
557
0.88
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-4.1
55.7
4,892
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
175
1.04
1.12
0.41
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-3.7
17.5
4,909
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
136
0.83
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
O.OOj
Oi
0
-3.6
13.6
4,923
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1177
0.77
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
0!
0
-2.9
117.7
5,041
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
89
0.81
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-2.9
8.9
5,050
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
894
0.79
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-2.6
89.4
5,139
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
205
0.80
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-2.6
20.5
5,159
Washington
W-CG-reg
1330
0.81
1.12
0.20
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-2.3
133.0
5,292
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1478
0.80
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-2.0
147.8
5,440
Oregon
W-CG-reg
827
0.80
1.12
0.20
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-1.9
82.7
5,523
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
58
0.81
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
oi
0
-1.6
5.8
5,529
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
492
0.79
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-1.6
49.2
5,578
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
765
0.76
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-1.6
76.5
5,654
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
670
0.79
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-1.5
67.0
5,721
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
897
0.79
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
O.OOj
Oi
0
-1.4
89.7
5,811
New York
W-CG-reg
1257
0.78
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-1.3
125.7
5,937
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3515
0.75
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.005
Oi
0
-0.7
351.5
6,288
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2065
0.80
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-0.6
206.5
6,495
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
0.84
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00!
Oi
0
-0.6
1.3
6,496
Alaska
W-CG-reg
136
1.00
1.12
0.41
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-0.5
13.6
6,510
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
389
0.77
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
-0.3
38.9
6,549
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1867
0.79
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-0.2
186.7
6,735
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1112
0.79
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
-0.1
111.2
6,847
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1048
0.78
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
0.0
104.8
6,951
Arizona
W-CG-reg
541
0.81
1.12
0.23
0.00
0.54
O.OOI
Oi
0
0.3
54.1
7,005
Nevada
W-CG-reg
519
0.81
1.12
0.23
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
0.5
51.9
7,057
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
854
0.77
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
Oi
0
0.6
85.4
7,143
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
914
0.73
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
o.oo!
Oi
0
0.9
91.4
7,234
-------
Table A2002C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2002
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
212
0.99
1.12
0.41
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.3
21.2
7,255
Vermont
W-CG-reg
165
0.78
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.4
16.5
7,272
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1424
0.72
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.1
142.4
7,414
Maryland
W-CG-reg
107
0.76
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.1
10.7
7,425
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1080
0.74
1.12
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4
108.0
7,533
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1787
0.75
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.0
178.7
7,712
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3138
0.80
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.3
313.8
8,025
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
70
0.76
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.4
7.0
8,032
Virginia
W-CG-reg
810
0.74
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.5
81.0
8,113
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1085
0.74
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.6
108.5
8,222
Texas
W-CG-reg
4251
0.70
1.12
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.3
425.1
8,647
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2497
0.75
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.4
249.7
8,897
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2258
0.74
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.8
225.8
9,122
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1345
0.74
1.12
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.9
134.5
9,257
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1268
0.73
1.12
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.0
126.8
9,384
Maine
S-CG-Reg
129
0.78
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.7
12.9
9,396
Florida
W-CG-reg
3795
0.75
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.3
379.5
9,776
Maine
W-CG-reg
156
073
1.12
0.25
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.7
15.6
9,791
New York
S-RFG-Prem
302
1.05
1.12
0.18
0.37
ฆ 0.54
ฆ 0.00
0
0
-65.6
ฆ 30.2
9,822
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
42
0.99
1.12
0.12
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-65.4
4.2
9,826
California
S-RFG-Prem
1557
1.06
1.12
0.23
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-62.1
155.7
9,982
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
167
1.02
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-61.2
16.7
9,998
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
422
0.89
1.12
0.12
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-69.5
42.2
10,041
New York
W-RFG-Prem
366
1.00
1.12
0.18
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.9
36.6
10,077
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
50
0.94
1.12
0.12
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.8
5.0
10,082
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
125
1.05
1.12
0.23
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-60.5
12.5
10,095
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
139
0.99
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.7
13.9
10,108
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
265
0.99
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.1
26.5
10,135
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
39
0.99
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.1
3.9
10,139
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.00
1.12
0.21
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.0
2.1
10,141
California
W-RFG-Prem
1883
1.01
1.12
0.23
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-38.4
188.3
10,329
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
106
0.98
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-57.5
10.6
10,340
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
0.98
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-57.0
1.9
10,342
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
66
0.96
1.12
0.18
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-56.9
6.6
10,348
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
202
0.97
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-37.5
20.2
10,369
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
154
0.97
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-56.2
15.4
10,384
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
151
1.00
1.12
0.23
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-36.8
15.1
10,399
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7
0.97
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-55.8
0.7
10,400
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1255
0.89
1.12
0.18
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-63.7
125.5
10,525
California
S-RFG-Reg
5389
0.93
1.12
0.23
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-63.4
538.9
11,064
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
168
0.94
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-35.0
16.8
11,081
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
801
0.92
1.12
0.23
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-62.1
80.1
11,161
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
321
0.94
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-34.4
32.1
11,193
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
47
0.94
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-34.4
4.7
11,198
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
25
0.95
1.12
0.21
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-34.4
2.5
11,201
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
195
0.88
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-61.8
19.5
11,220
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1100
0.88
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-61.4
110.0
11,330
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
128
0.93
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-33.8
12.8
11,343
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
401
0.90
1.12
0.16
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-52.7
40.1
11,383
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
23
0.93
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-33.3
2.3
11,385
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
80
0.91
1.12
0.18
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-33.3
8.0
11,393
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
24
0.93
1.12
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-52.2
2.4
11,396
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
758
0.87
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-60.3
75.8
11,471
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
187
0.92
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-32.6
18.7
11,490
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
395
0.85
1.12
0.18
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-60.1
39.5
11,530
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
0.92
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-32.2
0.8
11,530
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
264
0.86
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.4
26.4
11,557
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
189
0.87
1.12
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.0
18.9
11,576
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
647
0.85
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.0
64.7
11,640
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
792
0.85
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.0
79.2
11,720
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
511
0.84
1.12
0.12
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-37.0
51.1
11,771
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2581
0.81
1.12
0.16
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.1
258.1
12,029
DC
S-RFG-Reg
26
0.84
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.0
2.6
12,031
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
0.95
1.12
0.25
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-48.5
1.3
12,033
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
485
0.85
1.12
0.16
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.0
48.5
12,081
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
192
0.82
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-56.1
19.2
12,100
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
29
0.88
1.12
0.19
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.5
2.9
12,103
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1643
0.82
1.12
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-56.0
164.3
12,268
New York
W-RFG-reg
1518
0.84
1.12
0.18
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-31.3
151.8
12,419
California
W-RFG-reg
6516
0.88
1.12
0.23
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-31.0
651.6
13,071
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
0.90
1.12
0.25
0.18
0.54
0.00
0
0
-24.9
1.5
13,073
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
190
0.84
1.12
0.25
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.8
19.0
13,092
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
969
0.87
1.12
0.23
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.7
96.9
13,188
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
236
0.83
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.4
23.6
13,212
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1330
0.83
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.0
133.0
13,345
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
917
0.82
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-27.9
91.7
13,437
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
478
0.80
1.12
0.18
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-27.6
47.8
13,484
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
320
0.81
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-27.0
32.0
13,516
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
228
0.82
1.12
0.21
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.6
22.8
13,539
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
782
0.80
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.6
78.2
13,617
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
958
0.80
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.5
95.8
13,713
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3121
0.76
1.12
0.16
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-25.7
312.1
14,025
DC
W-RFG-reg
32
0.79
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-25.6
3.2
14,029
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
233
0.77
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.7
23.3
14,052
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1986
0.77
1.12
0.19
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.6
198.6
14,250
Maine
W-RFG-reg
^|230
0.79
1.12
0.25
0.24
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.3
23.0
14,273
-------
Table A2003A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State i State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2003
Code i
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy i Mandate
'Mandate"iBlending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal i
Cost c/gah MMgals
MMgals
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1315
1 05
1.35
0 13
0.52
0 54
0.26:
0
1
-88.4
131 5
131
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem!
189
1 19
1.35
0 13
0.37
0.54
0.26!
0
1
-88 3
18.9
150
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
343
1 06
1.35
0 13
0.52
0.54
o.ool
0
1
-64.8
34 3
185
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg *
202
1 04
1.35
0 13
0.52
0.54
O.OOi
0
1
-62.5
20 2
205
Illinois
W-RFG-Preni
229
1 14
1.35
0 13
0.19
0.54
0.26!
0
-65.1
22 9
228
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem i
31
1 18
1.35
0 13
0.37
0 54
O.OOi
0
-61.0
3.1
231
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
1 16
1.35
0 13
0.37
0.54
O.OOi
0
1
-59.0
2.1
233
Illinois
W-RFG-reg i
1590
1 00
1.35
0 13
0.25
0.54
0.261
0
1
-56 1
159 0
392
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prerr
38
1 13
1.35
0 13
0.19
0 54
0.00!
0
-37.7
3.8-
396
Indiana
W-RFG-Prerr
25
1 11
1.35
0 13
0.19
0.54
0.00!
0
1
-35.8
25
398
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
415
1 01
1.35
0 13
0.25
0.54
o.ool
0
-32.4
41 5
440
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
244
0 99
1.35
0 13
0.25
0.54
O.OOi
0
-30.2
24 4
464
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem 1
105
1 11
1.35
0.13
0.00
0 54
0.00!
0
-17.6
10.5
475
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
127
1 06
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.001
0
-12.6
12.7
487
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
1043
1 03
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
-9.6
104.3
592
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1261
0 98
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
-4.6
126.1:
718
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
66
1 11
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.30!
0
0
-47.0
6.6
724
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
47
1 13
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.26i
0
0
-45.3
47
729
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
79
1 06
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.30 i
0
0
-42.0
7.9
737
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
57
1 08
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.26!
0
0
-40.3
57
743
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
505
1 01
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.30!
0
0
-36.4
50.5
793
Iowa
W-CG-reg
611
0 96
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.30!
0
0
-31.4
61 1
855
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
772
0 99
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.26 i
0
0
-30.4
77.2
932
Illinois
W-CG-reg
934
0 94
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.26!
0
0
-25.4
93.4
1,025
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
111
1 26
1.35
0 23
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-21.8
11.1
1,036
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
57
1 26
1.35
0 23
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-21.6
5.7
1,042
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
135
1 13
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
0
0
-19.4
13 5
1,055
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
96
1 21
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-19.3
9 6
1,065
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
22
1 13
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-19.2
2.2
1,067
Montana
S-CG-Prem
62
1 17
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
0
0
-18.8
6.2
1,073
New York
S-CG-Prem
102
1 18
1.35
0 18
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
0
0
-18.2
102
1,084
Washington
S-CG-Prem
219
1 20
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-18.2
21.9
1,106
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
74
1 12
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-17.9
7.4
1,113
Utah
S-CG-Prem
134
1 16
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-17.4
13.4
1,126
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
166
1 11
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-17.4
16.6
1,143
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
50
1 15
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-16.8
5.0
1,148
Nevada
W-CG-Prem i
135
1 21
1.35
0 23
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-16.8
13.5
1,161
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
69
1 21
1.35
0 23
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-16.6
69
1,168
Indiana
S-CG-Prem :
87
1 10
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-16.0
8.7
1,177
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
14
1 40
1.35
0 43
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-15.9
1.4
1,178
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
44
1 09
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-15.8
4.4
1,183
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
163
1 08
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-14.4
16 3
1,199
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
69
1 08
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-14.3
6.9
1,206
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
116
1 16
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-14.3
11.6
1,218
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
21\ 1.08
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-14.2
2.7
1,220
Montana
W-CG-Prem
75
1 12
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-13.8
7.5
1,228
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
29
1 12
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-13.8
2.9
1,231
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
60
1 07
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-13.8
6.0
1,237
New York
W-CG-Prem i
123
1 13
1.35
0 18
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-13.2
12.3
1,249
Washington
W-CG-Prem
264
1 15
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-13.2
26.4
1,275
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
90
1 07
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-12.9
9.0
1,284
Utah
W-CG-Prem
162
1.11
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
o.ooi
0
0
-12.4
16.2
1,300
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
201
1 06
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-12.4
20.1
1,321
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
61
1 10
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-11.8
6 1
1,327
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
105
1 05
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-11.0
10.5
1,337
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
1 35
1.35
0 43
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-10.9
1.6
1,339
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
54
1 04
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-10.8
5.4
1,344
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
186
1 09
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-10.6
18 6
1,363
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
1 11
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-10.5
2.1
1,365
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
61
1 11
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-10.1
6.1
1,371
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
430
1 14
1.35
0 23
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-9.8
43.0
1,414
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
84
1 03
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-9.3
8 4
1,422
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
1 10
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-9.3
0.7
1,423
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
1 11
1.35
0 21
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-9.0
1.2
1,424
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
448
1 13
1.35
0 23
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-9.0
44.8
1,469
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
53
1 33
1.35
0 43
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-9.0
5 3
1,474
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
35
1 07
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
CO
CO
3.5
1,478
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
85
1 08
1.35
0 18
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
CO
CO
8.5
1,486
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
72
1 02
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
CO
CO
7.2
1,493
New HampshirefS-CG-Prem
4
1 11
1.35
0 21
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
CO
CO
04
1,494
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
182
1 02
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-8.0
18.2
1,512
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
54
1 05
1.35
0 16
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-7.9
5.4
1,518
WestVirginia
S-CG-Prem
20
1 07
1.35
0 18
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-7.8
2.0
1,520
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
2037
1 01
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-7.6
203.7
1,723
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
49
1.08
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-7.1
4.9
1.728
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
297
1.05
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-7.0
29 7
1,758
Utah
S-CG-Reg
495
1.05
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-6.8
49 5
1,807
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
78
1.04
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-6.8
7 8
1,815
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
831
1.00
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-6.7
83 1
1,898
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
335
1.00
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-5.9
33 5
1,932
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2101
1.00
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-5.9
210 1
2,142
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
225
1.04
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-5.6
22 5
2,164
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
65
1.07
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-5.6
6 5
2,171
Montana
S-CG-Reg
289
1.04
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
O.OOi
0
0
-5.5
28 9
2,200
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
1.06
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00!
0
0
-5.5
2.5
2,202
-------
Table A2003B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol )
Ethanol |
Cumulative
2003
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"! Blending
Volume [
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/galj MMgals I
MMgals
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
73
1.06
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5.11
7.3!
2,210
Nevada
W-CG-reg
520
1.09
1.35
0.23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.8!
52 0
2,262
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
685
1.06
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.8I
68 5l
2,330
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
284
1.07
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.7!
28.4!
2,358
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
171
1.06
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.7!
17.11
2,376
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
143
1.03
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 6
143
2,390
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1217
0.98
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 5
121 7
2,512
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
825
0.98
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.3!
82.5!
2,594
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
105
1 05
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 3'
10 5'
2,605
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
1.05
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.3!
0.9!
2,605
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1102
1 06
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.21
110.2!
2,716
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
702
0.98
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 f
70 2
2,786
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
1 06
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.0!
1 5
2,787
Arizona
W-CG-reg
541
1.08
1.35
0 23
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 0
54.11
2,841
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
64
1 28
1.35
0 43
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4 0
6.4!
2,848
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
103
1.03
1.35
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3 8
103
2,858
New HampshireiW-CG-Prem
5
1.06
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.8!
0.5!
2,859
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
132
1 06
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3 3'
13 2'
2,872
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
88
1.04
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.0!
03
CO
2,881
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
220
0 97
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3 0
22.0!
2,903
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
65
1.00
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29
65
2,909
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
1 02
1.35
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2 8
24
2,912
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
234
1.05
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2 6
23 4
2,935
Texas
S-CG-Prem
342
1.00
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.61
34.2!
2,969
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2463
0.96
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.6!
246 3
3,216
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
60
1.03
1.35
0 20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2 1
60
3,221
Idaho
W-CG-reg
359
1 00
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.0!
35.9!
3,257
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
849
1.00
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.91
84.9!
3,342
Utah
W-CG-reg
599
1 00
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.8!
59.9!
3,402
Florida
S-CG-Prem
461
1.09
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1 8'
46 1'
3,448
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
94
0 99
1.35
0 16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1 8
94
3,458
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1005
0.95
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.7!
100.5!
3,558
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
104
0.99
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.5!
10.4!
3,569
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
113
1.25
1.35
0.43
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1 3'
11.31
3,580
New York
S-CG-Reg
1042
1.00
1.35
0 18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1 0
104 2
3,684
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
170
1.02
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.9!
17.0!
3,701
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
405
0.95
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.9!
40.5!
3,742
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2540
0.95
1.35
0 13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0 9'
254 0'
3,996
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
79
1.02
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0 6
79
4,003
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
407
1.02
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0 6
40.7!
4,044
Montana
W-CG-reg
350
0.99
1.35
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.5!
35 0
4,079
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
176
1.24
1.35
0.43
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.11
176
4,097
Oregon
W-CG-reg
829
1.01
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.2!
82.9!
4,180
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
343
1.02
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.3!
34 Z'
4,214
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
207
1.01
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.3!
20 7
4,235
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
172
0.98
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
04
172
4,252
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1472
0.93
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.5!
147 2
4,399
Missouri
W-CG-reg
997
0.93
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.7!
99.7!
4,499
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
127
1.00
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.7!
127
4,511
Washington
W-CG-reg
1332
1.01
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
0.8!
133 2'
4,645
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
634
0.96
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
09
63 4
4,708
Kansas
W-CG-reg
849
0.93
1.35
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
09
84 9
4,793
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
160
1.01
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1.7!
16.0!
4,809
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
895
0.97
1.35
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
1 9'
89 5'
4,898
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
106
0.99
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.0!
10.6!
4,909
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
136
1.00
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
20
13.6!
4,923
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
322
0.97
1.35
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
23^
32 2
4,955
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
283
1 00
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4!
28.3!
4,983
Texas
W-CG-Prem
414
0.95
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4!
41.4!
5,025
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
707
0.98
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.4!
70 7
5,095
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
1.04
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
2.9!
1 1
5,096
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1026
0.95
1.35
0 17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3 1
102 6
5,199
Florida
W-CG-Prem
558
1 04
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
32l
55 8
5,255
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
126
0.94
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.5!
12.6!
5,267
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
89
0 97
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
3.7!
8.9!
5,276
Alaska
W-CG-reg
136
1.20
1.35
0.43
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
Zt
136
5,290
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
757
0 93
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
39
75.7!
5,366
New York
W-CG-reg
1259
0.95
1.35
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.0!
125.9!
5,492
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
205
0 97
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.1!
20.5!
5,512
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
493
0.97
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
44'
49.3!
5,561
New Hampshire i S-CG-Reg
58
0.98
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
44
58
5,567
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
212
1.19
1.35
0.43
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
4.9!
21.2!
5,588
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1179
0.92
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.3!
117.9!
5,706
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1480
0.96
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
54'
148 0'
5,854
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
766
0.91
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
5.9!
76 6
5,931
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
671
0.95
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.3!
67.1!
5,998
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1050
0.95
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.4!
105 0
6,103
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2068
0.96
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.4!
206.8!
6,310
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1082
0.92
1.35
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
6.9!
108 2
6,418
Vermont
W-CG-reg
165
0.95
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.0!
16.5!
6,435
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
899
0.94
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.1!
89 9
6,524
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3521
0.90
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.2\
352 1'
6,877
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
390
0.92
1.35
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.3!
39.0!
6,916
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
855
0.93
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7A\
85.51
7,001
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1114
0.95
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.6|
111.41
7,112
-------
Table A2003C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2003
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1870
0.95
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.7
187.0
7,299
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
0.99
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
7.9
1.3
7,301
Maryland
W-CG-reg
108
0.92
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.7
10.8
7,312
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
915
0.88
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
8.9
91.5
7,403
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
70
0.93
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
9.4
7.0
7,410
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1426
0.87
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.3
142.6
7,553
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1790
0.91
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.4
179.0
7,732
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3144
0.96
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
10.6
314.4
8,046
Virginia
W-CG-reg
811
0.90
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.3
81.1
8,127
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1270
0.90
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.4
127.0
8,254
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2501
0.91
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
11.4
250.1
8,504
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1087
0.89
1.35
0.20
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.1
108.7
8,613
Texas
W-CG-reg
4258
0.85
1.35
0.16
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.2
425.8
9,039
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1347
0.90
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.6
134.7
9,173
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2261
0.90
1.35
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.7
226.1
9,399
Maine
S-CG-Reg
129
0.94
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.4
12.9
9,412
Florida
W-CG-reg
3801
0.91
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.6
380.1
9,792
Maine
W-CG-reg
156
0.89
1.35
0.26
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
18.4
15.6
9,808
California
S-RFG-Prem
1560
1.33
1.35
0.23
0.37
ฆ 0.54
ฆ 0.00
0
0
ฆ -65.3
ฆ 156.0
9,964
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
125
1.32
1.35
0.23
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-64.6
12.5
9,977
New York
S-RFG-Prem
303
1.24
1.35
0.18
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-61.3
30.3
10,007
California
W-RFG-Prerr
1886
1.28
1.35
0.23
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-42.1
188.6
10,195
Arizona
W-RFG-Prerr
151
1.27
1.35
0.23
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-41.4
15.1
10,211
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
42
1.14
1.35
0.13
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-57.4
4.2
10,215
California
S-RFG-Reg
5398
1.20
1.35
0.23
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-67.4
539.8
10,755
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
803
1.19
1.35
0.23
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-67.0
80.3
10,835
New York
W-RFG-Prerr
366
1.19
1.35
0.18
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-38.0
36.6
10,871
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
168
1.19
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-55.1
16.8
10,888
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
106
1.17
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-53.1
10.6
10,899
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
139
1.16
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-52.3
13.9
10,913
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
266
1.16
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.9
26.6
10,939
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
66
1.14
1.35
0.18
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.8
6.6
10,946
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.17
1.35
0.21
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.8
2.1
10,948
Missouri
W-RFG-Prerr
50
1.09
1.35
0.13
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-34.1
5.0
10,953
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
39
1.15
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.4
3.9
10,957
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
423
1.04
1.35
0.13
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-62.4
42.3
10,999
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
1.14
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-50.1
1.9
11,001
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prerr
203
1.14
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-31.9
20.3
11,021
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7
1.13
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-48.9
0.7
11,022
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
155
1.13
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-48.7
15.5
11,038
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1257
1.06
1.35
0.18
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.1
125.7
11,163
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prerr
128
1.12
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.9
12.8
11,176
Delav\are
S-RFG-Prem
24
1.11
1.35
0.20
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-47.3
2.4
11,179
California
W-RFG-reg
6527
1.15
1.35
0.23
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-35.1
652.7
11,831
Maryland
W-RFG-Prerr
168
1.11
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.1
16.8
11,848
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
971
1.14
1.35
0.23
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-34.7
97.1
11,945
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prerr
321
1.11
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.7
32.1
11,977
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prerr
80
1.09
1.35
0.18
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.6
8.0
11,985
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prerr
25
1.12
1.35
0.21
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.6
2.5
11,988
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prerr
47
1.10
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.2
4.7
11,993
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
401
1.06
1.35
0.16
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-45.6
40.1
12,033
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1102
1.05
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-56.1
110.2
12,143
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
396
1.03
1.35
0.18
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-56.1
39.6
12,182
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
195
1.04
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-55.6
19.5
12,202
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prerr
23
1.09
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.9
2.3
12,204
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
648
1.04
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-55.1
64.8
12,269
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
760
1.03
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-54.3
76.0
12,345
DC
W-RFG-Prerr
8
1.08
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-25.6
0.8
12,346
Virginia
W-RFG-Prerr
187
1.08
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-25.4
18.7
12,365
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
189
1.04
1.35
0.21
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-53.6
18.9
12,383
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
265
1.02
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-53.2
26.5
12,410
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
512
0.99
1.35
0.13
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-30.0
51.2
12,461
Delav\are
W-RFG-Prerr
29
1.06
1.35
0.20
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-24.1
2.9
12,464
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
794
1.01
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.8
79.4
12,543
Delav\are
S-RFG-Reg
193
1.00
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.5
19.3
12,563
DC
S-RFG-Reg
26
1.00
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-51.4
2.6
12,565
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
1.10
1.35
0.26
0.37
0.54
0.00
0
0
-40.1
1.3
12,566
Texas
W-RFG-Prerr
485
1.01
1.35
0.16
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.4
48.5
12,615
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2585
0.96
1.35
0.16
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-50.8
258.5
12,874
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1645
0.99
1.35
0.20
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-50.3
164.5
13,038
New York
W-RFG-reg
1520
1.01
1.35
0.18
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.8
152.0
13,190
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1332
1.00
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.8
133.2
13,323
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
479
0.98
1.35
0.18
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.8
47.9
13,371
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
236
0.99
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-23.3
23.6
13,395
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
783
0.99
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.8
78.3
13,473
Maine
W-RFG-Prerr
15
1.05
1.35
0.26
0.19
0.54
0.00
0
0
-16.9
1.5
13,475
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
918
0.98
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.0
91.8
13,567
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
190
1.00
1.35
0.26
0.52
0.54
0.00
0
0
-44.6
19.0
13,586
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
228
0.99
1.35
0.21
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.3
22.8
13,608
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
320
0.97
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.9
32.0
13,640
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
960
0.96
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.4
96.0
13,736
Delav\are
W-RFG-reg
233
0.95
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.2
23.3
13,760
DC
W-RFG-reg
32
0.95
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.1
3.2
13,763
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3126
0.91
1.35
0.16
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-18.5
312.6
14,076
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1990
0.94
1.35
0.20
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-18.0
199.0
14,275
Maine
W-RFG-reg
230
0.95
1.35
0.26
0.25
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.3
23.0
14,298
-------
Table A2004A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2004
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1320
1.32
1.69
0.13
0.72
0.54
0.26
0
1
-100.7
132.0
132
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
190
1.46
1.69
0.13
0.51
0.54
0.26
0
1
-94.0
19.0
151
California
S-RFG-Reg
5418
1.50
1.69
0.24
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
1
-82.5
308.8
460
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
203
1.33
1.69
0.13
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
1
-76.5
20.3
480
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
344
1.33
1.69
0.13
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
1
-76.2
34.4
515
California
S-RFG-Prem
1566
1.63
1.69
0.24
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
1
-74.9
89.2
604
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1262
1.36
1.69
0.19
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
1
-73.3
126.2
730
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
650
1.35
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
1
-71.1
65.0
795
New York
S-RFG-Prem
304
1.53
1.69
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
1
-69.9
30.4
825
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.44
1.69
0.13
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
1
-67.2
2.1
828
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
31
1.44
1.69
0.13
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
1
-66.3
3.1
831
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
107
1.48
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
1
-63.2
10.7
841
Illinois
W-RFG-Prerr
230
1.41
1.69
0.13
0.26
0.54
0.26
0
1
-63.5
23.0
864
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1596
1.27
1.69
0.13
0.34
0.54
0.26
0
1
-57.8
159.6
1,024
California
W-RFG-Prerr
1893
1.58
1.69
0.24
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
1
-44.4
107.9
1,132
California
W-RFG-reg
6552
1.45
1.69
0.24
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
1
-39.6
373.4
1,505
New York
W-RFG-Prerr
368
1.48
1.69
0.19
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
1
-39.4
36.8
1,542
Indiana
W-RFG-Prerr
26
1.39
1.69
0.13
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
1
-36.7
2.6
1,545
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prerr
38
1.39
1.69
0.13
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
1
-35.9
3.8
1,548
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
245
1.28
1.69
0.13
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
1
-33.6
24.5
1,573
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
416
1.28
1.69
0.13
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
1
-33.3
41.6
1,614
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prerr
129
1.43
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
1
-32.8
12.9
1,627
New York
W-RFG-reg
1526
1.31
1.69
0.19
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
1
-30.4
152.6
1,780
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
786
1.30
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
1
-28.2
78.6
1,859
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
105
1.38
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-9.1
10.5
1,869
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
127
1.33
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-4.1
12.7
1,882
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
1047
1.30
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
-1.8
104.7
1,987
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1266
1.25
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
1
0
3.2
126.6
2,113
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
66
1.39
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-39.7
6.6
2,120
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
47
1.40
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-36.7
4.7
2,124
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
80
1.34
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-34.7
8.0
2,132
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
57
1.35
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-31.7
5.7
2,138
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
507
1.28
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-28.6
50.7
2,189
Iowa
W-CG-reg
613
1.23
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.30
0
0
-23.6
61.3
2,250
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
775
1.26
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-22.8
77.5
2,328
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
112
1.59
1.69
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.8
11.2
2,339
Illinois
W-CG-reg
937
1.21
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.26
0
0
-17.8
93.7
2,433
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
57
1.55
1.69
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-15.1
5.7
2,438
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
135
1.54
1.69
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-14.8
13.5
2,452
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
97
1.50
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-13.5
9.7
2,462
Washington
S-CG-Prem
219
1.49
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.9
21.9
2,484
New York
S-CG-Prem
102
1.47
1.69
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-12.6
10.2
2,494
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
22
1.40
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-11.3
2.2
2,496
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
135
1.40
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-11.1
13.5
2,509
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
51
1.44
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.8
5.1
2,515
Montana
S-CG-Prem
62
1.44
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.4
6.2
2,521
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
167
1.39
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.4
16.7
2,537
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
69
1.50
1.69
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-10.1
6.9
2,544
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
87
1.38
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.9
8.7
2,553
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
69
1.38
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.1
6.9
2,560
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
74
1.38
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-9.1
7.4
2,567
Utah
S-CG-Prem
134
1.42
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.5
13.4
2,581
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
45
1.37
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.5
4.5
2,585
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
117
1.45
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.5
11.7
2,597
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
29
1.42
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-8.5
2.9
2,600
Washington
W-CG-Prem
265
1.44
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.9
26.5
2,626
New York
W-CG-Prem
123
1.42
1.69
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-7.6
12.3
2,639
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
431
1.46
1.69
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6.6
43.1
2,682
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
27
1.35
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6.3
2.7
2,685
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
163
1.35
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-6.1
16.3
2,701
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
60
1.34
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5.9
6.0
2,707
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
61
1.39
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5.8
6.1
2,713
Montana
W-CG-Prem
75
1.39
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5.4
7.5
2,721
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
201
1.34
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-5.4
20.1
2,741
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
106
1.33
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.9
10.6
2,751
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
187
1.38
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.4
18.7
2,770
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
84
1.33
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.1
8.4
2,778
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
90
1.33
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-4.1
9.0
2,787
Utah
W-CG-Prem
162
1.37
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.5
16.2
2,804
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
54
1.32
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.5
5.4
2,809
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
35
1.37
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.5
3.5
2,812
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
20
1.37
1.69
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-3.0
2.0
2,814
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
1.40
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.9
1.2
2,816
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
86
1.37
1.69
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.6
8.6
2,824
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
61
1.39
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.5
6.1
2,830
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
49
1.38
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.4
4.9
2,835
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
54
1.34
1.69
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.1
5.4
2,841
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
1.38
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-2.0
0.7
2,841
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
1.38
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.9
2.1
2,844
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
298
1.35
1.69
0.18
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.8
29.8
2,873
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
449
1.41
1.69
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.7
44.9
2,918
Nevada
W-CG-reg
522
1.41
1.69
0.24
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.6
52.2
2,970
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
78
1.33
1.69
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-1.0
7.8
2,978
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
72
1.29
1.69
0.13
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.9
7.2
2,986
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
285
1.38
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
-0.6
28.5
3,014
-------
Table A2004B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethano
iEths
nol
Ethanol
Federal \ Staie
State
RFG
Ethanoi
Ethanoi
Cumulative
2004
Code
Volume
Price
Gate P
D
uost
Blending
Subsiav ;sud
iav
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blendina
volume
Eth Vol
Slate
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
:$/ga
$/gal
$/gal ii/qa
Costc qa
MMgais
MMgals
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
65
1.36
.69!
0.21
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
0.1
6.5
3,021
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
182
1.28
.69!
0.13
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
02
18.2
3,039
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
2044
1.28
.69!
0.13
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
03
204.4
3,243
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
172
1.36
,69i
0.21
0 00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
05
17.2
3,260
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
226
1.33
.69!
0.18
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
06
22.6
3,283
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
14
1.59
.69!
0.44
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
06
1.4
3,284
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
104
1.31
.69!
0.17
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
08
10.4
3,295
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
105
1.35
,69i
0.21
0 00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
09
10.5
3,305
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2109
1.28
69
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
09
210.9
3,516
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
133
1.37
.69!
0.22
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 0
13.3
3,529
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
828
1.27
.69!
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 1
82.8
3,612
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
688
1.35
.69!
0.21
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 3
68.8
3,681
Utah
S-CG-Reg
497
1.32
.69!
0.18
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 4
49.7
3,731
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
143
1.32
.69!
0.18
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 4
14.3
3,745
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1222
1.27
.69!
0.13
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 4
122.2
3,867
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
834
1.27
. 69 i
0.13
0 00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
1 6
83.4
3,951
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
336
1.27
.69!
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 7
33.6
3,984
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
1.36
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 7
0.4
3,985
Montana
S-CG-Reg
290
1.32
.69!
0.18
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
1 8
29.0
4,014
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
1.32
,69i
0.19
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
2.0
2.4
4,016
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
1.35
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
2 1
1.5
4,018
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
235
1.35
.69!
0.22
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
2 1
23.5
4.041
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1106
1.34
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
22
110.6
4,152
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
104
1.32
.69!
0.19
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
24
10.4
4,162
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
74
1.34
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
25
7.4
4,169
Texas
S-CG-Prem
343
1.29
.69!
0.17
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
26
34.3
4,204
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
60
1.33
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
2.6
6.0
4,210
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
66
1.29
.69!
0.17
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
29
6.6
4,216
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
1.33
,69i
0.21
0 00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
30
0.9
4,217
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
1.33
69
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
3 1
2.5
4,220
Idaho
W-CG-reg
361
1.30
.69!
0.18
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
32
36.1
4,256
Arizona
W-CG-reg
543
1.36
. 69 i
0.24
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
33
54.3
4,310
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
852
1.29
.69!
0.18
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
39
85.2
4,395
Florida
S-CG-Prem
463
1.38
.69!
0.27
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
39
46.3
4,442
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
95
1.28
.69!
0.17
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
40
9.5
4,451
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
705
1.24
,69i
0.13
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
43
70.5
4,522
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
344
1.33
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
44
34.4
4,556
New York
S-CG-Reg
1045
1.30
.69!
0.19
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
46
104.5
4,661
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
88
1.31
.69!
0.21
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
50
03
CO
4,669
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
79
1.31
.69!
0.21
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
5 1
7.9
4,677
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
220
1.23
.69!
0.13
0 00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
52
22.0
4,699
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2472
1.23
69
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
53
247.2
4,946
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
208
1.31
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
55
20.8
4,967
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
1.54
.69!
0.44
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
56
1.6
4,969
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
126
1.26
.69!
0.17
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
58
12.6
4,982
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
127
1.30
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
59
12.7
4,994
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2550
1.23
.69!
0.13
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
59
255.0
5,249
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
161
1.32
,69i
0.22
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
60
16.1
5,265
Missouri
W-CG-reg
1001
1.22
.69!
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
6 1
100.1
5,365
Oregon
W-CG-reg
832
1.30
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
63
83.2
5,449
Utah
W-CG-reg
601
1.27
.69!
0.18
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
64
60.1
5,509
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
173
1.27
,69i
0.18
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
64
17.3
5,526
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1477
1.22
.69!
0.13
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
6.4
147.7
5,674
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1008
1.22
69
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
66
100.8
5,775
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
406
1.22
.69!
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
67
40.6
5,815
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
113
1.53
.69!
0.44
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
67
11.3
5,826
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
1.31
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
67
0.5
5,827
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
409
1.29
69
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
68
40.9
5,868
Montana
W-CG-reg
351
1.27
.69!
0.18
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
68
35.1
5,903
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
1.35
.69!
0.27
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
7 1
1.1
5,904
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
284
1.30
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
7 1
28.4
5,932
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
171
1.29
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
72
17.1
5,950
Washington
W-CG-reg
1337
1.29
.69!
0.21
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
72
133.7
6,083
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
636
1.25
,69i
0.17
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
73
63.6
6,147
WestVirginia
S-CG-Reg
324
1.27
.69!
0.19
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
73
32.4
6,179
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
710
1.29
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
74
71.0
6,250
Texas
W-CG-Prem
415
1.24
.69!
0.17
0.00
0 54!
0 00
0
0
76
41.5
6,292
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
53
1.52
.69!
0.44
0.00
0.541
0.00
0
0
77
5.3
6,297
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
137
1.30
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
79
13.7
6,311
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
898
1.26
.69!
0.19
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
88
89.8
6,401
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1030
1.24
.69!
0.18
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
89
103.0
6,504
Florida
W-CG-Prem
560
1.33
.69!
0.27
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
89
56.0
6,560
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
760
1.23
.69!
0.17
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
90
76.0
6,636
Kansas
W-CG-reg
852
1.19
.69!
0.13
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
9.3
85.2
6,721
New York
W-CG-reg
1264
1.25
.69!
0.19
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
96
126.4
6,847
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
107
1.26
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
100
10.7
6,858
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
89
1.25
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
105
8.9
6,867
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2076
1.27
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
105
207.6
7,074
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1486
1.25
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
106
148.6
7,223
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1184
1.21
,69i
0.17
0.00
0.54i
0.00
0
0
11 0
118.4
7,341
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1054
1.25
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
11 5
105.4
7,447
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1118
1.26
.69!
0.22
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
11 5
111.8
7,558
Alaska
W-CG-reg
137
1.48
.69!
0.44
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
11.7
13.7
7,572
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
494
1.24
.69!
0.21
0 00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
11 8
49.4
7,622
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
1.30
.69!
0.27
0.00
0.54!
0.00
0
0
12 1
1.3
7,623
-------
Table A2004C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2004
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
DistCost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
206
1.24
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.2
20.6
7,644
Virginia
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
673
1.24
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.2
67.3
7,711
W-CG-reg
769
1.20
1.69
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.3
76.9
7,788
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1877
1.25
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.3
187.7
7,975
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
391
1.22
1.69
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.3
39.1
8,015
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
858
1.24
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.4
85.8
8,100
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
64
1.47
1.69
0.44
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.7
6.4
8,107
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
58
1.25
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.7
5.8
8,113
Vermont
W-CG-reg
166
1.25
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
12.9
16.6
8,129
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3534
1.19
1.69
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.3
353.4
8,483
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1086
1.21
1.69
0.19
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
13.8
108.6
8,591
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
919
1.18
1.69
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.0
91.9
8,683
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
902
1.21
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
14.7
90.2
8,773
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
176
1.44
1.69
0.44
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.1
17.6
8,791
Maryland
W-CG-reg
108
1.20
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.5
10.8
8,802
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2510
1.22
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.5
251.0
9,053
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1796
1.20
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.6
179.6
9,232
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3155
1.27
1.69
0.27
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
15.6
315.5
9,548
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1431
1.16
1.69
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.0
143.1
9,691
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1274
1.20
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.5
127.4
9,818
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1352
1.21
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
16.5
135.2
9,954
Virginia
W-CG-reg
814
1.19
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.2
81.4
10,035
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2270
1.20
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.3
227.0
10,262
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
70
1.20
1.69
0.22
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
17.7
7.0
10,269
Maine
S-CG-Reg
129
1.24
1.69
0.27
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
18.0
12.9
10,282
Texas
W-CG-reg
4274
1.14
1.69
0.17
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
18.3
427.4
10,709
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1091
1.16
1.69
0.21
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
19.7
109.1
10,818
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
213
1.39
1.69
0.44
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
20.1
21.3
10,840
Florida
W-CG-reg
3815
1.22
1.69
0.27
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
20.6
381.5
11,221
Maine
W-CG-reg
157
1.19
1.69
0.27
0.00
0.54
0.00
0
0
23.0
15.7
11,237
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
125
1.61
1.69
0.24
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-72.4
12.5
11,249
Arizona
W-RFG-Prerr
151
1.56
1.69
0.24
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-42.0
15.1
11,265
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
42
1.44
1.69
0.13
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-66.3
4.2
11,269
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
806
1.47
1.69
0.24
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-79.6
80.6
11,349
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
425
1.33
1.69
0.13
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-76.7
42.5
11,392
Missouri
W-RFG-Prerr
50
1.39
1.69
0.13
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-35.9
5.0
11,397
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
66
1.43
1.69
0.19
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.8
6.6
11,403
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
1.44
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.7
1.9
11,405
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
168
1.44
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.6
16.8
11,422
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
139
1.44
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.3
13.9
11,436
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
267
1.43
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.2
26.7
11,463
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
39
1.43
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-58.0
3.9
11,467
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
155
1.42
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-57.1
15.5
11,482
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7
1.41
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-56.6
0.7
11,483
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
196
1.35
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-70.5
19.6
11,503
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
24
1.41
1.69
0.21
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-55.8
2.4
11,505
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.42
1.69
0.22
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-55.6
2.1
11,507
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
398
1.32
1.69
0.19
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-69.0
39.8
11,547
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
403
1.35
1.69
0.17
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-54.7
40.3
11,587
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
80
1.38
1.69
0.19
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.4
8.0
11,595
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prerr
23
1.39
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.2
2.3
11,597
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prerr
204
1.39
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-29.2
20.4
11,618
Maryland
W-RFG-Prerr
169
1.39
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-28.8
16.9
11,635
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
974
1.42
1.69
0.24
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-36.7
97.4
11,732
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1106
1.32
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-67.4
110.6
11,843
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
762
1.31
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-67.4
76.2
11,919
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prerr
323
1.38
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-27.8
32.3
11,951
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prerr
48
1.38
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-27.6
4.8
11,956
Virginia
W-RFG-Prerr
188
1.37
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.7
18.8
11,975
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
266
1.30
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-65.8
26.6
12,001
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
797
1.30
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-65.7
79.7
12,081
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
1.36
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.2
0.8
12,082
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
190
1.31
1.69
0.22
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-65.2
19.0
12,101
DC
S-RFG-Reg
26
1.29
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-64.9
2.6
12,103
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
514
1.28
1.69
0.13
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-33.8
51.4
12,155
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
193
1.29
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-64.8
19.3
12,174
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2595
1.25
1.69
0.17
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-64.6
259.5
12,434
Delaware
W-RFG-Prerr
29
1.36
1.69
0.21
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-25.4
2.9
12,436
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prerr
26
1.37
1.69
0.22
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-25.1
2.6
12,439
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
1.41
1.69
0.27
0.51
0.54
0.00
0
0
-50.2
1.3
12,440
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1651
1.28
1.69
0.21
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-63.7
165.1
12,605
Texas
W-RFG-Prerr
487
1.30
1.69
0.17
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-24.2
48.7
12,654
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
191
1.30
1.69
0.27
0.72
0.54
0.00
0
0
-59.9
19.1
12,673
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
1.36
1.69
0.27
0.26
0.54
0.00
0
0
-19.8
1.5
12,675
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
237
1.30
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-27.6
23.7
12,698
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
481
1.27
1.69
0.19
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-26.1
48.1
12,746
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1337
1.27
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-24.5
133.7
12,880
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
922
1.26
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-24.5
92.2
12,972
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
321
1.25
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.9
32.1
13,005
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
963
1.25
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.7
96.3
13,101
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
229
1.26
1.69
0.22
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.2
22.9
13,124
DC
W-RFG-reg
32
1.24
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-22.0
3.2
13,127
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
234
1.24
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.9
23.4
13,150
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3138
1.20
1.69
0.17
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-21.7
313.8
13,464
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1997
1.23
1.69
0.21
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-20.8
199.7
13,664
Maine
W-RFG-reg
231
1.25
1.69
0.27
0.34
0.54
0.00
0
0
-17.0
23.1
13,687
-------
Table A2005A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
State
Illinois
Illinois
Wisconsin
Indiana
California
New York
Connecticut
Wisconsin
Indiana
California
New York
Connecticut
Illinois
Illinois
Wisconsin
Indiana
Wisconsin
Indiana
California
New York
California
New York
Connecticut
Connecticut
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Iowa
Iowa
Illinois
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa
Illinois
Illinois
South Dakota
Nevada
Wyoming
Washington
Arizona
South Dakota
Missouri
Nevada
Montana
Nebraska
Oregon
Wisconsin
Indiana
Michigan
New Mexico
Idaho
Ohio
New York
Wyoming
Washington
Colorado
Arizona
Kansas
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Oregon
Wisconsin
Indiana
Michigan
New Mexico
Idaho
Ohio
New York
Utah
Maryland
Arkansas
Georgia
West Virginia
Kentucky
Colorado
Vermont
Nevada
Wyoming
Virginia
North Dakota
Mississippi
Kansas
South Dakota
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
Code
Volume
MMgals
Price
$/gal
Gate Price
$/gal
Dist Cost
$/gal
Blending
$/gal
Subsidy
$/gal
Subsidy
$/gal
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Cost c/gal
Volume
MMgals
Eth Vol
MMgals
S-RFG-Reg
1342
1.70
1.80
0.14
1.00
0.51
0.26
0
1
-152.7
134.2
134
S-RFG-Prem
193
1.84
1.80
0.14
0.71
0.51
0.26
0
1
-137.7
19.3
153
S-RFG-Reg
350
1.72
1.80
0.14
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
1
-129.5
35.0
188
S-RFG-Reg
206
1.72
1.80
0.14
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
1
-129.0
20.6
209
S-RFG-Reg
5508
1.82
1.80
0.25
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
A
-127.5
313.9
523
S-RFG-Reg
1283
1.71
1.80
0.20
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
1
-122.4
128.3
651
S-RFG-Reg
661
1.68
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
1
-117.9
66.1
717
S-RFG-Prem
32
1.83
1.80
0.14
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
j
-112.0
3.2
721
S-RFG-Prem
22
1.83
1.80
0.14
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
1
-112.0
2.2
723
S-RFG-Prem
1592
1.94
1.80
0.25
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
1
-111.4
90.7
813
S-RFG-Prem
309
1.89
1.80
0.20
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
-111.3
30.9
844
S-RFG-Prem
108
1.79
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
-|
-100.1
10.8
855
W-RFG-Prem
234
1.79
1.80
0.14
0.36
0.51
0.26
0
1
-97.6
23.4
879
W-RFG-reg
1622
1.65
1.80
0.14
0.47
0.51
0.26
0
1
-95.4
162.2
1,041
W-RFG-reg
423
1.67
1.80
0.14
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
-72.2
42.3
1,083
W-RFG-reg
249
1.67
1.80
0.14
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
1
-71.7
24.9
1,108
W-RFG-Prem
38
1.78
1.80
0.14
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
-72.0
3.8
1,112
W-RFG-Prem
26
1.78
1.80
0.14
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
1
-71.9
2.6
1,115
W-RFG-Prem
1925
1.89
1.80
0.25
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
1
-71.3
109.7
1,224
W-RFG-Prem
374
1.84
1.80
0.20
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
1
-71.3
37.4
1,262
W-RFG-reg
6660
1.77
1.80
0.25
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
1
-70.2
379.6
1,641
W-RFG-reg
1551
1.66
1.80
0.20
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
j
-65.0
155.1
1,796
W-RFG-reg
799
1.63
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
1
-60.6
79.9
1,876
W-RFG-Prem
131
1.74
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
1
-60.1
13.1
1,889
S-CG-Prem
107
1.76
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-33.2
10.7
1,900
W-CG-Prem
129
1.71
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-28.2
12.9
1,913
S-CG-Reg
1064
1.67
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-24.2
106.4
2,019
W-CG-reg
1287
1.62
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-19.2
128.7
2,148
S-CG-Prem
67
1.80
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.30
0
0
-66.9
6.7
2,155
W-CG-Prem
81
1.75
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.30
0
0
-61.9
8.1
2,163
S-CG-Prem
48
1.78
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.26
0
0
-60.7
4.8
2,168
W-CG-Prem
58
1.73
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.26
0
0
-55.7
5.8
2,174
S-CG-Reg
516
1.67
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.30
0
0
-54.4
51.6
2.225
W-CG-reg
624
1.62
1.80
0 14
0.00
0 51
0.30
0
0
-49.4
62 4
2,287
S-CG-Reg
788
1.64
1.80
0.14
0.00
0 51
0.26
0
0
-47.1
78.8
2,366
W-CG-reg
953
1.59
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.26
0
0
-42.1
95.3
2,462
S-CG-Prem
22
1.83
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-40.9
2.2
2,464
S-CG-Prem
114
1.94
1.80
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-40.6
11.4
2,475
S-CG-Prem
29
1.85
1.80
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-37.9
2.9
2,478
S-CG-Prem
223
1.88
1.80
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-37.8
22.3
2,500
S-CG-Prem
58
1.91
1.80
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-37.5
5.8
2,506
W-CG-Prem
27
1.78
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.9
2.7
2,509
S-CG-Prem
71
1.78
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.7
7.1
2,516
W-CG-Prem
137
1.89
1.80
0 25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.6
13 7
2,530
S-CG-Prem
63
1.83
1.80
0 19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.5
6.3
2,536
S-CG-Prem
45
1.78
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.4
4.5
2,541
S-CG-Prem
98
1.86
1.80
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.3
9.8
2,550
S-CG-Prem
76
1.77
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.0
7.6
2,558
S-CG-Prem
89
1.77
1.80
0 14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.0
8 9
2,567
S-CG-Prem
137
1.77
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35.0
13.7
2,581
S-CG-Prem
62
1.85
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-34.7
6.2
2,587
S-CG-Prem
51
1.82
1.80
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-34.4
5.1
2,592
S-CG-Prem
169
1.77
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-34.4
16.9
2,609
S-CG-Prem
104
1.83
1.80
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-34.3
10.4
2,619
W-CG-Prem
35
1.80
1.80
0 19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-32.9
3.5
2,623
W-CG-Prem
270
1.83
1.80
0 22
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-32.8
27 0
2,650
S-CG-Prem
190
1.80
1.80
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-32.6
19.0
2,669
W-CG-Prem
70
1.86
1.80
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-32.5
7.0
2,676
S-CG-Prem
61
1.74
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-31.7
6.1
2,682
W-CG-Prem
85
1.73
1.80
0.14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-30.7
8 5
2,690
W-CG-Prem
77
1.78
1.80
0.19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-30.5
7.7
2,698
W-CG-Prem
55
1.73
1.80
0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.4
5.5
2,704
W-CG-Prem
119
1.81
1.80
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.3
11 9
2,715
W-CG-Prem
91
1.72
1.80
0 14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-30.0
9 1
2,725
W-CG-Prem
107
1.72
1.80
0 14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-30.0
10.7
2,735
W-CG-Prem
166
1.72
1.80
0 14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-30.0
16 6
2,752
W-CG-Prem
75
1.80
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.7
7.5
2,759
W-CG-Prem
62
1.77
1.80
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.4
6.2
2,766
W-CG-Prem
205
1.72
1.80
0 14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-29.4
20 5
2,786
W-CG-Prem
125
1.78
1.80
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.3
12.5
2.799
S-CG-Prem
136
1.77
1.80
0 19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-29.3
13.6
2,812
S-CG-Prem
7
1.79
1.80
0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-29.0
0 7
2,813
S-CG-Prem
55
1.74
1.80
0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-28.1
5 5
2,819
S-CG-Prem
290
1.79
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.8
29.0
2,847
S-CG-Prem
21
1.76
1.80
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.6
2.1
2,850
S-CG-Prem
50
1.78
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.6
5 0
2,855
W-CG-Prem
230
1.75
1.80
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.6
23.0
2,878
S-CG-Prem
12
1.79
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.5
1 2
2,879
S-CG-Reg
439
1.81
1.80
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.4
43 9
2,923
S-CG-Reg
145
1.75
1.80
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.4
14 5
2,937
S-CG-Prem
66
1.77
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.2
6 6
2,944
S-CG-Prem
21
1.77
1.80
0 21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.0
2 1
2,946
S-CG-Prem
80
1.73
1.80
0 17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-26.7
8 0
2,954
W-CG-Prem
73
1.69
1.80
0 14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-26.7
7 3
2,961
S-CG-Reg
185
1.69
1.80
0 14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-26.5
18 5
2,980
-------
Table A2005B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2005
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
135
1.78
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-26.5
13.5
2,993
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
175
1.76
1.801 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-26 3
17.5
3,011
Texas
S-CG-Prem
349
1.72
1.801 0.17
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-26 3
34.9
3,046
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
87
1.75
1.80! 0.20
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-26 2
8.7
3,054
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
457
1.80
1.801 0.25
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-25 9
45.7
3,100
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
416
1.76
1.80! 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-25 5
41.6
3,142
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
866
1.73
1.801 0.19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-25 3
86.6
3,228
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
239
1.77
1.801 0.23
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-25 3
23.9
3,252
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
841
1.67
1.801 0.14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-25 0
84.1
3,336
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
303
1.72
1.801 0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-25 0
30.3
3,367
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
107
1.75
1.801 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-24 8
10.7
3,377
Utah
W-CG-Prem
165
1.72
1.80! 0.19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-24 3
16.5
3,394
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
1.74
1.801 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-24 0
0.9
3,395
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
848
1.66
1.801 0.14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-23 9
84.8
3,479
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
341
1.66
1.801 0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-23.9
34.1
3,514
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
2078
1.66
1.80 0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-23.8
207.8
3,721
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1124
1.74
1.8ol 0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-23.8
112.4
3,834
Montana
S-CG-Reg
295
1.71
1.801 0.19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-23 7
29.5
3,863
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1242
1.66
1.801 0.14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-23 4
124.2
3,988
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
67
1.69
1.801 0.17
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-23 1
6.7
3,994
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2144
1.65
1.801 0.14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-23 1
214.4
4,209
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
106
1.69
1.801 0.17
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-22 9
10.6
4,219
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
5
1.74
1.80! 0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.8
0.5
4,220
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
350
1.74
1.801 0.23
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-22 8
35.0
4,255
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
25
1.71
1.801 0.20
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-22 6
2.5
4,257
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
61
1.73
1.80! 0.21
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-22 6
6.1
4,263
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
1.74
1.80! 0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.5
1.5
4,265
Nevada
W-CG-reg
530
1.76
1.80S 0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.4
53.0
4,318
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
176
1.70
1.801 0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.4
17.6
4,335
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
80
1.72
1.80 0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.2
8.0
4,343
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
716
1.64
1.80l 0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.1
71.6
4,415
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
26
1.72
1.80 0 21
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-22.0
2.6
4,418
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
96
1.68
1.80 0 17
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-21.7
9.6
4,427
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
699
1.72
1.80 0 22
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-21.6
69.9
4,497
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
224
1.64
1.80 0 14
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-21.5
22.4
4,520
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
163
1.73
1.80) 0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-21.5
16.3
4,536
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
211
1.71! 1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-21.3
21.1
4,557
Texas
W-CG-Prem
422
1.67
1.80! 0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-21.3
42.2
4,599
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
105
1.70
1.80! 0.20
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-21 2
10.5
4,610
Arizona
W-CG-reg
552
1.75
1.80! 0.25
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-20 9
55.2
4,665
Florida
S-CG-Prem
471
1.77
1.801 0.28
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-20 7
47.1
4,712
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
503
1.71
1.80! 0.21
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-20 5
50.3
4,762
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1047
1.68
1.80! 0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-20.3
104.7
4,867
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
289
1.72
1.80! 0.23
0.00
051
0.00
0
0
-20 3
28.9
4,896
Missouri
W-CG-reg
1017
1.62
1.801 0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-20.0
101.7
4,998
Idaho
W-CG-reg
367
1.67
1.80! 0.19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-20 0
36.7
5,034
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
129
1.70
1.80! 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-19 8
12.9
5,047
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
90
1.70
1.80 0 21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-19 8
9.0
5,056
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
14
1.94
1.80 0 45
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-19 8
1.4
5,058
Utah
S-CG-Reg
505
1.67
1.801 0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-19.7
50.5
5,108
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1025
1.61
1.8o| 0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-18.9
102.5
5,211
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
721
1.69
1.80l 0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-18.9
72.1
5,283
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
413
1.61
1.80 0 14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-18.9
41.3
5,324
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2513
1.61
1.80 0 14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-18.8
251.3
5,575
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
1.75
1.80 0 28
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-18.8
1.1
5,576
Washington
W-CG-reg
1359
1.69
1.80 0 22
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-18.8
135.9
5,712
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
646
1.65
1.801 0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-18.7
64.6
5,777
Montana
W-CG-reg
357
1.66
1.80! 0.19
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-187
35.7
5,813
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1502
1.61
1.80! 0.14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-184
150.2
5,963
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2592
1.60
1.80! 0.14
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-18 1
259.2
6,222
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
128
1.64
1.801 0.17
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-17.9
12.8
6,235
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
1.69
1.80! 0.23
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-178
0.5
6,235
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
173
1.68
1.80! 0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-177
17.3
6,253
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
91
1.67
1.80S 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-17.4
9.1
6,262
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
329
1.66
1.801 0.20
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-174
32.9
6,295
Kansas
W-CG-reg
866
1.59
1.80! 0.14
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.1
86.6
6,381
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2110
1.69
1.80 0 23
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-17.0
211.0
6,592
New York
S-CG-Reg
1063
1.65
1.80 0 20
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-16.7
106.3
6,699
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1510
1.67
1.80 0 21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-16.6
151.0
6,850
Oregon
W-CG-reg
846
1.67
1.80 0 22
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-16.6
84.6
6,934
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
772
1.62
1.801 0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-16.3
77.2
7,011
Florida
W-CG-Prem
569
1.72] 1.80
0.28
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-15.7
56.9
7,068
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
685
1.661 1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-15.6
68.5
7,137
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1137
1.67
1.80! 0.23
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-155
113.7
7,251
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
139
1.67
1.80! 0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-15 1
13.9
7,264
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
115
1.89
1.80! 0.45
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-14 9
11.5
7,276
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
108
1.65
1.80! 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-14 8
10.8
7,287
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
17
1.89
1.80! 0.45
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-14 8
1.7
7,288
Utah
W-CG-reg
611
1.62
1.80! 0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-14 7
61.1
7,350
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
913
1.63
1.80! 0.20
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-14 4
91.3
7,441
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1908
1.66
1.801 0.23
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-14 4
190.8
7,632
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1071
1.64
1.80! 0.21
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
0
-14 3
107.1
7,739
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
872
1.64
1.80! 0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13 9
87.2
7,826
Maine
W-CG-Prem
14
1.70
1.80S 0.28
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13 8
1.4
7,827
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
782
1.60! 1.80
0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.7
78.2
7,906
-------
Table A2005C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2005
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
54
1.87
1.80
0.45
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.5
5.4
7,911
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
917
1.63
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.2
91.7
8,003
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3593
1.59
1.80
0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.1
359.3
8,362
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1203
1.59
1.80
0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.0
120.3
8,482
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
210
1.63
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.7
21.0
8,503
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
59
1.64
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.5
5.9
8,509
Maryland
W-CG-reg
110
1.62
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.4
11.0
8,520
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
398
1.61
1.80
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.4
39.8
8,560
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2552
1.64
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.0
255.2
8,815
New York
W-CG-reg
1285
1.60
1.80
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-11.7
128.5
8,944
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1826
1.62
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-11.6
182.6
9,126
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
934
1.57
1.80
0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-11.3
93.4
9,220
Virginia
W-CG-reg
828
1.61
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-10.6
82.8
9,302
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1374
1.62
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-10.5
137.4
9,440
Vermont
W-CG-reg
168
1.62
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-10.1
16.8
9,457
Alaska
W-CG-reg
139
1.84
1.80
0.45
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-9.9
13.9
9,471
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3207
1.66
1.80
0.28
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-9.7
320.7
9,791
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1104
1.58
1.80
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-9.4
110.4
9,902
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2307
1.61
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-9.4
230.7
10,132
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1295
1.59
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-9.3
129.5
10,262
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
65
1.82
1.80
0.45
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-8.5
6.5
10,268
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1109
1.58
1.80
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-8.2
110.9
10,379
Texas
W-CG-reg
4344
1.54
1.80
0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-8.1
434.4
10,814
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1455
1.54
1.80
0.17
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-8.0
145.5
10,959
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
71
1.59
1.80
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-7.5
7.1
10,966
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
179
1.81
1.80
0.45
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-7.0
17.9
10,984
Florida
W-CG-reg
3878
1.61
1.80
0.28
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-4.7
387.8
11,372
Maine
S-CG-Reg
132
1.61
1.80
0.28
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-4.2
13.2
11,385
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
217
1.76
1.80
0.45
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-2.0
21.7
11,407
Maine
W-CG-reg
159
1.56
1.80
0.28
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
0.8
15.9
11,423
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
127
1.97
1.80
ฆ 0.25
ฆ 0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
ฆ -114.5
12.7
11,436
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
42
1.84
1.80
0.14
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-112.7
4.2
11,440
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
819
1.86
1.80
0.25
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-131.5
81.9
11,522
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
432
1.73
1.80
0.14
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-130.6
43.2
11,565
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
154
1.92
1.80
0.25
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-74.5
15.4
11,580
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
51
1.79
1.80
0.14
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-72.7
5.1
11,585
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
142
1.85
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-106.0
14.2
11,600
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
171
1.85
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-105.5
17.1
11,617
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
20
1.84
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-104.5
2.0
11,619
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
158
1.83
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-104.1
15.8
11,634
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
199
1.75
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-124.5
19.9
11,654
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
40
1.83
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-103.5
4.0
11,658
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7
1.82
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-103.4
0.7
11,659
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
410
1.78
1.80
0.17
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-103.3
41.0
11,700
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
68
1.81
1.80
0.20
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-103.1
6.8
11,707
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
775
1.73
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-123.0
77.5
11,784
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
24
1.81
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-102.3
2.4
11,787
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
810
1.72
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-121.2
81.0
11,868
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
271
1.79
1.80
0.21
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-100.3
27.1
11,895
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
171
1.80
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-65.9
17.1
11,912
DC
S-RFG-Reg
27
1.71
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-120.5
2.7
11,915
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.80
1.80
0.23
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-99.8
2.1
11,917
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1124
1.70
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-120.0
112.4
12,029
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
207
1.80
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-65.5
20.7
12,050
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
404
1.69
1.80
0.20
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-120.0
40.4
12,090
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
24
1.79
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-64.5
2.4
12,093
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2638
1.65
1.80
0.17
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-118.7
263.8
12,356
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
191
1.78
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-64.1
19.1
12,376
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
193
1.70
1.80
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-118.1
19.3
12,395
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
48
1.78
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-63.5
4.8
12,400
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
1.77
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-63.4
0.8
12,400
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
197
1.68
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-117.9
19.7
12,420
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
495
1.73
1.80
0.17
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-63.2
49.5
12,470
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
270
1.68
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-117.7
27.0
12,497
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
82
1.76
1.80
0.20
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-63.1
8.2
12,505
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
990
1.81
1.80
0.25
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-74.2
99.0
12,604
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
29
1.76
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-62.3
2.9
12,607
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
522
1.68
1.80
0.14
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-73.3
52.2
12,659
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
1.81
1.80
0.28
0.71
0.51
0.00
0
0
-95.7
1.3
12,660
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
328
1.74
1.80
0.21
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-60.3
32.8
12,693
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
26
1.75
1.80
0.23
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-59.7
2.6
12,696
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1679
1.63
1.80
0.21
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-112.7
167.9
12,864
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
241
1.70
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-67.2
24.1
12,888
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
16
1.76
1.80
0.28
0.36
0.51
0.00
0
0
-55.7
1.6
12,889
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
194
1.67
1.80
0.28
1.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-109.8
19.4
12,909
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
937
1.68
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-65.7
93.7
13,002
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
979
1.67
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-63.8
97.9
13,100
DC
W-RFG-reg
32
1.66
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-63.1
3.2
13,103
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1359
1.65
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-62.7
135.9
13,239
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
489
1.64
1.80
0.20
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-62.6
48.9
13,288
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3190
1.60
1.80
0.17
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-61.4
319.0
13,607
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
233
1.65
1.80
0.23
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-60.8
23.3
13,631
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
238
1.63
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-60.6
23.8
13,654
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
327
1.63
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-60.4
32.7
13,687
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
2030
1.58
1.80
0.21
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-55.4
203.0
13,890
Maine
W-RFG-reg
235
1.62
1.80
0.28
0.47
0.51
0.00
0
0
-52.4
23.5
13,913
-------
Table A2006A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2006
State
Gasoline
Code
Gasoline
Volume
MMgals
Gasoline
Price
Ethanol
Gate Price
$/gal
Ethanol
Dist Cost
$/gal
Ethanol
Blending
[Federal
I Subsidy
l$/gal
State
Subsidy
State
Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Cost c/gal
Ethanol
Volurre
MMgals
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMgals
Illinois
Illinois
Wisconsin
Missouri
Indiana
California
Arizona
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Kentucky
DC
Virginia
Delaware
Texas
New Hampshire!
Pennsylvania
NewYork
Wisconsin
Missouri
Indiana
Massachusetts
California
Maryland
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New Hampshire!
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Arizona
Virginia
DC
Maine
Illinois
Texas
Kentucky
Illinois
Maine
Delaware
New Jersey
NewYork
Wisconsin
Missouri
Indiana
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
California
Missouri
Maryland
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New Hampshire!
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Indiana
California
Virginia
DC
Arizona
Texas
Maryland
Kentucky
Massachusetts
NewYork
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Kentucky
DC
Virginia
Delaware
Texas
New Hampshire]
Maine
Pennsylvania
Delaware
New Jersey
New Jersey
Maine
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Iowa
S-RFG-Reg I
13391
2.00l
2.58)
0.141
0.911
0.511
0.26|
oj
S-RFG-Prem I
193j
2161
2.58j
0.14J
0.631
0.511
ฐ-26|
ol
S-RFG-Reg J
349 j
203
2.58]
0.14j
0.91 j
0.511
o.ool
o|
S-RFG-Reg j
431 j
2.021
2.58
0.14|
ฐ-91|
0.51 j
o.ool
0
S-RFG-Reg
206 j
2.00|
2.58j
0.14J
ฐ'91l
0.511
0.00
oj
S-RFG-Reg j
5495 j
2121
2.58j
0.26j
0.91 J
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg
817j
2.111
2.58j
0.26 j
0.911
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg j
773 j
2.051
2.5sj
0.23 j
ฐ-91|
0.51 j
o.ool
0
S-RFG-Reg j
1122|
2.03
2.58j
0.23
0.91 [
0.51 j
0.00
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
12801
2011
2.58j
0.21 j
0.911
0.51 J
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
659 j
202|
2.58]
O.23J
0.91 j
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg
270
2.02I
2.58I
0.23
0.91
0.51
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg 1
199|
202|
2.58]
0.23j
0.911
0.511
o.oo
oj
S-RFG-Reg 1
271
2.0l]
2.58j
0.23J
ฐ-91l
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
808 j
2.011
2.58
0.23|
0.911
0.511
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
196|
2.011
2.58]
0.23 j
0.911
0.51
0.00
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
26321
1.961
2.58]
0.181
0.911
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
192j
2.021
2.58j
0.24j
ฐ-91|
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg j
403 j
197l
2.58]
0.21 j
0.91]
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem 1
308 j
2.23
2.58j
0.21
0.63
0.51
0.00
oj
S-RFG-Prem j
32 j
2.171
2.58j
0.14
ad
0.51
o.ool
ฐl
S-RFG-Prem j
42|
2.161
2.5sj
0.14j
0.63I
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem
21 j
2.161
2581
0.141
0.63J
0.511
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem I
171 j
2.211
2.58]
0.23j
0.63I
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem 1
15881
2.25J
2.5s|
o.2ej
0.63J
0.51 J
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem 1
141 j
2.211
2.58j
0.23
0.63j
0.51
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem 1
401
221
258
0.23J
ฐ-63l
0.511
o.ool
0
S-RFG-Prem J
iosl
2.211
2.58j
0.231
0.63!
0.511
o.ool
0
S-RFG-Prem 1
211
2.22|
2.58)
0.241
0.63 j
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem 1
67l
2.181
2.58j
0.211
O.63J
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
16751
193
2.5s|
0.23j
0.911
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem j
127|
224|
2.58
0.26 j
0.631
0.51 j
o.ool
0
S-RFG-Prem I
158[
2.18
2.5sj
0.23 j
0.63
0.51
0.00
oj
S-RFG-Prem 1
7|
2.181
2.58j
0.23 j
0.631
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Reg J
194|
197l
2.58]
0.291
0.91 J
0.51 j
0.00]
oj
W-RFG-Prem
233 j
2.11 j
2.58]
0.14|
0.341
0.51 j
0.26]
0
S-RFG-Prem j
409 j
2.11
2.58|
0.18
0.63]
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
S-RFG-Prem J
19j
2.15J
2.58|
0.23|
0.63 j
0.51 j
0.00]
oj
W-RFG-reg 1
1619j
1.951
2.58j
0.14|
0.451
0.51 j
0.26)
oj
S-RFG-Prem 1
13l
2.17J
2.58
0.29 j
0.63I
0.51 j
o.ool
0
S-RFG-Prem j
24|
2.1 ฐ|
2.58|
0.23j
0.63
0.51 j
o.oo
oj
S-RFG-Prem J
271 j
2.1o]
2.58j
0.23 j
0.631
0.51
0.00]
oj
W-RFG-Premj
3731
2.18
2.58j
0.21 j
0.34j
0.511
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Prem
38
2.121
2.58I
0.14
0.34
0.51 j
0.00
oj
W-RFG-Premj
511
2.11 J
2.58]
0.14
O.34J
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
26 J
2.11 [
2.5sj
0.14j
a34l
0.511
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg I
422J
1.981
2.58|
0.141
0.45|
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
206[
216|
258|
0.23
0.34
0.51 j
0.00
oj
W-RFG-Premj
192oj
2.2oJ
2.58j
0.26 j
0.34J
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg 1
5211
1-97|
2.5sj
0.14j
O.45J
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Prem
1711
2.16
25sj
0.23J
0.34|
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
481
2.161
2.58
0.23 j
ฐ-34l
0.51 j
o.ool
0
W-RFG-Premj
1311
2.16]
2.5sj
0.23j
a34l
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
26 j
2.171
258|
0.24I
0.34I
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
81
2.131
258
0.21
0.34
0.51
o.ool
0
W-RFG-Premj
154j
219|
2.58
0.2e|
O.34]
0.51 j
o.ool
0
W-RFG-reg j
2491
1.951
2.58j
0.14]
0.45J
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
6645 j
2.07I
2.58|
0.261
0.451
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
19oj
2.131
2.58
0.23
0.34
0.51 j
0.00
oj
W-RFG-Premj
sj
213|
258j
0.23I
ฐ-34)
0.51 j
o.ool
0
W-RFG-reg j
988 j
2.06
2.58]
0.26)
0.45]
0.51
0.00
oj
W-RFG-Premj
494 j
2.oe|
2581
o.isj
0.34(
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg J
935[
200
2.58j
0.231
0.45]
0.51 j
0.00]
oj
W-RFG-Prem
24)
21ฐ!
258j
0.23j
ฐ'34|
0.51 j
0.00)
0
W-RFG-reg J
13561
1.98
258j
0.23
0.45
0.51
0.00
oj
W-RFG-reg j
154S|
1.96|
2.58]
0.21 j
0.4S|
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
797|
1.97
2.581
0.23I
0.45]
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
326 j
197|
258j
0.23 j
0.451
0.51 j
o.ool
0
W-RFG-reg J
240 j
1.97
2581
0.231
0.451
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
32|
196l
258j
0.23|
0.451
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
977 J
196
2.58j
0.231
ฐ'45l
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
237 j
1.96
2.58|
0.23
0.45I
0.51
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg J
3183 j
1.91
2.58j
0.18
0.45
0.51 j
0.00
oj
W-RFG-reg j
232 j
1.971
2.58j
0.24 j
0.45I
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
ie|
2.12
2.58j
0.29 j
0.34I
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg J
488
1.92|
2.58j
0.21
0.45
0.51
0.00
oj
W-RFG-Premj
291
2.05j
2.58]
0.23I
O.34J
0.51
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-Premj
327 j
2.05J
2.5sj
0.23 j
0.34I
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
20251
188l
2.58j
0.23j
0.45I
0.51 j
o.ool
oj
W-RFG-reg j
234
1.92)
2.5sj
0.29 j
0.45
0.51 j
0.00
oj
S-CG-Prem J
107j
2.121
2.5s|
0.14|
o.ool
0.51 j
o.ool
ij
W-CG-Prem
129|
207|
2.5sj
0.14j
o.ool
0.51 j
o.ool
1l
S-CG-Reg J
1062j
1.99
2.58j
0.14|
o.ool
0.51 j
o.ool
1l
W-CG-reg J
12841
1.941
2.58
0.14|
o.ool
0.51
o.ool
1I
S-CG-Prem 1
671
2.121
2.581
0.141
o.ooi
0.511
0.301
0
95.5]
133.9
134
84 31
19.3
153
73.11
34.9
188
"72-ฐi
43.1
231
70.2
20.6
252
7a1l
313.2
565
68.4
81.7
647
66.4I
77.3
724
64.6
112.2
836
64.31
128.0
964
63.51
65.9
1,030
63.4J
27.0
1,057
63-4
19.9
1,077
63.2I
27
1,080
65.2j
80.8
1,160
62 7I
19.6
1,180
62 si
263.2
1,443
61.81
19.2
1,462
60.81
40.3
1,503
-59.4
30.8
1,534
59.3|
3.2
1,537
58. g|
4.2
1,541
-58.4|
2.1
1,543
55.7|
17.1
1,560
55.7|
90.5
1,651
55.41
14.1
1,665
55.2
4.0
1,669
549l
10.8
1,680
54.31
2.1
1,682
54.31
6.7
1,688
54.21
167.5
1,856
542|
12.7
1,869
527
15.8
1,884
52.41
0.7
1,885
52.2 j
19.4
1,904
50.11
23.3
1,928
50.2
40.9
1,969
49.91
1.9
1,971
44.81
161.9
2,132
45.11
1.3
2,134
44.1
2.4
2,136
44.11
27.1
2,163
25.2I
37.3
2,201
25.1
3.8
2,204
24.71
5.1
2,209
24.2]
2.6
2,212
22 4|
42.2
2,254
21.5|
20.6
2,275
21. sj
109.5
2,384
21.3|
52.1
2,437
21.2|
17.1
2,454
21. oj
4.8
2,458
20.7I
13.1
2,472
2ฐ.lj
2.6
2,474
20.0
8.1
2,482
20-ฐ(
15.4
2,498
19'5|
24.9
2,522
19.41
378.8
2,901
18.4
19.0
2,920
I8.2I
0.8
2,921
17.6
98.8
3,020
16. oj
49.4
3,069
15.71
93.5
3,163
I5.7!
2.4
3,165
13'9|
135.6
3,301
13-6|
154.8
3,456
12.81
79.7
3,535
127|
32.6
3,568
12.7
24.0
3,592
12.41
3.2
3,595
12.4|
97.7
3,693
12.o|
23.7
3,717
11.8
318.3
4,035
11.ol
23.2
4,058
10-8I
1.6
4,060
10.0
48.8
4,108
-9.9|
2.9
4,111
-9.9j
32.7
4,144
-3.5|
202.5
4,347
-1.4
23.4
4,370
9-5|
10.7
4,381
14.5|
12.9
4,394
22.5I
106.2
4,500
27.51
128.4
4,628
20.91
6.7
4,635
74
-------
Table A2006B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline i Ethanol i
Ethanol :
Ethanol !
Federal 1
State
State i
RFG Ethanol
Ethanol i Cumulative
2006
Code
Volume
Price i Gate Price t
Dist Cost i
Blending i
Subsidy i
Subsidy
Mandate !
Mandate"^ Blending 1
Volume ! Eth Vol
Slate
MMgals
$/gal !$/gal
3/qal i
>/gal i
>/gal 1
$/gal
iCost
c/gah
MMgals I MMgals
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
81
2.07!
2.58!
0.14j
0.00!
0.511
0.30
Oi
01
15.9j
8.1 i
4,643
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
48
2.10
2.58;
0.141
0.00
0.5i;
0.26
0
01
14.81
4.8!
4,648
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
58
2.05i
2.58:
0.14i
0.00:
0.51 i
0.26
0!
Oi
-9.8l
5.8?
4,654
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
515
2.00
2.58'
0.141
o.oo'
0.51 i
0.30
oi
oi
-8 5:
51.5!
4,705
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
22
2.191
2.58-
0.14S
0.00
0.51:
0.09
0
Of
-6 6
2.21
4,707
Iowa
W-CG-reg
622
1.951
2.58'
0.141
0.00
0.511
0.30
Oi
Oi
-3 5
62.21
4,769
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
27
2.141
2.58
0.141
0.00
0.51-
0.09
0?
01
-1 6
2.7?
4,772
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
786
1.941
2.58:
0.14!
0.00'
0.51 i
0.26
OI
oi
1.3,
78.61
4,851
Illinois
W-CG-reg
951
1.89
2.58;
0.14j
0.00'
0.5i;
0.26
oi
oi
6.3;
95.1 i
4,946
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
113
2.25!
2.58:
0.26|
0.00'
0.511
0.00
Oi
01
8.5|
11.3!
4,957
Washington
S-CG-Prem
223
2.211
2.58:
0.23i
0.00'
0.51:
0.00
0!
01
8.9:
22.31
4,979
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
98
2.21
2.58'
0.231
0.00
0.51
0.00
01
oi
9.0
9.8!
4,989
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
29
2.17*
2.58-
0.20S
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0'
Of
9.6:
2.9'
4,992
New York
S-CG-Prem
103
2.171
2.58'
0.21 i
0.001
0.51
0.00
0!
0
10.1;
10.3
5,002
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
75
2.11i
2.58:
0.14i
0.001
0.51:
0.00
0!
Oi
10.21
7.5
5.010
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
70
2.101
2.58:
0.14!
o.ooi
0.51 i
0.00
oi
0:
10.6!
7.0!
5,017
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
89
2.10!
2.58:
0.141
o.ooi
0.5i;
0.00
01
o-
11.1:
8.9!
5,026
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
45
2.09S
2.58'
0.14!
o.ooi
0.51:
0.00
Oi
0'
11.7'
4.5!
5,030
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
62
2.171
2.58
0.23I
0.00?
0.51
0.00
01
0
11.9'
6.2?
5,037
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
51
2.141
2.58!
0.201
O.OOI
0.51 i
0.00
0!
oi
12.21
5.1 i
5,042
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
137
2.081
2.58,
0.141
O.OOI
0.51;
0.00
0
0
13.0j
13.7i
5,055
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
185
1.991
2.58;
0.141
O.OOI
0.51;
0.09
0
01
13.2!
18.5!
5,074
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
137
2.20i
2.58:
0.261
0.00!
0.51 i
0.00
0!
Oi
13.5i
13.7i
5,088
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
61
2.07i
2.58:
0.141
o.ooi
0.51:
0.00
oi
o:
13.8?
6.1 i
5,094
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
169
2.071
2.58
0.141
0.00
0.51:
0.00
01
Of
13.8'
16.9!
5,111
Washington
W-CG-Prem
269
2.161
2.58
0 23
0.00'
0.51:
0.00
Oi
01
13.9'
26.9!
5,138
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
118
2.161
2.58,
0.231
0.00
0.51-
0.00
01
01
14.0'
11.8!
5,149
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
2.151
2.58
0.231
0.00:
0.51 i
0.00
oi
oi
14.11
0.7i
5,150
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
35
2.12'
2.58
0.20!
o.oo'
0.5i;
0.00
0'
oi
14.61
3.5S
5,154
Montana
S-CG-Prem
63
2.11
2.58
0.20!
0.00
0.51;
0.00
0
01
15.01
6.3!
5,160
New York
W-CG-Prem
125
2.121
2.58
0.211
0.00'
0.51:
0.00
0!
01
15.1:
12.5i
5,172
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
5
2.161
2.58'
0.241
0.00
0.51
0.00
01
oi
15.1
0.5!
5,173
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
91
2.061
2.58-
0.14!
0.00
0.51:
0.00
01
Of
15.2'
9.1 i
5,182
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
87
2.121
2.58'
0.21!
0.00'
0.511
0.00
0i
oi
15.2!
8.7!
5,191
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
58
2.181
2.58:
0.26!
0.00!
0.511
0.00
0!
Oi
15.2!
5.8?
5,197
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
85
2.051
2.58:
0.14!
o.ooi
0.51 i
0.00
oi
oi
15.6!
8.5i
5,205
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
190
2.101
2.58:
0.20!
O.OOI
0.51;
0.00
oi
oi
15.7'
19.0i
5,224
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
107
2.051
2.58'
0.14!
o.ooi
0.51:
0.00
Oi
01
16.1
10.7!
5,235
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
2.151
2.58'
0.24!
0.00!
0.511
0.00
0!
OS
16.21
1.2!
5,236
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
2.121
2.58'
0.231
0.00
0.51'
0.00
01
oi
16.7
2.1!
5,238
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
55
2.041
2.58]
0.14[
o.oo'
0.5i;
0.00
0'
ol
16.71
5.5i
5,244
Utah
S-CG-Prem
136
2.091
2.58;
0.201
0.00
0.51;
0.00
0
01
16.7!
13.6!
5,257
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
66
2.12i
2.58:
0.23i
0.00:
0.51
0.00
0!
