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


-------