Some long-run effects of growing markets and renewable fuel standards on additives markets and the US ethanol industry

Journal of Policy Modeling

Volumn 25, Issue 6-7, 2003, Pages 585-608

  Gallagher, Paul W ^a   Shapouri, Hosein ^b   Price, Jeffrey ^c   Schamel, Guenter ^d   Brubaker, Heather ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION   (United States)

^d HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biofuels; Ethanol; Gasoline and additives market; MTBE ban; Oxygen standard; Renewable fuel standard

Indexed keywords

EID: 0142023943     PISSN: 01618938     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0161-8938(03)00055-3     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. California Energy Commission Staff. (2002, March). MTBE phase out in California. Consultant Report, O600-02-008CR.
2. Cole, C., & Trotta, R. (2000, February 7). "Technology licensors scramble to replace MTBE Supply" octane. Octane Week, 15(6), pp. 4-6. Pato mac, MD: Hart Publications.
3. Congressional Record. (2002, March 15). 108th congress. Energy Policy Act of 2002. S. 1766.
4. Cox T.L. Chavas J.P. An interregional analysis of price discrimination and domestic policy reform in the US dairy sector American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 2000 89-106
5. Davis, J. M. (2002). Health risk issues for methyl tert-butyl ether. In A. F. Diaz & D. L. Drogos (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACS symposium series on oxygenates in gasoline: Environmental aspects (Vol. 799). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
6. Donaldson, T. L., & Culberson, O. L. (1983, June). Chemicals from biomass: An assessment of the potential for production of chemical feedstocks from renewable resources. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Chemical Technology Division Publication ORNL/TM-8432.
7. Energy Information Administration. (2002). AEO2002 reference case forecast. Annual energy outlook.
8. Federal Register. (1995, February 16). Part II: Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 80. Regulation of fuels and fuel additives: Standards for reformulated and conventional gasoline. Final Rule.
9. Gallagher P.W. Some productivity-increasing and quality-changing technology for the soybean complex: Market and welfare effects American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 1998, February 165-174
10. Gallagher P. Johnson D. Some new ethanol technology: Cost competition and adoption effects in the petroleum market The Energy Journal 202 1999 89-120
11. Gallagher A. et al. (2001, October 26). Welfare maximization, product pricing, and market allocation in the gasoline and additives market. Department of Economics, Working paper no. 03021, Iowa State University, Ames.
12. Gary, J. H., & Handwerk, G. E. (1994). Petroleum refining: Technology and economics. New York: Marcel Dekker.
13. Gibbs, L. M. (1993, October). How gasoline has changed (pp. 18-21.). SAE Technical Paper Series 932828, Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition, Philadelphia.
14. Hohmann, N., & Rendleman, C. M. (1993, January). Emerging technologies in ethanol production. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 663.
15. John T.P. Thomas S.P. Texas plant first to isomerize n-butylenes to isobutylene Oil & Gas Journal 9121 1993, May 24 54-61
16. Kitman J.L. The secret history of lead (use of leaded gasoline) The Nation 27011 2000 1-46
17. Ladd G. Martin M. Prices and demands for input characteristics American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 1976 556-563
18. MacDonald, T., Yowell, G., & McCormack, M. (2001, August). US ethanol industry: Production capacity outlook. California Energy Commission Staff Report, P600-01-017.
19. Meekhof R.W.E. Tyner X. Holland F.D. US agricultural policy and gasol: A policy simulation American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 1980 408-415
20. National Energy Policy Development Group. (2001). Reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for America's future. Washington, DC.
21. Ragsdale R.US refiners choosing variety of routes to produce clean fuels Oil & Gas Journal 9211 1994, March 21 51-58
22. Renewable Fuels Association Staff. (1999, February 5). The use of ethanol in California clean burning gaoline: Ethanol supply/demand and logistics. Consultant Report.
23. Rhodes A.K.US refiners make complex-model RFG as they prepare for next hurdle Oil & Gas Journal 961 1998, January 5 22-27
24. Shapouri, S., Gallagher, P., & Graboski, M. (2001, February 19). The 1998 ethanol costs of production survey. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Office of the Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report no. 808, Washington, DC, 2002.
25. Takayama, T., & Judge, G. (1971). Spatial and temporal price and allocation models. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
26. UOP. (1994). The challenge of reformulated gasoline: An update on the Clean Air Act and the refining industry. 5M-11/94, Des Plaines, IL.
27. Walls M.A. Dynamic firm behavior and regional deadweight lossses from a US oil import fee Southern Economic Journal 57 2003 772-788
28. Wang, M., Saricks, C., & Santini, D. (1999, January). Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions. Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory ANL/ESD-38.
29. Wilson W.W. Prezler T. End-use performance and competition in international wheat markets American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74 1992 556-563