Oi
16.81
6.6i
5,264
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
75
2.12i
2.58'
0.23?
0.00'
0.51
0.00
oi
oi
16.9:
7.5i
5,271
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
62
2.091
2.58-
0.20!
0.00
0.51:
0.00
oi
Of
17.2'
6.2i
5,277
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
166
2.03!
2.58'
0.14!
0.00'
0.51:
0.00
Oi
ol
18.0'
16.6!
5,294
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
224
1.941
2.58
0.141
0.00
0.51'
0.09
01
01
18.2'
22.4!
5,316
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
73
2.021
2.58:
0.141
0.00:
0.51 i
0.00
oi
oi
18.81
7.3!
5,324
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
204
2.021
2.58;
0.141
o.oo'
0.5i;
0.00
0'
ol
18.81
20.4 i
5,344
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
2.101
2.58i
0.23!
0.00
0.5i;
0.00
0
oi
19.1!
0.9!
5,345
Texas
S-CG-Prem
348
2.051
2.58:
0.18!
0.00'
0.51'
0.00
0!
01
19.3:
34.8!
5,380
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
79
2.051
2.58'
0.18!
0.00
0.51'
0.00
01
oi
19.5
7.9!
5,388
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
50
2.091
2.58:
0.23!
0.00,
0.511
0.00
01
Of
19.6!
5.0i
5,393
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
289
2.11S
2.58'
0.24!
0.00!
0.5i;
0.00
0'
oi
19.6!
28.9!
5,422
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
21
2.081
2.58'
0.21!
0.00!
0.511
0.00
0!
Oi
19.9!
2.1 i
5,424
Montana
W-CG-Prem
77
2.061
2.58i
0.20!
o.ooi
0.51 i
0.00
o'
oi
20.0!
7.7i
5,431
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
2.11 i
2.58:
0.24!
o.ooi
0.51;
0.00
oi
oi
20.1'
0.5i
5,432
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
105
2.07!
2.58s
0.21 i
0.00!
0.511
0.00
Oi
ol
20.2 i
10.5!
5,442
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
70
2.131
2.58'
0.26!
0.00
0 51
0.00
01
01
20 2
7.0?
5,449
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
174
2.09
2.58'
0.23!
0.00
0 51
0.00
01
01
20 4
17.41
5,467
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
106
2.041
2.58;
0.181
o.ooi
0 51;
0.00
0'
ol
20 5;
10.61
5,477
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
229
2.05!
2.58;
0.20|
0.00!
0 51;
0.00
01
ol
20 7;
22.91
5,500
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
2.101
2.58;
0.24!
0.00
0 51-
0.00
0
01
21 2!
1.51
5,502
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
26
2.071
2.58:
0.23!
0.00!
0 51
0.00
0!
Oi
21 7
2.6!
5,505
Utah
W-CG-Prem
165
2.041
2.58'
0.201
0.00'
0 51
0.00
01
01
21 7
16.5!
5,521
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
80
2.07'
2.58-
0 23
0.00
0 51
0.00
01
Of
21 8
8.0!
5,529
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
55
2.031
2.58'
0.18i
0.00
0 51;
0.00
0
01
21 9;
5.5j
5,534
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
54
2.321
2.58:
0.48!
0.00
0.511
0.00
0!
Oi
22.5!
5.4!
5,540
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
107
2.061
2.58 i
0.23!
0.00'
0 51;
0.00
01
oi
22.7!
10.7!
5,550
Nevada
S-CG- Reg
438
2.101
2.58;
0.26!
o.oo'
0 51
0.00
0'
ol
22 9;
43.8!
5,594
Nebraska
S-CG- Reg
341
1.98
2.58-
0.14!
0.00
0 51
0.00
0
01
23 0
34.1;
5,628
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
135
2.081
2.58'
0.24!
0.00
0 51
0.00
01
01
23 2
13.5!
5,642
Wyoming
S-CG- Reg
145
2.03
2.58'
0.20!
0.00
0 51
0.00
01
01
23 2
14.5!
5,656
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
90
2.041
2.58;
0.231
o.oo'
051;
0.02
0'
ol
23 5;
9.0!
5,665
Idaho
S-CG- Reg
303
2.03!
2.58:
0.201
0.00'
0 51;
0.00
Oi
01
23 6;
30.3!
5,696
Wisconsin
S-CG- Reg
846
1.971
2.58:
0.14!
0.00
0.511
0.00
0!
Oi
23.7!
84.6!
5,780
Washington
S-CG- Reg
1122
2.06i
2.58'
0.23?
0.00'
0.51'
0.00
0
01
23.7
112.21
5,892
New Mexico
S-CG- Reg
415
2.05
2.58-
0.23!
0.00
0.51:
0.00
01
Of
24.1'
41.5)
5,934
Oregon
S-CG- Reg
698
2.06!
2.58;
0.23!
0.00;
0.511
0.00
Oi
01
24.1;
69.81
6,003
Texas
W-CG-Prem
421
2.00!
2 58.
0.18!
0.00!
0 51
0.00
0!
Oi
24 3,
42.1!
6,046
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
238
2.061
2 58;
0.24l
0 oo'
0.51 i
0.00
oi
oi
24.3 i
23.8!
6,069
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
2.11 i
2 58j
0.291
0 oo'
051;
0.00
0'
ol
24 4;
1.1 i
6,071
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
96
2.001
2 58-
0.18!
0 00
0 51-
0.00
0
01
24 5!
9.6!
6,080
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
61
2.04!
2.58|
0.23!
0.00!
0.511
0.00
0'
0:
24.6!
6.1!
6,086
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
349
2.06)
2.58I
0.241
o.ooi
0.511
0.00
0'
o;
24.61
34.91
6,121
-------
Table A2006C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
asonne
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanoi
i-eaerai
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2006
Code
Volume iP
ice
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blendir
Subsidv
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volurre
Eth Vol
State
MMgais i$/
qai
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal ;
wgai
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgais
MMgais
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
8391
1.96
2.58
0.14
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
24.8
83.9
6,205
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
251
2.03
2.58
0 21
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
24.9
2.5
6,208
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
8641
2.01
2.58
0 20
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
25 1
86.4
6,294
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
2111
2.04
2.58
0.23
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
25.4
21.1
6,315
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
1281
1.99
2.58
0.18
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
25.5
12.8
6,328
Florida
S-CG-Prem
4701
2.09
2.58
0.29
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
26.6
47.0
6,375
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
12391
1.94
2.58
0.14
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
26.6
123.9
6,499
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
67)
1.98
2.58
0.18
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
26.9
6.7
6,505
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
7151
1.94
2.58
0 14
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
27.1
71.5
6,577
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
651
2.27
2.58
0 48
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
27.5
6.5
6,583
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
20731
1.94
2.58
0 14
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
27.5
207.3
6,791
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
1291
2.01
2.58
0 23
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
27.7
12.9
6,804
Nevada
W-CG-reg
529
2.05
2.58
0 26
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
27.9
52.9
6,857
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
14'
2.26
2.58
0 48
0.001
0.51
0.00
0
0
27.9
1.4
6,858
Utah
S-CG-Reg
504 i
1.98
2.58
0.20
0.001
0.51
0.00
0
0
27.9
50.4
6,908
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
412i
1.93
2.58
0 14
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.0
41.2
6,949
Ohio
S-CG- Reg
21391
1.93
2.58
0 14
o.oo!
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.2
213.9
7,163
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
1631
2.03
2.58
0 24
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.2
16.3
7,180
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
1761
1.98
2.58
0 20
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.2
17.6
7,197
Arizona
S-CG- Reg
4561
2.05!
2.58
0 26
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.4
45.6
7,243
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
1081
1.99
2.58
0 23
0.00)
0.51
0.02
0
0
28.5
10.8
7,254
Idaho
W-CG-reg
3661
1.98
2.58
0 20
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.6
36.6
7,290
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1023!
1.92
2.58
0 14
ooo'
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.7
102.3
7,392
Washington
W-CG-reg
13561
2.01
2.58
0 23
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.7
135.6
7,528
Montana
S-CG- Reg
2941
1.97
2.58
0 20
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
28.7
29.4
7,558
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
5011
2.00
2.58
0 23
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
29.1
50.1
7,608
Oregon
W-CG-reg
8441
2.01
2.58
0 23
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
29.1
84.4
7,692
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
2881
2.01
2.58
0 24
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
29.3
28.8
7,721
Maine
W-CG-Prem
141
2.06
2.58
0 29
0.001
0.51
0.00
0
0
29.4
1.4
7,722
Missouri
W-CG-reg
10151
1.91
2.58
0 14
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
29.8
101.5
7,824
Colorado
W-CG-reg
10451
1.96
2.58
0 20
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
30.1
104.5
7,928
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
1731
1.99
2.58
0 23
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
30.2
17.3
7,945
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
911
1.99
2.58
0 23
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
30.4
9.1
7,955
Florida
W-CG-Prem
5681
2.04
2.58
0 29
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
31.6
56.8
8,011
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1498)
1.89
2.58
0 14
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
31.6
149.8
8,161
Kansas
W-CG-reg
864)
1.89
2.58
0.14
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
32.1
86.4
8,248
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
179!
2.22
2.58
0 48
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
32.3
17.9
8,265
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
6451
1.92
2.58
0 18
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
32.4
64.5
8,330
New York
S-CG-Reg
1060)
1.95
2.58
0 21
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
32.5
106.0
8,436
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2507)
1.89
2.58
0 14
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
32.5
250.7
8,687
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
171
2.21
2.58
0 48
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
32.9
1.7
8,688
Utah
W-CG-reg
610i
1.93
2.58
0 20
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
32.9
61.0
8,749
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2586 i
1.88
2.58
0 14
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
33.2
258.6
9,008
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
720 i
1.96
2.58
0 23
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
33.4
72.0
9,080
Arizona
W-CG-reg
551 i
2.00
2.58
0 26
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
33.4
55.1
9,135
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
6831
1.95
2.58
0 23
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
33.6
68.3
9,203
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
770 i
1.91
2.58
0 18
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
33.6
77.0
9,280
Montana
W-CG-reg
356)
1.92!
2.58
0.20
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
33.7
35.6
9,316
Texas
S-CG- Reg
3585)
1.90
2.58
0 18
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
34.3
358.5
9,674
Louisiana
S-CG- Reg
12011
1.90
2.58
0.18
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
34.7
120.1
9,795
West Virginia
S-CG- Reg
3281
1.93
2.58
0 21
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
34.8
32.8
9,827
Alaska
S-CG- Reg
1151
2.19
2.58
0 48
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
34.8
11.5
9,839
New Hampshire! S-CG-Reg
59 i
1.96
2.58
0.24
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
35.0
5.9
9,845
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
2091
1.94
2.58
0.23
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
35.2
20.9
9,866
Maryland
W-CG-reg
1101
1.94
2.58
0.23
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
35.4
11.0
9,877
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
21051
1.95
2.58
0.24
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
36.0
210.5
10,087
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
9111
1.91
2.58
0.21
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
36.0
91.1
10,178
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
10691
1.93
2.58
0 23
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
36.2
106.9
10,285
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
1391
1.94
2.58
0 24
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
36.3
13.9
10,299
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
15071
1.93
2.58
0 23
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
36.6
150.7
10,450
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
2161
2.17
2.58
0 48
0.001
0.51
0.00
0
0
37.3
21.6
10,471
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
7801
1.87
2.58
0 18
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
37.4
78.0
10,549
New York
W-CG-reg
12821
1.90'
2.58
0 21
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
37.5
128.2
10,677
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1134)
1.93!
2.58
0.24
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
37.6
113.4
10,791
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
915)
1.89
2.58
0 23
0.00!
0.51
0.02
0
0
38.2
91.5
10,882
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
19041
1.93
2.58
0 24
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
38.2
190.4
11,073
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
8701
1.91
2.58
0 23
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
38.4
87.0
11,160
Virginia
W-CG-reg
8261
1.90
2.58
0 23
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
38.6
82.6
11,242
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
932 i
1.86
2.58
0.18
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
38.6
93.2
11,336
Texas
W-CG-reg
43351
1.85
2.58
0 18
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
39.3
433.5
11,769
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
14521
1.85
2.58
0.18
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
39.7
145.2
11,914
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
3971
1.88
2.58
0 21
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
39.8
39.7
11,954
Alaska
W-CG-reg
139)
2.14
2.58
0 48
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
39.8
13.9
11,968
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
71 i
1.91
2.58
0 24
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
40 0
7.1
11,975
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2546 i
1.901
2.58
0 24
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
41.0
254.6
12,229
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
11021
1.86
2.58
0.21
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
41.0
110.2
12,340
Alabama
W-CG-reg
12921
1.88
2.58
0 23
0.00)
0.51
0.00
0
0
41.2
129.2
12,469
Florida
S-CG-Reg
32001
1.95
2.58
0 29
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
41.3
320.0
12,789
Vermont
W-CG-reg
1681
1.89
2.58
0 24
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0
0
41.3
16.8
12,806
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1822)
1.88
2.58
0 23
O.OOi
0.51
0.00
0
0
41.6
182.2
12,988
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1371)
1.88
2.58
0 24
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
42.6
137.1
13,125
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1106)
1.84
2.58
0 23
O.OOI
0.51
0.02
0
0
43.2
110.6
13,236
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2302
1.88
2.58
0 24
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
43.2
230.2
13,466
Maine
S-CG-Reg
131 i
1.91'
2.58
0 29
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
44.6
13.1
13,479
Florida
W-CG-reg
3870)
1.90S
2.58
0.29
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
46.3
387.0
13,866
Maine
W-CG-reg
159|
1.86
2.58
0.29
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0
0
49.6
15.9
13,882
-------
Table A2007A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2007
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
1335
0.15
1.00
0.51
0 1
-161.1
134
S-RFG-Prem
192
2.42
2.24
0.15
0.70
0.51
0.26
0 1
-148.9
19.2
153
.
S-RFG-Reg
348
2.25
2.24
0.15
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-137.3
34.8
188
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
205
2.24
2.24
0.15
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-136.2
20.5
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
430
2.23
2.24
0.15
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-135.0
43.0
251
S-RFG-Reg
5481
2.34
2.24
0.27
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-133.3
312.4
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
198
2.25
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-129.2
19.8
S-RFG-Reg
1277
2.21
2.24
0.22
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-125.9
127.7
711
S-RFG-Reg
815
2.26
2.24
0.27
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-125.5
81.5
792
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
402
2.19
2.24
0.22
1.00
0.51
0.00
oj 1
-124.3
40.2
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
658
2.21
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-124.2
65.8
Mary land
S-RFG-Reg
771
2.20
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-123.9
77.1
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
806
2.19
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-123.1
80.6
1.056
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2625
2.14
2.24
0.19
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-122.6
262.5
1.319
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1119
2.19
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-122.2
111.9
1.431
S-RFG-Reg
27
2.18
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-121.9
2.7
1.433
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
269
2.18
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-121.8
26.9
ฆ
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
192
2.18
2.24
0.25
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-120.2
19.2
1.479
S-RFG-Reg
196
2.15
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-119.0
19.6
1.499
. .
S-RFG-Reg
1671
2.14
2.24
0.23
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-117.2
167.1
1.666
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
193
2.20
2.24
0.30
1.00
0.51
0.00
0 1
-116.5
19.3
1.685
.
S-RFG-Prem
32
2.43
2.24
0.15
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-124.3
3.2
1.688
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
42
2.42
2.24
0.15
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-123.5
4.2
1.693
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.39
2.24
0.15
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-120.5
2.1
1.695
S-RFG-Prem
1584
2.50
2.24
0.27
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-119.5
90.3
1.785
S-RFG-Prem
307
2.44
2.24
0.22
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-118.8
30.7
1.816
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
2.43
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
o| 1
-116.3
1.9
1.818
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
108
2.42
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-115.1
10.8
1.828
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
141
2.41
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-114.5
14.1
ฆ
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
408
2.36
2.24
0.19
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-114.3
40.8
1.883
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
67
2.39
2.24
0.22
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-114.0
6.7
1.890
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
157
2.40
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-113.8
15.7
ฆ
S-RFG-Prem
127
2.44
2.24
0.27
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-113.3
12.7
1.918
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
40
2.40
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-113.0
4.0
1.922
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
170
2.39
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-112.7
17.0
1.939
S-RFG-Prem
7
2.39
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-112.5
0.7
1.940
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.38
2.24
0.25
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-109.8
2.1
1.942
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
2.40
2.24
0.30
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-106.5
1.3
1.944
S-RFG-Prem
24
2.29
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-102.4
2.4
1.946
.
S-RFG-Prem
270
2.29
2.24
0.23
0.70
0.51
0.00
0 1
-102.4
27.0
1.973
W-RFG-Prem
233
2.37
2.24
0.15
0.38
0.51
0.26
0 1
-111.7
23.3
1.996
W-RFG-reg
1614
2.19
2.24
0.15
0.50
0.51
0.26
0 1
-105.5
161.4
ฆ
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
38
2.38
2.24
0.15
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-87.0
3.8
ฆ
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
51
2.37
2.24
0.15
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-86.2
5.1
2.167
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
421
2.20
2.24
0.15
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-81.8
42.1
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
248
2.19
2.24
0.15
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-80.7
24.8
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
520
2.18
2.24
0.15
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-79.5
52.0
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
26
2.34
2.24
0.15
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-83.3
2.6
W-RFG-Prem
1915
2.45
2.24
0.27
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-82.2
109.2
W-RFG-reg
6628
2.29
2.24
0.27
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-77.8
377.8
W-RFG-Prem
372
2.39
2.24
0.22
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-81.6
37.2
2.812
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
23
2.38
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-79.0
2.3
2.815
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
240
2.20
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-73.7
24.0
2.839
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
130
2.37
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
o| 1
-77.8
13.0
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
171
2.36
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-77.2
17.1
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
493
2.31
2.24
0.19
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-77.0
49.3
2.918
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
81
2.34
2.24
0.22
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-76.7
8.1
2.926
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
190
2.35
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-76.5
19.0
W-RFG-Prem
153
2.39
2.24
0.27
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-76.0
15.3
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
48
2.35
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-75.7
4.8
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
206
2.34
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-75.4
20.6
W-RFG-Prem
8
2.34
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-75.3
0.8
W-RFG-reg
1544
2.16
2.24
0.22
0.50
0.51
0.00
o| 1
-70.4
154.4
3.141
W-RFG-reg
985
2.21
2.24
0.27
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-70.0
98.5
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
486
2.14
2.24
0.22
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-68.8
48.6
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
795
2.16
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-68.7
79.5
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
933
2.15
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-68.4
93.3
3.461
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
26
2.33
2.24
0.25
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-72.6
2.6
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
974
2.14
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-67.6
97.4
3.561
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3174
2.09
2.24
0.19
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-67.1
317.4
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1353
2.14
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-66.7
135.3
4.014
W-RFG-reg
32
2.13
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-66.4
3.2
4.017
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
325
2.13
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-66.3
32.5
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
16
2.35
2.24
0.30
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-69.3
1.6
4.051
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
232
2.13
2.24
0.25
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-64.7
23.2
W-RFG-reg
237
2.10
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
o| 1
-63.5
23.7
.
W-RFG-reg
2020
2.09
2.24
0.23
0.50
0.51
0.00
0 1
-61.7
202.0
4.300
Maine
W-RFG-reg
234
2.15
2.24
0.30
0.50
0.51
0.00
o| 1
-60.9
23.4
W-RFG-Prem
29
2.24
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-65.1
2.9
.
W-RFG-Prem
326
2.24
2.24
0.23
0.38
0.51
0.00
0 1
-65.1
32.6
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
107
2.40
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-51.3
10.7
S-CG-Prem
98
2.46
2.24
0.24
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-48.9
9.8
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
129
2.35
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-46.3
12.9
4.392
W-CG-Prem
118
2.41
2.24
0.24
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-43.9
11.8
4.404
Minnesota
1059
2.24
0.15
0.51
1
105.9
4.510
-------
Table A2007B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
|Gasoline |Gasoline
Ethanol j Ethanol j
zthanol |
-ederal
State
State IRFG
! Ethanol j
Ethanol
Cumulative
2007
Code
i Volume i Price
Gate Price iDistCost (Blending ^Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate ^"Mandate"!Blending (Volume
Eth Vol
State
iMMgals ;$/ga
$/gal i$/c
al f
;/gal i
;/gal
$/gal
iCost c/galjMMgals
MMgals
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
: 1280!
2 20
2 24'
0 15*
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0-
-31 2!
128.01
4,638
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
j 696!
2 28
2 24;
0 24;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0;
-30 7t
69.6 j
4,707
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
i 53!
2 53
2 24!
0 49'
0.00!
0.51
0.00I 1!
0'
-30.2!
5.3i
4,713
Oregon
W-CG-reg
i 841!
2 23
2 24'
0 24'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
11
0'
-25 7'
84.1 i
4,797
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
i 65j
2 48
2 24,
0 49;
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0,
-25 2!
6.5j
4,803
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
I 178!
2 40
2.241
0 49;
0.00s
0.51
0.00
0'
-177|
17.8!
4,821
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
i 216i
2 35
2 24;
0 49:
0.00!
0.51
0.00
1!
0,
-127!
21.6!
4,843
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
67'
2.43
2.24!
0 15!
0.00!
0.51
0.30
0
oi
-84 Z,
6.7!
4,849
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
i 81
2.38
2.24!
0 15'
0.00!
0.51
0.30
0'
0'
-79.3!
8.1 i
4,857
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
j 48 i
2.36
2 24'
0 15,
0 00'
0.51
0.26
0!
0'
-72 8;
4 8
4,862
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
i 58!
2.31
2.24!
0 15'
0.00!
0.51
0.26
0!
0'
-67 8*
5.8!
4,868
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
! 22!
2.46
2.24!
0 15'
0.00!
0.51
0.09
0!
0'
-66 4'
2 2
4,870
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
j 5131
2.24
2 24'
0 15;
0 00
0.51
0.30
0
0
-65 5,
51 3
4,922
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
i 271
2.41
2 24'
0 15;
O.OOI
0.51
0.09
Ol
0:
-61 4;
2.7!
4,924
Iowa
W-CG-reg
i 6211
2.19
2 24
015!
0.00!
0.51
0.30
0!
0,
-60.5?
62.1 i
4,986
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
! 784 i
2.18
2.24i
0.15)
o.ooi
0.51
0.26
oi
0:
-54 7
78.4i
5,065
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
t 45!
2.43
2.24!
0 15'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
oi
0
-54 4'
4.5i
5,069
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
60
2.41
2 24
0 15,
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
oi
-52 7,
6 0'
5,075
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
i 29!
2.45
2.24!
0 20'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-51,3l
2.9!
5,078
Illinois
W-CG-reg
! 948!
2.13
2 24'
0 15'
o.ooi
0.51
0.26
oi
0
-49 l'
94.8i
5,173
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
! 55 i
2.38
2 24'
0 15,
0 00'
0.51
0.00
0'
0
-49 4,
5.5!
5,179
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
I 751
2.37
2 24'
0 15;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-48 1;
7.5i
5,186
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
! 62!
2.44
2 24
0 23'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
oi
0
-47 1
62
5,192
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
! 73!
2.36
2.24!
0.15)
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-47 7
7.3!
5,200
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
i 21!
2.44
2.24!
0 23'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-47 6'
2.1!
5,202
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
! 168l
2.36
2.24!
0 15,
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0'
-47 6^
16.8!
5,218
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
i 70!
2.36
2.24!
0.15i
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0!
-47.3I
7.0!
5,225
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
I 137!
2.36
2 24'
0 15'
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0I
0'
-47.1 i
137
5,239
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
! 184i
2.26
2 24
0 15;
0 00'
0.51
0.09
0!
0'
-46 6'
18.4
5,258
Washington
S-CG-Prem
! 222 i
2.44
2 24'
0 24;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
Ol
0
-46 3,
22.2!
5,280
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
I 51!
2.40
2.24!
0 20'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-46 3'
5.1!
5,285
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
i 35!
2.40
2.24!
0 20;
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-46.3!
3.5!
5,288
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
i 88!
2.33
2.24!
0 15'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-44.4I
8.8!
5,297
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
! 189!
2.38
2 24'
0 20,
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0'
-44.31
18.9!
5,316
Montana
S-CG-Prem
i 63!
2.38
2.24!
0 20'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-44.31
6.3!
5,322
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
i 91!
2.32
2 24'
0 15'
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
o:
o:
-43.1 i
9.1!
5,332
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
74
2.39
2 24'
0 23;
000'
0.51
0.00
oi
0'
-42.7j
7 4'
5,339
New York
S-CG-Prem
1 1031
2.38
2 24'
0 22;
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
Ol
0
-42.71
10.3!
5,349
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
! 25!
2.39
2.24!
0 23'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-42 6'
2.5!
5,352
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
! 204!
2.31
2.24!
0 15;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-42.6!
20.4!
5,372
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
i 85!
2.31
2.24!
0 15'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0,
-42.3j
8.5!
5,381
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
! 165!
2.31
2 24
0 15,
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0.
-42 1,
16.51
5,397
Utah
S-CG-Prem
I 136!
2.36
2.24!
0 20'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-41.9!
13.6!
5,411
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
I 113!
2.43
2 24'
0 27'
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0!
o:
-41.81
11.3!
5,422
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
223'
2.21
2 24'
0 15;
000'
0.51
0.09
0
0
-41 6,
22.3!
5,444
Washington
W-CG-Prem
! 268!
2.39
2 24'
0 24!
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0,
-41.31
26.8!
5,471
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
! 62!
2.35
2.24!
0 20'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
oi
0'
-41 3'
6.2!
5,478
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
i 50!
2.37
2.24!
0.23!
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0!
-40.1)
5.0!
5,483
WestVirginia
S-CG-Prem
I 20!
2.34
2.24!
0 22'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0,
-39.4!
2.0!
5,485
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
! 1071
2.28
2 24
0 15;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0.
-39 4,
10.71
5,495
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
i 229!
2.33
2 24'
0 20'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0!
-39 3'
22.9!
5,518
Montana
W-CG-Prem
! 76!
2.33
2 24'
0 20'
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-39.31
7.61
5,526
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
89'
2.34
2 24'
0 23^
0 00'
0.51
0.02
0
0'
-39 1;
89'
5,535
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
i 121
2.37
2.241
0 25!
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0,
-38.3I
1.21
5,536
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
! 7!
2.35
2 24
0 23'
0 00
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-38 3'
07
5,537
Texas
S-CG-Prem
i 347!
2.30
2.24!
0 19;
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-38.11
34.7!
5,571
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
S 87!
2.33
2.24!
0 22'
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
oi
0,
-37 8]
8.7!
5,580
New York
W-CG-Prem
i 125!
2.33
2 24
0 22
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
-37 7
12 5(
5,593
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
I 66!
2.34
2.24!
0 23;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-37.7!
6.6!
5,599
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
i 288 i
2.36
2 24
0 25
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0'
-37 2
28.8!
5,628
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
58'
2.38
2 24'
0 27,
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0'
-37 2;
5 8'
5,634
Utah
W-CG-Prem
I 1641
2.31
2 24
0 20;
O.OOI
0.51
0.00
Ol
0
-36.91
16.41
5,650
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
! 137!
2.38
2.24!
0 27'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-36.81
13.7!
5,664
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
i 106!
2.33
2 24'
0 23;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-36.5)
10.6!
5,674
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
I 174!
2.33
2 24'
0 23;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0,
-36.0!
17.4!
5,692
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
i 340!
2.24
2 24
0 15
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35 9
34.0!
5,726
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
I 79!
2.28
2.24!
0 19;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-35.6!
7.9!
5,734
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
i 60!
2.32
2 24'
0 23'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-35 1
6.0i
5,740
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
! 25!
2.29
2.24!
0.22!
o.ooi
0 51
0 00
oi
oi
-34.4j
2.5i
5,742
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
! 1061
2.26
2 24'
0 19;
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-34.21
10.61
5,753
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
! 108!
2.29
2.24!
0 23'
0.00!
0.51
0.02
0!
0'
-34.11
10 8
5,764
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
! 238!
2.32
2.24!
0 25;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-33.8)
23.8!
5,787
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
s 55!
2.26
2 24'
0 19'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
oi
-33 8'
5.5!
5,793
New Hampshire; S-CG-Prem
i 5!
2.32
2 24
0 25
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0
-33 7
05(
5,793
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
! 134!
2.32
2.24!
0 25;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0'
-33.6!
13.4!
5,807
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
! 15!
2.32
2 24
0 25'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0i
0
-33 3
1.5!
5,808
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
! 9!
2.30
2 24'
0 23^
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
oi
o:
-33 3,
0.9i
5,809
Texas
W-CG-Prem
! 420!
2.25
2.241
0 19;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
Ol
0:
-33.11
42.0i
5,851
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
! 713!
2.21
2 24
015'
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0
-33 0'
71 3
5,922
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
! 105!
2.28
2.24!
0 22;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0!
-32.8)
10.5!
5,933
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
80'
2.29
2 24'
0 23'
o.ooi
0.51
0.00
oi
0'
-32 1,
8.0!
5,941
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
2068(
2.21
2 24
0 15
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0(
-32 4
206 8
6,148
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
! 348!
2.31
2 24'
0 25;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0!
-32.2!
34.8!
6,183
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
! 70!
2.33
2.24!
0 27,
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0
0!
-32 2,
70
6,190
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
i 129!
2.28
2.24!
0 23;
0.00!
0.51
0.00
0!
0,
-31 5!
12.9!
6,202
-------
Table A2007C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
j Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2007
Code
iVolume
Price
Gate Price
DistCost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
Slate
i MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
1 145
2.25
2.24
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-31.3
14.5
6,217
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
i 2133
2.20
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-31.2
213.3
6,430
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
i 302
2.25
2.24
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-31.1
30.2
6,460
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
! 210
2.28
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-31.0
21.0
6,481
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
I 843
2.19
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.9
84.3
6,566
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
411
2.19
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.9
41.1
6,607
Montana
S-CG-Reg
294
2.24
2.24
0 20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.6
29.4
6,636
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
i 96
2.23
2.24
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.6
9.6
6,646
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
I 414
2.27
2.24
0 23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.5
41.4
6,687
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
2.34
2.24
0.30
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30.4
1.1
6,688
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
I 173
2.27
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.9
17.3
6,706
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
862
2.24
2.24
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.8
86.2
6,792
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1236
2.18
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.8
123.6
6,915
Florida
S-CG-Prem
469
2.33
2.24
0 30
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.4
46.9
6,962
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
! 128
2.21
2.24
0 19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-29.2
12.8
6,975
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
I 287
2.27
2.24
0 25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-28.8
28.7
7,004
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
66
2.21
2.24
0 19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-28.8
6.6
7,010
New Hampshire! W-CG-Prem
! 5
2.27
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-28.7
0.5
7,011
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
! 163
2.27
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-28.6
16.3
7,027
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
837
2.17
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-28.6
83.7
7,111
Washington
S-CG-Reg
i 1119
2.26
2.24
0.24
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-28.3
111.9
7,223
Kansas
W-CG-reg
862
2.16
2.24
0 15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-28.0
86.2
7,309
Michigan
W-CG-reg
i 2501
2.16
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.4
250.1
7,559
Utah
S-CG-Reg
503
2.21
2.24
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-27.3
50.3
7,609
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
436
2.28
2.24
0.27
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-26.8
43.6
7,653
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
I 175
2.20
2.24
0 20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-26.3
17.5
7,670
Ohio
W-CG-reg
i 2579
2.15
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-26.2
257.9
7,928
Idaho
W-CG-reg
365
2.20
2.24
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-26.1
36.5
7,965
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
! 1020
2.14
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-25.9
102.0
8,067
Montana
W-CG-reg
355
2.19
2.24
0 20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-25.6
35.5
8,102
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
i 500
2.22
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-25.5
50.0
8,152
Maine
W-CG-Prem
14
2.29
2.24
0 30
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-25.4
1.4
8,154
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
912
2.20
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.02
0
0
-25.0
91.2
8,245
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
209
2.22
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-24.9
20.9
8,266
Colorado
W-CG-reg
i 1042
2.19
2.24
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-24.8
104.2
8,370
Indiana
W-CG-reg
i 1494
2.13
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-24.8
149.4
8.520
Florida
W-CG-Prem
I 567
2.28
2.24
0 30
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-24.4
56.7
8,576
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
i 643
2.16
2.24
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-24.2
64.3
8,641
Missouri
W-CG-reg
! 1013
2 12
2.24
0.15
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-23.6
101.3
8,742
Washington
W-CG-reg
1353
221
2.24
0.24
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-23.3
135.3
8,877
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
718
2.19
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.8
71.8
8,949
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
I 14
2 45
2.24
0 49
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.4
1.4
8,950
Utah
W-CG-reg
I 608
2 16
2.24
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-22.3
60.8
9,011
Nevada
W-CG-reg
528
2.23
2.24
0 27
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-21.8
52.8
9,064
WestVirginia
S-CG-Reg
327
2 16
2.24
0 22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-21.4
32.7
9,097
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
; 1103
2 15
2.24
0 23
0.00
0.51
0 02
0
0
-20.0
110.3
9,207
New York
S-CG-Reg
i 1058
2 15
2.24
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-19.6
105.8
9,313
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
i 778
2 11
2.24
0 19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-19.2
77.8
9,390
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
455
2 20
2.24
0 27
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-19.2
45.5
9,436
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
768
2 11
2.24
0 19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-18.5
76.8
9,513
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
138
2 17
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-18.1
13.8
9,527
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
I 2100
2 16
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.9
210.0
9,737
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
i 909
2 13
2.24
0 22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.9
90.9
9,827
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
; 868
2 14
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-17.8
86.8
9,914
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
i 1198
2 10
2.24
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.8
119.8
10,034
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
i 90
2 14
2.24
0 23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.5
9.0
10,043
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
17
2 40
2.24
0 49
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.4
1.7
10,045
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1066
2 14
2.24
0 23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.1
106.6
10,151
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1503
2 14
2.24
0 23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-17.1
150.3
10,302
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
681
2 13
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-16.8
68.1
10,370
WestVirginia
W-CG-reg
i 396
2 11
2.24
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-16.4
39.6
10,409
Texas
S-CG-Reg
i 3575
2 08
2.24
0 19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-16.2
357.5
10,767
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1131
2 14
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-15.5
113.1
10,880
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
i 1899
2 14
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-15.4
189.9
11,070
New York
W-CG-reg
! 1279
2 10
2.24
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-14.6
127.9
11,198
Arizona
W-CG-reg
550
2 15
2.24
0 27
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-14.2
55.0
11,253
New HampshireiS-CG-Reg
59
2 12
2.24
0 25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.8
5.9
11,259
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
929
2 06
2.24
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.5
92.9
11,351
Vermont
W-CG-reg
167
2 12
2.24
0 25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-13.1
16.7
11,368
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2539
2 11
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.9
253.9
11,622
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1099
2 08
2.24
0.22
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.9
109.9
11,732
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
i 1448
2.05
2.24
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.8
144.8
11,877
Maryland
W-CG-reg
! 109
2.09
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.5
10.9
11,888
Alabama
W-CG-reg
i 1289
2.09
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.1
128.9
12,017
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
i 1817
2.09
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-12.1
181.7
12,198
Virginia
W-CG-reg
! 824
2.08
2.24
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-11.8
82.4
12,281
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
i 114
2.34
2.24
0.49
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-11.4
11 4
12,292
Texas
W-CG-reg
I 4323
2.03
2.24
0.19
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-11.2
432 3
12,725
Florida
S-CG-Reg
! 3192
2.15
2.24
0.30
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-11.2
3192
13,044
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
i 1368
2.09
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-10.5
136 8
13,181
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
i 2296
2.09
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-10.4
229.6
13,410
Maine
S-CG-Reg
I 131
2.14
2.24
0.30
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-10.1
13 1
13,423
New HampshireiW-CG-reg
i 71
2.07
2.24
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
03
CO
7 1
13,430
Alaska
W-CG-reg
I 138
2.29
2.24
0.49
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-6.4
138
13,444
Florida
W-CG-reg
i 3860
2.10
2.24
0.30
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-6.2
386 0
13,830
Maine
W-CG-reg
I 158
2.09
2.24
0.30
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-5.1
158
13,846
-------
Table A2008A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2008
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1287
2.61
2.47
0.16
1.19
0.51
0.26
0
1| -193.2
128.7
129
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
414
2.65
2.47
0.16
1.19
0.51
0.00
1
l| -172.3
41.4
170
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
198
2.64
2.47
0.16
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
l| -170.6
19.8
190
Wisconsin
S-RFG- Reg
336
2.62
2.47
0.16
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
l| -168.6
33.6
223
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
191
2.68
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1 -166.9
19.1
242
California
S-RFG- Reg
5282
2.71
2.47
0.29
1.19
0.51
0.00
oj 1
-165.0
301.1
544
Arizona
S-RFG- Reg
785
2.71
2.47
0.29
1.19
0.51
0.00
o| 1
-165.0
78.5
622
New York
S-RFG- Reg
1230
2.63
2.47
0.23
1.19
0.51
0.00
0 1
-163.6
123.0
745
Texas
S-RFG- Reg
2530
2.59
2.47
0.20
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1j -162.1
253.0
998
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
743
2.63
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
l| -161.6
74.3
1,072
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
388
2.61
2.47
0.23
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1 -161.4
38.8
1,111
Virginia
S-RFG- Reg
777
2.62
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1 -160.5
77.7
1,189
DC
S-RFG- Reg
26
2.61
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1 -159.5
2.6
1,191
Maine
S-RFG- Reg
186
2.66
2.47
0.32
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
l| -157.6
18.6
1,210
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1078
2.58
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
l| -156.4
107.8
1,318
New Hampshire
S-RFG- Reg
185
2.59
2.47
0.26
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1 -155.6
18.5
1,336
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
185
2.77
2.47
0.16
0.82
0.51
0.26
0
lj -173.0
18.5
1,355
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
634
2.56
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1 -154.4
63.4
1,418
New Jersey
S-RFG- Reg
1610
2.54
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
l| -152.0
161.0
1,579
Rhode Island
S-RFG- Reg
259
2.54
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
1 -152.0
25.9
1,605
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
189
2.50
2.47
0.25
1.19
0.51
0.00
0
l| -148.6
18.9
1,624
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
12
2.98
2.47
0.32
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
l| -152.8
1.2
1,625
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
41
2.82
2.47
0.16
0.82
0.51
0.00
1
l| -152.8
4.1
1,629
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
31
2.80
2.47
0.16
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
11 -149.9
3.1
1,632
NewYork
S-RFG-Prem
296
2.86
2.47
0.23
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -149.5
29.6
1,662
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
2.83
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
l| -144.9
1.9
1,664
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
151
2.82
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
l] -143.9
15.1
1,679
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
136
2.82
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -143.9
13.6
1,693
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
393
2.77
2.47
0.20
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -143.7
39.3
1,732
DC
S-RFG-Prem
6
2.81
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
l| -142.3
0.6
1,733
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
122
2.84
2.47
0.29
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -141.2
12.2
1,745
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.71
2.47
0.16
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -140.9
2.1
1,747
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
65
2.77
2.47
0.23
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -140.7
6.5
1,753
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
164
2.78
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -140.0
16.4
1,770
California
S-RFG-Prem
1526
2.82
2.47
0.29
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -139.7
87.0
1,857
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.79
2.47
0.26
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -139.3
2.1
1,859
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
38
2.76
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -137.2
3.8
1,863
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
23
2.75
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -136.9
2.3
1,865
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
260
2.75
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
l| -136.9
26.0
1,891
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
104
2.74
2.47
0.25
0.82
0.51
0.00
0
1 -135.2
10.4
1,901
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1556
2.56
2.47
0.16
0.61
0.51
0.26
0
lj -129.6
155.6
2,057
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
224
2.72
2.47
0.16
0.46
0.51
0.26
0
l| -131.6
22.4
2,079
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
501
2.60
2.47
0.16
0.61
0.51
0.00
1
1 -108.7
50.1
2,129
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
239
2.59
2.47
0.16
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -107.0
23.9
2,153
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
406
2.57
2.47
0.16
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -105.0
40.6
2,194
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
2.93
2.47
0.32
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
1 -111.5
1.5
2,195
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
49
2.77
2.47
0.16
0.46
0.51
0.00
1
l| -111.4
4.9
2,200
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
231
2.63
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -103.3
23.1
2,223
California
W-RFG-reg
6387
2.66
2.47
0.29
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -101.5
364.1
2,588
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
950
2.66
2.47
0.29
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -101.4
95.0
2,682
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
37
2.75
2.47
0.16
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -108.5
3.7
2,686
NewYork
W-RFG-Prem
358
2.81
2.47
0.23
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
1 -108.2
35.8
2,722
NewYork
W-RFG-reg
1488
2.58
2.47
0.23
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
1 -100.1
148.8
2,871
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3059
2.54
2.47
0.20
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
1 -98.6
305.9
3,177
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
899
2.58
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
1 -98.0
89.9
3,267
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
469
2.56
2.47
0.23
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -97.8
46.9
3,313
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
939
2.57
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
1 -97.0
93.9
3,407
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
23
2.78
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -103.5
2.3
3,410
DC
W-RFG-reg
31
2.56
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -95.9
3.1
3,413
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
183
2.77
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
1 -102.6
18.3
3,431
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
164
2.77
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -102.5
16.4
3,447
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
475
2.72
2.47
0.20
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -102.3
47.5
3,495
Maine
W-RFG-reg
225
2.61
2.47
0.32
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -94.0
22.5
3,517
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
2.76
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
1 -100.9
0.8
3,518
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1304
2.53
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -92.9
130.4
3,649
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
148
2.79
2.47
0.29
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -99.9
14.8
3,663
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
25
2.66
2.47
0.16
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -99.5
2.5
3,666
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
223
2.54
2.47
0.26
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
l| -92.0
22.3
3,688
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
78
2.72
2.47
0.23
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -99.3
7.8
3,696
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
198
2.73
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -98.6
19.8
3,716
California
W-RFG-Prem
1846
2.77
2.47
0.29
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
l| -98.4
105.2
3,821
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
766
2.51
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
1 -90.9
76.6
3,898
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
25
2.74
2.47
0.26
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
1
-97.9
2.5
3,900
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
46
2.71
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
1| -95.8
4.6
3,905
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1947
2.49
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
1 -88.5
194.7
4,100
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
313
2.49
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0
1 -88.5
31.3
4,131
Delavvare
W-RFG-Prem
28
2.70
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0
1 -95.5
2.8
4,134
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
315
2.70
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
0 1
-95.5
31.5
4,165
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
126
2.69
2.47
0.25
0.46
0.51
0.00
o| 1
-93.8
12.6
4,178
Delav^are
W-RFG-reg
228
2.45
2.47
0.25
0.61
0.51
0.00
0 1
-85.1
22.8
4,201
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
68
2.76
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-64.4
6.8
4,207
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
94
2.85
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-64.1
9.4
4,217
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
82
2.71
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-59.4
8.2
4,225
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
114
2.80
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-59.1
11.4
4,236
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
103
2.68
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
1
0
-56.3
10.3
4,247
-------
Table A2008B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2008
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"! Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/galj MMgals
MMgals
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
51
3.03
2.47
0.52
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-55.7
5.1
4,252
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
124
2.63
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-51.3
12.4
4,264
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
62
2.98
2.47
0.52
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-50.7
6.2
4,270
Missouri
S-CG- Reg
807
2.59
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-47.2
80.7
4,351
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
671
2.67
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-45.5
67.1
4,418
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
172
2.93
2.47
0.52
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-45.4
17.2
4,435
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
1020
2.55
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-43.2
102.0
4,537
Missouri
W-CG-reg
976
2.54
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-42.2
97.6
4,635
Oregon
W-CG-reg
811
2.62
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-40.5
81.1
4,716
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
208
2.88
2.47
0.52
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-40.4
20.8
4,737
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1234
2.50
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
-38.2
123.4
4,860
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
64
2.72
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.30
0
0
-89.6
6.4
4,867
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
78
2.67
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.30
0
0
-84.6
7.8
4,874
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
46
2.71
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 26
0
0
-84 6
4.6
4,879
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
2.84
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 09
0
0
-81.3
2.1
4,881
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
56
2.66
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 26
0
0
-79.6
5.6
4,887
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
26
2.79
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 09
0
0
-76.3
2.6
4,889
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
110
3.23
2.47
0.52
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-75 0
11.0
4,900
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
495
2.57
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 30
0
0
-74.5
49.5
4,950
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
3.22
2.47
0.52
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-74.2
1.3
4,951
Alaska
W-CG-reg
133
3.18
2.47
0.52
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-70.0
13.3
4,965
Iowa
W-CG-reg
598
2.52
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 30
0
0
-69.5
59.8
5,024
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
3.17
2.47
0.52
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-69.2
1.6
5,026
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
756
2.55
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 26
0
0
-68.1
75.6
5,102
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
49
2.84
2.47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-66.5
4.9
5,106
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
2.92
2.47
0.32
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-64.4
1.1
5,108
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
28
2.81
2.47
0 21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-63.2
2.8
5,110
Illinois
W-CG-reg
914
2.50
2.47
0 16
0.00
0.51
0 26
0
0
-63.1
91.4
5,202
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
44
2.75
2.47
0 16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-62.6
4.4
5,206
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
59
2.83
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-62.5
5.9
5,212
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
162
2.74
2.47
0 16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-61.5
16.2
5,228
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
60
2.79
2 47
0 21
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-61 5
6.0
5,234
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
72
2.74
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-61.5
7.2
5,241
New York
S-CG-Prem
99
2.80
2.47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-61.1
9.9
5,251
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
2.87
2.47
0 32
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-59.4
1.3
5,253
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
168
2.80
2 47
0 25
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-59 3
16.8
5,269
Washington
S-CG-Prem
214
2.81
2.47
0.25
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-59 2
21.4
5,291
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
2.81
2.47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-58.4
1.2
5,292
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
34
2.76
2.47
0 21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-58.2
3.4
5,295
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
132
2.70
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-57 9
13.2
5,309
Utah
S-CG-Prem
131
2.76
2.47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-57 9
13.1
5,322
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
53
2.70
2.47
0.16
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-57 6
5.3
5,327
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
72
2.78
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-57.5
7.2
5,334
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
196
2.69
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-56.5
19.6
5,354
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
88
2.69
2.47
0.16
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-56 5
8.8
5,362
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
48
2.77
2.47
0.25
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-56 5
4.8
5,367
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
53
2.72
2.47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-56.3
5.3
5,373
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
103
2.77
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-56.2
10.3
5,383
New York
W-CG-Prem
120
2.75
2.47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-56.1
12.0
5,395
Montana
S-CG-Prem
61
2.73
2.47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-55.6
6.1
5,401
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
64
2.76
2.47
0 25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-55.5
6.4
5,407
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
2.76
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-55.5
0.7
5,408
Texas
S-CG-Prem
335
2.71
2.47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-55.3
33.5
5,442
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
20
2.74
2.47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-55.3
2.0
5,443
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
182
2.73
2.47
0 21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-55.1
18.2
5,462
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
203
2.75
2.47
0 25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-54.3
20.3
5,482
Washington
W-CG-Prem
259
2.76
2.47
0 25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-54.2
25.9
5,508
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
109
2.79
2.47
0.29
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-54.1
10.9
5,519
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
291
2.72
2.47
0 21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-54.0
29.1
5,548
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
2.76
2.47
0 26
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-53.4
1.4
5,549
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
178
2.56
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.09
0
0
-53.0
17.8
5,567
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
159
2.65
2.47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-52.9
15.9
5,583
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
130
2.75
2.47
0 26
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-52 9
13.0
5,596
Utah
W-CG-Prem
158
2.71
2.47
0 21
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-52 9
15.8
5,612
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
58
2.65
2.47
0 16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-52.8
5.8
5,618
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
56
2.78
2.47
0.29
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-52.8
5.6
5,623
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
229
2.75
2.47
0 26
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-52 5
22.9
5,646
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
85
2.65
2.47
0 16
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-52.5
8.5
5,655
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
84
2.71
2.47
0 23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-52.3
8.4
5,663
Florida
S-CG-Prem
452
2.80
2.47
0.32
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-51 6
45.2
5,708
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
58
2.72
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-51.5
5.8
5,714
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
64
2.67
2.47
0 20
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-51 3
6.4
5,720
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
124
2.72
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-51.2
12.4
5,733
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
20
2.72
2.47
0.25
0 00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50 9
2.0
5,735
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
2.73
2.47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50.9
0.4
5,735
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
76
2.67
2.47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50.8
7.6
5,743
Montana
W-CG-Prem
74
2.68
2.47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50.6
7.4
5,750
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
77
2.71
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50.5
7.7
5,758
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
2.71
2.47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50.5
0.9
5,759
Texas
W-CG-Prem
405
2.66
2.47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50.3
40.5
5,799
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
2.69
2.47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50.3
2.4
5,802
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
278
2.73
2.47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50 2
27.8
5,829
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
221
2.68
2.47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-50 1
22.1
5,851
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
132
2.74
2.47
0.29
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-49 1
13.2
5,865
Idaho
W-CG-reg
352
2.67
2.47
0.21
0 00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-49 0
35.2
5,900
-------
Table A2008C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline i
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2008
Code
Volume i
Price
Gate Price f
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"! Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals i
>/gal
$/gal i
S/qal
S/qal
S/qal
S/qal
Cost c/gahMMqals
MMgals
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
20561
2.61
2.47!
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-48.8!
205.6
6,105
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
102,
2.65
2 47,
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0 -48 8
10.2
6,116
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
2151
2.51
2.47!
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 09
0
0
-48 0:
21.5
6,137
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
157!
2.70
2 47!
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-47 9,
15.7
6,153
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
70|
2.60
2 47;
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-47 8;
7.0
6,160
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
68!
2.73
2.47!
0.29
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-47 8;
6.8
6,166
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
277'
2.70
2 47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-47 5"
27.7
6,194
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
399,
2.68
2.47.
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-47 5
39.9
6,234
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
103
2.60
2 47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-47 5
10.3
6,244
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
101
2.66
2 47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-47 3
10.1
6,254
Florida
W-CG-Prem
546
2.75
2 47.
0.32
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-46 6.
54.6
6,309
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
140
2.64
2 47!
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-45 9,
14.0
6,323
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25"
2.67
2 47!
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-45 9;
2.5
6,325
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5(
2.68
2 47;
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-45 9;
0.5
6,326
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
92'
2 62
2.47!
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-45 8'
9.2
6,335
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1191
2.58
2 47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-45 5
119.1
6,454
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
336
2.68
2 47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-45 2
33.6
6,488
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
1993
2.57
2 47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-45 1
199.3
6,687
Montana
S-CG-Reg
283
2 62
2 47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-44 3
28.3
6,715
Utah
S-CG-Reg
485 i
2 62
2.47i
0.21
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-44.3I
48.5
6,764
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2486 j
2.56
2 47;
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-43 8]
248.6
7,013
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
123-
2.60
2 47|
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-43 8;
12.3
7,025
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
421'
2.69
2.47!
0.29
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-43 6i
42.1
7,067
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
8131
2.56
2 47!
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-43 5,
81.3
7,148
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
831
2.60
2 47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-42 8
83.1
7,231
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
482
2.63
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-42 5
48.2
7,279
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
86.
2.61
2.47!
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 02
0
0
-42.3.
8.6
7,288
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1078
2.63
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-42 0
107.8
7,396
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
692
2 62
2 47;
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-41 8,
69.2
7,465
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
169;
2.59
2 47|
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-40 91
16.9
7,482
Indiana
W-CG-reg
14401
2.53
2.47!
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-40 5;
144.0
7,626
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2410:
2 52
2.47S
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-40.1!
241.0
7,867
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
438'
2.65
2 47:
0.29
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-39.8
43.8
7,911
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
316
2.59
2 47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-39.8I
31.6
7.942
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
620
2.55
2 47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-39 3
62.0
8,004
Montana
W-CG-reg
342
2.57
2 47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-39 3
34.2
8,039
Utah
W-CG-reg
586
2.57
2 47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-39 3
58.6
8,097
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
327;
2.51
2 47;
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-38 9,
32.7
8,130
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
7411
2.55
2.47!
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-38 9.
74.1
8,204
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1027!
2.59
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-38 l\
102.7
8,307
Nevada
W-CG-reg
509 j
2.64
2 47
0.29
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-38 6;
50.9
8,358
New York
S-CG-Reg
1019-
2.57
2 47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-38 5:
101.9
8,459
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
983
2.51
2 47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-38 5
98.3
8,558
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
879
2.57
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 02
0
0
-37 9
87.9
8,646
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1004
2.55
2 47
0.21
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-37 8
100.4
8,746
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
1041
2.56
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 02
0
0
-37 3
10.4
8,756
Texas
S-CG-Reg
34461
2.53
2.47!
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-37 0.
344.6
9,101
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
166
2.58
2 47!
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-37 0!
16.6
9,118
Washington
W-CG-reg
1304
2.58
2 47!
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-37 0!
130.4
9,248
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
837 (
2.57
2 47|
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-36 8;
83.7
9,332
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
6871
2.49
2.47!
0.16
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-36.51
68.7
9,400
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
87
2.57
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-36 5
8.7
9,409
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
876
2.55
2 47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-36 3
87.6
9,497
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2024
2.59
2 47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-36 1
202.4
9,699
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1154
2 52
2 47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-35 9
115.4
9,814
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
10901
2.58
2.47!
0.26
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-35 5,
109.0
9,923
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
133i
2.58
2 47!
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-35 5,
13.3
9,937
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
657 j
2.56
2 47!
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-35 4;
65.7
10,002
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1830;
2.58
2 47;
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-35 4;
183.0
10,186
Arizona
W-CG-reg
530!
2.60
2.47!
0.29
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-34.8:
53.0
10.238
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
382
2.54
2 47
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-34 8
38.2
10,277
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1448
2.55
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-34 7
144.8
10,421
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
750
2.50
2 47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-34 3
75.0
10,496
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
396
2.46
2 47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-33 9
39.6
10,536
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
895 i
2.50
2.47 i
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-33.9!
89.5
10,626
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3076 j
2 62
2 47
0.32
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-33 8]
307.6
10,933
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1242'
2.54
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-33 7\
124.2
11,057
New York
W-CG-reg
1232'
2 52
2.47!
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-33 5;
123.2
11,181
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1063
2 52
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 02
0
0
-32 9'
106.3
11,287
Maine
S-CG-Reg
126
2.60
2 47
0.32
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-32 4
12.6
11,300
Texas
W-CG-reg
4166
2.48
2 47
0.20
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-32 0
416.6
11,716
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
201.
2.53
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-32 0
20.1
11,736
Kansas
W-CG-reg
831
2.44
2 47
0.16
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-31 5
83.1
11,819
Maryland
W-CG-reg
105
2 52
2 47;
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-31 5;
10.5
11,830
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1059j
2.50
2 47;
0.23
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-31 3j
105.9
11,936
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2447!
2.54
2.47!
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-31 1:
244.7
12,181
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
13961
2.47
2.47J
0.20
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30 9,
139.6
12,320
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1318
2.53
2.47I
0.26
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30 5'
131.8
12,452
Vermont
W-CG-reg
161
2.53
2.47I
0.26
0.00
0.51
0.00
0
0
-30 5
16.1
12.468
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
56
2.53
2 47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-30 5
5.6
12,474
Virginia
W-CG-reg
794
2.51
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-30 4
79.4
12,553
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2213
2.53
2 47
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-30 4
221.3
12,774
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1751 _
2.50
2 47
0.25
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-29 7
175.1
12,949
Florida
W-CG-reg
37191
2.57
2 47'
0.32
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-28 8'
371.9
13,321
Maine
W-CG-reg
153
2.55
2 47
0.32
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-27 4
15.3
13,337
New Hampshire
W-CG-req
68,
2.48
2 47,
0.26
0.00
0.51
0 00
0
0
-25 5,
6.8
13,343
-------
Table A2009A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
! State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2009
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
(Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
|$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Wisconsin
California
Missouri
Kentucky
New York
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Massachusetts
Virginia
Rhode Island
Texas
Connecticut
Maryland
Delaware
DC
Wisconsin
Indiana
California
New Jersey
Missouri
New York
Maine
Kentucky
Virginia
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
DC
Connecticut
Maryland
Texas
New Hampshire
Arizona
Maine
Delaware
New Jersey
Illinois
Illinois
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Indiana
California
Missouri
NewYork
Indiana
Kentucky
Virginia
Wisconsin
California
Rhode Island
Missouri
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
DC
Connecticut
Maryland
Texas
Kentucky
New York
Arizona
Maine
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Massachusetts
Virginia
Rhode Island
Texas
Connecticut
Maryland
Delaware
Delaware
New Jersey
DC
New Jersey
Maine
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
Oregon
Oregon
Missouri
Minnesota
Missouri
jS-RFG-Reg j
12861
1.80
js-RFG-Prem I
185
2.001
S-RFG-Reg |
1981
1.82j
IS-RFG-Reg j
336(
1.82[
jS-RFG-Reg J
528o|
1.94j
I S-RFG-Reg I
414|
1.79)
js-RFG-Reg |
191 j
1.86I
I S-RFG-Reg I
12301
1.82
I S-RFG-Reg J
387|
1.791
S- RFG- Reg |
785|
1.851
| S-RFG-Reg I
1078
1.79
| S-RFG-Reg I
7761
1.79
I S-RFG-Reg |
259|
1.79|
I S-RFG-Reg J
2529I
1.74|
| S-RFG-Reg
634
1.781
I S-RFG-Reg |
743 [
1.77
I S-RFG-Reg I
18s|
1.771
IS- RFG- Reg I
26|
1.77(
S-RFG-Prem [
311
2.011
|s-RFG-Prem I
21 j
1.991
I S-RFG-Prem j
1526]
2.111
| S-RFG-Reg j
16091
1.73|
S-RFG-Prem [
41
1.97|
js-RFG-Prem I
296 J
2.04
I S-RFG-Reg I
186]
1.8o|
I S-RFG-Prem I
19j
2.04I
[s-RFG-Prem [
151
2.04I
Js-RFG-Prem I
38 J
2.011
[s-RFG-Prem [
164|
2.00|
js-RFG-Prem I
65|
1.981
jjs-RFG-Prem I
el
2.00
S-RFG-Prem |
104I
1.991
[s-RFG-Prem |
136 J
1.99|
S-RFG-Prem |
3931
1.941
I S-RFG-Reg I
10
CO
1.661
js-RFG-Prem I
122!
2.00|
|s-RFG-Prem i
12!
2.011
S-RFG-Prem I
231
1.90l
[s-RFG-Prem I
260
1.90
)w-RFG-Prem
2241
1.95
W-RFG-reg |
15551
1.75|
js-RFG-Prem |
211
1.79j
|w-RFG-Prem I
37 j
1.96
[w-RFG-Prem I
25
1.941
Iw-RFG-Prem I
18451
2.06|
|w-RFG-Prem I
491
1.92|
Iw-RFG-Prem |
358
1.99|
|w-RFG-reg I
2391
1.77|
W-RFG-Prem
23 j
1.99|
|w-RFG-Prem |
183|
1.991
W-RFG-reg I
406
1.771
I W-RFG-reg j
63841
1.89
[w-RFG-Prem I
46|
1.961
Iw-RFG-reg I
5001
1.74|
Iw-RFG-Prem [
1981
1.95|
[w-RFG-Prem [
781
1.931
Iw-RFG-Prem I
s|
1.951
Iw-RFG-Prem |
126|
1.94|
[w-RFG-Prem I
164I
1.94
|w-RFG-Prem |
4751
1.89|
lw-RFG-reg I
2311
1.811
Iw-RFG-reg I
14871
1.771
[w-RFG-Prem |
148
1.95
Iw-RFG-Prem
151
1.96|
lw-RFG-reg I
4681
1.741
Iw-RFG-reg I
9491
1.8o|
Iw-RFG-reg I
13031
1.74|
Iw-RFG-reg |
939 J
1.741
I W-RFG-reg I
313|
1.741
Iw-RFG-reg I
30581
1.691
|w-RFG-reg I
7661
1.73|
[w-RFG-reg J
8981
1.721
lw-RFG-reg j
2281
172
Jw-RFG-Prem I
28 J
1.85|
Jw-RFG-Prem j
314|
1.851
|w-RFG-reg I
311
1.721
Iw-RFG-reg |
19461
1.68 J
Iw-RFG-reg I
2251
1.75
jw-RFG-reg I
223
1.611
Iw-RFG-Prem I
25|
1.741
Is-CG-Prem I
941
2.081
|w-CG-Prem I
114|
2.03)
Is-CG-Prem I
681
1.911
Is-CG-Prem I
103|
1.891
W-CG-Prem |
821
1.861
1 -79 j
0.15J
1.161
0.451
ฐ-26|
oj
1.791
0.15|
0.82
0.45]
ฐ-26
oj
1.791
0.15
nel
0.45
o.ool
0
I.79)
0.15|
1.161
0.45|
o.ool
o|
1.791
0.281
l16l
0.451
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.15
116(
0.45
o.ool
1l
1.791
0.241
116|
0.451
o.ool
oj
1.79
0.22I
1.161
0.451
o.ool
ol
1.79|
0.22I
U6|
0.451
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.28]
net
0.451
o.ooj
ol
1.79[
0.24
116
0.45
0.00
0
1.79
0.241
nel
0.451
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.24I
116|
0.451
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.191
l16l
0.45]
o.ool
oj
1.79
0.24
nel
0.451
o.ool
0
1.791
0.241
nel
0.45]
o.ool
oj
1.79[
0.24
116|
0.45]
o.ool
oj
1.79|
0.24I
1.161
0.451
o.ool
oj
1.79
0.15
ฐ-82l
0.45
0.00
0
1.791
0.151
ฐ-82l
0.45
0.00
oj
1.79|
0.28]
0.82I
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.24I
1.161
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.79|
0.15|
0.82I
0.45
o.ool
1
1.791
0.221
0.82I
0.45
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.311
116|
0.451
o.ool
ol
1.79)
0.241
0.82I
0.451
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.24I
0.82I
0.45
o.ool
oj
1.79|
0.241
0.82I
0.451
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.241
ฐ-82|
0.45J
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.221
0.82I
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.79[
0.241
0.82I
0.451
o.ool
oj
1.79|
0.24
0.82I
0.451
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.241
0.82I
0.45|
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.191
0.82I
0.45]
o.ool
oj
1.79
0.26
1.16
0.451
0.00
ol
1.79|
0.281
ฐ-82|
0.451
o.ool
ol
I.79)
0.311
O.82I
0.45I
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.241
O.82I
0.451
o.ool
oj
179
0.24
0.82
0.45
0.00
0
1.79|
0.151
O.42J
0.45I
o.2e|
oj
1.79|
0.15
0.55I
0.45]
o.2e|
oj
1.791
o.2ej
O.82I
0.451
o.ool
oj
1.79|
0.15
ฐ-42|
0.45I
0.00
ol
1.79
0.15
ฐ-42l
0.45|
0.00
ol
1.79|
0.28]
0.42|
0.45]
o.ool
oj
1.79)
0.15|
0.42I
0.45|
o.ool
ij
1.791
0.22
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1.791
0.151
0.55J
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.24|
0.42I
0.45
0.00
ol
1.791
0.24I
0.42I
0.45I
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.15
0.55J
0.45
0.00
0
1.791
0.28I
0.55|
0.45I
o.ooj
oj
1.791
0.24|
0.421
0.45I
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.15
0.55 j
0.45
o.ool
1I
1.79|
0.24
0.421
0.45
o.ooj
ol
1.791
0.22|
0.42|
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.24|
ฐ-42|
0.45I
o.ool
oj
I.79)
0.24I
0.42I
0.45I
o.ool
ol
1.791
0.24|
0.42
0.45|
o.ool
0
I.79]
0.191
O.42I
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.24I
ฐ-55|
0.45J
o.ool
ol
1.79)
0.22j
0.55I
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.28
0.42
0.45
o.oo
0
1.791
0.311
0.421
0.45]
o.ool
ol
1.79|
0.22|
0.55 J
0.45|
o.ool
oj
1.79 j
0.28I
0.551
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.79 j
0.24
ฐ'55|
0.45
o.ool
0
1.791
0.24I
0.55I
0.45I
o.ool
0
1.79|
0.24I
0.551
0.45]
o.ool
ol
I.79)
0.19|
0.55I
0.45I
o.ooj
oj
1.791
0.24I
0.55
0.45I
o.ool
0
1.791
0.24I
0.55J
0.451
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.24|
0.551
0.45I
o.ool
0
1.791
0.241
0.421
0.45|
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.24I
0.42
0.45
o.ool
0
1.791
0.24I
0.551
0.45J
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.241
0.551
0.45I
o.ool
oj
1.791
0.311
0.551
0.45
o.ool
0
1.791
0.26]
0.55
0.45
o.ooj
0
1.791
o.2e|
0.421
0.45J
o.ooj
ol
1.791
0.24I
0.001
0.45I
o.ool
1.79|
0.24I
o.ooj
0.45I
o.ool
1.791
0.15]
o.ool
0.45I
o.ooj
1 j
1.791
0.15I
o.ool
0.45I
o.ool
1.791
0.15I
o.ool
0.45I
o.ool
-171.7
-159.3
-148.9
-148.2
-147.9
-145.3
-143.7
-141.4
-138.9
-138.7
-137.2
-137.1
-136.7
-136.5
-136.4
-135.5
-135.1
-134.7
-134.5
-131.9
-131.3
-131.2
-130.7
-130.5
-130.4
-128.7
-128.4
-126.0
-125.0
-124.8
-124.5
-123.9
-123.9
-123.7
-122.6
-121.0
-118.9
-114.9
-114.9
-113.4
-105.7
-102.4
-88.5
-86.0
-85.4
-84.7
-84.6
-82.9
-82.7
-82.5
-82.2
-81.9
-80.1
-79.4
-79.1
-78.9
-78.6[
-78.01
-77.9I
-77.8I
-77.7j
-75.5|
-75.0
-73.o|
-72.9I
-72.7 (
-71.31
-71.21
-70.8I
-70.5I
-70.5|
-69.5I
-69.2I
-69.01
-69.0)
-68.s|
-65.3I
-64.5I
-56.6I
-56.5I
-49.4|
-44.4j
-42.2I
-39.51
-37.2I
128.6
18.5
19.8
33.6
300.9
41.4
19.1
123.0
38.7
78.5
107.8
77.6
25.9
252.9
63.4
74.3
18.8
2.6
3.1
2.1
87.0
160.9
4.1
29.6
18.6
1.9
15.1
3.8
16.4
6.5
0.6
10.4
13.6
39.3
18.5
12.2
1.2
2.3
26.0
22.4
155.5
2.1
3.7
2.5
105.2
4.9
35.8
23.9
2.3
18.3
40.6
363.9
4.6
50.0
19.8
7.8
0.8
12.6
16.4
47.5
23.1
148.7
14.8
1.5
46.8
94.9
130.3
93.9
31.3
305.8
76.6
89.8
22.8
2.8
31.4
3.1
194.6
22.5
22.3
2.5
9.4
11.4
6.8
10.3
8.2
129
147
167
200
501
543
562
685
724
802
910
987
1,013
1,266
1,330
1,404
1.423
1,425
1,428
1,430
1,517
1.678
1,682
1,712
1.731
1.732
1,748
1,751
1,768
1.774
1.775
1,785
1,799
1.838
1,857
1.869
1.870
1,872
1,898
1.921
2,076
2,078
2,082
2,085
2,190
2.195
2,230
2,254
2,257
2,275
2,316
2.679
2,684
2,734
2,754
2.762
2.763
2,775
2,792
2.839
2,862
3,011
3.026
3.027
3,074
3,169
3,299
3,393
3.424
3,730
3,807
3,896
3,919
3.922
3,954
3,957
4,151
4,174
4.196
4,199
4,208
4,219
4,226
4,236
4,245
-------
Table A2009B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2009
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
124
1.84
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-34.5
12.4
4,257
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
51
2.17
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-33.2
5.1
4,262
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
670
1.87
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-28.4
67.0
4,329
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
62
2.12
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-28.2
6.2
4,335
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
1020
1.74
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-25.3
102.0
4,437
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
807
1.73
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-23.7
80.7
4,518
Oregon
W-CG-reg
811
1.82
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-23.4
81.1
4,599
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1233
1.69
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-20.3
123.3
4,722
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
172
2.03
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-19.1
17.2
4,740
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
208
1.98
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
1
0
-14.1
20.8
4,760
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
64
1.95
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.30
0
0
-75.4
6.4
4,767
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
2.58
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-73.9
1.3
4,768
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
46
1.94
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.26
0
0
-70.9
4.6
4,773
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
78
1.90
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.30
0
0
-70.4
7.8
4,781
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
2.53
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-68.9
1.6
4,782
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
56
1.89
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.26
0
0
-65.9
5.6
4,788
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
110
2.48
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-64.0
11.0
4,799
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
2.00
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.09
0
0
-59.8
2.1
4,801
Alaska
W-CG-reg
133
2.43
1.79
0.50
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-59.0
13.3
4,814
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
494
1.75
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.30
0
0
-55.0
49.4
4,864
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
26
1.95
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.09
0
0
-54.8
2.6
4,866
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
755
1.74
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.26
0
0
-50.1
75.5
4,942
Iowa
W-CG-reg
598
1.70
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.30
0
0
-50.0
59.8
5,002
Washington
S-CG-Prem
214
2.06
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-47.4
21.4
5,023
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
44
1.96
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-46.6
4.4
5,027
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
59
2.04
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-46.3
5.9
5,033
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
162
1.95
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-46.1
16.2
5,049
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
72
1.95
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-46.0
7.2
5,057
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
132
1.95
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-46.0
13.2
5,070
Illinois
W-CG-reg
913
1.69
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.26
0
0
-45.1
91.3
5,161
1 ndiana
S-CG-Prem
85
1.93
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-43.5
8.5
5,170
Washington
W-CG-Prem
259
2.01
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-42.4
25.9
5,196
New York
S-CG-Prem
99
1.98
1.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-42.0
9.9
5,206
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
28
1.96
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.9
2.8
5,208
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
58
1.91
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.8
5.8
5,214
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
49
1.96
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.6
4.9
5,219
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
53
1.91
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.6
5.3
5,224
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
72
1.99
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.3
7.2
5,232
Montana
S-CG-Prem
61
1.96
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.1
6.1
5,238
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
196
1.90
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.1
19.6
5,257
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
88
1.90
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.0
CO
CO
5,266
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
159
1.90
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-41.0
15.9
5,282
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
48
1.98
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-40.2
4.8
5,287
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
64
1.98
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-39.9
6.4
5,293
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
1.99
1.79
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-39.4
1.2
5,294
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
76
1.92
1.79
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-39.1
7.6
5,302
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
20
1.95
1.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-38.9
2.0
5,304
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
109
2.01
1.79
0.28
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-38.8
10.9
5,315
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
103
1.88
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-38.5
10.3
5,325
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
102
1.96
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-38.1
10.2
5,335
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
278
1.97
1.79
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-38.0
27.8
5,363
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
102
1.91
1.79
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-37.9
10.2
5,373
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
53
1.91
1.79
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-37.5
5.3
5,379
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
20
1.95
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-37.4
2.0
5,381
New York
W-CG-Prem
120
1.93
1.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-37.0
12.0
5,393
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
34
1.91
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-36.9
3.4
5,396
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
70
1.86
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-36.8
7.0
5,403
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
60
1.91
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-36.6
6.0
5,409
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
83
1.92
1.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-36.4
8.3
5,417
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
182
1.91
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-36.3
18.2
5,436
Montana
W-CG-Prem
74
1.91
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-36.1
7.4
5,443
Utah
S-CG-Prem
131
1.90
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-35.9
13.1
5,456
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
167
1.93
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-35.8
16.7
5,473
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
178
1.76
1.79
0.15
0.00
0.45
0.09
0
0
-35.8
17.8
5,490
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
1.93
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-35.4
0.7
5,491
Texas
S-CG-Prem
335
1.88
1.79
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-35.3
33.5
5,525
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
58
1.93
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-35.2
5.8
5,530
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
77
1.93
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-34.9
7.7
5,538
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
1.94
1.79
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-34.4
1.4
5,540
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
92
1.87
1.79
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-34.1
9.2
5,549
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
229
1.93
1.79
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-34.0
22.9
5,572
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
1.90
1.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-33.9
2.4
5,574
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
132
1.96
1.79
0.28
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-33.8
13.2
5,587
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
130
1.93
1.79
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-33.5
13.0
5,600
Florida
S-CG-Prem
451
1.98
1.79
0.31
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-33.4
45.1
5,645
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
124
1.91
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-33.1
12.4
5,658
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
336
1.92
1.79
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-33.0
33.6
5,691
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
123
1.86
1.79
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-32.9
12.3
5,704
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
56
1.94
1.79
0.28
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-32.5
5.6
5,709
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
64
1.86
1.79
0.19
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-32.5
6.4
5,716
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
1.90
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-32.4
2.5
5,718
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
101
1.87
1.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-31.4
10.1
5,728
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
220
1.86
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-31.3
22.0
5,750
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
86
1.87
1.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.02
0
0
-31.2
8.6
5,759
Utah
W-CG-Prem
158
1.85
1.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
0
0
-30.9
15.8
5,775
-------
Table A2009C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2009
State
Gasoline
Code
Gasoline
^Volume
MMgals
Gasoline
Price
Ethanol
Gate Price
Ethanol
Dist Cost
Ethanol
Blending
Federal
Subsidy
State
Subsidy
State
Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Cost c/gal
Ethanol
Volume
MMgals
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMgals
Tennessee
South Dakota
Maine
Maryland
Texas
North Carolina
South Carolina
Michigan
Florida
Ohio
Washington
Arizona
Indiana
New Mexico
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Maine
Nebraska
Idaho
Michigan
Ohio
Kansas
Montana
Washington
Indiana
Kentucky
New Mexico
Nevada
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Mississippi
West Virginia
New York
Nebraska
Idaho
Colorado
Missouri
North Dakota
Kansas
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Kentucky
Louisiana
Nevada
Georgia
Tennessee
Virginia
Oklahoma
Alabama
Arkansas
Mississippi
West Virginia
Texas
New York
South Carolina
Colorado
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Maryland
North Dakota
Florida
Utah
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Louisiana
Georgia
Tennessee
Virginia
Oklahoma
Alabama
Texas
South Carolina
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Maryland
Maine
Florida
Vermont
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
203
215'
11'
9
405
211
157'
1992
546
2055'
1078'
68'
1191
398'
812
104'
13
327'
291'
24091
2485
687
283
1303
14401
6921
4821
420'
982
620'
740'
315'
1019
396!
351'
830
975
166'
830:
342
484
139
875
438
836
1154
508
2023
1448
656
879
1027
749
895
381
3444
1232
1089
1004
4
1829
87
201
3075
586
169
1059
530
1395
2446
1750
794
1063
1242
4165
1317
5
2212
105
126
3718
133
153
56
161
1.71
1.95'
1.78
1.93'
1.77
1.86'
1.89'
1.76
1.85
1.76'
1.82'
1.90
1.74
1.79'
1.73
1.72'
1.72
1.77'
1.81
1.71!
1.80|
1.80l
1.84'
1.71
1.73
1.73'
1.76'
1.76
1.69;
1.74'
1.74
1.68'
1.76
1.67"
1.72
1.72'
1.72
1.73'
1.79'
1.75
1.70!
1.79'
1.75'
1.73
1.73'
1.72
1.73
1.68;
1.68
1.71'
1.68'
1.71'
1.74'
1.69
1.73'
1.73
1.71
1.71'
1.78
1.67'
1.67
1.68'
1.74'
1.65'
1.70'
1.68
1.68'
1.63
1.69'
1.68
1.68'
1.66!
1.74'
1.73'
1.65
1.69'
1.60
1.60'
1-55i
.79
0.24
0.00
0.45
0.00
.79'
0.15
0.00'
0.45I
0.09'
.79'
0.31'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.24'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79'
0.19'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79
0.26
0.00
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.26'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.15'
0.00
0.45I
0.00
.79'
0.31'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79
0.15
0.00
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.24'
0.00:
0.45I
0.00
.79'
0.28'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00'
.79
0.15
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.24'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.15'
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79'
0.24'
0.00'
0.45!
0.02'
.79
0.31
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.15
0.00'
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.21'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.15
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.15'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79
0.15
0.00
0.45!
0.00'
.79'
0.21'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.24'
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79!
0.151
0.00!
0.45J
0.00
.79J
ฐ'24|
0.00I
0.45I
0.00'
.79l
0.24!
o.ool
0.45I
0.00,
.79'
0.28'
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.15
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.19
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79'
0.19'
0.00'
0.45i
0.00'
.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
.79
0.22
0.00
0.45
0.00
.79;
0.15!
0.00;
0.45!
0.00!
.79'
0.21'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.21'
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.15'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79
0.24
0.00
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.15'
0.00;
0.45'
0.00'
.79'
0.21'
0.00'
0.45
0.00
.79'
0.21'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79'
0.21
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79'
0.22'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.28'
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.24
0.00
0.45I
0.00
.79'
0.19!
0.00*
0.45!
0.00:
.79'
0.28'
0.00'
0.45i
0.00'
.79'
0.26'
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.24
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.24'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.24'
0.00-
0.45!
0.02!
.79
0.24
0.00'
0.45!
0.00
.79;
0.191
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79
0.19
0.00
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.22'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00
.79
0.19
0.00
0.45I
0.00
.79'
0.22'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79'
0.26!
0.00'
0.45!
o.oo:
.79'
0.21'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.26'
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79
0.26
0.00
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.24'
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79'
0.24'
0.00
0.45
0.00'
.79
0.31
0.00
0.45
0.00'
,79;
0.211
0.00'
0.45'
0.00:
.79
0.21
0.00
0.45
0.00
.79:
0.221
0.00'
0.45S
0.00'
.79'
0.28'
0.00'
0.45'
0.00'
.79'
0.19'
0.00'
0.45'
0.00'
.79'
0.26'
0.00'
0.45'
0.00
.79'
0.24'
0.00'
0.45'
0.00'
.79!
0.24!
0.00!
0.45!
0.00
.79
0.24
0.00
0.45!
0.02
.79'
0.24'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00
.79
0.19
0.00
0.45I
0.00'
.79'
0.26'
0.00:
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.26
0.00'
0.45!
0.00
.79'
0.26'
0.00'
0.45!
0.00'
.79!
0.24!
0.00*
0.45!
o.ool
.79'
0.31'
0.00'
0.45'
0.00'
.79'
0.31:
0.00'
0.45'
0.00'
.79
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
.79'
0.31'
0.00'
0.45I
0.00'
.79
0.26
0.00'
0.45
0.00
.79'
0.26'
0.00'
0.45'
0.00'
.79;
0.26|
0.00;
0.45S
0.00s
-30.
-30.8'
-30.4'
-30.4'
-30.3'
-29.0
-28.5'
-28.5
-28.4'
-28.4
-27.5'
-27.5'
-27.3
-26.9'
-26.6'
-26.2'
-25.4
-24.5'
-24.1:
-23.5
-23.4'
-23.2
-22.9'
-22.5
-22.31
-22.11
-21.9!
-21.8'
-21.6
-20.3'
-20.3'
-20.0
-19.8
-19.51
-19.1'
-19.0'
-18.7'
-18.5
- *18.21
-17.91
-17.71
-17.5
-17.3'
-17.1:
-17.1
-16.9
-16.8'
-15.8'
-15.7
-15.5'
-15.5"
-15.4
-15.3;
-15.3
-15.0'
-14.9'
-14.8'
-14.4!
-14.oj
-14.ol
-14.0
-13.9
-13.5'
-13.3
-12.71
-12.5
-12.3
-12.1'
-11.9'
-10.8'
-10.7
-10.5'
-10.5
-10.4'
-9.9
-9.4'
-9.0
-9.0'
-8.9'
-8.8'
-8.3'
-5.9
-3.8''
-1.0'
-0.9'
4.0;
20.
21.
1.
0.
40.
27.
15.
199.
54.
205.
107.
6.
119.
39.
81.
10.
1.
32.
29.
240.
248.
68.
28.
130.
144.
69.
62.
74.
31.
101.
39.
35.
83.
97.
16.
83.
34.
48.
13.
87.
43.
83.
115.
50.
202.
144.
65.
87.
102.
74.
89.
38.
344.
123.
108.
100.
0.
182.
8.
20.
307.
58.
16.
105.
53.
139.
244.
175.
79.
106.
124.
416.
131.
0.
221.
10.
12.
371.
13.
15.
5.
16.
6.
