Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 105
4
The Economics and Economic
Effects of Biofuel Production
T
he supply of biofuels depends on the availability and price of feedstocks. As discussed
in Chapter 3, a sufficient quantity of cellulosic biomass could be produced in the
United States to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard, as amended in the Energy Inde-
pendence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (RFS2) mandate. However, buyers of biomass
would have to offer a price that incentivizes suppliers to provide the requisite amount. For
a cellulosic biomass market to be feasible, the price offered by suppliers would have to be
equal to or lower than what buyers would be willing to pay and still make a profit. The first
part of this chapter describes an economic analysis that estimates what the price of different
types of biomass would need to be for producers to supply the bioenergy market and the
cost of converting the biomass to fuel.
After this examination of the economics of producing biofuels from cellulosic biomass,
the chapter turns to look at the effects of biofuel production on related sectors of the U.S.
economy. The newly emergent biofuel market intersects with established markets in agri-
culture, forestry, and energy. The competition for feedstock created by increased production
of biofuels could have substantial economic impacts on the prices of agricultural com-
modities, food, feedstuffs, forest products, fossil fuel energy, and land values. Therefore,
the second part of this chapter examines the price effects that biofuel policy can have on
competing markets.
Along with the prices of commodities, biofuel production will likely alter the availabil-
ity of these products, which may change where they are produced and where they are de-
manded. The third part of the chapter therefore examines the effects of biofuel production
in the United States on the balance of trade. Effects on the imports and exports of grains,
livestock, wood products and woody biomass, and petroleum are discussed.
In addition to its interaction with commodity markets and trade, the biofuel industry
also has economic effects related to federal spending. To make biofuels competitive in
the energy market, the federal government supports biofuels through the RFS2 mandate
and additional policy instruments discussed in Chapter 1. Tax credits and a tariff influ-
ence government revenue and expenditures. Support policies for biofuels also affect other
105
OCR for page 106
106 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
government programs tailored to agricultural production, conservation, and human nutri-
tion. The fourth section of this chapter reviews the federal and state policies that are related
to biofuels or affected by biofuel policies and the observed and anticipated economic effects
of biofuel-support policies on other government initiatives. The rationale for public support
for these policies is also examined.
Because of the costs that biofuel policies incur, alternative options have been proposed
to achieve similar policy goals. The final section provides an overview of alternatives that
could possibly reduce or mitigate these costs while still encouraging biofuel production. It
also examines how biofuel policy may interact with federal policy to reduce carbon emis-
sions. Both policies have or would have reduction of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions as
an objective.
ESTIMATING THE POTENTIAL PRICE OF CELLULOSIC BIOMASS
As of 2011, a functioning market for cellulosic biomass does not exist. Therefore, the
committee chose to model possible prices based on production results found in published
literature. This section explains the model, along with its assumptions and results, and es-
timates the cost of converting biomass to liquid fuel. It was not feasible for the committee
to model every possible conversion pathway and biofuel product in the duration of this
study. Thus, biochemical conversion of biomass to ethanol was used as an illustration in
this analysis. The first part evaluates the production costs of various potential biorefinery
feedstocks, assuming constant biorefinery processing costs. The second part analyzes the
costs for various biorefining technologies, assuming constant feedstock costs.
Crop Residues and Dedicated Bioenergy Crops
If a cellulosic feedstock market were in existence, the data on market outcomes would
be collectable. For instance, the purchase price for feedstocks could be obtained by survey-
ing biorefineries, and the marginal costs of producing and delivering biomass feedstocks
to a biorefinery could be calculated based on observed production practices. Presumably,
if the market is operating, the price the biorefinery pays would be equal to or above the
marginal cost of production and delivery. However, at the time this report was written, a
commercial-scale cellulosic biorefinery and feedstock supply system did not exist in the
United States. As a consequence, industry values were not available to estimate or oth-
erwise assess the biomass supplier’s marginal cost or supply curve and the biorefinery’s
derived demand for biomass.