5,795
5.816
5.817
5.818
5,859
5,886
5,902
6,101
6,156
6,361
6,469
6,476
6,595
6,635
6,716
6,726
6,728
6,760
6,790
7,030
7,279
7,348
7,376
7,506
7,650
7,719
7,767
7,809
7,908
7,970
8,044
8,075
8,177
8,217
8,252
8,335
8,432
8,449
8,532
8,566
8.615
8,629
8,716
8,760
8,844
8,959
9,010
9,212
9,357
9,422
9,510
9,613
9,688
9,777
9,816
10,160
10,283
10,392
10.492
10.493
10,676
10,685
10,705
11,012
11,071
11,088
11,193
11,246
11,386
11,630
11,805
11,885
11,991
12,115
12,532
12.663
12.664
12,885
12,896
12,908
13,280
13,293
13,309
13,314
13,330
13,337
85
-------
Table A2010A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2010
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
1.93
1.04
0.45
1
-160.5
S-RFG-Reg
1295
2.19
1.93
0.16
0.79
0.45
0.26
0
1
-159.6
129.5
197
Minnesota
S-CG- Reg
1027
2.16
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
1
0
-156.8
102.7
S-CG- Reg
173
2.50
1.93
0.51
1.04
0.45
0.00
1
0
-154.5
17.3
317
S-CG-Prem
95
2.49
1.93
0.25
0.78
0.45
0.00
1
0
-154.3
9.5
Missouri
S-CG- Reg
812
2.14
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
ฆ
0
-154.2
81.2
S-RFG-Prem
187
2.38
1.93
0.16
0.53
0.45
0.26
0
1
-153.3
18.7
426
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
68
2.30
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
1
0
-144.8
6.8
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
103
2.30
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
1
0
-144.7
10.3
S-CG-Prem
52
2.64
1.93
0.51
0.78
0.45
0.00
1
0
-142.9
5.2
.
S-RFG-Reg
338
2.20
1.93
0.16
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-135.8
33.8
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
417
2.20
1.93
0.16
0.79
0.45
0.00
1
-135.1
41.7
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
199
2.19
1.93
0.16
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-134.3
19.9
544
S-RFG-Reg
5315
2.29
1.93
0.29
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-131.3
531.5
1.075
.
S-RFG-Prem
31
2.41
1.93
0.16
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-130.7
3.1
1.079
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
192
2.24
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-130.4
19.2
1.098
S-RFG-Reg
1238
2.21
1.93
0.23
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-130.0
123.8
1.222
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
390
2.20
1.93
0.23
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-128.2
39.0
1.261
S-RFG-Reg
790
2.25
1.93
0.29
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-127.3
79.0
1.340
W-RFG-Pren
226
2.33
1.93
0.16
0.32
0.45
0.26
0
-126.8
22.6
1.362
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1085
2.20
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-127.0
108.5
1.471
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2546
2.15
1.93
0.20
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-126.1
254.6
ฆ
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
41
2.36
1.93
0.16
0.53
0.45
0.00
1
-125.7
4.1
1.729
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
748
2.19
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-125.5
74.8
1.804
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
781
2.19
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-125.5
78.1
1.882
S-RFG-Prem
298
2.42
1.93
0.23
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-125.4
29.8
1.912
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
638
2.18
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-125.2
63.8
1.976
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.35
1.93
0.16
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-125.1
2.1
1.978
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
261
2.18
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-124.8
26.1
S-RFG-Reg
26
2.17
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-123.9
2.6
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
186
2.19
1.93
0.26
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-123.8
18.6
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
152
2.41
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-122.7
15.2
S-RFG-Prem
1536
2.45
1.93
0.29
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-122.0
153.6
ฆ
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
2.40
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-121.8
1.9
2.196
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
65
2.38
1.93
0.23
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-121.2
6.5
.
S-RFG-Reg
1620
2.14
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-121.2
162.0
S-RFG-Reg
190
2.14
1.93
0.24
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-121.1
19.0
2.383
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
137
2.40
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-120.9
13.7
S-RFG-Prem
165
2.39
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-120.3
16.5
2.414
S-RFG-Prem
7
2.39
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-120.2
0.7
2.414
S-RFG-Prem
123
2.42
1.93
0.29
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-119.5
12.3
2.427
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
187
2.20
1.93
0.32
0.79
0.45
0.00
0
-119.2
18.7
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
105
2.38
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-119.0
10.5
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
395
2.33
1.93
0.20
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-118.5
39.5
W-RFG-reg
1566
2.14
1.93
0.16
0.42
0.45
0.26
0
-117.7
156.6
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
39
2.37
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-118.0
3.9
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.38
1.93
0.26
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-117.8
2.1
. .
S-RFG-Prem
262
2.33
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-114.2
26.2
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
12
2.39
1.93
0.32
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-113.5
1.2
S-RFG-Prem
24
2.31
1.93
0.24
0.53
0.45
0.00
0
-112.3
2.4
W-RFG-Pren
37
2.36
1.93
0.16
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-104.3
3.7
2.691
W-CG-Prem
115
2.44
1.93
0.25
0.32
0.45
0.00
1
-102.9
11.5
Missouri
W-RFG-Pren
50
2.31
1.93
0.16
0.32
0.45
0.00
1
-99.3
5.0
W-RFG-Pren
361
2.37
1.93
0.23
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-98.9
36.1
Indiana
W-RFG-Pren-
25
2.30
1.93
0.16
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-98.7
2.5
Virginia
W-RFG-Pren-
184
2.36
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-96.2
18.4
W-RFG-Pren-
1857
2.40
1.93
0.29
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-95.5
185.7
Kentucky
W-RFG-Pren-
23
2.35
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-95.4
2.3
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Pren
79
2.33
1.93
0.23
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-94.8
7.9
2.961
Maryland
W-RFG-Pren
165
2.35
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-94.5
16.5
W-RFG-reg
408
2.15
1.93
0.16
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
-94.0
40.8
3.018
Massachusetts
W-RFG-PrerT
200
2.34
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-93.9
20.0
W-RFG-Pren] 8
2.34
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
-93.7
0.8
W-CG-reg
816
2.24
1.93
0.25
0.42
0.45
0.00
1
0
-93.6
81.6
3.120
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
82
2.25
1.93
0.16
0.32
0.45
0.00
ฆ
0
-93.3
8.2
3.129
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
504
2.15
1.93
0.16
0.42
0.45
0.00
1
0
-93.3
50.4
3.179
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
125
2.25
1.93
0.16
0.32
0.45
0.00
1
0
-93.2
12.5
3.191
W-RFG-Pren-
149
2.37
1.93
0.29
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
1
-93.0
14.9
3.206
Connecticut
W-RFG-Pren
127
2.33
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
1
-92.6
12.7
3.219
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
240
2.14
1.93
0.16
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
ฆ
-92.5
24.0
Texas
W-RFG-Pren
478
2.28
1.93
0.20
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
1
-92.1
47.8
3.291
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Pren-
47
2.32
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
1
-91.6
4.7
W-CG-Prem
63
2.59
1.93
0.51
0.32
0.45
0.00
1
0
-91.4
6.3
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prerr
25
2.33
1.93
0.26
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
1
-91.4
2.5
3.304
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1242
2.11
1.93
0.16
0.42
0.45
0.00
1
0
-89.9
124.2
W-RFG-reg
6427
2.24
1.93
0.29
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-89.4
642.7
4.071
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
232
2.19
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
ฆ
-88.6
23.2
W-RFG-reg
1497
2.16
1.93
0.23
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-88.1
149.7
. .
W-RFG-Pren-
316
2.28
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
1
-87.8
31.6
W-CG-reg
209
2.45
1.93
0.51
0.42
0.45
0.00
ฆ
0
-87.6
20.9
Missouri
W-CG-reg
982
2.09
1.93
0.16
0.42
0.45
0.00
1
0
-87.3
98.2
Maine
W-RFG-Pren
15
2.34
1.93
0.32
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
1
-87.0
1.5
4.396
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
472
2.15
1.93
0.23
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-86.4
47.2
4.443
W-RFG-Pren-
28
2.26
1.93
0.24
0.32
0.45
0.00
0
ฆ
-85.9
2.8
2.20
1.93
0.42
1
-------
Table A2010B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2010
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1312
2.15
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-85.1
131.2
4,673
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3078
2.10
1.93
0.20
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-84.2
307.8
4,981
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
904
2.14
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-83.7
90.4
5,071
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
945
2.14
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-83.6
94.5
5,166
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
771
2.13
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-83.3
77.1
5,243
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
315
2.13
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-82.9
31.5
5,274
DC
W-RFG-reg
31
2.12
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-82.0
3.1
5,278
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
225
2.14
1.93
0.26
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-81.9
22.5
5,300
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1959
2.09
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-79.3
195.9
5,496
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
229
2.09
1.93
0.24
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-79.2
22.9
5,519
Maine
W-RFG-reg
227
2.15
1.93
0.32
0.42
0.45
0.00
0
1
-77.3
22.7
5,542
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
111
2.84
1.93
0.51
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-189.0
11.1
5,553
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
498
2.19
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.30
0
0
-188.9
49.8
5,602
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
3.01
1.93
0.51
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-180.0
1.3
5,604
lovwa
S-CG-Prem
65
2.35
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.30
0
0
-179.5
6.5
5,610
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
761
2.13
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.26
0
0
-178.6
76.1
5,686
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
47
2.32
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.26
0
0
-172.3
4.7
5,691
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
179
2.21
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.09
0
0
-171.0
17.9
5,709
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
293
2.31
1.93
0.21
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-165.9
29.3
5,738
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
22
2.41
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.09
0
0
-164.7
2.2
5,740
Utah
S-CG-Reg
488
2.28
1.93
0.21
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-163.4
48.8
5,789
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
329
2.19
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-159.6
32.9
5,822
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1085
2.28
1.93
0.25
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-159.5
108.5
5,930
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
50
2.49
1.93
0.21
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-158.5
5.0
5,935
Montana
S-CG-Reg
285
2.23
1.93
0.21
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-157.8
28.5
5,964
Utah
S-CG-Prem
132
2.48
1.93
0.21
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-157.1
13.2
5,977
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
2006
2.16
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-156.0
200.6
6,178
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2069
2.15
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-155.8
206.9
6,384
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
167
2.23
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-155.3
16.7
6,401
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
818
2.14
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-154.9
81.8
6,483
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
691
2.14
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-154.4
69.1
6,552
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
401
2.22
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-154.2
40.1
6,592
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
140
2.19
1.93
0.21
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-153.5
14.0
6,606
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1199
2.13
1.93
0.16
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-153.4
119.9
6,726
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
423
2.25
1.93
0.29
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-152.8
42.3
6,768
Washington
S-CG-Prem
215
2.47
1.93
0.25
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-152.7
21.5
6,790
Montana
S-CG-Prem
61
2.42
1.93
0.21
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-151.7
6.1
6,796
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
44
2.36
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-150.9
4.4
6,800
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
624
2.14
1.93
0.20
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-150.0
62.4
6,863
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
73
2.35
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-149.7
7.3
6,870
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
836
2.15
1.93
0.21
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-149.7
83.6
6,954
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
696
2.18
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-149.5
69.6
7,023
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
28
2.40
1.93
0.21
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-149.1
2.8
7,026
New York
S-CG-Reg
1026
2.15
1.93
0.23
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-149.0
102.6
7,129
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1161
2.11
1.93
0.20
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-147.8
116.1
7,245
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
745
2.11
1.93
0.20
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-147.8
74.5
7,319
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
60
2.41
1.93
0.24
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-147.7
6.0
7,325
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
317
2.14
1.93
0.23
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-147.4
31.7
7,357
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
881
2.14
1.93
0.23
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-147.3
88.1
7,445
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
20
2.41
1.93
0.24
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-147.0
2.0
7,447
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
132
2.32
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-146.9
13.2
7,461
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
163
2.32
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-146.9
16.3
7,477
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
885
2.13
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.02
0
0
-146.9
88.5
7,565
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
134
2.16
1.93
0.26
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-146.5
13.4
7,579
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
441
2.19
1.93
0.29
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-146.3
44.1
7,623
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2036
2.16
1.93
0.26
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.8
203.6
7,827
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1034
2.14
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.5
103.4
7,930
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1457
2.13
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.2
145.7
8,076
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3467
2.09
1.93
0.20
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.1
346.7
8,422
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
88
2.13
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.6
CO
CO
8,431
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
661
2.13
1.93
0.24
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.5
66.1
8,497
New York
S-CG-Prem
100
2.36
1.93
0.23
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.4
10.0
8,507
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
86
2.29
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.1
8.6
8,516
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
59
2.29
1.93
0.16
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.1
5.9
8,522
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1842
2.14
1.93
0.26
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-143.6
184.2
8,706
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1097
2.14
1.93
0.26
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-143.6
109.7
8,815
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
53
2.32
1.93
0.20
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-143.2
5.3
8,821
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
184
2.34
1.93
0.21
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-143.1
18.4
8,839
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
57
2.13
1.93
0.26
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-142.8
5.7
8,845
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
110
2.41
1.93
0.29
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-142.8
11.0
8,856
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
64
2.35
1.93
0.24
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-141.7
6.4
8,862
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
279
2.37
1.93
0.26
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-141.6
27.9
8,890
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
103
2.35
1.93
0.24
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-141.6
10.3
8,900
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
2.37
1.93
0.26
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-141.5
1.2
8,902
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3095
2.16
1.93
0.32
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.9
309.5
9,211
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
49
2.34
1.93
0.24
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.8
4.9
9,216
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
77
2.29
1.93
0.20
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.4
7.7
9,224
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
84
2.32
1.93
0.23
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.2
8.4
9,232
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
2.34
1.93
0.24
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.0
0.7
9,233
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
20
2.31
1.93
0.23
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-139.4
2.0
9,235
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
103
2.28
1.93
0.20
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-139.3
10.3
9,245
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
56
2.36
1.93
0.29
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-138.5
5.6
9,251
Maine
S-CG-Reg
127
2.14
1.93
0.32
1.04
0.45
0.00
0
0
-138.2
12.7
9,263
Texas
S-CG-Prem
337
2.27
1.93
0.20
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.6
33.7
9,297
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
169
2.31
1.93
0.24
0.78
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.5
16.9
9,314
-------
Table A2010C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol i Ethanol i Ethanol i
Federal i State
! State
!RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2010
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price \Dist Cost \Blending (Subsidy (Subsidy iMandate \"Mandate"!Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
>/gal
$/gal !$/c
al i$/ga
>/gal i$/ga
Cost c/gah MMgals
MMgals
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
2301
2.33
1.931
0.26!
0.78!
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-137.3
23.0
9,337
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
2 32
1.93!
0.26!
0 78
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-136.9
0.4
9,337
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
87
2 29
1.931
0.24I
0 78
0 45
0.02!
0!
0
-136.6
8.7
9,346
Florida
S-CG-Prem
454
2 37
1.931
0.32!
0 78,
0.45|
0.00!
0!
0
-136 1
45.4
9,392
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
130
231
1,93j
0.26I
0 78,
0 45,
o.ool
0;
0
-136 0
13.0
9,405
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
2.33
1.931
0.32!
0 78:
0.45
0.00!
0!
0
-132.5
1.1
9,406
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
2 96
1.931
0.51 i
0 32'
0.45'
o.ool
oi
0
-128.5
1.6
9,407
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
78
2 30
1.93|
0.16!
0 32
0.45'
0 30!
0!
0
-128.0
7.8
9,415
Alaska
W-CG-reg
134
2 79
1.93!
0.51 i
0 42,
0 45,
0.00!
0!
0
-122 1
13.4
9,429
Iowa
W-CG-reg
602
2 14
1.931
0.16!
0 42!
0.451
0.30!
0!
0
-122 0
60.2
9,489
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
56
2 27
1.93!
0.16!
0 32!
0.45!
0.26!
oi
0
-120 8
5.6
9,494
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
26
2 36
1.93i
0.16i
0 32'
0 45'
0.09!
0'
0
-1133
2.6
9,497
Illinois
W-CG-reg
920*
2.08
1.93!
0.16!
0.42!
0.45!
0.26!
0!
0
-111 7
92.0
9,589
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
60
2.44
1.93!
0.21!
0 32
0.45
0 00:
0
0
-107 0
6.0
9,595
Utah
W-CG-Prem
159,
2.43
1.931
0.211
0 32
0.45
O.OOl
0!
0
-105 6
15.9
9,611
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
216',
2.16
1.931
0.16
0 42
0.45
0.09!
0!
0
-104 1
21.6
9,632
Washington
W-CG-Prem
260
2.42
1.93!
0.25!
0 32;
0.45;
0.00!
os
0
-101 3
26.0
9,658
Montana
W-CG-Prem
74"
2.37
1.931
0.211
0 32!
0.451
0.00!
0!
0
-100 2
7.4
9,666
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
53"
2.31
1.93i
0.16!
0 32'
0.45I
o.ooi
oi
0
-99 4
5.3
9,671
Idaho
W-CG-reg
354!
2.26
1.93!
0.211
0 42!
0.45!
0.00;
oi
0
-99 0
35.4
9,707
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
88
2 30
1.93!
0.16!
0 32,
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-98 3
03
CO
9,715
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
34
2 35
1.931
0.211
0 32!
0.451
0.00!
oi
0
-97 6
3.4
9,719
Utah
W-CG-reg
590
2 23
1.93!
0.21!
0 42!
0.45!
o.ooi
oi
0
-96 5
59.0
9,778
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
72
2 36
1.93i
0.24i
0 32!
0.45!
o.ooi
oi
0
-96 2
7.2
9,785
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
2.36
1.93!
0.24!
0 32
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-95 5
2.5
9,787
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
160
2.27
1.93!
0.16!
0 32
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-95 4
16.0
9,803
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
198!
2.27
1.931
0.16!
0 32
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-95 4
19.8
9,823
New York
W-CG-Prem
121.
2.31
1.93!
0.23!
0 32
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-92 9
12.1
9,835
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
398-
2.14
1.93!
0.16!
0 42
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-92 7
39.8
9,875
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
104"
2.24
1.931
0.161
0 32.
0.45!
O.OOI
0I
0
-92 7
10.4
9,886
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
71
2.24
1.93!
0.16!
0 32'
0.45!
o.ooi
oi
0
-92 6
7.1
9,893
Washington
W-CG-reg
1312!
2.23
1.93!
0.25!
0.42 j
0.451
o.ooi
oi
0
-92.6
131.2
10,024
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
64
2 27
1.93!
0.20!
0 32,
0.45!
0.00!
0,
0
-91 7
6.4
10,030
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
222
2 29
1.93!
0.21!
0 32'
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-91 6
22.2
10.052
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
133
2.36
1.93i
0.291
0 32'
0.45I
o.ooi
oi
0
-91 3
13.3
10,066
Montana
W-CG-reg
344
2 18
1.93i
0.21 i
0 42'
0.45!
o.ooi
oi
0
-90 9
34.4
10,100
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
77
2 30
1.93!
0.24i
0 32'
0.45!
o.ool
0'
0
-90 2
7.7
10,108
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
338
2.32
1.93!
0.26!
0 32
0.45!
0.00!
0
0
-90 1
33.8
10,142
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
125
2 30
1.931
0.24I
0 32
0 45
0.00!
0!
0
-90 1
12.5
10,154
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
2 32
1.93!
0.26!
0 32
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-90 0
1.5
10,156
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
59
2.29
1.93!
0.24!
0 32
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-89 4
5.9
10,161
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2425
2.11
1.93!
0.16!
0 42
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-89 1
242.5
10,404
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2501
2 10
1.93!
0.16!
0 42!
0.45!
o.ooi
oi
0
-88 9
250.1
10,654
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
931
2.24
1.93!
0.20!
0.32!
0.45;
0.00!
0!
0
-88.9
9.3
10,663
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
102"
2.27
1.93!
0.23|
ฐ-32|
0.45,
0 oo|
0,
0
CO
CO
CO
10.2
10,674
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9^
2.29
1.93!
0.24l
0.32I
0.45.
0.00!
0!
0
-88.5
0.9
10,674
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
202
2.18
1.93i
0.24!
0 42'
0.45'
o.ooi
oi
0
-88 4
20.2
10,695
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
989
2 09
1.93i
0.16i
0 42!
0.45;
o.ooi
oi
0
-88 0
98.9
10,794
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
2.26
1.931
0.231
0 32;
0.45;
o.ool
Oi
0
-87.9
2.4
10,796
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
124
2.23
1.93!
0.20!
0 32
0.45
0.00!
0!
0
-87.8
12.4
10,808
Kansas
W-CG-reg
836:
2.09
1.931
0.16!
0.42]
0.45I
0.00!
0!
0
-87.5
83.6
10,892
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
485;
2.17
1.93|
0.241
0.42l
0.45|
o.oo|
o|
0
-87.3
48.5
10,940
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
68'
2.31
1.93!
0.29!
0.32I
0.45I
0.00!
0!
0
-87.0
6.8
10.947
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
170
2 14
1.931
0.211
0 42
0 45
0.00!
0!
0
-86 6
17.0
10,964
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1449
2 08
1.931
0.16!
0 42,
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-86 5
144.9
11,109
Texas
W-CG-Prem
407
2 22
1.93!
0.20!
0 32;
0.45 j
o.ooi
oi
0
-86 1
40.7
11,150
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
204
2 26
1.93!
0.24!
0 32,
0.45!
0.00!
0,
0
-86 0
20.4
11,170
Nevada
W-CG-reg
512.
2.20
1.93!
0.29!
0.42;
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-85.9
51.2
11,221
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
279
2.28
1.93i
0.26!
0 32'
0.45!
o.ooi
0'
0
-85 8
27.9
11,249
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
2 27
1.93i
0.26i
0 32!
0.45!
o.ooi
oi
0
-85 4
0.5
11,250
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
105
2 24
1.931
0.24j
0 32;
0 45;
0.02I
0|
0
-85 1
10.5
11,260
Florida
W-CG-Prem
549
2 32
1.93!
0.32!
0 32;
0.45!
0.00!
oi
0
-84 6
54.9
11,315
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
158
2 26
1.93!
0.26!
0 32'
0 45'
o.ooi
0'
0
-84 5
15.8
11,331
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
754
2 09
1.93!
0.20!
0 42
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-83 1
75.4
11,406
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1011'
2.10
1.93!
0.21!
0 42
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
CO
CN
CO
101.1
11,508
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
842
2 13
1.93!
0.24!
0 42
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-82 6
84.2
11,592
New York
W-CG-reg
1240
2 10
1.931
0.23I
0 42
0 45
0.00!
0!
0
-82 1
124.0
11,716
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
2 28
1.93!
0.32!
0 32'
0.45!
0.00!
0i
0
-81 0
1.3
11,717
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1404
2 06
1.93|
0.20j
0 42;
0 45;
o.ool
Oi
0
-80 9
140.4
11,857
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
901"
2.06
1.93!
0.20!
0.42!
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-80.9
90.1
11.948
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
384"
2.09
1.93!
0.23!
0 42'
0.45I
o.ooi
oi
0
-80.5
38 A
11.986
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1066"
2.09
1.931
0.23!
0 42!
0 45'
o.ooi
oi
0
-80.4
106.6
12.093
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1070"
2.08
1.93!
0.24!
0 42,
0 45,
0.02!
0|
0
-80 0
107.0
12.200
Vermont
W-CG-reg
162"
2.11
1.93!
0.26!
0 42;
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-79 6
16.2
12.216
Arizona
W-CG-reg
533
2.14
1.93!
0.29!
0 42'
0.451
0.00!
0!
0
-79 4
53.3
12,269
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2462',
2.11
1.93!
0.26!
0 42
0 45
0.00!
0
0
-78 9
246.2
12,515
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1250;
2.09
1.93!
0.24!
0 42'
0.45!
0.00!
0!
0
-78.6
125.0
12,640
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1762
2.08
1.93!
0.24
0 42
0.45
0.00!
0
0
-78.3
176.2
12,817
Texas
W-CG-reg
4193
2.04
1.931
0.20
0 42
0.45
0.00!
0
0
-78.2
419.3
13,236
Maryland
W-CG-reg
106
2.08
1.93!
0.24!
0 42
0.45
0.00!
0!
0
-77.7
10.6
13,246
Virginia
W-CG-reg
799
2.08
1.93i
0.241
0 42'
0.45'
o.ooi
oi
0
-77.6
79.9
13,326
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2227"
2.09
1.93!
0.261
0 42,
0.45;
o.ool
0|
0
-76.7
222.7
13,549
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1326"
2.09
1.93!
0.26!
0 42.
0.45.
0.00!
0!
0
-76.7
132.6
13,682
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
69:
2.08
1.93!
0.26!
0 42'
0.45'
o.ooi
oi
0
-75.9
6.9
13,688
Florida
W-CG-reg
3743"
2.11
1.931
0.32!
0 42!
0.45;
0.00!
oi
0
-74.0
374.3
14,063
Maine
W-CG-reg
154"
2.09
1.93!
0.32!
0 42
0.45
0.00!
0!
0
-71.3
15.4
14,078
-------
Table A2011A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2011
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
Slate
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
168
3.48
2.70
0.53
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
-170.7
16.8
17
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
998
2.87
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
-146.8
99.8
117
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
656
2.96
2.70
0.26
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
-145.8
65.6
182
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
789
2.85
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
-144.9
78.9
261
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3008
2.86
2.70
0.33
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
-129.3
300.8
562
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
50
3.67
2.70
0.53
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
-165.3
5.0
567
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
405
2.91
2.70
0.16
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
-115.9
40.5
607
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
100
3.06
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
-140.9
10.0
617
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
92
3.16
2.70
0.26
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
-140.7
9.2
627
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
66
3.05
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
-139.9
6.6
633
Florida
S-CG-Prem
442
3.07
2.70
0.33
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
-125.5
44.2
677
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
40
3.11
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
-110.9
4.0
681
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
203
3.43
2.70
0.53
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
-105.4
20.3
702
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
61
3.62
2.70
0.53
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
-115.0
6.1
708
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
490
2.86
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
-85.6
49.0
757
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1207
2.82
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
-81.5
120.7
877
Oregon
W-CG-reg
793
2.91
2.70
0.26
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
-80.5
79.3
957
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
48
3.06
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
-95.6
4.8
962
Missouri
W-CG-reg
954
2.80
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
-79.6
95.4
1,057
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
121
3.01
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
-90.7
12.1
1,069
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
111
3.11
2.70
0.26
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
-90.5
11.1
1,080
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
80
3.00
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
-89.6
8.0
1,088
Florida
W-CG-reg
3637
2.81
2.70
0.33
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
-64.0
363.7
1,452
Florida
W-CG-Prem
534
3.02
2.70
0.33
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
-75.3
53.4
1,505
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
108
3.96
2.70
0.53
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-218.9
10.8
1,516
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
484
2.92
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.30
0
0
-181.2
48.4
1,565
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
739
2.84
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.26
0
0
-168.8
73.9
1,639
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
174
2.91
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.09
0
0
-159.4
17.4
1,656
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
320
2.90
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-149.4
32.0
1,688
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
1949
2.87
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-146.6
194.9
1,883
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2010
2.86
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.8
201.0
2,084
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
672
2.86
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.4
67.2
2,151
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
163
2.94
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.8
16.3
2,167
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
795
2.85
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.8
79.5
2,247
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1165
2.85
2.70
0.16
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-144.4
116.5
2,363
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1054
2.93
2.70
0.26
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-143.5
105.4
2,469
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
284
2.87
2.70
0.22
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.7
28.4
2,497
Montana
S-CG-Reg
277
2.86
2.70
0.22
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-139.7
27.7
2,525
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
606
2.84
2.70
0.21
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-139.4
60.6
2,585
New York
S-CG-Reg
997
2.87
2.70
0.23
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-139.3
99.7
2,685
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1258
2.90
2.70
0.16
0.66
0.45
0.26
0
0
-139.8
125.8
2,811
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
856
2.86
2.70
0.23
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-139.1
85.6
2,897
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
136
2.85
2.70
0.22
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-138.7
13.6
2,910
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
63
3.13
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.30
0
0
-176.9
6.3
2,916
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
724
2.82
2.70
0.21
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.6
72.4
2,989
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
812
2.84
2.70
0.22
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.6
81.2
3,070
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
677
2.87
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.5
67.7
3,138
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
309
2.85
2.70
0.23
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.3
30.9
3,169
Utah
S-CG-Reg
474
2.83
2.70
0.22
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.2
47.4
3,216
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
411
2.90
2.70
0.30
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-136.6
41.1
3,257
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
390
2.85
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-135.7
39.0
3,296
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
85
2.85
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-135.6
8.5
3,305
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3370
2.80
2.70
0.21
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-135.6
337.0
3,642
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1129
2.80
2.70
0.21
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-135.5
112.9
3,754
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
642
2.84
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-135.0
64.2
3,819
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1005
2.84
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-134.8
100.5
3,919
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
1979
2.86
2.70
0.27
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-134.8
197.9
4,117
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
860
2.82
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.02
0
0
-134.3
86.0
4,203
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1416
2.83
2.70
0.25
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-133.8
141.6
4,345
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1066
2.83
2.70
0.27
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-132.0
106.6
4,451
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1790
2.83
2.70
0.27
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-131.9
179.0
4,630
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
131
2.82
2.70
0.27
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-130.6
13.1
4,643
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
428
2.83
2.70
0.30
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-129.5
42.8
4,686
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
45
3.05
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.26
0
0
-164.8
4.5
4,691
Maine
S-CG-Reg
123
2.83
2.70
0.33
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-126.0
12.3
4,703
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
55
2.68
2.70
0.27
1.01
0.45
0.00
0
0
-116.9
5.5
4,708
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
3.11
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.09
0
0
-154.8
2.1
4,711
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
328
2.91
2.70
0.16
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-115.8
32.8
4,743
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
193
2.91
2.70
0.16
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-115.4
19.3
4,763
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1203
2.93
2.70
0.23
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-110.3
120.3
4,883
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
379
2.92
2.70
0.23
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-110.1
37.9
4,921
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
3.49
2.70
0.53
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-147.1
1.3
4,922
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
187
2.93
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-108.5
18.7
4,941
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1054
2.93
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-108.5
105.4
5,046
California
S-RFG-Reg
5165
2.97
2.70
0.30
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-107.9
516.5
5,563
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
43
3.11
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.6
4.3
5,567
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
620
2.92
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-107.5
62.0
5,629
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
253
2.92
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-107.5
25.3
5,654
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
71
3.10
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-145.1
7.1
5,662
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
727
2.91
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-106.6
72.7
5,734
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2474
2.86
2.70
0.21
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-106.6
247.4
5,982
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
759
2.90
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-106.0
75.9
6,058
DC
S-RFG-Reg
25
2.89
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-104.7
2.5
6,060
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
129
3.07
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-142.0
12.9
6,073
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1574
2.88
2.70
0.25
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-103.7
157.4
6,230
-------
Table A2011B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2011
State
North Dakota
Wyoming
Kansas
Delaware
Ohio
Arizona
Washington
New York
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Montana
Arkansas
Maine
Louisiana
Virginia
Idaho
Maryland
Kentucky
Colorado
Alabama
WestVirginia
Utah
Georgia
New Mexico
Nevada
Texas
Tennessee
North Carolina
South Carolina
Oklahoma
New Hampshire
Maine
Mississippi
Vermont
Arizona
New Hampshire!
Wisconsin
New York
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Virginia
Connecticut
Maryland
Kentucky
DC
Delaware
New Jersey
Texas
Alaska
California
Maine
Arizona
New Hampshire!
Iowa
Iowa
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
South Dakota
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Indiana
Nebraska
Alaska
Michigan
Ohio
Nebraska
Kansas
New York
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Indiana
New York
Indiana
Kentucky
Washington
Massachusetts
California
Gasoline
Code
Gasoline
Volume
Gasoline
Price
$/gal
Ethanol
Gate Price
$/gal
Ethanol
Dist Cost
Ethanol
Blending
Federal
Subsidy
State
Subsidy
State
Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Ethanol
Volume
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMgals
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
S-CG-Prem
20
3.15
2.70
0.25
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-141.3
2.0
6,232
S-CG-Prem
27
3.12
2.70
0.22
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.8
2.7
6,235
S-CG-Prem
57
3.06
2.70
0.16
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-140.7
57
6,241
S-RFG-Reg
184
2.87
2.70
0.25
0 66
0.45
0 00
0
0
-102.5
184
6,259
S-CG-Prem
159
3.05
2.70
0.16
0 76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-140.2
159
6,275
S-RFG-Reg
768
2.89
2.70
0.30
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-100.6
76.8
6,352
S-CG-Prem
209
3.13
2.70
0.26
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-138.3
20.9
6,373
S-CG-Prem
97
3.10
2.70
0.23
0 76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-137.8
97
6,383
S-CG-Prem
83
3.03
2.70
0.16
0 76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-137.7
83
6,391
S-CG-Prem
82
3.09
2.70
0.23
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-137.0
8.2
6.399
S-RFG-Prem
181
3.11
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.26
0
0
-135.8
18.1
6,417
S-CG-Prem
59
3.06
2.70
0.22
0.76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-135.0
5.9
6,423
S-CG-Prem
52
3.04
2.70
0.21
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-135.0
5.2
6,428
S-RFG-Reg
182
2.89
2.70
0.33
0.66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-97.1
18.2
6,447
S-CG-Prem
100
3.03
2.70
0.21
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-133.8
10.0
6,457
S-CG-Prem
62
3.08
2.70
0.25
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-133.7
6.2
6,463
S-CG-Prem
48
3.04
2.70
0.22
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-133.4
4.8
6.468
S-CG-Prem
7
3.07
2.70
0.25
0.76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-132.7
0 7
6,468
S-CG-Prem
47
3.06
2.70
0.25
0.76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-132.0
4 7
6,473
S-CG-Prem
178
3.03
2.70
0.22
0.76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-131.9
17.8
6,491
S-CG-Prem
100
3.06
2.70
0.25
0 76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-131.9
10 0
6,501
S-CG-Prem
19
3.04
2.70
0.23
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-131.3
1.9
6,503
S-CG-Prem
128
3.02
2.70
0.22
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-130.7
12.8
6,516
S-CG-Prem
272
3.06
2.70
0.27
0 76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-130.4
27.2
6,543
S-CG-Prem
58
3.04
2.70
0.25
0 76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-129.6
5.8
6,549
S-CG-Prem
107
3.08
2.70
0.30
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-129.3
10.7
6,559
S-CG-Prem
327
2.98
2.70
0.21
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-128.6
32 7
6,592
S-CG-Prem
164
3.02
2.70
0.25
0 76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-128.3
16 4
6,608
S-CG-Prem
224
3.04
2.70
0.27
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-127.9
22.4
6,631
S-CG-Prem
127
3.03
2.70
0.27
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-126.9
12.7
6,643
S-CG-Prem
84
2.99
2.70
0.25
0.76
0.45
0.02
0
0
-126.7
8.4
6.652
S-RFG-Reg
181
2.74
2.70
0.27
0 66
0.45
0.00
0
0
-87.9
18 1
6,670
S-CG-Prem
11
3.07
2.70
0.33
0 76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-125.1
1 1
6,671
S-CG-Prem
75
2.94
2.70
0.21
0 76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-124.2
7.5
6,678
S-CG-Prem
12
2.99
2.70
0.27
0 76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-123.4
1 2
6,680
S-CG-Prem
55
3.00
2.70
0.30
0.76
0.45
0.00
0
0
-121.9
5.5
6,685
S-CG-Prem
4
2.95
2.70
0.27
0 76
0.45
0 00
0
0
-118.7
0 4
6,685
S-RFG-Prem
30
3.16
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-116.1
3.0
6,688
S-RFG-Prem
290
3.16
2.70
0.23
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-108.8
29.0
6,717
S-RFG-Prem
20
3.09
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0 00
0
0
-108.8
2 0
6,719
S-RFG-Prem
63
3.15
2.70
0.23
041
0.45
0.00
0
0
-108.0
6.3
6,726
S-RFG-Prem
37
3.15
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-105.9
3.7
6,729
S-RFG-Prem
160
3.14
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-104.8
16.0
6,746
S-RFG-Prem
148
3.14
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-104.7
14 8
6,760
S-RFG-Prem
102
3.13
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0 00
0
0
-103.9
10.2
6,771
S-RFG-Prem
133
3.13
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-103.7
13.3
6,784
S-RFG-Prem
18
3.12
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-103.0
1.8
6,786
S-RFG-Prem
6
3.12
2.70
0.25
041
0.45
0 00
0
0
-102.6
0.6
6,786
S-RFG-Prem
23
3.09
2.70
0.25
041
0.45
0 00
0
0
-100.3
2.3
6,789
S-RFG-Prem
254
3.09
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-100.3
25.4
6,814
S-RFG-Prem
384
3.04
2.70
0.21
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-99.6
38.4
6,852
W-CG-reg
130
3.91
2.70
0.53
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-153.7
13 0
6 865
S-RFG-Prem
1493
3.12
2.70
0.30
041
0.45
0 00
0
0
-98.7
149.3
7,015
S-RFG-Prem
12
3.13
2.70
0.33
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-96.1
1.2
7,016
S-RFG-Prem
119
3.06
2.70
0.30
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-92.9
11.9
7,028
S-RFG-Prem
20
3.01
2.70
0.27
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-89.7
2.0
7,030
W-CG-reg
585
2.87
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.30
0
0
-115.9
58.5
7,088
W-CG-Prem
76
3.08
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.30
0
0
-126.7
7.6
7,096
W-RFG-reg
1521
2.85
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.26
0
0
-109.5
152.1
7,248
W-RFG-Prem
219
3.06
2.70
0.16
031
0.45
0 26
0
0
-120.6
21 9
7,270
W-CG-reg
894
2.79
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.26
0
0
-103.5
89.4
7,359
W-CG-Prem
55
3.00
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0 26
0
0
-114.6
5.5
7,365
W-CG-reg
210
2.86
2.70
0.16
0 41
0.45
0 09
0
0
-94.1
21.0
7,386
W-CG-Prem
25
3.06
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.09
0
0
-104.5
2.5
7,388
W-RFG-Prem
36
3.11
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-100.8
3.6
7,392
W-RFG-reg
397
2.86
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-85.5
39.7
7,432
W-RFG-reg
234
2.86
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-85.1
23.4
7,455
W-CG-reg
387
2.85
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-84.1
38.7
7,494
W-CG-Prem
16
3.44
2.70
0.53
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-96.9
1.6
7,495
W-CG-reg
2357
2.82
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-81.3
235.7
7,731
W-CG-reg
2431
2.81
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-80.5
243.1
7,974
W-CG-Prem
51
3.06
2.70
0.16
031
0.45
0 00
0
0
-95.4
5.1
7,979
W-CG-reg
812
2.81
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-80.1
81.2
8,061
W-RFG-reg
1455
2.88
2.70
0.23
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-80.1
145.5
8,206
W-RFG-reg
458
2.87
2.70
0.23
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-79.8
45.8
8,252
W-CG-Prem
86
3.05
2.70
0.16
031
0.45
0 00
0
0
-94.8
8.6
8,260
W-CG-reg
197
2.89
2.70
0.25
041
0.45
0.00
0
0
-79.6
19.7
8,280
W-CG-reg
961
2.80
2.70
0.16
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-79.5
96.1
8,376
W-CG-reg
1408
2.80
2.70
0.16
041
0.45
0.00
0
0
-79.1
140.8
8,517
W-RFG-Prem
350
3.11
2.70
0.23
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-93.5
35.0
8.552
W-RFG-Prem
24
3.04
2.70
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-93.5
4
8.555
W-RFG-reg
226
2.88
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-78.3
2 6
8.577
W-CG-reg
1275
2.88
2.70
0.26
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-78.2
1:
8.705
W-RFG-reg
1275
2.88
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-78.2
1:
8.832
W-RFG-reg
6246
2.92
2.70
0.30
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-77.7
624.6
9,457
90
-------
Table A2011C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
G
E
lanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2011
Code
Volume
P
e IGs
; Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
Slate
MMgals
$/9
$
jal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
77
3.101
2.70
0.23
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-92.8
7.7
9,464
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
750
2.87!
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-77.2
75.0
9,539
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
306
2 87
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-77.2
30.6
9,570
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
156
3 02
2.70
0 16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-91.8
15.6
9,586
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
879
2.86i
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-76.4
87.9
9,673
Texas
W-RFG-reg
2992
2.81
2.70
0 21
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-76 3
299.2
9,973
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
24
3.10
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-91 0
2.4
9,975
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
918
2.85.
2.70
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-75 7
91.8
10,067
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
45
3.10i
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-90 6
4.5
10,071
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
33
3.07!
2.70
0 22
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-90 6
3.3
10,075
Idaho
W-CG-reg
344
2.82
2.70
0 22
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-75 4
34.4
10,109
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
69
3.01
2.70
0 16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-90 5
6.9
10,116
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
192
3.00'
2.70
0 16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-90 0
19.2
10,135
DC
W-RFG-reg
30
2.84
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-74 4
3.0
10,138
Montana
W-CG-reg
335
2.81
2.70
0.22
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-74.4
33.5
10.172
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
194
3.09
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-89 5
19.4
10,191
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
179
3.09
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-89 5
17.9
10,209
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
733
2.79
2.70
0 21
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-74 2
73.3
10,282
New York
W-CG-reg
1205
2.82
2.70
0 23
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-74 1
120.5
10,403
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1036
2.81
2.70
0 23
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-73 8
103.6
10,506
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
123
3.08
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-88 6
12.3
10,519
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
165
2.80
2.70
0 22
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-73 4
16.5
10,535
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1904
2.83
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-73 4
190.4
10,725
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
161
3.08
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-88 4
16.1
10,742
Washington
W-CG-Prem
253
3.08
2.70
0 26
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-88 1
25.3
10,767
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
22
3.07
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-87 7
2.2
10,769
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
876
2.77
2.70
0 21
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-72 4
87.6
10,857
New York
W-CG-Prem
118
3.05
2.70
0 23
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-87 5
11.8
10,868
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
101
2.98
2.70
0 16
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-87 5
10.1
10,878
Colorado
W-CG-reg
982
2.79
2.70
0 22
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-72 3
98.2
10,977
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
818
2.82
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-72 3
81.8
11,059
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
223
2.82
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-72 2
22.3
11,081
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
3.07
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-87 3
0.8
11,082
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
373
2.80.
2.70
0 23
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-72.0
37.3
11,119
Utah
W-CG-reg
573
2.78!
2.70
0 22
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-71 9
57.3
11,176
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
99
3 04
2.70
0 23
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
CO
CD
CO
9.9
11,186
Nevada
W-CG-reg
497
2.85!
2.70
0 30
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-71 4
49.7
11,236
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
471
2.80!
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-70 5
47.1
11,283
Maryland
W-CG-reg
103
2.80'
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-70 4
10.3
11,293
Texas
W-CG-reg
4074
2.75
2.70
0 21
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-70 3
407.4
11,701
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
929
2.84
2.70
0 30
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-70 3
92.9
11,794
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1365
2.75!
2.70
0 21
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-70 3
136.5
11,930
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
28
3.04
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-85 0
2.8
11,933
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
308
3 04
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-85 0
30.8
11,964
Virginia
W-CG-reg
776
2.79!
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-69 7
77.6
12,041
Montana
W-CG-Prem
72
3.011
2.70
0 22
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-84.8
7.2
12,048
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1215
2.79
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-69 6
121.5
12,170
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
63
2.99
2.70
0 21
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-84 7
6.3
12,176
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2393
2.81
2.70
0 27
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-69 5
239.3
12,415
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
464
2.99
2.70
0 21
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-84 3
46.4
12,462
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1040
2.77
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.02
0
0
-69 1
104.0
12,566
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1713
2.78
2.70
0 25
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-68 6
171.3
12,737
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
120
2.98,
2.70
0 21
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-83.5
12.0
12,749
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
75
3.03!
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-83.5
7.5
12,757
California
W-RFG-Prem
1805
3.07!
2.70
0 30
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-83.4
180.5
12,937
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
58
2 99
2.70
0 22
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-83.2
5.8
12,943
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
8
3.021
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-82.4
0.8
12,944
Maine
W-RFG-reg
220
2.84
2.70
0 33
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-66 8
22.0
12,966
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1289
2.78
2.70
0 27
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-66 7
128.9
13,095
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2164
2.78
2.70
0 27
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-66.6
216.4
13,311
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
57
3.01
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-81 7
5.7
13,317
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
216
2.98
2.70
0 22
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-81 7
21.6
13,338
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
121
3.01
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-81 6
12.1
13,351
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
23
2.99
2.70
0 23
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-81 1
2.3
13,353
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
3.08
2.70
0 33
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
CO
o
CO
1.5
13,354
Vermont
W-CG-reg
158
2.77
2.70
0 27
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-65 3
15.8
13,370
Utah
W-CG-Prem
155
2.97
2.70
0 22
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-80.5
15.5
13,386
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
328
3.01
2.70
0 27
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-80 1
32.8
13,418
Arizona
W-CG-reg
518
2.78
2.70
0 30
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-64 3
51.8
13,470
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
70
2.99
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-79 3
7.0
13,477
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
129
3.03
2.70
0 30
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-79 0
12.9
13,490
Texas
W-CG-Prem
396
2.93!
2.70
0.21
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-78.3
39.6
13,530
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
198
2 97
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-78.0
19.8
13,550
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
144
3.01!
2.70
0 30
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-77.6
14.4
13,564
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
271
2.99!
2.70
0 27
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-77.6
27.1
13,591
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
153
2 98
2.70
0 27
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-76.6
15.3
13,606
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
102
2 94
2.70
0 25
0.31
0.45
0.02
0
0
-76 4
10.2
13,617
Maine
W-CG-reg
149
2.78!
2.70
0 33
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-60 8
14.9
13,631
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
3.02!
2.70
0.33
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-74.8
1.3
13,633
New HampshiresW-RFG-Prem
24
2.96
2.70
0 27
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-74 5
2.4
13,635
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
90
2.89
2.70
0 21
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-73 9
9.0
13,644
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
2.94
2.70
0 27
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-73 1
1.4
13,646
New HampshireiW-RFG-reg
219
2.69
2.70
0 27
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-57 6
21.9
13,667
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
66
2.95
2.70
0 30
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-71 6
6.6
13,674
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
2.90
2.70
0 27
0.31
0.45
0.00
0
0
-68 5
0.5
13,675
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
67
2.63,
2.70
0.27
0.41
0.45
0.00
0
0
-51.6
6.7
13,681
-------
Table A2012A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2012
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Hawaii
S-CG- Reg
164
3.49
2.37
0.54
2.43
0.00
0.00
1
0
-300.6
16.4
16
Oregon
S-CG- Reg
642
3.03
2.37
0.26
2.43
0.00
0.00
1
0
-282.7
64.2
81
Missouri
S-CG- Reg
772
2.88
2.37
0.17
2.43
0.00
0.00
1
0
-276.9
77.2
158
Minnesota
S-CG- Reg
976
2.85
2.37
0.17
2.43
0.00
0.00
1
0
-274.4
97.6
255
Florida
S-CG-Reg
2943
2.90
2.37
0.33
2.43
0.00
0.00
1
0
-262.6
294.3
550
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
49
3.68
2.37
0.54
1.83
0.00
0.00
1
0
-260.5
4.9
555
Missouri
S-RFG- Reg
396
2.94
2.37
0.17
2.08
0.00
0.00
1
0
-247.8
39.6
594
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
90
3.23
2.37
0.26
1.83
0.00
0.00
1
0
-242.8
9.0
603
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
65
3.13
2.37
0.17
1.83
0.00
0.00
1
0
-242.3
6.5
610
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
98
3.12
2.37
0.17
1.83
0.00
0.00
1
0
-241.3
9.8
620
Florida
S-CG-Prem
432
3.18
2.37
0.33
1.83
0.00
0.00
1
0
-230.4
43.2
663
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
39
3.19
2.37
0.17
1.48
0.00
0.00
1
0
-213.2
3.9
667
Havvaii
W-CG-reg
199
3.44
2.37
0.54
0.98
0.00
0.00
1
0
-151.1
19.9
686
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
60
3.63
2.37
0.54
0.75
0.00
0.00
1
0
-147.1
6.0
692
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
479
2.89
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00
0.00
1
0
-133.5
47.9
740
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
47
3.14
2.37
0.17
0.75
0.00
0.00
1
0
-134.8
4.7
745
Oregon
W-CG-reg
776
2.98
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0.00
1
0
-133.3
77.6
823
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
109
3.18
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0.00
1
0
-129.4
10.9
834
Missouri
W-CG-reg
933
2.83
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00
0.00
1
0
-127.5
93.3
927
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
78
3.08
2.37
0.17
0.75
0.00
0.00
1
0
-128.8
7.8
935
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
119
3.07
2.37
0.17
0.75
0.00
0.00
1
0
-127.9
11.9
947
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1180
2.80
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00
0.00
1
0
-125.0
118.0
1,065
Florida
W-CG-Prem
522
3.13
2.37
0.33
0.75
0.00
0.00
1
0
-117.0
52.2
1,117
Florida
W-CG-reg
3558
2.85
2.37
0.33
0.98
0.00
0.00
1
0
-113.1
355.8
1,473
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
106
3.97
2.37
0.54
2.43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-349.0
10.6
1,483
Iowa
S-CG- Reg
473
2.93
2.37
0.17
2.43
0.00
0.30
0
0
-311.7
47.3
1,531
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
723
2.90
2.37
0.17
2.43
0.00
0.26
0
0
-304.3
72.3
1,603
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
170
2.91
2.37
0.17
2.43
0.00
0.09
0
0
-289.2
17.0
1,620
Vermont
S-CG- Reg
128
3.06
2.37
0.28
2.43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-284.3
12.8
1,633
Nebraska
S-CG- Reg
313
2.93
2.37
0.17
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-282.4
31 3
1,664
Michigan
S-CG- Reg
1907
2.93
2 37
0.17
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-281.9
190.7
1,855
Ohio
S-CG- Reg
1967
2.91
2.37
0.17
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-280.4
196.7
2,051
New Hampshire
S-CG- Reg
54
3.01
2 37
0.28
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-279.7
5.4
2,057
New York
S-CG- Reg
975
2.97
2.37
0.24
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-278.7
97.5
2,154
Indiana
S-CG- Reg
1139
2.89
2 37
0.17
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-278.4
113.9
2,268
Washington
S-CG- Reg
1031
2.99
2.37
0.26
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-278.3
103.1
2,371
Wisconsin
S-CG- Reg
778
2.89
2.37
0.17
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-278.0
77.8
2,449
Pennsylvania
S-CG- Reg
838
2.95
2.37
0.24
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-277.2
83.8
2,533
Kansas
S-CG- Reg
657
2.86
2.37
0.17
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-275.3
65.7
2,599
Illinois
S-RFG- Reg
1231
2.96
2.37
0.17
2 08
0 00
0.26
0
0
-275.2
123 1
2,722
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
402
2.99
2.37
0.30
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-274.6
40.2
2,762
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
302
2.92
2.37
0.24
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-274.3
30 2
2,792
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
62
3.19
2.37
0.17
1.83
0 00
0.30
0
0
-277.8
6.2
2,798
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
44
3.22
2 37
0.17
1 83
0 00
0.26
0
0
-277.4
44
2,803
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
662
2 93
2 37
0.26
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-272.7
66 2
2,869
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
159
2.92
2 37
0.26
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-272.3
159
2,885
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
419
2.97
2.37
0.30
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-272.2
41 9
2,927
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
278
2.89
2.37
0.22
2.43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-272.0
27.8
2,954
Colorado
S-CG- Reg
795
2.89
2.37
0.22
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-271.9
79 5
3,034
Arkansas
S-CG- Reg
593
2.87
2.37
0.21
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-271.7
59 3
3,093
Montana
S-CG- Reg
271
2.87
2.37
0.22
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-270.0
27 1
3,120
Utah
S-CG- Reg
464
2.87
2.37
0.22
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-269.9
46 4
3,167
Maryland
S-CG- Reg
83
2.90
2.37
0.26
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-269.9
83
3,175
Louisiana
S-CG- Reg
1104
2.85
2.37
0.21
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-269.7
1104
3,285
Texas
S-CG- Reg
3296
2.85
2.37
0.21
2.43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-269.5
329.6
3,615
Maine
S-CG-Reg
121
2.96
2.37
0.33
2 43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-268.8
12 1
3,627
New Mexico
S-CG- Reg
381
2.89
2.37
0.26
2 43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-268.7
38.1
3,665
Oklahoma
S-CG- Reg
841
2.86
2.37
0.26
2.43
0 00
0.02
0
0
-268.1
84.1
3,749
Virginia
S-CG- Reg
628
2.88
2 37
0.26
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-267.8
62.8
3,812
Mississippi
S-CG- Reg
708
2.81
2.37
0.21
2.43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-266.4
70.8
3,883
Georgia
S-CG- Reg
1936
2.88
2 37
0.28
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-266.2
193.6
4,077
Wyoming
S-CG- Reg
133
2.83
2.37
0.22
2.43
0.00
0.00
0
0
-265.9
13.3
4,090
Alabama
S-CG- Reg
983
2.86
2.37
0.26
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-265.7
98.3
4,188
Tennessee
S-CG- Reg
1385
2.85
2.37
0.26
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-265.3
138.5
4,327
North Carolina
S-CG- Reg
1751
2.85
2.37
0.28
2.43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-263.2
175.1
4,502
South Carolina
S-CG- Reg
1043
2.85
2.37
0.28
2 43
0 00
0.00
0
0
-263.1
104.3
4,606
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
3.63
2.37
0.54
1 83
0 00
0.00
0
0
-254.6
1.3
4,607
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
3.16
2.37
0.17
1 83
0 00
0.09
0
0
-254.4
2.1
4,609
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
177
3.07
2.37
0.28
2.08
0.00
0.00
0
0
-250.6
17.7
4,627
California
S-RFG-Reg
5053
3.10
2.37
0.30
2.08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-250.3
505.3
5,132
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1177
3.03
2.37
0.24
2 08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-249.6
117.7
5,250
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
189
2.95
2.37
0.17
2 08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-249.3
18.9
5,269
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
321
2.95
2.37
0.17
2 08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-248.9
32.1
5,301
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
69
3.22
2 37
0.17
1 83
0 00
0.00
0
0
-251.8
69
5,308
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
248
3.03
2.37
0.26
2.08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-248.2
24.8
5,333
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
371
3.01
2.37
0.24
2.08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-248.1
37.1
5,370
Massachusetts
S-RFG- Reg
1031
3.02
2.37
0.26
2 08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-246.7
103 1
5,473
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
126
3.20
2.37
0.17
1 83
0 00
0.00
0
0
-249.2
12 6
5,486
Connecticut
S-RFG- Reg
606
3 01
2.37
0.26
2 08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-245.6
60 6
5,546
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
177
3.28
2.37
0.17
1 48
0 00
0.26
0
0
-248.3
17 7
5,564
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
81
3.18
2.37
0.17
1.83
0 00
0.00
0
0
-247.3
8.1
5,572
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
42
3.18
2.37
0.17
1 83
0 00
0.00
0
0
-247.1
42
5,576
New York
S-CG-Prem
95
3.25
2.37
0.24
1 83
0 00
0.00
0
0
-247.0
95
5,586
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
183
2.99
2.37
0.26
2 08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-243.6
183
5,604
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
751
3.03
2 37
0.30
2 08
0 00
0.00
0
0
-243.1
75 1
5,679
-------
Table A2012B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal I State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol [
Cumulative
2012
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy [Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume [
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal |$/ga
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
11
3.27
2.37
0.28
1.83
o.ooj
0.00
0
0
-245.9
1.11
5,680
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1540
2.98
2.37
0.26
2.08
o.ooj
0.00
0! 0
-242.5
154 0;
5,834
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
155
3.16
2.37
0.17
1.83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-245.7
155'
5,850
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
180
2.96
2.37
0.26
2.08
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-241.2
18.0!
5,868
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
711
2.96
2.37
0 26
2 08
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-240.8
71 1:
5,939
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2420
2.91
2.37
0.21
2.08
0.00I
0.00
0
0
-240.4
242 0;
6,181
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
178
3.02
2.37
0.33
2.08
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-239.7
17.8i
6,199
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
743
2.94
2.37
0.26
2 08
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-238.7
74.3i
6,273
DC
S-RFG-Reg
25
2.93
2.37
0 26
2 08
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-238.1
25;
6,276
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
3.23
2.37
0.28
1 83
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-241.3
04
6,276
Washington
S-CG-Prem
205
3.20
2.37
0.26
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-239.4
20 5'
6,297
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
19
3.17
2.37
0.24
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-239.4
1 9'
6,298
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
3.18
2.37
0 26
1.83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-239.0
0.7(
6,299
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
51
3.14
2.37
0.21
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-238.9
5 1"
6,304
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
73
3.14
2.37
0.21
1.83
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-238.9
7.3;
6,312
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
80
3.16
2.37
0.24
1.83
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-238.9
8.0!
6,320
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
61
3.18
2.37
0 26
1.83
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-238.8
6.1!
6,326
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
19
3.17
2.37
0.26
1 83
o.ooj
0.00
0
0
-237.5
1 9;
6,328
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
46
3.17
2.37
0 26
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-237.5
4 6'
6,332
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
97
3.12
2.37
0.21
1.83
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-237.1
9.7!
6,342
Texas
S-CG-Prem
320
3.12
2.37
021
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-237.0
32 0'
6,374
Maine
S-CG-Prem
10
3.24
2.37
0.33
1 83
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-236.6! 1.01
6,375
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
56
3.07
2.37
0.17
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-236.5
5 6'
6,381
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
98
3.14
2.37
0.26
1.83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-234.3
9.8i
6,390
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
266
3.15
2.37
0.28
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-233.4
26 6'
6,417
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
160
3.13
2.37
0.26
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-233.1
16 0;
6,433
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
104
3.17
2.37
0.30
1.83
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-233.0
10 4'
6,443
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
175
3.08
2.37
0 22
1 83
0.00
0.00
0
0
-231.9
17 5,
6,461
Montana
S-CG-Prem
58
3.08
2.37
0.22
1.83
o.ooj
0.00
0
0
-231.9
5.8(
6,467
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
124
3.13
2.37
0 28
1 83
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-231.3
124'
6,479
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
53
3.15
2.37
0.30
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-231.2
53,
6,484
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
219
3.13
2.37
0.28
1.83
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-231.1
21 9'
6,506
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
47
3.06
2.37
0 22
1.83
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-230.0
4.7!
6,511
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
82
3.08
2.37
0.26
1.83
o.ooi
0.02
0
0
-229.7
8.2i
6,519
Utah
S-CG-Prem
125
3.05
2.37
0.22
1 83
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-229.0
125,
6,532
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
57
3.08
2.37
0.26
1.83
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-228.9
5.7!
6,537
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
27
3.04
2.37
0.22
1 83
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-227.4
27'
6,540
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
29
3.28
2.37
0.17
1.48
o.ooi
0.00
0! 0
-222.7
2 9;
6,543
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
20
3.24
2.37
0.17
1 48
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-218.2
2 0'
6,545
New York
S-RFG-Prem
283
3.31
2.37
0.24
1 48
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-217.9
28 3;
6,573
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
37
3.29
2.37
0 26
1 48
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-214.5
3.7i
6,577
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
20
3.29
2.37
0.28
1.48
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-212.2
2 ฐ;
6,579
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
99
3.27
2.37
0.26
1.48
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-211.9
9.9i
6.589
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
157
3.26
2.37
0.26
1 48
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-211.1
15 7
6,605
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
130
3.24
2.37
0.26
1.48
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-209.9
13 0
6,618
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
62
3.22
2.37
0.24
1 48
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-209.8
6 2,
6,624
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
145
3.24
2.37
0.26
1 48
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-209.7
14 5'
6,638
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
22
3.24
2.37
0.26) 1.48
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-209.4
2.2!
6,641
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
249
3.24
2.37
0.26( 1-48
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-209.4
24.9!
6,665
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
18
3.23
2.37
0.26I 1.48
0 00.
0.00
0
0
-208.4
1 8'
6,667
DC
S-RFG-Prem
6
3.23
2.37
0.26i 1.48
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-208.2
0 6,
6,668
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
376
3.18
2.37
0.211 1.48
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-207.9
37.6!
6,705
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
12
3.30
2.37
0.33
1 48
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-207.5
1 2,
6,707
California
S-RFG-Prem
1460
3.26
2.37
0.30I 1.48
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-207.0
146 0;
6,853
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
117
3.21
2.37
0.30
1.48
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-202.1
11.71
6,864
Alaska
W-CG-reg
128
3.92
2.37
0.54
0 98
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-199.5
12.8!
6,877
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
214
3.23
2.37
0.17
0 75
o.ooi
0.26
0
0
-170.0
21 4'
6,899
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
74
3.14
2.37
0.17
0.75
O.OOI
0.30
0
0
-164.4
7.4I
6,906
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
54
3.17
2.37
0 17
0 75
o.ooi
0.26
0
0
-164.0
54:
6,911
Iowa
W-CG-reg
572
2.88
2.37
0.17
0 98
o.ooi
0.30
0
0
-162.3
57 2;
6,969
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1488
2.91
2.37
0 17
0 98
o.ooi
0.26
0
0
-160.9
148 8'
7,117
Illinois
W-CG-reg
874
2.85
2.37
0 17
0 98
O.OOI
0.26
0
0
-154.9
87 4,
7,205
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
35
3.23
2.37
0.17
0 75
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-144.3
35'
7,208
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
206
2.86
2.37
0.17
0 98
0.00!
0.09
0
0
-139.8
20 6'
7,229
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
15
3.58
2.37
0.54
0.75
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-141.2
1.5(
7,230
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
3.11
2.37
0.17
0 75
0 00"
0.09
0
0
-140.9
25'
7,233
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
24
3.19
2.37
0.17
0 75
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-139.9
24,
7,235
New York
W-RFG-Prem
343
3.26
2.37
0.24
0.75
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-139.6
34.3!
7,270
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
84
3.17
2.37
0.17
0.75
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-138.3
8.4!
7,278
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
214
3.02
2.37
0.28
0.98
o.ooi
0.00
0! 0
-136.2
21 4j
7,299
California
W-RFG-reg
6110
3.05
2.37
0.30
0 98
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-135.9
611 0'
7,910
New York
W-RFG-reg
1423
2.98
2.37
0.24
0.98
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-135.3
142.3!
8,053
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
229
2.90
2.37
0.17
0 98
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-135.0
22 9'
8,076
Vermont
W-CG-reg
154
3.01
2.37
0.28
0.98
O.OOI
0.00
0
0
-134.9
15.41
8,091
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
44
3.24
2.37
0.26
0.75
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-136.2
4 4'
8,095
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
388
2.90
2.37
0.17
0.98
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-134.6
38.8!
8,134
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
152
3.15
2.37
0 17
0 75
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-135.8
15 2
8,149
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
300
2.98
2.37
0.26
0.98
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-133.8
30 0
8,179
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
448
2.96
2.37
0.24
0 98
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-133.8
44 8
8,224
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
379
2.88
2.37
0.17
0.98
o oo"
0.00
0
0
-133.0
37 9
8,262
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2306
2.88
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-132.5
230.61
8,493
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
99
3.13
2.37
0 17
0 75
0 oo'
0.00
0
0
-133.9
99
8,503
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
24
3.24
2.37
0 28
0 75
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-133.9
2 4,
8,505
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1247
2.97
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00!
0.00
0
0
-132.3
124 7'
8,630
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
50
3.13
2.37
0 17
0.75
o.ooi
0.00
0
0
-133.7
5.0|
8,635
-------
Table A2012C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2012
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
New York
W-CG-Prem
115
3.20
2.37
0.24
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-133.6
11.5
8,646
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
120
3 22
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-133.6
12.0
8,658
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
190
3 21
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-132.8
19.0
8,677
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
733
2.96
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-131.2
73.3
8,751
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
3.22
2.37
0.28
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-132.5
1.4
8,752
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2378
2.86
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-131.0
237.8
8.990
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
188
3.11
2.37
0.17
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-132.3
18.8
9,008
New Hampshire (W-CG-reg
65
2.96
2.37
0.28
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.2
6.5
9,015
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
157
3 19
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-131.6
15.7
9,031
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
75
3 17
2.37
0.24
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-131.4
7.5
9,038
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
175
3 19
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-131.4
17.5
9,056
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
27
3 19
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-131.1
2.7
9,058
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
301
3 19
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-131.1
30.1
9,089
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
221
2 94
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-129.3
22.1
9,111
New York
W-CG-reg
1179
2.92
2.37
0.24
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129.3
117.9
9,229
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1378
2 84
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129.0
137.8
9,366
Washington
W-CG-reg
1247
2 94
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-128.9
124.7
9,491
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
909
2 98
2.37
0.30
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-128.7
90.9
9,582
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
940
2 84
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-128.6
94.0
9,676
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
22
3 18
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.0
2.2
9,678
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
3 18
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129.9
0.8
9,679
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1862
2.93
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-128.1
186.2
9,865
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
454
3 13
2.37
0.21
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129.5
45.4
9,910
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1013
2 90
2.37
0.24
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-127.8
101.3
10,012
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
14
3 25
2.37
0.33
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-129.2
1.4
10,013
California
W-RFG-Prem
1766
3 21
2.37
0.30
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-128.7
176.6
10,190
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
218
2 91
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-126.8
21.8
10,212
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
860
2 91
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-126.4
86.0
10,298
New Hampshire iW-CG-Prem
5
3 18
2.37
0.28
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-127.9
0.5
10,298
Texas
W-RFG-reg
2927
2 86
2.37
0.21
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-126.1
292.7
10,591
Kansas
W-CG-reg
795
2 81
2.37
0.17
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-125.9
79.5
10,670
Maine
W-RFG-reg
215
2 97
2.37
0.33
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125 4
21.5
10,692
Nevada
W-CG-reg
487
2 94
2.37
0.30
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-125.1
48.7
10,740
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
365
2 87
2.37
0.24
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-124.8
36.5
10,777
Washington
W-CG-Prem
248
3 15
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-126.0
24.8
10,802
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
23
3 12
2.37
0.24
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-126.0
2.3
10,804
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
898
2 89
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-124.4
89.8
10,894
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
8
3 13
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-125.6
0.8
10,895
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
61
3 09
2.37
0.21
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-125.5
6.1
10,901
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
88
3 09
2.37
0.21
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125.5
8.8
10,910
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
97
3 11
2.37
0.24
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-125.4
9.7
10,919
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
74
3 13
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-125.4
7.4
10,927
DC
W-RFG-reg
30
2 88
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.8
3.0
10,930
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
800
2 88
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.3
80.0
11,010
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
192
2 87
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-122.8
19.2
11,029
Arizona
W-CG-reg
507
2 92
2.37
0.30
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-122.7
50.7
11,080
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
23
3 12
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-124.1
2.3
11,082
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
56
3 12
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-124.0
5.6
11,087
Idaho
W-CG-reg
336
2 84
2.37
0.22
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-122.5
33.6
11,121
Colorado
W-CG-reg
961
2 84
2.37
0.22
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-122.4
96.1
11.217
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
141
3 16
2.37
0.30
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-123.8
14.1
11,231
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
717
2 82
2.37
0.21
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-122.2
71.7
11,303
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
118
3 07
2.37
0.21
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-123.7
11.8
11,315
Texas
W-CG-Prem
387
3 07
2.37
0.21
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-123.5
38.7
11,354
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
3.19
2.37
0.33
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-123.2
1.3
11,355
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
67
3 02
2.37
0.17
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-123.1
6.7
11,362
Montana
W-CG-reg
327
2 82
2.37
0.22
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-120.5
32.7
11.394
Utah
W-CG-reg
561
2 82
2.37
0.22
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-120.4
56.1
11,450
Maryland
W-CG-reg
101
2 85
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-120.4
10.1
11,460
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1335
2 80
2.37
0.21
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-120.2
133.5
11,594
Texas
W-CG-reg
3986
2 80
2.37
0.21
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-120.1
398.6
11,992
Maine
W-CG-reg
146
2.91
2.37
0.33
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119.4
14.6
12,007
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
119
3 09
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-120.9
11.9
12,019
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
461
2 84
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-119.2
46.1
12,065
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1017
281
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0.02
0
0
-118.6
101.7
12,167
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
321
3 10
2.37
0.28
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-120.0
32.1
12,199
Virginia
W-CG-reg
760
2 83
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-118.4
76.0
12,275
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
194
3 08
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-119.7
19.4
12,294
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
126
3 12
2.37
0.30
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119.6
12.6
12,307
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
211
3 03
2.37
0.22
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-118.5
21.1
12,328
Montana
W-CG-Prem
70
3 03
2.37
0.22
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-118.5
7.0
12,335
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
857
2 76
2.37
0.21
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-116.9
85.7
12,421
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2341
2 83
2.37
0.28
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-116.8
234.1
12,655
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
161
2 78
2.37
0.22
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-116.4
16.1
12,671
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
150
3 08
2.37
0.28
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-117.9
15.0
12,686
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
65
3.10
2.37
0.30
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-117.8
6.5
12,692
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1189
281
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-1162
118.9
12,811
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
265
3 08
2.37
0.28
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-117.7
26.5
12,838
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1675
2 80
2.37
0.26
0.98
0.00
0 00
0
0
-115.8
167.5
13,005
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
57
301
2.37
0.22
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-1166
5.7
13,011
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
100
3 03
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0.02
0
0
-116.3
10.0
13,021
Utah
W-CG-Prem
151
3 00
2.37
0.22
0.75
0.00
0 00
0
0
-115.6
15.1
13,036
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
69
3.03
2.37
0.26
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-115.5
6.9
13,043
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2117
2.80
2.37
0.28
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-113.8
211.7
13,255
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1261
2.80
2.37
0.28
0.98
0.00
0.00
0
0
-113.7
126.1
13,381
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
32
2.99
2.37
0.22
0.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.0
3.2
13,384
-------
Table A2013A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2013
State
Missouri
Oregon
Minnesota
Hawaii
Florida
Missouri
Minnesota
Missouri
Florida
Oregon
Hawaii
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Oregon
Florida
Minnesota
Oregon
Hawaii
Hawaii
Florida
Iowa
Illinois
Alaska
South Dakota
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Indiana
Nebraska
Ohio
Vermont
Wisconsin
Illinois
Kansas
New York
Idaho
Pennsylvania
Colorado
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
Washington
Utah
WestVirginia
Kentucky
Arkansas
Montana
Texas
Nevada
Mississippi
Maine
Maryland
Louisiana
Arizona
Virginia
North Dakota
Georgia
Wyoming
New Mexico
Alabama
Tennessee
Wisconsin
South Carolina
South Dakota
North Carolina
Alaska
Illinois
Michigan
Nebraska
Indiana
North Dakota
Indiana
Ohio
Wisconsin
New York
California
Kansas
New York
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
Virginia
Gasoline
Code
Gasoline
Volume
MMgals
Gasoline lEthanol
Price IGate Price
$/gal l$/gal
Ethanol
Dist Cost
Ethanol
Blending
Federal
Subsidy
State
Subsidy
State
Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Ethanol
Volume
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
S-CG-Reg
775
2.761
2.47
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-252.5
77.5
78
S-CG-Reg
644
2.851
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-252.2
64.4
142
S-CG-Reg
980
2.731
2.47
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-250.1
98.0
240
S-CG-Reg
165
3.1ฐ|
2.47
0.55
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-249.2
16.5
256
S-CG-Reg
2955
2.791
2.47
0.33
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-239.3
295.5
552
S-CG-Prem
65
3.111
2.47
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-229.1
6.5
558
S-CG-Prem
99
3.ฐ9|
2.47
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-226.6
9.9
568
S-RFG-Reg
398
2.82I
2.47
0.17
2.06
0.00
0.00
1
0
-224.4
39.8
608
S-CG-Prem
434
3.151
2.47
0.33
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-215.6
43.4
651
S-CG-Prem
90
3.061
2.47
0.26
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-214.1
9.0
660
S-CG-Prem
49
3.281
2.47
0.55
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-208.2
4.9
665
S-RFG-Prem
39
3.171
2.47
0.17
1.47
0.00
0.00
1
0
-201.0
3.9
669
W-RFG-Prem
47
3.121
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-122.9
4.7
674
W-CG-Prem
79
3.06]
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-116.9
7.9
682
W-CG-Prem
119
3.ฐ4|
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-114.4
11.9
694
W-RFG-reg
481
2.771
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-110.7
48.1
742
W-CG-reg
937
2711
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-104.7
93.7
836
W-CG-reg
779
2 801
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-104.4
77.9
914
W-CG-Prem
525
3.1ฐI
2.47
0.33
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-103.3
52.5
966
W-CG-reg
1185
2.68I
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-102.3
118.5
1,085
W-CG-Prem
109
3.ฐ1!
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-101.9
10.9
1,096
W-CG-reg
200
3.05I
2.47
0.55
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-101.4
20.0
1,115
W-CG-Prem
60
3.23I
2.47
0.55
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-96.0
6.0
1,121
W-CG-reg
3573
2.74l
2.47
0.33
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-91.4
357.3
1,479
S-CG-Reg
475
2.77I
2.47
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.30
0
0
-282.9
47.5
1,526
S-CG-Reg
726
2.80*
2.47
0.17
2 40
0.00
0.26
0
0
-282 3
72.6
1,599
S-CG-Reg
106
3.31
2.47
0.55
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-269 5
10.6
1,609
S-CG-Reg
171
2.79
2.47
0.17
2 40
0.00
0.09
0
0
-265 2
17.1
1,627
S-CG-Prem
44
3.161
2.47
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.26
0
0
-259.1
4.4
1,631
S-CG-Prem
62
3.1ฐ!
2.47
0.17
1.81
0 00
0.30
0
0
-257.7
6.2
1,637
S-CG-Reg
1915
2.80l
2.47
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-257.3
191.5
1,829
S-CG-Reg
1144
2.80
2.47
0.17
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-256.4
114.4
1,943
S-CG-Reg
314
2.79
2.47
0.17
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-256.0
31.4
1,974
S-CG-Reg
1975
2.79I
2.47
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-256.0
197.5
2,172
S-CG-Reg
128
2 89
2.47
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-254.4
12.8
2,185
S-CG-Reg
781
2.771
2.47
0.17
2 40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-254.3
78.1
2,263
S-RFG-Reg
1236
2.86
2.47
0.17
2.06
0.00
0.26
0
0
-254.1
123.6
2,386
S-CG-Reg
660
2.76!
2.47
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-253.1
66.0
2,452
S-CG-Reg
979
2.83
2.47
0.24
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-252.9
97.9
2,550
S-CG-Reg
279
2.80
2.47
0.22
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-251 0
27.9
2,578
S-CG-Reg
841
2.81
2.47
0.24
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-250.9
84.1
2,662
S-CG-Reg
798
2.79
2.47
0 22
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-250 0
79.8
2,742
S-CG-Reg
54
2.84|
2.47
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-249.8
5.4
2,748
S-CG-Reg
845
2.80|
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.02
0
0
-249.3
84.5
2,832
S-CG-Reg
1036
2.82I
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-248.9
103.6
2.936
S-CG-Reg
466
2.77!
2.47
0.22
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-248.1
46.6
2,982
S-CG-Reg
303
2.78!
2.47
0.24
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-247.7
30.3
3,012
S-CG-Reg
665
2.801
2.47
0.26
2 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-247.2
66.5
3,079
S-CG-Reg
596
2.741
2.47
0.21
2 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-246.7
59.6
3,138
S-CG-Reg
272
2.751
2.47
0.22
2 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-245.5
27.2
3,166
S-CG-Reg
3310
2.73!
2.47
0.21
2 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-245.5
331.0
3,497
S-CG-Reg
404
2.821
2.47
0.30
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-245.4
40.4
3,537
S-CG-Reg
711
2.73
2.47
0 21
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-245 3
71.1
3,608
S-CG-Reg
121
2.85
2.47
0.33
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-245 2
12.1
3,620
S-CG-Reg
84
2.77
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-245 1
8.4
3,629
S-CG-Reg
1109
2.72
2.47
0.21
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-244.6
110.9
3,739
S-CG-Reg
421
2.81!
2.47
0.30
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-244.0
42.1
3,782
S-CG-Reg
631
2.76|
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-243.8
63.1
3,845
S-CG-Reg
160
2.76I
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-243.1
16.0
3.861
S-CG-Reg
1944
2.77
2.47
0.28
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-242.4
194.4
4,055
S-CG-Reg
134
2.71
2.47
0.22
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-242.2
13.4
4,068
S-CG-Reg
383
2.741
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-241.8
38.3
4,107
S-CG-Reg
987
2 73
2.47
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-241.0
98.7
4,205
S-CG-Reg
1391
2.731
2.47
0.26
2 40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-240.4
139.1
4,345
S-CG-Prem
70
3.22
2.47
0.17
1 81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-239.9
7.0
4,351
S-CG-Reg
1047
2.73!
2.47
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-239.1
104.7
4,456
S-CG-Prem
21
3.12
2.47
0 17
1.81
0 00
0.09
0
0
-239 0
2.1
4,458
S-CG-Reg
1758
2.72
2.47
0.28
2.40
0 00
0.00
0
0
-238 1
175.8
4,634
S-CG-Prem
13
3.51
2.47
0.55
1 81
0 00
0.00
0
0
-231 3
1.3
4,635
S-RFG-Prem
178
3.22
2.47
0 17
1.47
0 00
0.26
0
0
-230.9
17.8
4,653
S-CG-Prem
126
3.12
2.47
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-229.5
12.6
4,666
S-CG-Prem
42
3.1011
2.47
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-228.4
4.2
4,670
S-RFG-Reg
190
2.861
2.47
0.17
2.06
0.00
0.00
0
0
-228.2
19.0
4,689
S-CG-Prem
19
3.191
2.47
0.26
1.81
0 00
0.00
0
0
-227.4
1.9
4,691
S-CG-Prem
82
3.09!
2.47
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-227.2
8.2
4,699
S-CG-Prem
156
3.081
2.47
0.17
1 81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-225.9
15.6
4,715
S-RFG-Reg
322
2 83
2.47
0.17
2.06
0.00
0.00
0
0
-226.2
32.2
4,747
S-RFG-Reg
1182
2.891
2.47
0.24
2 06
0.00
0.00
0
0
-224.7
118.2
4,865
S-RFG-Reg
5074
2.95!
2.47
0.30
2.06
0.00
0.00
0
0
-224.1
507.4
5,372
S-CG-Prem
56
3.06!
2.47
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-223.6
5.6
5,378
S-CG-Prem
96
3.13
2.47
0 24
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-223.3
9.6
5,388
S-RFG-Reg
249
2.90
2.47
0.26
2.06
0.00
0.00
0
0
-223.4
24.9
5,412
S-RFG-Reg
372
2.87
2.47
0.24
2.06
0.00
0.00
0
0
-222.8
37.2
5,450
S-RFG-Reg
609
2.89
2.47
0.26
2.06
0 00
0.00
0
0
-222.7
60.9
5,511
S-CG-Prem
61
3.13!
2.47
0.26
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-221.5
6.1
5,517
95
-------
Table A2013B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
2013
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
178
2.90
2.47
0.28
2.06
0.00
0.00
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
98
3.07
2.47
0.21
1.81
0.00
0 00
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1036
2.88
2.47
0 26
2.06
0.00
0.00
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
11
3.14
2.47
0.28
1.81
0.00
0 00
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
19
3.10
2.47
0 24
1.81
0.00
0.00
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
51
3.07
2.47
0.21
1.81
0.00
0.00
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
3.11
2.47
0 26
1.81
0.00
0 00
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
46
3.11
2.47
0 26
1.81
0.00
0.00
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
181
2.86
2.47
0.26
2.06
0.00
0 00
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
98
3.10
2.47
0 26
1.81
0.00
0 00
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
183
2.86
2.47
0.26
2.06
0.00
0.00
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
267
3.11
2.47
0 28
1.81
0.00
0 00
Texas
S-CG-Prem
322
3.04
2.47
0.21
1.81
0.00
0 00
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
175
3.05
2.47
0 22
1.81
0.00
0 00
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2430
2.79
2.47
0.21
2.06
0.00
0.00
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1547
2.84
2.47
0 26
2.06
0.00
0 00
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
179
2.91
2.47
0 33
2.06
0.00
0 00
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
714
2.83
2.47
0.26
2.06
0.00
0 00
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
161
3.07
2.47
0 26
1.81
0.00
0.00
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
80
3.05
2.47
0.24! 1.81
0.00
0.00
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
83
3.05
2.47
0 26
1.81
0.00
0 02
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
124
3.09
2.47
0 28
1.81
0.00
0 00
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
754
2.87
2.47
0 30
2.06
0.00
0.00
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
746
2.82
2.47
0 26
2.06
0.00
0 00
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
73
3.01
2.47
0.21
1.81
0.00
0.00
Montana
S-CG-Prem
58
3.02
2.47
0 22
1.81
0.00
0 00
DC
S-RFG-Reg
25
2.81
2.47
0 26
2.06
0.00
0 00
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
220
3.07
2.47
0.28! 1.81
0.00
0 00
New Hampshire i S-CG-Prem
4
3.07
2.47
0.28
1.81
0.00
0 00
Washington
S-CG-Prem
206
3.05
2.47
0 26
1.81
0.00
0 00
Maine
S-CG-Prem
10
3.10
2.47
0 33
1.81
0.00
0.00
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
47
2.99
2.47
0.22! 1.81
0.00
0 00
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
29
3.28
2.47
0 17
1.47
0.00
0 00
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
27
2.99
2.47
0.22! 1.81
0.00
0 00
Utah
S-CG-Prem
126
2.97
2.47
0 22
1.81
0.00
0 00
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
57
2.97
2.47
0.26! 1.81
0.00
0.00
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
54
3.01
2.47
0 30
1.81
0.00
0 00
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
105
2.99
2.47
0 30
1.81
0.00
0 00
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
20
3.15
2.47
0.17
1.47
0.00
0.00
New York
S-RFG-Prem
285
3.19
2.47
0 24
1.47
0.00
0.00
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
145
3.19
2.47
0.26
1.47
0.00
0.00
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
100
3.18
2.47
0 26
1.47
0.00
0 00
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
37
3.18
2.47
0.26
1.47
0.00
0 00
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
131
3.17
2.47
0 26
1.47
0.00
0 00
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
18
3.17
2.47
0 26
1.47
0.00
0 00
DC
S-RFG-Prem
6
3.16
2.47
0.26
1.47
0.00
0.00
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
377
3.10
2.47
0 21
1.47
0.00
0.00
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
62
3.11
2.47
0.24
1.47
0.00
0 00
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
158
3.12
2.47
0 26
1.47
0.00
0 00
New HampshireiS-RFG-Prem
20
3.13
2.47
0.28
1.47
0.00
0 00
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
22
3.10
2.47
0.26
1.47
0.00
0 00
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
250
3.10
2.47
0 26
1.47
0.00
0.00
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
12
3.16
2.47
0.33
1.47
0.00
0.00
California
S-RFG-Prem
1466
3.13
2.47
0 30
1.47
0.00
0 00
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
117
3.07
2.47
0.30
1.47
0.00
0.00
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
215
3.17
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.26
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
54
3.11
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.26
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
75
3.05
2.47
0 17
0.74
0.00
0.30
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1494
2.81
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0 26
Iowa
W-CG-reg
574
2.72
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.30
Illinois
W-CG-reg
878
2.75
2.47
0 17
0.97
0.00
0 26
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
35
3.23
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0 00
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
84
3.17
2.47
0 17
0.74
0.00
0.00
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
3.07
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0 09
Alaska
W-CG-reg
128
3.26
2.47
0 55
0.97
0.00
0.00
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
24
3.10
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0 00
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
15
3.46
2.47
0.55
0.74
0.00
0.00
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
206
2 74
2.47
0 17
0.97
0.00
0 09
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
153
3 07
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
New York
W-RFG-Prem
344
3 14
2.47
0.24
0.74
0.00
0 00
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
51
3 05
2.47
0 17
0.74
0.00
0 00
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
176
3.14
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0 00
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
24
3.14
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0 00
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
99
3.04
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
121
3 13
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0 00
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
45
3 13
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0 00
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
230
2 81
2.47
0 17
0.97
0.00
0 00
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
158
3 12
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0 00
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
22
3.12
2.47
0 26
0.74
0.00
0.00
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
189
3.03
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0 00
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
3.11
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
390
2 78
2.47
0 17
0.97
0.00
0 00
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
68
3 01
2.47
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
456
3 05
2.47
0 21
0.74
0.00
0 00
New York
W-CG-Prem
116
3 08
2.47
0.24
0.74
0.00
0 00
State
Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Cost c/gal
Ethanol
Volume
MMgals
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMgals
-221.7
-220.9
-221 4
-220.8
-220.5:
-220.3
-220.0
-219.9:
-219.6
-218.7:
-219.1
-218.1:
-217.5
-217.1'
-217.3
-217.1
-217.1
-217.0
-216.21
-215.9
-215.7
-215.41
-215 9
-215.61
-215.0
-214 5
-214.7
-213.9
-213.7
-213.3
-211.4:
-211.3
-211.8!
-211.0
-209 1
-205.9
-205 3
-203.7:
-199.1
-195.21
-193.3
-192.9
-192.8
-191 9
-191.8
-191.0
-189 3
-187.8
-186.1
-185.6
-184.4
-184.41
-183.3:
-182 9
-177.2
-152.9:
-146.9
-145 5
-140.5
-135.1
-134.5
-133.7
-127.7
-126.8
-121.7
-121.0
-119.1
-117.4
-117.3
-117.1'
-116.2
-115.3
-115.1
-115.0
-114.8
-114.7
-114.6
-113.8
-113.7
-113.7
-112.9
-112.5
-111.4
-111.3:
-111.1
17.8
9 8,
103.6!
1.1!
1 9'
5.1!
0 7
4 6'
18.1!
9.8!
18.3!
26.7
32.2)
17.5!
243.0)
154 7
179,
71 4,
16.1!
8.0!
8.3|
12.4!
75 4'
74.6!
73,
5 8,
2 5'
22.0!
0 4,
20 6
1.0!
4.7!
2 9'
2.7!
12 6
5.7!
5 4,
10 5,
2.0!
28.5!
14 5,
10 0,
37'
13 1
1 8,
06'
37.7!
6.2!
158'
2.0!
22
25.0l
1.2!
1466,
11.7\
21.5!
5.4!
7 5
149.4)
57.4!
87.8!
3 5,
8.4!
2.5!
12.8'
2.4!
1.5!
20.6:
15.3,
34.4;
5.1'
17.6J
2.4 j
9.9!
12 1
4.5!
23.o'
15.8!
2.2!
18.9!
0.8!
39 0,
6.8i
45.6!
11.6!
5,534
5,544
5.648
5.649
5,651
5.656
5.657
5,661
5,679
5,689
5,708
5,734
5,766
5,784
6,027
6,182
6,199
6,271
6,287
6,295
6,303
6.316
6,391
6,466
6.473
6,479
6,481
6.503
6.504
6.524
6.525
6,530
6,533
6,536
6,548
6,554
6,559
6,570
6,572
6,600
6,615
6,625
6,628
6.642
6.643
6.644
6,682
6,688
6,704
6,706
6,708
6.733
6.734
6,881
6,892
6,914
6,919
6,927
7,076
7,134
7,221
7,225
7,233
7,236
7,249
7,251
7,253
7,273
7,289
7,323
7,328
7,346
7,348
7,358
7,370
7,374
7,397
7,413
7,415
7.434
7.435
7.474
7,481
7.526
7,538
96
-------
Table A2013C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanoi
Einanol
Ethanol
i-eaerai
State
St te
2013
Code
Volume
Price
Gate I
Disi Cost
E
Subs
Subsidv
ivianaaie
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
I
$/gai
$/gai
$/gai
New York
W-RFG-reg
1429
2.84
2.47
0.24
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
California
W-RFG-reg
6135
2.90
2.47
0.30
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
301
2.85
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
75
3.06
2.47
0.24
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2315
2.75
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
74
3.08
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
450
2.82
2.47
0.24
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
736
2.84
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
118
3.02
2.47
0.21
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1383
2.75
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
3.09
2.47
0.28
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
23
3.05
2.47
0.24
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
380
2.74
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2388
2.74
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
61
3.02
2.47
0.21
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
191
3.07
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
215
2.85
2.47
0.28
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
8
3.06
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1252
2.83
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
56
3.06
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
24
3.08
2.47
0.28
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Vermont
W-CG-reg
155
2.84
2.47
0.28
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
944
2.72
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
119
3.05
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
27
3.05
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00! 0
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
302
3.05
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
219
2.81
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
323
3.06
2.47
0.28
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
222
2.81
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Texas
W-CG-Prem
389
2.99
2.47
0.21
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Kansas
W-CG-reg
798
2.71
2.47
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
14
3.11
2.47
0.33
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
New York
W-CG-reg
1184
2.78
2.47
0.24
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
212
3.00
2.47
0.22
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
California
W-RFG-Prem
1773
3.08
2.47
0.30
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
195
3.02
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
97
3.00
2.47
0.24
0.74
0.00
0.00! 0
Texas
W-RFG-reg
2939
2.74
2.47
0.21
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
100
3.00
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.02
0
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1870
2.79
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Maine
W-RFG-reg
216
2.86
2.47
0.33
0.97
0.00
0.00! 0
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
863
2.78
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Idaho
W-CG-reg
338
2.75
2.47
0.22
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
151
3.04
2.47
0.28
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1017
2.76
2.47
0.24
0.97
0.00
0.00! 0
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
89
2.96
2.47
0.21
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Montana
W-CG-Prem
71
2.97
2.47
0.22
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
912
2.82
2.47
0.30
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Colorado
W-CG-reg
965
2.74
2.47
0.22
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
66
2.79
2.47
0.28
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
902
2.77
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
266
3.02
2.47
0.28
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1021
2.75
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.02! 0
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
3.02
2.47
0.28
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Washington
W-CG-Prem
249
3.00
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Washington
W-CG-reg
1252
2.77
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
DC
W-RFG-reg
30
2.76
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00! 0
Utah
W-CG-reg
563
2.72
2.47
0.22
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
366
2.73
2.47
0.24
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
804
2.75
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
3.05
2.47
0.33
0.74
0.00
0.00 i 0
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
142
3.02
2.47
0.30
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
57
2.94
2.47
0.22
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
720
2.69
2.47
0.21
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
32
2.94
2.47
0.22
0.74
0.00
0.00 i 0
Montana
W-CG-reg
329
2.70
2.47
0.22
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Texas
W-CG-reg
4002
2.68
2.47
0.21
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Nevada
W-CG-reg
489
2.77
2.47
0.30
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
860
2.68
2.47
0.21
0.97
0.00
0.00 i 0
Maine
W-CG-reg
147
2.80
2.47
0.33
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Maryland
W-CG-reg
101
2.72
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Utah
W-CG-Prem
152
2.92
2.47
0.22
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1341
2.67
2.47
0.21
0.97
0.00
0.00! 0
Arizona
W-CG-reg
509
2.76
2.47
0.30
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Virginia
W-CG-reg
763
2.71
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
193
2.71
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2351
2.72
2.47
0.28
0.97
0.00
0.00! 0
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
162
2.66
2.47
0.22
0.97
0.00
0.00! 0
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
463
2.69
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
69
2.92
2.47
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1193
2.68
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00! 0
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
65
2.96
2.47
0.30
0.74
0.00
0.00! 0
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1682
2.68
2.47
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
127
2.94
2.47
0.30
0.74
0.00
0.00
0
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1266
2.68
2.47
0.28
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
North Carolina
W-CG-req
2126
2.67
2.47
0.28
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
iRFG
:"Mand
nding ;
-110.5:
-109.7:
-109.7:
-109.5:
-109.3:
-109.1
-109.0:
-108.7:
-108.6:
-108.5:
-108.2:
-108.2:
-108.2:
-108.1
-108.0:
-108.0:
-107.8:
-107.71
-107.7:
-107.5:
-106.6:
-106.51
-106.4:
-106.3
-106.3
-105.9
-105.8
-105.4
-105.3
-105.3
-105.2
-105.1:
-104.9:
-104.8:
-103.9:
-103.7:
-103.7:
-103.4:
-103.4:
-103.4:
-103.3
-103.2:
-103.1:
-103.1:
-102.8:
-102.3:
-102.2;
-102.2:
-102.0:
-102.0:
-101.6
-101.5!
-101.5:
-101.1:
-101.1;
-101.0:
-100.3:
-99.9:
-99.4
-99.2!
-99.1:
-99.1:
-98.9ฐ
-98.8:
-97.7:
-97.7;
-97.6;
-97.5:
-97.4:
-97.3:
-96.9;
-96.8:
-96.2:
-96.0:
-95.3:
-94.6!
-94.4:
-94.0;
-93.6:
-93.2!
-93.1:
-92.6:
-91.5
-91.3
-90.3
volume
ivnvigais
142.9
613.5
30.1
7.5
231.5
7.4
45.0
73.6
11.8
138.3
1.4
2.3
38.0
238.8
6.1
19.1
21.5
0.8
125.2
5.6
2.4
15.5
94.4
11.9
2.7
30.2
21.9
32.3
22.2
38.9
79.8
1.4
118.4
21.2
177.3
19.5
9.7
293.9
10.0
187.0
21.6
86.3
33.8
15.1
101.7
8.9
7.1
91.2
96.5
6.6
90.2
26.6
102.1
0.5
24.9
125.2
3.0
56.3
36.6
80.4
1.3
14.2
5.7
72.0
3.2
32.9
400.2
48.9
86.0
14.7
10.1
15.2
134.1
50.9
76.3
19.3
235.1
16.2
46.3
6.9
119.3
6.5
168.2
12.7
126.6
212.6
; Cumulative
! Eth Vol
iMMgais
7,681
8,294
8,324
8,332
8,563
8,571
8,616
8,690
8,701
8.840
8.841
8,843
8,881
9,120
9,126
9,145
9.167
9.168
9,293
9,299
9,301
9,316
9,411
9,423
9,425
9,456
9,478
9,510
9,532
9,571
9.651
9.652
9,770
9,792
9,969
9,988
9,998
10,292
10,302
10,489
10,511
10,597
10,631
10,646
10,747
10,756
10,763
10,855
10,951
10,958
11,048
11,074
11,177
11,177
11,202
11,327
11,330
11,386
11,423
11,503
11,505
11,519
11,525
11,597
11,600
11,633
12,033
12,082
12,168
12,183
12,193
12,208
12,342
12,393
12,469
12,488
12,723
12,740
12,786
12,793
12,912
12,919
13,087
13,099
13,226
97
-------
Table A2014A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2014
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
164
3.00
2.34
0.56
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-249.6
16.4
16
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
641
2.70
2.34
0.27
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-248.1
64.1
80
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
771
2.56
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-244.4
77.1
158
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
975
2.53
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-241.4
97.5
255
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
396
2.62
2.34
0.17
2.09
0.00
0.00
1
0
-219.2
39.6
295
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
65
2.88
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-218.0
6.5
301
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
98
2.84
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-214.2
9.8
311
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
90
2.91
2.34
0.27
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-210.5
9.0
320
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
49
3.18
2.34
0.56
1.81
0.00
0.00
1
0
-209.4
4.9
325
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
39
2.94
2.34
0.17
1.50
0.00
0.00
1
0
-192.8
3.9
329
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
47
2.89
2.34
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-111.8
4.7
333
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
78
2.83
2.34
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-105.8
7.8
341
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
478
2.57
2.34
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-102.6
47.8
389
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
119
2.79
2.34
0.17
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-102.0
11.9
401
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
198
2.95
2.34
0.56
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-101.8
19.8
421
Oregon
W-CG-reg
775
2.65
2.34
0.27
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-100.3
77.5
498
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
109
2.86
2.34
0.27
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-98.3
10.9
509
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
59
3.13
2.34
0.56
0.74
0.00
0.00
1
0
-97.2
5.9
515
Missouri
W-CG-reg
932
2.51
2.34
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-96.6
93.2
608
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1179
2.48
2.34
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00
1
0
-93.6
117.9
726
I ova
S-CG-Reg
472
2.56
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.30
0
0
-274.1
47.2
773
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
722
2.58
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.26
0
0
-272.6
72.2
846
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
105
3.23
2.34
0.56
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-272.4
10.5
856
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
170
2.56
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.09
0
0
-254.3
17.0
873
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
44
2.98
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.26
0
0
-253.4
4.4
877
I ova
S-CG-Prem
61
2.93
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.30
0
0
-252.2
6.1
884
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
1964
2.62
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-251.1
196.4
1,080
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
278
2.67
2.34
0.23
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-250.0
27.8
1,108
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
1904
2.61
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-249.8
190.4
1,298
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1138
2.58
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-247.1
113.8
1,412
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1229
2.64
2.34
0.17
2.09
0.00
0.26
0
0
-247.5
122.9
1,535
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
127
2.69
2.34
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-246.3
12.7
1,548
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
776
2.57
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-246.1
77.6
1,625
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
301
2.64
2.34
0.24
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-245.4
30.1
1,655
Utah
S-CG-Reg
463
2.63
2.34
0.23
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-245.3
46.3
1,702
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
313
2.56
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-244.9
31.3
1,733
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
793
2.62
2.34
0.23
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-244.9
79.3
1,812
New York
S-CG-Reg
974
2.64
2.34
0.24
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-244.8
97.4
1,910
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1030
2.66
2.34
0.27
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-244.5
103.0
2,013
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
402
2.69
2.34
0.31
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-243.7
40.2
2,053
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
656
2.54
2.34
0.17
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-242.7
65.6
2,118
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
133
2.60
2.34
0.23
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-242.6
13.3
2,132
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
54
2.65
2.34
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-242.1
5.4
2,137
Montana
S-CG-Reg
270
2.59
2.34
0.23
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-241.9
27.0
2,164
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
661
2.62
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-240.9
66.1
2,230
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
592
2.56
2.34
0.21
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-240.0
59.2
2,289
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
707
2.55
2.34
0.21
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-239.8
70.7
2,360
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
837
2.58
2.34
0.24
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-239.3
83.7
2,444
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
381
2.60
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-239.1
38.1
2,482
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
159
2.59
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-238.1
15.9
2,498
Maine
S-CG-Reg
121
2.66
2.34
0.34
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-237.8
12.1
2,510
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
83
2.58
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-237.6
8.3
2,518
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1102
2.53
2.34
0.21
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-237.3
110.2
2,628
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
1933
2.60
2.34
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-237.1
193.3
2,822
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3291
2.52
2.34
0.21
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-236.4
329.1
3,151
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
419
2.61
2.34
0.31
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-235.7
41.9
3,193
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
69
3.05
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-234.9
6.9
3,200
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1383
2.55
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-234.2
138.3
3,338
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
20
2.95
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.09
0
0
-234.2
2.0
3,340
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
627
2.55
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-234.1
62.7
3,403
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
981
2.55
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-234.1
98.1
3,501
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1041
2.56
2.34
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-233.6
104.1
3,605
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
840
2.52
2.34
0.26
2.40
0.00
0.02
0
0
-233.3
84.0
3,689
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1748
2.55
2.34
0.28
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-232.0
174.8
3,864
Florida
S-CG-Reg
2938
2.60
2.34
0.34
2.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-231.5
293.8
4,158
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
155
3.00
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-229.3
15.5
4,173
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
3.38
2.34
0.56
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-229.0
1.3
4,174
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
126
2.99
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-228.6
12.6
4,187
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
177
3.04
2.34
0.17
1.50
0.00
0.26
0
0
-228.3
17.7
4,205
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
81
2.97
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-226.7
8.1
4,213
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
42
2.93
2.34
0.17
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-223.2
4.2
4,217
I ndiana
S-RFG-Reg
189
2.64
2.34
0.17
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-222.0
18.9
4,236
California
S-RFG-Reg
5045
2.75
2.34
0.31
2.09
0.00
0.03
0
0
-221.3
504.5
4,740
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
248
2.73
2.34
0.26
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-221.3
24.8
4,765
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
321
2.63
2.34
0.17
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-220.9
32.1
4,797
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
46
3.00
2.34
0.26
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-220.4
4.6
4,802
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
19
2.97
2.34
0.24
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-219.4
1.9
4,804
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1175
2.70
2.34
0.24
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-219.7
117.5
4,921
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1030
2.71
2.34
0.26
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-219.0
103.0
5,024
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
19
2.97
2.34
0.26
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-217.4
1.9
5,026
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
177
2.71
2.34
0.28
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-217.0
17.7
5,044
Montana
S-CG-Prem
58
2.93
2.34
0.23
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-216.4
5.8
5,050
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
605
2.69
2.34
0.26
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-216.7
60.5
5,110
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
182
2.68
2.34
0.26
2.09
0.00
0.00
0
0
-215.8
18.2
5,128
New York
S-CG-Prem
95
2.93
2.34
0.24
1.81
0.00
0.00
0
0
-215.2
9.5
5,138
-------
Table A2014B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2014
Slate
Gasoline
Code
Gasoliri'
Volume
| Ethanol
(Gate Price
MMgais i$/gai
Ethanol
Dist Cost
Ethanol
Blending
Federal
Subsidy
State
Subsi
$/ga
ite
ndate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Cost c/gal
Ethanol
Volume
MMgal
iuumuiative
i Eth Vol
ฃ
Wyoming
Colorado
Georgia
Vermont
Pennsylvania
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Louisiana
Texas
Virginia
South Carolina
Idaho
Arizona
New Jersey
Tennessee
North Carolina
Wisconsin
Maryland
Florida
DC
Virginia i
Kansas i
New Hampshire
Washington
Mississippi
Utah
Texas
Oklahoma
Maine
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Nevada
Indiana
Arizona
Kentucky
New York
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Virginia
Maryland
DC
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Texas
Maine
Delaware
Pennsylvania
California
New Jersey
Arizona
Illinois
Illinois
Iowa
Illinois
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Alaska
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Indiana
Ohio
Alaska
Michigan
Indiana
Kentucky
Nebraska
New York
Kentucky
West Virginia
South Dakota
Connecticut
Indiana
North Dakota
Rhode Island
California
Rhode Island
Virginia
Wisconsin
Montana
Ohio
New York
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG- Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG- Reg
S-RFG-Reg
S-RFG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S- RFG-Reg
S- RFG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG-Reg
S-RFG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
W-RFG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-RFG-reg
W-RFG-Prem
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-RFG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-RFG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-RFG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-reg
W-RFG-Prem
W-RFG-reg
W-CG-Prem
W-RFG-Prem
W-RFG-reg
W-RFG-reg
W-RFG-Prem
W-RFG-reg
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-reg
W-CG-Prem
27!
174!
265!
11!
370
98!
51!
180!
178!
710!
97!
2417!
61!
124!
47!
750!
1538!
160!
219!
29!
7!
431!
25!
742!
56!
4!
204!
73!
125'
320
82
10!
57!
80!
104!
20!
53!
18!
283!
99!
37!
145!
130!
6;
157!
20!
375!
12!
22!
62!
1458!
248!
117!
214!
53!
74!
1486!
35!
571!
873!
127!
84!
25
24
188
15*
152!
98!
22!
50!
342)
56|
23l
205!
120!
228!
23!
44!
6101!
299!
175!
388!
70!
2374!
115!
2.91s
2.90
2.96
2.95
2.64
2.93
2.87
2.65j
2.72I
2.64S
2.87
2.58
2 90
2 92
2 87 >
2 67
2 62
2 89
2 91*
3 11
2 88
2 96!
2 61
2 61
2.79
2.89
2.87
2.81
2.83'
2.81
2 82
2.92
2.84
2.81
2.86
3.ฐ3|
2.80
3.065
2.99'
2.97
2.97
2.96
2.94!
2.94
2 94
2 95
2 87
2 98,
2 90"
2 87
2 90
2 87,
2 86"
2 99
2.93>
2.88,
2.59?
3.06
2.51!
2.53
3.18
3.00
2.90>
2.98]
2.95I
3.335
2.94
2.92
3.01
2.88
2.94S
z95i
2.92?
2.51,
2.92'
2.59'
2.92
2 92
2 70
2 68
2 91
2 58
2.88'
2.57'
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34
2.34J
2.34I
2.34I
2 34,
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2 34
2.34I
0.23
0.23
0.28
0.28
0.24
0.26
0.21
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.21'
0.21;
0.26:
0.28
0.23:
0.31:
0.26:
0.26;
0.28:
0.17:
0.26:
0.34'
0.26:
0.26:
0.17
0.28;
0.27
0.21
0.23;
0.21
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.24
0.31
0.17;
0.31
0.26
0.24;
0.26:
0.26:
0.26:
0.26;
0.26:
0.26!
0.28;
0.21:
0.34;
0.26:
0.24;
0.31:
0.26;
0.31
0.17
0.17;
0.17;
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17:
0.56:
0.17;
0.17;
0.17
0.17
0.56
0.17:
0.17
0.26
0.17
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.17
0.26
0.17
0.26
0.26
0.31
0.26
0.26!
0.17:
0.23:
0.17:
0.24!
1.81
1.81
1.81
1.81
2.09
1.81
1.81
2.09;
2.09!
2.09
1.81:
2.09;
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.09;
2.09:
1.8
1.8
1.50
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.50;
1.81!
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50:
1.50
1.50;
1.50;
1.50:
1.50
1.50;
1.50;
1.50:
1.50
1.50;
0.74:
0.74:
0.74;
0.97;
0.74
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.74
0.74
0.74;
0.74
0.74;
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74:
0.74
0.74
0.97;
0.74:
0.97;
0.74;
0.74;
0.97:
0.97;
0.74;
0.97:
0.74:
0.97;
0.74;
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0 00
0 00'
0 00
0 00
0 00'
0 00'
0.00s
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.26
0.30
0.26
0.00
0.30
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-214.4
-214.2
-214.1
-213.8
-214.2
-213.1
-212.8
-213.0;
-212.7
-212.5
-212.0:
-211.3
-210.5;
-210.5;
-210.3:
-210.5;
-210.2;
-209.6;
-209.6:
-209.7;
-208.9;
-208.8;
-209.1:
-209.0;
-208.3;
-207.5;
-207.0
-206.4
-206.3:
-206.2
-204.4
-204.3
-204.0
-203.1
-201.5
-201.6;
-196.3
-195.3
-190.1
-186.5;
-186.0
-185.4
-183.8:
-183.0;
-183.0;
-182.4;
-181.1:
-179.2;
-179.1;
-178.0;
-177.6:
-176.6;
-171.1;
-147.2;
-141.2:
-140.0;
-130.8:
-128.7
-126.3:
-124.8
-124.6
-122.7
-122.0
-120.5;
-117.1
-116.81
-116.4
-114.5
-114.2
-111.0
-109.0:
-108.2
-107.1
-106.4;
-105.4:
-105.3;
-105.2;
-104.9;
-104.6:
-104.6;
-104.3;
-104.2:
-104.2:
-103.3;
-103.0;
2.7
17.4
26.5
1.1
37.0
9.8
5.1
18.0
17.8
71.0
9.7
241.7
6.1
12.4
4.7
75.0
153.8
16.0
21.9
2.9
0.7
43.1
2.5
74.2
5.6
0.4
20.4
7.3
12.5
32.0
8.2
1.0
5.7
8.0
10.4
2.0
5.3
1.8
28.3
9.9
3.7
14.5
13.0
0.6
15.7
2.0
37.5
1.2
2.2
6.2
145.8
24.8
11.7
21.4
5.3
7.4
148.6
3.5
57.1
87.3
12.7
8.4
2.5
2.4
18.8
1.5
15.2
9.8
2.2
5.0
34.2
5.6
2.3
20.5
12.0
22.8
2.3
4.4
610.1
29.9
17.5
38.8
7.0
237.4
11.5
5,140
5,158
5.184
5,186
5,223
5,232
5,237
5,255
5,273
5.344
5,354
5,596
5,602
5,614
5,619
5,694
5,848
5,
5,885
5,
5.889
5,932
5,935
6,009
6.014
6.015
6,035
6,043
6,055
6,087
6.095
6.096
6,102
6,110
6,120
6,122
6.128
6.129
6,158
6,168
6,171
6,186
6,199
6,199
6,215
6,217
6.255
6.256
6,258
6,264
6,410
6,435
6,446
6,468
6,473
6,481
6,629
6,633
6,690
6,777
6,790
6,798
6,801
6,803
6.822
6.823
6,839
6,848
6,851
6,856
6.890
6,895
6,898
6,918
6,930
6,953
6,955
6,960
7,570
7,600
7,617
7,656
7,663
7,901
7,912
99
-------
Table A2014C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State I State
RFG
Ethanol I
Ethanol
Cumulative
2014
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
DistCost iBIending sSubsidy
Subsidy \ Mandate
'Mandate"! Blending \Volume
Eth Vol
Slate
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
i/qal
$/gal
$/gal i
Cost c/gal! MMgals
MMgals
New York
W-RFG-reg
1421
2.65
2.34
0.24,
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-103 0,
142.1
8,054
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
157
2.89
2.34
0.26*
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-102 7*
15.7
8,070
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1245
2.66
2.34
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-102 3
124.5
8,194
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
32
2 86
2.34
0.23
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-102 2
3.2
8,198
Idaho
W-CG-reg
336
2 62
2.34
0.23
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-102 2
33.6
8,231
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2302
2 56
2.34
0.17
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-102 0
230 2
8,461
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
211
2 85
2.34
0.23
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-102 0
21.1
8,483
DC
W-RFG-Prem
7
2 89
2.34
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-101 9'
0.7
8,483
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
190
2 89
2.34
0.26'
0.74
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-101 9'
19.0
8,502
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
321
2 91
2.34
0.28
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-101 9
32.1
8,534
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
14
2 90
2.34
0 28'
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-101.61
1.4
8,536
New Hampshire W-RFG-Prem
24
2 90
2.34
0 28'
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-101 3'
2.4
8,538
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
118
2 88
2.34
0 26
0.74
0.00
0 00!
0
0
-100 9!
11.8
8,550
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
61
2 82
2.34
021
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-100 5
6.1
8,556
New Hampshire W-RFG-reg
213
2 66
2.34
0 28'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-100 3
21.3
8,577
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
454
2 82
2.34
0.21'
0.74
0.00
0.00I
0
0
-100 0-
45.4
8,623
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
732
2 64
2.34
0.26
0.97
0.00
0 00
0
0
-100 0
73.2
8,696
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
118
2 82
2.34
0.21.
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-99.7!
11.8
8,708
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1376
2 53
2.34
0.17'
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-99 3'
137.6
8,845
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
221
2 63
2.34
0.26'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-99 1'
22.1
8,867
Vermont
W-CG-reg
154
2 64
2.34
0.28
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-98 5
15.4
8,883
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
73
2 85
2.34
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-98 3
7.3
8,890
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
150
2.87
2.34
0.28!
0.74
0.00
O.OOS
0
0
-98.3!
15.0
8,905
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
939
2 52
2.34
0 17'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-98 2'
93.9
8,999
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
57
2 82
2.34
0 23
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-98 1
5.7
9,005
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
14
2 93
2.34
0 34
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-98 1
1.4
9,006
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
27
2 85
2.34
0 26'
0.74
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-98 O'
2.7
9,009
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
364
2 59
2.34
0 24'
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-97 6'
36.4
9,045
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
448
2 59
2.34
0 24
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-97 5
44.8
9,090
Utah
W-CG-reg
560
2.58
2.34
0.23!
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-97.5!
56.0
9,146
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
194
2 84
2.34
0 26
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-97 4
19.4
9,165
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
264
2 86
2.34
0 28'
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-97 4'
26.4
9,192
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
378
2 51
2.34
0.171
0.97
0.00
O.OOI
0
0
-97.1!
37.8
9,230
Colorado
W-CG-reg
959
2 57
2.34
0 23
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-97 1
95.9
9,326
New York
W-CG-reg
1177
2.59
2.34
0.241
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-97.0S
117.7
9,443
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
75
2 82
2.34
0 24
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-96 9
7.5
9,451
Washington
W-CG-reg
1245
2 61
2.34
0 27
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-96 7
124.5
9,575
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
8
2 83
2.34
0 26
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-96 7
0.8
9,576
Florida
W-CG-Prem
522
2 91
2.34
0 34
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-96 5
52 2
9,628
California
W-RFG-Prem
1763
2.85
2.34
0.311
0.74
0.00
0.03!
0
0
-96.5!
176.3
9,805
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
218
2.60
2.34
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00
0
0
-96.3
21.8
9,826
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
67
2.74
2.34
0.171
0.74
0.00
O.OOI
0
0
-96.11
6.7
9,833
Maine
W-RFG-reg
215
2 67
2.34
0 34
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-96.0!
21.5
9,855
Nevada
W-CG-reg
486
2 64
2.34
031'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-95 9'
48.6
9,903
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
858
2 59
2.34
0 26
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-95 8
85.8
9,989
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
300
2 82
2.34
0 26
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-95 5
30.0
10,019
New HampshireW-CG-Prem
5
2.84
2.34
0.28S
0.74
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-95.3i
0.5
10,020
Kansas
W-CG-reg
793
2 49
2.34
0 17'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-94 9'
79.3
10,099
Washington
W-CG-Prem
247
2 82
2.34
0 27
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-94 8
24.7
10,124
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
161
2 55
2.34
0 23
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-94 8
16.1
10,140
Texas
W-RFG-reg
2922
2 53
2.34
0 21
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-94 6'
292.2
10,432
New Hampshire; W-CG-reg
65
2.60
2.34
0.28!
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-94.3!
6.5
10,438
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
88
2.76
2.34
0.21
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-94.1
8.8
10,447
Utah
W-CG-Prem
151
2.78
2.34
0.231
0.74
0.00
0 00!
0
0
-94.11
15.1
10.462
Montana
W-CG-reg
327
2 54
2.34
0 23'
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-94 1"
32.7
10,495
Texas
W-CG-Prem
387
2 76
2.34
0 21'
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-94 0'
38.7
10,534
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
907
2 62
2.34
0 31,
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-93 9,
90.7
10,624
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1860
2 57
2.34
0 26*
0.97
0.00
O.OOS
0
0
-93 5*
186.0
10,810
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
799
2.57
2.34
0.26S
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-93.1 i
79.9
10,890
DC
W-RFG-reg
30
2 56
2.34
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-92 4
3.0
10,893
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
897
2 56
2.34
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-92 3
89.7
10,983
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
99
2 77
2.34
0.26
0.74
0.00
0.02!
0
0
-92 2
9.9
10,993
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
716
251
2.34
0.21
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-92 1"
71.6
11,065
Maine
W-CG-Prem
12
2 87
2.34
0.34"
0.74
0.00
ooo:
0
0
-92 f
1.2
11,066
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
855
2 50
2.34
0.21'
0.97
0.00
0 00'
0
0
-91 9'
85.5
11,151
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
68
2.79
2.34
0.26.
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-91.8.
6.8
11.158
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1012
2 53
2.34
0 24'
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-91 5'
101.2
11,259
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
460
2 55
2.34
0 26'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-91 3'
46.0
11,305
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
96
2 76
2.34
0 24
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-90 9
9.6
11,315
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
192
2 54
2.34
0 26
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-90 3
19.2
11,334
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
141
2.81
2.34
0.31 i
0.74
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-90.1 i
14.1
11,348
Maine
W-CG-reg
146
2 61
2.34
0.34"
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-90.0I
14.6
11,363
Maryland
W-CG-reg
101
2 53
2.34
0.26
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-89 8
10.1
11,373
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1333
2 48
2.34
0.21
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-89 4
133.3
11,506
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2337
2 55
2.34
0.28'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-89 3'
233.7
11,740
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
126
2.81
2.34
0.311
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-89.2!
12.6"
11,753
Texas
W-CG-reg
3980
2 47
2.34
0 21
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-88 6
398.0
12,151
Arizona
W-CG-reg
506
2 56
2.34
0 31
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-87 9
50.6
12,201
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1673
2 50
2.34
0 26^
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-86.4S
167.3
12,368
Virginia
W-CG-reg
758
2 50
2.34
0 26'
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-86 3'
75.8
12,444
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1187
2 50
2.34
0 26
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-86 3
118.7
12,563
South Carolina sW-CG-reg
1259
2 51
2.34
0 28
0.97
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-85 8
125.9
12,689
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1016
2 47
2.34
0 26'
0.97
0.00
0.02i
0
0
-85 5'
101.6
12,790
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2114
2 50
2.34
0 28'
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-84 2'
211.4
13,002
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
65
2 75
2.34
0.31!
0.74
0.00
0.00!
0
0
-84.1!
6.5
13,008
Florida
W-CG-reg
3553
2.55
2.34
0.34|
0.97
0.00
o.ooi
0
0
-83.71
355.3
13,364
100
-------
Table A2015A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2015
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
67
2.03
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
1
0
-197.3
6.7
7
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
667
1.83
1.61
0.21
2.20
0.00
0.00
1
0
-221.5
66.7
73
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
102
2.00
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
1
0
-195.0
10.2
84
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
94
2.07
1.61
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
1
0
-191.3
9.4
93
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
1015
1.64
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
1
0
-212.3
101.5
195
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
803
1.63
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
1
0
-212.0
80.3
275
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
40
2.09
1.61
0.11
1.49
0.00
0.00
1
0
-186.8
4.0
279
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
412
1.69
1.61
0.11
2.03
0.00
0.00
1
0
-201.6
41.2
320
Hawaii
S-CG-Reg
171
1.87
1.61
0.49
2.20
0.00
0.00
1
0
-196.6
17.1
337
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
51
2.03
1.61
0.49
1.66
0.00
0.00
1
0
-159.1
5.1
342
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
49
2.04
1.61
0.11
0.68
0.00
0.00
1
0
-100.0
4.9
347
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
81
1.98
1.61
0.11
0.68
0.00
0.00
1
0
-94.0
8.1
355
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
123
1.95
1.61
0.11
0.68
0.00
0.00
1
0
-91.8
12.3
368
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
113
2.02
1.61
0.21
0.68
0.00
0.00
1
0
-88.1
11.3
379
Oregon
W-CG-reg
807
1.78
1.61
0.21
0.89
0.00
0.00
1
0
-85.6
80.7
460
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
498
1.64
1.61
0.11
0.89
0.00
0.00
1
0
-82.2
49.8
509
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1227
1.59
1.61
0.11
0.89
0.00
0.00
1
0
-76.4
122.7
632
Missouri
W-CG-reg
971
1.58
1.61
0.11
0.89
0.00
0.00
1
0
-76.2
97.1
729
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
62
1.98
1.61
0.49
0.68
0.00
0.00
1
0
-55.9
6.2
735
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
207
1.82
1.61
0.49
0.89
0.00
0.00
1
0
-60.8
20.7
756
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
46
2.17
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.26
0
0
-237.5
4.6
761
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
64
2.07
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.30
0
0
-231.4
6.4
767
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
184
2.23
1.61
0.11
1.49
0.00
0.26
0
0
-227.1
18.4
786
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
72
2.26
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-220.8
7.2
793
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
2.17
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.09
0
0
-220.4
2.1
795
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
492
1.65
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.30
0
0
-243.2
49.2
844
California
S-RFG-Reg
5254
2.12
1.61
0.25
2.03
0.00
0.11
0
0
-241.7
525.4
1,370
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
752
1.66
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.26
0
0
-240.1
75.2
1,445
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
131
2.19
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-213.4
13.1
1,458
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
110
2.26
1.61
0.49
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-236.0
11.0
1,469
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
30
2.32
1.61
0.11
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-210.4
3.0
1,472
California
S-RFG-Prem
1518
2.34
1.61
0.25
1.49
0.00
0.11
0
0
-209.4
151.8
1,624
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
418
1.98
1.61
0.25
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-233.1
41.8
1,666
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
162
2.12
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-206.5
16.2
1,682
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
2.50
1.61
0.49
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-206.3
1.3
1,683
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
85
2.11
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-205.9
8.5
1,691
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1280
1.72
1.61
0.11
2.03
0.00
0.26
0
0
-229.6
128.0
1,819
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
43
2.08
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-202.8
4.3
1,824
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
289
1.83
1.61
0.17
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-225.2
28.9
1,853
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
177
1.67
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.09
0
0
-225.0
17.7
1,870
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
108
2.19
1.61
0.25
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-199.9
10.8
1,881
Utah
S-CG-Reg
482
1.81
1.61
0.17
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-224.1
48.2
1,929
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
48
2.12
1.61
0.20
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-197.8
4.8
1,934
Montana
S-CG-Prem
60
2.07
1.61
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-195.7
6.0
1,940
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.17
1.61
0.11
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-195.5
2.1
1,942
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
20
2.10
1.61
0.20
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-195.1
2.0
1,944
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
28
2.05
1.61
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-193.2
2.8
1,947
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1072
1.78
1.61
0.21
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-216.8
107.2
2,054
Montana
S-CG-Reg
281
1.73
1.61
0.17
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-216.0
28.1
2,083
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
2.08
1.61
0.22
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-191.5
1.2
2,084
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
58
1.97
1.61
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-191.3
5.8
2,090
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
49
2.02
1.61
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-190.9
4.9
2,094
Utah
S-CG-Prem
130
2.02
1.61
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-190.8
13.0
2,107
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
181
2.02
1.61
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-190.4
18.1
2,126
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
326
1.66
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-214.6
32.6
2,158
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
809
1.66
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-214.3
80.9
2,239
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
20
2.03
1.61
0.18
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-189.7
2.0
2,241
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
1983
1.65
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-213.9
198.3
2,439
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
102
2.04
1.61
0.20
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-189.4
10.2
2,449
Washington
S-CG-Prem
213
2.04
1.61
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-189.0
21.3
2,471
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
53
1.99
1.61
0.15
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-188.9
5.3
2,476
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
139
1.70
1.61
0.17
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-212.3
13.9
2,490
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1185
1.63
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-212.0
118.5
2,608
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2045
1.63
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-211.9
204.5
2,813
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
276
2.04
1.61
0.22
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-187.4
27.6
2,840
New York
S-CG-Prem
99
2.00
1.61
0.18
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-187.2
9.9
2,850
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
2.18
1.61
0.20
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-187.3
1.9
2,852
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
2.03
1.61
0.22
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-186.8
0.4
2,853
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
683
1.62
1.61
0.11
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-211.0
68.3
2,921
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
397
1.71
1.61
0.20
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-210.7
39.7
2,961
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
826
1.68
1.61
0.17
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-210.5
82.6
3,043
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
59
2.01
1.61
0.20
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-186.2
5.9
3,049
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
101
1.96
1.61
0.15
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-185.8
10.1
3,059
Florida
S-CG-Prem
449
2.08
1.61
0.28
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-185.5
44.9
3,104
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
129
2.02
1.61
0.22
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-185.4
12.9
3,117
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
228
2.02
1.61
0.22
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-185.2
22.8
3,140
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
63
2.00
1.61
0.20
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-184.8
6.3
3,146
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
86
1.98
1.61
0.20
1.66
0.00
0.02
0
0
-184.5
8.6
3,155
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
223
2.18
1.61
0.11
0.68
0.00
0.26
0
0
-140.3
22.3
3,177
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
165
1.69
1.61
0.20
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-207.8
16.5
3,194
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
617
1.63
1.61
0.15
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-207.6
61.7
3,255
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
167
1.98
1.61
0.20
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-183.2
16.7
3,272
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
133
1.70
1.61
0.22
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-207.3
13.3
3,285
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
436
1.73
1.61
0.25
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-207.2
43.6
3,329
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
688
1.68
1.61
0.20
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-207.0
68.8
3,398
101
-------
Table A2015B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2015
State
Maine
New York
Louisiana
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Texas
WestVirginia
Illinois
Arizona
Maryland
Texas
Mississippi
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Maine
Georgia
New York
New Hampshire:
Virginia
Maryland
Alabama
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Virginia
South Carolina
Florida
North Carolina
Iowa
Arizona
Kentucky
Maine
New York
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire;
DC
Texas
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Arizona
Maryland
Connecticut
Rhode Island
California
Texas
Delaware
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Maine
Virginia
Maryland
DC
Delaware
New Jersey
Wisconsin
South Dakota
New Jersey
California
Michigan
Indiana
Ohio
Alaska
Indiana
Illinois
Kentucky
Nebraska
Iowa
Nevada
Illinois
Kentucky
Montana
North Dakota
Alaska
Wyoming
New York
New liampsnire;
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Vermont
Kansas
Nevada
Idaho
Gasoline
Code
Gasoline I
Volume
MMgals I
Gasoline
Price
>/gal
Ethanol j Ethanol J
Gate Price jDistCost I
$/gal l$/gal I
Ethanol
Blending
>/gal
Federal
Subsidy
$/gal
State
Subsidy
$/gal
State
Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Cost c/gal
Ethanol
Volume
MMgals
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMgals
S-CG-Prem
11 i
2.05
1.611
0.28I
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-182.0
1
3,399
S-CG-Reg
1014
1.65
1.61
0.18'
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-206.0
101
4
3,500
S-CG-Reg
1148
1.61
1.61:
0.15.
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-204.8
114
8
3,615
S-CG-Prem
76
1.90
1.61:
0.151
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-180.5
7
6
3,622
S-CG-Reg
875
1.64
1.61
0.20
2.20
0.00
0.02
0
0
-204.7
87
5
3,710
S-CG-Prem
83
1.93
1.61
0.18
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-180.1
8
3
3,718
S-CG-Reg
56i
1.67
1.61:
0.22i
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-204.2
5
6
3,724
S-RFG-Reg
334:
1.72
1.61:
0.11:
2.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-203.9
33
4
3,757
S-CG-Reg
3427
1.59
1.61
0.15
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-203.4
342
7
4,100
S-CG-Reg
314;;
1.62
1.61;;
0.18;;
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-203.0
31
4
4,131
W-CG-Prem
56i
2.12
1.615
0.11 i
0.68
0.00
0.26
0
0
-134.3
5
6
4,137
S-CG-Prem
56*
1.98
1.61"
0.25"
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-178.3
5
6
4,142
S-CG-Prem
1\
1.93
1.611
0 20'
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-178.2
0
7
4,143
S-CG-Prem
333I
1.87
*1.6*1 S
ฐ 15;
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-177.4
33
3
4,176
S-CG-Reg
7371
1.57
1.61 i
0 15"
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-201.6
73
7
4,250
S-RFG-Reg
197
1 69
1.61
0 11
2.03
0 00
0.00
0
0
-201.5
19
7
4,270
S-CG-Reg
871.
1 60
1.61.
0 18.
2.20
0 00
0.00
0
0
-200.9
87
4,357
S-CG-Reg
-1261
1.69
*1.6*1 S
028:
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-200.9
12
6
4,369
S-CG-Reg
2013
1 63
1.61
0 22
2.20
0 00
0.00
0
0
-200.7
201
3
4,571
S-RFG-Prem
295
2 06
1.61
0 18
1.49
0 00
0.00
0
0
-176.7
29
5
4,600
S-RFG-Prem
20!
2.09
1.611
0 22:
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-176.4
2
0
4,602
S-CG-Reg
653!
1.61
1.611
0 20^
2.20
0.00
0.00
0
0
-199.9
65
3
4,668
S-CG-Reg
87
1 60
1 61
0 20
2.20
0 00
0 00
0
0
-199.7
8
7
4,676
S-CG-Reg
1022,,
1.60
1 61.
0 20
2.20
0 00
0 00
0
0
-199.6
102
2
4,778
S-RFG-Prem
1031
2.07
1.61S
0 20:
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-175.5
10
3
4,789
S-RFG-Prem
38
2 07
1 61
0 20
1.49
0 00
0 00
0
0
-175.5
3
8
4,793
S-CG-Reg
1441
1 60
1 61
0 20
2.20
0 00
0 00
0
0
-199.4
144
4,937
S-RFG-Prem
1511
2.06
1.611
0 20:
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-174.4
15
4,952
S-CG-Reg
1084"
1.60
1.61 S
0 22::
2.20
0 00
0 00
0
0
-197.7
108
4
5,060
S-CG-Reg
3060
1 66
1 61
0 28
2.20
0 00
0 00
0
0
-197.5
306
0
5,366
S-CG-Reg
1820
1 60
1 61
0 22
2.20
0 00
0 00
0
0
-197.1
182
0
5,548
W-CG-Prem
77i
2.02
1.61 i
0 11:
0.68
0.00
0.30
0
0
-128.2
7
7
5,556
S-RFG- Reg
781"
1 79
1 61"
0 25"
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-196.8
78
5,634
S-RFG-Reg
190
1 74
1 61
0 20
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-196.6
19
0
5,653
S-RFG-Prem
121
2.11
1.61 i
0.28i
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-171.5
1
2
5,654
S- RFG-Reg
12241
1.71
1.61 S
0 18"
2.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-195.6
122
4
5,777
S-RFG-Prem
64
1 99
1 61
0 18
1.49
0 00
0 00
0
0
-169.7
6
4
5,783
S- RFG-Reg
184
1 73
1 61
0 22.
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-193.7
18
4
5,801
S-RFG-Prem
6i
2.01
1.61 i
0.20i
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-169.4
0
6
5,802
S- RFG-Reg
2517"
1 65
1 61
0 15"
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-192.9
251
7
6,054
W-RFG-Prem
37
2 27
1 61
0 11
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-123.6
3
7
6,057
S-RFG-Prem
163;
1.99
*1.6*1!
ฐ 20;
1.49
0 00
0 00
0
0
-167.8
16
3
6,074
S-RFG-Prem
1215
2.04
1.615
0.25i
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-167.8
12
6,086
S-RFG-Prem
135
1 99
1 61
0 20
1.49
0 00
0 00
0
0
-167.7
13
5
6,099
S-RFG-Reg
631.
1 69
1 61.
0 20.
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-191.6
63
6,162
S-RFG-Reg
258 j
1.69
-1.6-1 S
ฐ 20;
2.03
0.00
0 00
0
0
-191.6
25
8
6,188
W-RFG-Prem
18361
2.29
1.61 i
0 25:
0.68
0.00
0.11
0
0
-122.6
183
6
6,372
S-RFG-Prem
391
1 93
1 61
0 15
1.49
0 00
0 00
0
0
-167.0
39
6,411
S-RFG-Reg
188;;
1.68
1.61|
0 20;;
2.03
0.00
0 00
0
0
-191.0
18
8
6,430
S-RFG-Reg
10721
1.68
1.611
0 20:
2.03
0.00
0 00
0
0
-191.0
107
2
6,537
S-RFG-Reg
386
1 66
1 61
0 18
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-190.4
38
6
6,575
S-RFG-Reg
185
1 75
1 61
0 28
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-190.4
18
5
6,594
S-RFG-Reg
773 j
1.67
1.61S
0 20:
2.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-189.4
77
3
6,671
S-RFG-Reg
739"
1 66
1 61"
0 20"
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-189.3
73
9
6,745
S-RFG-Reg
26
1 65
1 61
0 20
2.03
0 00
0 00
0
0
-187.8
2
6
6,748
S-RFG-Prem
23
1.94
1 61.
0 20
1.49
0 00
0.00
0
0
-163.1
2
3
6,750
S-RFG-Prem
259I
1.94
1.61 S
0 20:
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
0
-162.3
25
9
6,776
W-CG-Prem
87
2 21
1 61
0 11
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-117.6
8
7
6,785
W-CG-Prem
26
2.12
1 61
0 11
0.68
0 00
0 09
0
0
-117.2
2
6
6,787
S-RFG- Reg
16021
1.63
1.61 i
0 20:
2.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-185.6
160
2
6,947
W-RFG-reg
6353"
2 07
1 61"
0 25"
0.89
0 00
0 11
0
0
-122.3
635
3
7,583
W-CG-Prem
158
2 14
1 61
0 11
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-110.2
15
8
7,599
W-RFG-Prem
25!
2.12
1.611
011.
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-108.7
2
5
7,601
W-CG-Prem
1951
2.07
1.61 i
0 11:
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-103.3
19
5
7,621
W-CG-Prem
16
2 45
1 61
0 49
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-103.1
1
6
7,622
W-CG-Prem
102
2 06
1 61
0 11
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-102.7
10
2
7,632
W-RFG-reg
1548i
1.67
1.61 i
0.111
0.89
0.00
0.26
0
0
-110.2
154
8
7,787
W-RFG-Prem
23"
2.13
1.61 S
0 20"
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-100.5
2
3
7,789
W-CG-Prem
52
2 03
1 61
0 11
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-99.6
5
2
7,795
W-CG-reg
595
1.60
1 61;
0 11;;
0.89
0 00
0 30
0
0
-107.3
59
5
7,854
W-CG-Prem
131 i
2.14
1.61 i
0.25i
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-96.7
13
7,867
W-CG-reg
909
1 61
1 61
0 11
0.89
0 00
0 26
0
0
-104.2
90
9
7,958
W-CG-Prem
58
2 07
1 61
0 20
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-94.5
5
8
7,964
W-CG-Prem
73!
2.02
161!
0 17||
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-92.4
7
3
7,971
W-CG-Prem
24!
2.05
1.615
0 20
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-91.9
2
4
7,974
W-CG-reg
133
2 21
1 61
0 49
0.89
0 00
0 00
0
0
-100.1
13
3
7,987
W-CG-Prem
34.
2 00
1 61.
0 17.
0.68
0 00
0 00
0
0
-89.9
3
4
7,990
W-RFG-Prem
356 j
2.01
161!
0 18=
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-89.9
35
6
8,026
W-RFG-Prem
25 j
2.04
1.61 j
ฐ-22j
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-89.6
2
5
8,029
W-RFG-Prem
125|
2.02
1.611
0.20|
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-88.8
12
5
8,041
W-RFG-Prem
461
2.02
1.611
O.20I
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-88.8
4
6
8.046
W-CG-Prem
141
2.03
1.61 J
0.22"
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-88.2
1
4
8,047
W-CG-Prem
70
1.92
1.61
0.11
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-88.1
7
0
8,054
W-CG-reg
506,,
1.93
1.61.
0.25,,
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-97.2
50
6
8,105
W-CG-Prem
59!
1.97
1.61:
0.17:
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-87.6
5
9
8,111
102
-------
Table A2015C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2015
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
182
2.01
1.61
0.20
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-87.6
18.2
8,129
Utah
W-CG-Prem
157
1.97
1 61
0 17
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-87.5
15 7
8,145
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
219
1.97
1.61
0 17
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-87.1
21 9
8,166
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
1.98
1.61
0 18
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-86.5
2.4
8,169
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
123
1.99
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-86.2
12.3
8,181
Washington
W-CG-Prem
257
1.99
1.61
0.21
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-85.8
25.7
8,207
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
64
1.94
1.61
0.15
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-85 7
6.4
8,213
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
2.06
1.61
0.28
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-84.8
1 5
8,215
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
334
1.99
1.61
0.22
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-84 1
33 4
8,248
New York
W-CG-Prem
120
1.95
1.61
0.18
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-83 9
12 0
8,260
New HampshireiW-CG-Prem
5
1.98
1.61
0.22
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-83 6
0 5
8,261
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
71
1.96
1.61
0.20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-83 0
7 1
8,268
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
78
1.94
1.61
0.18
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-82 9
7 8
8,276
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
1.96
1.61
0.20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-82.7
0 8
8,276
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
123
1.91
1.61
0.15
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-82 6
12 3
8,289
Florida
W-CG-Prem
543
2.03
1.61
0 28
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-82.3
54 3
8,343
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
156
1.97
1.61
0 22
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-82.1
15 6
8,359
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
275
1.97
1.61
0 22
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-81 9
27 5
8,386
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
76
1.95
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-81 6
76
8,394
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
103
1.93
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0.02
0
0
-81.3
10 3
8,404
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
197
1.94
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-81 1
19 7
8,424
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
147
1.99
1.61
0 25
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-81.0
14 7
8,438
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
164
1.94
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-80 9
16 4
8,455
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
472
1.88
1.61
0 15
0.68
0.00
0.00
0
0
-80.2
47 2
8,502
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
202
1.93
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-80 0
20 2
8,522
Idaho
W-CG-reg
350
1.78
1.61
0 17
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-89.3
35 0
8,557
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
214
1.62
1.61
0.11
0.89
0.00
0 09
0
0
-89 1
21 4
8,579
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
2.00
1.61
0.28
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-78.8
1 3
8,580
Utah
W-CG-reg
583
1.76
1.61
0.17
0.89
0 00
0 00
0
0
-88.2
58 3
8,638
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
92
1.85
1.61
0 15
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-77 3
9 2
8,647
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
100
1.88
1.61
0 18
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-76 9
10 0
8,657
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
28
1.89
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-76 4
2 8
8,660
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
313
1.89
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-75 6
31 3
8,692
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
67
1.93
1.61
0 25
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-75.0
6.7
8,698
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
1.88
1.61
0 20
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-74 9
0.9
8,699
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
404
1.67
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-84.5
40.4
8.739
Texas
W-CG-Prem
403
1.82
1.61
0 15
0.68
0.00
0 00
0
0
-74.2
40.3
8,780
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
238
1.64
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-82 1
23.8
8,804
Washington
W-CG-reg
1297
1.73
1.61
0 21
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-80 9
129 7
8,933
Montana
W-CG-reg
340
1.68
1.61
0 17
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-80.1
34 0
8,967
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
394
1.61
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-78 7
39 4
9,007
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
978
1.61
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-78 5
97 8
9,104
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2397
1.60
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-78 0
239 7
9,344
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
945
1.74
1.61
0 25
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-77 4
94 5
9,439
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
230
1.69
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-77 2
23 0
9,462
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
168
1.65
1.61
0 17
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-76.4
16.8
9,478
New York
W-RFG-reg
1480
1.66
1.61
0 18
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-76 2
148.0
9,626
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1433
1.58
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-76.1
143.3
9,770
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2473
1.58
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-76.0
247.3
10,017
Kansas
W-CG-reg
826
1.57
1.61
0 11
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-75.1
82.6
10,099
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
479
1.66
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-74.8
47 9
10,147
Colorado
W-CG-reg
999
1.63
1.61
0 17
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-74.6
99 9
10,247
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
222
1.68
1.61
0 22
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-74 3
22.2
10,270
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3043
1.60
1.61
0 15
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-73.5
304.3
10,574
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
762
1.64
1.61
0.20
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-72.2
76.2
10,650
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
312
1.64
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-72.2
31.2
10,681
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
200
1.64
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.9
20.0
10,701
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
746
1.58
1.61
0 15
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.7
74.6
10,776
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
227
1.63
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.6
22.7
10,799
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1297
1.63
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.6
129.7
10,928
Vermont
W-CG-reg
161
1.65
1.61
0 22
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.5
16.1
10,944
Arizona
W-CG-reg
527
1.68
1.61
0 25
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.4
52.7
10,997
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
832
1.63
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.2
83.2
11,080
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
466
1.61
1.61
0 18
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.0
46.6
11,127
Maine
W-RFG-reg
224
1.70
1.61
0 28
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-71.0
22 4
11,149
New York
W-CG-reg
1226
1.60
1.61
0 18
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-70.2
122 6
11,272
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
934
1.62
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-70.0
93 4
11,365
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
894
1.61
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-69.9
89 4
11,455
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1388
1.56
1.61
0.15
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-68.9
138 8
11,593
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1058
1.59
1 61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 02
0
0
CO
CO
CD
105 8
11,699
DC
W-RFG-reg
31
1.60
1 61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-68.3
3 1
11,702
New HampshireiW-CG-reg
68
1.62
1.61
0 22
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-68.3
6 8
11,709
Texas
W-CG-reg
4145
1.54
1 61
0 15
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-67.5
414 5
12,123
WestVirginia
W-CG-reg
380
1.57
1.61
0 18
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-67.1
38 0
12,161
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1937
1.58
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-66.2
193 7
12,355
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
891
1.52
1.61
0 15
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-65.7
89 1
12,444
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1053
1.55
1.61
0 18
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-65.0
105 3
12,550
Maine
W-CG-reg
152
1.64
1.61
0 28
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-65.0
15 2
12,565
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2434
1.58
1.61
0 22
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-64.9
243.4
12,808
Virginia
W-CG-reg
790
1.56
1.61
0 20
0.89
0.00
0 00
0
0
-64.0
79.0
12,887
Maryland
W-CG-reg
105
1.55
1.61
0.20
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63.9
10.5
12,898
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1236
1.55
1.61
0.20
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63 7
123.6
13,021
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1742
1.55
1.61
0.20
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63 5
174.2
13,195
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1311
1.55
1.61
0.22
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-61.9
131.1
13,326
Florida
W-CG-reg
3700
1.61
1.61
0.28
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-61 6
370.0
13,696
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2201
1.55
1.61
0.22
0.89
0.00
0.00
0
0
-61.3
220.1
13,917
-------
Table A2016A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2016
State
Missouri
Missouri
Oregon
Minnesota
Oregon
Missouri
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Oregon
Minnesota
Missouri
Oregon
Missouri
Minnesota
Illinois
Illinois
Michigan
Iowa
Ohio
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Montana
Kentucky
Illinois
Indiana
West Virginia
Colorado
Alabama
Alaska
Kentucky
California
Nebraska
California
South Dakota
North Dakota
Idaho
Illinois
Georgia
Idaho
Wyoming
Alaska
Arkansas
South Carolina
Michigan
North Carolina
Washington
Kansas
Tennessee
Montana
New Mexico
Ohio
Florida
Illinois
Nevada
New York
Indiana
Virginia
Wisconsin
Utah
Nebraska
Vermont
Washington
Kansas
Vermont
Colorado
Louisiana
Utah
Nevada
Kentucky
Arkansas
Mississippi
New Mexico
New Hampshire
Louisiana
West Virginia
New Hampshire
Texas
New York
Connectcut
Gasoline
Gasoline 1
Gasoline |
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG I
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
Code
Volume 1
Price |
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate !
'Mandate"!
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
MMgals J
$/gal I
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gall
MMgals
MMgals
S-CG-Prem
69
1.70{
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
-134.2
6.9
7
S-RFG-Prem
421
1.82!
1.55
0.11
1.11
0.00
0.00
ol
-126.51
4.2
11
S-CG-Prem
96|
1.76j
1.55
0.21
1.25
0.00
0.00
oj
-123.91
9.6
21
S-CG-Prem
105[
1.64!
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.00
o|
-122.51
10.5
31
S-CG-Reg
6871
1.48]
1.55
0.21
1.65
0.00
0.00
11
ฐl
-136.7
68.7
100
S-CG-Reg
826|
1.38)
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.00
1
ol
-136.6
82.6
183
S-CG- Reg
1045|
1.36|
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.00
ol
-134.5
104.5
287
S-RFG- Reg
424l
1.44]
1.55
0.11
1.51
0.00
0.00
ol
-128.91
42.4
330
W-RFG-Prem
501
1.77|
1.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
1
oj
-61.4]
5.0
335
W-CG-Prem
84l
1.711
1.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
ol
-55.4I
8.4
343
W-CG-Prem
117|
1.711
1.55
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
-45.11
11.7
355
W-CG-Prem
127[
1.59|
1.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
1
ฐ|
-43.7I
12.7
367
W-RFG-reg
513|
1.39)
1.55
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
oj
-39.4|
51.3
419
W-CG-reg
8311
1.43|
1.55
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
1
oj
-33.4I
83.1
502
W-CG-reg
999|
1.33|
1.55
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0|
-33.4|
99.9
602
W-CG-reg
12641
1.31 ]
1.55
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
oj
-31.21
126.4
728
S-CG-Prem
47l
1.89!
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.26
0
ol
-172.71
4.7
733
S-RFG-Prem
19o|
1.95!
1.55
0.11
1.11
0.00
0.26
0
ol
-165.oj
19.0
752
S-CG-Prem
13s|
2.011
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0|
-159.7j
13.5
765
S-CG-Prem
66|
1.72|
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.30
0
0!
-159.5j
6.6
772
S-CG-Prem
166j
1.94!
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
ol
-152.1 j
16.6
788
S-CG-Prem
74i
1.92!
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-150.71
7.4
796
S-CG-Reg
507|
1.38;
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.30
0
ol
-166.1 [
50.7
846
S-CG-Reg
7741
1.38i
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.26
0
ol
-162.81
77.4
924
S-CG-Prem
87!
1.87
1.55
0.11
1.25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-145.4'
8.7
933
S-CG-Prem
22!
1.77
1.55
0.11
1.25
0 00
0.09
0
0!
-144.6'
2.2
935
S-RFG-Prem
311
1.98
1.55
0.11
1.11
0 00
0.00
0
0
-143.0
3.1
938
S-CG-Prem
62!
1.89
1.55
0.17
1.25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-141.3,
6.2
944
S-CG-Prem
491
1.921
1.55
0.20
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-140.81
4.9
949
S- RFG-Reg
13181
1.44!
1.55
0.11
1.51
0.00
0.26
0
0
-155.1
131.8
1,081
S-RFG-Prem
2ll
1.93!
1.55
0.11
1.11
0.00
0.00
0,
0.
-137.71
2.1
1,083
S-CG-Prem
20!
1.84
1.55
0.18
1.25
0 00
0.00
0
0)
-135 3
2.0
1,085
S-CG-Prem
187!
1.82
1.55
0.17
1.25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-134 2
18.7
1,104
S-CG-Prem
105
1.84
1.55
0.20
1.25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-133 1
10.5
1,114
S-CG-Reg
1131
1.89
1.55
0.50
1.65
0 00
0.00
0
0'
-148 8
11.3
1,125
S-RFG-Prem
191
1.98|
1.55
0.20
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0)
-133.11
1.9
1,127
S-RFG-Prem
15631
1.96!
1.55
0.25
1.11
0.00
0.06
0
0
-132.1
156.3
1,284
S-CG-Prem
45l
1.73!
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.00
0,
0,
-131.11
4.5
1,288
S-RFG- Reg
54101
1.70!
1.55
0.25
1.51
0 00
0 06
0
0
-146 7
541.0
1,829
S-CG-Reg
1821
1.371
1.55
0.11
1.65
0 00
0 09
0
0)
-145.1)
18.2
1,847
S-CG-Prem
21!
1.801
1.55
0.20
1.25
0.00
0 00
0!
0
-129 2
2.1
1,849
S-CG-Reg
298!
1.521
1.55
0.17
1.65
0 00
0 00
0
0
-144 8
29.8
1,879
W-RFG-Prem
230
1.90!
1.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.26
0
0I
-99 9
23.0
1,902
S-CG-Prem
284!
1.811
1.55
0.22
1.25
0 00
0 00
0
0'
-127.81
28.4
1,931
S-CG-Prem
50
1 75
1.55
0.17
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-127 4
5.0
1,936
S-CG-Prem
29
1.751
1.55
0.17
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-127 2
2.9
1,938
S-CG-Prem
14
2.08J
1.55
0.50
1.25
0 00
0 00
0
0
-126 9
1.4
1,940
S-CG-Prem
54!
1.731
1.55
0.15
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0'
-126.81
5.4
1,945
S-CG-Prem
133"
1.791
1.55
0.22
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0'
-125.91
13.3
1,959
S-CG-Reg
2041
1.431
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-141 6
204.1
2,163
S-CG-Prem
234
1.78!
1.55
0.22
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125 4
23.4
2,186
S-CG-Prem
219!
1.771
1.55
0.21
1.25
0 00
0 00
0
0'
-125.41
21.9
2,208
S-CG-Prem
60
1.661
1.55
0.11
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0'
-124.81
6.0
2,214
S-CG-Prem
172
1.761
1.55
0.20
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-124 6
17.2
2,231
S-CG-Reg
290!
1.471
1.55
0.17
1.65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-140 2
29.0
2,260
S-CG-Prem
61!
1.75!
1.55
0.20
1.25
0 00
0 00
0
0'
-124 1'
6.1
2,266
S-CG-Reg
21051
1.40
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0'
-139.4
210.5
2,477
S-CG-Prem
462|
1.82
1.55
0.28
1.25
0.00
0.00
0!
0!
-123.3
46.2
2,523
W-CG-Prem
57j
1.84
1.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.26
0!
0|
-93.9
5.7
2,529
S-CG-Reg
4311
1.
1.55
0.25
1.65
0.00
0.00
o'
o|
-137.8
43.1
2,572
S-CG-Prem
102|
1.
1.55
0.18
1.25
0.00
0.00
0'
ol
-121.9
10.2
2,582
S-CG-Reg
1220^
1.39
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0!
-137 5.
122.0
2,704
S-CG-Prem
65!
1.73
1.55
0.20
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121 6
6.5
2,710
S-CG-Reg
832!
1.38
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-137 1,
83.2
2,794
S-CG-Reg
496!
1.44
1.55
0.17
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0'
-136 9
49.6
2,843
S-CG-Reg
3351
1.38;
1.55
0.11
1.65
0.00
0.00
0'
0
-136.91
33.5
2,877
S-CG-Prem
12|
1.74!
1.55
0.22
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121.oj
1.2
2,878
S-CG-Reg
11041
1.481
1.55
0.21
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0'
-136.61
110.4
2,988
S-CG-Reg
704!
1.37
1.55
0.11
1.65
0 00
0 00
0
0'
-135 8'
70.4
3,059
S-CG-Reg
137
1.48
1.55
0.22
1.65
0 00
0 00
0
0
-135 7
13.7
3,072
S-CG-Reg
851!
1.43
1.55
0.17
1.65
0 00
0 00
0
0
-135 4
85.1
3,158
S-CG-Prem
104!
1.65
1.55
0.15
1.25
0 00
0 00
0
0)
-119 3,
10.4
3,168
S-CG-Prem
134!
1.67;
1.55
0.17
1.25
0.00
0.00
0'
0
-119 0'
13.4
3,181
S-CG-Prem
112|
1.75|
1.55
0.25
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119 0
11.2
3,193
S-CG-Reg
709l
1.45!
1.55
0.20
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0'
-134 5
70.9
3.263
S-CG-Reg
635!
1.381
1.55
0.15
1.65
0 00
0 00
0
0)
-132 8
63.5
3,327
S-CG-Reg
758!
1.381
1.55
0.15
1.65
0.00
0 00
0!
0
-132 7
75.8
3,403
S-CG-Reg
408!
1.431
1.55
0.20
1.65
0 00
0 00
0
0
-132 2
40.8
3,444
S-CG-Prem
4!
1.69!
1.55
0.22
1.25
0 00
0 00
0!
0
-116 4
0.4
3,444
S-CG-Reg
1182
1.371
1.55
0.15
1.65
0 00
0.00
0
oi
-131 9'
118.2
3,562
S-CG-Reg
323
1.401
1.55
0.18
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-131 8
32.3
3,595
S-CG-Reg
58
1.441
1.55
0.22
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-131 4
5.8
3,600
S-CG-Prem
343!
1.61!
1.55
0.15
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0I
-115.21
34.3
3,635
S-CG-Reg
1044!
1.391
1.55
0.18
1.65
0 00
0.00
0
Oi
-130.81
104.4
3,739
S-RFG-Prem
106
1 80
1.55
0.20
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114 9
10.6
3,750
104
-------
Table A2016B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Einanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2016
Code
Volume
Price
Gaie Pr
ce
D t Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/g al
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
39
1.80
.55
0.20
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.9
3.9
3,754
Wyoming
S-CG- Reg
143
1.37
.55
0.17
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.2
14.3
3,768
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
78
1.60
.55
0.15
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.5
7.8
3.776
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
57
1.70
.55
0.25
1 25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-114 1
5.7
3,781
New York
S-RFG-Prem
303
1.77
.55
0.18
1 11
0 00
0.00
0
0
-114 1
30.3
3,812
Indiana
S-RFG- Reg
202
1.45
.55
0.11
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129 8
20.2
3,832
North Dakota
S-CG- Reg
170
1.40
.55
0.20
1 65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-129 4
17.0
3,849
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
155
1 79
55
0.20
1 11
0 00
0.00
0
0
-1139
15.5
3,864
Texas
S-CG- Reg
3529
1 35
55
0.15
1.65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-129 3
352.9
4,217
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
86
1.63
55
0.18
1.25
0.00
0.00
0
0
-113.5
8.6
4,226
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
344
1 44
55
0.11
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129 4
34.4
4,260
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
449
1 44
55
0.25
1 65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-128 8
44.9
4,305
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
1 64
55
0.20
1 25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-112 9
0.7
4,306
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
88
1.62
55
0.20
1.25
0.00
0.02
0
0
-112.5
CO
CO
4,315
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1483
1 39
55
0.20
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-128 2
148.3
4,463
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
897
1.37
55
0.18
1 65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-128 1
89.7
4,553
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
1.70
55
0.28
1 25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-111.5
1.1
4,554
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1052
1 38
55
0.20
1 65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-127 1
105.2
4,659
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
900
1 36
55
0.20
1 65
0.00
0.02
0
0
-127 1
90.0
4,749
Maine
S-CG-Reg
129
1 45
.55
0.28
1 65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-126 8
12.9
4,762
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
672
1.37
55
0.20
1 65
0 00
0.00
0
0
-126 7
67.2
4,829
Kentucky
S-RFG- Reg
196
1.51
.55
0.20
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-126 7
19.6
4,849
Georgia
S-CG- Reg
2073
1.38
.55
0.22
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125.5
207.3
5,056
South Carolina
S-CG- Reg
1116
1.38
.55
0.22
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125.3
111.6
5,168
Michigan
W-uG-Prem
163
1.96
.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-80 9
16.3
5,184
North Carolina
o-oo- Reg
1874
1 38
.55
0.22
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125 1
187.4
5,371
Maryland
o-oo- Reg
89
1 36
.55
0.20
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125 1
8.9
5,380
Iowa
W-uG-Prem
80
1 67
.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.30
0
0
-80.7
8.0
5,388
New Hampshire
S-Kl-G-Prem
21
1.75
.55
0.22
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-108.6
2.1
5,390
New Hampshire
S- RFG- Reg
189
1.50
.55
0.22
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.7
18.9
5,409
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7
1.73
.55
0.20
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-107.9
0.7
5,410
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
168
1.73
.55
0.20
1 11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-107.8
16.8
5,427
Florida
S-CG- Reg
3150
1.42
.55
0.28
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.1
315.0
5,742
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
402
1 67
.55
0.15
1 11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-107.5
40.2
5,782
New York
S-RFG- Reg
1260
1 45
.55
0.18
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.1
126.0
5,908
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
38
1 93
.55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-77.9
3.8
5,912
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
125
1.76
.55
0.25
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-106.3
12.5
5,924
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2591
1 41
.55
0.15
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121.5
259.1
6,183
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
66
1.69
.55
0.18
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-105 8
6.6
6,190
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
804
1 50
.55
0.25
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121 1
80.4
6,270
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
139
1.70
.55
0.20
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-105 2
13.9
6,284
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reu
397
1.43
.55
0.18
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-120 4
39.7
6,324
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reu
649
1 44
.55
0.20
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-120.2
64.9
6,389
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reu
265
1 44
.55
0.20
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-120.2
26.5
6,416
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1104
1.44
.55
0.20
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119.6
110.4
6,526
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
1 76
.55
0.28
1 11
0 00
0.00
0
0
-103 7
1.3
6,527
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
191
1 51
.55
0.28
1 51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-119 1
19.1
6,546
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
795
1 43
.55
0.20
1 51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-119.0
79.5
6,626
Delaware
S-RFG- Reg
193
1.42
.55
0.20
1 51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-1182
19.3
6,645
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
201
1 89
.55
0.11
0 51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-73 3
20.1
6,665
Maryland
S-RFG- Reg
761
1.42
.55
0.20
1 51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-1173
76.1
6,741
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
26
1.88
55
0.11
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-72 6
2.6
6,744
DC
S-RFG- Reg
26
1.41
55
0.20
1.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-116.6
2.6
6,747
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
90
1.87
55
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-71.9
9.0
6,756
Hawaii
S-CG- Reg
176
1.56
55
0.50
1.65
0.00
0.00
0
0
-1160
17.6
6,773
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
266
1 64
55
0.20
1 11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-99 0
26.6
6,800
New Jersey
S-RFG- Reg
1649
1 39
55
0.20
1 51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-1144
164.9
6,965
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
24
1.62
55
0.20
1.11
0.00
0.00
0
0
-97.6
2.4
6,967
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
23
1.93
55
0.20
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-68 1
2.3
6,969
California
W-RFG-Prem
1890
1.91
55
0.25
0 51
0 00
0.06
0
0
-67 1
189.0
7,158
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
105
1 82
55
0.11
0 51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-66 6
10.5
7,169
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
27
1 72
55
0.11
0 51
0 00
0.09
0
0
-65 8
2.7
7,172
Montana
W-CG-Prem
75
1 84
55
0.17
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-62.5
7.5
7,179
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
60
1 87
55
0.20
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-62.1
6.0
7,185
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
53
1.70
55
0.50
1 25
0 00
0.00
0
0
-89 2
5.3
7,190
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1593
1 39
55
0.11
0 67
0 00
0.26
0
0
-65 5
159.3
7,350
Iowa
W-CG-reg
612
1 33
55
0.11
0 67
0 00
0.30
0
0
-62 8
61.2
7,411
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24
1.79
.55
0.18
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-56 5
2.4
7,413
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
226
1.77
.55
0.17
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-55 4
22.6
7,436
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
127
1 79
.55
0.20
0.51
0 00
0.00
0
0
-54 3
12.7
7,449
Illinois
W-CG-reg
936
1 33
.55
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.26
0
0
-59.5
93.6
7,542
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
54
1 68
.55
0.11
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-52.3
5.4
7,548
California
W-RFG-reg
6541
1.65
.55
0.25
0.67
0.00
0.06
0
0
-57.1
654.1
8,202
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
1 75
.55
0.20
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-50.4
2.5
8,204
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
129
1.75
.55
0.20
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-49.9
12.9
8,217
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
47
1.75
.55
0.20
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-49 9
4.7
8,222
New York
W-RFG-Prem
367
1.72
.55
0.18
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-49 1
36.7
8,259
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
344
1 76
.55
0.22
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-49 0
34.4
8,293
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
187
1 74
.55
0.20
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-48 8
18.7
8,312
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
61
1.70
.55
0.17
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-48.6
6.1
8,318
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
35
1.70
.55
0.17
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-48.4
3.5
8,321
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
16
2 03
.55
0.50
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-48.1
1.6
8,323
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
66
1.68
.55
0.15
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-48.0
6.6
8,330
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
160
1 74
.55
0.22
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-47.1
16.0
8,346
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
283
1.73
.55
0.22
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-46.6
28.3
8,374
-------
Table A2016C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal 1
State ! State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol 1
Cumulative
2016
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price i
DistCost iBlending (Subsidy 1
Subsidy (Mandate ^''Mandate"!Blending 1
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal i
>/gal i
>/gal i
>/gal ?
$/gal i
! Cost c/gah MMgals
MMgals
Washington
W-CG-Prem
265
1.72
1.55s
0.21!
0.51!
0.00!
0.00!
0!
01
-46.6!
26.51
8,400
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
72
1.61
1.55
0.11!
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-46.0'
7 2
8,408
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
207
1.71
1.55'
0.20I
0.51!
0.00!
0.00!
0!
0
-45.8
20 7
8,428
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
73
1.70
1.55
0 20
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-45.3!
7 3
8,436
Florida
W-CG-Prem
559
1.77
1.55'
0.28I
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0'
-44.51
55 9
8,492
New Hampshire jW-RFG-Prem
25
1.70
1.551
0 221
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
ฐ:
-43 6
25
8,494
New York
W-CG-Prem
123
1.66
1.55
0 18
0.51
0 00
0.00
0
0;
-43 1
123
8,507
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
1.68
1.55i
0.20,
0.51!
0.00!
0.00!
0,
oi
-42.9!
0.8,
8,507
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
79
1 68
1.55!
0 20'
0.511
0.00!
o.ool
0
0'
-42.8I
7.9!
8,515
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
203
1 68
1 55
0 20'
0.51'
0 00
0.00!
0
0'
-42 8
20 3
8,536
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
486
1 62
1.55!
0.151
0.51!
0.00!
0.00!
0'
0
-42.5!
48.6!
8,584
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
1 69
1.551
0 22
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0'
-42 2)
1 5'
8,586
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
151
1.71
1.55!
0.25!
0.51!
0.00!
o.ool
0!
oi
-41.3l
15.1!
8,601
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
80
1 64
1.55!
0.18!
0.51!
0 00'
0.00!
0'
0'
-40.7!
8.0!
8,609
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
126
1 60
1 55'
0.15!
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-40 5
126
8,621
Utah
W-CG-Prem
162
1 62
1.55!
0.17!
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-40.2!
162
8,638
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
135
1 70
1 55
0 25'
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-40 2'
135
8,651
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
168
1 65
1 55
0 20
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-40 2
168
8,668
Alaska
W-CG-reg
137
1 84
1.55!
0.50!
0.67!
0.00!
0.00!
0!
0
-45.5!
13 7
8,682
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
1 71
1.551
0 28
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0'
-38.7!
1 5'
8,683
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
1 64
1.55!
0 22!
0.51!
0 00'
o.ool
0'
0'
-37.6!
0 5'
8,684
Texas
W-CG-Prem
415
1 56
1.55!
0.15!
0.51!
0 00'
0.00!
0'
0'
-36.5i
41 5^
8,725
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
95
1 55
1.55!
0 15
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-35.7!
9 5'
8,735
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
220
1 32
1.55!
0.11!
0.67!
0 00
0.09!
0
0
-41.91
22 0
8,757
Idaho
W-CG-reg
360
1 47
1.551
0.17!
0.67!
0 00
0.001
0
0'
-41.5!
36 0
8,793
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
69
1 65
1 55
0 25
0 51
0 00
0.00!
0'
0
-35.3!
6 9
8,800
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
103
1 58
1.55!
0.18!
0.51!
0.00!
O.OOi
0'
0
-34.7!
10 3'
8,810
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
1 59
1 55'
0 20
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0'
0
-34 2
0 9
8,811
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
245
1 40
1.551
0.11!
0.67!
000'
o.ool
0'
0'
-40 2'
24 5'
8,835
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
322
1 59
1.55!
0.20!
0.511
000'
0.00!
0'
0'
-34.0i
32 2'
8,867
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
107
1 57
1.55!
0 20
0 51
0 00
0.02!
0
0'
-33 7
10 7
8,878
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
416
1.39
1.55!
0.11!
0.67!
0 00'
0.00!
0'
0
-39.9!
41 6
8,920
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13
1 65
1.55!
0.28I
0.51!
0 00
0.001
0
0'
-32 r
1 3
8,921
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
29
1 57
1 55
0 20'
0.51!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-32 6
29
8,924
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2468
1 38
1.55!
0.11!
0.67!
0 00'
0.00!
0'
0
-38.3!
246 8'
9,171
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
236
1 46
1 55
0 20'
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-37 2
23 6
9,194
Montana
W-CG-reg
350
1 42
1.551
0.17!
0.67!
0 00'
o.ool
0'
0'
-36.9l
35 0'
9,229
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2546
1 35
1.55!
0.11!
0.67!
0 00'
0.00!
0'
0'
-36.1!
254 6'
9,484
Nevada
W-CG-reg
521
1 48
1 55
0 25
0 67
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-34.5!
52 1
9,536
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1475
1 34
1.55!
0.11!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-34.2!
147 5
9,684
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
229
1 45
1.55?
0 22!
0.67!
0 00
0.001
0
0'
-34.11
22 9
9,706
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1007
1 33
1 55
0.11!