The Biofuel Breakeven model (BioBreak) was used to evaluate the costs and feasibil-
ity of a local or regional cellulosic biomass market for a variety of potential feedstocks.1
BioBreak is a simple and flexible long-run, breakeven model that represents the local or
regional feedstock supply system and biofuel refining process or biorefinery. BioBreak
calculates the maximum amount that a biorefinery would be willing to pay for a dry ton
of biomass delivered to the biorefinery gate. This value, or willingness to pay (WTP), is a
function of the price of ethanol, the conversion yield (gallons per dry ton of biomass) the
1 TheBioBreak model was originally developed as a research tool to estimate the biorefinery’s long-run, break-
even price for sufficient biomass feedstock to supply a commercial-scale biorefinery and the biomass supplier’s
long-run, breakeven price for supplying sufficient feedstock to operate such a biorefinery at capacity. An earlier
version of the model was used in the NAS-NAE-NRC report Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass:
Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts (2009b).
OCR for page 107
107
THE ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
biorefinery can expect with current technology, and the costs of processing the feedstock
(Box 4-1).
BioBreak also calculates the minimum value that a biomass feedstock producer would
be willing to accept for a dry ton of biomass delivered to the biorefinery. This value, or will-
ingness to accept (WTA), depends on the biomass feedstock producer’s supply cost (that
is, opportunity cost, production cost, and delivery cost) of supplying biomass in the long
run (Box 4-2). A local or regional biofuel market for a specific feedstock will only exist or be
sustained if the biofuel processor can obtain sufficient feedstock and the feedstock produc-
ers can deliver sufficient feedstock at a market price that allows both parties to break even
in the long run. For the analysis, BioBreak calculated the difference or “price gap” between
the supplier WTA and the processor WTP for each feedstock scenario. If the price gap is
zero or negative, a biomass market is feasible (Jiang and Swinton, 2009). If the price gap
is positive, a biofuel market cannot be sustained under the assumed feedstock production
and conversion technology.
The BioBreak model is based on a number of assumptions. First, it assumes that the
typical biomass feedstock producer minimizes costs and produces at the minimum point on
the long-run average cost curve. Second, it assumes a yield distribution for biomass crops
based on the expected mean yield and variation in yield within a region. Third, it assumes
a transportation cost based on the average hauling distance for a circular capture region
(that is, the biomass supply area) with a square road grid.2 Fourth, the model assumes
that the biorefinery has a 50-million gallon annual capacity. The model is flexible and can
be rescaled to consider other facility sizes. This scale is chosen because it is assumed to be
the minimum scale necessary to be competitive in the ethanol market. A smaller scale will
imply lower WTP. Fifth, the model assumes that each biorefinery uses a single feedstock,
and this feedstock is available without causing market disruptions (for example, changes in
land rental prices) within the biomass capture region. Most biorefineries will likely be built
to use locally sourced material for input (Babcock et al., 2011; Miranowski et al., 2011), but
to the extent that they source material from outside the capture region, the actual WTA will
be higher than is estimated in the results presented in this chapter. Sixth, beyond solving for
alternative oil price scenarios, the impact of energy price uncertainty on biofuel investment
is not considered. If potential investors require a higher return because of future energy
market uncertainty (that is, a risk premium), actual WTP will be lower and the price gap
will be higher than the price gap estimates presented in this chapter. With energy market
uncertainty, a price gap estimate below zero will satisfy the necessary condition for devel-
opment of a feedstock market (that is, both biomass supplier and biomass processor will
break even in the long run), but it may not be sufficient to induce investment.3
2 Due to heterogeneity in nontransportation production costs within the capture region, BioBreak uses the aver-
age distance rather than the capture region distance. Although the transportation cost per unit of biomass will
be higher at the edge of the capture region, the supplier’s minimum willingness to accept will not necessarily be
strictly increasing with distance due to heterogeneity in production and opportunity costs. Even with higher trans-
portation costs, a biomass supplier at the edge of the capture region with low production costs may be willing to
supply biomass at a lower price than a biomass supplier with relatively high production costs located close to the
biorefinery. BioBreak assumes that the average hauling distance within the capture region is representative of the
location of the last unit of biomass purchased by the biorefinery to meet the biorefinery feedstock demand. Using
the capture region distance would provide the correct estimate of the supplier’s willingness to accept if the last
unit of biomass purchased by the biorefinery is located at the edge of the capture region but would overestimate
the supplier’s willingness to accept in all other cases.
3 For additional information on BioBreak model assumptions and limitations, refer to Appendix K and to Mi-
ranowski and Rosburg (2010).