0 67
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-33.9!
100 7
9,807
Utah
W-CG-reg
600
1 39
1.55!
0.17:
0.67!
0 00'
0.00!
0'
0
-33.6!
60.0!
9,867
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
405
1 33
1 55
0.11!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-33.6!
40 5
9,908
New York
W-RFG-reg
1524
1 40
1.55!
0.18!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0'
-33.51
152 4'
10,060
Washington
W-CG-reg
1335
1 43
1.55!
0.21!
0.67!
0.00!
0.00!
0.
0!
-33.3i
133.5;
10,194
Kansas
W-CG-reg
851
1 32
1 55
0.11!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
o'
0
-32 5
85 1
10,279
Vermont
W-CG-reg
165
1 43
1.55!
0 22!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-32.4!
165
10,295
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1028
1 38
1.551
0.17!
0.67!
0 00
O.OOi
0
0
-32.1!
102 8
10,398
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3133
1 36
1.55!
0.15!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-32.0!
3133
10,711
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
973
1 45
1.55!
0.25!
0.671
0.00!
0.00!
0"
0'
-31.5:
97 3'
10,809
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
857
1 40
1 55
0 20
0.67]
o.ool
0.00!
0
0'
-31 2
85 7
10,894
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
480
1.38
1.55!
0 18!
0 671
o.ool
0.00!
0.
0'
-30.8I
48.0!
10,942
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
785
1 39
1.55!
0 20
0.67!
0 00'
o.ooi
0;
0'
-30.6!
78 5'
11,021
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
321
1 39
1.55!
0 20
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
o'
0
-30.6!
32 1
11,053
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1335
1 39
1.55!
0.20!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-30.0!
133 5
11,186
Maine
W-RFG-reg
231
1 46
1.55!
0.28!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-29.5!
23 1
11,209
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
768
1 33
1 55
0.15!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-29 5
76 8
11,286
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
962
1 38
1.55!
0.201
0.67!
0.00!
0.00!
0!
0'
-29.4!
96 2'
11,382
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
917
1 33
1 55'
0.15!
0.67!
0 00'
0.00!
0
0'
-29 4'
91 7
11,474
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
494
1 38
1.551
0.20!
0.67!
0 00'
o.ool
0'
0'
-28 9'
49 4'
11,523
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
233
1 37
1.55!
0.20!
0.67!
0 00'
o.ooi
0'
0'
-28 6'
23 3'
11,547
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1429
1 32
1 55'
0 15
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-28 6
142 9
11,690
WestVirginia
W-CG-reg
391
1 35
1 55
0.18!
0 67
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-28.5!
39 1
11,729
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
70
1 39
1 55
0 22!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-28 1
70
11,736
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
920
1 37
1.55!
0 20
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-27 8'
92 0
11,828
New York
W-CG-reg
1262
1 34
1.55!
0.18!
0.67!
0.00!
0.00!
0'
0
-27.5!
126 2'
11,954
DC
W-RFG-reg
32
1 36
1 55
0.20!
0.67!
0 00'
0.00!
0'
0
-27.0!
32
11,957
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
173
1 32
1.551
0.17!
0.67!
0 00'
o.ool
0'
0'
-26 9'
17.31
11,974
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
206
1 35
1.55!
0 20'
0.67!
0 00'
o.ooi
0;
0'
-26.1!
20 6'
11,995
Texas
W-CG-reg
4267
1 30
1 55'
0.15!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
o'
0'
-26 0
426 7
12,422
Arizona
W-CG-reg
543
1 39
1 55
0.25!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-25.5!
54 3
12,476
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1793
1 34
1.55!
0.20I
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-24.9!
179 3
12,655
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1085
1 32
1.55!
0.18!
0.67!
0 00'
o.ooi
0'
0'
-24 8'
108 5'
12,764
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1994
1 34
1.55!
0.20!
0.67!
0.00!
0.00!
0
0
-24.8!
199 4'
12,963
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1272
1 33
1 55
0.20!
0.67i
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-23 8
127 2
13,090
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1089
1 31
1.55!
0 20'
0.67!
0 00'
0.021
0'
0'
-23.8I
108 9'
13,199
Maine
W-CG-reg
156
1 40
1.55!
0.28!
0.67!
0 00'
o.ooi
0'
0'
-23 5'
156'
13,215
Virginia
W-CG-reg
813
1 32
1.55!
0 20
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-23 4
81 3
13,296
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2506
1 33
1 55
0 22!
0 67
0 00
0.00!
0
0
-22 2
250 6
13,547
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1350
1 33
1.55!
0 22!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0
0'
-22 0
135 0
13,682
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2266
1 33
1.55!
0 22!
0.67!
0 00'
o.ooi
0'
0'
-21 8'
226 6'
13,908
Maryland
W-CG-reg
108
1 31
1.55!
0.20!
0.67!
0 00
0.00!
0'
0
-21.8!
108'
13,919
Florida
W-CG-reg
3809
1 37
1 55
0 28
0.67i
0 00
0.00!
0'
0
-19.8!
380 9
14,300
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
64
1 65
1.551
0.50!
0.51!
000'
o.ool
0'
0'
-10.4!
6 4'
14,307
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
213
1 51
1 55
0.50!
0 67
0 00
O.OOi
0
0'
-12 7
21.3I
14,328
106
-------
Table A2017A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2017
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
693
1.78
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
1
0
-178.3
69.3
69
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
1055
1.62
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
1
0
-171.9
105.5
175
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
834
1.61
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
1
0
-171.1
83.4
258
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
428
1.67
1.45
0.11
1.44
0.00
0.00
1
0
-154.7
42.8
301
Missouri
S-RFG-Prem
42
2.00
1.45
0.11
1.03
0.00
0.00
1
0
-146.7
4.2
305
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
97
2.05
1.45
0.21
1.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-178.2
9.7
315
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
70
1.94
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-177.6
7.0
322
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
106
1.83
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.00
1
0
-166.9
10.6
333
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
51
1.95
1.45
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
1
0
-90.0
5.1
338
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
118
2.00
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
1
0
-84.5
11.8
349
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
85
1.89
1.45
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
1
0
-84.0
8.5
358
Oregon
W-CG-reg
838
1.73
1.45
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
1
0
-74.4
83.8
442
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
128
1.78
1.45
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
1
0
-73.2
12.8
454
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
517
1.62
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
1
0
-73.3
51.7
506
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1275
1.57
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
1
0
-68.0
127.5
634
Missouri
W-CG-reg
1008
1.56
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
1
0
-67.3
100.8
735
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
114
2.34
1.45
0.51
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-204.1
11.4
746
lovva
S-CG-Reg
511
1.63
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.30
0
0
-203.0
51.1
797
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
781
1.61
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.26
0
0
-197.0
78.1
875
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
184
1.64
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.09
0
0
-182.9
18.4
894
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
301
1.78
1.45
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-182.3
30.1
924
Illinois
S-RFG-Reg
1330
1.67
1.45
0.11
1.44
0.00
0.26
0
0
-180.6
133.0
1,057
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
192
2.06
1.45
0.11
1.03
0.00
0.26
0
0
-179.0
19.2
1,076
California
S-RFG-Reg
5459
1.95
1.45
0.25
1.44
0.00
0.10
0
0
-179.0
545.9
1,622
Washington
S-CG-Reg
1114
1.78
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-177.9
111.4
1,733
Montana
S-CG-Reg
292
1.73
1.45
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-176.8
29.2
1,762
Utah
S-CG-Reg
501
1.70
1.45
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-174.2
50.1
1,812
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
858
1.69
1.45
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-173.4
85.8
1,898
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
338
1.63
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-173.3
33.8
1,932
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
2060
1.63
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-173.2
206.0
2,138
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
435
1.77
1.45
0.25
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-172.5
43.5
2,182
Wisconsin
S-CG-Reg
840
1.61
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-171.6
84.0
2,266
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
2125
1.60
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-170.4
212.5
2,478
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
710
1.60
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-170.2
71.0
2,549
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1231
1.59
1.45
0.11
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-169.7
123.1
2,672
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
412
1.68
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-168.2
41.2
2,713
Vermont
S-CG-Reg
138
1.69
1.45
0.23
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-167.6
13.8
2,727
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
144
1.63
1.45
0.17
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-167.0
14.4
2,741
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
765
1.61
1.45
0.16
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-166.6
76.5
2,818
Kentucky
S-CG-Reg
715
1.66
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-166.5
71.5
2,890
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
641
1.61
1.45
0.16
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-166.5
64.1
2,954
Louisiana
S-CG-Reg
1193
1.61
1.45
0.16
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-166.5
119.3
3,073
Texas
S-CG-Reg
3561
1.60
1.45
0.16
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-166.1
356.1
3,429
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
48
2.00
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.26
0
0
-209.9
4.8
3,434
New York
S-CG-Reg
1053
1.62
1.45
0.19
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-164.9
105.3
3,539
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
909
1.62
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.02
0
0
-164.1
90.9
3,630
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
326
1.61
1.45
0.19
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-164.0
32.6
3,663
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
172
1.63
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-163.9
17.2
3,680
California
S-RFG-Prem
1578
2.21
1.45
0.25
1.03
0.00
0.10
0
0
-163.6
157.8
3,837
Ha\Afcii
S-CG-Reg
178
1.93
1.45
0.51
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-163.4
17.8
3,855
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
905
1.61
1.45
0.19
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-163.1
90.5
3,946
Arizona
S-CG-Reg
453
1.67
1.45
0.25
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-163.0
45.3
3,991
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
66
1.92
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.30
0
0
-205.4
6.6
3,998
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
679
1.60
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-160.1
67.9
4,066
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
58
1.61
1.45
0.23
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-159.9
5.8
4,071
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
1062
1.59
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-159.1
106.2
4,178
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
90
1.58
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-158.9
9.0
4,187
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1497
1.58
1.45
0.21
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-158.7
149.7
4,336
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2091
1.60
1.45
0.23
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-158.2
209.1
4,545
Maine
S-CG-Reg
130
1.65
1.45
0.29
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-157.9
13.0
4,558
Florida
S-CG-Reg
3179
1.65
1.45
0.29
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-157.9
317.9
4,876
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1126
1.59
1.45
0.23
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-157.8
112.6
4,989
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1891
1.59
1.45
0.23
1.66
0.00
0.00
0
0
-157.5
189.1
5,178
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
32
2.08
1.45
0.11
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-155.2
3.2
5,181
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
347
1.67
1.45
0.11
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-155.2
34.7
5,216
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
136
2.14
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-197.6
13.6
5,230
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
204
1.65
1.45
0.11
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-153.3
20.4
5,250
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.06
1.45
0.11
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-153.0
2.1
5,252
Montana
S-CG-Prem
63
2.19
1.45
0.17
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-196.5
6.3
5,258
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
2.14
1.45
0.21
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-151.3
1.9
5,260
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
197
1.72
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-150.1
19.7
5,280
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2615
1.66
1.45
0.16
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-149.6
261.5
5,542
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1272
1.68
1.45
0.19
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-148.5
127.2
5,669
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
401
1.67
1.45
0.19
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-146.7
40.1
5,709
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
812
1.73
1.45
0.25
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-146.6
81.2
5,790
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
168
2.06
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-190.1
16.8
5,807
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1114
1.67
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-144.8
111.4
5,918
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
655
1.66
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-144.4
65.5
5,984
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
268
1.66
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-144.4
26.8
6,010
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
22
1.95
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.09
0
0
-187.7
2.2
6,013
Virginia
S-RFG-Reg
803
1.66
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-143.7
80.3
6,093
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
191
1.67
1.45
0.23
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-143.5
19.1
6,112
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
768
1.64
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-142.4
76.8
6,189
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
189
2.09
1.45
0.17
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-186.4
18.9
6,208
Dela\Aฎre
S-RFG-Reg
195
1.64
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-142.3
19.5
6,227
107
-------
Table A2017B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol |
Cumulative
2017
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
DistCost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"! Blending
Volume |
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gah MMgals I
MMgals
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
75
2.02
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-186.1
7.5!
6,235
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
192
1.71
1.45
0.29
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-141.5
19 2
6,254
DC
S- RFG-Reg
27
1.63
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00
0
0
-141.4
2 7"
6,256
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
20
2.09
1.45
0.19
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-184.8
2 0
6,259
New Jersey
S- RFG-Reg
1664
1.62
1.45
0.21
1.44
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-140.0
166 4"
6,425
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
88
2.00
1.45
0.11
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-183.9
8 8
6,434
New York
S-RFG-Prem
306
2.00
1.45
0.19
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-139.6
30 6
6,464
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
50
2.08
1.45
0.21
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-182.1
5 0"
6,469
Washington
S-CG-Prem
221
2.08
1.45
0 21
1.40
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-181.8
22 1"
6,491
Connectcut
S-RFG-Prem
107
2.00
1.45
0 21
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-137.6
10 7"
6,502
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
51
2.03
1.45
0 17
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-180.6
5 1
6,507
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
156
1.98
1.45
0 21
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-135.8
15 6"
6,523
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
14
2.36
1.45
0 51
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-179.6
1 4
6,524
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
29
2.01
1.45
0 17
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-179.1
2 9"
6,527
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
406
1.92
1.45
0 16
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-134.8
40 6"
6,568
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
106
2.03
1.45
0 21
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-177.4
10 6"
6,578
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
67
1.92
1.45
0 19
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-131.3
6 7
6,585
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
2.01
1.45
0 21
1.40
0.00
0.00! 0
0
-175.0
2 1"
6,587
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
45
1.91
1.45
0 11
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-175.0
4 5
6,592
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
287
2.03
1.45
0 23
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-174.8
28 l"
6,620
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7
1.93
1.45
021
1.03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.6
0 7
6,621
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
2.01
1.45
0 29
1 03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.4
1 3!
6,622
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
126
1.98
1.45
0 25
1 03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.4
12 6"
6,635
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
61
2.00
1.45
021
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-174.3
6 1"
6,641
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
40
1.92
1.45
021
1 03
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-129.6
4 0"
6,645
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
170
1.92
1.45
021
1 03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129.4
170
6,662
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.94
1.45
0 23
1 03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129.3
2 1
6,664
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
141
1.91
1.45
021
1 03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-128.6
14 1:
6,678
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
79
1.93
1.45
0.16
1.40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-172.5
7 9"
6,686
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
134
1.99
1.45
0 23
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-171.6
13 4"
6,699
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
237
1.99
1.45
0 23
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-171.5
23 7
6,723
Utah
S-CG-Prem
135
1.94
1.45
0 17
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-171.5
13 5"
6,737
Florida
S-CG-Prem
467
2.05
1.45
0 29
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-171.4
46 7
6,783
New York
S-CG-Prem
103
1.94
1.45
0 19
1 40
0.00
O.OOI 0
0
-170.5
10 3"
6,794
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
105
1.91
1.45
0 16
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-170.4
10 5"
6,804
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
55
1.91
1.45
0 16
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-170.1
5 5"
6,810
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
173
1.95
1.45
0 21
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-169.1
17 3
6,827
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
269
1.87
1.45
0 21
1 03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-124.3
26 9
6,854
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
113
1.98
1.45
0 25
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-167.7
11 3"
6,865
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
232
2.01
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
0.26
0
0
-122.2
23 2
6,888
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
66
1.92
1.45
0 21
1 40
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-166.7
6 6"
6,895
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
60
1.83
1.45
0 11
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-166.7
6 0
6,901
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
24
1.85
1.45
0 21
1 03
0.00
0.00
0
0
-122.3
2 4
6,903
Texas
S-CG-Prem
346
1.86
1.45
0 16
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-165.7
34 6"
6,938
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
1.93
1.45
0 23
1 40
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-164.8
1 2"
6,939
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
86
1.86
1.45
0 19
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-162.1
8 6"
6,948
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
1.95
1.45
0 29
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-161.3
1 1
6,949
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
58
1.92
1.45
0 25
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-161.3
5 8"
6,955
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
58
1.95
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
0.26
0
0
-116.2
5 8
6,960
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
89
1.85
1.45
0 21
1 40
0.00
0.02
0
0
-160.6
8 9"
6,969
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
1.88
1.45
0 23
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-160.1
0 4"
6,970
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
1.85
1.45
0 21
1 40
0.00
0.00
0
0
-159.5
0 7
6,970
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
80
1.87
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
0.30
0
0
-111.7
8 0"
6,978
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
53
2.10
1.45
0 51
1 40
0.00
0.00! 0
0
-154.1
5 3"
6,984
California
W-RFG-Prem
1908
2.16
1.45
0.25
0 51
0.00
0.10
0
0
-106.8
190 8 "
7,175
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
165
2.09
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-103.9
16 5"
7,191
Montana
W-CG-Prem
76
2.14
1.45
0 17
0 51
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-102.8
7 6"
7,199
Alaska
W-CG-reg
138
2.29
1.45
0 51
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-100.2
13 8
7,212
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1608
1.62
1.45
0 11
0 67
0.00
0.26
0
0
-99.2
160 8"
7,373
Iowa
W-CG-reg
618
1.58
1.45
0 11
0 67
0.00
0.30
0
0
-99.1
61 8"
7,435
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
38
2.03
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-98.5
3 8"
7,439
California
W-RFG-reg
6601
1.90
1.45
0 25
0 67
0.00
0.10
0
0
-97.6
660 1
8,099
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
203
2.01
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-96.4
20 3
8,119
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
26
2.01
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-96.2
2 6"
8,122
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
23
2.09
1.45
0 21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-94.5
2 3
8,124
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
27
1.90
1.45
0 11
0 51
0.00
0.09
0
0
-94.1
2 7"
8,127
Illinois
W-CG-reg
944
1.56
1.45
0 11
0.67
0.00
0.26
0
0
-93.2
94.4
8,221
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
228
2.04
1.45
0 17
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-92.7
22.8
8,244
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
91
1.97
1.45
0.11
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-92.5
9.11
8,253
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
25
2.04
1.45
0.19
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-91.1
2.5|
8,256
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
106
1.95
1.45
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-90.2
10.61
8,266
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
60
2.03
1.45
0 21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-88.5
6.0
8,272
Washington
W-CG-Prem
267
2.03
1.45
0 21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-88.1
26.7
8,299
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
62
1.98
1.45
0 17
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-86.9
6.2
8,305
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
17
2.31
1.45
0 51
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-85.9
1.7
8,307
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
35
1.96
1.45
0.17
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-85.4
3.5!
8,310
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
128
1.98
1.45
0 21
0 51
0.00
0 00" 0
0
-83.7
12 8"
8,323
New York
W-RFG-Prem
370
1.95
1.45
0.19
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-82.9
37.0
8,360
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
54
1.86
1.45
0 11
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-81.3
5.4
8,366
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
1.96
1.45
0 21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-81.3
2.5"
8,368
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
347
1.98
1.45
0.23
0.51
0.00
o.ooi o
0
-81.1
34.7
8,403
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
130
1.95
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-80.8
13.0"
8,416
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
74
1.95
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-80.6
7 4
8,423
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
189
1.93
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-79.0
18 9"
8,442
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
222
1.59
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.09
0
0
-79.1
22.21
8,464
108
-------
Table A2017C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2017
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
'Mandate"iBlending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/galiMMgals
MMgals
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
95
1.88
1.45
0.16
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-78.8
9.5
8,474
Idaho
W-CG-reg
363
1.73
1.45
0.17
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-78.4
36.3
8,510
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
491
1.87
1.45
0.16
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-78.0
49.1
8,559
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
162
1.94
1.45
0.23
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-77.9
16.2
8,575
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
286
1.94
1.45
0.23
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-77.8
28.6
8,604
Utah
W-CG-Prem
164
1.89
1.45
0.17
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-77.8
16.4
8,620
Florida
W-CG-Prem
564
2.00
1.45
0.29
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-77.7
56.4
8,677
New York
W-CG-Prem
124
1.89
1.45
0.19
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-76.9
12.4
8,689
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
127
1.86
1.45
0 16
0 51
0.00
0 00
0
0
-76.7
12 7
8,702
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
66
1.86
1.45
0.16
0 51
0.00
0 00
0
0
-76.4
6 6
8,709
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
209
1.90
1.45
021
0 51
0.00
0 00
0
0
-75.4
20 9
8,730
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
81
1.87
1.45
0 19
0 51
0.00
0 00
0
0
-74.5
8 1
8,738
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
136
1.93
1.45
0.25
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-74.0
13.6
8,751
Washington
W-CG-reg
1347
1.73
1.45
021
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-74.0
134.7
8,886
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
1.88
1.45
021
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-73.8
0.8
8,887
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
420
1.62
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-73.8
42.0
8,929
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
1.96
1.45
0 29
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-73.7
1.5
8,930
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
153
1.93
1.45
0 25
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-73.6
15.3
8,946
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
79
1.87
1.45
021
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-73.0
7.9
8,954
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
73
1.78
1.45
0 11
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-73.0
7.3
8,961
Montana
W-CG-reg
354
1.68
1.45
0 17
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-72.9
35.4
8,996
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
48
1.87
1.45
021
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-72.8
4.8
9,001
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
205
1.87
1.45
021
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-72.6
20.5
9,021
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
26
1.89
1.45
0 23
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-72.5
2.6
9,024
Texas
W-CG-Prem
418
1.81
1.45
0 16
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-72.0
41.8
9,066
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
170
1.86
1.45
021
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-71.8
17.0
9,083
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
247
1.60
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-71.9
24.7
9,108
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
1.88
1.45
0 23
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-71.1
1.5
9,109
Utah
W-CG-reg
606
1.65
1.45
0 17
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-70.3
60.6
9,170
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1038
1.64
1.45
0.17
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-69.5
103.8
9,273
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
409
1.58
1.45
0 11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-69.4
40.9
9,314
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2491
1.58
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-69.3
249.1
9,563
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
239
1.67
1.45
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-68.7
23.9
9,587
Nevada
W-CG-reg
526
1 72
1.45
0.25
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-68.6
52.6
9.640
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
104
1.81
1.45
0.19
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-68.5
10.4
9,650
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3162
1.61
1.45
0.16
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-68.2
316.2
9,966
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1016
1.56
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-67.8
101.6
10,068
Maine
W-CG-Prem
14
1.90
1.45
0.29
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-67.7
1.4
10,069
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
70
1.87
1.45
0.25
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-67.6
7.0
10,076
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
325
1.82
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-67.5
32.5
10,109
New York
W-RFG-reg
1538
1.63
1.45
0.19
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-67.1
153.8
10,263
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
108
1.80
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.02
0
0
-66.9
10.8
10,273
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
1.83
1.45
0.23
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-66.5
0.5
10,274
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2569
1.55
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-66.5
256.9
10,531
Kansas
W-CG-reg
858
1.55
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-66.3
85.8
10,617
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
1.80
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-65.8
0.9
10,618
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1488
1.54
1.45
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-65.9
148.8
10,766
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
29
1.80
1.45
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-65.5
2.9
10,769
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
484
1 62
1.45
0.19
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-65.3
48.4
10,818
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
981
1.68
1.45
0.25
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-65.2
98.1
10,916
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
498
1.63
1.45
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-64.3
49.8
10,966
Vermont
W-CG-reg
167
1.64
1.45
0.23
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63.7
16.7
10,982
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1347
1.62
1.45
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63.4
134.7
11,117
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
174
1.58
1.45
0.17
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63.1
17.4
11,135
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
792
1.61
1.45
021
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63.0
79.2
11,214
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
324
1.61
1.45
021
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-63.0
32.4
11,246
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
925
1.56
1.45
0 16
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-62.7
92.5
11,339
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
865
1.61
1.45
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-62.7
86.5
11,425
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
775
1.56
1.45
0 16
0.67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-62.6
77 5
11,503
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1442
1.56
1.45
0 16
0.67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-62.6
144 2
11,647
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
970
1.61
1.45
021
0.67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-62.3
97 0
11,744
Texas
W-CG-reg
4306
1.55
1.45
0.16
0.67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-62 2
430 6
12,174
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
231
1 62
1.45
0 23
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-62.1
23 1
12,198
New York
W-CG-reg
1274
1.57
1.45
0.19
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-61.1
127 4
12,325
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
929
1.59
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-61.0
92 9
12,418
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
236
1.59
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-60.9
23 6
12,441
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
64
2 05
1.45
0.51
0 51
0.00
0 00
0
0
-60.4
6 4
12,448
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1099
1.57
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 02
0
0
-60.2
109 9
12,558
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
394
1.56
1.45
0 19
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-60.1
39 4
12,597
Maine
W-RFG-reg
233
1.66
1.45
0 29
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-60.1
23 3
12,620
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
208
1.58
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-60.0
20 8
12,641
DC
W-RFG-reg
32
1.58
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-60.0
3 2
12,644
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
215
1 88
1.45
0 51
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-59.6
21 5
12,666
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1095
1.56
1.45
0.19
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-59.3
109 5
12,775
Arizona
W-CG-reg
548
1 62
1.45
0 25
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-59.2
54 8
12,830
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
2012
1.57
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-58.6
201 2
13,031
Virginia
W-CG-reg
821
1.55
1.45
0.21
0.67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-56.3
82.1
13,113
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
71
1.56
1.45
0 23
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-56.1
7.1
13,120
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1284
1.54
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-55.2
128.4
13,249
Maryland
W-CG-reg
109
1.53
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-55.0
10.9
13,260
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1810
1.53
1.45
0 21
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-54.8
181.0
13,441
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2529
1.55
1.45
0 23
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-54.3
252.9
13,694
Maine
W-CG-reg
158
1.60
1.45
0 29
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-54.1
15.8
13,709
Florida
W-CG-reg
3844
1.60
1.45
0 29
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-54.0
384.4
14,094
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1362
1.54
1.45
0 23
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-53.9
136.2
14,230
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2287
1.54
1.45
0 23
0 67
0.00
0 00
0
0
-53.6
228.7
14,459
109
-------
Table A2018A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2018
State
Gasoline
Code
[Gasoline
(volume
[MMgals
ฆGasoline [Ethanol
; Price | Gate Price
Ethanol
Dist Cost
Ethanol
Blending
Federal | State j State
Subsidy Isubsidy {Mandate
RFG
"Mandate":
Ethanol
Blending
Cost c/gal;
Ethanol
Volume
MMgals
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMgals
Oregon
Minnesota
Oregon
Missouri
Missouri
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Oregon
Missouri
Missouri
Oregon
Minnesota
Missouri
Minnesota
Missouri
Iowa
California
Alaska
Illinois
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Utah
Montana
Washington
South Dakota
Michigan
Nevada
Hawaii
Wyoming
California
Montana
Illinois
South Dakota
Washington
Idaho
Ohio
Colorado
Illinois
Nebraska
Colorado
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Arizona
Kansas
Michigan
Utah
Wisconsin
Indiana
Ohio
New Mexico
Indiana
North Dakota
Mississippi
Arkansas
New York
Texas
West Virginia
North Dakota
Louisiana
Nevada
Vermont
WestVirginia
Oklahoma
Alaska
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
New Hampshire
Kentucky
Mississippi
New Mexico
Nebraska
Maine
Alabama
Virginia
New York
Georgia
Maryland
Alabama
Tennessee
Georgia
Wisconsin
Vermont
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG-Reg
S-RFG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
IW-RFG-Prem
W-CG-Prem
W-CG-reg
W-CG-Prem
W-RFG-reg
W-CG-reg
W-CG-reg
S-CG-Reg
S-RFG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-RFG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-RFG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-RFG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
I S-CG-Reg
iS-CG-Reg
sS-CG-Reg
sS-CG-Reg
^S-CG-Prem
^S-CG-Prem
sS-CG-Reg
?S-CG-Prem
s S-CG-Reg
iS-CG-Reg
| S-CG-Reg
js-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-CG-Reg
S-RFG-Prem
S-CG-Prem
S-CG-Reg
692|
1053
971
833)
7o|
1ฐ6|
427]
42|
118]
511
85 J
S37]
12s|
517|
12731
1007]
51ฐ|
54511
114]
78ฐ!
66|
300]
48i
500|
63]
11131
183|
1361
4341
177|
29]
15751
2921
13281
221
2211
511
168l
8571
1911
338]
188]
751
144|
452|
709l
2057!
135|
839|
88l
2122|
411
1229
172
764
640
1052
3556
20
21!
1191
113
138
326
907
14
904,
714
58
50
79
611
451
130l
106
678
103
287
90!
1060
1495
2089
32
12
1889
2.121
1.90 J
2.411
1.891
2.20|
2.14
1.95|
2.26I
2.36
2.21
2.151
2.07S
2.09
1.90
1.85I
1.841
1.91
2.33I
2.55I
1.87|
2.22I
2.161
2.241
2.121
2.501
2.131
1.921
2.411
2.151
2.40|
2.45I
2.57I
2.03]
1.93
2.25
2.45
2.40
2.33
1.99
2.30
1.91
2.38
2.32
1.97
2.04
1.89
1.89
2.36
1.88
2.28
1.87
1.97
1.86
1.95
1.89
1.89
1.92
1.88
2.31
2.33!
1.87
2.38
1.94
1.90
1.90
2.63
1.89,
1.91
1.93
2.31
2.26
2.31 j
2.20|
1.971
2 28
1 87
2 25
2 28
1.86'
1.85'
1.85'
1.87'
2.38'
2.27
1.86'
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23!
1.23:
1.23=
1.23=
1.23!
1.23:
1.23=
1.23:
1.23!
1.23:
1.23
1.23:
1.23:
1.23:
1.23=
1.23:
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23:
1.23:
1.23:
1.23=
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
0.22
0.11
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.26
0.53
0.11
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.18
0.18
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.26
0.53
0.18
0.26
0.18
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.18
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.18
0.26
0.11
0.11
0.18
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.21
0.11
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.16
0.26
0.23
0.19
0.21
0.53
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.21
0.16
0.21
0.11
0.30
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.11
0.23
0.23
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.25
1.25
1.44
1.03
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.67
0.51
0.67
0.67
0.67
1.66
1.44
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.03
1.66
1.44
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.66
1.03
1.66
1.25
1.25
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.25
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.66
1.25
1.66
1.25
1.25
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.66
1.03
1.25
1.66
0.001
0.001
0.001
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
0.00]
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ooj
0.00"
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
0.00]
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
0.30I
0.19I
o.ool
0.26I
0.30I
o.ool
0.26I
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
0.09I
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
0.19I
o.ool
0.26I
0.09I
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
0.26|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
o.ool
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 02
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
-233.0
-221.2
-220.4
-220.0
-210.1
-204.7
-203.6
-193.6
-141.2
-136.9
-130.9
-129.1
-125.5
-122.2:
-117.3
-116.2:
-251.8
-246.0
-244.9
-243.4
-242.1
-240.4
-240.0
-237.0
-234.4
-233.9
-232.4
-231.9
-231.3
-230.2
-229.3
-229.1
-228.3
-227.0
-224.9
-224.6
-224.3
-223.7
-223.6
-223.6
-222.6
-222.3
-222.2
-222.1
-220.9
-220.6
-220.3
-219.6!
-219.0
-218.5
-218.2
-218.0
-217.5
-216.2
-215.9
-215.7!
-215.5:
-214.4;
-214.0:
-213.8!
-213.8:
-213.4;
-213.4;
-213.3!
-213.3:
-212.2=
-212.1;
-212.0;
-211.9:
-211.7=
-211.4;
-211.2;
-210.4
-209.9
-208.9;
-208.3;
-207.1:
-206.9;
-207.1
-206.7
-206.5
-206.0
-205.7
-205.0
-205.0
69.2
105.3
9.7
83.3
7.0
10.6
42.7
4.2
11.8
5.1
8.5
83.7
12.8
51.7
127.3
100.7
51.0
545.1
11.4
78.0
6.6
30.0
4.8
50.0
6.3
111.3
18.3
13.6
43.4
17.7
2.9
157.5
29.2
132.8
2.2
22.1
5.1
16.8
85.7
19.1
33.8
18.8
7.5
14.4
45.2
70.9
205.7
13.5
83.9
8.8
212.2!
41.1 j
122.91
17.2|
76.4!
64.0!
105.21
355.61
2.0!
2.1!
119.11
11.31
13.8!
32.6!
90.7!
1.4!
90.4!
71.4!
5.8!
5.0!
7.9!
6.1|
4.5j
13.0l
10.6!
67.8!
10.3:
28.7!
9.0!
106.0!
149.5:
208.9!
3.2!
1.2!
188.9!
175
184
268
275
285
328
332
344
349
357
441
454
506
633
734
785
1,330
1,341
1,419
1,426
1,456
1,461
1,511
1,517
1,628
1,646
1,660
1,703
1,721
1,724
1,882
1,911
2,044
2,046
2,068
2,073
2,090
2,175
2,195
2,228
2,247
2,255
2,269
2,314
2,385
2,591
2,604
2,688
2,697
2,909
2,950
3,073
3,090
3.167
3,231
3,336
3,692
3,694
3,696
3,815
3,826
3,840
3,873
3,963
3,965
4,055
4,126
4,132
4,137
4,145
4,151
4,156
4,169
4,179
4,247
4,257
4,286
4,295
4,401
4,550
4,759
4.763
4.764
4,953
110
-------
Table A2018B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State | State
RFG I
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2018
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy I Mandate
"Mandate"! Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal I
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
South Carolina
S-CG- Reg
1125
1.86
1.23
0.23
1.66
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-204.9
112.5
5,065
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
134
2 26
1.23
0.23
1.25
0.00
o.ooj
0
o!
-204.5
13.4
5,078
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
236
2.26
1.23
0.23
1.25
0.00
0.001
0
oi
-204.1
23.6
5,102
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
58
2 28
1.23
0.26
1.25
0.00
o.ooj
0
oj
-204.0
5.8
5,108
Arizona
S-RFG- Reg
811
2.10
1.23
0.26
1.44
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-204.4
81.1
5,189
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
55
2 18
1.23
0.16
1.25
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-203.8
5.5
5,194
Florida
S-CG- Reg
3175
1.90
1.23
0.30
1.66
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-203.1
317.5
5,512
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
60
2 12
1.23
0.11
1.25
0.00
o.ooj
0
oj
-202.3
6.0
5,518
Wisconsin
S-RFG- Reg
346
1 94
1.23
0.11
1.44
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-202.6
34.6
5,552
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
53
2 53
1.23
0.53
1.25
0.00
0.00!
0
ฐ!
-201.9
5.3
5,558
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
2 34
1.23
0.11
1.03
0.00
o.oo;
0
oi
-202.1
2.1
5,560
Florida
S-CG-Prem
466
2 29
1.23
0.30
1.25
0.00
0.00!
0
oi
-201.5
46.6
5,607
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
173
2 21
1.23
0.21
1.25
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-201.0
17.3
5,624
Indiana
S- RFG- Reg
204
1 92
1.23
0.11
1.44
0.00
0.00!
0
ฐ!
-201.1
20.4
5,644
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
2 22
1.23
0.23
1.25
0.00
o.oo;
0
oi
-200.3
0.4
5,645
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
66
2 18
1.23
0.21
1.25
0.00
0.00!
0
oi
-198.7
6.6
5,651
New York
S-RFG- Reg
12701 1.98
1.23
0.19
1.44
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-199.0
127.0
5,778
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
105
2.12
1.23
0.16
1.25
0.00
o.oo|
0
ฐ!
-198.0
10.5
5,789
Texas
S-RFG- Reg
2611
1 94
1.23
0.16
1.44
0.00
o.oo;
0
oi
-198.0
261.1
6,050
Texas
S-CG-Prem
345
2.11
1.23
0.16
1.25
0.00
0.00!
0
oj
-197.1
34.5
6,084
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
86
2 14
1.23
0.19
1.25
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-196.5
8.6
6,093
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
2 23
1.23
0.30
1.25
0.00
o.oo|
0
ฐ!
-195.1
1.1
6,094
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
400
1 95
1.23
0.19
1.44
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-195.7
40.0
6,134
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
197
1.97
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00!
0
oi
-195.5
19.7
6,154
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
191
1 99
1.23
0.23
1.44
0.00
o.ooj
0
oj
-195.5
19.1
6,173
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
2.37
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.ooj
0
o!
-195.3
1.9
6,175
Connecticut
S-RFG-Reg
654
1 95
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-194.3
65.4
6,240
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Reg
267
1.95
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-194.3
26.7
6,267
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
89
2 11
1.23
0.21
1.25
0.00
0.02!
0
oj
-193.4
8.9
6,276
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
192
2.03
1.23
0.30
1.44
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-193.5
19.2
6,295
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
1113
1 93
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-192.2
111.3
6,406
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
195
1 93
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-192.0
19.5
6,426
Virginia
S-RFG- Reg
801
1 93
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
o.ooj
0
oj
-191.9
80.1
6,506
New York
S-RFG-Prem
306
2.31
1.23
0.19
1.03
0.00
0.00!
0
o!
-190.7
30.6
6,537
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
2 10
1.23
0.21
1.25
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-190.1
0.7
6,537
Maryland
S-RFG- Reg
767
1 92
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-190.6
76.7
6,614
DC
S-RFG- Reg
27
1 91
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
o.ooj
0
oi
-189.7
2.7
6,617
New Jersey
S-RFG- Reg
1662
1 91
1.23
0.21
1.44
0.00
0.00!
0
o!
-189.4
166.2
6,783
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
126
2.34
1.23
0.26
1.03
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-187.6
12.6
6,795
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21
2 28
1.23
0.23
1.03
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-183.9
2.1
6,798
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
107
2 26
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.oo!
0
0!
-183.7
10.7
6,808
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
156
2 24
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-182.2
15.6
6,824
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
405
2.17
1.23
0.16
1.03
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-180.6
40.5
6,864
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
67
2 20
1.23
0.19
1.03
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-180.0
6.7
6,871
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
2 29
1.23
0.30
1.03
0.00
o.oo!
0
0!
-178.7
1.3
6,872
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
40
2 19
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.oo!
0
o!
-176.8
4.0
6,876
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7
2.18
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-176.3
0.7
6,877
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
140
2 16
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-173.7
14.0
6,891
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
169
2 15
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.oo!
0
0!
-173.1
16.9
6,908
California
W-RFG-Prem
1905
2.52
1.23
0.26
0.51
0.00
0.191
0
0!
-172.3
190.5
7,098
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
268
2.15
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
o.oo;
0
o;
-172.7
26.8
7,125
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
24
2.15
1.23
0.21
1.03
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-172.6
2.4
7,128
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
231
2.25
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.26!
0
oi
-166.8
23.1
7,151
California
W-RFG-reg
6592
2.28
1.23
0.26
0.67
0.00
0.19!
0
ฐ!
-164.7
659.2
7,810
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
80
2.17
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.3oi
0
oi
-162.9
8.0
7,818
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
58
2.19
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.26!
0
0!
-160.8
5.8
7,824
Montana
W-CG-Prem
76
2.45
1.23
0.18
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-155.2
7.6
7,831
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
164
2.36
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
ฐ!
-152.7
16.4
7,848
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
35
2.40
1.23
0.18
0.51
0.00
o.oo;
0
oi
-150.1
3.5
7,851
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
38
2.33
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-149.0
3.8
7,855
Iowa
W-CG-reg
617
1.86
1.23
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.30!
0
0!
-147.9
61.7
7,917
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
27
2.20
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.09!
0
ฐ!
-145.7
2.7
7,920
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1606
1.88
1.23
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.26;
0
oi
-145.6
160.6
8,080
Washington
W-CG-Prem
267
2.40
1.23
0.22
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-145.4
26.7
8,107
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
26
2.29
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-145.4
2.6
8,109
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
61
2.35
1.23
0.18
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
ฐs
-145.1
6.1
8,116
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
203
2.28
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
o.oo;
0
oi
-144.5
20.3
8,136
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
228
2.33
1.23
0.18
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-143.1
22.8
8,159
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
90
2.27
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-143.0
9.0
8,168
Alaska
W-CG-reg
138
2.50
1.23
0.53
0.67
0.00
0.00!
0
ฐs
-141.1
13.8
8,181
Utah
W-CG-Prem
163
2.31
1.23
0.18
0.51
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-140.4
16.3
8.198
Illinois
W-CG-reg
943
1.82
1.23
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.26;
0
0;
-139.6
94.3
8,292
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
106
2.23
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-139.4
10.6
8,303
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
23
2.32
1.23
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
ฐ!
-138.5
2.3
8,305
Idaho
W-CG-reg
363
2.11
1.23
0.18
0.67
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-136.6
36.3
8,341
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
25
2.26
1.23
0.19
0.51
0.00
0.00;
0
0;
-134.8
2.5
8,344
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25
2.28
1.23
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-134.6
2.5
8,346
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
136
2.33
1.23
0.26
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-134.2
13.6
8.360
New York
W-RFG-Prem
370
2.26
1.23
0.19
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-133.9
37.0
8,397
Utah
W-CG-reg
605
2.07
1.23
0.18
0.67
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-133.2
60.5
8,457
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
17
2.58
1.23
0.53
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-133.0
1.7
8,459
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
60
2.26
1.23
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-132.5
6.0
8,465
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
95
2.21
1.23
0.16
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-132.2
9.5
8,475
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
74
2.26
1.23
0.21
0.51
0.00
o.ooi
0
oi
-132.0
7.4
8,482
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
54
2.15
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00!
0
0!
-131.2
5.4
8,487
111
-------
Table A2018C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2018
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
'Mandate"; Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gali MMgals
MMgals
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
152
2.29
1.23
0.26
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.8
15.2
8,503
Washington
W-CG-reg
1346
2.08
1 23
0 22
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-130.0
134.6
8,637
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
128
2.23
1.23
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-129.7
12.8
8,650
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
222
1.87
1 23
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.09
0
0
-128.6
?? ?
8,672
New York
W-CG-Prem
124
2.20
1 23
0.19
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-127.9
12.4
8,685
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
347
2.23
1 23
0.23
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-127.7
34.7
8,719
Nevada
W-CG-reg
525
2.10
1 23
0.26
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-127.5
52.5
8,772
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
26
2.23
1.23
0.23
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-127.1
2.6
8,774
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
130
2.21
1 23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-126.9
13.0
8,787
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
214
2.35
1 23
0.53
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-126.3
21.4
8,809
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
2.22
1.23
0.23
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125.8
1.5
8,810
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
189
2.19
1 23
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125.5
18.9
8,829
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
162
2.21
1 23
0.23
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-125.3
16.2
8,845
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
286
2.21
1 23
0.23
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-124.9
28.6
8,874
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
70
2.23
1 23
0.26
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-124.8
7.0
8,881
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
66
2.13
1 23
0.16
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-124.6
6.6
8,887
Montana
W-CG-reg
353
1.98
1 23
0.18
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-124.5
35.3
8,923
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
490
2.12
1.23
0.16
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.9
49.0
8,972
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
81
2.15
1.23
0.19
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.3
8.1
8,980
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
73
2.07
1.23
0.11
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.1
7.3
8,987
Arizona
W-RFG-reg
980
2.05
1.23
0.26
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-123.0
98.0
9,085
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
64
2.48
1.23
0.53
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-122.7
6.4
9,092
Florida
W-CG-Prem
564
2 24
1.23
0.30
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-122.3
56.4
9,148
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
15
2 24
1.23
0.30
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121.9
1.5
9,149
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
209
2.16
1.23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121.8
20.9
9,170
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
2.17
1.23
0.23
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121.1
0.5
9,171
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
419
1.89
1.23
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-121.2
41.9
9,213
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
48
2.14
1.23
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-120.0
4.8
9,218
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1036
1.94
1.23
0.18
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119.8
103.6
9,321
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
2.13
1 23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119.6
0 8
9,322
Indiana
W-RFG-reg
247
1.87
1 23
0.11
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119.7
24 7
9,347
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
79
2.13
1 23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-119.5
7 9
9,355
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
127
2.07
1 23
0.16
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-118.8
12 7
9,367
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
409
1.86
1 23
0.11
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-118.7
40.9
9,408
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
174
1.92
1.23
0.18
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-118.3
17.4
9,426
Texas
W-CG-Prem
418
2.06
1 23
0.16
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-117.9
41.8
9,467
New York
W-RFG-reg
1535
1.93
1.23
0.19
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-117.7
153.5
9,621
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
104
2.09
1 23
0.19
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-117.3
10 4
9,631
Arizona
W-CG-reg
547
1.99
1.23
0.26
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-117.0
54.7
9,686
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
170
2.11
1 23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-116.9
17 0
9,703
Kansas
W-CG-reg
857
1.84
1 23
0.11
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-116.7
85.7
9,789
Texas
W-RFG-reg
3157
1.89
1 23
0.16
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-116.6
315.7
10,104
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2487
1.84
1 23
0.11
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-116.4
248.7
10,353
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
205
2.10
1 23
0.21
0.51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-116.3
20.5
10,374
Maine
W-CG-Prem
14
2.18
1.23
0.30
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-115.9
1.4
10,375
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
325
2.10
1 23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-115.9
32 5
10,407
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
29
2.10
1 23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-115.8
2 9
10,410
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
1014
1.83
1 23
0.11
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-115.2
101 4
10,512
Ohio
W-CG-reg
2565
1.82
1 23
0.11
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.3
256 5
10,768
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
107
2.06
1.23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.02
0
0
-114.2
10.7
10,779
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
484
1.90
1 23
0.19
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.3
48.4
10,827
New Mexico
W-CG-reg
497
1.92
1 23
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.2
49.7
10,877
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
238
1.92
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.1
23 8
10,901
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
231
1.94
1 23
0.23
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-114.1
23 1
10,924
Indiana
W-CG-reg
1486
1.81
1 23
0.11
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-113.7
148.6
11,073
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
791
1.90
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-112.9
79 1
11,152
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
323
1.90
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-112.9
32 3
11,184
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
208
1.90
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-112.4
20.8
11,205
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
924
1.84
1.23
0.16
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-112.1
92.4
11,297
Maine
W-RFG-reg
232
1.98
1 23
0.30
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-112.1
23 2
11,321
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
774
1.84
1 23
0.16
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-111.9
77.4
11,398
New York
W-CG-reg
1272
1.87
1 23
0.19
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-111.7
127 2
11,525
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9
2.05
1 23
0.21
0 51
0.00
0.00
0
0
-110.9
0.9
11,526
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1345
1.88
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-110.8
134 5
11,661
Texas
W-CG-reg
4300
1.83
1.23
0.16
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-110.6
430.0
12,091
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
235
1.88
1 23
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-110.6
23.5
12,114
Virginia
W-RFG-reg
969
1.88
1.23
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-110.5
96.9
12,211
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1440
1.82
1 23
0.16
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-110.0
144.0
12,355
Vermont
W-CG-reg
167
1.89
1 23
0.23
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-109.6
16 7
12,372
WestVirginia
W-CG-reg
394
1.85
1 23
0.19
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-109.5
39 4
12,411
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
1097
1.85
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.02
0
0
-109.5
109.7
12,521
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
927
1.87
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-109.2
92 7
12,614
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1093
1.84
1 23
0.19
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-108.3
109.3
12,723
DC
W-RFG-reg
32
1.86
1.23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-108.3
3.2
12,726
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
863
1.86
1 23
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-108.1
86.3
12,812
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
70
1.88
1 23
0.23
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-108.1
7.0
12,819
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
2009
1.86
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-108.0
200 9
13,020
Maine
W-CG-reg
157
1.92
1 23
0.30
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-106.1
157
13,036
Virginia
W-CG-reg
819
1.82
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-104.5
81.9
13,118
Maryland
W-CG-reg
109
1.81
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-103.2
109
13,129
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1282
1.80
1 23
0.21
0 67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-102.9
128 2
13,257
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
18071 1.80
1.23
0.21
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-102.7
180.7
13,438
Georgia
W-CG-reg
2525
1.82
1 23
0.23
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-102.2
252.5
13,690
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2284
1.81
1.23
0.23
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-101.2
228.4
13,919
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1360
1.81
1.23
0.23
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-101.1
136.0
14,055
Florida
W-CG-reg
3839
1.85
1.23
0.30
0.67
0.00
0.00
0
0
-99.3
383.9
14,439
112
-------
Table A2019A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
2019
State
jGasoline jGasoline |Ethanol
Volume | Price [GatePric
I MMgals j$/gal j$/gal
Ethanol
Dist Cost
Blending
$/gal
Federal
Subsidy
State I State
Subsidy j Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Blending
Cost c/gal
Volume
MMgals
Eth Vol
MMgals
California
S-RFG-Reg
5345!
240j
1.26
0.26
2.19
0
0.16
0
0
-322.2
534.5
1,282
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
57!
2 31 j
1.26
0.23
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-320.4
5.7
1,288
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
501!
1.76
1.26
0.11
i
0
0.30
0
0
5
50.1
1,338
New Jersey
S-RFG-Prem
263!
294]
1.26
0.21
1.60
0
0.00
0
0
-306.7
26.3
1,364
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
187!
237]
1.26
0.23
2.19
0
0.00
0
0
-306.2
18.7
1,383
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
44 i
2.581
1.26
0.11
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-301.0
4.4
1,388
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
765!
1.74
1.26
0.11
i
0
0.26
0
0
i
76.5
Nevada
S-CG-Reg
426!
2.141
1.26
0.26
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-300.4
f 42.6
1.507
DC
S-RFG- Reg
26!
2.29!
1.26
0 21
2.19
0
0.00
0
0
-300.3
2 6
1,509
Hawaii
S-CG-Prem
52!
2 91
1.26
0 53
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-292.5
5 2
1,514
New Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4!
2 60
1.26
0.23
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-290.9
0.4
1,515
Washington
S-CG- Reg
1091!
2 00
1.26
0 22
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-290.5
109 1
1,624
Idaho
S-CG- Reg
294!
1.951
1.26
0.18
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-289.9
29.4
1,653
South Dakota
S-CG- Reg
180!
1 77
1.26
0 11
2.39
0
0.09
0
0
-287.9
18 0
1,671
California
S-RFG-Prem
1545!
2 64
1.26
0 26
1.60
0
0.16
0
0
-287.6
154.5
26
Illinois
S-RFG- Reg
1302!
1 80
1.26
0 11
2.19
0
0.26
0
0
-286.6
130 2
1,956
Arizona
S-CG- Reg
443!
1.991
1.26
0 26
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-285.5
44 3
2,000
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
47!
2161
1.26
0.11
1.80
0
0.26
0
0
-284.5
4.7
2,005
Utah
S-CG- Reg
490!
1.89 J
1.26
0.18
i
0
0.00
0
0
-283.9
49.0
2,054
Colorado
S-CG- Reg
840!
1.881
1.26
0.18
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-282.9
84.0
2,138
Montana
S-CG- Reg
286! 1.861 1.26
0.18
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-281.6
28.6
2,167
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
65!
2.ฐ9|
1.26
0.11
1.80
0
0.30
0
0
-281.5
6.5
2,173
Nebraska
S-CG- Reg
331!
1.77
1.26
0.11
i
0
0.00
0
0
-278.3
33.1
Michigan
S-CG- Reg
2017!
1 76
1.26
0.11
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-277.9
201.7
2,408
Wisconsin
S-CG- Reg
823!
1.76!
1.26
0 11
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-277.3
82 3
2,490
Ohio
S-CG- Reg
2080!
1 76
1.26
0 11
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-277.3
208 0
2,698
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
21!
2.66I
1.26
0.23
1.60
0
0.00
0
0
-276.7
2.1
2,700
New Mexico
S-CG- Reg
403!
1 85
1.26
0.21
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-276.3
40.3
2,741
Wyoming
S-CG-Reg
141!
1.80!
1.26
0.18
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-275.6
14.1
2,755
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1205!
1 74
1.26
0 11
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-275.4
120 5
2,875
Kansas
S-CG-Reg
695!
1.74!
1.26
0.11
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-275.3
69.5
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
133!
2 28
1.26
0.11
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-271.4
13.3
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
168!
1.80!
1.26
0 21
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-271.3
168
2,975
Arizona
S-RFG-Reg
795!
2 05
1.26
0 26
2.19
0
0.00
0
0
-271.3
79 5
3,055
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
319!
1.77!
1.26
0.19
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-270.9
31.9
3,087
New York
S-CG-Reg
1031!
1 77
1.26
0.19
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-270.9
103.1
3,190
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
188!
2.22!
1.26
0 11
1.60
0
0.26
0
0
-270.3
18 8
3,208
Arkansas
S-CG-Reg
627!
1.73!
1.26
0.16
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-269.6
62.7
3.271
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
39!
2 57
1.26
0.21
1.60
0
0.00
0
0
-269.6
3 9
3,275
Montana
S-CG-Prem
62!
2 33
1.26
0.18
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-269.2
6 2
3,281
DC
S-RFG-Prem
7!
2.56!
1.26
0 21
1.60
0
0.00
0
0
-269.1
0 7
3,282
Mississippi
S-CG- Reg
749!
1.721
1.26
0 16
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-268.6
74 9
3,357
Texas
S-CG- Reg
3487!
1 71
1.26
0.16
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-268.5
348 7
3,705
Vermont
S-CG- Reg
135!
1 79
1.26
0.23
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-268.2
13.5
3,719
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
73!
2.25!
1.26
0.11
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-268.0
7.3
3,726
Kentucky
S-CG- Reg
700!
1.761
1.26
0 21
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-267.9
70 0
3,796
Oklahoma
S-CG- Reg
890!
1 75
1.26
0.21
2.39
0
2
0
0
-267.9
89 0
55
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
110!
2 38
1.26
0 26
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-266.6
11.0
)6
Pennsylvania
S-CG- Reg
8861
1.73!
1.26
0 19
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-266.4
88 6
3,985
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
164!
2.23!
1.26
0.11
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-266.4
164
4,001
Louisiana
S-CG- Reg
1168!
1 69
1.26
0.16
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-265.6
1168
4,118
Maine
S-CG- Reg
128!
1 82
1.26
0.30
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-265.4
12.8
4,131
Washington
S-CG-Prem
217!
2.33!
1.26
0 22
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-264.9
21 7
4,153
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
185!
2.28!
1.26
0 18
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-264.8
185
4,171
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
22!
2 13
1.26
0.11
1.80
0
0
0
-264.7
22
4,173
Virginia
S-CG- Reg
664!
1 72
1.26
0.21
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-263.9
66 4
4,240
Maryland
S-CG- Reg
88!
1.71!
1.26
0 21
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-262.8
CO:
CO
4,248
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
340!
1.82!
1.26
0 11
2.19
0
0.00
0
0
-263.1
34.0
4,282
S-CG-Reg
1040!
1 70
1.26
0.21
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-262.1
104 0
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1466!
1 70
1.26
0.21
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-261.9
146.6
4,533
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
2048!
1.72!
1.26
0 23
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-261.2
204 8
4.738
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1103!
1.711
1.26
0 23
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-260.9
1103
4,848
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
200!
1 80
1.26
0 11
2.19
0
0.00
0
0
-261.2
20 0
4,868
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1852!
1 71
1.26
0.23
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-260.8
185.2
5,053
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
86!
2.17!
1.26
0 11
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-260.4
8 6
5,062
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
50!
2.231
1.26
0.18
1.80
0
0.00
0
0
-259.9
5.0
5,067
Florida
S-CG- Reg
3113!
1.75]
1.26
0.30
2.39
0
0.00
0
0
-257.9
311.3
5,378
113
-------
Table A2019B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
uasonne
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
uumulative
2019
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
Slate
MMq
vgai
$/qal
$/gal
$/qal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/qal
MMqals
ivnviqals
Wyominq
S-CG-Prem
28
2.20
1.26
0.18
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-256.9
2.8
5,381
New York
S-RFG-Reg
1245
1.83
1.26
0.19
2.19
0
0.000
0
0
-256.6
124.5
5,505
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
57
2.27
0.26
1.80
0
___
0
0
__
_
5.511
Texas
S-RFG-Reg
2560
1.77
1.26
0.16
2 19
0
0 000
0
0
-254 3
256.0
5,767
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
21
2.21
1.26
0.21
1 80
0
0.000
0
0
-253 6
2.1
5,769
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
31
2.31
1.26
0.11
1 60
0
0 000
0
0
-253 8
3.1
5,772
Kentucky
S-RFG-Reg
193
1.82
1.26
0.21
2 19
0
0.000
0
0
-253 7
19.3
5,792
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
60
2.20
1.26
0.21
1 80
0
0.000
0
0
-253 1
6.0
5,798
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Reg
392
1.79
1.26
0.19
2 19
0
0.000
0
0
-252.2
39.2
5,837
Utah
S-CG-Prem
132
2.15
1.26
0.18
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-251.7
13.2
5,850
Rhode Island
S- RFG-Req
262
1.801 1.26
0.21
_fg
0
0.000
0
0
-251.6
26.2
5,876
West Virqinia
S-CG-Prem
20
2.16
1.26
0.19
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-251.0
2.0
5,878
Maine
S- RFG-Req
188
1.88} 1.26
0.30
2.19
0
0.000
0
0
-251.1
18.8
5,897
Connecticut
S- RFG-Reg
641
1.8ot 1.26
0.21
2.19
0
0.000
0
0
-251.0
64.1
5,961
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
49
2.18
1.26
0.21
__
0
0 000
0
0
_25Q 7
_
5,966
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
77
2.12
1.26
0.16
1 80
0
0 000
0
0
-249 9
7 7
5,974
S- RFG-Reg
786
1.78
1.26
0.21
2 19
0
0.000
0
0
-249.7
78 6
6,052
Massachusetts
S- RFG-Reg
1091
1.78
1.26
0.21
2 19
0
0 000
0
0
-249.0
109 1
6,162
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
13
2.47
1.26
0.53
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-248 4
1 3
6,163
Maryland
S- RFG-Reg
752
1.77
1.26
0.21
2 19
0
0 000
0
0
-248 6
75 2
6,238
Delaware
S- RFG-Reg
191
1.77
1.26
0.21
2 19
0
0.000
0
0
-248 0
19.1
6,257
New York
S-CG-Prem
101
2.13
1.26
0.19
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-247.7
10.1
6,267
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
104
2.13
1.26
0.21
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-246.4
10.4
6,278
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
12
2.15
1.26
0.23
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-246.3
i___
6,279
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
21
2.23
1.26
0.11
1 60
0
0.000
0
0
-246 2
2.1
6,281
New Jersey
S- RFG-Reg
1629
1.75
1.26
0.21
2 19
0
0 000
0
0
-246 0
162 9
6,444
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
54
2.05
1.26
0.16
1 80
0
0.000
0
0
-243 4
5 4
6,449
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
281
2.12
1.26
0.23
1 80
0
0.000
0
0
-243 2
28 1
6,477
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
131
2.12
1.26
0.23
1 80
0
0.000
0
0
-242 8
13.1
6,490
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
59
2.00
1.26
0.11
1 80
0
0 000
0
0
-242 6
5.9
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
124
2.33
1.26
0.26
1.60
0
0.000
0
0
-241.1
12.4
6,509
Maine
S-CG-Prem
11
2.16
1.26
0.30
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-240.5
1.1
6,510
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
232
2.09
1.26
0.23
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-240.2
23.2
6,533
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
85
2.05
1.26
0.19
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-239.7
8.5
6,541
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
170
2.05
1.26
0.21
0
0.000
0
0
-238.4
17.0
6,558
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
64
2.05
1.26
0.21
1.80
0
I" 0.000
0
0
-238.2
6.4
6,565
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
19
2.24
1.26
0.21
1.60
0
0.000
0
0
-236.4
1.9
6,567
Texas
S-CG-Prem
339
1.98
1.26
0.16
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-236.1
33.9
6,601
Florida
S-CG-Prem
457
2.09
1.26
0.30
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-233 7
45.7
6
New York
S-RFG-Prem
300
2.19
1.26
0.19
1 60
0
0.000
0
0
-233 5
30.0
6,676
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
103
1.95
1.26
0.16
1 80
0
0.000
0
0
-233 1
10.3
6,687
Oklahoma
S-CG-Prem
87
1.97
1.26
0.21
1 80
0
0.016
0
0
-231 2
8.7
6,695
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
7
1.97
1.26
0.21
1.80
0
0.000
0
0
-230.2
0.7
6,696
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
13
2.22
1.26
0.30
1.60
0
0.000
0
0
-226.3
1.3
6,697
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
66
2.11
1.26
0.19
1.60
0
0.000
0
0
-225.5
6.6
6,704
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
153
2.11
1.26
0.21
1.60
0
0.000
0
0
-224.0
15.3
6,719
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
105
2.11
1.26
0.21
1.60
0
0.000
0
0
-223.9
10.5
6.730
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
397
2.04
1.26
0.16
1 60
0
0.000
0
0
-221 9
39 7
6,769
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
24
2.05
1 26
0.21
1 60
0
0.000
0
0
-217 4
2 4
6,772
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
138
2.03
1.26
0.21
1 60
0
0 000
0
0
-216 0
13 8
6,785
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
318
2.89
1.26
0.21
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-215 1
31 8
6,817
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Prem
166
2.02
1.26
0.21
1.60
0
0.000
0
0
-214.9
16.6
6,834
Alaska
W-CG-reg
135
2.88
1.26
0.53
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-206.1
13.5
6,847
California
W-RFG-Prem
1868
2.59
1.26
0.26
0.74
0
i 0.160
0
0
-196.0
186.8
7,034
California
W-RFG-req
6463
2.35
1.26
0.26
0.97
0
0.160
0
0
-195 2
646.3
7,681
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
210
2.73
1.26
0.53
0.97
0
0 000
0
0
-191 4
21.0
7,702
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
53
2.53
1.26
0.11
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-189 2
5.3
7,707
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
25
2.61
1.26
0.23
0.74
0
0 000
0
0
-185 1
2.5
7,709
Hawaii
W-CG-Prem
63
2.86
1.26
0.53
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-180.7
6.3
7,716
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
226
2.32
1.26
0.23
0 97
0
0 000
0
0
-179 2
22.6
7,738
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
2.55
1.26
0.23
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-179 1
0.5
7,739
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
227
2.17
1.26
0.11
0 74
0
0.255
0
0
-178 7
22.7
7,762
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
47
2.52
1.26
0.21
0 74
0
0 000
0
0
-178 0
4.7
7,766
DC
W-RFG-Prem
8
2.51
1.26
0.21
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-177.5
0.8
7,767
DC
W-RFG-req
31
2.24
1.26
0.21
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-173.3
3.1
7,770
New Hampshire
W-CG-reg
69
2.26
1.26
0.23
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-173.2
6.9
7,777
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
57
2.11
1.26
0.11
0.74
0
0.255
0
0
-172.7
5.7
7,783
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
79
2.04
r 1.26
0.11
0.74
0
f" 0.295
0
0
-169.7
7.9
7,791
W-RFG-Prem
37
2.26
1.26
0.11
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-162.2
3.7
7,794
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1574
1.75
1.26
0.11
0 97
0
0 255
0
0
-159.6
157.4
7,952
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
161
2.23
1.26
0.11
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-159.6
16.1
7,968
Iowa
W-CG-reg
605
1.71
1.26
0.11
0 97
0
0 295
0
0
-159.5
60.5
8,028
Montana
W-CG-Prem
74
2.28
1.26
0.18
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-157.4
7.4
8,036
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem j 89
2.20
1.26
0.11
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-156.2
8.9
8,045
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
133
2.33
0.26
0.74
0
0 000
0
0
__
__
8,058
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
25
2.18
1.26
0.11
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-154 6
2 5
8,061
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
199
2.18
1.26
0.11
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-154 6
19 9
8,080
Illinois
W-CG-reg
925
1.69
1.26
0.11
0 97
0
0.255
0
0
-153.6
92 5
8,173
Nevada
W-CG-reg
515
2.09
1.26
0.26
0 97
0
0.000
0
0
-153 2
51 5
8,224
Washington
W-CG-Prem
262
2.28
1.26
0.22
0 74
0
0 000
0
0
-153 1
26 2
8,251
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
223
2.23
1.26
0.18
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-153 0
22.3
8,273
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
26
2.08
1.26
0.11
0 74
0
0 091
0
0
-152.9
2 6
8,276
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
149
2.28
1.26
0.26
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-149 6
14 9
8,291
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
104
2.12
1.26
0.11
0 74
0
0.000
0
0
-148 6
10 4
8,301
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
60
2.18
1.26
0.18
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-148.1
6.0
8,307
114
-------
Table A2019C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
2019
Gasoline
Code
Gasoline
Volume
MMqals
Gasoline
Price
$/gal
Ethanol
Gate Price
$/gal
Ethanol
Dist Cost
$/qal
Ethanol
Blending
$/qal
Federal
Subsidy
$/gal
State
Subsidy
$/gal
State
Mandate
RFG
"Mandate"
Ethanol
Blending
Cost c/qal
Ethanol
Volume
MMqals
Cumulative
Eth Vol
MMqals
Slate
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
34
2.15
1.26
0.18
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-145. I 3.4
8,310
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
23
2.19
1.26
0.21! 0.74
0
0.000 0
0
-144.9 2.3 8,313
Arizona
W-RFG-req
961
2 00
1.26
0.26! 0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-144.3
96.11 8,409
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
68i 2.22
1.26! 0.26i 0.74I 0 0 000
0
0
0
0
-143.6
-143.3
-142.6
6 8j 8,416
13T9| 8^548
Washington
W-CG-reg
1.26! 0.22! 0.97
0
0.000
0 000
Idaho
W-CG-reg
356
1.90
1.261 0.18
0.97
0.74
0
0
0
35.6 8,583
New York
W-RFG-Prem
2.14
1.26! 0.19
0 0 000
0
0
-141.9
-141.8
-141.3
-140.6
36.31 8,619
North Dakota
W-CG-Prem
25i 2.16
1.26
0.211 0.741 01 0.000
0
0
0
0
2.5 j 8,622
7l| 8^9
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
1.26
1.26
0.21! 0.74
0.11! 0.97
0.18! 0.74
0
0.000
0 091
0.000
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
217
1.72
0
0
0
21.71 8,651
Utah
W-CG-Prem
2.10
1.26
1.26
0
0
0
-139.9
-139.1
16.01 8,667
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
24[ 2.11
0.191 0.741 0 0 000
0
0
2.4] 8,669
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
59j 2.13) 1.26
0.21
0.74
0
0.000I 0
0
-138.91 5.9l 8,675
Arizona
W-CG-reg
536| 1.94
1.26
0.26
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-138.3
53.6
8,729
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
1.26
0.16
0.74
0.000
0
0
-138.1
9.3
8,738
Utah
W-CG-reg
593;1.84
1.26
0.18
0.97
0
O.OOOl 0
0
-136.6j 59.3j 8,797
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
1.26
0.53
0.74
0
615661 0
0
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
41 if 1.77
1.26
0.11
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-136.0
41.1
8,840
New York
W-CG-Prem
1221 Z08
1.26
0.19
0.74
0.000
0
0
-135.9
12.2
8,852
Colorado
W-CG-reg
1016; 1.83
1.26
0.18
0.97
0
0.0001 0
0
-135.6j 101.6j 8,954
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
1.26
0.30
0.74
0
aoool 0
0
'~^134T| 151 8~955
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
125
2.08
1.26
0.21
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-134.6
12.5
8,968
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
15
1.26
0.23
0.74
0.000
0
0
-134.5
1.5
8,969
Montana
W-CG-reg
346
1.81
1.26
0.18
0.97
0
0.0001 0
0
-134.3j 34.6j 9,004
Indiana
W-RFG-recj
242] 1.75
1.26
0.11
0.97
0
aoool 0
0
'~^134?l1 24l1 9^028
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
79l 2.06
1.26
0.19
0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-133.9
7.9
9,036
Virqinia
W-RFG-Prem
1851 206
1.26
0.21
0.74
0.000
0
0
-132.4
18.5
9,055
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
127 j 2.06
1.26
0.21
0.74
0.74
0
0
0.000 0
aoool 0
0
0
-132.3 12.7 9,067
_j
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
1.26
0.16
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
34of 2.07
1.26
0.23! 0.74
0
0.000
0
0
-131.4
34.Of 9,108
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
1.26
0.23! 0.74
0.000
0
0
-131.0
_j gi24
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
4011 1.72
1.26
0.11
0.97
0
0.0001 0
0
-131.0j 40.1 J 9,164
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
1.26
0.11
0.74
0
aooo] 0
0
Michigan
W-CG-reg
24391 1.71
1.26
0.11
0.97
0
o.boof 0
0
-130.61 243.9| 9,415
Texas
W-RFG-Prem
_| _
1.26
0.16
0.74
__j _
0
-130.3! 4s7i I 9,463
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
995; 1.71
1.26
0.11
0.97
0
aooo] o:
0
-130.oi 99.5\ 9,562
Ohio
W-CG-reg
1.26
0.11
0.97
0
aooo] 0"
0
"~^13O0|
New York
W-RFG-reg
15061 1.78
1.26
0.19
0.97
0
O.OOOf 0
0
-129.61 156.61 9,964
New Mexico
W-CG-req
_| _
1.26
0.21
0.97
__j _
0
-129.0! 48781 10,013
Maine
W-CG-Prem
13; 2.11
1.26
0.30
0.74
0
aooo] o:
0
-128.7] 1.31 10,015
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
1.26
0.23
0.74
0
aooo] 0"
0
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
17 if 1.75
1.26
0.18
0.97
0
6.0001 0
0
-128.3[ 17. if 10,060
Indiana
W-CG-req
1457|
__
0.11
0.97
0.000
0
0
-128.1
145.71 10,205
Kansas
W-CG-reg
841 j_ 1.69
1.26! 0.111 0.97
1.26! 0.19! 0.74
1.261 0.161 0.97
0
0.000
0 000
0 000
0
0
-128.0
-127.9
-127.2
-126.7
84. l] 10,289
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
102: 2.00
0
0
0
10.2[ 10,366
Texas
W-RFG-reg
30961 1-72
0
0
0
309.6f 10,609
Kentucky
W-RFG-req
234j ^
1.26! 0.21 i 0.97I 0 0 000
0
0
_j 1Q633
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
205
2.00
1.261 0.211 0.741 01 0.000
0
0
-126.6
| 2a5[ 10,653
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
78
2.00
1.26! 0.21 i 0.74 0| 0.000| 0
0
-126.41 7.8] 10,661
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
291 2.00
1.26' 0 21 i 0.74! Ol 0.000
0
0
-125.8
I 2.9
10.664
10,711
10,743
10,760
10,800
10,823
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
474I 1.74
1.26! 0.19! 0.97I 0 0 000
0
0
-125.1
-124.6
-124.4
-124.3
47.4
31.7
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
317j_ 1.75
1.261 0.211 0.97
1.26! 0.21 i 0.74
1.26! 0.161 0.74
0
0.000
0.000
0 000
0
0
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
166| 1.98
0
0
0
16.6
Texas
W-CG-Prem
410f 1.93
0
0
0
41.0
Maine
W-RFG-req
228| 1.83
j 1.26
0.30
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-124.1
22.8
Connecticut
W-RFG-reฃ
776l1.75
1.26
0.97
0
0.000 0
0
-124.0| 77.6 10,901
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
'203J 1.75
1.26
0.97
0
o.ooot 0
0
-124,ot 20.31 10,921
West Virginia
W-CG-reg
3861 1.72
1.26
0.97
0
O.OOOf 0
0
-123.71 38.6j 10,960
New York
W-CG-req
1247| ^2
1.26
0.97
__j _
0
-123.6! 124.7! 11,085
Massachusetts
W-RFG-Prem
201: 1.97
1.26
0.21
0.74
0
0.000] 0
0
-123.3] 20. l] 11,105
Virginia
W-RFG-recj
950! 1.73
1.26
0.21! 0.97
0
o.ooof 0
0
-122.6 f 95.of 11,200
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
7591 1.68
1.26
0.16! 0.97
0
O.OOOf 0
0
-122.31 75.91 11,275
Massachusetts
W-RFG-req
131Q| ^3
1.26
0.21! 0.97
__j _
0
-122.0! 131.9! 11,407
Florida
W-CG-Prem
553] 2.04
1.26
0.30i 0.74
0
0.000] o:
0
-121.9] 55.3] 11,463
Maryland
W-RFG-recj
909| 1.72
1.26
0.21! 0.97
0
o.ooot 0
0
-121 6 90.9f 11,554
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
9061 1.67
1.26
0.16! 0.97
0
O.OOOf 0
0
-121.3 j 90.6j 11,644
Louisiana
W-CG-Prem
__| _
1.26
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.74
__j _
0
-121.3! 1275] 11,657
Texas
W-CG-reฃ
421611.66
1.26
0.97
0
0.000] 0
0
-121.2 j_ 421 6[ 12,078
Delaware
W-RFG-reg
23it 1.72
1.26
0.97
0
o.oo'o | 0
0
-121. of 23. if 12,101
Vermont
W-CG-reg
1631 1.74
1.26
0.97
0
O.OOOf 0
0
-120.9]" 16.3| 12,118
Kentucky
W-CG-req
___| 171'
1.26
0.97
__j _
0
-120.7! 84Tl 12,202
Oklahoma
W-CG-reฃ
10761 1.70
1.26
0.97
0
0.016] o:
0
-120.61 107.6] 12,310
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
105t 1.92
1.26
0.74
0
o.oiif 0
0
-Tisuf lO.st 12,320
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
1072 f 1.68
1.26
0.97
0
oVooof 6
0
-il9.il" i07.2t 12,428
New Jersey
W-RFG-req
1970| 170"
1.26
0.97
__j _
0
-119.0! 197.0! 12,625
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
9[ 1.92
1.26
0.21
0.74
0
0.000] 0
0
-118.41 0.9] 12,626
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1412[ 1.64
1.26
0.16! 0.97
0
o.oo'o [ 0
0
-118.3!" 141.2 f 12,767
Maine
W-CG-reg
154 f 1.77
1.26
0.30
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-118.1
I 15.4f 12,782
Virqinia
W-CG-req
___|
1.26
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.97
0
0.000
0 000
0 000
0 000
0
0
-116.6
-115.6
-114.8
-114.6
_j 12863
Maryland
W-CG-reg
107j 1.66
1.26
0.97
0
0
0
IO.7] 12,873
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1257; 1.65
1.26
0.97
0
0
0
125.7! 12,999
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1772
1.65
1.26
0.97
0
0
0
177.2
13,176
Georqia
W-CG-req
2476
1.67
1.26
0.23
0.97
0
0.000
0
0
-113.9
247.6
13,424
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1334
1.66
1.26
0.23
0.97
0
0.000] 0
0
-113.61 133.4
13,557
North Carolina
W-CG-reg
2239 1.66
3764! 1.70
1.26
1.26
0.23
0.30
0.97
0.97
0
0
o.ooot' 0
o.oooi 0
0
0
-113.5
-110.7
223.9| 13,781
Florida
W-CG-req
376.4j 14,157
-------
Table A2020A Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2020
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMgals
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/gal
MMgals
MMgals
Oregon
S-CG-Prem
84
1.75
0.86
0.22
0 22
0
0.000
1
0
-89.6
8.4
8
Oregon
W-CG-Prem
101
1 70
0.86
0.22
0 12
0
0.000
1
0
-75.0
10 1
18
Missouri
S-CG-Prem
60
1.47
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.000
1
0
-71.8
6.0
25
Oregon
S-CG-Reg
596
1.45
0.86
0.22
0.33
0
0.000
1
0
-70.3
S
84
Missouri
S-PFG Prem
36
1.53
0.86
0.11
0 09
0
0.000
1
0
-64.6
3.6
88
Minnesota
S-CG-Prem
91
1.40
0.86
011
0 22
0
0 000
1
0
-64 6
91
97
Missouri
W-RFG-Prem
44
1.48
0.86
0.11
012
0
0.000
1
0
-63.3
4.4
101
Missouri
W-CG-Prem
73
1.42
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.000
1
0
-57.3
7.3
108
Minnesota
S-CG-Reg
907
1.20
0.86
0.11
0 33
0
0.000
1
0
-55.5
90 7
199
Missouri
S-CG-Reg
717
1 19
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.000
1
0
-55.4
71 7
271
Oregon
W-CG-reg
721
1.40
0.86
0.22
019
0
0.000
1
0
-51.0
721
343
Minnesota
W-CG-Prem
110
1.35
0.86
0.11
012
0
0.000
1
0
-50.0
11.0
354
Missouri
S-RFG-Reg
368
1.25
0.86
0.11
0 20
0
0.000
1
0
-48.2
36.8
391
Missouri
W-RFG-reg
445
1.20
0.86
011
019
0
0.000
1
0
-421
445
435
Minnesota
W-CG-reg
1096
1.15
0.86
0.11
019
0
0.000
1
0
-36.2
109.6
545
Missouri
W-CG-reg
867
1.14
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.000
1
0
-36.1
86.7
632
Alaska
S-CG-Reg
98
2.91
0.86
0.53
0.33
0
0.000
0
0
-185.6
9.8
641
Nebraska
S-CG-Prem
39
2.56
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-181.0
3.9
645
Ha\Aซii
S-CG-Prem
46
2.89
0.86
0.53
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-172.5
4.6
650
i Jew Hampshire
S-CG-Prem
4
2.58
0.86
0.23
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-170.9
0.4
650
Ha\Aซii
S-CG-Reg
153
2.76
0.86
0.53
0.33
0
0.000
0
0
-170.9
15.3
665
Nebraska
W-CG-Prem
47
2.51
0.86
0.11
012
0
0.000
0
0
-166.4
4.7
670
Alaska
W-CG-reg
119
2.86
0.86
0.53
019
0
0.000
0
0
-166.3
11 9
682
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Prem
18
2.64
0.86
0.23
0.09
0
0.000
0
0
-163.7
1.8
684
New Hampshire
W-RFG-Prem
22
2.59
0.86
0.23
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-162.4
2.2
686
Ha\Aซii
W-CG-Prem
55
2.84
0.86
0.53
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-157.9
5.5
692
Rhode Island
S-RFG-Prem
34
2.55
0.86
0.21
0.09
0
0.000
0
0
-156.6
3.4
695
New Hampshire
W-CG-Prem
5
2.53
0.86
0.23
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-156.4
0.5
695
DC
S-RFG-Prem
6
2.54
0.86
0.21
0.09
0
0.000
0
0
-156.1
0.6
696
Rhode Island
W-RFG-Prem
41
2.50
0.86
0.21
0 12
0
0.000
0
0
-155.3
41
700
DC
W-RFG-Prem
7
2.49
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-154.8
0.7
701
New Hampshire
S-CG-Reg
50
2.29
0.86
0.23
0.33
0
0.000
0
0
-152.6
5.0
706
Hawaii
W-CG-reg
185
2.71
0.86
0.53
0.19
0
0.000
0
0
-151.6
18.5
724
New Hampshire
S-RFG-Reg
164
2.35
0.86
0.23
0.20
0
0.000
0
0
-145.4
16.4
741
DC
S-RFG-Reg
23
2.27
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.000
0
0
-139.6
2.3
743
New Hampshire
W-RFG-reg
199
2.30
0.86
0.23
0.19
0
0.000
0
0
-139.4
19.9
763
DC
W-RFG-reg
28
2.22
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.000
0
0
-133.5
2.8
766
i le Hampshire
W-CG-reg
61
2.24
0.86
0.23
0 19
0
0.000
0
0
-133.4
6.1
772
California
S-RFG-Prem
1356
2.04
0.86
0.26
0.09
0
0.283
0
0
-128.8
135.6
907
California
W-RFG-Prem
1640
1.99
0.86
0.26
0.12
0
0.283
0
0
-127.5
164.0
1,071
California
S-RFG-Reg
4693
1.80
0.86
0.26
0.20
0
0.283
0
0
-115.7
469.3
1,541
California
W-RFG-reg
5675
1.75
0.86
0.26
0 19
0
0.283
0
0
-109.6
567 5
2,108
Illinois
S-CG-Prem
41
1.53
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.255
0
0
-104.0
4.1
2,112
Montana
S-CG-Prem
54
1.81
0.86
0.18
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-99.2
5.4
2,118
Illinois
S-RFG-Prem
165
1.59
0.86
0.11
0.09
0
0.255
0
0
-96.8
16.5
2,134
Idaho
S-CG-Prem
44
1.78
0.86
0.18
0 22
0
0.000
0
0
-96.5
44
2,138
Iowa
S-CG-Prem
57
1.42
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.295
0
0
-96.4
5.7
2,144
Illinois
W-RFG-Prem
199
1.54
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.255
0
0
-95.5
19.9
2,164
Michigan
S-CG-Prem
117
1.69
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-94.0
11.7
2,176
Colorado
S-CG-Prem
162
1.73
0.86
0.18
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-91.7
16 2
2,192
Washington
S-CG-Prem
190
1.77
0.86
0.22
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-91.7
190
2,211
Utah
S-CG-Prem
116
1.73
0.86
0.18
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-91.5
11.6
2,223
Illinois
W-CG-Prem
50
1.48
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.255
0
0
-89.5
5.0
2,228
Wyoming
S-CG-Prem
25
1.69
0.86
0.18
0 22
0
0.000
0
0
-87.2
2.5
2,230
Ohio
S-CG-Prem
144
1.62
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-87.1
14 4
2,245
Wisconsin
S-CG-Prem
64
1.61
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-86.2
6.4
2,251
Iowa
S-CG-Reg
439
1.21
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.295
0
0
-86.0
43.9
2,295
Nevada
S-CG-Prem
97
1.75
0.86
0.26
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
CO
CO
9.7
2,305
Montana
W-CG-Prem
65
1.76
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-84.7
6.5
2,311
South Dakota
S-CG-Prem
19
1.50
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.091
0
0
-83.7
1.9
2,313
Idaho
W-CG-Prem
53
1.73
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-82.0
5.3
2,318
Iowa
W-CG-Prem
69
1.37
0.86
0.11
012
0
0.295
0
0
-81.8
6.9
2,325
New Mexico
S-CG-Prem
53
1.65
0.86
0.21
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-80.4
5.3
2,331
Indiana
S-CG-Prem
76
1.55
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-80.3
7.6
2,338
Arizona
S-CG-Prem
50
1.70
0.86
0.26
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-79.9
5.0
2,343
Michigan
W-CG-Prem
141
1.64
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-79.4
14 1
2,357
Illinois
S-CG-Reg
672
1.18
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.255
0
0
-79.1
67 2
2,424
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Prem
27
1.67
0.86
0.11
0.09
0
0.000
0
0
-79.0
2.7
2,427
Mississippi
S-CG-Prem
68
1.59
0.86
0.16
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-79.0
6.8
2,434
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
91
1.64
0.86
0.21
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-78.6
9.1
2,443
New York
S-CG-Prem
88
1.61
0.86
0.19
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-78.2
CO
CO
2,452
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
33
1.62
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-77.7
3.3
2,455
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
196
1.68
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-77.2
19.6
2,475
Washington
W-CG-Prem
230
1.72
0.86
0.22
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-77.1
23 0
2,498
Utah
W-CG-Prem
141
1.68
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-77.0
14 1
2,512
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
43
1.61
0.86
0.21
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-76.6
4.3
2,516
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
247
1.63
0.86
0.23
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-75.5
24.7
2,541
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
18
1.58
0.86
0.19
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-75.5
1.8
2,542
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
258
1.46
0.86
0.18
0.33
0
0.000
0
0
-75.1
25.8
2,568
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
11
1.60
0.86
0.23
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-73.2
1.1
2,569
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
115
1.60
0.86
0.23
0.22
0
0.000
0
0
-73.1
11.5
2,581
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
18
1.61
0.86
0.11
0.09
0
0.000
0
0
-73.1
1.8
2,583
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
109
1.76
0.86
0.26
0 09
0
0.000
0
0
-72.7
109
2,594
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
30
1.64
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-72.7
3.0
2,597
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
174
1.57
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.000
0
0
-72.5
17.4
2,614
116
-------
Table A2020B Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2020
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
State
MMqals
$/gal
$/gal
$/qal
$/gal
$/qal
$/qal
Cost c/qal
MMqals
MMgals
Alabama
S-CG-Prem
91
1.64
0.86
L ฐ-21
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-78 6
9.1
2,443
New York
S-CG-Prem
88
1.61
0.86
t 0.19
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-78 2
8.8
2,452
Wisconsin
W-RFG-Prem
33
__
086
__
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-77 7
3.3
2,455
Colorado
W-CG-Prem
196
1.68
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-77 2
19.6
2,475
Washington
W-CG-Prem
230
1.72
0.86
0.22
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-77.1
23.0
Utah
W-CG-Prem
141
1.68
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-77 0
14.1
2,512
Kentucky
S-CG-Prem
43
1.61
0.86
0.21
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-76 6
4.3
2,516
Georgia
S-CG-Prem
247
1.63
0.86
0.23
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-75 5
24.7
2,541
West Virginia
S-CG-Prem
3
1.58
0.86
0.19
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-75.5
1.8
2,542
Idaho
S-CG-Reg
258
1.46
0.86
0.18
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-75 1
25.8
2,568
Vermont
S-CG-Prem
11
1 60
0.86
0 23
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-73.2
1.1
2,569
South Carolina
S-CG-Prem
115
1 60
0.86
0 23
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-73.1
11.5
2,581
Indiana
S-RFG-Prem
18
1 61
0.86
0 11
0 09
0
0.00
0
0
-73.1
1.8
2,583
Arizona
S-RFG-Prem
109
1.76
0.86
0 26
0 09
0
0.00
0
0
-72.7
10.9
2,594
Wyoming
W-CG-Prem
30
1.64
0.86
0.18
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-72.7
3.0
2,597
Ohio
W-CG-Prem
174
__
086
ojf
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-72 5
17.4
2,614
Illinois
S-RFG-Req
1143
1.24
0.86
0.11
0.20
0
0.26
0
0
-71 9
114.3
2,728
Indiana
W-RFG-Prem
22
r 1.56
0.86
r o.ii
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-71 8
2.2
2,730
Wisconsin
W-CG-Prem
78
1.56
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-71 7
7.8
2,738
Utah
S-CG- Reg
431
1.42
0.86
0.18
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-71 7
43.1
2,781
Nevada
S-CG- Reg
374
1.51
0.86
0.26
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-71 6
37.4
2,819
Alaska
S-CG-Prem
12
1.88
0.86
0.53
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-71 4
1.2
2,820
Arizona
W-RFG-Prem
131
1.71
0.86
0.26
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-71 3
13.1
2,833
North Carolina
S-CG-Prem
203
1.58
0.86
0.23
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-71 0
20.3
2,853
New York
S-RFG-Prem
263
1.67
0.86
0.19
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-71 0
26.3
2,880
Arkansas
S-CG-Prem
47
1.51
0.86
0.16
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-71 0
4.7
2,884
Nevada
W-CG-Prem
117
1.70
0.86
0.26
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-70 2
11.7
2,896
Washington
S-CG-Reg
958
__
086
022
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-69 8
95.8
2,992
New York
W-RFG-Prem
318
1.62
0.86
0.19
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-69.7
31.8
3,024
South Dakota
S-CG-Reg
158
1.25
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.09
0
0
-69 6
15.8
3,040
Kentucky
S-RFG-Prem
17
1.67
0.86
02i
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-69 4
1.7
3,041
South Dakota
W-CG-Prem
23
1.45
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.09
0
0
-69 2
2.3
3,043
Florida
S-CG-Prem
401
1.62
0.86
0.30
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-69 1
40.1
3,084
Tennessee
S-CG-Prem
149
1.54
0.86
0.21
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-68 8
14.9
3,098
Kentucky
W-RFG-Prem
20
1.62
0.86
02i
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-68 0
2.0
3,101
Louisiana
S-CG-Prem
91
1.47
0.86
0.16
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-67.4
9.1
3,110
Iowa
W-CG-reg
531
1.16
0.86
0 11
0.19^
0
0.30
0
0
-66.7
53.1
3,163
New Mexico
W-CG-Prem
64
1 60
0.86
0 21
0.12!
0
0.00
0
0
-65.9
6.4
3,169
Illinois
W-RFG-reg
1382
1 19
0.86
0 11
0.19^
0
0.26
0
0
-65.8
138.2
3,307
Indiana
W-CG-Prem
92
1 50
0.86
0 11
0.121
0
0.00
0
0
-65.8
9.2
3,316
North Dakota
S-CG-Prem
18
1.50
0.86
0.21
0.221
0
0.00
0
0
-65.4
1.8
3,318
Arizona
W-CG-Prem
60
1.65
0.86
0.26
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-65.3
6.0
3,324
Montana
S-CG-Reg
251
1.36
0.86
0.18
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-65 1
25.1
3,349
Colorado
S-CG-Reg
738
1.36
0.86
0.18
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-65 1
73.8
3,423
Virginia
S-CG-Prem
56
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-65 0
5.6
3,429
Arizona
S-CG- Reg
389
1.44
0.86
t 0.26
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-64 8
38.9
3,468
Mississippi
W-CG-Prem
82
__
086
__
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-64 4
8.2
3,476
Kansas
S-CG-Prem
52
1.39
0.86
0.11
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-64 2
5.2
3,481
Alabama
W-CG-Prem
110
1.59
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-64.1
11.0
New York
W-CG-Prem
107
1.56
0.86
0.19
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-63.7
10.7
3.503
Connecticut
S-RFG-Prem
92
1 61
0.86
0 21
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-63.2
9.2
3,512
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Prem
74
1 46
0.86
0 19
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-62.7
7.4
3,520
Maine
S-CG-Prem
10
1 55
0.86
0 30
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-62.1
1.0
3,520
Kentucky
W-CG-Prem
52
1.56
0.86
0 21
0 12
0
0.00
0
0
-62.0
5.2
3,526
Connecticut
W-RFG-Prem
112
1.56
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-61.9
11.2
3,537
Texas
S-CG-Prem
297
1 41
0.86
0 16
0.22
0
0.00
0
0
-61.3
29.7
3,567
Georgia
W-CG-Prem
3
1 58
0.86
0 23
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-61.0
29.8
3,596
West Virginia
W-CG-Prem
21
1.53
0.86
0 19
0 12
0
0.00
0
0
-60.9
2.1
3,599
Illinois
W-CG-reg
812
1.13
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.26
0
0
-59.8
81.2
3,680
Michigan
S-CG-Reg
1771
1.24
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-59 5
177.1
3,857
Vermont
W-CG-Prem
13
1.55
0.86
0.23
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-58 7
1.3
3,858
South Carolina
W-CG-Prem
139
155
0.86
0.23
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-58.6
13.9
3,872
Wyoming
S-CG-Req
124
1.29
0.86
0.18
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-58 1
12.4
3,884
Virginia
S-RFG-Prem
135
1.56
0.86
0.21
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-57 8
13.5
3,898
Arizona
S-RFG-Req
698
1.50
0.86
0.26
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-57 6
69.8
3,968
New Mexico
S-CG-Reg
354
r 1.32
0.86
r o.2i
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-57 5
35.4
4,003
Nebraska
S-CG-Reg
291
1.22
0.86
0 11
0 33
0
0.00
0
0
-57.5
29.1
4,032
New York
S-CG-Reg
906
1 29
0.86
0 19
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-57.1
90.6
4,123
Ohio
S-CG-Reg
1827
1.21
0.86
0 11
0 33
0
0.00
0
0
-57.0
182.7
4,305
Alaska
W-CG-Prem
14
1.83
0.86
0 53
0 12
0
0.00
0
0
-56.8
1.4
4,307
North Carolina
W-CG-Prem
246
1 53
0.86
0 23
0 12
0
0.00
0
0
-56.5
24.6
4.331
Virginia
W-RFG-Prem
163
1 51
0.86
0 21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-56.5
16.3
4,348
Arkansas
W-CG-Prem
57
1.46
0.86
0 16
0 12
0
0.00
0
0
-56.4
5.7
4,353
Idaho
W-CG-reg
312
1.41
0.86
0 18
0 19
0
0.00
0
0
-55.8
31.2
4,385
Maryland
S-CG-Prem
6
1 41
0.86
0 21
0 22
0
0.00
0
0
-55.7
0.6
4,385
Pennsylvania
S-RFG-Prem
58
1.52
0.86
0.19
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-55.5
5.8
4,391
Kansas
S-CG- Reg
610
1.20
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-55 5
61.0
4,452
Maine
S-RFG-Prem
11
1.61
0.86
0.30
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-54 9
1.1
4,453
Florida
W-CG-Prem
485
1.57
0.86
0.30
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-54 5
48.5
4,502
Tennessee
W-CG-Prem
180
1.49
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-54 3
18.0
4,520
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-Prem
70
1.47
0.86
0.19
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-54.2
7.0
4,527
Texas
S-RFG-Prem
349
1.47
0.86
0.16
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-54.1
34.9
4,561
Vermont
S-CG- Reg
119
1.30
0.86
0.23
0.33
0
6.66
0
0
-54 1
11.9
4,573
Wisconsin
S-CG- Req
722
1.18
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-53 7
72.2
4,646
Indiana
S-CG-Reg
1058
1.18
0.86
0.11
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-53.6
105.8
4,751
Maine
W-RFG-Prem
13
1.56
0.86
0.30
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-53.6
1.3
4,753
117
-------
Table A2020C Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes
Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Ethanol
Ethanol
Ethanol
Federal
State
State
RFG
Ethanol
Ethanol
Cumulative
2020
Code
Volume
Price
Gate Price
Dist Cost
Blending
Subsidy
Subsidy
Mandate
"Mandate"
Blending
Volume
Eth Vol
Slate
MMqals
$/qal
$/qal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
$/gal
Cost c/qal
MMqals
MMqals
Virginia
W-CG-Prem
68
1.45
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-50.5
6.8
5,701
Delaware
S-RFG-Prem
21
1.49
0.86
0.21
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-50.4
2.1
South Dakota
W-CG-reg
191
1.20
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.09
0
0
-50.3
19.1
5,722
West Virginia
S-CG-Reg
280
1 22
0.86
0.19
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-50.1
28.0
5,750
New York
S- RFG-Reg
1093
1 35
0.86
0.19
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-49.9
109.3
5,859
New Jersey
W-RFG-Prem
279
1 44
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-49.9
27.9
5,887
Mississippi
S-CG-Reg
658
1 19
0.86
0.16
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-49.8
65.8
5,953
Kansas
W-CG-Prem
63
1.34
0.86
0.11
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-49.6
6.3
5,959
Pennsylvania
S-CG-Reg
778
1 22
0.86
0.19
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-49.6
77.8
6,037
Delaware
W-RFG-Prem
25
1 44
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-49.1
2.5
North Dakota
S-CG-Reg
148
1 23
0.86
0.21
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-48.5
14.8
6,054
Maryland
S-RFG-Prem
121
1 47
0.86
0.21
0.09
0
0.00
0
0
-48.5
12.1
6,066
Pennsylvania
W-CG-Prem
90
1.41
0.86
0.19
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-48.2
9.0
6,075
Virginia
S-CG-Reg
583
1.22
0.86
0.21
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-48.1
58.3
6,134
Maine
W-CG-Prem
12
1.50
0.86
0.30
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-47.6
1.2
6,135
Alabama
S-CG-Reg
913
1 22
0.86
0.21
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-47.5
91.3
6,226
Tennessee
S-CG-Reg
1287
1 21
0.86
0.21
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-47.2
128.7
6,355
Maryland
W-RFG-Prem
146
1 42
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-47.1
14.6
Texas
W-CG-Prem
360
1 36
0.86
0.16
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-46.8
36.0
6,405
Oklahoma
S-CG-Reg
781
1.19
0.86
0.21
0.33
0
0.02
0
0
-46.6
78.1
6,483
Wisconsin
S-RFG-Reg
298
1.24
0.86
0.11
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-46.5
29.8
6,513
Georgia
S-CG-Reg
1798
F 1.23
0.86
0.23
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-46.4
179.8
6,693
Indiana
S-RFG-Reg
176
1 24
0.86
0.11
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-46.4
17.6
6,711
Florida
S-CG-Reg
2733
1 29
0.86
0.30
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-46.1
273.3
6,984
Maine
S-CG-Reg
112
1 28
0.86
0.30
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-46.1
11.2
6,995
Maryland
S-CG-Reg
77
1 20
0.86
0.21
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-46.1
7.7
7,003
South Carolina
S-CG-Reg
968
1.22
0.86
0.23
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-46.0
96.8
7,100
Texas
S-RFG- Reg
2248
1.28
0.86
0.16
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-46.0
224.8
7,324
Montana
g
304
1.31
0.86
0.18
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-45.8
30.4
Colorado
W-CG-reg
892
1.31
0.86
0.18
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-45.8
89.2
7,444
Arizona
W-CG-req
471
1.39
0.86
0.26
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-45.5
47.1
7,491
North Carolina
S-CG-Reg
1626
1.22
0.86
0.23
0.33
0
0.00
0
0
-45.4
162.6
7,654
Connecticut
'9
563
1.33
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-45.3
56.3
7,710
Rhode Island
S- RFG-Reg
230
1.32
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-44.8
23.0
7,733
Kentucky
S- RFG-Reg
170
1.32
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-44.5
17.0
7,750
New York
W-RFG-reg
1322
1.30
0.86
0.19
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-43.8
132.2
7,882
Pennsylvania
'9
344
1.28
0.86
0.19
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-42.4
34.4
7,917
Maryland
W-CG-Prem
8
1.36
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.00
0
0
-41.1
0.8
7,917
Virqinia
S- RFG-Reg
690
1 28
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-40.9
69.0
7,986
Wisconsin
W-RFG-reg
361
1 19
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-40.4
36.1
8,023
Indiana
eg
212
1 19
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-40.3
21.2
8,044
Massachusetts
S-RFG-Reg
958
1 28
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-40.3
95.8
8,140
Delaware
S-RFG-Reg
167
1.28
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-40.3
16.7
8,156
Michigan
W-CG-reg
2141
1 19
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-40.2
214.1
8,370
Texas
eg
2718
1 23
0.86
0.16
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-40.0
271.8
8,642
New Jersey
S-RFG-Reg
1431
1 27
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-39.3
143.1
8,785
Connecticut
W-RFG-reg
681
1 28
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-39.2
68.1
8,853
Maine
S-RFG-Reg
165
1.34
0.86
0.30
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-38.9
16.5
8,870
Maryland
S-RFG-Reg
660
1.26
0.86
0.21
0.20
0
0.00
0
0
-38.9
66.0
Wyoming
W-CG-reg
150
f 1.24
0.86
0.18
0 19
0
0.00
0
0
-38.8
15.0
8.951
Rhode Island
W-RFG-reg
278
1 27
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-38.7
27.8
8,979
Kentucky
W-RFG-reg
205
1 27
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-38.4
20.5
8,999
New Mexico
g
428
1 27
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-38.2
42.8
9,042
Nebraska
W-CG-reg
352
1 17
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-38.2
35.2
9,077
Oklahoma
W-CG-Prem
92
1.31
0.86
0.21
0.12
0
0.02
0
0
-38.2
9.2
9,087
New York
W-CG-reg
1095
1 24
0.86
0.19
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-37.8
109.5
9,196
Ohio
g
2209
1 16
0.86
0.11
0 19
0
0.00
0
0
-37.7
220.9
9,417
Pennsylvania
W-RFG-reg
416
1 23
0.86
0.19
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-36.3
41.6
9,459
Kansas
W-CG-reg
738
1 15
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-36.2
73.8
9,532
Vermont
W-CG-reg
143
1.25
0.86
0.23
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-34.9
14.3
9,547
Virginia
eg
834
1.23
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-34.8
83.4
Wisconsin
W-CG-reg
873
1.13
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-34.4
87.3
9,717
Indiana
W-CG-req
1280
1.13
0.86
0.11
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-34.3
128.0
9,845
Massachusetts
W-RFG-reg
1158
1.23
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-34.2
115.8
9,961
Delaware
eg
203
1.23
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-34.2
20.3
9,981
Texas
W-CG-reg
3702
1.17
0.86
0.16
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-34.0
370.2
10,352
Arkansas
W-CG-reg
666
1 17
0.86
0.16
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-33.6
66.6
10,418
New Jersey
W-RFG-reg
1730
1 22
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-33.2
173.0
10,591
Maine
eg
200
1 29
0.86
0.30
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-32.8
20.0
10,611
Maryland
W-RFG-reg
798
1 21
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-32.8
79.8
10,691
Louisiana
W-CG-reg
1240
1.16
0.86
0.16
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-32.6
124.0
10.815
Kentucky
W-CG-reg
743
1 21
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-32.4
74.3
10,889
West Virginia
g
339
1 17
0.86
0.19
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-30.9
33.9
10,923
Mississippi
W-CG-reg
796
1 14
0.86
0.16
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-30.6
79.6
11,003
Pennsylvania
W-CG-reg
941
1 17
0.86
0.19
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-30.3
94.1
11,097
North Dakota
W-CG-reg
179
1.18
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-29.2
17.9
11,115
Virginia
g
705
1.17
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-28.8
70.5
11,185
Alabama
W-CG-reg
1104
\ 1.17
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-28.2
110.4
11.296
Tennessee
W-CG-reg
1556
1 16
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-27.9
155.6
11,451
Oklahoma
W-CG-reg
945
1 14
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.02
0
0
-27.3
94.5
11,546
Georgia
g
2174
1 18
0.86
0.23
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-27.2
217.4
Florida
W-CG-reg
3305
1 24
0.86
0.30
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-26.9
330.5
12,094
Maine
W-CG-req
136
1.23
0.86
0.30
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-26.8
13.6
12,107
Maryland
W-CG-reg
94
1.15
0.86
0.21
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-26.8
9.4
12,117
South Carolina
W-CG-reg
1171
1.17
0.86
0.23
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-26.8
117.1
12,234
North Carolina
W-CG-req
1966
1.17
0.86
0.23
0.19
0
0.00
0
0
-26.2
196.6
12,430
118
-------
Appendix 2: EPA Responses to Peer Review Comments
1. Overview
This appendix section provides responses to peer review comments provided by three external peer reviewers who
were retained through peer review Work Assignment 3-13 under ERG contract 68HE0C18C0001 to review the draft EPA
technical report entitled "Economics of Blending Corn Ethanol into E10 Gasoline." The purpose of EPA's responses is to
provide EPA's assessment of the peer review comments, explain why EPA acted as it did in response to particular peer
review comments, and explain how the report or underlying analysis was changed.
This appendix section is divided into three sections. After this overview section, a brief summary is provided for the
comments of greatest relevance followed by the main section which provides a summary of the peer review comments
and our responses to the peer review comments.
2. Overall Summary of Comment Responses
a) All peer reviewers agreed that the ethanol valuation methodology based on an equation of different cost inputs
adequately estimates ethanol's relative value to gasoline.
b) One peer reviewer questioned a 7 cents per gallon distribution cost for moving ethanol from the production
plants to Chicago prior to distributing the ethanol to unit train receiving terminals, and our subsequent review of
the logistics for distributing corn ethanol revealed that corn ethanol plants ship their ethanol directly to unit
train receiving terminals. Therefore, this 7 c/gal cost for moving corn ethanol to Chicago prior to distributing the
ethanol via unit trains was removed.
c) Two peer reviewers pointed out that the ethanol economic analysis was conducted as if the RFS program did not
exist, however, the ethanol production and distribution prices and gasoline prices used for most of the analysis
occurred when the RFS program was in place and the RFS program may have impacted these input prices. For
several reasons the RFS program likely did not impact these input prices used in our ethanol economic analysis,
and even if these market prices were impacted, the magnitude would not have been sufficient to affect the final
conclusions of the analysis. This discussion is reflected in the final report.
d) In response to the suggestion by a couple peer reviewers, more tables and figures were added to the report to
help the reader better understand the economics of using corn ethanol.
3. Responses to Peer Review Comments
The responses to peer review comments are organized by the list of issues to be reviewed under the charge document
provided by EPA to the peer reviewers. These charge issues are organized into three principal sections: A) review the
appropriateness of the ethanol blending cost equation established in the draft report, B) review the appropriateness of
the source data used for the values in the ethanol blending cost equation, C) review the conclusions of the draft report.
Each principal charge issue section is then subdivided into specific charge issues labeled as Al, A2.... Each individual
charge issue is followed by a summary of the peer reviewer's comments (the complete peer review comments are
contained in Appendix 3), our discussion of the peer reviewer comments and any implications the comment has on the
paper's estimate of ethanol's blending economics, including how we adjusted the analysis or presentation of the results
of the analysis in response to those comments. When summarizing, analyzing, and responding to peer review
comments under a particular charge issue, we also include comments made by peer reviewers to other charge issues or
other miscellaneous comments if those comments concern the particular charge issue being addressed. After
119
-------
summarizing and reviewing the specific charge issue-related comments, this report then summarized and reviewed one
other set of comments made by a peer reviewer unrelated to the charge issues.
When referencing the peer reviewers' comments, the peer reviewers are referenced by their last name.
A. Review the appropriateness of the ethanol blending cost equation for representing the relative blending value of
ethanol in gasoline.
Al. Ethanol Blending Cost Equation:
EBC = (ESP + EDC - ERV - FETS - SETS) - GTP
EBC = ethanol blending cost (estimates ethanol's net relative value to gasoline)
ESP = ethanol plant gate spot price (ethanol's market price at ethanol plant gates)
EDC = ethanol distribution cost (cost to move ethanol to downstream markets)
ERV = ethanol replacement value (captures ethanol's octane and volatility value)
FETS = federal ethanol tax subsidy (federal tax subsidy to incentivize ethanol's use)
SETS = state ethanol tax subsidy (state tax subsidies to incentivize ethanol's use)
GTP = gasoline terminal price (baseline gasoline price to determine ethanol's relative value)
Overall, the peer reviewers supported the use of the equation as a means to assess the economics of using ethanol in
E10 gasoline:
Divita said "mathematically, the equation is a reasonable, high-level approach for a blend value calculation." He
expressed additional observations associated with this charge issue which will be discussed elsewhere.
Hoekman said "This equation appears to capture the most important factors that are relevant in assessing the costs of
corn ethanol blending."
Tallet said "My overall assessment is that I find this equation to be sound, in principle, subject to one possible caveat..."
The caveat is discussed under charge A3.
A2. How well the included factors, when combined together in the equation, represent ethanol's relative blending
value for blending it at 10 volume percent in gasoline.
All three peer reviewers expressed support for the factors used in the equation:
Divita said that the equation is "a reasonable generic blend value approach..." Divita expressed a concern which will be
discussed under issue A4.
Hoekman said "on a gross scale, the combination of these factors provides a reasonable estimate of ethanol's relative
blending value..."
Tallet said "I do not see the need to either remove terms from the equation or add new ones."
A3. Whether a negative EBC value is a fair indicator that ethanol is less costly than gasoline and would signal to
gasoline blenders that it would be economically beneficial to blend ethanol into gasoline (if it was not already blended)
or remain in gasoline (if it was already blended). Similarly, whether a positive EBC value would indicate that ethanol is
more expensive than gasoline and would not be economically beneficial to blend into gasoline (if it were not already),
and potentially be removed from gasoline (if it was already blended) conditional to the concepts described in C.l below.
All three peer reviewers agreed that an EBC value determined by the equation realized its intended effect. There were,
however, comments on some aspects:
120
-------
Tallet pointed out that the analysis would be more intuitively understandable by placing the gasoline terminal price
term (GTP) first and subtracting the ethanol terms contained in the parenthetical from it, which would switch the
ethanol blending cost from a negative value to a positive value if ethanol is economic to blend.
Response - This change suggested by Tallet would essentially do away with all the negative values associated with
ethanol's relative value term, which would change the descriptor of the term from ethanol blending cost to something
like ethanol blending value. However, most people generally believe that biofuels are more costly than petroleum fuels
and by maintaining the equation in its current form makes it consistent with people's perception of the cost to produce
and use biofuels. For this reason, we kept the equation format the same.
Hoekman stated that there is inherent geographical price variability within the states, and temporal variability within
each summer or winter season, which should be considered.
Response - As acknowledged by Hoekman, the analysis already separately evaluated summer versus winter, and was
conducted on a state-by state-basis. Additionally, the analysis also evaluated the economics of blending ethanol into
premium separate from regular gasoline grades, and evaluated blending ethanol into reformulated gasoline separate
from conventional gasoline. We acknowledge that additional ethanol blending cost variability likely existed during the
analysis period, by month and in parts of states. However, after reviewing the results of the analysis, we can conclude
for two primary reasons that it is highly unlikely that such variability would have affected the adoption of corn ethanol.
First, during the ramp up of corn ethanol use from 2007 to 2011, the Ethanol Blending Cost (EBC) averaged -42 cents per
gallon compared to than gasoline, ranging from 13 to 78 cents per gallon lower than gasoline during this time period.
This blend incentive is sufficiently large that both temporal and geographical price variability is very unlikely to offset
this blend incentive. For example, it may be more expensive to move the ethanol to a more remote geographical
location, such the upper peninsula of Michigan, than the 11 cents per gallon assumed cost to move the ethanol from the
unit train terminal to the product terminal. However, if we add the minimum 13 cents per gallon blending cost margin
to the 11 cents per gallon distribution cost it would total 24 cents per gallon to account for the geographic variability for
moving ethanol to the furthest reaches of Michigan in that higher cost year. Furthermore, one must also consider that
moving gasoline to that more remote part of a state, such as northern Michigan, would also be more expensive than the
average gasoline price that we used, and our analysis does consider the geographic cost variability for gasoline either.
Also, since the cost analysis represents average prices and costs, if the ethanol blend incentive is lower in one part of the
year, it means that the ethanol blend incentive is higher another time of year, and refiners will likely blend ethanol
based on the average blending economics and are very unlikely to change their blending practices on very short term
changes in prices (i.e. based on trends over the course of only a few months).
The second reason that it is highly unlikely that geographical variability would have affected the adoption of corn
ethanol is that the 11 cent per gallon distribution costs we use for moving the ethanol from the unit train terminal to
non-unit train terminals was considered high by one peer reviewer. If this cost is indeed high, it could capture the cost
for moving the ethanol to places in each state that are geographically more difficult to reach. Therefore, our corn
ethanol economic analysis maybe conservative and may already capture the cost for blending corn ethanol in the more
expensive corn ethanol markets in each state. The ethanol distribution costs are further discussed in response to B2.
Divita stated that refineries have different ethanol replacement costs depending on their existing capabilities, and
different abilities to replace MTBE (by using other high-octane gasoline blendstocks rather than rely on ethanol) had the
RFS program not been in place. His discussion about octane and ethanol replacement costs in general will be addressed
in B3 below, however, a part of his comment will be addressed here in which he concludes that not all refineries would
have blended ethanol up to the blendwall based on this issue.
Response - Our ethanol blending cost analysis conservatively assumed that fuel blenders did not match-blend the corn
ethanol in conventional gasoline prior to 2010. Thus, in our analysis octane and other aspects of ethanol's blending
value were not considered in the increased blending of ethanol in the conventional gasoline pool prior to 2010, which is
when the majority of ethanol expansion into the conventional gasoline pool occurred. If in some locations refiners were
121
-------
match-blending ethanol with their conventional gasoline earlier than what we assumed, then blending corn ethanol into
gasoline would have been even more economically favorable than what our analysis estimated. As explained in the
report, the principal drivers for the increased blending of ethanol up to the blendwall was the MTBE phaseout and
increasing crude oil prices while the federal ethanol blending subsidy was still in place.
A4. Whether other factors should be included, or should be considered for being included, in the ethanol blending
cost equation.
Divita stated that without the RFS program in place refiners would have explored other options including: exporting less
gasoline to make up the volume loss from MTBE's removal from the domestic gasoline pool, blending less low valued,
low octane naphtha to offset the octane loss from MTBE's removal, maximizing octane production (reformer severity,
C3 alkylation for example, competition with other blendstocks such as alkylate, isooctane, toluene, capital and
operational opportunities for incremental octane and gasoline volume. Divita stated that because of these options, and
the variability in refining costs for blending ethanol, it is difficult to figure out which strategy refiners would choose,
particularly in hindsight, since it requires knowledge of the ethanol blending costs at each refinery. While Tallet does
not specify other means which potentially could have been used by refiners to replace MTBE, he states that the RFS
program was a primary reason which allowed refiners to remove MTBE from their gasoline along with the removal of
the RFG oxygenate requirement by Congress.
Response - We agreer with Divita that refiners would explore all their options for blending up their gasoline to minimize
their production costs. However, for evaluating the ramp up of ethanol in the gasoline pool versus other possible
options, it is useful to begin by reviewing the steps which occurred to replace MTBE in the gasoline pool. MTBE needed
to be removed from the gasoline pool because of liability concerns associated with the contamination of groundwater.58
59 60 States began to ban MTBE in gasoline and refiners stopped using MTBE as an elective gasoline blendstock. At its
peak MTBE consumption in the U.S. was 4.36 billion gallons (284 kbbl/day) in 2001 and this demand decreased to 3.1
billion gallons in 2003 (200 kbbl/day). When CA, NY and CT banned MTBE for 2004, MTBE consumption dropped to 2.4
billion gallons (160 kbbl/day). Because the RFG oxygenate requirement was still in place, refiners supplying the market
there essentially had to use ethanol because the alternative oxygenates, such as ETBE or TAME, were also ethers and
were thus assumed to have similar groundwater contamination issues. MTBE consumption decreased further to 2.1
billion gallons in 2005 (140 kbbl/day). This significant reduction in blending MTBE into conventional and reformulated
gasoline occurred before the RFS program established by Congress and EPA put in place the RFS program.
In August 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) which removed the RFG oxygenate mandate and
established the Renewable Fuels Standards Program (RFS) which required the blending of renewable fuels. Notably,
EPAct did not include any liability protection for refiners using MTBE despite lobbying to include it. As a result, refiners
quickly acted to remove the rest of MTBE from their gasoline to protect themselves from liability so MTBE use declined
to 0.56 billion gallons in 2006 (37 kbbl/day) and then to zero in 2007. Table 1 summarizes the changes in MTBE and
ethanol volumes from 2001 to 2007, showing that there was approximately a one-to-one swap.
58 Gasoline Explained: Gasoline and the environment; Energy Information Administration; Last Updated December 13, 2021;
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/gasoline-and-the-environment.php.
59 The United States continues to export MTBE, mainly to Mexico, Chile, and Venezuela; Technology Org; Science and Technology
News; July 16, 2018.
60 Methyl tert-butyl ether; Wikipedia.
122
-------
Table 1 Summary of MTBE and Ethanol Volumes by Year
MTBE and Ethanol Blended into Gasoline (billion gallons)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
MTBE
Volume
4.4
4.1
3.1
2.4
2.1
0.6
0
Ethanol
Volume
1.7
2.1
2.8
3.6
4.1
5.5
6.6
With the oxygenate mandate gone, Divita contends that at least some RFG refiners would have blended other high
octane blendstocks besides ethanol if the RFS program was not in place. While Divita offered these suggestions, he did
not provide any economic analysis to support his belief, and we continue to stand behind our assessment for several
reasons. First, when the RFG oxygenate requirement was still in place, refiners were lobbying Congress to receive
liability protection from Congress which would enable them to continue to use MTBE. For this reason, refiners were
likely not investing capital to produce octane and volume replacements for MTBE, which would end up being stranded
investments if the liability protection would have been granted and refiners would have continued to blend MTBE.6162
63 Second, other options for making up such a large octane shortfall in such a short time frame were not viable. Refiners
could not simply "turn up" (increase severity of) their reformers to produce the needed octane to replace MTBE's octane
loss because of regulatory limits on the concentration of toxic benzene and other aromatic hydrocarbons in gasoline.64
Similarly, increasing alkylate/isooctane supply sufficiently to offset the loss of MTBE was not a viable option, particularly
in such a short time frame. Alkylate provides about half the octane per gallon as MTBE, so about twice as much alkylate
would be needed to replace MTBE. According to a news report of that time, alkylate was already in short supply.65
Furthermore, at that time the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program was phasing in which required refiners to comply with a 30
ppm gasoline sulfur standard. To satisfy the 30 ppm sulfur standard, most refiners hydrotreated their very high sulfur,
FCC naphtha stream, the desulfurization of which also reduces the octane content of that stream. If refiners had any
excess octane production capability up to this point, they likely would have used it to offset the octane loss resulting
from compliance with the Tier 2 sulfur standards which phased in from 2004 to 2007.66 Reducing the blending of low
octane naphtha to increase octane would have only further exacerbated the loss in volume from the removal of MTBE.
Third, there are also compelling economic reasons why ethanol would have replaced MTBE in RFG. Based on the results
of our analysis, the blending cost for blending corn ethanol into RFG in 2007 is 65 to 160 cents per gallon less expensive
than gasoline. Even if ethanol's replacement value is heavily discounted (setting ethanol's blending value to zero, which
reduces ethanol replacement cost to zero in the winter and heavily discounted to match its volatility cost in the summer)
ethanol is still 15 to 40 cents per gallon less expensive than gasoline. There is no alternative high-octane gasoline
blendstock which could have competed with the economics of using ethanol to replace MTBE in RFG. All the different
options would be more expensive than ethanol as the replacement for MTBE. High octane MTBE replacements, such as
61 Energy bill effects begin as refiner exits MTBE business; Oil and Gas Journal; August 8, 2005.
62 Bogardus, Kevin; The politics of energy: Oil and gas; The Center for Public Integrity; December 15, 2003.
63 Nagel, Derek; Article: Not quite off the hook: why there should be a legislative solution for MTBE contamination without a safe
harbor for MTBE producers; September 19, 2007.
64 The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) established in 1995 a 0.62 benzene standard for reformulated gasoline, and also established
antidumping regulations which prevented benzene levels from being moved from RFG into conventional gasoline. Then starting in
2001, the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) regulations capped air toxic emission levels in conventional gasoline from increasing
above the current levels, preventing benzene levels in conventional gasoline from increasing.
65 Wilen, John; Another spike in gas prices likely this spring as key additive in short supply; Southcoast Today; January 30, 2008.
66 Regulatory Impact Analysis - Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and
Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements; Environmental Protection Agency; EPA420-R-99-023; December 1999
123
-------
alkylate and reformate, which could have been produced by refineries as DeVita suggests are typically valued much
more than regular grade gasoline, and in 2008 when crude oil prices were high, alkylate was priced 40 cents per gallon
higher than gasoline.67 Also during this time, the availability of feedstocks, not just its price, were limiting factors for
how much alkylate could be blended into gasoline. By blending in ethanol it would replace both the lost octane value
and volume of MTBE.
Fourth, even if it such alternatives to ethanol were economically viable, they could not occur in the timeframe needed.
Capital and operational challenges necessary to make up both the lost octane and volume from MTBE through
increasing alkylate, reformate, and isooctane would take on the order of 4 years to design, construct and start-up.
Fifth, contrary to what Divita hypothesized, it would be almost impossible for a few refiners to avoid blending ethanol
into their reformulated gasoline to replace MTBE if nearly all other refiners chose to blend ethanol and therefore, the
entire reformulated gasoline distribution system would have converted over to shipping RBOBs for blending with
ethanol. Those refiners choosing not to use ethanol would either be limited to selling all their gasoline off their refinery
terminal rack, need to ship their non-ethanol gasoline to market using rail cars or barges which would greatly increase
the refinery's distribution costs, or resort to exporting their gasoline.
For those refineries which did not want to blend corn ethanol into their gasoline, they would have reviewed the
economics of doing so, and discovered that the impacts for not blending ethanol would have substantially reduced their
earnings. As described above, corn ethanol was typically priced 15 to 40 cents per gallon lower than gasoline. As a
result, E10 gasoline would be a least 1.5 to 4 cents per gallon lower than E0 gasoline. Additionally, high octane
blendstocks are usually priced higher than gasoline, such as 20 cents per gallon higher, so ethanol could earn an
additional 2 cents per gallon for a total of 3.5 to 6 cents per gallon more profit than the other options for producing an
E0 gasoline. We believe that refiners would not pass up this level of earnings and were compelled to blend ethanol
instead of relying on other more costly options.
Sixth, exporting less gasoline to make up domestic volume would not by itself be a solution. The US exported about 2
billion gallons of gasoline in 2007, however exporting less gasoline equivalent to MTBE's volume loss in gasoline would
not replace MTBE's octane and it is very unlikely that this gasoline would meet the required RFG specifications. This E0
gasoline, as just discussed, would also still be more expensive than ethanol. To put together sufficient volume of
gasoline material that could replace MTBE's octane and volume would likely require the construction of a new refinery,
which would not be possible given the time constraints.
Hoekman suggested evaluating how the other state ethanol subsidies, such as ethanol production subsidies, loan
guarantees, grants and other subsidies, would have affected the blending economics of using ethanol.
Response - An analysis of how other subsidies affected the blending economics of using ethanol would likely not have
impacted the results or conclusions. Several of the state subsidies, such as production subsides and loan guarantees,
help to improve the economics of installing new ethanol plant capacity in those states which offer them and can reduce
the cost of producing corn ethanol in those states. Since our ethanol blending cost analysis is based on ethanol plant
prices, we believe that these types of subsidies were already incorporated into ethanol plant gate prices used in the
analysis.
B. Review the appropriateness of the sources of data used for the values in the ethanol blending cost equation.
Bl. The use of ethanol spot prices to represent ethanol plant gate prices.
Divita commented that the presence of the RFS program impacted corn ethanol plant gate prices during most years of
the analysis when the RFS program existed and therefore would have biased the analysis, to the point of raising doubt
67 Wilen, John; Another spike in gas prices likely this spring as key additive in short supply; Southcoast Today; January 30, 2008.
124
-------
about the report's central conclusion - that refiners would have blended in ethanol up to the blendwall without the RFS
program.
Response - It is possible that the presence of the RFS program, which first took effect in 2006 and therefore was in place
during most of the analysis period, could have impacted corn ethanol plant gate prices. If the RFS mandates did impact
corn ethanol plant gate prices, the most likely effect would have been that corn ethanol producers would have increased
their plant gate prices to earn greater profit, since refiners would have been forced into being "price takers" and
purchase the corn ethanol at whatever price to meet an RFS mandate. Assuming for a moment that this was the case,
the ethanol plant gate prices would have been lower without the RFS program in place than the reported ethanol plant
gate prices used in our analysis, and the incentive to blend corn ethanol into gasoline would have been even greater
than what we analyzed. Therefore, we could conclude with even greater certainty that corn ethanol would have been
blended up to the blendwall without the RFS program.
Furthermore, the information presented in the draft report suggest that corn ethanol prices were a function of supply
and demand and not impacted by the presence of the RFS program. Figure 3 in the report compares the corn ethanol
plant gate average prices and the estimated corn ethanol production costs on a year-by-year basis. When MTBE was
being removed from reformulated gasoline during the years from 2004 to 2006, refiners producing RFG purchased
ethanol to replace the MTBE, which resulted in ethanol imports as shown in Figure 1, and this drove ethanol prices much
higher than corn ethanol production costs. Conversely, the 5 year time period from 2015 to 2019 showed breakeven or
negative price margins for corn ethanol plants which an industry insider attributed to excess corn ethanol plant capacity.
So while the RFS program existed this entire time from 2006 to 2019, corn ethanol plant gate profitability ranged from
extremely profitable to negative, and thus it appears that the primary reason causing the different plant profit margins
was the supply-demand balance, not the RFS program.
Figure 1 Ethanol Imports
Ethanol Imports
Million Gallons
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
n J
S \
/ >
/ \ /X
u w
2000
2005
2010 2015
Year
2020
2025
Furthermore, as described in the report, during the early years of the RFS program when corn ethanol consumption was
increasing, corn ethanol demand increased much faster than required under the RFS program which suggests that the
RFS program was not binding, and that the marketplace was dictating ethanol consumption. In this case, the most likely
explanation is that the market established ethanol's price, and not the RFS program.
B2. The estimated ethanol distribution costs to different states.
125
-------
Tallet observed that the distribution costs seemed high relative to the distribution costs he used in previous cost
analyses he has conducted. Reviewing the methodology for deriving the distribution costs, he raised three issues which
he thought contributed to the high distribution costs. First, he thought that all corn ethanol would not incur a 7 cents
per gallon cost for moving it to Chicago before being sent out in unit trains as we had assumed. Second, he thought that
our estimate that the ethanol would incur an 11 cent per gallon cost for being transported to other terminals after being
received at a unit train terminal seemed high. Third, Tallet stated that adding an additional 6.5 cent per gallon to
distribution costs to account for amortized distribution system capital costs may be double counting since those capital
costs would have been included in the market prices used to estimate ethanol distribution costs.
Response - In response to his first issue, we searched for information on unit train origination points and discovered
that almost all unit trains originate from corn ethanol plants, not Chicago. Based on this comment and supporting
information, we removed the 7 cent per gallon portion of the corn ethanol distribution cost which assumes that corn
ethanol plants ship first to Chicago before the unit trains are formed.
Evaluating his second issue concerning the 11 cents per gallon cost estimate for moving the corn ethanol from unit train
receiving terminals to other terminals proved to be a much more difficult task. We do not know of any data which can
be used specifically for estimating this cost. Moving gasoline from terminals to retail stations using tank trucks, which
usually carries a full tank truck or 10 thousand gallons of gasoline per load, is estimated to cost 6 cents per gallon.68
However, we would expect the cost for moving the corn ethanol from the unit train receiving terminals to other
terminals to be higher because the distances are greater. Since we do not have any other data for adjusting this
estimated cost, we kept the value the same at 11 cents. If the estimated 11 c/gal value is indeed higher than the actual
cost, it adds some conservativism to the analysis.
Regarding his third issue concerning the inclusion of amortized distribution system capital costs, we continue to believe
that our approach is valid. The 6.5 cents per gallon cost was only added for the early years up to 2014 reflecting the
time period when the ethanol distribution system was being built out. After the end of 2014 these costs were assumed
to be fully amortized and thus no longer applicable. Since the data we used to estimate ethanol's distribution cost was
from 2017 data, well after the time when ethanol distribution system was built out, this capital cost is unlikely to have
been reflected in the 2017 distribution costs as Tallet suggests. Consequently, we have maintained the use of the 6.5
cents per gallon value. We further note, however, that if the capital costs associated with building out the ethanol
distribution system is indeed already reflected in the distribution costs that we used, then it adds some conservatism to
the early years of our analysis.
B3. The estimates for ethanol's octane blending value and volatility cost.
Divita stated that using octane and RVP is a reasonable, initial approach. He stated that octane blending value is highly
variable between specific facilities. He stated that some refineries "give away" octane, while others are octane short.
He stated that these costs are reflective of reformer economics. He said that most refiners would agree the cost of
producing octane is about 1-2 cents per octane gallon. In discussing the value of alkylate, he referred to its "green
premium," which prices in the value of its low sulfur and benzene content. Divita commented that it appears that some
of ethanol's properties were not accounted for in our analysis, including T50 suppression, and low sulfur and benzene,
which would skew ethanol's blending value. Divita disagreed with the use of marginal values, sometimes called shadow
values, which were used in the study for estimating ethanol replacement costs. He stated that in some cases these
values reported out of refinery models can increase dramatically for the last increment due to the model structure,
modeling assumptions, and constraints placed on the refinery model, which can overestimate costs.
Hoekman stated that using a refinery model to estimate ethanol's replacement cost is a reasonable approach to take.
Tallet stated that he reviewed the draft report, the appendix, the refinery modeling output information presented in the
appendix and he also used cost information from the cost estimation spreadsheet. He stated that ethanol has two
68 Lenard, Jeff; Who Makes Money Selling Gas? National Association of Convenience Stores; November 12, 2021.
126
-------
values, one when its use is mandated and blended into gasoline, and the other when ethanol use is optional, which he
concluded is how the ICF refinery modeling analysis used in the report modeled it, and in this case includes capital costs
and the operating costs for not using ethanol. Tallet noted that EPA used the latter method for estimating ethanol's
replacement value (ERV). Reviewing information in the cost spreadsheet for the year 2010, Tallet noted that
summertime RFG had an ERV value of $0.534/gal which increases to $0,785 if the $0.25/gal RVP cost is removed from
the ERV value, largely reflecting ethanol's octane value. Tallet noted that the data we reported for the wholesale
premium-regular gasoline grade price differential for 2010 was $0,114. However, premium gasoline on average has a 5
octane number differential with regular grade gasoline, but ethanol has an octane value of 115, which is a 23 octane
number benefit over regular grade gasoline. Thus, to make the $0.114/gal premium-regular grade price difference
comparable to ethanol's value in octane terms, it is ratioed higher by 23/5 to yield an octane value of $0.53/gal. Tallet
stated that higher $0,785 replacement cost for ethanol may be conservative (high) relative to the $0.53/gal octane cost
estimated using the premium-regular gasoline price differential. Although he stated that using the premium-regular
grade price differential to estimate octane value would likely underestimate ethanol's octane value because of ethanol's
nonlinear blending properties. He further surmised that our replacement cost did not incorporate ethanol's dilution
value in RFG and therefore ethanol's blending value should be higher than ethanol's octane value. He also offered that
our distribution costs seemed high which would offset the ethanol replacement cost if it was high. Tallet also
commented that the report did not estimate a volatility cost for blending ethanol in the wintertime and presumed that
such a cost was not included, but also commented that such a cost is likely to be very low.
Response - Both Tallet and Divita assessed ethanol's blending value (ERV) used in the report based on premium-regular
grade gasoline price differentials, with both Divita and Tallet acknowledging ethanol's other properties (i.e., low sulfur
and benzene) which also add to ethanol's value (Divita referred to this as "green premium"), but assumed that these
other properties were not account for. However, because ethanol's blending value was estimated using a refinery
model, and the sulfur and benzene standards were modeled with the refinery model, the model would have included
ethanol's low sulfur and low benzene, or green premium properties in ethanol's blending value. This is one reason
which explains why ethanol's blending value is higher than the price difference between premium and regular gasoline
grades. The refinery model would also have captured ethanol's wintertime volatility cost, and other properties which
affect gasoline's properties which are regulated by the ASTM standards.
Another reason why corn ethanol's replacement value is higher than its octane value is the capital cost associated with
the installation of new octane producing units (isomerization, reformers and alkylation units) and other refinery units, to
make up for ethanol's lost octane value and volume when it was removed from the gasoline pool. The total added
capacity for these various units is 3.8 million barrels per day at an investment of $43 billion. Amortizing the estimated
capital investment cost over the gasoline pool would add about 6 cents per gallon to the cost of gasoline. If attributed
to just the ethanol in E10 gasoline, the capital investment contributes about 60 cents per gallon to the value of replacing
the ethanol.
Although Divita expressed concern about using marginal prices from the refinery model to estimate ethanol's
replacement costs, he did not review and analyze the refinery modeling analysis used as the basis for estimating
ethanol's replacement cost. Therefore, he did not provide any evidence that this particular study overestimated ethanol
replacement costs. Since EPA directed the refinery modeling analysis for estimating ethanol's replacement cost, we
have no reason to believe that the marginal values which were generated by the refinery modeling analysis
overestimated ethanol replacement costs. In conducting the refinery modeling analysis, the contractor did not constrain
the overall octane production capacity of the refinery model in any way which could have overestimated ethanol's
octane value. The contractor used conventional refinery modeling practices throughout the analysis. For estimating the
impacts of removing ethanol from the gasoline pool, the contractor provided two octane replacement cases. One case
which we termed the alkylate-centric case allowed for unconstrained alkylate production. The other case which we
termed the reformate-centric case assumed a lower quantity of alkylate feedstocks would be available and so it relied
more on reformers to provide the needed octane. We chose to use the reformate-centric case because it was the
lowest capital investment case and therefore more likely be implemented on the short-term basis that would be needed
to replace ethanol. If refiners do not have the time to install any capital improvements in their refineries for decisions
127
-------
on a short-term basis for removing ethanol from their gasoline pool, octane costs would likely be even higher than what
the refinery model marginal costs estimate.
Using marginal prices for ethanol replacement costs is also consistent with the rest of the analysis. For the historical
analysis, this ethanol blending analysis uses actual market prices for the analysis, such as gasoline prices, corn ethanol
plant gate prices, distribution prices, corn prices etc. This price information represents the marginal cost in each case,
which arguably reflects the highest cost provider in each case. The analysis for the future economics of corn ethanol
relies on projected prices which also likely reflect marginal prices. Since so much of the analysis uses marginal prices, it
would make sense to use marginal prices for the ethanol replacement costs as well.
Divita has stated in the past that refinery models tend to underestimate octane costs, which is a primary cost
component of ethanol's replacement cost estimated by the refinery model.69 If refinery models do underestimate
octane costs and the marginal or shadow prices used to estimate ethanol's replacement cost are higher than the
average octane costs estimated by the refinery model, the refinery model marginal octane values may in fact better
represent octane prices which are likely to exist in the marketplace.
B4. Adjustment factors for use in different years, particularly the use of both octane price (as estimated by the
premium-regular grade price differentials), and crude oil prices to scale the estimated ethanol replacement costs to
different years.
Response - Tallet and Hoekman supported the two adjustments used to adjust ethanol's replacement cost. Tallet
expressed that octane value may be the more appropriate adjustment factor than crude oil prices.
B5. The use of refinery rack spot prices to represent terminal gasoline prices at the point ethanol is blended into
gasoline.
All peer reviewers stated that they believed that relying on refinery rack spot prices is an appropriate data set for
estimating the gasoline prices at terminals. Hoekman and Tallet commented that the rack spot prices would represent
the price of E10 gasoline and would therefore include the cost impact of ethanol blended into gasoline.
Response - It is likely that the refinery rack prices do include ethanol's blending cost, however, this price impact is
unlikely to impact the ultimate conclusions of the analysis. The largest potential impact of this in the analysis would
occur when ethanol's blending cost is the most different from gasoline, which for example would be a Midwest state
such as Iowa which offers an ethanol blending subsidy. In this case ethanol's blending cost was estimated to be -65
cents per gallon in 2007. Since ethanol comprises 10% of E10 gasoline, the potential impact on the refinery rack spot
prices would be 6.5 cents per gallon. Accounting for this in the analysis would increase gasoline's rack price before the
blending with ethanol by 7.2 cents per gallon.70 This in turn would increase ethanol's blending cost to -72.2 cents per
gallon (-65 - 7.2 c/gal). Since ethanol was already expected to be blended into Iowa's gasoline market, accounting for
the fact that some portion of ethanol's blending cost may have already been incorporated into the refinery rack spot
prices would not change the results of the analysis for states like Iowa where ethanol is already cheaper than gasoline.
A case which would be more important to the outcomes might be when ethanol's blending cost is positive which means
that ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. In this case, the cost adjustment would mean that ethanol is even less
cost-effective to blend into gasoline. For example, for Florida wintertime gasoline in 2016 we estimated ethanol's
blending cost to be +6.8 when ethanol's replacement value was adjusted using crude oil prices, and for the same
gasoline is -19.8 cents per gallon when we adjusted ethanol's replacement value using octane costs. Adjusting gasoline's
69 DiVita, Vincent B., Development of the EIA's Liquid Fuels Market Module (LFFM), EIA's LFFM Workshop; September 2009.
70 Since gasoline comprises 90% of the volume of E10, the gasoline price would need to increase by 6.5/0.9 or 7.2 cents per gallon.
128
-------
value for ethanol's content and relative cost, ethanol's blending cost for those two ethanol replacement values, based
on crude cost and octane value, would change to +7.6 and +22 cents per gallon, respectively.
Clearly when ethanol's blending cost is positive, it is more critical for understanding ethanol's true blending value
because this error increases ethanol's blending cost into gasoline. However, since for all years except for 2016 when
corn ethanol's blending cost is negative for a few gasolines, it does not appear that adjusting for ethanol's cost impact
on refinery gasoline rack prices would have any impact on the conclusions of this analysis. Not accounting for the
potential that gasoline rack spot prices already include the cost impact of ethanol blended into gasoline causes the
analysis to be slightly conservative.
C. Review the appropriateness of the report conclusions.
CI. Corn ethanol profit made by corn ethanol plant producers incentivized them to build new corn ethanol plant
capacity - does the data support such a conclusion?
Divita stated that the profit earned by corn ethanol plants incentivized new plant investment. But then he stated that
the RFS mandate likely affected ethanol plant gate prices which therefore affected investments by corn ethanol plants,
and also directly drove investment in new corn ethanol plant capacity. Hoekman stated that the profit of corn ethanol
plants during the years 2005 to 2008 support the conclusion that corn ethanol plants would have invested without the
RFS program. Hoekman also stated that growth in corn ethanol plant capacity slowed significantly after 2008, and
suggested that further discussion be added to the report about the negative corn ethanol profit margins during 2019
and 2020. Tallet said that it is plausible that the profitability of corn ethanol plants caused the rapid expansion of corn
ethanol plant capacity. But then he surmised that the primary causes for the expansion of corn ethanol plant capacity
was the of MTBE bans coupled with the lack of MTBE liability protection for the oil industry followed by the RFS
mandates. He thought that absent the RFS mandates, corn ethanol plant capacity would have expanded, but just not as
quickly. He stated that the information presented in Figures 2 and 3 should be presented in a table to better
understand the incentive for corn ethanol plant owners to add additional corn ethanol plant capacity.
Response - All three peer reviewers agree that the estimated profit experienced by corn ethanol plants would have
incentized the owners to add new plant capacity. However, both Divita and Tallet stated that the presence of the
volume mandates under the RFS program providing a guaranteed future market may have contributed to the speed at
which the plant owners expanded their plant capacity. It is possible that the RFS mandates did provide an incentive to
corn ethanol plant owners and investors to add new plant capacity, although, the pattern of corn ethanol plant
expansion suggests that the RFS mandates were not the principal driving factors. As Tallet explained, the need to
remove MTBE from the gasoline pool, and replace MTBE's octane and volume would have provided a large incentive to
increase corn ethanol plant capacity to provide sufficient ethanol to replace the MTBE in the reformulated gasoline pool,
and/or to replace the corn ethanol which was bid away from the conventional gasoline pool. This is likely a key driver
for what led to the very large increase in corn ethanol plant capacity in 2006, the last year of MTBE phase-outs.
However, as shown by this analysis, corn ethanol was found by refiners and blenders to be a very low-priced gasoline
blendstock and therefore was in increased demand. Consequently, the RFS may have been more of an insurance policy
- a belts and suspenders approach - that removed some of the liability and risk from the investments, and possibly sped
up the rate of investments. However, we believe the analysis shows that the E10 blendwall would have been reached
regardless of the existence of the RFS program. Table 2 provides relevant information associated with corn ethanol
plant expansions and shows how plant capacity increased much faster than the RFS volume requirements.
129
-------
Table 2 Corn ethanol plant capacity, announced capacity and estimated profit margins (billion gallons except where
noted.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Corn Ethanol
Plant Profit
Margin ($/gal)
0.25
0.37
0.57
1.33
0.73
0.27
0.12
0.41
0.50
0.03
Plant Capacity
3.1
3.6
4.3
5.5
7.9
12.4
13.0
14.1
14.9
14.9
Announced New
Plant Capacity
0.6
0.8
2.0
6.1
5.5
2.1
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.1
Actual Plant
Capacity plus
Announced Plant
Capacity
3.7
4.4
6.3
11.6
13.4
14.5
14.5
14.6
15.0
15.0
US Ethanol
Consumption
2.8
3.6
4.1
5.5
6.9
9.7
11.0
12.9
13.2
13.4
RFS1 Standard
-
-
-
4.0
4.7
5.4
6.1
6.8
7.4
7.5
EISA/RFS2
Standard
9
10.5
12
12.6
13.2
Ethanol
Consumption
above RFS Std.
1.5
2.2
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.2
Existing Ethanol
Plant Capacity
above RFS Std.
1.5
3.2
4
4
2.6
2.3
1.7
Existing and
Announced Plant
Capacity above
RFS Std.
7.6
8.7
5.5
4.0
2.6
2.4
1.6
C2. The conclusion that blending corn ethanol up to the E10 blendwall would have occurred anyways regardless of
the RFS program (note that EPA did not conclude that the RFS did not have any impact).
Divita said that blending up to the blendwall would have occurred for some refiners, particularly in the Midwest and
those with operational disadvantages. However, he also reiterated some of his previously expressed concerns about the
impact of the RFS mandate on corn ethanol prices and on corn ethanol investment decisions, and his concern about
using LP marginal values for estimating ethanol blending cost. Hoekman said that the conclusion is valid, but also stated
that there likely are specific times and places where blending ethanol up to the blendwall would not have occurred. He
pointed to the lawsuits and disagreements about ethanol volumes to be blended each year as a justification to conclude
130
-------
that some stakeholders in the ethanol industry do not believe that blending up to the blendwall would have occurred
without the RFS mandates in place. Hoekman recommended the report should also discuss these issues. Tallet
concluded after the MTBE kickstarted the substantial growth in U.S. ethanol use, that the analysis has shown within a
plausible range of uncertainty, that ethanol was economic to use in increasing volumes up to and including the E10
blendwall. He documented the consistently negative cost for blending ethanol into gasoline and that the volume of
ethanol blended into gasoline exceeded the RFS standards, as principal reasons why ethanol use in gasoline was justified
based on economics. While Tallet was able to reach these conclusions based on his review of the information presented
in the figures provided, he suggested presenting the actual volumes that ethanol exceeded the RFS mandates to make
this point clearer to the reader. He observed that the ethanol blending cost was negative enough so that even if the
federal subsidy had been phased down more rapidly, ethanol still would have been economic to use. He cautioned the
report's conclusion that ethanol would be used during periods of low crude oil prices, which was the situation in 2016
and 2020, even if the economics for blending ethanol into gasoline seemed favorable because the RFS program was in
place.
Response -Tallet essentially agreed with the draft report's conclusion that corn ethanol would have been blended into
gasoline up to the blendwall regardless of the RFS program. Tallet observed that because ethanol consumption
exceeded the RFS mandates, it helped to corroborate the conclusions reached in the draft report. As Tallet had
requested, the previous table which provides the ethanol volumes being blended into U.S. gasoline leading up to the
blendwall, the actual corn ethanol plant capacity, the announced new corn ethanol plant capacity, and the RFS1 and
RFS2 standards, has been incorporated into the supporting information part of the final report. With respect to Tallet's
concern about estimating the ethanol's use when crude oil prices were low, we also were concerned and made a more
conservative assumption regarding ethanol's blending value for the year 2020 which experienced low gasoline demand
in addition to low crude oil prices. For 2020, we used ethanol's marginal value while blended into gasoline (33c/gal) as
opposed to ethanol's replacement value (239 c/gal in 2019).
Hoekman and Divita both provided support for the report's conclusions, although only their reservations will be
discussed here. Hoekman's comment that ethanol would not be blended into all gasoline all the time seemed to be due
to his previous comment that the analysis may not have captured the cost to distribute ethanol to every part of every
state (see charge issue A3) which we addressed. Hoekman's statement that lawsuits provided evidence that the RFS
must have played a role in forcing ethanol consumption up to the blendwall seemed to be simply a hypothesis. Based
on our past experience with rulemakings, however, we do not see litigation as being evidence that the RFS standards
were forcing refineries to blend ethanol. Industry often litigates to avoid the restrictions imposed by a regulation which
limit future optionality, or as part of a broader strategy to condemn mandates, not because they cannot or even are not
already meeting the requirements of a new regulation. The most heavily litigated aspect of the RFS program has been
the small refiner provisions - small refiners are litigating to avoid being subjected to the RFS volume requirements.
However, as we described in the introduction to the report, even when small refiners are not subjected to the RFS
volume requirements many of them still blend corn ethanol into their gasoline at 10 volume percent.
In response to Divita's restated concern that refiners may not experience the same blending value for ethanol as
estimated in the analysis, as we explained in response to issue A3, the analysis estimated that refiners/blenders were
splash-blending ethanol into gasoline up to 2010, which is during most all the ramp up of ethanol to the blendwall.
Thus, even when not including any blending value for ethanol, the ethanol was economic for refiners to blend into
gasoline. When including the ethanol replacement cost, the ethanol blending value was sufficiently negative in most all
cases that it likely would have remained negative for those refiners with lower ethanol replacement cost, and logistics
associated with the replacement of ethanol would have caused refiners to continue blending it. Also, as described in
response to issue Bl, if the RFS program affected corn ethanol plant gate prices, it likely would have increased the prices
making our analysis conservative.
C3. Inertia for using ethanol when match-blended into gasoline - do the investments needed in refining and fuel
distribution coupled with ethanol's volume and octane create a dependency on the part of refiners to continue to use
131
-------
ethanol during short time periods where ethanol may be uneconomical to use in a small, limited number of gasoline
markets?
Tallett agreed with our assessment that the current widespread use of E10 creates inertia for its use, primarily due to
ethanol's high octane content. He pointed out that the previous, widespread use of MTBE proves this point. Tallett
further pointed out that ethanol purchases can be established through contracts which would further contribute to its
continued use during short periods of poorer blending economics. Hoekman also agreed that ethanol's volume and
octane properties creates an ongoing incentive to continue utilize it in gasoline, although he also reiterated his
statement that this incentive varies by the gasoline it is being blended into. Divita stated that refiners are resourceful
and would use ethanol to maximize their profit margins based on what their LP refinery models would dictate. Divita
also stated that the RFS mandate created a dependency for refiners to use ethanol.
Response: Both Tallett and Hoekman agreed with our assessment that the use of ethanol would create at least a short
term dependency, due to its octane and volume, for its continued use. Divita did not address this directly, but
referenced other factors.
Other Comments:
Industry Optimization and Modeling
Divita stated that the refining industry uses optimization software for establishing its operating plans, and does not use
blendstock value equations, which seems to suggest that modeling costs with refinery models is better. He also stated
that LP models provide different ethanol purchase and blending signals with and without an RFS program, which could
range from 1 to 10 volume percent. He also said that refiners would evaluate their use of ethanol on a routine basis,
such as monthly.
Response: We understand that the refining industry uses LP optimization software for operating its refineries.
Refineries must rely on LP refinery modeling software because each refinery is balancing the purchase and refining of
multiple crude oils and other feedstocks, the operations of multiple refinery units, and the needs to blend multiple
refinery streams to produce specific refinery products which must meet fuel specifications. However, while refiners are
trying to minimize their production costs to maximize their profits, we are trying to understand something quite
different, which is the marginal blending costs for ethanol downstream of refineries. This analysis used a combination of
an LP model and spreadsheet to estimate ethanol's blending economics. The LP refinery modeling estimates ethanol's
marginal value to refiners, which includes its volume, octane, the volatility of the gasoline it is blended into and also
considers ethanol's other properties. However, the other inputs affecting ethanol's relative cost, which includes
ethanol's distribution costs and tax subsidies, are fixed values which are most efficiently analyzed for multiple gasoline
types in each state by incorporating them into a spreadsheet along with the LP-estimated blending cost for ethanol. We
believe that this combined approach is the most effective and efficient means for modeling ethanol's marginal blending
cost in a variety of gasoline markets across the country for this analysis. Divita was also concerned that ethanol's
marginal blending value in gasoline likely varies amongst refineries. We believe, though, that because the logistical
limitations in the gasoline distribution system force refiners to act together when deciding about blending ethanol (i.e.,
the production and distribution of CBOB and RBOB instead of finished gasoline), that the average marginal ethanol
blending value to refiners would most likely dictate how they would act as a group for blending in ethanol if the RFS
program did not exist.
While Divita states that refiners would evaluate blending ethanol in increments from 1 to 10 percent, this is not practical
for several reasons. First, during the years when ethanol was used to meet reformulated gasoline oxygen blending
requirements, refiners needed to meet a 2.1 weight percent minimal oxygen content specification, which corresponded
to 5.7 volume percent ethanol. Because ethanol has much higher volatility effects when blending it at lower volumes,
refiners found it more economic to blend ethanol at 10 volume percent. When ethanol is blended at 10 volume percent,
it about matches MTBE's 11 volume percent which allowed refiners to replace the volume of MTBE when it was
removed from gasoline. Also, Divita neglected to consider the need for refiners to coordinate their gasoline distribution
132
-------
plans with other refiners which are using the same gasoline distribution system. When refiners are match-blending
ethanol into their gasoline, they produce a sub-octane gasoline (and a lower RVP gasoline in the case of RFG). However,
the pipeline and downstream terminal companies which are distributing the gasoline are constrained in the number of
gasolines which they can handle. For this reason, all the gasoline being distributed by the pipeline and terminals would
likely have to be the same quality. Thus, the limits of the fuels distribution system would not allow one refiner to blend
ethanol at 5.7 percent and another at 10 volume percent. Once refiners in an area have decided to match-blend their
gasoline with ethanol, if one refiner were to decide to change how they blend gasoline either with or without ethanol,
they would have to coordinate that change with the other refiners. Any changes would take time to coordinate and may
not be permitted by some refiners depending on their ability to replace ethanol's octane and volume.
133
-------
Work Assignment 3-13 under
Prime Contract 68HE0C18C0001
External Peer Review of EPA's Draft Technical Report:
"Economics of Blending Corn Ethanol into
E10 Gasoline"
FINAL PEER REVIEW REPORT
June 1, 2022
Submitted to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ)
Assessment and Standard Division Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48105
Attn: Lester Wyborny Wvbornv.Lesterffiepa.gov
Submitted by: Eastern Research
Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421
*ERG
www.erg.com
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PEER REVIEW PROCESS 1
134
-------
2.1 Reviewer Search and Selection
2.2 Conducting the Review
1
1
APPENDIX A: CHARGE TO REVIEWERS
,A-1 APPENDIX
B: INDIVIDUAL REVIEWER COMMENTS
B-l
APPENDIX C: PEER REVIEWER RESUMES
C-l
APPENDIX D: PEER REVIEW CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENTS
D-l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ERG, a contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), organized an independent external peer review
of EPA's draft technical report, "Economics of Blending Corn Ethanol into E10 Gasoline," developed by EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). This document briefly describes ERG's peer review process (Section 2.0).
Appendix A provides the technical charge to reviewers; Appendix B provides the individual peer reviewer written
comments; Appendix C provides peer reviewer resumes; and Appendix D provides signed peer reviewer conflict of
interest (COI) statements.
2.0 PEER REVIEW PROCESS
2.1 Reviewer Search and Selection
For this review, ERG identified, screened, and selected three reviewers who had no conflict of interest in performing the
review and who collectively met the following technical selection criteria provided by EPA:
Refining economics
Refined product distribution
Corn ethanol production and distribution economics
ERG screened the pool of interested and available candidates against these selection criteria. From the set of
candidates who met those criteria, ERG selected and proposed three candidates to EPA. Upon EPA confirmation that
the proposed candidates met the selection criteria, ERG confirmed the services of the three final reviewers. ERG
contracted with and committed the following three experts to perform the review (see Appendix C for resumes):
Vince DiVita, MBA, PE; Senior Consultant, 1898 & Co. | Part of Burns & McDonnell
S. Kent Hoekman, Ph.D.; Research Professor, Emeritus, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research
Institute
Martin Tallett, B.Sc.; President, Tallett & Co
2.2 Conducting the Review
ERG provided reviewers with instructions for conducting the review, the assigned review document, and the
assigned charge to reviewers prepared by EPA (see Appendix A). ERG instructed reviewers that they should maintain
the confidentiality of the review documents and not share the review materials or consult with anyone during the
review process. ERG scheduled and facilitated a briefing teleconference with reviewers and EPA on January 10, 2022,
to provide reviewers with a background on the materials under review and to answer any questions of clarification
on the technical charge, materials, or peer review process. After the briefing teleconference reviewers worked
135
-------
individually (i.e., without contact with other reviewers, colleagues, or EPA) to prepare written comments in response
to the charge questions over a two-week period following the briefing teleconference (from January 11 to 28, 2022).
ERG monitored the review and sent a reminder for the due date for written comments. Upon receipt of the written
comments from reviewers, ERG confirmed that all reviewers had responded clearly to all charge questions. ERG then
sent the individual comments to EPA to review for any needed clarifications. To obtain and provide needed
clarifications, ERG scheduled and facilitated individual meetings with each reviewer and EPA. After these meetings
reviewers were provided an opportunity to revise their comments and submit a final version. After receiving all final
version of reviewer comments, ERG compiled this report. Final comments are presented exactly as submitted, without
editing or correction of typographical errors (if any).
136
-------
Technical Charge to External Peer Reviewers
Contract No. 68HE0C18C0001
Work Assignment 3-13
External Peer Review of EPA's Draft Technical Report:
"Economics of Blending Corn Ethanol into E10 Gasoline"
BACKGROUND
The increase in ethanol blended into U.S. gasoline is often attributed to the Renewable Fuels Program (RFS), however,
other factors such as rising gasoline prices and the phase-out of MTBE were also factors. Determining whether corn
ethanol use occurred due to economic factors versus the RFS program is important for attribution of any cost, health, or
environmental impacts of using corn ethanol. EPA conducted a detailed economic study of ethanol's blending cost into
E10 gasoline, including octane and volatility costs, production cost and spot prices, distribution costs, and federal and
state subsidies, while omitting RIN values, to assess whether ethanol would have been economical to blend into
gasoline regardless of the RFS program. The analysis found economic factors alone were sufficient to cause the
observed growth in ethanol use.
SPECIFIC CHARGE ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED
A. Review the appropriateness of the ethanol blending cost equation for representing the relative blending value of
ethanol in gasoline.
Al. Ethanol Blending Cost Equation:
EBC = (ESP + EDC - ERV - FETS - SETS) - GTP
EBC = ethanol blending cost (estimates ethanol's net relative value to gasoline)
ESP = ethanol plant gate spot price (ethanol's market price at ethanol plant gates)
EDC = ethanol distribution cost (cost to move ethanol to downstream markets)
ERV = ethanol replacement value (captures ethanol's octane and volatility value)
FETS = federal ethanol tax subsidy (federal tax subsidy to incentivize ethanol's use)
SETS = state ethanol tax subsidy (state tax subsidies to incentivize ethanol's use)
GTP = gasoline terminal price (baseline gasoline price to determine ethanol's relative value)
A2. How well the included factors, when combined together in the equation, represent ethanol's relative blending
value for blending it at 10 volume percent in gasoline.
A3. Whether a negative EBC value is a fair indicator that ethanol is less costly than gasoline and would signal to
gasoline blenders that ethanol be blended into gasoline if it was not already blended into gasoline or remain in
gasoline if it was already blended into gasoline. Similarly, whether a positive EBC value would indicate that
ethanol is more expensive than gasoline and not be blended into gasoline if it were not already, and potentially
be removed from gasoline conditional to the concepts described in C.l below.
A4. Whether other factors should be included, or should be considered for being included, in the ethanol blending
cost equation.
B. Review the appropriateness of the sources of data used for the values in the ethanol blending cost equation.
137
-------
Bl. The use of ethanol spot prices to represent ethanol plant gate prices.
B2. The estimated ethanol distribution costs to different states.
B3. The estimates for ethanol's octane blending value and volatility cost.
B4. Adjustments used to adjust the factors for use in different years, particularly the use of both octane price (as
estimated by the premium-regular grade price differentials), and crude oil prices to scale the estimated ethanol
replacement costs to different years.
B5. The use of refinery rack spot prices to represent terminal gasoline prices at the point ethanol is blended into
gasoline.
C. Review the appropriateness of the report conclusions.
CI. Corn ethanol profit made by corn ethanol plant producers incentivized them to build new corn ethanol plant
capacity - does the data support such a conclusion?
C2. The conclusion that blending corn ethanol up to the E10 blendwall would have occurred anyways regardless of
the RFS program (note that EPA did not conclude that the RFS did not have any impact).
C3. Inertia for using ethanol when match-blended into gasoline - do the investments needed in refining and fuel
distribution coupled with ethanol's volume and octane create a dependency on the part of refiners to continue
to use ethanol during short time periods where ethanol may be uneconomical to use in a small, limited number
of gasoline markets?
138
-------
YINCE DIYITA, MBA, PE
Senior Consultant
1898 & Co. I Part of Burns & McDonnell
Note: Vince DiVita conducted this review as an individual and not as a representative of 1898 & Co.
139
-------
April 19, 2022
Laurie Waite, Project Manager Peer Review
Services
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421
781-674-7362; 978-660-5583 (cell)
Laurie.Waite@erg.com
Re: Peer Review Economics of Blending 10 Percent Corn Ethanol into Gasoline
Vince DiVita, MBA, PE
Senior Consultant
1898 & Co. | Part of Burns & McDonnell
Background
The EPA study is a detailed evaluation of ethanol's blending cost into E10 gasoline to assess whether ethanol would
have been economical to blend into gasoline regardless of the RFS program. Factors included octane and volatility costs,
production cost and spot prices, distribution costs, and federal and state subsidies, while omitting RIN values. The
outcome of the study states: "Based on this analysis, economic factors alone were sufficient to cause the observed
growth in ethanol use."
The graph below shows historical volume percent of ethanol blended into US Gasoline as it spanned from nearly zero to
ten volume percent over time. The paper asserts that if there were not logistic challenges to produce or distribute the
E10, the E10 blendwall would have been met without an RFS program.
Ethanol Volume Percent in US Gasoline (EPA Data)
12.0%
10,0%
0,0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201i
Summary
140
-------
The analysis is performed with considerable detail in the methodology, data development, and analysis. The primary
goal of this peer review is to review the work performed and provide opinions on how the approach may have
influenced the outcome. I do not rework the problem.
I support that without a mandate, the blending up to the E10 blendwall would have likely occurred for some refiners.
These refiners would have had favorable conditions at their site specific facilities to blend to E10, including but not
limited to logistical advantages (ex: Midwest), operational disadvantages (ex: Octane short) and access to capital. It is
also likely that individual refineries would have benefitted from ethanol blending at levels below E10. This volume
percent is uncertain but it would have been evaluated as part of the refinery planning optimization - which is monthly
for most refiners - and could have spanned from zero to ten percent based on prevailing economics.
The study offers compelling evidence of the value of ethanol blending to the industry; however, the uniqueness of
refinery operations was not captured - a task that would be exceptionally challenging under any circumstance. The
octane value and incremental barrels are persuasive reasons to blend ethanol, but these reasons alone do not validate
specific opportunities (ex: location, configuration, geography, imports/exports, other blendstocks, operations), nor can
they be rigorously analyzed in hindsight. Some examples include:
Exporting less gasoline to make up domestic volume
Exporting low valued blend components such as naphtha to make up octane
Competition with other blendstocks such as alkylate, isooctane, and toluene
Capital and operational opportunities for incremental octane and volume
Reasonable assumptions and strategies have been incorporated in the study, though my opinion is that the data
integrity is insufficient to validate that the entire industry would have blended to the E10 blendwall. Additional notes
which form this opinion include:
Lack of granularity of refinery operations at the refinery site specific level
Using historical pricing which had an RFS mandate to analyze how the industry would have reacted without an
RFS mandate is problematic
A mandate likely influenced incremental ethanol production investment decisions
Octane price spreads and premium production was volatile over the study period which may have unclear
impacts on backcasted ethanol values
Using LP marginal values for this project analysis is premise laden. It assumes LP marginal values match the cost
of octane production for the entire US refining industry
SPECIFIC CHARGE ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED
A. Review the appropriateness of the ethanol blending cost equation for representing the relative blending value of
ethanol in gasoline.
Al. Ethanol Blending Cost Equation:
EBC = (ESP + EDC - ERV - FETS - SETS) - GTP
EBC = ethanol blending cost (estimates ethanol's net relative value to gasoline)
ESP = ethanol plant gate spot price (ethanol's market price at ethanol plant gates)
EDC = ethanol distribution cost (cost to move ethanol to downstream markets)
ERV = ethanol replacement value (captures ethanol's octane and volatility value)
FETS = federal ethanol tax subsidy (federal tax subsidy to incentivize ethanol's use)
SETS = state ethanol tax subsidy (state tax subsidies to incentivize ethanol's use)
141
-------
GTP = gasoline terminal price (baseline gasoline price to determine ethanol's relative value)
Response:
Mathematically, the equation is a reasonable, high-level approach for a blend value calculation. At an individual
refinery level, LP based solutions provide more rigor and confidence. Applying a generalized equation to represent
the entire downstream is highly premised. Every refinery has a different blend value versus the value predicted by
the equation. In this study, state-level historical data is used to populate the equation and draw conclusions for the
industry. This "state-level" approach is more granular than an aggregate "PADD Level" approach and less granular
then estimating individual refinery blend values.
The calculation of Ethanol Blend Cost (EBC) represents what you paid MINUS the value. If you paid too much versus
the value, the EBC is positive, meaning you lost margin on the transaction. If the EBC is negative, the value is greater
than what you paid, and you would have increased margin on the transaction. This methodology is explained below.
The equation assumes the cost of ethanol at the gate (blender, terminal, rack) is ethanol FOB plus transportation to
get it to the gate, represented by ESP + EDC. Next, removing the subsidies (FETS + SETS) from the refinery gate price
is reasonable to calculate a true blendstock price if an RFS mandate had not been in place. What you paid to get the
ethanol at the gate, excluding subsidies is ESP + EDC - FTS - STS, I will call that "A" - the cost of ethanol.
Next, the calculation of what the ethanol would be worth starts with the Ethanol Replacement Value (ERV). In the
analysis the primary positive quality contribution of ethanol is the high octane, which is certain. The ERV is
calculated versus gasoline (it is a premium/discount above gasoline). A positive ERV indicates the blend value is
higher versus gasoline, and a negative indicates the value is lower than gasoline. The ERV is added to gasoline price
(GTP) to get the absolute value (not a delta) of ethanol. I will call ERV + GTB the value of ethanol, represented by "B"
- the value of ethanol.
Last, there is a calculation of what was paid "A" minus what it's worth "B." A negative indicates the blendstock value
is higher what you paid, and a positive value means you paid more than the value.
A2. How well the included factors, when combined together in the equation, represent ethanol's relative blending
value for blending it at 10 volume percent in gasoline.
The equation is a reasonable generic blend value approach as it attempts to establish a refinery gate price and a
refinery gate value. The equation assumes that historical prices have captured the complexities of market dynamics,
specific refinery operations, and blending strategies both with and without an RFS program. It assumes the historical
prices would have been the same without an RFS program, which is unlikely.
Without a mandate, other options would have been explored by refiners. Some refiners may have determined
ethanol blending made financial (optimal) sense. Others, would have investigated a range of options to optimize
blending, including but not limited to:
Exporting less gasoline to make up domestic volume
Exporting low valued blend components such as naphtha to make up octane
Maximizing octane production (reformer severity, C3 alkylation for example)
Competition with other blendstocks such as alkylate, isooctane, and toluene
Capital and operational opportunities for incremental octane and gasoline volume.
142
-------
To be clear, two differently configured refineries side-by-side could have the same ESP, EDC, FETS, SETS, and GTP.