OCR for page 108
OCR for page 109
OCR for page 110
OCR for page 111
OCR for page 112
OCR for page 113
113
THE ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
rotation (CS).5 A 4-year corn stover-alfalfa rotation with 2 years of each crop (that is, CCAA)
also was included. To account for regional variation in climate and agronomic character-
istics, the WTP and WTA for switchgrass were evaluated in three regions: Midwest (MW),
South-Central (SC), and Appalachia (App).6 Miscanthus was also evaluated in the Midwest
and Appalachian regions, while corn stover and wheat straw were assumed to be pro-
duced on cropland used for production in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest7 regions,
respectively. To account for the heterogeneity in Midwest land quality, perennial grasses
(switchgrass and Miscanthus) on high quality (HQ) and low quality (LQ) Midwest crop-
land were also considered. This is not an exhaustive list of potential feedstocks or of the
potential variation in productivity across the United States, but it provides information on
13 combinations of the most widely discussed feedstocks in regions where they are likely to
be produced. The 13 combinations evaluated were: corn stover (CS), stover-alfalfa, alfalfa,
Midwest switchgrass (HQ), Midwest switchgrass (LQ), Appalachian switchgrass, South-
Central switchgrass, Midwest Miscanthus (LQ), Midwest Miscanthus (HQ), Appalachian
Miscanthus, wheat straw, short-rotation woody crops (SRWC), and forest residues.
BioBreak derives a point estimate of WTA, WTP, and the price gap for a biorefinery
with a fixed capacity and a local feedstock supply area. The point estimates are based on
a number of assumptions and a number of parameter inputs. Since many of these param-
eter inputs are uncertain, BioBreak uses Monte Carlo simulation to assess the implications
of this uncertainty on the results.8 Monte Carlo simulation permits parameter variability,
parameter correlation, and sensitivity testing not available in fixed parameter analysis.9
For this analysis, distributional assumptions for each parameter were based on empirical
data updated to 2007 values and verified with industry information when available.10 If
appropriate data were insufficient or not available, a distribution was constructed to fit
available data or a range of industry values was obtained. A sensitivity analysis was then
performed to determine importance. Monte Carlo simulation with parameter distributional
assumptions captures the range of variability found in the estimates in the literature, which
were used in this analysis. Boxes 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the equations used to calculate the
biorefinery’s WTP and the biomass feedstock supplier’s WTA and the assumptions used in
this committee’s analysis for the BioBreak model parameters. Appendix K provides further
details about the assumptions for the feedstock supply costs. Summary tables of parameter
assumptions used in the analysis are available in Appendix L, while Appendix M provides
a review of the literature used to construct the parameter assumptions.
5 Compared to a corn-soybean rotation, corn from continuous corn production has a yield penalty but produces
more stover over the course of the rotation. If the price of stover were sufficiently high, a farmer could find it more
profitable to switch to continuous corn production because the additional stover revenue would more than offset
the yield penalty (that is, opportunity cost). Whether this would occur in practice is in dispute.
6 Midwest includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. South-Central
applies to Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Appalachian refers to Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
7 Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.
8 For the Monte Carlo simulations, BioBreak uses Oracle’s spreadsheet-based program Crystal Ball®.
9 See NAS-NAE-NRC (2009b) for an example of BioBreak applied in a fixed parameter analysis.
10 Costs were updated using USDA-NASS agricultural prices from 1999-2007 (USDA-NASS, 2007a,b).
OCR for page 114
OCR for page 115
115
THE ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
TABLE 4-1 BioBreak Simulated Mean WTP, WTA, and Difference per Dry Ton Without
Policy Incentives
Price Gap
Price Gap in in Dollars
Dollars per per Gallon
WTA-WTP Gallon of of Gasoline
WTA WTP (per dry ton) Ethanol Equivalent
Stover (CS) $92 $25 $67 $0.96 $1.43
Stover-Alfalfa $92 $26 $66 $0.94 $1.42
Alfalfa $118 $26 $92 $1.31 $1.97
Switchgrass (MW) $133 $26 $106 $1.51 $2.28
Switchgrass (MW LQ) $126 $27 $99 $1.41 $2.13
Switchgrass (App) $100 $26 $74 $1.06 $1.59
Switchgrass (SC) $98 $26 $72 $1.03 $1.53
Miscanthus (MW) $115 $26 $89 $1.27 $1.90
Miscanthus (MW LQ) $119 $27 $93 $1.33 $1.98
Miscanthus (App) $105 $27 $79 $1.13 $1.69
Wheat Straw $75 $27 $49 $0.70 $1.04
SRWC $89 $24 $65 $0.93 $1.39
Forest Residues $78 $24 $54 $0.77 $1.16
NOTE: Oil price is assumed to be $111 per barrel and conversion efficiency of biomass to fuel is assumed to be
70 gallons per dry ton.
biofuels could lead investors to conclude the cellulosic mandate is not rigid (see Chapter 6
for further discussion of RINs).