The ethanol blend premium/discount (ERV) can be radically different. A refinery that is exceptionally "long" on
octane (octane surplus) - would have little value for the high octane provide by ethanol. An example is operating a
reformer at high severity to produce incremental hydrogen. This refinery makes high octane reformate that can
exceed octane requirements. A refinery that is short on octane might place high value on the ethanol octane. In
other words, the ERV's are vastly different. The blend equation (EBC) blend value methodology will predict identical
(or remarkably similar) values, when we know the two locations place different values on ethanol.
As another example, alkylate prices in California have many times been much higher than the alkylate blend value
predicted in a generic blend value equation. It is a superior blendstock for CARB gasoline. The term "green
premium" reflects that some refiners pay higher than the octane/RVP blend value methodology. Restated, the blend
equation can potentially do a poor job estimating the market value of alkylate. As another example, Light Straight
Run (high RVP, low octane) has a blend value around 60% of gasoline (based on certain assumptions for RVP &
octane). The reality is that some refiners cannot (or choose not to) blend off LSR in the summer months and blend it
off in the winter. In this case the LSR blend value method grossly overstates the blendstock value for this refinery in
the summer.
A3. Whether a negative EBC value is a fair indicator that ethanol is less costly than gasoline and would signal to
gasoline blenders that ethanol be blended into gasoline if it was not already blended into gasoline or remain
in gasoline if it was already blended into gasoline. Similarly, whether a positive EBC value would indicate that
ethanol is more expensive than gasoline and not be blended into gasoline if it were not already, and
potentially be removed from gasoline conditional to the concepts described in C.l below.
Mathematically this is an appropriate. The application of this equation to the industry, and the data behind this
approach is assumption driven which is discussed in other sections of this review. The EBC is the price paid minus
the value provided. If ethanol value is higher than the price, the EBC calculation is negative which represents you
received more blend value than you paid - this represents a buy signal. Accordingly, a negative EBC is a "buy and
blend" signal.
The ERV is highly specific at individual sites and estimating specific site ERVs with public domain data is challenging.
Extrapolating results from this generic mathematical representation to make an assessment for all the specific
refineries that make up the US refining industry has intrinsic challenges.
A4. Whether other factors should be included, or should be considered for being included, in the ethanol blending
cost equation.
Every refinery has a unique EBC (Ethanol Blend Cost). Most of the components of EBC can be reasonably estimated
(ESP, EDC, FETS, SETS, and GTP). ERV (Refinery Value) for specific sites cannot easily be estimated and the ERV
between all refinery sites has significant variability based on each refinery's operation. The study premise is that the
equation for an aggregate region is in fact the "answer" for all the individual refinery sites in that region.
A challenge to this assumption is the exceptional number of variables that impacts ethanol value at any given
location. The complexity of refinery operations and the remarkable number of variables which go to establishing
ethanol value is significant. To condense these variables of all the specific refinery locations, into a single ethanol
blend equation representative of the industry is debatable.
The T50 suppression impact is lacking in the ethanol adjustment. This is difficult to quantify, but it is a negative
blending impact to some refineries. T50 is discussed later. Ethanol provides a positive blending benefit for low
benzene (MSAT) program and low sulfur Tier 2/3 program which is not accounted for.
143
-------
B. Review the appropriateness of the sources of data used for the values in the ethanol blending cost equation.
The use of historical price data which had an RFS program in place is compromised to analyze a scenario as if there
was not an RFS program. The RFS program vitally changed the landscape of refinery operations, fuels production,
supply/demand patterns - all of which impacts pricing & quality adjustments (e.g., the value of octane) that are
essential parameters to the conclusions of the study.
The ethanol industry increased production capacity to keep up with RFS requirements. The construction of ethanol
facilities had certainty that ethanol demand would increase under the RFS program. The extent to which
incremental ethanol production would have constructed without an RFS program is uncertain.
Investment theory supports adjusting the discount rate for project risk. Ethanol project risk is lower when an RFS
program is in place because there is more certainty for ethanol offtake, i.e., if there is a mandated ethanol demand
increase, there is a "home" for the product. The discount rate for ethanol projects without an RFS program would be
higher than with an RFS program because there is more risk when there is no product offtake versus product offtake
guarantees. A higher discount rate (hurdle rate) will decrease the project NPV, which would reduce investment
incentive. Project risk would be higher without an RFS program because there is less offtake certainty. The extent
and amount of reduced investment is uncertain, but less investment would reduce ethanol supply. This changes
market forces for supply, demand, and pricing. Without speculating on these impacts, it is sufficient to say the RFS
program impacted the investment profile for ethanol production and blending. The historical price sets would be
different if an RFS program had not been in place, the extent of which is speculative and challenges the conclusions.
Bl. The use of ethanol spot prices to represent ethanol plant gate prices.
Using ethanol spot prices to represent ethanol plant gate prices is reasonable. Using historical ethanol prices when
an RFS program is in place, to analyze hypothetical scenario without an RFS program is problematic.
B2. The estimated ethanol distribution costs to different states.
Using estimated distribution costs to different states, where the distribution is from the FOB source to the refinery
gate is a reasonable methodology. The RFS mandate incentivized "de facto" distribution investment because the
volume of ethanol to be distributed was increasing. Investment decisions to distribute ethanol when the volume of
ethanol is mandated has lower risk than without a mandate. Using these historical distribution costs when an RFS
program is in place is problematic to represent an analysis without an RFS program.
B3. The estimates for ethanol's octane blending value and volatility cost.
Using octane and RVP is a reasonable, initial approach for generic blend value calculations. Octane blending value
has extremely high variability between specific refinery facilities. Some refiners "giveaway" octane, in which case
there would be less incentive to purchase high octane blendstocks. Other refiners are short on octane and have
more incentive to buy octane. Every blend from every specific refinery has a unique impact with ethanol addition.
For example, a paraffinic gasoline responds differently to ethanol additions versus an aromatic pool - this distinction
is not captured in a blend equation.
Using octane marginal values from LP models is problematic. SEE Discussion on Marginal Values.
The wholesale cost of octane based on ULP and ULR for the region (state) and is NOT the refinery cost of octane
production. The cost to produce octane is site specific. The blend equation cannot capture the granularity of site
specific octane cost or value.
144
-------
With respect to ethanol there is another quality that impacted blending, which is called the "T50 suppression." The
actual blending of ethanol reduced the T50 of gasoline greater than blend calculations predicted. For some refiners
there was a cost to mitigate the T50 suppression. T50 suppression is not accounted for in this analysis.
B4. Adjustments used to adjust the factors for use in different years, particularly the use of both octane price (as
estimated by the premium-regular grade price differentials), and crude oil prices to scale the estimated
ethanol replacement costs to different years.
Adjustments made for octane using premium-regular price differentials are often used as an initial basis for octane
value. It is a "rule of thumb" practice. If the historical prices and volumes of premium and regular have noticeable
anomalies, the approach needs to be reviewed for the applicability. In other words, the wholesale price of octane
does not always represent the cost of octane production. This is a disconnect that impacts the study because a
significant value of ethanol is the high octane value. The refinery buys, sells and blends components into gasoline
based in part on the cost of octane production at the refinery. The study uses market prices of ULP and ULR to
estimate the value of octane - it could be reasonably accurate for some refiners, and it could be inaccurate for
others. The extent that this influences the study cannot be quantified.
The use of the wholesale ULR and ULP prices assumes that the aggregate of all the specific refinery operations
equals the reported price. I make assumptions that the aggregate response would have been the sum of all the
individual operations out of convenience but need to be cautious to point these out.
I am not familiar with the regression statistics to scale ethanol replacement cost to crude. A more granular approach
would be refinery modeling for different periods versus scaling with crude.
Premium vs Regular. The analysis has no discussion on the anomalies of premium pricing or demand over the study
time horizon. The graph below shows production of premium grade. When MTBE was phased out from 2003 - 2006,
the precent premium dropped from 13.1% to 9.3%. The graph has a high of 18.5% and low of 8.3%, a substantial 10
percent drop.
The emphasis if this chart is to point out that historical premium-regular pricing was used for the analysis, during a
period when clearly there were significant changes in demand for premium. During the same period there was a
phase out of MTBE and the implementation of the RFS program. This demand change could be consumer behavior,
cost of octane production, premium vs regular differential, the absolute price of gasoline or any number of other, or
combination of events.
While there are many dynamic factors associated with premium sales (e.g., consumer behavior, cost of octane) - my
comment is not intended to analyze why the premium production dropped. One reason for the premium drop could
be the octane reduction associated with pulling MTBE out of the pool. It could be ethanol was priced high and some
refiners chose to reduce premium production. If there was an octane shortage, ethanol could have shored up the
octane balance and maintained premium production - yet premium gasoline production dropped. The answers to
these questions are speculative.
145
-------
Wholesale octane calculation (cents/oct*gal)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
ee nts/oct * ga I
Many refiners will agree the cost of producing octane is about 1-2 cents per octane gallon. This is reflected in the
wholesale data from 2000 to 2010. This is reflective of reformer economics and is intended to represent what it
costs the refinery to produce higher octane using reformer economics. When this price more than doubles from
146
-------
2011 to 2012, it raises the question, why did the ULP-ULR differential change so much? It seems unlikely that the
industry cost to produce octane doubled from one year to the next. This Peer Review is not intended to answer this
question; however, it is to point out that using a price differential as a basis in the EBC equation can create
uncertainty in the application of the equation for an industry conclusion. The graph shows that the value of octane
can change dramatically year over year which will very much influence the EBC calculation. This points to the
influence of historical prices.
B5. The use of refinery rack spot prices to represent terminal gasoline prices at the point ethanol is blended into
gasoline.
This is my understanding of the terminology.
C. Review the appropriateness of the report conclusions.
CI. Corn ethanol profit made by corn ethanol plant producers incentivized them to build new corn ethanol plant
capacity - does the data support such a conclusion?
Certainly, profit incentivizes new capital investment for incremental production
New investment is based on anticipation of the future. To a considerable extent, ethanol production investment was
made with the certainly of ethanol offtake because of the RFS program. This fact changed ethanol investment
decisions. Investment with a secure offtake (from the RFS mandate) is different than investment without a secure
offtake.
Using historical data - with an ethanol mandate - to calculate the profit incentive for ethanol producers without a
mandate can raise challenges.
C2. The conclusion that blending corn ethanol up to the E10 blendwall would have occurred anyways regardless of
the RFS program (note that EPA did not conclude that the RFS did not have any impact).
Without a mandate, the blending up to the E10 blendwall may have occurred for some refiners. These refiners
would likely have had site specific reasons to blend to E10, including but not limited to logistical advantages (ex:
Midwest), operational disadvantages (ex: Octane short)
I think the data integrity is insufficient to validate that the entire industry would have blended to the blendwall. This
includes:
Lack of granularity of refinery operations at the refinery site specific level
Using historical pricing with an RFS mandate to make conclusions on behavior without a mandate
A mandate likely influenced incremental ethanol production investment decisions
Using LP marginal values for this type of project analysis is premise laden
I agree with the EPA conclusion that the RFS did have "some" impact to E10.
C3. Inertia for using ethanol when match-blended into gasoline - do the investments needed in refining and fuel
distribution coupled with ethanol's volume and octane create a dependency on the part of refiners to
continue to use ethanol during short time periods where ethanol may be uneconomical to use in a small,
limited number of gasoline markets?
147
-------
There are situations in the US refining industry where a specific refinery is dependent on ethanol's volume and
octane, the extent of which is uncertain.
The US refining industry is resourceful and resilient and has proved its ability to balance supply, demand, and
regulatory impacts. A refinery will minimize the cost of production. If a refinery uses ethanol to balance volume and
quality it is because it is the least cost option to maximize margin. The study utilizes a blendstock value equation to
represent the industry, but the industry does not use a blendstock value equation. The industry uses advanced LP
optimization to determine the least cost strategies to meet the operating constraints.
From ethanol blending spanning 1% to 10% a dependency on external octane and volume was gradually created
through the mandate. Consequently, there was no industry pressure to produce the 10% incremental gasoline
volume nor to produce the incremental octane associated with the RFS mandate
Other Comments
Industry Optimization & Modeling
The use of advanced optimization software is prevalent in refining industry. The refinery LP is configured differently
with an RFS mandate versus without the mandate. LP models provide different ethanol purchase and blending signals
with and without an RFS program. These could have ranged from zero to ten percent based on prevailing economics.
These decisions would have been made on a routine basis - monthly operating plans for most refiners.
Seasonal
The impact of seasonal specifications, prices, and blending economics is important. The analysis appropriately looks at
summer and winter periods.
Marginal Values/Marginal Economics
The analysis incorporates "marginal" economics as stated in the report: "... the analysis used ethanol blending values
based on its blending economics while blended into gasoline (marginal values; also called shadow values)."
Marginal economics represent "the next infinitesimal barrel" which could apply to a purchase, sale, or operation such as
throughput or blending. The marginal value reflects how much the LP objective value will change for the marginal
increment in the purchase, sell, or operation. Advance Linear Programming (LP) modeling systems calculate and report
marginal values. In my experience, the best use of marginal values is for analytics. I review marginal values for
"magnitude and direction" and talk in terms of "strong and weak" marginal values.
Using LP marginal values as primary data input is problematic for this study. In an LP model, there is the potential for a
value to change dramatically based on operations "at the margin." For example, if a purchased FCC feedstock might
have a high marginal value at the 5000th barrel, but the value could radically change if the refinery could not process
the next barrel, the 5001 barrel, due to a capacity constraint. To understand the value of the feedstock, running
successive runs -say at 4500, 5000, and 5500 (as example) is the appropriate way to value the feedstock. There is a
difference between the marginal value and the average value. If the objective function increases by $50,000 for 1000
barrels of ethanol, the average value for the 1000 barrels is $50 (50,000 divided by 1000); however, the marginal value
for the 1001st barrel could be $45 or $55 as an example.
LP Marginal values are based on the LP set up, the structure, the constraints, configuration, variables, assumptions -
every input in the LP potentially impacts the marginal value. The marginal value for purchasing or blending an
incremental barrel of ethanol in an LP model for the USA, PADD 3, USGC, or a specific refinery will all be different. In
other words, the marginal value of octane or the marginal value of ethanol is site-specific and may or may not be
reflective of the industry, state, or aggregate average.
148
-------
I disagree with the use marginal values as a primary data source for an analysis of this significance.
149
-------
\ Wi 0 ^ I M ^ ^ ^
S. KENT HOEKMAN, PH.D.
Research Professor, Emeritus
Division of Atmospheric Sciences
Desert Research Institute
Reno, Nevada
150
-------
Final Revised External Peer Review of EPA Document
"Economics of Blending 10 Percent Corn Ethanol into Gasoline"
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Environmental Protection
Agency
Reviewed by:
S. Kent Hoekman, Ph.D.
Research Professor, Emeritus
Desert Research Institute 2215
Raggio Parkway Reno, NV 89512
March 4, 2022
Economics of Blending 10 Percent Corn Ethanol into Gasoline
The above-referenced draft EPA report was distributed to a group of peer reviewers along with a "Technical Charge"
that provided guidance on how to perform the review and a series of specific questions to address. The structure of this
review follows this guidance, with each of the main charge categories and subcategories being stated, followed by a
response.
A. Review the appropriateness of the ethanol blending cost equation for representing the relative blending value of
(corn) ethanol in gasoline.
Al. Ethanol blending cost equation: EBC = (ESP + EDC - ERV - FETS - SETS) - GTP
This equation appears to capture the most important factors that are relevant in assessing the costs of corn ethanol
blending. (Blending of other ethanol - whether from sugarcane or cellulosic feedstocks - would require different
EBC equations.) One factor explicitly excluded is Renewable Identification Number (RIN) value. Because this analysis
is based on a counterfactual case without the RFS, it makes sense to exclude RIN values. But it would be good to
provide a bit more explanation of this. Also, it should be mentioned that the gasoline terminal price (GTP) refers to
gasoline that already contains 10 vol.% ethanol (E10), not E0. This fact slightly confounds the calculation of EBC.
151
-------
A2. How well the included factors, when combined together in the equation, represent (corn) ethanol's relative
blending value for blending it at 10 volume percent in gasoline.
On a gross scale, the combination of these factors provides a reasonable estimate of ethanol's relative blending
value at 10 vol.% in gasoline. It's unclear whether they also provide reasonable estimates for other blending levels -
particularly 15 vol.% (E15). However, because this study is focused on E10 blends, the EBC equation seems
reasonable.
A3. Whether a negative EBC value is a fair indicator that (corn) ethanol is less costly than gasoline and would
signal to gasoline blenders that ethanol be blended into gasoline if it was not already blended into gasoline or
remain in gasoline if it was already blended into gasoline. Similarly, whether a positive EBC value would
indicate that ethanol is more expensive than gasoline and not be blended into gasoline if it were not already,
and potentially be removed from gasoline conditional to the concepts described in C.l below.
Overall, a negative EBC value would indicate that ethanol is less costly than gasoline, while a positive value would
indicate that ethanol is more costly than gasoline. However, the spatial and temporal scales must also be
considered. The EBC values determined in this study refer to an entire state over a multimonth period (summer and
winter). In reality, some of these factors in the EBC equation may vary substantially within a single state and on a
shorter time frame. Thus, the EBC values calculated here would tend to dampen out some of the variability that
actually occurs within the marketplace. It would be useful to provide some indication of the extent of EBC variability
resulting from a more granular analysis.
A4. Whether other factors should be included, or should be considered for being included, in the (corn) ethanol
blending cost equation.
As mentioned above, RIN values are an obvious factor that should be explained, though not included in the
equation. Also, inclusion of ethanol tax subsidies (FETS and SETS) is a bit confusing. It might be helpful to include a
graphical timeline showing the various levels of subsidies that existed in different places over the 20-year period of
interest.
As mentioned in lines 214-216, "Other federal and state subsidies such as ethanol production subsidies, loan
guarantees, grants and other subsidies, were not considered by this analysis." Accurate inclusion of such factors
certainly would be complex, although they may well have contributed to business decisions regarding development
of expanded ethanol production. It would be useful to include a table showing which states enacted such incentives,
and the approximate level of the incentives.
B. Review the appropriateness of the sources of data used for the values in the ethanol blending cost equation.
Bl. The use of ethanol spot prices to represent ethanol plant gate prices.
Use of ethanol spot prices seems like a reasonable approach, as these data are widely available and are regarded as
reliable. However, I question the averaging of ethanol plant gate prices over an entire year. As shown in the
Appendix tables, gate prices varied from a low of $1.12/gallon in 2002 to a high of $2.70/gallon in 2011. Surely there
was considerable month-to-month variability in these values. It would be useful to say something about this
variability and how it affected the final calculated EBC values.
It is stated in lines 247-248 that "Therefore, we also benchmarked ethanol production costs against ethanol spot
prices to assess the likely profitability of ethanol over the time frame of this analysis." The value of this, however,
seems questionable, as a single plant size was modeled. It is very likely that actual ethanol profitability varied with
plant size. Also, in this analysis, it would be useful to graphically depict time trends of important modeling inputs
and outputs, especially yields and utility costs.
152
-------
A possible complication in this approach of using ethanol spot prices to represent ethanol plant gate prices is the
role of ethanol imports and exports. Some comments should be made about the significance of imports/exports,
and whether they somehow distort the ethanol plant gate prices that are estimated here.
B2. The estimated ethanol distribution costs to different states
The approach of utilizing regional distribution costs from the Midwest to other parts of the country is reasonable for
corn ethanol produced in the Midwest. But what about ethanol imported into the country from other regions? How
much imported ethanol was there in each year, and where was this ethanol distributed? Perhaps this is unimportant
for the analyses done here, but the issue of ethanol imports should at least be mentioned. It might also be useful to
the reader if a graphical display, such as a color-coded "heat map" of the U.S., was used to illustrate the wide range
of distribution costs over different states.
B3. The estimates for ethanol's octane blending value and volatility cost.
Use of a refinery model to estimate ethanol's replacement cost is a reasonable approach to take. Also, adjusting
these modeled costs (determined for 2020) to other time periods is reasonable. I am unable to judge the pros and
cons of the specific adjustment methodologies used by EPA, i.e., adjustment based on gasoline premium grade and
regular grade price differential, and adjustment based on crude oil prices.
B4. Adjustments used to adjust the factors for use in different years, particularly the use of both octane price (as
estimated by the premium-regular grade price differentials), and crude oil prices to scale the estimated
ethanol replacement costs to different years.
As shown in Figure 2, adjustments for octane price and for crude oil price give similar results for relative blending
costs in most years. However, the agreement was quite poor for a few years. In particular, adjustments based on
octane costs gave lower ethanol blending costs in 2015, 2016, and 2019; but higher ethanol blending costs in 2010
and 2011. The disagreement in 2016 was explained as resulting from a high value placed on octane during this time
of very low crude oil prices (lines 339-353). Similar explanations should be offered (if available) for the other years in
which agreement between these two adjustment approaches was quite poor. Given these discrepancies, it might be
useful to investigate adjustments based on an average of these two methods, or some other adjustment
methodology.
B5. The use of refinery rack spot prices to represent terminal gasoline prices at the point ethanol is blended into
gasoline.
Given the ready availability of these data, use of refinery rack spot prices is a convenient and appropriate way to
represent terminal gasoline prices. One limitation of this approach is that these gasoline spot prices are likely for
E10, not E0. Thus, the price of ethanol is already partially included in these spot prices.
C. Review the appropriateness of the report conclusions.
CI. Corn ethanol profit made by corn ethanol plant producers incentivized them to build new corn ethanol plant
capacity - does the data support such a conclusion?
The data certainly support this conclusion during the rapid ramp-up time period of 2004-2008, as shown in Figure 3.
However, from 2015 onward, this does not appear to be the case. Of course, plant capacity expansion has been
much slower since 2015, but according to Figure 3, modest capacity growth still occurred.
The observation that ethanol production costs significantly exceeded the ethanol spot prices in 20192020 raises
questions about the suitability of this analysis, as such a situation is surely unsustainable over the long run. Are
these results a consequence of the assumption of a single, typical-sized ethanol plant, whereas in reality, overall
153
-------
production costs continued to decline during this period due to elimination of less efficient plants and expansion of
more efficient plants? A little more discussion of these points would be useful.
C2. The conclusion that blending corn ethanol up to the E10 blendwall would have occurred anyways regardless of
the RFS program (note that EPA did not conclude that the RFS did not have any impact).
On the whole, this conclusion is valid. However, there likely are specific times and places where blending ethanol up
to the blend wall would not have occurred without the RFS program. Some sense of this could be provided by
showing EBC values by state and by season. It would be very informative to present a few graphical depictions -
perhaps maps of the U.S. with color-coding to indicate EBC values in each state.
The history of the RFS program has been fraught with disagreements and legal disputes about ethanol volumes to be
blended each year. This suggests that at least some of the major stakeholders in the ethanol industry do not believe
that blending up to the blend wall would have occurred anyways, regardless of the RFS program. The report should
address this issue, and clearly explain any misunderstandings that may exist.
Based on this conclusion, the reader may deduce that the ethanol component of the RFS program could be
eliminated, without any consequence on the amount of ethanol that is blended into gasoline. The report should
discuss this issue, and assess whether such a deduction would be valid.
C3. Inertia for using ethanol when match-blended into gasoline - do the investments needed in refining and fuel
distribution coupled with ethanol's volume and octane create a dependency on the part of refiners to
continue to use ethanol during short time periods where ethanol may be uneconomical to use in a small,
limited number of gasoline markets?
Clearly, investments made to refining and distribution infrastructure, as well as the positive volume and octane
attributes of ethanol, create on-going incentives to utilize ethanol for short time periods, even when doing so is
uneconomical. However, the definition of "short time periods" likely varies, depending upon the specific situation
being faced by the refiner. Thus, the concept of "logistical inertia" for continuing to use ethanol is probably valid,
but likely applies unequally spatially and temporally, making it difficult to conduct a uniform economic assessment.
The fact that debate continues regarding required ethanol blending values suggests that this logistical inertia is not
always very strong.
154
-------
\ Wi 0 ,v ^ I ^ ^ ^ ^
MARTIN TALLETT, l.SC.
President Tallett & Co.
Waltham, Massachusetts
155
-------
External Peer Review of EPA's Draft Technical Report:
"Economics of Blending Corn Ethanol into E10 Gasoline"
Technical Charge to External Peer Reviewers
Contract No. 68HE0C18C0001
Work Assignment 3-13
BACKGROUND
The following constitutes the peer review undertaken by myself, Martin R Tallett, of the draft EPA technical report,
"Economics of Blending Corn Ethanol into E10 Gasoline", under Technical Charge to External Peer Reviewers, Contract
No. 68HE0C18C0001, Work Assignment 3-13.
My review draws on my fifty-plus years of international experience both within and consulting to the petroleum
industry, including, inter alia, direct refinery planning, scheduling and gasoline blending, supporting the EPA,
Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA), American Petroleum Institute (API), and others
since the late 1980's in evaluating the refining, market economics and trade implications of changes in US (and
worldwide) fuels specifications, including the US reformulated gasoline RFG program and the RFS; also, extensive
testimony over the past 19 years on behalf of the States of New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania,
the City of New York and others regarding the use of MTBE versus ethanol in US gasoline, with emphasis on the
technical and economic feasibility of using ethanol versus MTBE, hence refining/blending technical and economic
factors, distribution costs and market/supply cost effects, among others.
In undertaking this review, I examined the draft report itself, its primary appendix (Appendix 4); also, an Excel file
containing the detail of the results tabulated in Appendix 4, source materials EPA drew on and third-party source
materials I used as cross-checks. The latter are cited where appropriate in the body of my report below. The primary
'period of interest' of the EPA report is 2000-2020. I have focused my remarks on that period while, where I deem
relevant, also covering the pre-2000 period.
The EPA report was summarized to me as follows:
The increase in ethanol blended into U.S. gasoline is often attributed to the Renewable Fuels Program (RFS), however,
other factors such as rising gasoline prices and the phase-out of MTBE were also factors. Determining whether corn
ethanol use occurred due to economic factors versus the RFS program is important for attribution of any cost, health, or
environmental impacts of using corn ethanol. EPA conducted a detailed economic study of ethanol's blending cost into
E10 gasoline, including octane and volatility costs, production cost and spot prices, distribution costs, and federal and
state subsidies, while omitting RIN values, to assess whether ethanol would have been economical to blend into gasoline
regardless of the RFS program. The analysis found economic factors alone were sufficient to cause the observed growth
in ethanol use.
In conducting my review, I was specifically asked to:
Respond to the specific charge issues as presented below.
Explain and justify my rationale for my responses to the charge issues.
Comment on any other issues in the report or report appendix that I deem important.
My report is set out below. SPECIFIC CHARGE ISSUES REVIEWED
A. Review the appropriateness of the ethanol blending cost equation for representing the relative blending value of
ethanol in gasoline.
156
-------
Al. Ethanol Blending Cost Equation:
EBC = (ESP + EDC - ERV - FETS - SETS) - GTP
EBC = ethanol blending cost (estimates ethanol's net relative value to gasoline)
ESP = ethanol plant gate spot price (ethanol's market price at ethanol plant gates)
EDC = ethanol distribution cost (cost to move ethanol to downstream markets) ERV = ethanol
replacement value (captures ethanol's octane and volatility value)
FETS = federal ethanol tax subsidy (federal tax subsidy to incentivize ethanol's use)
SETS = state ethanol tax subsidy (state tax subsidies to incentivize ethanol's use)
GTP = gasoline terminal price (baseline gasoline price to determine ethanol's relative value)
Response:
My overall assessment is that I find this equation to be sound, in principle, subject to one possible caveat that I set
out below. I am viewing the equation as reflecting the value the refiner or blender would assess for ethanol as a
blendstock into gasoline. In that context, I believe it fully reflects the components of value and cost the
refiner/blender would see. Under Section B below, I have commented on the specific price, cost and volume data
used by the EPA and so, here, I have confined my comments mainly to the principle of whether ethanol blending
cost equation is sound.
1. Form of the Equation. Having worked with and explained terms and examples in preparing this review, I
have one overall reaction to the form of the equation, namely that I find it difficult to work with the result
that the greater the negative value of the EBC, the more attractive ethanol is as a blend component and vice
versa. In my view, it would be cleaner, and easier to understand, if the equation were reversed so that the
"EBC" term became EBV, Ethanol Blending Value. Then, the situation would be that the greater the positive
value the greater the attractiveness of ethanol and vice versa. So, the form of the equation would be: EBV =
GTP - (ESP + EDC - ERV - FETS - SETS). Note, however, that everywhere throughout my review I have
referenced the equation in its original form.
2. ESP and EDC. It is logical to start with the ethanol plant gate spot price (ESP) and then add to that the
cost of distribution/transportation (EDC) to the point where it will be blended into gasoline, generally a
terminal from which finished gasoline will be sent out, usually by truck, for final distribution to retail stations
or other customers. (Ethanol generally has to be transported from its point of production to a terminal
separately from gasoline itself because of ethanol's affinity for water, i.e. it is rarely transported with the
main gasoline stream; hence the need to assess the cost for separate transportation, usually by rail, barge,
truck or some combination thereof.)
3. ERV. In reviewing the ERV term, I make a distinction between what, to me, are two different scenarios
which focus on different potential components of ERV. The EPA analysis is based on use of ethanol at 10%
concentration. So, to me, the first scenario, is where the ethanol is assumed to be available or required to
be blended at 10% concentration and that, therefore, the question, in terms of "ERV", is - given the ethanol
is available, what effects do its physical properties have on its blending value in gasoline? The second
scenario is the one where ethanol is not necessarily available, or where the refiner/blender has the choice
to either use ethanol to make up 10% of the gasoline or to produce and blend other streams that will make
up the lost volume and enable the finished gasoline to be still produced 'on specification' and so the
question posed is - how does the blender replace that ethanol, i.e. what is its replacement value? Thus, in
the discussion below, I make a distinction between 'blending value' and 'replacement value' when referring
to ERV as, in my view, these call for two overlapping but essentially different sets of considerations. Both are
relevant considerations, but they should not be conflated or considered additive because they are really
'either or'. Straight 'blending value' relates more to the actual history where the RFS mandated use of
ethanol, so it had to be blended into gasoline. 'Replacement value' relates more to a situation where there
157
-------
had been no RFS and where, among refiners/blenders, choice between ethanol and alternatives was an
option.
a. Blending Value. The combination of ESP + EDC provides the delivered cost of ethanol, but it
does not reflect ethanol's blending value in the gasoline into which it will be blended. The EPA draft
report is correct to point out that ethanol's replacement value (ERV) depends on the situation. In
the earlier years of ethanol's use, it was often 'splash blended' into conventional gasoline primarily
to add volume. In this situation, no value was necessarily gained from ethanol's high octane. The
effect of 10% ethanol raising gasoline blend volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure - RVP) by approximately
1 psi was allowed for through a 1 psi waiver. This situation changed, especially with the advent of
the RFG program, starting in 1995. Under that program, the quality of roughly 30% of US gasoline
(RFG) was controlled under initially the Simple Model and then the Complex Model to achieve
reductions versus a baseline in emissions to air of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrous oxides
(NOx) and toxics. In addition, the emissions of the remaining conventional gasoline (CG) were not
allowed to deteriorate versus baseline. These and subsequent regulations, notably EPA toxics 'anti-
backsliding' regulations which were brought into force with the RFS in 2006, and later Tier III to
achieve ultralow sulfur standards, meant that, from around 1995 on, ethanol has mainly been
blended into gasoline taking full account of its physical properties; "match-blending" is the term
used by the EPA. Ethanol's blending - or replacement - value in gasoline thus became very much a
function of what type of gasoline it was being blended into, where and when. Key factors included:
whether the gasoline was RFG or CG, (to which a 1 psi RVP waiver generally applies), northern tier or
southern tier, (which affected effective maximum allowed RVP in Summer), season of the year
(tighter regulations for emissions and hence RVP applied in the Summer rather than in Winter) and
gasoline grade (premium versus regular). Taking these factors together with ethanol's combination
of advantageous high octane and disadvantageous high RVP means accurate replacement value
must therefore be computed for specific situations - grade, season, location, etc. (as the EPA did
undertake per their report and detailed results tables in Appendix 4). I discuss that further under
Section B but, in principle, the EPA are correct to include the ERV term in their equation. The ERV
term must necessarily reflect the differences in ethanol's physical properties, both better and
worse, relative to the target qualities of the finished gasoline.
b. Replacement Value. As described above, there is also an element of replacement/opportunity
cost for the lost volume should ethanol not be available and/or should refiners have a choice
whether to use ethanol or alternatives. Essentially, what would a refiner do to replace lost ethanol
volume and quality by, most likely, running incremental crude oil and altering refinery operations,
potentially also process equipment, and gasoline blend compositions, to end up at the same total
volume of gasoline supply with all produced gasoline grades still 'within specification'. Again, I see
this as a valid consideration but one which potentially needs to be viewed separately from the
'blending value' of ethanol at 10%. A lot depends on how each value has been arrived at, i.e.,
whether there is potential for double-counting.
4. FETS and SETS. Federal and state tax subsidies for ethanol play directly into the net cost to the gasoline
blender of supplied ethanol and therefore are appropriate to include in the EBC equation. If, for example,
there had been no ethanol subsidy to reduce the final cost paid by the blender, then the blender would
necessarily have had to have assessed the value of the ethanol as blendstock sans subsidy(s).
5. GTP. Gasoline terminal price (GTP) is an appropriate final component in the EBC equation in large part
because it is necessary, whenever possible, to compare stream values at the same location. Since ethanol is
generally blended at the terminal, it is therefore appropriate to bring relevant prices to the terminal location
158
-------
(as with ethanol computed as ethanol plant spot price plus distribution cost to the terminal) and/or use
prices quoted directly at the terminal location (as with the finished gasoline).
6. Caveat. As noted above, I would place a caveat on the use of the terminal gasoline prices. These are, I
understand, for finished gasoline sold on for final distribution. In a 10% ethanol world, the finished gasoline
price is therefore made up of 10% delivered-to-terminal ethanol price plus 90% the price of the non-ethanol
component of the blend, again at the terminal. The latter is referred to as "RBOB" (Reformulated Gasoline
Before Oxygenate Blending) where the product is RFG and "CBOB" (Conventional Gasoline Before
Oxygenate Blending) where the product is CG.
So, taking the case of RFG/RBOB, one could rewrite the EBC equation as follows, Firstly, GTP = 0.1*(ESP +
EDC) + 0.9*(RBS + RBD) where RBS equals the spot price for RBOB in a relevant major regional market and
RBD equals the cost of RBOB distribution from that market to the terminal. For example, for a terminal in
say New Jersey, the delivered cost of RBOB could be computed as either the US Gulf Coast spot price for
RBOB plus transport (most likely via pipeline) to New Jersey or the New York Harbor spot price for RBOB
plus the cost of transportation to New Jersey (most likely via barge). (Given the competition in that market, I
would expect delivered RBOB prices derived either way to be very close to each other.) Secondly,
substituting in the revised equation for GTP leads to an adjusted EBC equation as follows: EBC = 1.0*(ESP +
EDC) - ERV - FETS - SETS - (0.1*(ESP + EDC) + 0.9*(RBS + RBD)) or, in final form, EBC = 0.9*(ESP + EDC) -
ERV
- FETS - SETS - 0.9*(RBS + RBD). While this revised equation could be considered more 'rigorous', and I wish
to point out the possible 'flaw' of including ethanol price effectively twice in the EPA equation, I am
unconvinced the revised form would lead to practical advantages over the original equation. Firstly, the
supply cost of delivering RBOB to the terminal is necessarily implicitly built in to the terminal gasoline price
GTP. Secondly, (see also Section B), the EPA was able to obtain published 'rack' prices at multiple points
across the US in order to calculate EBC values, again, at multiple points across the country. In contrast, RBOB
and CBOB prices are often only published for a small number of major market centers.1 Thus, depending on
the sources used for RBOB and CBOB pricing, it could mean that multiple distribution costs for RBOB and
CBOB would have to be calculated. While this is also true for ethanol, RBOB/CBOB comprises 90% of the
gasoline and so any error or uncertainty in transportation costs to terminals would have a commensurately
greater impact on the final assessed EBC. Given this situation, I believe it is reasonable to accept the form of
the equation as proposed by the EPA.2
7. Note on Time Effect. Had the EPA analysis used prices for a given day, notably ethanol plant spot price
(ESP) and terminal price (GTP), to arrive at their ethanol blending cost (EBC), then timing offsets on those
prices could have been a factor for the simple reason it takes time to deliver ethanol to the terminal and
then more time before it is finally used in the blend that is delivered out and priced on the day of outward
shipment. However, my understanding, based on examination of data and review of the draft report, is that
the EPA used annual average prices as their starting point. This would render de minimus any possible issues
because of pricing time offsets.
8. Bottom Line. As I have described, it is conceivable that the EPA could have taken a somewhat different
approach to arriving at ethanol blending cost (EBC) by using RBOB/CBOB prices plus distribution costs to
terminals, rather than using terminal gasoline prices (GTP) which implicitly embody the price of 10% ethanol
in the product. At the practical level, however, I believe the methodology and equation, and hence price and
cost elements, applied by the EPA were acceptable and sufficient to produce reasonable results, given the
objectives of the analysis.
(Again, see Section B for commentary of specifics of the data used.)
159
-------
A2. How well the included factors, when combined together in the equation, represent ethanol's relative blending
value for blending it at 10 volume percent in gasoline.
Response:
As I describe above, I support the terms used by EPA in their EBC equation and believe the overall methodology
employed was reasonable. I do not see the need to either remove terms from the equation or to add new ones.
Since the individual elements in the equation work, and are sufficient, it follows that "the included factors, when
combined together" work.
A3. Whether a negative EBC value is a fair indicator that ethanol is less costly than gasoline and would signal to
gasoline blenders that ethanol be blended into gasoline if it was not already blended into gasoline or remain
in gasoline if it was already blended into gasoline. Similarly, whether a positive EBC value would indicate that
ethanol is more expensive than gasoline and not be blended into gasoline if it were not already, and
potentially be removed from gasoline conditional to the concepts described in C.l below.
The short answers to these two questions are: "yes" and "yes". Bear in mind that EBC equals Ethanol [net] Blending
Cost relative to the value of gasoline. So, as stated in the question, a negative Cost (EBC) means the ethanol is net
cheaper than the gasoline it is being blended into and a positive Cost (EBC) means more expensive. By virtue of the
way the equation is constructed, a positive value for EBC means that the total delivered cost of the ethanol (to the
terminal) net of its replacement/blending value cost/benefit, (i.e. EBC is lowered if the ethanol has net positive
blend attributes/value3 and vice versa), and net of federal and any state tax subsidies, is still above the terminal
gasoline price (GTP) and therefore not economic to blend into the gasoline. Correspondingly, the reverse is true.
Given my view that the EPA's EBC equation is reasonable, it is therefore reasonable that the EBC, and whether it is
negative or positive, represents a "fair indicator" of ethanol's value to a blender and therefore the incentive or
disincentive to blend it into the gasoline.
Whether a refiner or blender would in fact elect to remove ethanol from its gasoline in a situation where the net
blending cost for the ethanol is higher than the value/price of the gasoline (EBC positive) would depend on a
number of factors. It is not easy to change refinery operations to replace a 'lost' oxygenate (whether MTBE or
ethanol). This is especially the case for RFG where the essential absence of sulfur, aromatics, olefins in the
oxygenate is important in 'diluting' adverse gasoline properties and thus in achieving emissions standards. It is also
not easy to replace the lost octane. In addition, logistics systems including terminals and supply contracts are set up
to generally run on the basis of a given proportion and supply of ethanol, again difficult to change. Therefore, even if
there were no RFS mandating certain volumes of ethanol in gasoline, I would not expect refiners and blenders to
switch in and out of ethanol use on a short-term basis; only to switch if there were some long-term change in the
economics of ethanol use or its supply.
A4. Whether other factors should be included, or should be considered for being included, in the ethanol blending
cost equation.
Response:
As discussed under A.2, I do not see any factors as being needed for addition into or removal from the EPA equation.
B. Review the appropriateness of the sources of data used for the values in the ethanol blending cost equation.
As noted above, my review under Section A focused primarily on the principles and methodology embodied in EPA's
approach. Here under Section B, I focus in on the specifics of the data used by EPA. In that regard, I have one overall
reaction/comment. I have relied, inter alia, on spreadsheet (Excel) data provided by the EPA containing price and
related information which was used to create the tables in Appendix 4. Based on my work over many years with
complex modeling systems and data, I and my colleagues have learned the hard way that it is very easy in Excel to
160
-------
set up formulae that may be in error, especially when referencing data elsewhere in the workbook, and/or which
are difficult to verify. I see that the EPA Excel file provided uses some lookup formulae but primarily relies on direct
cell references from one cell to another, e.g. to pick up a price from a different page. Again, from experience, this is
a dangerous method, as well as basic. It is far safer to use named ranges and lookup formulae to the maximum
extent possible.
One consequence of the EPA approach is that, while I have undertaken limited spot-checking of formulae and data, I
have not, because of the formulae EPA used, been able to verify to my satisfaction that the correct data are always
being referenced and thus that results obtained and portrayed are consistently accurate. All of my comments below
are underlain by this major caveat. In short, I am largely reduced to trusting not verifying that the EBC equation
results EPA have produced are correct.
Bl. The use of ethanol spot prices to represent ethanol plant gate prices.
Response:
I do not profess to be expert in the detail of ethanol production and associated pricing but I would make the
following comments:
1. I understand that a significant amount of ethanol is traded based on term contracts. These individual
contracts may or may not correspond closely to spot price at any one point in time and location but, in my
experience, most or all prices are linked to some form of 'marker' so that the price received or paid will
reflect market conditions. Neither the buyer nor the seller can afford to take the risk of setting a price that is
not in some way market linked unless the contract is extremely short term. I have, in the past, seen
evidence of ethanol (and MTBE) pricing being linked to some form of gasoline price, thereby embodying the
blending value of the ethanol. Since spot price for ethanol where the intended use is in gasoline must reflect
ethanol's value, at least into the 'marginal' gasoline blend, e.g. conventional rather than reformulated
gasoline, I would expect ethanol spot price to be a reasonable representation of ethanol's value into
gasoline at that point in time.
2. In the 1990's, and possibly early 2000's, ethanol production in the US was concentrated in the hands of
a few suppliers that held a large portion of the supply. Whenever there is that situation, there is the
possibility of periods when a published spot price may be open to question. However, since the yearly
2000's, US ethanol production has grown dramatically, from around 1 billion gallons annually in the mid-
1990's to around 16 billion gallons in 2017/18/19. See chart and EIA data.
161
-------
ENnmetaL Rnergy Pahcy 161 (2022) 11271J
16
14 ~ Annual Change
_ Or ought Recession Oooght
Consumption
Productcn +
g 12 ฆ!
I nl lllll III III lllr I,
j" +iH Mill ii
s. . ง3
1 1 1 S&
ฆ? + a..l I I + 1 ง>s
ฃ
$
14 ++++i. r mill *
+ + . iii ii 11111111 r s
++++++ +++++ ++++ + + 5
2 + v
l/>
u.
IT
it ป 5
5 e "
2
Iii
Flf. I. Annual production and consumption of ethanol In the United Slates (left axis and bars) and the change from one year to the next (right axis and plus signs)
from 1981 to 2019 (note different y-axts zero levels). Units are in billions of gallon* per year. Production was greater than S6% of capacity in all years, with an
average of 88% and median of 91* (Alternative FueU i vua Center, 2020X Daw are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (LS0A Economw i < m h Service.
201'0. Timing of key federal policy events Is shown below the figure (CAAA-Clean Air Aci Amendment* of 1990; EPACT Energy* Policy Aci; VEETC - Volumetric
Elhanol Excise Tax Credit; R1S - renewable fuels standard; EISA - Energy Independence and Security Act of2007). Timing of droughts and recession Is shown at the
top of the figure.
Ethanol production has also become more geographically diversified (see chart below arid map) and has
attracted in a large number of producers, some of whom are oil companies that have vertically integrated into ethanol
production.
Ethanol Production: Unitซd Stares and Selected States
(Billion Gallons)
tt
14
IJ
JO
>
6
4
J
m 0
s n S
giiisiyy
*ooo tmi
mi mi <9i4 any mr
IIA
am
ฆ ii
Qm
~ Otter
Data source EA 2016aซnu*l ethanol productซn ซfrom
2015 ard 201$ state cata *es estimated based or
theUSOA
aata tread for a#c* state
In addition, the US ethanol market experiences both appreciable imports and exports of ethanol. The point
is I see this substantial growth, maturation, diversification of regional supplies and producers, and
interaction with international markets, as all moving the ethanol supply industry to a situation where I
would argue ethanol spot prices should be a sound reflection of current, i.e. short term, supply/demand,
and therefore appropriate for the EPA to have used in their analysis. I would further point out that spot
162
-------
price tends to reflect marginal economics, the cost of the next/last 'gallon' of supply or demand and that it
has been evident for many years in the global petroleum and refining industry that it is spot/marginal prices
that drive the industry. They essentially define the economics of the petroleum industry and, therefore, I
would see the same applying to ethanol for use in gasoline.
B2. The estimated ethanol distribution costs to different states.
Response:
The EPA's estimates of ethanol distribution costs to states were based directly on work undertaken by ICF and are
described in Appendix 4 of the EPA report. There appear to have been three steps taken to build up assessed full
distribution costs: 1. Source market (plant gate) to destination market main distribution point (unit train terminal) -
assessed as difference between ethanol spot prices at the two locations, plus 2. Average onward distribution cost
from main unit train terminal to final distribution terminal - assessed at a flat average cost (11 cents per gallon),
plus 3. Average amortized capital cost for building the necessary distribution infrastructure (an array of rail, terminal
and marine facilities) - assessed at an overall average cost (6.5 cents per gallon). These costs were adjusted as
deemed necessary to a 2017$ basis and then summed to establish the assessed fully-built-up ethanol distribution
cost to each state. I understand a point or points in the Midwest were taken as the basis for plant gate spot price;
given the Midwest is the primary region where ethanol is produced and, therefore, also the likely source of marginal
ethanol supply. The resulting costs were estimated (in 2017$) to be in the range of around 25-35 c/gal for
distribution to mainland states outside the Midwest and 18 c/gal to Midwest states.
In past MTBE litigation, I have developed estimates of ethanol distribution cost (including terminaling) from the
Midwest to the Northeast (generally the New York, New Jersey area). Adjusted to a 2017 basis, these were
appreciably lower than the costs estimated by the EPA. There may be an element of doublecounting or over-
estimation in the EPA method. Spot prices are fundamentally short-term, but, overtime, one would expect the
difference between prices at a source and a delivery location to reflect the costs of capital recovery on the related
infrastructure, otherwise the organizations operating the distribution system would be running at a loss. So, a first
reaction is that some or all of the 6.5 c/gal amortized facilities cost may in fact be 'rolled in' to the spot price
differential.
Secondly, I have not been able to examine the original ICF report but Table A.2 in Appendix 4 has a 7 c/gal
distribution cost to Chicago included in every onward distribution, i.e. every distribution route is assessed as passing
through Chicago, irrespective of whether the final destination is to the East Coast, the South or the West Coast. I can
appreciate why this may have been done in order to be able to utilize price series only available at Chicago but it
strikes me this assumption may overstate costs for primary distribution, at least on some routes.
Thirdly, I have, again, not been able to examine the basis for the assessed cost for the assumed final distribution
stage from (assumed) unit train terminal to distribution terminal, but the 11 c/gal the EPA uses is substantial. For
example, Table A.2 in Appendix 4 shows distribution cost to Chicago of 7 c/gal, plus 7.7 c/gal from Chicago to New
York then the standard 11 c/gal to the final blending terminal, for a total cost of 25.7 c/gal (excluding the 6.5 c/gal
for capital recovery on infrastructure). Thus, in this example, the cost for transport for the last step from main
destination market terminal to final blending terminal comprises 43% of the total transport cost from the Midwest.
It appears as if ICF or EPA assumed a relatively long-distance final transport by truck for the final distribution step to
arrive at this significant cost. I can appreciate that using truck for this final step is realistic, indeed generally
necessary, for distribution terminals that do not have rail facilities.
In practice, I would expect there to be more flexibility in the distribution network and somewhat lower costs. If one
allows for a lower final-step distribution cost and/or none or only part of the infrastructure capital cost recovery, (on
the basis set out above), then total distribution cost from the Midwest would come down from 25.7+6.5 = 32.2 c/gal
to somewhere closer to 20-25 c/gal, a level much closer to the figures I have used in prior MTBE cases. In summary,
163
-------
my sense is the distribution costs EPA has estimated may well be conservative on the high side, especially in terms
of average distribution costs.
To the extent that is the case, i.e. that the distribution costs assessed for ethanol are conservative on the high side,
then they lead to ethanol's delivered costs in the EBC equation also being conservative on the high side. They raise,
possibly overstate, the assessed delivered cost of ethanol to the terminal, and thereby build in a safety margin by
lowering ethanol's economic value versus gasoline. (This
conservatism would make the EBC value less negative / more positive.) In other words, my sense is that EPA's
assessment of ethanol distribution cost (EDC) has led to a conservative view of ethanol's attractiveness based solely
on economics.
B3. The estimates for ethanol's octane blending value and volatility cost.
Response:
To evaluate this, I reviewed the description of methods used in both the main EPA report and in Appendix 4. I also
examined detailed spreadsheet data underlying and leading to the EBC tables presented in Appendix 4. With respect
to ethanol's volatility cost, I have no issues with the methodology used and the order of magnitude values
produced. It must also be born in mind that the RVP penalty is only significant in Summer gasoline because that
must be blended to a relatively tight RVP level. In Winter, gasoline RVP can be much higher (often approximately
twice the 7 or so psi effective in the
Summer). It can be argued that there is still a small negative RVP effect and cost for using ethanol in Winter
gasoline, but the effect is minor and can be inexpensively dealt with, namely by if necessary backing out a small
amount of butane from the Winter blend. Overall, I do not fault the EPA for not accounting for this potentially very
small cost.
My main interest was with the way the EPA computed ethanol's octane value. The ERV calculations appear to have
embodied the replacement cost values developed by ICF from refinery modeling of the, essentially long-term, costs
of replacing the lost volume of ethanol as well as octane. These costs, I understand, include refinery capital
investment / process capacity as well operational and blending changes. At any single point in time, I would expect
ethanol blending value relative to gasoline to be based on its octane benefit minus its RVP cost (at least in Summer).
However, valuations in the industry depend very much on opportunity cost. So, I would say that what represents the
relevant opportunity cost depends on the situation.
If we say that ethanol use is mandated, the refiner/blender must use 10% ethanol in gasoline, then the blending
value of the ethanol comes down, in my view, solely to its physical property effects, primarily octane benefit and
RVP cost. In that scenario, I would say that the appropriate valuation method is direct assessment of octane benefit
and RVP cost. As stated elsewhere, though, ethanol blended into RFG also brings other benefits since it helps meet
RFG emissions standards through its 'dilution' of adverse blend properties, (aromatics, benzene, olefins, sulfur). The
EPA does not appear to have taken this additional blending value into account with respect to RFG and therefore
may be understating ethanol's blending value in RFG in this regard.
The other potential scenario is one where ethanol use is not mandated and therefore where, at least in principle,
the refiner has the choice to either use ethanol or to rework refining assets, operations and blending to use other
blend streams instead. Here, the work undertaken by ICF is directly relevant since they modeled exactly this
situation and assessed the fully built-up costs, i.e. including capital as well as operating, of not using ethanol. This
scenario is I believe closer to the situation the EPA was aiming to evaluate - what would have been the economics
of using/not using ethanol had there been no RFS mandate, and would ethanol use still have been economically
justified?
Given this, I have no issue in principle with the fact that EPA followed this method of arriving at ethanol's blending
'replacement value' (ERV). This still begs the question, though, as to whether there is a significant difference in
valuing ethanol based on its 'replacement value' or simply on its blend octane value (net in both cases of its RVP
164
-------
costs). To test this, I undertook a spot check of EPA's data. I used 2010 as a middle-of-the-road year for ethanol's
EBC value and then picked the ERV for Summer RFG Premium. This is stated by the EPA as $0.534/gal. That figure is
in turn made up of $0.785/gal octane value minus $0.25/gal RVP cost. Given, in 2010, EPA estimated the EBC for all
Summer RFG Premium at (-)$1.159/gal, the effect of the $0.785/gal octane value is significant. I compared the
$0.785/gal with octane value I estimated from EPA data for price of premium versus regular gasoline. For 2010, the
differential was $0.114/gal. However, that relates to a 5-octane typical difference between Premium and Regular
(92 [RON+MON]/2 for the former, 87 for the latter). In contrast, the EPA states an (RON+MON)/2 octane value for
ethanol of 115, or an increase of 23 octane numbers versus Premium. Ratioing up the $0.114/gal by 23/5 leads to
$0.53/gal. If anything, this may be an understatement of ethanol's octane value since octane value can be
considered as rising more than linearly as octane is increased. Bearing that in mind, and recognizing this was only
one spot-check, there appears to be a reasonable degree of similarity between 'straight' octane value based on
Premium-Regular price differences (i.e. a figure above the $0.53/gal I estimated) and 'octane value' based on
replacement cost as per the ICF analysis,
i.e. the EPA's calculation of $0.785/gal. Since the $0.785/gal represents full replacement cost, it may be conservative
on the high side. However (a) I noted above that the EPA do not appear to have taken into account ethanol's
'dilution' value in RFG and (b), as I discuss in B2, I believe the EPA may be undervaluing ethanol by overstating
distribution cost. Thus, any possible overstatement of ERV looks to be offset by these other two effects.
B4. Adjustments used to adjust the factors for use in different years, particularly the use of both octane price (as
estimated by the premium-regular grade price differentials), and crude oil prices to scale the estimated
ethanol replacement costs to different years.
Response:
Following on from my review in B3, my base opinion is that the more appropriate approach is to value octane based
on direct octane considerations, be that the 'replacement value' approach or the premium-minus-regular-octane-
cost approach. That said, I believe it was worth the EPA considering and including the alternative approach of scaling
based on crude oil prices, since this provided a different perspective. I note from examination of the computed EPA
data that the two effects at times went in different directions. Based on a spot check across all Summer and Winter
EBC values in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, these were minimally affected by switching from octane to crude
price basis in
2000, 2005 and 2020 but were significantly increased (greater negative cost equaling more value) in 2010 and
significantly reduced in 2015. The changes were not enough to affect the overall 'story' of ethanol's blending cost
(EBC) but, as noted, I would put more faith in the octane price approach which is the one I understand EPA's tabular
results were based on.
B5. The use of refinery rack spot prices to represent terminal gasoline prices at the point ethanol is blended into
gasoline.
Response:
My understanding is that the EPA used Refiner Sales for Resale price data as submitted to the EIA. Form 782A,
REFINERS'/GAS PLANT OPERATORS' MONTHLY PETROLEUM PRODUCT SALES REPORT, is a monthly report to the EIA
that requires each refiner/gas plant operator to report sales volumes and prices for finished products including for
RFG and CG gasoline by octane grade: regular, midgrade, premium. The form requires the submitting company to
break out Retail from Wholesale sales, ("Sales for Resale"). The EIA aggregates and anonymizes the company level
data and publishes monthly prices by state. Form
782A requires the submitting company to break out Sales for Resale into three sub-categories: Dealer
Tank Wagon (DTW), Rack and Bulk Sales. DTW prices include the cost of transportation by tank wagon (implicitly
from the refinery) to the final destination, e.g. a gas station. Rack prices generally refer to wholesale prices at a
terminal. In this case, the implication is that, since the Form 782A is submitted by refiners, then the rack price is the
165
-------
price at the terminal rack which invariably a refinery has. Bulk sales refer to sales in larger volume, likely for
transport by barge, tanker or rail.
The prices the EIA reports are listed solely as Sales for Resale. DTW, Rack and Bulk prices are published at the
aggregate US level only and are therefore of no use in a state-by-state analysis. The published EIA data have the
benefit of being 'official' and state-by-state. What is not clear is whether the EIA weightaverages (sales * volumes)
to arrive at a published number or simple-averages the price data received where there is more than one refinery in
a state. There are also states where substantial volumes of gasoline are supplied in via pipeline, tanker or barge
from other states, also raising some question over how well the published EIA number reflects the true average
wholesale price in the state. That said, refining is a highly competitive business and so one would not expect large
differences in wholesale prices within a state, unless the state is large and there are significant differences in
logistics costs as a function of location within the state.
There are sources of gasoline prices by terminal that can be purchased. A leading source is OPIS which tracks prices
at literally hundreds of terminals across the country. However, (a) from experience, historical data covering the
whole country would be expensive to purchase, (potentially prohibitively so). In addition, the data by terminal
would then need to be averaged to obtain a statewide average, unless the goal was to hugely increase the detail of
the analysis by utilizing gasoline sales volumes by terminal and so having to estimate ethanol distribution costs
(EDC) to each listed terminal.
It is my assessment that a potential huge increase in cost, (use of taxpayers' money), complexity and effort by the
EPA to have worked with terminal-by-terminal data would not have been justified by what I would see as a relatively
limited increase in accuracy versus the method employed by the EPA. It is important to remember that more
detailed terminal pricing data would have directly impacted only the GTP term in the EPA's EBC equation and
indirectly impacted the EDC term. Other terms would not have been affected. Overall, I believe the EPA's
methodology of using EIA refiner Sales for Resale prices reported by state was adequate and practical for the task
undertaken. Should a need be seen to test what the potential improvement could have been, it would, in principle,
be possible to obtain a subset of terminal data, e.g. say one or two states for one or two years, analyze the data and
compare the results with those obtained by using the EIA data.
C. Review the appropriateness of the report conclusions.
CI. Corn ethanol profit made by corn ethanol plant producers incentivized them to build new corn ethanol plant
capacity - does the data support such a conclusion?
Response:
As stated elsewhere, I do not consider myself expert in the specifics of ethanol production, plant economics and
profitability and therefore have no detailed comments to offer here. That said, I see EPA's findings on historical
ethanol plant profitability and capacity/expansion, as per report Figure 3, to be plausible. The state MTBE bans in
2004, the anticipation that further bans could occur then, even though that did not happen, the confirmation of
MTBE liability and the RFS under EPACT 2005, led to rapid increases in ethanol demand. It stands to reason that
ethanol plant profitability should have hit a high level, at least through 2007, and have brought with it a surge in
ethanol plant capacity. A key shift was that ethanol went from having an uncertain market in US gasoline to a
certain market, underpinned by the RFS and then the EISA 2007 RFS2. This would have given ethanol producers a
higher confidence to invest. Thus, while, yes, the data support the conclusion that ethanol profit made by corn
ethanol plant producers incentivized them to build new corn ethanol plant capacity in the early 2000's, it seems to
me the primary reason was a surge in ethanol demand driven by mandates that came into effect at that time -
notably the CA, NHY and CT state MTBE bans and the 2005 RFS, plus the absence of any coverage of oil industry
liability on MTBE use. Those were, in my view, the keys to what drove ethanol production profitability at that time.
Put another way, had there been no MTBE phase-out and no RFS, leaving ethanol to compete with MTBE purely on
economics in the early to mid-2000's, I believe the rising price of crude oil, in that period, would have eventually led
to a greater take-up of ethanol, but not so fast as actually happened.
166
-------
2008 to around 2014 then appears to have constituted a more stable period with more moderate ethanol plant
profitability and capacity expansions. From 2015 onward, ethanol capacity has continued to grow slowly but,
according to EPA report Figure 3, profitability has been minimal or negative (in 2020 arguably because of COVID).
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol 10% blend wall was broken through in 2016 and US
ethanol exports have doubled from around 50,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 2015 to around 100,000 b/d in
2018/2019. These two developments fit together and with an apparent reduction in ethanol plant profitability. In
short, in this later period, there is much less evident connection between plant profitability, which went down, even
negative, and capacity expansion, which continued. The latter may, however, have reflected the lag time between
investment decision and capacity coming online. The increase in ethanol exports could be seen as a factor which
reduced ethanol netbacks, hence prices, through a switch to 'export parity', in turn maintaining ethanol's
attractiveness as a gasoline component. The strong EBC values (expressed as positive) in the chart in C2 below
would appear to support this, at least until COVID hit in 2020.
C2. The conclusion that blending corn ethanol up to the E10 blendwall would have occurred anyway regardless
of the RFS program (note that EPA did not conclude that the RFS did not have any impact).
Response:
A first reaction is that I see clarification as being needed. The above statement "EPA did not conclude that the RFS
did not have any impact' contains a double negative but I interpret it as saying that EPA did not conclude that the
RFS had no impact (on ethanol use). However, on lines 450-455 of the report, the EPA states "Based on this analysis,
one can conclude that the RFS program has not been the driver for the increased corn ethanol volumes, and the
many positive and negative environmental and economic outcomes attributed by various researchers to expanded
corn ethanol use. This analysis finds that corn ethanol's blending economics were more favorable than a previous
assessment for corn ethanol's blending economics (Taheripour 2020), which concluded that the RFS program was
partially responsible for the volume of corn ethanol blended into gasoline." To me, in these two sentences, the EPA is
asserting that it did conclude the RFS had no impact on corn ethanol use. The semantics and the message need to be
clarified and made consistent in the report.
As regards the central question, would ethanol blending up to the E10 blend wall have occurred regardless of the
RFS program, it is my view that the RFS program (and the CA, NY and CT MTBE bans in 2004) 'kick-started' the
substantial growth in ethanol use in US gasoline but that, since that early period, the analysis undertaken by the EPA
has shown, to within a plausible range of uncertainty, that ethanol was economic to use in the increasing volumes
up to and including the E10 blendwall which was reached in 2016.
The chart below is a summary of Summer and Winter all grades, all states, EBC values (expressed as positive to make
easier to interpret) for selected years and taken directly from the data used in the EBC tables in Appendix 4. What
this shows is that ethanol had only minor net positive blending value (net negative EBC per EPA's equation) in 2000
and 2003. However, thereafter, its blending value has been consistently net positive, (blending cost EBC consistently
net negative). Taken at face value, this would indicate that, at least from the mid-2000's, ethanol has been favorable
for blending into gasoline based on economics alone and has arguably brought down the supply costs of US
gasoline. It is also evident how EBC (expressed as positive value) has tended to broadly track crude price, with more
favorable economics at higher crude prices and vice versa. As discussed elsewhere in this review, this is to be
expected; the more expensive the crude-based part of the gasoline, the greater the economic attractiveness of
using ethanol because its costs and prices do not track crude price to the same degree. EPA's data indicate that,
even in 2016 when crude prices were low, ethanol still had a positive blending value (negative EBC).
The one caveat I would place on the above conclusion is whether ethanol prices were driven to any extent by the
RFS mandates, i.e. were supported by the RFS standards because these meant refiners had no option other than to
purchase ethanol. In that regard, the EPA has argued that ethanol use often exceeded the annual volumes
167
-------
mandated under the RFS/RFS2, thereby supporting the view that ethanol use was justified based on its economics,
and not by having to meet RFS/RFS2 volumes, since use exceeded the RFS/RFS2 mandated volumes. Figure 2 in the
EPA report is a key figure in that respect. But what it does not make clear is ethanol volume used in gasoline by year
versus mandated ethanol volume by year. Given limitations on time, I have not undertaken that analysis, but the
EPA should undertake it, include the results in the report and be guided by what they show. Again, ethanol into
gasoline generally above mandated volume will tend to support the thesis that the economics applied for ethanol in
the EPA analysis were truly market-based and not mandate driven. On the basis that is EPA's finding, it is a key
message and conclusion from their report and should be laid out in clear terms, including in graphical and tabular
form.
Annual Average Summer and Winter EBC Costs
Restated as Values c/gal, Summer & Winter, also
Brent Price $/bbl
250
200
150
100
50
0
..hiiiiirt
2000 2003 2005 2008 2010 2013 2015 2016 2018 2020
^ฆSummer Winter ^^"Brent Price $/bbl
120
100
80
60
40
20
One further observation I would make relates to the scale of the EBC results versus the scale of ethanol subsidies.
What is visible in the EPA's results is a situation where, certainly in the Summer periods, and often in the Winter
periods, ethanol's EBC, expressed as a positive value, mostly exceeded the 54-45 c/gal federal ethanol subsidies that
applied until finally phased out in 2011. The implication is that, in part courtesy of higher crude prices, and with the
'wonderful' benefit of hindsight, it looks as though the federal subsidy was not essential to supporting ethanol use
from the mid 2000's on or, at least, that the subsidy could have been phased down more rapidly.
C3. Inertia for using ethanol when match-blended into gasoline - do the investments needed in refining and fuel
distribution coupled with ethanol's volume and octane create a dependency on the part of refiners to
continue to use ethanol during short time periods where ethanol may be uneconomical to use in a small,
limited number of gasoline markets?
Response:
The short answer to this question is - yes - there would be substantial inertia that would work against refiners and
blenders switching away from ethanol for short time periods, and by implication based on short-term economics.
The US gasoline system was converted to take ethanol over a period of many years. Ethanol had, since the early
1990's, been used extensively in gasoline in the Midwest as that was the region where nearly all ethanol at the time
was produced. Buildout of ethanol distribution and terminaling/blending infrastructure to other regions started in
2004 with the MTBE bans in California, New York and Connecticut and then accelerated with the advent of the RFS
and RFS2 mandates as per the chart in D3. As the EPA report explains, this progressive move toward the E10
blendwall necessitated refiners making capital investment and operational changes to their plant and gasoline
168
-------
(RBOB and CBOB) production, required shippers to build out rail, barge, truck and storage/terminal capacity for
ethanol distribution and required modifications to bulk terminal storage, equipment and blending to accommodate
ethanol addition to RBOB/CBOB at the last stage of distribution to consumers. Associated with these changes would
have been multiple contracts, some short / spot but many also long-term to assure ethanol supplies.
In addition, while 'losing' ethanol's high blending RVP would be helpful, 'losing' its high octane would not, thereby
tending to make ethanol difficult to replace from a quality perspective, especially given that refiners' plant and
operations would have been optimized around the use of ethanol and its blend properties. This would have been
even more the case for the roughly 30% of US gasoline that is RFG. Ethanol's absence of sulfur, aromatics, benzene,
olefins make its ability to 'dilute' these properties important in complying with RFG emissions standards for VOC's,
NOx and toxics.
Given this, it is therefore highly unlikely in my view that refiners and blenders would switch away from ethanol for
short periods. The history of ethanol versus MTBE use in US gasoline in the period 1995 through 2005 illustrates the
point in an inverse way. During that period, refiners opted to use primarily MTBE rather than ethanol in RFG outside
the Midwest where ethanol was produced and had been used for years in gasoline. Infrastructure for MTBE use in
the RFG mandated demand areas, which were mainly along the East and West Coasts, centered on MTBE being
produced at large-scale merchant plants, mainly on the Gulf Coast, and in 'captive' in-refinery plants and then,
either way, being blended into gasoline at the refinery with the finished (MTBE-containing) gasoline then being
shipped out, often via pipeline. The fact that production facilities, refinery operations and blending and then
product distribution were all organized around use of MTBE arguably created an inertia which mitigated against
switching to ethanol based on market conditions. It took initial state MTBE bans followed by the 2005 EPACT RFS,
including its lack of protection for MTBE against potential litigation4, to create the largescale shift to ethanol. RFG
comprised roughly 30% of US gasoline. Today, essentially 100% of the US gasoline system is built around ethanol use
hence creating an arguably substantial inertia against switching away from ethanol to offset any short-term
economic disadvantage, whether local or widespread.
D. Other Comments.
Dl. EPA report lines 317 - 338. Discussion of MTBE phaseout in 2006. This section discusses the rapid phaseout of
MTBE which occurred in 2006 and the factors that led to that phaseout. I have difficulty with the statements:
"All these factors resulted in the removal of MTBE from the U.S. gasoline pool, but did not mandate the addition
of ethanol into RFG. However, the result was a de facto requirement for ethanol." The whole section makes no
mention of the RFS and almost seeks to imply that this did not exist at the time and had no impact. The same
applies to language in Appendix 4, Section A.7, line 473-479: "The phase out of methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) from the RFG pool, which occurred over the years from 2003 to 2006, occurred as a result of the adoption
of state MTBE bans, the end of the federal RFG oxygenate requirement, and the failure of liability protections to
be enacted by Congress." Again, no mention of the EPACT 2005 and RFS.
Table A26 lists the states which enacted MTBE bans, the year of their bans and the volume of MTBE consumed
in each state in the year 2001. In August 2005, the Energy Policy Act was signed into law. One of its main
provisions was a requirement for increased use of biofuels (effectively predominantly ethanol) in US fuels, (the
RFS), specifically that 4 billion gallons of biofuel be blended in 2006, rising to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.5 At the
same time, the Act removed the oxygenate standard which, hitherto fore, had mandated the use of an
oxygenate in RFG. It is my recollection this Act came into force in May of 2006, creating a scramble by refiners
and blenders for ethanol, while MTBE was simultaneously largely 'dropped'. The result was a market spike
which lasted several weeks. Yes, state bans in California, New York and Connecticut had already removed part of
the market for MTBE in gasoline but it was the advent of the RFS that (a) allowed refiners to drop MTBE because
of the ending of the oxygenate mandate but also (b) required substantial volumes of ethanol to be blended into
gasoline under the RFS.6 As it stands, I see EPA's discussion of 2006 events as incomplete and potentially
misleading and recommend it be rewritten. The fact that the RFS, which came into effect in 2006, and EISA
169
-------
2007, have together greatly increased mandated ethanol use in US gasoline, does not invalidate the EPA's quest
to assess whether ethanol would have been blended anyway into gasoline, at volume, based on economics
alone. See also D2.
D2. EPA report lines 392 - 400. Discussion of COVID impacts on gasoline and ethanol in 2020.1 have the same
concern over this paragraph as the one I expressed in D1 regarding 2006. EPA discussion is again written as if the
RFS did and does not exist and, therefore, again, in my view, is potentially misleading. The text argues that crude
price reductions would, of themselves, have created a strong incentive for refiners/blenders to reduce or
eliminate ethanol use but then points out that ethanol prices also dropped substantially and so "Consequently,
E10 ethanol blending continued." The text reads as if refiners continued to E10 ethanol blend only because the
economics of both crude (hence RBOB/CBOB) and ethanol adjusted, maintaining ethanol as economic. But,
again, refiners and blenders were obligated to blend ethanol under the RFS, based on volume standards set by
the EPA.7 As before, the fact that ethanol blending was mandated does not invalidate analysis of the economics
in 2020, or other years. But avoidance of RFS' existence does risk impacting the credibility of the report by,
again, creating a misleading impression.
D3. EPA report lines 372 - 388. Discussion of 2016 low crude oil prices on ethanol blending. In this section, the EPA
discusses how some refiners might have found it uneconomic to have blended ethanol into gasoline in 2016 when
crude prices were low yet how refiners appear to have continued to fully blend ethanol up to the blendwall. The
chart below from EIA data confirms that ethanol blending did not drop in 2016. However, as I discuss elsewhere,
whether ethanol blending stayed up because of economics or because of mandated RFS blending levels is a
question. Comparison of ethanol volumes used in gasoline with mandated volumes should be included in the
report to clarify this key aspect.
U,S, Refinery and Blender Net Input of Fuel Ethanol i download
Thousand Barrels per Day
US Refinery and Blender Net input of Fuel Ethanol
D4. EPA report lines 339 - 353. Discussion of effect of low crude prices in 2016. EPA's discussion of 2016 and
how, even with low crude oil prices, (which would then have reduced the supply cost of gasoline blends before
ethanol addition, i.e. RBOB's and CBOB's), most or all of the ethanol used in gasoline was still "economically
favorable" is, in my view, part of a larger story, really the key story in this assessment, namely that a long-term
increase in crude prices, and thus in the cost of crudebased gasoline and other products, led to a fundamental
shift in the attractiveness of ethanol; this because ethanol's production costs were not that dependent on oil
prices and thus did not rise to the same degree. A chart of WTI price illustrates the point.8 From 1980 to the
early 2000's, crude prices had averaged around $20 and no more than $25/barrel. Then, around 2003/2004, so
170
-------
by happenstance coincidental with the beginnings of the replacement of MTBE by ethanol in US gasoline, crude
prices started to rise to a new, much higher plateau. While prices dropped in 2015/2016, annual average crude
prices have essentially always been in the $50-100/barrel range ever since 2004/2005. This shift to a new,
higher, plane for crude prices, and thus for crude-based gasoline components, is, in my view, the fundamental
reason why the EPA has found that ethanol use has been almost always justified based on economics alone, at
least since 2005 or so. Parallel improvements over the period in ethanol plant yields and production costs have
reinforced the effect. In short, I think this is the 'core story' and that it could or should be set forth more clearly
in the report. (See also discussion and chart in C2 above.)
Gushing, OK WT1 Spot Price FOB download
Dollars per Barrel
125
tm! 2ooo 55ii 2010 ioTi 2020
Cusfiing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB
D5. EPA report lines 414 - 433 and Exhibit 3. Discussion of corn ethanol production cost and profitability. As with
D3, I also see this discussion of corn ethanol plant production costs versus spot prices and capacity as a key part
of the analysis and 'story'. The difference between ethanol spot price and estimated production cost follows a
logical pattern, with profitable plant operation indicated apart from (a) 2015-2019 when reduced crude prices
led to implied ethanol plant break even or loss and (b) 2020 when the COVID pandemic knocked the bottom out
of gasoline and so ethanol demand. Highest profits were estimated for the 2005-2007 time-frame as MTBE was
phased out and the RFS came into effect, mandating biofuel, and so effectively ethanol, use. That said, care
should be taken with the statement "The total ethanol blending incentive to the fuels industry is the sum of
ethanol's spot price above production cost and ethanol's blending cost." "Fuels industry" as used here appears to
encompass both the ethanol and the refining industries. I see some potential for misunderstanding through
putting these two together under one 'moniker'. Yes, the statement is technically true, but it needs to be
recognized that the only single entity that would see that full incentive would be a refiner who had integrated
into ethanol production. I would suggest re-writing especially line 428, (the "also" is a problem), to make it
crystal clear that the ethanol industry had an incentive of 50 c/gal and the refining industry 20 c/gal for a total of
70 c/gal.
D6. EPA report lines 457 - 501 including Figure 4. Future Ethanol Blending Economics. I have not reviewed this
section of the report as it was not included in the reviewers' charge.
D7. Overall report presentation. I fully appreciate that I have been asked to review the EPA report in draft form and
that, therefore, it will be subject to further editing by the EPA. In that respect, some comments/suggestions:
1. There are several typos and language glitches in the draft I reviewed which should be addressed.
2. The report could benefit from a concise Executive Summary of key findings up front and a
statement of conclusions at the end (from which the Executive Summary would draw).
171
-------
3. Appendix 4's Input Costs, Ethanol Blending Cost and Ethanol Volumes tables presented on pages
S64 through S126 contain the detailed core results of EPA's analysis. Yes, arguably, they should be
present but, as presented, they are almost unreadable. One option would be
for the EPA to provide the tables in Excel format (no formulae or links, just values) as either part of the
final report package or as an item that can be requested.
4. Arguably, more important, I believe it is essential that these results, in either summary form or
illustrative examples, be included and discussed in the main report. One example would be the chart I
included in C2, extended to include every year from 2000 to 2020. This information represents the
essence of the EPA's findings and, as such, should be 'front and center' in a form or forms (summary
tables and charts) that are easy to grasp and thus convey the key messages. By way of illustration,
another example could be something along the lines of the chart on the next page. That sets out one
sample set of results, namely for Ethanol Blending Cost, Winter, CG Regular 2010. I see it as informative
in that it conveys regional differences, but it also illustrates that in all reported US regions, EBC was
substantially negative, i.e. it was not a situation where there was a mix of wildly negative and wildly
positive EBC values.
172
-------
Ethanol Blending Cost Winter CG Regular 2010
c/gal
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Delaware
DC
Connecticut
California
-140.0 -120.0 -100.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0
173
-------
APPENDIX C
PEER REVIEWER RESUMES
174
-------
VINC ITAป P.E,
Vince is a senior consultant at 1898 & Co., part of Burns & McDonnell. He has over 35 years of experience in the
chemical and petroleum industries with emphasis in technical and economic aspects in the downstream energy
industry. He has specialized expertise in LP model development and applying these advanced tools to industry for
single-client studies, multi-client studies and government decision-making/policy studies. His responsibilities have
included project management, process design, refinery optimization, acquisition analysis, capital planning and feasibility
studies.
As a group manager with Jacobs Consultancy, Vince developed a comprehensive background to the downstream energy
business segment, where he developed sophisticated and innovative methologies to analyze a broad range of complex
industry topics. As a senior process engineer with Rhone Poulenc at their Houston, Texas, sulfuric acid/aluminum
sulfate plant, he was responsible for supervision of the company's Plant Engineering Program, which involved economic
evaluations, process studies and implementation of capital improvements. Vince's previous employment as an associate
engineer for Shell Oil Company encompassed assignments in architectural renovations, environmental remediation,
total rebuilds, storage tank replacements, permit acquisition, cost estimating, procurement and project construction
management. As a consultant with Purvin & Gertz, he was responsible for LP model development and simulation, crude
valuation, refinery analysis, and energy consulting.
PRIOR EXPERIENCE
Refinery Reconfiguration Optimization Study / Confidential Client Middle East /
2019
Project Lead on the optimization and analysis of a reconfiguration strategy for an integrated refinery/chemicals
processing scheme. Analysis included LP methods, cash flow calculations, capital cost estimates, and financial
performance metrics. Key highlights included expansions for crude and FCC and new capacity for Vacuum Resid HYK,
SDA, ULSD HDT, Hydrogen Plant, Sulfur Plant
Ethanol Blending, High Octane Fuel, Refinery Impact Study/ Fuels Working Group and DOE Argonne USA Refining
System / 2017
Performed significant ethanol blending study for the government to analyze different ethanol blending scenarios of
ethanol composition versus targeted RON. The study included PADD 2, PADD 3, and several configuration models of
operational impact and capital analysis at different levels of penetration.
Refinery Reconfiguration Study / PCK
Germany / 2019
Team member of large reconfiguration study for German refinery. Part of the motivation was MARPOL compliance
strategies, so significant effort to analyze resid destruction.
LP Technical Model Support
Global Projects / Decades of Support
Decades of technical LP model development for clients throughout the world. This focus is delivering new models,
model upgrades, sub-models, simulations, kinetic model integration, technical strategies, audits, due diligence,
calibration, back-casting, multi-refinery integration, inventory development, transportation development as examples.
Locations
Multiple Refineries / Ongoing
Provide LP technical support for several refinery locations including: Audit, new code and strategies, calibration, realistic
predictions of operations, and new LP model development or updates of existing model.
175
-------
Synthetic Crude Oil Valuation Studies / Canadian Confidential Clients Various Locations /
Numerous Dates
Completed several valuation studies of synthetic crude oil produced from proprietary technology on a bitumen-based
crude feed. Upgrades on South American bitumen and North American bitumen were analyzed. Modeling techniques
were developed and implemented to value the synthetic crude in key world market refining centers. Mulitple projects
which valued different recipes of SCO into different US refining regions.
Sweet Synthetic and Dilbit Quality Impact Assessment / Confidential Client Various Locations /
Numerous Dates
Analyzed quality impacts for Sweet Synthetic and Dilbit. For each crude, the following qualities were rigorously analyzed
with LP techniques: nitrogen, sulfur, vacuum resid content, organic hydrogen content, and TAN.
GTL Diesel Valuation / Confidential
Multiple Global Locations / 2013
Conducted significant analysis on the valuation of GTL diesel into the US, Canadian, and European refinery markets. The
project was fundamentally based on LP modeling for the GTL valuation, including the development and calibration of
approximately 70 world-wide refinery operations. Performed secondary Cold Flow analysis study.
GHG Refinery Impacts / DOE Argonne and Sasol
Numerous US Configurations/ 2012
Performed detailed analysis of GHG impacts across 50 refinery operations in the US. Developed an LP model to predict
and track C02 emissions throughout the process units.
GHG Impact - Ethanol / DOE Argonne National Laboratory
US Refining System/ 2016
Analyzed the refinery GHG impact associated with higher blends of ethanol into the gasoline pool, specifically E20 and
E30. Developed representative aggregate models for current operations and forecast operations.
Ecuador Refining Analysis / Petroecuador
Ecuador Refining System / 2011
Team member for comprehensive analysis of Ecuador refining system. Specific responsibilities included developing an
LP model to simulate and optimize the combined operations of multiple refineries and terminals. Conducted significant
analysis for future configuration alternatives, new refinery investments, and strategies to comply with future regulatory
specifications.
Tier 3 Impact Analysis / Department of Energy
US Refining Industry / 2013
Performed regulatory impact analysis of Tier 3 on the US Refining Industry. The project included technology
assessments and refining strategies to produce 10 ppm gasoline. Conducted substantial LP modeling scenarios to
analyze impacts, including changes to operations, blending, octane balance, and overall gross and variable margin
changes. Examined different configurations with a range of crude slates.
Refinery Operation Vectors / Global Consulting Group
Various US Refinery Configurations / 2011
Developed full suite of refinery operation vectors for all major refinery process units for 20 crudes. Developed data for
capital costs on all process units and fixed and variable costs.
176
-------
Refinery Crude Switching Analysis / US Mid-Continent Refinery Confidential Location/
2010
Analyzed the opportunities between running a sweet vs. sour crude slate. Extensive LP development was required to
calibrate the model to existing operations. Performed numerous scenarios to determine existing break-even values for
sweet vs. sour, as well as future differentials associated with regulatory impacts.
Bitumen Crude Quality Assessments / Various Canadian Producers Various US
Locations / 2018 most recent
Projects with emphasis on Bitumen valuation. Multiple Projects for analysis of Bitumen Derived crude blends including:
Diluent strategies (naphtha, SCO, combinations); Synbit vs Dilbit vs SynDilbit. Bitumen Technology Upgrading analysis
for market and penetration analysis for each of the synthetic crudes from five technologies; Valuation for various
bitumen blends. Bottomless crude analysis.
Synthetic Crude Quality Assesssments/ Various Canadian Producers Various US
Locations/Over 20 years
Decades of project experience with emphasis on SCO product valuation. Performed numerous valuation studies for
synthetic crude oil; composition of SCO, qualities of SCO streams, impact of refining, multiple locations throughout the
US. For example: established price differential between Athabasca dilbit and a 50/50 synbit/dilbit blend.
Market Valuation for Single Components / Multiple Clients
Various US Locations/Various Dates
Developed sophisticated quantitative tools and/or specific component valuation tool, including SDA tar, Alkylate,
Natural Gasoline, Naphtha. Valuations for both buyers and sellers.
Regulatory Impact on Refining Industry/ US DOE, US EPA, Argonne National Laboratory, Operating
Companies, Industry Groups
Various Locations / Pre-2000s to
Performed numerous regulatory analyses to identify refinery industry impacts and key issues. Analyses were derived
from LP analysis, which included creating specific configuration models to analyze these regulatory impacts. Issues
examined are varied and complex including: Simple Model, Complex Model Phase 1 & 2, MTBE Ban, Tier 2/3 gasoline,
ULSD, MSAT II, Marpol, E10/E15 analysis, dieselization strategies, dilbit penetration, C02/greenhouse gas impacts.
Multiple New-to-Market Crude Oil Pricing /
International Crudes / 2018 most recent
Evaluated and developed pricing mechanisms for multiple new-to-market crude oils with reference to benchmark
crude. The pricing relationships were developed from numerous LP scenarios to identify the price setting refinery
mechanism for the region. Other analytical techniques include whole crude and cuts methods.
Refinery Reconfiguration Analysis / Confidential Client PADD 4 / 2007
Performed comprehensive re-configuration analysis for Rocky Mountain Refinery with over 40 scenarios that included:
crude expansion alternatives, FCC expansion, Mild to Severe Hydrocracking, new alkylation, hydrogen balance, and
reformer expansion. Scenarios included clean fuel requirements, lower RVP gasoline, MSAT2 compliance, ethanol
blending, Canadian synthetic crude runs, and increased octane specification.
Ethanol Blending Impact Studies/Multi-Refinery LP / US EPA
Integrated 5 Padd Model/2008
177
-------
Performed comprehensive analysis on the implications of ethanol blending and the effect of E10, E20, and Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) 1 and 2. The analytic highlight included a sophisticated 5 refinery (PADD) LP model of the US, with
5 demand terminals, transportation between the PADDs, and investment strategies under various ethanol blending
alternatives.
Strategic Tank Farm Analysis / Confidential Client West Coast Washington State /
2007
Performed a strategic tank farm analysis for a West Coast Refinery. Incorporated sophisticated refinery LP modeling
techniques with 260 periods to analyze the economic impact of planned and unplanned outages. Also incorporated
Monte Carlo risk analysis to the LP strategy to establish the likelihood of unplanned events. Estimated costs of outages
vs. strategic spending to define numerous projects for capital screening.
Refinery Relocation Economic Analysis
Performed comprehensive economic analysis on a refinery relocation project. Analysis included developing a detailed
LP refinery model, establishing fixed and variable costs, and ultimately creating a pro forma model for financing and
partnering opportunities. Analyzed various crude options, and a phased-in refinery construction approach to optimize
cash flow.
Diesel Production Maximization
Developed numerous LP sub-models and code for a client to evaluate alternatives to maximize diesel production. New
sub-models and code included new swing cuts, low-conversion FCC sub-model, gasoline splitters, and coker gasoil slurry
oil splitters.
Delayed Coker Strategic Analysis
Performed strategic analysis for new delayed coker on West Coast to capture heavy sour Canadian crude differentials.
Established LP models for evaluation purposes, estimated capital costs for each configuration, and established cash flow
models to analyze and evaluate the best strategic alternative.
SDA Installation
Analyzed a 3-refinery corporate configuration to optimize the installation of a common SDA. Constructed, calibrated,
and analyzed simulation runs of LP models to evaluate the project economics for the SDA unit.
Refinery Expansion and Optimization Analysis
Conducted a detailed analysis of a US East Coast refinery for expansion and optimization opportunities. Specific
analyses included: FCC operations (new technology improvements, including a riser, riser termination device, and
nozzles); a new air blower; and a new cooler.
Clean Fuels Production Strategic Analysis /
Completed extensive strategic analysis for two East Coast refineries to evaluate clean fuels production alternatives.
Both refineries required detailed LP calibration to existing operations before implementing several alternative scenarios
for low-sulfur gasoline and low-sulfur diesel production. Key issues included ethanol blending, changing service of
existing hydrotreating, VGO hydrotreating, FCC naphtha hydrotreating and technology selection, and sensitivities on
oxygenate waiver, prices, high-sulfur versus low-sulfur crude slate, and blendstock purchases. Provided numerous
capital alternatives to work with client's capital program and executive decision-making. Also used LP model to analyze
contingency analysis with unexpected shutdowns of key process units.
Refinery Acquisition - Initial Screening Bakersfield, California
178
-------
Performed initial screening study for Bakersfield, California, refinery acquisition. Calibrated the LP model to current
operations and analyzed business opportunities for potential bidder. Used LP results, coupled with assessment of
operating costs, to develop pro forma for investment analysis. Performed numerous sensitivity analyses on various
modes of hydrocracking operations.
Crude Quality Impact Analysis
Completed detailed analysis of crude quality impact for West Coast refineries, including regional LA, San
Francisco, and Washington. Crude qualities considered included basic nitrogen, sulfur, UOP-K, aromatics, RVP, cetane,
and density. Developed cost curves relating variable margin to changes in crude quality to assist crude producer in
determining downstream impacts. Integrated FCC simulator model into the LP models for detailed FCC response to
crude quality.
PADD4 Refinery Synergy
Performed synergy analysis between two PADD 4 refineries to analyze the benefits of integrating capital investment and
transferring streams between the two locations. Alternatives considered included: new shared alkylation, new C4
Isomerization, major expansion analysis, transferring streams to capture blending synergy, and shutting down one
facility to run as a topping refinery. Also analyzed the impact of increasing synthetic crude feed to the complex. All
models calibrated to post-2010 clean-fuels conditions.
Refinery Configuration
Performed study to establish two state-of-the-art refinery configurations for processing 100,000 bpd of medium sour
crude oil. The configurations reflect a high G:D ratio case and a second case with approximately the same G:D make.
Provided a cost estimate for this processing configuration; feed/product balances for the Crude and Secondary Units;
cost factors for estimating utilities and offsites capital investments; and cost scalability factors for the major refinery
units.
Refinery Energy Audit
Team member of extensive refinery energy audit and analysis for refinery in Mexico. Responsibilities included auditing
steam, fuel (gas & oil), and electricity for all process units; comparing results to known technical standards; and
summarizing key findings resulting in potential $64 million/yr savings. Also audited NOx and SOx emissions.
Process Unit Explosion Insurance Claim
Provided technical support for insurance claim resulting from process unit explosion. Ran LP models to assess
associated claims resulting from delayed coker down-time.
Refinery Technical Due Diligence
Provided technical and financial due diligence assessment of Tyler, Texas, refinery for potential acquisition. Developed
detailed pro forma to evaluate net present value of refinery, including investment analysis to produce clean fuels.
Refinery Planning Model
Developed a detailed refinery planning model for a USGC refinery. Integrated a second refinery to analyze economic
impacts and synergies for a potential merger or acquisition. Directly integrated an outside, dynamic FCCU simulator and
a delayed coker model to the LP optimization process.
Scoping Study / Grassroots Refinery
Performed an initial scoping study for development of a grassroots refinery in the Caribbean. Developed an LP model
and pro forma to analyze investments under different configurations and cogeneration capabilities.
179
-------
Initial Investment Analysis
Performed an initial investment analysis for the purchase of an existing Caribbean refinery. Analyzed the impact of
FCCU/alkylation expansion to improve investment economics.
Refinery Enhancement Study
Performed value enhancement study for a US Midwest refinery to increase the cash flow of the facility by processing
changes or expansion projects under increasingly stringent environmental compliance regulations. Tasks consisted of:
developing numerous LP models representing base and proposed operations; producing Complex Model Phase II
gasoline; determining incremental capital, fixed, and variable costs for scenario cases; and calculating cash flows for all
scenarios.
Gasoline Blending Model Development
Developed a gasoline blending model for integrated refinery/petrochemical USGC operations to assess future gasoline
blending under various scenarios, including regulatory and environmental changes, new gasoline specifications, and
changes in refinery operations and availability of blending components.
Fair Market Valuation Litigation Support
Provided litigation support for a fair market value assessment for a major US Gulf Coast refinery.
Crude Valuation Analysis
Performed crude valuation analysis for various synthetic crudes under different pricing and volume options for a
producer. Developed specific crude values for a targeted refinery to negotiate crude sales.
Aromatics Study
Conducted extensive aromatics study for US refinery with options of a) status quo, b) shut down, or c) modernize/grow.
Developed detailed LP and pro forma to simulate numerous scenarios for the aromatics recovery unit: high- and low-
pressure reformers, benzene, toluene, and xylene extraction, ortho- and paraxylene extraction and isomerization.
Grassroots PP Splitter Due Diligence
Venezuela
Project manager for Independent Engineer due diligence of a grassroots propylene splitter project in Venezuela.
Worked with the investment bank and project sponsors to assess the risks and mitigating factors associated with
technology, construction execution, contracts, third party operations, and environmental/health/safety.
Refinery Investment/Configuration Study
Performed comprehensive alternative investment/configuration study for major US Gulf Coast refiner. Developed LP
models and calculated cash flows for over 30 separate scenarios to analyze Tier 2 gasoline sulfur regulations, MTBE ban
effect, diesel sulfur regulations, and a major crude/vacuum expansion project. Developed and analyzed scenario capital
expenditure cases ranging from $15-400 million.
Refinery Due Diligence
Completed refinery due diligence analysis on behalf of a pipeline company preparing a bid for purchase of a cracking
refinery and terminal assets in PADD 2. Responsibilities included calibration and verification of historical and projected
refinery charges and yields using LP model. Developed cash flow model, including product sales into four separate
regions and cash flow sensitivity on environmental costs, fixed costs, and variable costs.
180
-------
Crude Pipeline Reversal Impact
Analyzed the impact of reversing a crude oil pipeline in the US Southwest. Approach consisted of developing six regional
and four terminal LP models representing logistical boundaries.
LP Simulation Modeling
In five different assignments, served as project team member responsible for performing LP simulations to assess
clients' future capability to produce varying levels of gasoline meeting both reformulated and CARB specifications on
the US West Coast, Midwest, East Coast, and Gulf Coast. Involved detailed modeling and calibration of over 60 US and
international refineries.
LP Model to Support Refinery Acquisition
In support of a client's refinery acquisition on the Gulf Coast, constructed and calibrated LP models to simulate
operations and test alternative processing configurations for the refinery. Also constructed and calibrated cash flow and
spreadsheet models for financial evaluations of the 180,000+ bbl/day facility.
Refinery LP Models
Developed LP models of a major US West Coast refiner's largest refinery to value and compare economics of running
Venezuelan crude oils vs. Alaskan North Slope, Indonesian, and Mexican crudes.
Process Optimization Study
Completed process optimization study for US East Coast client interested in maximizing reformulated gasoline
production. Tasks included evaluation and recommendation of various benzene reduction alternatives as a route for
RFG production optimization.
Process Optimization Study
Team member of process optimization study for West Coast refiner interested in 1) producing maximum economic
volumes of CARB gasoline and 2) possibility of dual refinery integration to take advantage of synergies.
Refining Merger Modeling
Team member of major US refining/marketing merger. Prepared and analyzed cash flow models for numerous refinery
locations to establish ownership percentages for the merger. Analyzed each refinery's planned operations and
performed independent assessment of operations.
Worldwide Refining Model and Forecast
Team member of worldwide refining publication. Developed and calibrated regional and country-specific LP models for
analyzing future refinery operations over a 20-year forecast horizon. Calculated replacement costs and forecasted
future construction requirements to keep pace with demand projections.
Refinery LP Modeling
Developed new USGC index refinery LP models using varying crude and complexity configurations. Calculated refinery
yields and operational costs for each. Separately developed LP models to calculate lowsulfur diesel and reformulated
gasoline production costs.
Crude Oil Pricing Formula Development
Using LP simulations, developed a crude oil pricing formula for a blended crude oil to be purchased and processed at a
refinery.
181
-------
Refinery Due Diligence
Provided refinery due diligence analyses for four separate refinery acquisitions in Texas and Oklahoma.
Industrial Development Scheme - Refinery Investment
Developed preliminary industrial development scheme for international entrepreneur's Persian Gulf refinery
investment project. Additional tasks included: evaluation of refinery and petrochemical complexes for a conceptual
planning study; and preparation of LP models, capital budget estimates, and construction and capital investment
schedules for the complex.
Process Studies Highlights / Various Clients
Texas / 1990's
Project Manager for flare systems analysis. Evaluated both existing system and proposed improvements. Tasks included
performance of contingency analysis, verification of safety valve sizes, check of flare capacities, and check/verification
of header sizing and piping configuration. Lead Engineer on converter/duct replacement for 2,000 tons/day sulfuric
acid unit. Served as Project Manager and Process Engineer for new stainless-steel converter and superheater
replacement on new foundation. The project included an extended ductwork replacement requiring redesign of the
expansion joint system. Designed Sour Water Stripper and Firewater System, nitrogen, utility air systems.
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Refinery Economics Course
Developed and presented Refinery Economics course to major Middle East company. This was a two-day course with
emphasis on coking economics
LP Training Courses
Performed series of LP training courses. Topics included LP model development on large multi-refinery representation.
Training included LP model maintenance, tuning, and calibration.
Crude Oil Analysis and Valuation Seminar
Conducted 2-day crude oil analysis and valuation seminar. Topics included whole crude analysis, crude fractions, crude
assays, and crude impacts on refinery operations. More advanced topics included more detailed refinery operations,
linear programming, product blending, crude valuation, and refinery economics.
Liquid Fuels Market Module - White Paper
Authored a White Paper on the development of the Liquid Fuels Market Module for the US Department of Energy and
presented the paper to a panel of experts in Washington DC.
Industry Presentations
ฆ What's Happening Out There? (and how LP's are being utilized); MUG Conference (Portland Oregon),
Sept 2019
ฆ Crude Valuation Techniques, presented at 2018 MUG Conference (Nashville, TN), Sept 2018
ฆ What's the Deal with Octane? presented at 2017 MUG Conference (San Diego, CA), September 2017
ฆ Impact of MARPOL VI Implementation, presented at 2016 MUG Conference (Washington, DC),
September 2016
ฆ Optimization of Crudes in Changing Regulatory and Market Environments, presented at 2016
-------
Opportunity Crude Conference (Houston, TX) October 2016
ฆ LP Strategies for Refinery Efficiency and GHG Emissions, presented at 2015 MUG Conference (Aspen,
CO), September 2015
ฆ What's Happening Out There, presented at Greater New Orleans Business Roundtable, March 2015
ฆ Qualitative and Quantitative LP Methods for Crude Evaluation, and co-authored LP Methods for
International Refining Economic Analysis presented at 2014 MUG Conference (Savannah, GA), September 2014
ฆ Environmental Science and Technology, "U.S. Refinery Efficiency: Impacts Analysis and Implications for
Fuel Carbon Policy Implementationby Jeongwoo Han, Grant S. Forman, Amgad Elgowainy, Hao Cai, Michael Wang,
and Vincent B. DiVita
ฆ Environmental Science and Technology, "Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity of
Petroleum Products at U.S. Refineriesby Amgad Elgowainy, Jeongwoo Han, Hao Cai, Michael Wang, Grant S.
Forman, and Vincent B. DiVita
ฆ Tight Light Oil. MUG Conference (Santa Barbara, California, September 2013).
ฆ Performing Supply Chain Analysis with LP Models. MUG Conference (Bar Harbor, Maine, September
2011).
ฆ Evaluating Potential US Gasoline Specification Changes with LP Models. MUG Conference (Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho, September 2010).
ฆ Using the LP for Greenhouse Gas and Lifecycle Carbon Emission Analysis. MUG Conference (San Antonio,
Texas, September 2009).
ฆ White Paper on the Development of the Liquid Fuels Market Module (LFFM). Department of Energy's
Energy Information Agency (Washington, DC, September 2009).
ฆ Using the LP to Maximize Profits in a Strong Diesel Economy. MUG Conference (Annapolis, Maryland,
September 2008).
ฆ Developing LP Models to Analyze the Refining Industry. MUG Conference (Santa Fe, New Mexico,
September 2007).
ฆ Over-optimization versus Under-optimization. MUG Conference (Sedona, Arizona, September 2006). ฆ
The Energy Policy Act of2005: Refinery Implications and Strategies. MUG Conference (Banff, AB Canada, October
2005).
ฆ ULSD-Are You Ready? MUG Conference (Monterey, California, September 2004).
ฆ New Gasoline Fuel Specs and Their Impact on Refiners and Blenders, OPIS 5th Annual Supply Summit (Las
Vegas, Nevada), October 2003
ฆ Using LP Models for Synergy Analysis. MUG Conference (Newport, Rhode Island, September 2003).
ฆ The New LP (co-authored with Dean Trierwiler). NPRA, ERTC, ARTC, MUG (2003).
ฆ Modeling FCCs in LPs: Simulation versus Linearization. MUG Conference (Vancouver, Canada, September
2002).
183
-------
ฆ Using Refinery LPs to Analyze Blend Values in a Clean Air Environment. MUG Conference (Minneapolis,
Minnesota, November 2001.
ฆ Refinery Planning Using Linear Programs Containing Simple and Complex Models. API Petro-Safe '95
Conference (Houston, Texas, January 1995).
Education
B.S. / Chemical Engineering
MBA/ Finance
Registrations Professional Engineer
(TX)
2 years with 1898 & Co.
35 years of experience
184
-------
S. KENT BOEKMAN
Research Professor, Emeritus
Desert Research Institute
Division of Atmospheric Sciences
2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512-1095 Tel: 775-674-
7065
email: Kent.Hoekmanffidri.edu
Education
Ph.D. 1980 Iowa State University, Ames, IA Organic Chemistry B.S. 1975
Calvin University, Grand Rapids, Ml Chemistry
Professional Interests and Activities
Dr. Hoekman is a Research Professor, Emeritus within the Division of Atmospheric Sciences at the Desert
Research Institute (DRI). DRI is a statewide division of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) that pursues basic
and applied environmental research on local, national, and international scales. His professional interests include
environmental impacts of energy production, distribution, and use; development of renewable and sustainable energy
systems; conversion of biomass to biofuels; air quality impacts of vehicle emissions; and impacts of advanced-
technology fuels and vehicles on emissions and energy use. He is also interested in the interface between politics and
environmental science, particularly in the areas of energy policy, vehicle technology, renewable fuels, greenhouse
gases, and climate change.
In addition to his personal professional activities, Dr. Hoekman has provided leadership for DRI in the
identification, protection, and licensing of intellectual property (IP) developed at the Institute. Dr. Hoekman was
instrumental in establishing a joint Technology Transfer Office (TTO) between DRI and the University of Nevada, Reno
(UNR), and has served as DRI's Liaison to the TTO, where he oversaw the activities of this office on behalf of DRI.
Dr. Hoekman has also served DRI by coordinating and promoting the Institution's R&D portfolio in the field of
renewable energy. He led the effort to establish a Renewable Energy Center (REC) at DRI, and provided leadership in
this area by serving as Director of DRI's Clean Technologies and Renewable Energy Center (CTREC).
In addition, Dr. Hoekman is active in the scientific academic and business communities. He serves as a reviewer
for numerous science and engineering journals, is a member of several professional societies, has assisted in organizing
scientific conferences, is an instructor in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the University of Nevada in Reno
(UNR), and contributes to the mentoring and advisement of graduate students at UNR. Currently, he serves as Associate
Editor for the journal Energies.
From 2001 to 2007, Dr. Hoekman served as Executive Director of DRI's Division of Atmospheric Sciences (DAS).
DAS consists of approximately 50 research faculty, along with 70 technologists, graduate students, post-docs, and other
support staff. The Division conducts fundamental and applied research around the world on topics pertaining to
emissions, renewable energy, air pollution, meteorology, climatology, aerosol chemistry and physics, and other areas
related to atmospheric science. DAS also serves as the institutional home for the Western Regional Climate Center, one
of six NOAA-funded regional climate centers in the U.S. As Director, Dr. Hoekman was responsible for all personnel,
financial, organizational, and professional activities of Divisional operations. The Division's scientific work is sponsored
by over 100 federal, state, local, and private organizations that provide approximately $14 million per year in research
grants and contracts. For more information about the Division and its activities, please refer to its web site at
http://www.das.dri.edu.
Prior to joining DRI in 2001, Dr. Hoekman spent over 20 years at Chevron, where his research focused on
transportation fuels and their impacts on motor vehicle emissions and air quality. Experimental work included detailed
185
-------
characterization of exhaust emissions compositions from gasoline-, diesel-, and alcoholfueled vehicles. Laboratory studies
were conducted to investigate how changes in fuel formulation could reduce vehicle emissions and improve ambient air
quality. He has served on several technical committees representing the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Western
States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), and other industry organizations
interested in fuels, emissions, atmospheric chemistry and air quality.
Dr. Hoekman also has experience in environmental regulatory affairs pertaining to vehicles, fuels, emissions, air
quality, and health effects. He has served in technical advisory roles to EPA and the Health Effects Institute's (HEI), and
was a member of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Research Screening Committee for five years.
Professional Experience
2016 - Present Research Professor, Emeritus, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV
2007 - 2016 Research Professor, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV
2001 - 2007 Executive Director, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno and Las Vegas, NV
1997 - 2001 Senior Staff Scientist, Chevron Products Co., San Francisco and San Ramon, CA
1990 - 1996 Staff Scientist and Senior Staff Scientist, Chevron Research and Technology Company, Richmond, CA
1980 - 1989 Research Chemist and Senior Research Chemist, Chevron Research and Technology Company, Richmond,
CA
Professional Memberships
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA)
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE)
Awards/Honors
Chevron Chairman's Award (1984) - Presented in recognition of diesel emissions research
Horning Memorial Award (1985) - Presented by the Society of Automotive Engineers
Arch T. Colwell Merit Award (1985) - Presented by the Society of Automotive Engineers
Society of Automotive Engineer's Award for Excellence in Oral Presentation (1993 and 1995)
Recognition of Appreciation from the California Air Resources Board (2001)
Peer-Reviewed Publications
Carrasco, S., Silva, J., Pino-Cortes, E., Gomez, J., Vallejo, F., Diaz-Robles, L., Campos, V., Cubillos, F., Pelz, S., Paczkowski,
S., Cereceda-Balic, F., Vergara-Fernandez, A., Lapuerta, M., Pazo, A. Monedero, E., and Hoekman, K. (2020). Processes 8,
444. DOI 10.3390/pr8040444.
Hoekman, S.K. (2020). Review of nitrous oxide (N20) emissions from motor vehicles. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 13(1) 1-20.
DOI: 10.4271/04-13-01-0005.
Han, Y., Hoekman, K., Jena, U., and Das, P. (2020). Use of co-solvents in hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) of microalgae.
Energies 2020, 13, 124. DOI: 10.3390/enl3010124.
186
-------
Wang, X., Hoekman, S.K., Han, Y., Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Wu, X., Wu, Y., Schuetzle, D., and Schuetzle, R. (2020).
Potential emission reductions by converting agricultural residue biomass to synthetic fuels for vehicles and domestic
cooking in China. Particuology 49, 40-47. DOI:
10.1016/j./partic.2019.04.008.
Das, P., Khan, S., Thaher, M., AbdulQuadir, M., Hoekman, S.K., and Al-Jabri, H. (2019). Effect of harvesting methods on
the energy requirement of Tetraselmis sp. biomass production and biocrude yield and quality. Bioresource Technol. 284,
9-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.118.
Hoekman, S.K., Leland, A., and Bishop, G. (2019). Diminishing benefits of federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) compared
to conventional gasoline (CG). SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 12 (1). DOI: 10.4271/04-12-01-0001.
Gai, C, Zhu, N., Hoekman, S.K., Liu, Z., Jiao, W., and Peng, N. (2019). Highly dispersed nickel nanoparticles supported on
hydrochar for hydrogen-rich syngas production from catalytic reforming of biomass. Energy Conv. Manag. 183, 474-484.
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman. 2018.12.121.
Han, Y., Hoekman, S.K., Cui, Z., Jena, U., and Das, P. (2019). Hydrothermal liquefaction of marine microalgae biomass
using co-solvents. Algal Research 38, 101421. DOI: 10.1016/j.algal.2019.101421.
Hoekman, S.K. and Leland, A. (2018). Literature review on the effects of organometallic fuel additives in gasoline and
diesel fuels. SAE International J. Fuels Lubr. 11 (1). DOI: 10.4271/04-11-01-0005.
Leland, A., Hoekman, S.K., and Liu. X. (2018). Review of modifications to indirect land use change modeling and resulting
carbon intensity values within the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations. J. Cleaner Prod. 180, 698-707. DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.077.
Hoekman, S.K. and Broch, A. (2018). Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: A
literature review. Part II - Biodiversity, land use change, GHG emissions, and sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
81, 3159-3177. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.052.
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., and Liu, X. (2018). Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the
U.S.: A literature review. Part I - Impacts on water, soil, and air quality. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 3140-3158. DOI:
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.050.
Liu, X., Hoekman, S.K., and Broch, A. (2017). Potential water requirements of increased ethanol fuel in the USA. Energy,
Sustain. Environ. 7:18. DOI: 10.1186/sl3705-017-0121-4.
Collet, S., Hoekman, S.K., Collins, J., Wallington, T.J., McConnell, S., and Gong, L. (2017). 2017 Mobile Source Air Toxics
Workshop. EM May 2017,
Liu, X., Hoekman, S.K., Farthing, W., and Felix, L. (2017). TC2015: Life Cycle Analysis of Co-Formed Coal Fines and
Hydrochar Produced in Twin-Screw Extruder (TSE). Envir. Prog. Sustain. Energy 36 (3) 668-676. Doi 10.1002/ep. 12552.
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Felix, L., and Farthing, W. (2017). Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of loblolly pine using a
continuous, reactive twin-screw extruder. Energy Conv. Management 143, 247-259. Doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.035.
Hoekman, S.K. (2016). Comment on "Damages and expected deaths due to excess NOx emissions from 2009 to 2015
Volkswagen diesel vehicles." Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4135-4136. Doi:
10.1021/acs.est.6b00856.
187
-------
Liu, Z., Zhang,F, Hoekman, S.K., Liu, T., Gai, C. and Peng, N. (2016). Homogeneously Dispersed Zerovalent Iron
Nanoparticles Supported on Hydrochar-Derived Porous Carbon: Simple, in situ Synthesis and Use for Dechlorination of
PCBs. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 4, 3261-3267. Doi:
10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00306.
Hoekman, S.K. and Broch, A. (2016). MMT Effects on Gasoline Vehicles: A Literature Review. SAE Int. J. Fuels Lubr. 9 (1)
322-343. Doi: 10.4271/2016-01-9073.
Liu, Z., Guo, Y., Balasubramanian, R., and Hoekman, S.K. (2016). Mechanical stability and combustion characteristics of
hydrochar/lignite blend pellets. Fuel 164, 59-65. Doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.10.004.
Jena, U., McCurdy, A.T., Warren, A., Summers, H., Ledbetter, R.N., Hoekman, S.K., Seefeldt, L.C., and Quinn, J.C. (2015).
Oleaginous yeast platform for producing biofuels via co-solvent hydrothermal liquefaction. Biotech. Biofuels 8, 167. Doi:
10.1186/sl3068-015-0345-5.
Summers, H.M., Ledbetter, R.N., McCurdy, A.T., Morgan, M., Seefeldt, L.C., Jena, U., Hoekman, S.K., and Quinn, J.C.
(2015). Techno-economic feasibility and life cycle assessment of dairy effluent to renewable diesel via hydrothermal
liquefaction. Bioresource Technol. 196, 431-440. Doi:
10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.077.
Schuetzle, D., Schuetzle, R., Hoekman, S.K., and Zielinska, B. (2015). The effect of oxygen on formation of syngas
contaminants during the thermochemical conversion of biomass. Int'l J. of Energy and Environ. Engin. 6 (4) 405-417. Doi:
10.1007/s40095-015-0187-8.
Collet, S., Hoekman, S.K., McCauley, E., and Wallington, T.J. (2015). Highlights from the Coordinating Research Council
2015 Mobile Source Air Toxics Workshop. EM July 2015, 28-32.
Liu, X., Hoekman, S.K., Robbins, C., and Ross, P. (2015). Lifecycle climate impacts and economic performance of
commercial-scale solar PV systems: A study of PV systems at Nevada's Desert Research Institute (DRI). Solar Energy 119,
561-572. Doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2015.05.001.
Chen, L.-W.A., Robles, J.A., Chow, J.C., and Hoekman, S.K. (2015). Renewable hydrogen production from biooil in an
aerosol pyrolysis system. Procedia Engineering 102, 1867-1876. Doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.325.
Liu, Z., Hoekman, S.K., Balasubramanian, R., and Zhang, F.S. (2015). Improvement of fuel qualities of solid fuel biochars
by washing treatment. Fuel Proc. Technol. 134, 130-135. Doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.025.
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Warren, A., Felix, L., and Irvin, J. (2014). Laboratory pelletization of hydrochar from woody
biomass. Biofuels 5 (6) 651-666.
Yan, W., Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., and Coronella, C.J. (2014). Effect of hydrothermal carbonization reaction parameters
on the properties of hydrochar and pellets. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 33, 676-680. Doi: 10.1002/ep.11974.
Robbins, C., Goldade, T., Hoekman, S.K., Jacobson, R., and Turner, R. (2014). Empirically Driven Computer Simulations of
Solar Thermal Systems for Space Heating and Domestic Hot Water. ASME Technical Paper ESFuelCell2014-6476.
Damm, C., Strobach, E., Robbins, C., Broch, A., Turner, R., and Hoekman, S.K. (2014). Development of the Renewable
Energy Deployment and Display (REDD) Facility at the Desert Research Institute. ASME Technical Paper ESFuelCell2014-
6626.
188
-------
Reza, M.T., Uddin, M.H., Lynam, J.G., Hoekman, S.K., and Coronella, C.J. (2014). Hydrothermal carbonization of loblolly
pine; reaction chemistry and water balance. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 4, 311321. Doi: 10.1007/sl3399-014-
0115-9.
Broch, A., Jena, U., Hoekman, S.K., and Langford, J. (2014). Analysis of solid and aqueous phase products from
hydrothermal carbonization of whole and lipid-extracted algae. Energies 2014, 7, 62-79. doi:
10.3390/en7010062.
Yan, W., and Hoekman, S.K. (2014). Production of C02-free hydrogen from methane dissociation: a review. Environ.
Prog. Sustainable Energy. 33 (1), 213-219. doi:10.1002/ep.11746.
Hoekman S.K., Broch, A., Robbins, C., Purcell, R., Zielinska, B., Felix, L., and Irvin, J. (2014). Process development unit
(PDU) for hydrothermal carbonization of lignocellulosic biomass. Waste Biomass Valorization, 5, 669-678. doi:
10.1007/sl2649-013-9277-0.
Liu, Z., Quek, A., Parshetti, G., Jain, A., Srinivasan, M.P., Hoekman, S.K., and Balasubramanian, R. (2013). A study of
nitrogen conversion and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions during hydrochar-lignite co-pyrolysis. Applied
Energy 108, 74-81. Doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.012.
Hoekman, S.K., Robbins, C., Wang, X., Zielinska, B., Schuetzle, D., and Schuetzle, R. (2013). Characterization of trace
contaminants in syngas from the thermochemical conversion of biomass. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 3, (4) 271-
282. Doi: 10.1007/sl3399-013-0081-7.
Reza, M.T., Yan, W., Uddin, M.H., Lynam, J.G., Hoekman, S.K., Coronella, C.J., and Vasquez V.R. (2013).
Reaction kinetics of hydrothermal carbonization of loblolly pine. Bioresource Technol. 139, 161-169.
Doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.04.028.
Broch, A., Hoekman, S.K., and Unnasch, S. (2013). A review of variability in indirect land use change assessment and
modeling in biofuel policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 29, 147-157. Doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.002.
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Robbins, C., Zielinska, B., and Felix, L. (2013). Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of selected
woody and herbaceous biomass feedstocks. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 3, 113126, doi:10.1007/sl33990-012-
0066-y.
Liu, Z., Quek, A., Hoekman, S.K., and Balasubramanian, R. (2013). Production of solid biochar fuel from waste biomass by
hydrothermal carbonization. Fuel 103, 943-949. Doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2012.07.069.
Parshetti, G.K., Hoekman, S.K., and Balasubramanian, R. (2013). Chemical, structural and combustion characteristics of
carbonaceous products obtained by hydrothermal carbonization of palm empty fruit bunches. Bioresource Technol. 135,
683-689. Doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.042.
Liu, Z., Quek, A., Hoekman, S.K., and Balasubramania, R. (2012). Thermogravimetric investigation of hydrochar-lignite co-
combustion, Bioresource Technol., 123, 646-652.
Doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.063.
Samburova, V., M.S. Lemos, S. Hiibel, S.K. Hoekman, J.C. Cushman, and B. Zielinska (2013). Analysis of triacylglycerols
and free fatty acids in algae using ultra-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry, J. Am Oil Chem Soc. 90,
53-64, doi: 10.1007/sl 1746-012-2138-3.
Yan, W. and Hoekman, S.K. (2012). Dust suppression with glycerin from biodiesel production: a review. J. Environ.
Protection 3, 218-224. Doi:10.4236/jep.2012.32027.
189
-------
Hoekman, S.K. and Robbins, C. (2012). Review of the effects of biodiesel on NOx emissions, Fuel Proc. Technol. 96, 237-
249. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.12.036.
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Robbins C., Ceniceros, E. and Natarajan, M. (2012). Review of Biodiesel Composition,
Properties, and Specifications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, 143169. Doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.143.
Wang, X., C. Robbins, S.K. Hoekman, J.C. Chow, J.G. Watson, and D. Schuetzle (2011). Dilution Sampling and Analysis of
Particulate Matter in Biomass-Derived Syngas. Front. Environ. Sci. Engin. China 5 (3) 320330.
Robbins, C., S.K. Hoekman, E. Ceniceros, and M. Natarajan (2011). Effects of Biodiesel Fuels upon Criteria Emissions. Soc.
Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 2011-01-1943.
Hoekman, S.K., A. Broch, and C. Robbins (2011). Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC) of Lignocellulosic Biomass. Energy
Fuels 25 (4) 1802-1810. Doi.org/10.1021/efl01745n.
Bruins, R., S.K. Hoekman, R. Efroymson, A.Aden, and A. Hecht (2010).Transportation Fuels for the 21st Century. EM Nov.
2010, 26-32.
Hoekman, S.K., A. Broch, C. Robbins, and R. Purcell (2009). C02 Recycling by Reaction with RenewablyGenerated
Hydrogen. International J. of Greenhouse Gas Control 4, 44-50.
Hoekman, S.K., A.W. Gertler, A. Broch, C. Robbins, and M. Natarajan (2009). Biodistillate Transportation Fuels 1 -
Production and Properties. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 2009-01-2766.
Robbins, C., S.K. Hoekman, A. Gertler, A. Broch, and M. Natarajan (2009). Biodistillate Transportation Fuels 2- Emissions
Impacts. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 2009-01-2724.
Broch, A., S.K. Hoekman, A. Gertler, C. Robbins, and M. Natarajan (2009). Biodistillate Transportation Fuels 3 - Life-Cycle
Impacts. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 2009-01-2768.
Hoekman, S.K. (2009). Biofuels in the U.S. - Challenges and Opportunities. Renewable Energy 34, 14-22.
Doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.030.
Chow, J.C., S.K. Hoekman, J.M. Norbeck, K.N. Black, R.M. O'Keefe, D.L. Kopinski, M.P. Walsh, J.L. Suchecki, S.L. Altshuler,
B. MacClarence, R.A. Harley, and D. Marrack (2001). Diesel Engines: Environmental Impact and Control. J. Air and Waste
Management. Assoc. 51, 1258-1270.
Hoekman, S.K., R.S. MacArthur, M. Naylor and J.A. Rutherford (1998). RVP Reduction for Control of Wintertime CO. Soc.
Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 981373.
Lanning, L.A., W.L. Clark, W.O. Siegl, S.K. Hoekman, R.M. Stanley and W.F. Biller (1997). CRC Hydrocarbon Emissions
Analysis Round Robin Test Program, Phase II. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 971608.
Hoekman, S.K., J. Freel and R.S. MacArthur (1996). Reduced-RVP Gasoline - An Attractive Alternative to RFG. Soc. Auto.
Eng. Tech. Paper No. 961281.
Hoekman, S.K., R.M. Stanley, W.L. Clark, W.O. Siegl, A.M. Schlenker and W.F. Biller (1995). CRC Speciated
Hydrocarbon Emissions Analysis Round Robin Test Program. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 950780.
Hoekman, S.K. and T.E. Jensen (1993). Methanol Vehicle Emissions Round Robin Test Program. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech.
Paper No. 932773.
Hoekman, S.K. (1993). Improved Gas Chromatography Procedure for Speciated Hydrocarbon Measurements of Vehicle
Emissions. J. Chromatog., 639, 239-253.
190
-------
Hoekman, S.K. (1992). Speciated Measurements and Calculated Reactivities of Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from
Conventional and Reformulated Gasolines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26, 1206-1216.
Croes, B.E., S.K. Hoekman and A. Guerrero (1991). Ozone-Forming Potential of Emissions from Lower Aromatic Content
Gasolines. Air and Waste Management Association Paper No. 91-107.8.
Gething, J.A., S.K. Hoekman, A.R. Guerrero and J.M. Lyons (1990). The Effect of Gasoline Aromatics Content on Exhaust
Emissions: A Cooperative Test Program. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 902073.
Eberhard, G.A., M. Ansari and S.K. Hoekman (1990). Emissions and Fuel Economy Tests of a Methanol Bus with a 1988
DDC Engine. Soc. Auto. Eng. Tech. Paper No. 900342.
Beyaert, B.O., S.K. Hoekman, A.J. Jessel, J.S. Welstand, R.D. White and J.E. Woycheese (1989). An Overview of Methanol
Fuel Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues. Summer Meeting of American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Philadelphia, PA, August 22, 1989.
Eberhard, G.A., M. Ansari and S.K. Hoekman (1989). Emissions and Fuel Economy Test Results for Methanol- and Diesel-
Fueled Buses. Air and Waste Management Association Paper 89-9.4.
Horn, J.C. and S. K. Hoekman (1989). Methanol-Fueled Light-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emissions. Air and Waste
Management Association Paper No. 89-9.3.
Hoekman, S.K. and M.C. Ingham (1987). Measurement of PAH and Nitro-PAH from a Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine. Air
Pollution Control Association Paper No. 87-1.4.
Wall, J.C. and S.K. Hoekman (1984). Fuel Composition Effects on Heavy-Duty Diesel Particulate Emissions. Soc. Auto. Eng.
Tech. Paper No. 841364.
Seizinger, D.E. and S.K. Hoekman (1984). Aromatic Measurements of Diesel Fuel - A CRC Round-Robin Study. Soc. Auto.
Eng. Tech. Paper No. 841363.
Barton, T.J., Hoekman, S.K., Burns, S.A. (1982). Comments on the Formation of Silanones in the Thermolysis of
Hydridosilyl Peroxides. Organometallics 1, 721-725.
Barton, T.J., Hoekman, S.K. (1980). Bis(trimethylsilyl)diazomethane, Trimethylsily trimethylgermyl diazomethane, and
Bis(trimethylgermyl)diazomethane - Synthesis and Chemistry of Quantitative Silene and Germene Precursors. J. Amer.
Chem. Soc. 102, 1584-1591.
Barton, T.J., Hoekman, S.K. (1979). Convenient Synthesis of Trimethylsilyldiazomethane - Silene Generator. Synthesis
and Reactivity in Inorganic and Metal-Organic Chemistry 9, 297-300.
Book Chapter
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., and Felix, L., "Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC) of Biomassfor Energy
Applications," Chapter 8 in Biomass Preprocessing and Pretreatments for Production ofBiofuels, CRC Press, 2018.
Liu, Z., Balasubramanian, R., and Hoekman, S.K., "Production of Renewable Solid Fuel Hydrochar from Waste Biomass by
Sub-and Supercritical Water Treatment." Chapter9 in Near-critical and Supercritical Water and their Applications for
Biorefineries, ed. Fang, Z. and Xu, C. Springer, 2014.
Final Technical Reports
191
-------
Hoekman, S.K., McEvoy, D., Simaral, D., and Fremeau, P. (2018). "Comparison of Ambient Temperatures from 'Doner
Report' to Modern Day Ambient Temperatures for the Same Geographic Areas." Final report to the Coordinating
Research Council (CRC). CRC Report No. CM-138-16-2, November 19, 2018.
Hoekman, S.K. and Broch, A. (2017). "Investigation into Filter Plugging Due to Sulfate Salt Contamination of
Ethanol, Gasoline, and Gasoline-Ethanol Blends." Final report to the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). CRC Report
No. CM-136-15-1, December 10, 2017. (47 pp).
Bishop, G.A., Hoekman, S.K., and Broch, A. (2017). "Evaluation of Emissions Benefits of Federal Reformulated Gasoline
versus Conventional Gasoline." Final report to the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). CRC Report No. E-123-2,
December 2017 (72 pp).
Broch, A. and Hoekman, K. (2016). "Effect of Metallic Additives in Market Gasoline and Diesel." Final report to the
Coordinating Research Council (CRC). CRC Report No. E-114-12. November 30, 2016 (41 pp).
Tyner, W.E., Taheripour, F., Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Liu, V., and Lyons, J. (2016). "Follow-on Study of
Transportation Fuel Life Cycle Analysis: Review of Current CARB and EPA Estimates of Land Use Change (LUC) Impacts."
Final report to the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). CRC Report No. E88-3b. August, 2016 (74 pp).
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A. and Liu, V. (2016). "Environmental Implications of Higher Ethanol Production and Use in the
U.S." Final report to the American Petroleum Institute (API). April 25, 2016 (154 pp).
http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/reports/Higher Ethanol lmpacts.pdf
Broch, A. and Hoekman, S.K. (2015). "Effects of Organometallic Additives on Gasoline Vehicles: Analysis of Existing
Literature," Final Report to the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). Project E-114, September 4, 2015 (126 pp).
Schuetzle, D., Schuetzle, R., Johnson, A., and Hoekman, K. (2015). "The Gridley Biofuels Project: Design and Deployment
of an Economical Integrated Biorefinery for the Production of Premium Diesel Fuel,
Electricity and Other Renewable Products from Rice Harvest Biomass Residues in California." DOE Technical Report No.
DE-FC36-03G013071. Bioenergy Technologies Office, Department of Energy, Golden, CO.
Liu, X. and Hoekman, S.K. (2015). "Life cycle analysis of co-formation of coal fines with hydrochar produced by twin-
screw extrusion (TSE) process. Supplemental to GTI Final Report DE-FE0005349, July 2, 2015.
Hoekman, S.K., Broch, A., Robbins, C. and Warren, A. (2015). "R&D to Prepare and Characterize Robust Coal/Biomass
Mixtures for Direct Co-Feeding Into Gasification Systems." Final Report to Gas Technology Institute, DOE Contract DE-
FE0005349, April 30, 2015 (121 pp).
Felix, L.G., Farthing, W.E., and Hoekman, S.K. (2015). "Research & Development to Prepare and Characterize
Robust Coal/Biomass Mixtures for Direct Co-Feeding into Gasification Systems." Final
Scientific/Technical Report to U.S. DOE. DOE Award No. DE-FE0005349, March 31, 2015 (172 pp).
Jena, U. and Hoekman, S.K. (2014). "Development of commodity bio-oil from algae biomass via low temperature
hydrothermal conversion process." Final report to Univ. Georgia Research Foundation, DOE Contract DOE-DE-EE006201,
October 2014 (34 pp).
Hoekman, S.K., Jena, U., and Broch, A. (2014). "Two-Step HTC Treatment of Lignocellulosic Feedstock for Conversion into
Sugars and High Energy Density Hydrochar." Final report to American Process Inc. (API), July 23, 2014 (20 pp).
192
-------
Hoekman, S.K., A. Broch, C. Robbins, X. Wang, S. Gronstal, and B. Zielinska (2014). "Demonstration of a Pilot Integrated
Biorefinery (IBR) for the Economical Conversion of Biomass to Diesel Fuel." Final report to REM, DOE Contract DE-
EE0002876, January 31, 2014 (65 pp).
Hoekman, S.K., A. Broch, C. Robbins, R. Jacobson, and R. Turner (2012). "DRI Renewable Energy Center."
Final Report submitted to U.S. DOE, Award No. DE-EE0003248, December 2012. (177 pp)
Wells, S.G., Gertler, A.W., and Hoekman, S.K. (2012). "Pre-Treatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass." Final Report of Subtask
1.2 for the Project: Nevada Renewable Energy Consortium, DOE Award No. DEEE0000272, submitted to U.S. DOE,
December 2012. (196 pp)
Hoekman, S.K., A. Broch, C. Robbins, W. Yan, R. Jasoni, P. Verberg, J. Arnone, and T, Minor. (2012)
"Developing Thermal Conversion Options for Biorefinery Residues." Final Report to Gas Technology Institute, DOE
Contract DE-FG36-01G011082, November 2012. (119 pp)
Broch, A., and S.K. Hoekman. (2012) "Transportation Fuel Life Cycle Analysis: A Review of Indirect Land Use
Change and Agricultural N20 Emissions." CRC Final Report No. E-88-2, January 2012. (156 pp)
Hoekman, S.K., C. Robbins, and X. Wang. (2011) "Dilution Sampling System for Biomass-Derived Syngas."
Final report to DOE under DE-FG30-08CC00057, January 30, 2011. (51 pp)
Hoekman, S.K., A. Broch, C. Robbins, and E. Ceniceros. (2011) "Investigation of Biodiesel Chemistry, Carbon
Footprint and Regional Fuel Quality." CRC Final Report No. AVFL-17a, January, 2011. (256 pp)
Hoekman, S.K. (2011) "Thermal Treatment of Biomass." Final Report for Subtask 1.2 of the Nevada
Renewable Energy Consortium, January, 2011. (30 pp)
Hoekman, S.K. (2010) "Renewable Energy Center - Desert Research Institute: Phase II." Submitted to NREL, October 13,
2010. (109 pp)
Hoekman, S.K. (2010) DRI-REC-II Task 3A. "Enhance Biofuels/Biomass Testing Capabilities: Sampling and
Analysis of Thermal Conversion Products." Submitted to NREL, March 31, 2010. (17 pp)
Hoekman, S.K., C. Robbins, and X. Wang. (2010) "Gridley Biofuels Project Final Report." Submitted to REM, July 21, 2010.
(63 pp)
Robbins, C., X. Wang, and S.K. Hoekman. (2010) "Recovery Act: Solar Reforming of Carbon Dioxide to
Produce Diesel Fuel." Submitted to REM, October 30, 2010. (24 pp)
Hoekman, S.K., A.W. Gertler, A. Broch, and C. Robbins, (2009) "Investigation of Biodistillates as Potential
Blendstocks for Transportation Fuels," CRC Project No. AVFL-17, Report to Coordinating Research Council, June 2009
(289 pages)
Hoekman, S.K. (2008) "DRI-REC Phase I Final Report," submitted to NREL, under Subcontract No. ADO-544431-06, July
21, 2008. (18 pages)
Hoekman, S.K., A. Broch, C. Robbins, and R. Purcell. (2008) "Renewable Energy Production via Carbon
Capture and Recycling," submitted to RC02, Nov. 3, 2008. (29 pages)
193
-------
Reinhardt, R., and S.K. Hoekman. (2007) "Hawaiian Island Gasoline Volatility Study: Analysis of 90th Percentile Maximum
Temperature/' Submitted to Chevron Products Company, August 3, 2007. (34 pages).
Gertler, A. and S.K. Hoekman (2007) "Review of NAC 590.065: Overview and Implications of Gasoline
Volatility Rule Change/' Final Report submitted to Nevada Department of Agriculture, February 14,
2007. (60 pages)
Patent Applications
Hoekman, S.K., A.L. Broch, U. Jena, and L. Felix. (2015). "Hydrochar Mixture and Method for Producing Same,"
Application No. 62/273,324. Filed December 30, 2015.
Hoekman, S.K., U. Jena, and A.L. Broch (2014). "Methods, Systems, and Apparatus for Hydrothermal Carbonization of
Algal Feedstocks." Filed June 13, 2014.
194
-------
MAR ETT, B.SC.
President, Tallett & Co, (formerly EnSys Energy & Systems, Inc.)
112, Bishops Forest Drive, Waltham, MA 02452, USA
Tel: (781) 274 8454, Cell: (281) 788 7880, Email: martintallett@tallett.com
Mr. Tallett is widely recognized as a leading international expert on refining and oil markets. Until the sale of its assets
in July 2020 to HSB Solomon Associates LLC, he was the founder and head for over thirty years of EnSys Energy, a
successful consulting practice specializing in quantitative approaches to petroleum industry market, refining,
environmental, investment, and strategic issues and in the provision of systems for analytical modeling. A chemical
engineer, eight years refinery operational, scheduling, supply planning, management and systems experience with
Exxon and Amoco preceded the current forty-four in international consulting, initially with Gordian Associates, London
and since 1982 under the EnSys corporate name in the U.S.A. Mr. Tallett has become an established advisor to industry
and government and a developer of decision support products and services. He is a frequent speaker at major industry
conferences, an annual invitee to the International Energy Forum Symposium in Riyadh, has authored a number of
significant articles, and is called on for his views and insights by the industry press.
EnSys Energy, led by Mr. Tallett, was increasingly at the forefront in the analysis of complex issues impacting refining
and the global downstream. Recent projects included: working with a array of oil and shipping sector clients to assess
the impacts of the IMO 2020 Sulfur Rule, detailed assessments for the European Commission focused on the impacts of
potential high ethanol use in European gasoline, working with the Departments of Energy and State to model and
assess the impacts on U.S. refining and oil markets of alternative pipeline scenarios centering around the Keystone XL
project, also with the DOE on Strategic Petroleum Reserve options, working with the American Petroleum Institute to
assess the impacts of allowing US crude oil exports, on the viability of East Coast refineries, on the potential effects on
US and global refining and trade of a potential ban on Venezuelan crude oil imports and earlier on the impacts of the
Waxman-Markey climate bill, assisting a super-major to simulate its U.S. refineries integrated within the U.S. and global
market to gauge the outlook under a range of climate regime scenarios, acting as the primary analyst for the U.S. EPA,
American Petroleum Institute and International Maritime Organization to assess the impacts on U.S. and global refining
of alternative scenarios for advanced marine fuels regulation, (which lead in to the IMO Annex VI Rule), for a leading
specialty chemicals supplier, simulating the refineries of Indonesia and India and the effects of fuels quality changes, for
a European precious metals and catalyst supplier, projecting the outlook for FCC and other types of refinery catalyst, for
the World Bank, analysis of the prospects for sub-Saharan African refining under tightening regional gasoline and diesel
quality regulations and increasing international competition, for a leading US oil company, assessing the impacts of high
price / supply constrained outlook on Atlantic Basin refining capacity, economics and trade, for Canadian First Nations
and the Government of British Columbia, evaluations of the impacts on Pacific Northwest refining, and crude oil
overland/marine movements of expanding or not expanding the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Activities included co-
authoring two Reports to Congress.
Many of EnSys' assignments centered on the application of its unique WORLD Modelฎ of the global refining and
downstream supply system. Initially developed in 1987, this model has been continuously augmented and applied on
numerous studies since. It has been used extensively for and by: U.S. DOE, EIA, EPA, API and major oil companies among
others. Since 2000, Mr. Tallett has worked closely with the OPEC Secretariat in Vienna, supplying and supporting EnSys'
WORLD model and undertaking annual joint studies released to Member Countries which assess global refining and
downstream outlooks from 2010 to 2045. As part of this, he is a cited contributor in each annual "OPEC World Oil
Outlook" (www.opec.org) with emphasis on its analysis of future refining trends and investment needs.
Under-pinning EnSys' WORLD modeling work - and built into this detailed bottom up model, is a comprehensive
understanding and database on, inter alia, crude oils (some 200), multiple refinery processes with many operating
mode / catalyst variants, extensive product representations covering gasoline, jet/kero, diesel, marine and residual
195
-------
fuels blending, specifications and additives. WORLD embodies a detailed database and representation on U.S. and
global refinery process configurations, capacities and projects that go beyond published data. As a regular component
of his work, Mr. Tallett directed regular EnSys reviews and updates which cover different aspects of crude assays,
refinery processes and products blending; also utilities consumptions, capital and operating costs, energy efficiency
trends.
Over a long period, extensive effort has been put in to analysis and representation in WORLD of processes for the
production of reformulated and ultra-low sulfur gasoline and diesel. Mr. Tallett's work on advanced/reformulated
products goes back to the late 1980's and includes numerous analyses for the EIA, EPA, DOE, ORNL, Navy, API, OPEC
and other organizations on the process requirements and costs of producing such fuels, using detailed refinery and
blend modeling. These necessitate in-depth tracking of product quality and refining processing trends.
Detailed, gasoline-focused assessments have been a theme since the late 1980's. Mr. Tallett conducted early work on
fuel reformulation in 1989 for the EIA, assessing the feasibility and economics of low-RVP and lowsulfur gasoline,
supported DOE and EPA via Oakridge National Laboratory on RFG and related assessments from the "reg neg" period in
the early 1990's through MTBE phase-out planning in the late 1990's, and for DOE published in 1993 a leading WORLD-
based study on the national and international refining, trade and economic impacts of the RFG program. These
activities also included developing a linearized version of the Complex Model which was supplied to the EIA. Analyzing
gasoline with ethanol versus MTBE has been a continuing theme in modeling and other work undertaken over the past
30 years, including, as noted above, recent studies for the European Commission on high ethanol use on gasoline in
Europe. A 2021 assignment with Solomon Associates centered on assessing the outlook for gasoline and other fuels
under the lEA's Sustainable Development Scenario with its embodied large expansion in supply of ethanol and other
biofuels.
In addition, during the last twenty years, Mr. Tallett has been heavily involved in expert witness work, many related to
use of ethanol and MTBE in US gasoline. Assignments for ExxonMobil on US West and Gulf Coast refining economics
issues, including gasoline, were followed by evaluation of the refining economics and other impacts of ethanol versus
MTBE for the State of New York when it was sued by the Oxygenated Fuels Association. Since 2006, Mr. Tallett has
worked with the representatives of water supply companies, the City of New York, the States of New Hampshire, New
Jersey and, in 2021, Pennsylvania on lawsuits relating to MTBE in ground water. Activities have included extensive work
on refinery processing technology and economics centered, mainly, on gasoline production using ethanol versus MTBE,
i.e. on evaluating the technical and economic aspects of using MTBE and ethanol in US RFG and CG; also on the
distribution of gasoline, MTBE and ethanol and related U.S. East Coast market share analyses. These assignments have
also led to assessments and testimony in support of related arbitration proceedings.
In other expert witness work, Mr. Tallett led a major evaluation of Cushing crude oil markets for the CFTC in support of
its Parnon Arcadia market manipulation suit. Mr. Tallett has also undertaken expert witness assignments for Enterprise
Products Partners, the Senate of the US Virgin Islands, and a major Canadian pipeline company among others.
Mr. Tallett possesses particular skills and experience in the areas of:
petroleum market analysis & projection
refinery technology, economics and modeling
project investment analysis
petroleum sector and business planning
petroleum industry technology, economics, environmental regulation technical/scientific/MIS
computing in the energy and process industries.
International experience encompasses: UK, Europe, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, USA, Caribbean,
South America.
196
-------
Education:
1969 B.Sc. First Class Honors, Chemical Engineering,
University of Nottingham, England
Note, this four year degree course is now called an M.Eng and equivalences to a U.S. Master's degree
Memberships / Institutions
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
International Association for Energy Economics
Institution of Chemical Engineers (UK)
Energy Institute (UK)
Experience
2020-present President, Tallett& Co, Principal Advisor, Solomon Associates
After sale of EnSys assets to Solomon Associates, continues to work actively with Solomon on WORLD-based and other
studies, including 2021 and prospective 2022 support to the OPEC Secretariat regarding downstream sections of their
annual World Oil Outlook, and evaluation of the refining impacts of 'sustainable' scenarios now being generated by the
IEA and others.
Separately, and unaffected by the sale to Solomon, has continued to be actively involved in expert witness work, notably
in 2021 for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
1980-July 2020 President, EnSys Energy & Systems, Inc.
1996-June 2021 Principal, EnSys Yocum, Inc.
Established a reputation for quality work and sound client relationships as witnessed by a high proportion of repeat
assignments. Through R&D activities and consistent pursuit of quality, brought EnSys to the leading edge of capability in
its field. Also held a lead position in the services provided by EnSys Yocum for oil and gas production facilities design and
multiphase flow measurement.
Under the EnSys Energy banner, Mr. Tallett directed a wide range of major projects and participated in
project teams for U.S. and overseas government agencies, industry organizations, oil refiners and
producers. Clients Include:
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Energy
Department of State
Energy Information Administration
Argonne National Laboratory Oak Ridge
Laboratory
U.S. Navy
OPEC Secretariat
World Bank
Eeste Energia
American Petroleum Institute
Natural Resources Canada
Ministry of Energy Ecuador
Inter-American Development
Bank/PetroTrin
International Maritime Organisation
International Council on Clean
Transportation
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
SEMARNAT Mexico
ICL (UK & Middle East)
Economist Intelligence Unit
Bloomberg
Booz Allen Hamilton (European super major)
Leading petroleum additives supplier European
catalyst supplier
US midstream LP
ICF International (European super-major)
ICF International (European Commission)
IPIECA
197
-------
BIMCO
Concawe/Fuels Europe
Petroleum Association of Japan
Canadian Fuels Association
International Chamber of Shipping
Canadian Shipowners Association
Maersk
ConocoPhillips/Phil Iips66
ExxonMobil
Koch Industries
Marathon
ARCO Chemical
Qatar General Petroleum
ADNOC
ETAP Tunisia
Air Products
Linde
Koch Industries
Union Carbide
ARCO
Caltex
ChevronTexaco
ONGC
Elf
Tesoro/Andeavor/Marathon
UOP Honeywell
Sasol
Engen
Cargill
Lubrizol
CFTC
State of New York
City of New York
State of New Hampshire
State of New New Jersey
State of Pennsylvania
Government of USVI
Gowling WLG / Tsleil-Waututh Nation
Government of British Columbia
Weitz Luxenberg
Sher Leff
Clyde & Co
The following is a list of representative assignments:
Working annually in conjunction with the OPEC Secretariat, analysis of potential global refining trends,
investments and economics now through 2045, entailing WORLD modeling projections and joint authorship of
the downstream section of each OPEC World Oil Outlook, from 2007 through 2021
For a national energy company, undertook an assessment, including using WORLD, of the market outlook for
products derived from oil shale and of the need and opportunity to invest in additional processing given fuels
quality developments, especially for gasoline and marine fuels
For an array of industry clients, also the EPA, undertook assessments of the potential supply, refining and
market impacts of the IMO Sulfur rule for over two years before it came into effect in January 2020. This
included a regular, quarterly service with multiple subscribers, a leading report for IPIECA and others that was
presented at the key IMO meeting on the Rule, and confidential assessment for a leading oil company of the
potential impacts of the Rule
For the Department of Energy, Office of Policy, undertook WORLD-based projections combined with detailed
logistics review to assess the likely need for and dispositions of SPR crude oils in today's changed world (2018)
under a series of hypothetical disruptions
For the Departments of Energy and State, undertook two major assessments of the potential impacts of rising
Canadian oil sands production and supply on U.S. refining and global oil markets under a range of alternative
pipeline scenarios centering on the Keystone XL project
For a leading European catalysts supplier, undertook a comprehensive projection of the market for hydro-
processing and FCC catalysts (an update to and expansion of prior work)
198
-------
For the American Petroleum Institute, undertook a major analysis using WORLD of the potential impacts of the
Waxman-Markey climate bill on U.S. and global refining. This study was very widely reported across the US and
international press and has contributed to influencing political opinion at the US Senate and other levels on the
potential "unintended consequences" of climate legislation and on the requirements for maintaining US energy
security while meeting climate goals
For a major oil company, a WORLD-based assessment of the post-recession outlook for refining and of the
potential effects of superimposing on that climate legislation
For the City of New York and Sher Leff, extensive expert witness support in their case against the oil industry
under MDL litigation on the impacts of MTBE in gasoline and groundwater. This followed directly from earlier
work in the Suffolk County MDL case with Weitz Luxenberg and Baron Budd, in turn preceded in 2003 by work
with the State of New York in the Pataki case which sought to revoke the State's decision to use ethanol in
place of MTBE in gasoline. Subsequent cases have included the States of New Hampshire, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.
For a major European chemical company, and working in conjunction with marine specialist associates,
undertook an in-depth assessment of the global market for marine bunker fuels additives
For the World Bank, an integrated analysis using WORLD of the impacts of product quality regulations and
global competition on sub Saharan African refining
For a US midstream company, an analysis of projected European product flows and refining activity in
association with a potential acquisition
For a US integrated oil company, a rigorous assessment of the impacts on refining and supply of a high
price/cost, low demand world, through 2025
In parallel projects for the EPA, API and IMO, evaluation of the refining impacts of potential stricter MARPOL
Annex VI regulations for international marine bunker fuels. Extensions for the EPA and for the API, the latter to
examine the impacts of proposed bill S.1499
For a specialty chemicals manufacturer, evaluation of the effects on current US and global gasoline and fuels
markets, refining and C02 emissions of wider user of proven petroleum additives
For a super-major, evaluation of the effects on U.S. Interior (PADD2) refinery processing capacity, operations
and fuel emissions of expanding Canadian tar sands syncrude production, in support of a GHG environmental
impact analysis
Evaluation of medium term refining capacity balance outlook for and with the OPEC Secretariat leading to
internal report and also basis for OPEC paper at the International Energy Forum, Doha, April 2006, as reviewed
in Oil & Gas Journal, June 18th edition
Analysis of global oil market and refining developments through 2010, 2015 and 2020 under differing scenarios
(multiple assignments involving WORLD model application)
Projection of short term (2005, 2006) global downstream refining markets and margins using WORLD preceded
by calibration of WORLD against 2001 and 2004 actual data
Redevelopment of the Bloomberg refining netbacks system and on-going support based on application of the
EnSys WORLD model in single refinery form
Reformulation of the EnSys WORLD model to meet client needs, technical and systems support and training
WORLD-based analysis of hypothetical 2003 and 2010 oil market disruptions in order to assess optimum draw
and fill strategies for the U.S. Department of Strategic Petroleum Reserve and of 2015 BAU and disruptions to
assess potential future compatibility of SPR crudes with market needs
199
-------
Testimony on the emissions and refining impacts of New York State's MTBE ban leading to full acceptance by
the court of the State's case
Testimony on crude valuation issues relating to the producers supplying into the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System.
Specific issues included valuation of residuum and naphtha cuts and the effects of cut quality differences. Led
to the FERC adopting ExxonMobil positions including Tallett method for valuing naphtha on the West Coast
Assessment, on behalf of the Senate of the USVI, of the proposed HOVENSA joint venture between Amerada
Hess and PdVsa
Refinery technology analyses and updates for the Petroleum Market Module component of the EIA NEMS
system
Support to Natural Resources Canada to enable them to adapt the US NEMS model to the Canadian energy
system
Analysis of the technology options for and economic impacts of low sulfur gasoline and highly reformulated
diesel
Development of a linearized version of the RFG Complex Model and licensing to EPA
Review of the SOx sources and emissions from U.S. refineries, assessment of emission control approaches and of the
likely impacts of proposed EPA regulations to implement a 5 minute standard for SOx emissions
Analysis of the cost impacts on U.S. refineries of Clean Water Act amendments
Comprehensive redevelopment of the manufacturing and distribution planning/optimization system for a major
processing company
Analysis of refining sector development options as part of a national petroleum sector master planning system
for the Ministry of Energy, Ecuador
TRINTOC refinery upgrade economic and market appraisal
Detailed appraisal of the U.S. market, refining and trade impacts of reformulated gasoline Simulation of
European gasoline and refining and of the economics of alternative oxygenates
Advising a leading chemical company on the refining impacts of MTBE
Design and implementation of refinery LP planning system for ADNOC
Master planning of MIS systems and organization for QGPC, Qatar
Confidential market and venture analysis for process engineering workstations
Lead author of Economist special report on "The Potential of Microcomputers in the Process Industries"
Two year project to implement a national energy modeling and planning system for ETAP (Tunisia)
Evaluation of the potential impacts of carbon taxes on U.S. OECD and non-OECD refining sectors
Detailed refinery technology analysis in support of EPA proposals for further reformulation of gasoline and
diesel fuel
Evaluation of alternative routes for enhancing refinery LP modeling within EPA and DOE
Evaluation of the petroleum sector characteristics of Louisiana and the U.S. Gulf Coast as the first step in
developing a comprehensive methodology for simulating the effects of disruptions impacting the region
Review of proposed EPA regulations for refinery NESHAPS including commentary on small refiner impacts and
proposals for alternative/graduated approaches to emissions control
200
-------
Evaluation of the Asia-Pacific petroleum market and of the market and military fuel supply impacts of
hypothetical emergencies involving major mobilization of U.S. military forces
Evaluation of the petroleum and electric sector energy systems of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and of
means to reduce their energy vulnerability, leading to a Report to Congress
Evaluation of options for mitigating heating oil supply vulnerabilities in the U.S. north east, leading to a Report
to Congress and the establishment of a north east heating oil reserve
Analysis of industry bidding responses to the SPR drawdowns during the Middle East Crisis
Middle East Crisis Market Simulations and Analyses, both at crisis onset and at the start of Desert Storm
1977-1980 Project Manager, Gordian Associates, London
Evolved into a leading member of London team, instrumental in key proposals and contracts.
Undertook market feasibility studies of Middle East refining, oil drilling services, and specialty chemicals. Techno-
economic appraisal of sixty petrochemical processes as basis for world chemicals market and modeling study.
Participated in an extensive technology transfer project for divisions of SONATRACH. Advised government departments
on the likely impacts of growing North Sea oil production.
1973-1977 AMOCO Europe, London
As Amoco Europe's first European Supply Coordinator, established improved planning procedures and data, negotiated
international fuels contracts and evaluated market/pricing tools, notably the Queen Mary College World Energy Model.
Earlier, as Technical Systems Analyst, created computing support to European refineries. Implemented and supported
new systems for: refinery modeling / planning / optimization, plant utilities, product distribution and oil accounting.
1969-1973 EXXON, ESSO Petroleum, Fawley Refinery, England
Early activities as Project Development Engineer centered on process plant design, economic and simulation studies. As
Coordinator of the Refinery Capital Budget, was responsible for board appropriations, DCF analyses, monitoring multi-
million dollar budget.
For two years in the Planning & Scheduling Department, held positions covering crude, residual fuels, distillates,
gasoline, and all main process units in this complex refinery. Achieved various firsts to improve operating economics.
Papers & Publications
Not itemized beyond 2011 but conference presentations etc. have continued, including:
2021: Opportunity Crudes Conference, (remote)
2020: Maritime Week Americas, (remote)
2019: Jacobs Petcoke Conference, San Antonio, Maritime Week Americas, Fort Lauderdale
2018: COQA, San Antonio, Jacobs Petcoke Conference, Chandler, AZ
2017: Concawe, Antwerp, Maritime Week Americas, Miami, Platts Bunker Conference, Houston, Natural Gas for High
Horsepower Summit, Houston
2016: US-China GPVI Workshop (EPA) Remote Presentation, IMO MEPC 70, London
2015: CSIS, Refining and Exports and Future of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Workshops, Washington, DC, EUCI
Webinar
201
-------
2014: Argus Asphalt Summit, Houston, EIA Global Modeling Forum, Washington, DC, Argus North American
Crude Transportation Summit, Houston, Opportunity Crudes Conference, Houston, COQA, San Francisco
2013: International Energy Forum, Riyadh, COQA, Seattle, AOPL, Newport Beach
2012: Canadian Oil Sands Summit, Calgary, WESTAC, Edmonton
"Cushing Canadian Congestion A Review of Logistics Options" Energy Forum, New York, November 22nd 2011
"Cushing Canadian Congestion & Keystone XL A Review of Logistics Options" COQA Tulsa, October 27th 2011
"Global Downstream Modeling: Refinery LP (and OMNI) Taken to an Extreme" MUG 2011 Bar Harbor, Maine, October 5
2011
"Global Outlook for the Refining Industry - Prospects & Challenges" 3rd Annual World Refining Technology Summit 2011
Houston- September 28, 2011
"Canadian Oil Sands & the Keystone XL Pipeline" LERDWG Meeting, Washington, DC April 20 2011
"Canadian Crude Oil Exports: Outlook, Options, Implications" Argus Americas Crude Summit, Houston, January 26-28
2011
"Crudes Oils & Refining - Outlook and Impacts of Regulations" Crude Oil Quality Association (COQA), Houston, October
28 2010
"Crudes, Non-crudes, Demand & Climate Regulation: the Changing World before Us" Opportunity Crudes Conference,
Houston, October 25-26 2010
"Availability of Low Sulphur Marine Fuels: Prospects & Issues", ICS International Shipping Conference, London,
September 15th 2010
"Global Downstream Developments & Their Impacts On Coke", Argus Petroleum Coke Summit Americas 2010, Houston,
September 16-17 2010
"Environmental Legislation Potential Impacts On Refining & Crude", Argus Americas Crude Summit, Houston, January 26-
28 2010
"Tougher Energy Policies And Their Impact On The Refining Industry", Global Refining Technology Summit, Vienna,
November 2nd 2009
"The Impact Of The Global Recession On The Refining Industry And The Way Out', Global Refining Technology Summit,
Vienna, November 2nd 2009
"Economic Slowdown - Impacts on Refining", Next Generation Oil & Gas, Middle East North Africa, January 2009
"Atlantic Basin Refiners Face Tough Challenges", Global Refining Strategies Conference, Houston, October 27-29th 2008
"US Crude Supply Outlook - Implications for Refining", Crude Oil Quality Group, San Antonio, October 23rd 2008
"European Diesel: Global Implications", Platts European Refining Markets Conference, Brussels, October 2223rd 2007
"Integrated Market Evaluation: Enhancing Refining Economics Through Complex Linear Programming
Technology", Global Refining Strategies Conference, Houston TX, September 10-llth 2007
"Outlook for Marine Fuels Demand & Regulation: Implications for Refining and Are We Getting Global Oil
Demand Forecasting Wrong?", 26th Annual North American Conference of the USAEE/IAEE, Ann Arbor Ml, September
24-27th 2006
"Global Outlook: Implications through 2020 of Alternative Fuel Scenarios for Refining, Crude, Hydrogen", HaldorTopsoe
Catalysis Forum 2006, Hornbaek, Denmark, August 24-25th 2006
202
-------
"Refinery Capacity: How was the ball dropped?Who is going to pick it up?", Energizing Supply: Oil & Gas Investment in
Uncertain Times, G8 Preparatory Conference, Foreign Affairs Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, October 28 2005
"Global Outlook: Implications Through 2020 of Alternative Fuels Scenarios", CatCon 2005, Philadelphia PA, October 25-26
2005
"High Oil Prices & Alternative Fuels Impacts on the US & Global Downstream", 25th Annual North American
Conference of the USAEE/IAEE, Denver CO, September 18-21 2005
"Factors Impacting Refining: U.S. & Global Contexts", USAEE/SAIS Washington Energy Conference, Washington D. C.,
April 26th 2005
"Impacts ofGTL's, Syncrudes and Non_Crudes Supplies to 2015 - an integrated WORLD modelling analysis of impacts on
crude trade, markets and refining", SMi Conference: Non Conventional Oil & Gas - Unlocking the Potential, London, June
5th 2003
"Global Refining Developments Through 2015 - Implications for Investments and TechnologyCatCon 2003, Houston
Texas, May 2003
"GTL's - How Far Can They Go?" Catalytic Advances Program, Houston Texas, May 2003
"Global Refining in 2010- Refining Capital Investment Requirements", CatCon 2001, Houston Texas, May 2001
"Economic Impacts of Reformulated Diesel", Association of Automobile Manufacturers Meeting, Baltimore MD, August,
2000
"Turmoil in Global Product Specifications", Energy Forum, New York NY, March, 2000
"Perspective on Worldwide Fuels Charter16th Annual World Fuels Conference, San Antonio TX, March, 1999
"Global Market and Environmental Impacts on Refining - the Need for Cohesive PoliciesUSAEE/IAEE 18th Annual North
American Conference, San Francisco CA September, 1997
"Industrial Energy: The Petroleum Refining Industry" The International Climate Change Conference, Baltimore MD, June
1997
"The Petroleum Industry: Growth, Investment, Regulation and Rationalization" USAEE Meeting Philadelphia PA, June
1997 EnSys Experience & Key Personnel
"Impacts of Potential Carbon Taxes on US & Global Refining, Trade & Investment" 17th Annual North American
Conference of the USAEE/IAEE, Boston, MA October 1996
"Global Petroleum Industry Modelling Using WORLD" 1995 Haverly Systems Europe MUGI Conference, Windsor,
England October 1995
"New US Gasoline Regulations Could Inspire Trading Changes" Martin R. Tallett and Peter Fusaro, Pipeline, The
International Petroleum Exchange, February 1995
"Experience with Integrated WORLD Modelling in the Department of Energy" Martin R. Tallett, Daniel N. Dunbar, J.
Leather, EIA Annual NEMS Conference, Washington, DC, February 1995
"RFG Will Help Foreign Refiners Increase US Market Share" Martin R. Tallett, Octane Week, October 10, 1994
"Emissions Standards: The New Field of Competition" Martin R. Tallett, AIC Conference on Meeting the Regulatory,
Logistic and Economic Realities of Reformulated Gasoline, Washington, DC, October 1994
"Global Outlook for Alternative Fuels" Martin R. Tallett, Peter Fusaro, 1994 Conference on Clean Air Act Implementation
& Reformulated Gasolines, Washington, DC October 1994
"Impacts of Environmental Regulations on World Regional Oil Market Economics and Trade" Martin R. Tallett, 15th
Annual North American Conference of the USAEE/IAEE, Dallas, TX September 1994
203
-------
"Impending RFG Rule's Impact Will Hit Far Beyond US" Martin R. Tallett, Peter Fusaro, Piatt's Oilgram News, June 20,
1994
"Linear Blending Values Produce Accurate Results for EPA Emission Equations" Daniel N. Dunbar, Martin R. Tallett, John
Leather, Fuel Reformulation, July/August and Sept/Oct 1993
"Year 2000: The Changed Shape of US Refining under Environmental and World Regional Impacts" Martin R. Tallett,
Daniel N. Dunbar, John Leather, National Petroleum Refiners Association Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, March 1993
AM-93-26 "Impacts of Green Gasoline" Martin R. Tallett, Daniel N. Dunbar, Petroleum Economist, April 1990
204
-------
APPENDIX D
PEER REVIEWER CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENTS
205
-------
Attachment 2
Conflict of Interest Certification
(REV 04/2019)
Order Conflict of Interest Certification (EPA Prime Contracts)
(REV 12/2017)
Subcontractor/Consultant
EPA Contract No.
Order No.:
Vincent DiVita
68HE0C18C0001
WA 3-13
In accordance with EPAAR 1552.209-71 (Organizational Conflicts of Interest), EPAAR 1552.209-73 (Notification of Conflicts of Interest Regarding Personnel), and the
terms and conditions of the subcontract agreement for services, before submitting this certification, Subcontractor/Consultant shall search its records accumulated,
at a minimum, over the past three years immediately prior to receipt of the order to determine if any conflicts exist. Subcontractor/Consultant makes the following
certifications/warranties:
ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
E3 To the best of our knowledge and belief, no actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest exist. In addition, none of the
individuals proposed for work under this order has any personal conflicts of interest.
OR:
r To the best of our knowledge and belief, all actual or potential organizational and personal conflicts of interest have been
reported to the ERG Technical Contract Manager. This disclosure statement must include a summary of the potential conflict
with respect to the work proposed to be performed, any reasons why Subcontractor/ Consultant does not believe the potential
work would be a conflict, and/or a proposed strategy for mitigating any potential conflict of interest.
This is to certify that our personnel who perform work under this order, or relating to this order, have been informed of their obligation to report personal and
organizational conflicts of interest. Subcontractor/Consultant recognizes its continuing obligation to search for, identify, and report to the ERG Technical Contract
Manager any actual or potential organizational or personnel conflicts of interests that may arise during the performance of this work order or work relating to this
order.
Vincent DiVita
Printed Name/Title
January 4, 2022
Date
206
-------
Attachment 2
Conflict of Interest Certification
(REV 04/2019)
Order Conflict of Interest Certification (EPA Prime Contracts)
(REV 12/2017)
Subcontractor/Consultant: Steven Kent Hoekman, Ph.D., Consulting
EPA Contract No. 68HEOC18C0001
Order No.: WA3-13
In accordance with EPAAR 1552.209-71 (Organizational Conflicts of Interest), EPAAR 1552.209-73 (Notification of Conflicts of Interest Regarding
Personnel), and the terms and conditions of the subcontract agreement for services, before submitting this certification, Subcontractor/Consultant
shall search its records accumulated, at a minimum, over the past three years immediately prior to receipt of the order to determine if any conflicts
exist. Subcontractor/Consultant makes the following certifications/warranties:
ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
D To the best of our knowledge and belief, no actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest exist. In
addition, none of the individuals proposed for work under this order has any personal conflicts of interest.
OR:
CH To the best of our knowledge and belief, all actual or potential organizational and personal conflicts of
interest have been reported to the ERG Technical Contract Manager. This disclosure statement must include
a summary of the potential conflict with respect to the work proposed to be performed, any reasons why
Subcontractor/ Consultant does not believe the potential work would be a conflict, and/or a proposed
strategy for mitigating any potential conflict of interest.
This is to certify that our personnel who perform work under this order, or relating to this order, have been informed of their obligation to report
personal and organizational conflicts of interest. Subcontractor/Consultant recognizes its continuing obligation to search for, identify, and report to
the ERG Technical Contract Manager any actual or potential organizational or personnel conflicts of interests that may arise during the
performance of this work order or work relating to this order.
Authorized Signature
Steven Kent Hoekman, Ph.D., Consulting
Printed Name/Title
Date
24
207
-------
Attachment 2
Conflict of interest Certification
(REV 04/2019)
Order Conflict of Interest Certification (EPA Prime Contracts)
(REV 12/2017)
Subcontractor/Consultant:
EPA Contract No.
Order No.:
Martin R. Taliett, EnSys Energy & Systems, Inc. d.b.a. Tailett & Co.
68HE0C18C0001
WA 3-13
in accordance with EPAAR 1552.209-71 (Organizational Conflicts of interest), EPAAR 1552.209-73 (Notification of Conflicts of Interest Regarding
Personnel), and the terms and conditions of the subcontract agreement for services, before submitting this certification, Subcontractor/Consultant
shall search its records accumulated, at a minimum, oyer the past three years immediately prior to receipt of the order to determine if any conflicts
exist. Subcontractor/Consultant makes the following certifications/warranties:
ORGANIZATIONALAND PERSONAL CONFUCTS OF INTEREST:
pfl To the best of our knowledge and belief, no actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest exist, in
addition, none of the individuals proposed for work under this order has any personal conflicts of interest.
OR:
~ To the best of our knowledge and belief, all actual or potential organizational and personal conflicts of
interest have been reported to the ERG Technical Contract Manager. This disclosure statement must include
a summary of the potential conflict with respect to the work proposed to be performed, any reasons why
Subcontractor/ Consultant does not believe the potential work would be a conflict, and/or a proposed
strategy for mitigating any potential conflict of interest.
This is to certify that our personnel who perform work under this order, or relating to this order, have been informed of their obligation to report
personal and organizational conflicts of interest. Subcontractor/Consultant recognizes its continuing obligation to search for, identify, and report to
the ERG Technical Contract Manager any actual or potential organizational or personnel conflicts of interests that may arise during the
performance of this work oflder or work relating to tjtfir^rder.
Authorized Signature
Martin R. Tailett, EnSys Energy & Systems, Inc. d.b.a. Taliett & Co.
Printed Name/Title
Date
24
------- |