Without policy intervention, no feedstock market is feasible in economic terms in the
baseline scenario. The price gap that would need to be closed to sustain a feedstock market
ranges between $49 per dry ton for wheat straw to $106 per dry ton for switchgrass grown
on high-quality land in the Midwest. Figure 4-2 provides a graphical depiction of the price
gap for all 13 feedstock-rotation combinations (see also Box 4-3).
The breakeven values and resulting price gaps depicted in Figure 4-2 are sensitive
to assumptions and parameters used in the analysis. One key parameter in the BioBreak
model is the price of oil (see Box 4-1). The price of oil drives the processor’s derived demand
for feedstock given biomass conversion cost and influences biomass supply cost through
production costs. An increase (decrease) in the price of oil increases (decreases) what the
processor can pay per dry ton of each feedstock and break even in the long run. At the same
time, an increase (decrease) in the oil price increases (decreases) harvest and transportation
costs resulting in a higher (lower) biomass supplier long-run breakeven cost. Given the
assumptions, the effect on the processor’s derived demand price from an oil price change
dominates the effect on the biomass supply cost. Therefore, the price gap (WTA – WTP)
decreases with higher oil prices and vice versa.
The results in Table 4-1 and Figures 4-1 and 4-2 assume an oil price of $111 per barrel. At
an oil price of $191 per barrel, the price gap is eliminated for several feedstocks, including
stover (CS), switchgrass (App, SC), Miscanthus (App), wheat straw, SRWC, forest residue,
and stover-alfalfa. Remaining feedstocks have a price gap between $5 and $23 per dry ton.
Correspondingly, the price gap increases to between $110 and $168 per dry ton of biomass
with an oil price of $52 per barrel. The breakeven price is also sensitive to the conversion rate
of biomass to ethanol. The baseline results assume a conversion rate of 70 gallons per dry ton
OCR for page 170
170 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
tonne for a resulting carbon price between $100 and $120 per tonne CO2 eq.33 The estimated
carbon price is sensitive to technological progress, such as biorefinery and fuel efficiency,
and to the parameter values influencing breakeven values for the biomass processor and
supplier, including the oil price, regional biomass productivity, and parameter variability.
Interaction with Agricultural and Forestry Offsets
Under a national carbon policy, biofuels would not be the only way to reduce carbon.
Another means that could be encouraged is using agricultural land or forestry to supply
carbon credits to carbon markets. These credits have come be to known as “offsets,” given
that they are often assumed to be used to offset emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy
sector. Offsets work by reducing GHG emissions from some activity in the agricultural or
forestry sector or by increasing the carbon stored in soils or forest biomass. Examples of
activities that potentially generate offsets include conversion of land to forests (afforesta-
tion), extending timber rotations, increasing forest management, shifting from conventional
tillage to no tillage, reducing methane (CH4) emissions from livestock operations, reducing
fossil fuel use associated with agriculture, and reducing nitrogen oxide emissions from
production agriculture (EPA, 2005). The amount of carbon offset by feedstocks differs with
the type of crop, previous land uses, crop management, and agrichemical use.
Environmental policies that encourage carbon offsets in agriculture or forestry will
have important interactions with biofuel policies because they could influence the total
amount of land devoted to forest or agricultural production. A number of studies have
examined the implications of offsets for land use in the United States. One of the most im-
portant effects relates to the potential for land-use change, and specifically for conversion
of land into forests. A model by EPA (2005) suggested that up to 90 million acres of crop
and pastureland could be converted to forestland if carbon prices are in the range of $15-
$50 per tonne of CO2 eq. Results from Sohngen (2010) suggest similarly large changes in
land use, around 100 million acres of new forestland by 2050 with carbon prices of $30 per
tonne CO2 eq.34 These studies assume one of two types of carbon payment regimes, either
a carbon rental regime that makes rental payments as carbon is stored in forests and a pay-
ment for storage in wood products or a subsidy for storage and a tax for the net emission
at harvest. Note that these two payment schemes are equivalent in present value terms for
newly planted forests. In both these studies, the changes in land use described above are
net of all underlying changes. New forests are derived from a combination of crop, pasture,
and rangeland. Additional land-use changes outside the United States are captured by the
global study by Sohngen (2010) but not by the EPA (2005) study. The scale of the changes
in land use associated with carbon policies suggests that the overall value for land would
increase dramatically if carbon policies were implemented.
Such large shifts in land use occur with carbon offset policies because offsets in forestry
are particularly valuable. Consider a typical acre of cropland in the Eastern Corn Belt. The
accumulation of carbon if land is converted to mixed hardwoods could be as much as 4
tonnes CO2 eq per acre per year (Figure 4-24). Further, the carbon in the mixed hardwoods
33 Further,if fuel cell vehicle technology operating on pure ethanol (E100) is available by 2020, the carbon price
would decrease to range between $54 to $68 per tonne CO2eq assuming a fuel economy of 44.3 mpgge for fuel cell
vehicles and a conversion yield of 80 gallons per dry ton of feedstock.
34 Those model projections must be interpreted in the context of recent changes in land-use patterns in the United
States. From 1982 to 2007, cultivated cropland declined by 70 million acres (from 375 million to 305 million acres),
developed land increased by 40 million acres (from 71 million to 111 million acres), and there was little change in
forestland, pastureland, rangeland, and noncultivated cropland (USDA, 2009).
OCR for page 171
OCR for page 172
OCR for page 173
OCR for page 174
174 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
in the United States, and they could constitute 30 to 50 percent of the total carbon seques-
tered in the next 30 years (EPA, 2005; Sohngen, 2010). Payments for these activities can be
provided to owners with standing timber stocks in order to generate carbon offset credits.
Since these incentives value the standing stock of timber, they would serve to increase the
value of forests and make standing forests more competitive with other types of land uses,
including feedstock production for biofuels. In other words, comprehensive carbon offset
policies that pay for offsets through management and increasing timber rotation ages will
increase the value of land and make the provision of tons of biomass for bioenergy markets
more expensive.
It is difficult at this time to determine what the net effect of both carbon offsets and RFS2
would be on land use. Market studies of carbon offsets imply that additional land converts
from livestock and crops to forests under most carbon price scenarios and that the returns
to all types of land uses increase, though these studies do not account for the expansion
of developed land. The recent EPA study on RFS2 suggests that the area of land used for
dedicated bioenergy crops, such as switchgrass, increase, while forestland and rangeland
decline. The combination of these results suggests that carbon offsets would compete with
cellulosic biofuel production for the same land; thus, environmental policies that encourage
carbon offsets could raise the costs of producing cellulosic biofuel feedstocks. Considered a
different way, however, this also implies that carbon offsets could limit the negative exter-
nalities associated with converting natural forests to dedicated bioenergy crops.
An important caveat to this conclusion occurs if cellulosic biofuel feedstocks are in-
creasingly derived from forest sawtimber and pulpwood supplies rather than residues. In
this case, the demand for wood products would increase, timber prices would rise, and land
returns in forestry would increase. Because long-term, sustained increases in timber prices
raise timber rotation ages over time, and an increase in rotation age expands the supply of
timber, in some cases, biofuel outputs and carbon offsets may be complementary.
An additional possible response of markets to increasing biofuel demands is to shift
land towards shorter rotation species. Shorter rotations can increase land values, but they
do not necessarily increase timber supplies, as discussed in Box 4-6. The key way in which
shorter rotations can increase timber supplies occurs if managers are able to manage them
better to produce the desired outputs. For instance, there has been a long history of conver-
sion of hardwoods to softwoods in the Southern United States. The key gain here has been
an increase in value on the landscape as managers have been better able to control condi-
tions on softwood plantations, and they have been able to obtain higher value output per
acre with softwoods than hardwoods. However, net production of biomass on hardwoods
is typically greater, but less of it is suitable for high-value market products on a per acre
basis (Sohngen and Brown, 2006).
CONCLUSION
Because cellulosic biofuel is not yet commercially viable, the economics of this type of
fuel and its economic effects on other commodities and government programs are specula-
tive. However, with the data that are available and the present state of technology, cellulosic
biofuel is not cost-competitive with fossil fuels without government support. Unless more
subsidies are used, the RFS2 mandate is enforced rigidly, taxes on petroleum products
are increased, or rapid technological advancements are made, cellulosic biofuel will not
substantially affect other commodity markets, though it could have repercussions for the
federal budget. If cellulosic biofuel becomes commercially viable, land prices will increase
due to competition with other agricultural or forestry uses, though the extent of the increase
OCR for page 175
175
THE ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
due to biofuels will depend on the productivity of the land used for biomass production
as well as demand for other uses of the land. Fossil fuel prices may decline slightly and
imports will decrease, but this will also be influenced by improved fuel efficiency in the
U.S. vehicle fleet and the capacity of the U.S. fleet to use biofuels. Because of its scarcity
and its density, more woody biomass may be imported to meet the demand for biofuels
and traditional uses.
Corn-grain ethanol and, to a lesser extent, soybean biodiesel are closer to being com-
petitive with fossil fuels, particularly when combined with the tax credit and encouraged
by RFS2. They have contributed to upward price pressure on agricultural commodities,
food, and livestock feed; however, they are just one factor among many, including the
growing global population, crop failures in other countries, decline in the value of the U.S.
dollar, and speculative activity in the marketplace. The greater use of DDGS in animal feed
to some extent has muted the unfavorable effects on the livestock industry.
If policies that were in place at the time this report was written are continued, it is
extremely likely that meeting RFS2 will increase the federal budget, particularly in terms
of subsidies spent on grants, loans, and loan guarantees to encourage cellulosic biofuel
production and in terms of tax revenue forgone by the tax credits for blending biofuel
with fossil fuels. To the extent that biofuel policy has raised food-related prices, it has af-
fected federal spending in programs related to agriculture and food. Deciphering biofuels’
contribution to increases or decreases in these programs is difficult, though, because of the
number of variables. The effect of RFS2 on federal spending on conservation programs is
uncertain. It remains to be seen whether biofuel feedstock production competes with acres
or payments for CRP.
REFERENCES
Abbott, C. 2010. U.S. Biofuels Hurt if 2010 Tax Break Expires—Report. Available online at http://www.reuters.
com/article/2010/03/09/biofuels-usa-taxbreak-idUSN0924548320100309. Accessed February 10, 2011.
Abbott, P.C., C. Hurt, and W.E. Tyner. 2009. What’s Driving Food Prices? March 2009 Update. Oak Brook, IL: Farm
Foundation.
Abbott, P.C., C. Hurt, and W.E. Tyner. 2011. What’s Driving Food Prices in 2011? Oak Brook, IL: Farm Foundation.
Aden, A., M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura, K. Neeves, J. Sheehan, B. Wallace, L. Montague, A. Slayton, and J. Lu-
kas. 2002. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute
Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
Anex, R.P., A. Aden, F.K. Kazi, J. Fortman, R.M. Swanson, M.M. Wright, J.A. Satrio, R.C. Brown, D.E. Daugaard,
A. Platon, G. Kothandaraman, D.D. Hsu, and A. Dutta. 2010. Techno-economic comparison of biomass-to-
transportation fuels via pyrolysis, gasification, and biochemical pathways. Fuel 89(Supplement 1):S29-S35.
Babcock, B., S. Marette, and D. Treguer. 2011. Opportunity for profitable investments in cellulosic biofuels. Energy
Policy 39:714-719.
Babcock, B.A., and J.F. Fabiosa. 2011. The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting His-
tory. Ames: Iowa State University - Center for Agricultural and Rural Development.
Babcock, B.A., K. Barr, and M. Carriquiry. 2010. Costs and Benefits to Taxpayers, Consumers, and Producers from
U.S. Ethanol Policies. Ames: Iowa State University - Center for Agricultural and Rural Development.
Baffes, J., and T. Haniotis. 2010. Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective. Washington, DC:
The World Bank.
Baier, S., M. Clements, C. Griffiths, and J. Ihrig. 2009. Biofuels Impact on Crop and Food Prices: Using an Interac-
tive Spreadsheet. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Banse, M., H. van Mejil, A. Tabeau, and G. Woltjer. 2008. Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricultural markets?
European Review of Agricultural Economics 35(2):117-141.
Becker, D., P. Jakes, D. Abbas, K.E. Halvorsen, P.J. Jakes, S.M. McCaffrey, and C. Moseley. 2009. Characterizing
Lessons Learned from Federal Biomass Removal Projects. Boise, ID: Joint Fire Science Program.
OCR for page 176
176 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
Bengston, D.N., and Z. Xu. 1995. Changing National Forest Values: A Content Analysis. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture - Forest Service.
Bengston, D.N., T.J. Webb, and D.P. Fan. 2004. Shifting forest value orientations in the United States, 1980–2001: A
computer content analysis. Environmental Values 13(3):373-392.
Cai, X., X. Zhang, and D. Wang. 2011. Land availability for biofuel production. Environmental Science & Technol-
ogy 45(1):334-339.
Capehart, T., and J. Richardson. 2008. Food Price Inflation: Causes and Impacts. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
CBO (Congressional Budget Office). 2009. The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emis-
sions. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
CBO (Congressional Budget Office). 2010. Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and Environmental Policy
Goals. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
Collett, S., and P. Villega, eds. 2005. The Poultry Informed Professional. Issue 85:July/August. Athens: The Uni-
versity of Georgia.
Collett, S., and P. Villega, eds. 2008. The Poultry Informed Professional. Issue 99:May/June. Athens: The University
of Georgia.
Collett, S., and P. Villega, eds. 2011. The Poultry Informed Professional. Issue 118:May/June. Athens: The Univer-
sity of Georgia.
Collins, K. 2008. The Role of Biofuels and Other Factors in Increasing Farm and Food Prices: A Review of Recent
Developments with a Focus on Feed Grain Markets and Market Prospects. Northfield, IL: Kraft Food Global,
Inc.
Cotti, C., and M. Skidmore. 2010. The impact of state government subsidies and tax credits in an emerging indus-
try: Ethanol production 1980-2007. Southern Economic Journal 76(4):1076-1093.
Cowan, T. 2010. Conservation Reserve Program: Status and Current Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
Crompton, J. 2008. Food Bank Crisis: Funding Cutbacks Cripple Efforts to Feed the Hungry. Available online at
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08104/872253-58.stm. Accessed November 2, 2010.
Cubbage, F., S. Koesbandana, P. Mac Donagh, R. Rubilar, G. Balmelli, V.M. Olmos, R. De La Torre, M. Murara, V.A.
Hoeflich, H. Kotze, R. Gonzalez, O. Carrero, G. Frey, T. Adams, J. Turner, R. Lord, J. Huang, C. MacIntyre,
K. McGinley, R. Abt, and R. Phillips. 2010. Global timber investments, wood costs, regulation, and risk. Bio-
mass and Bioenergy 34(12):1667-1678.
de Gorter, H., and D.R. Just. 2010. The social costs and benefits of biofuels: The intersection of environmental,
energy and agricultural policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(1):4-32.
de Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson, and R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation
of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41(3):393-408.
Dietz, T., A. Dan, and R. Shwom. 2007. Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural
influences. Rural Sociology 72(2):185-214.
Donohue, M., and D.L. Cunningham. 2009. Effects of grain and oilseed prices on the costs of U.S. poultry produc-
tion. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 18(2):325-337.
Duffield, J.A., I. Xiarchos, and S.A. Halbrook. 2008. Ethanol policy: Past, present, and future. South Dakota Law
Review 53(3):425-456.
Dunlap, R.E. 2010. Climate change and rural sociology: Broadening the research agenda. Rural Sociology
75(1):17-27.
Dunlap, R.E., and K.D. Van Liere. 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument
and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education 9(4):10-19.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2008a. Annual Energy Outlook 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy - Energy Information Administration.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2008b. Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy
Markets 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2010a. Annual Energy Outlook 2010—With Projections to 2035.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2010b. Annual Energy Review 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy - Energy Information Administration.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2010c. Petroleum and other liquids: Cushing, OK WTI spot
price FOB (Dollars per Barrel). Available online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.
ashx?n=PET&s=RWTC&f=D. Accessed September 20, 2011.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S. Forestry and
Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
OCR for page 177
177
THE ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Espey, M. 1996. Explaining the variation in elasticity estimates of gasoline demand in the United States: A meta-
analysis. Energy Journal 17(3):49-60.
Espey, M. 1998. Gasoline demand revisited: An international meta-analysis of elasticities. Energy Economics
20(3):273-295.
FAPRI (Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute). 2010. U.S. Baseline Briefing Book: Projections for Agri-
cultural and Biofuel Markets. Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia.
Fight, R.D., B.R. Hartsough, and P. Noordijk. 2006. Users Guide for FRCS: Fuel Reduction Cost Simulator Software.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service.
Fischer, G., E. Hizsnyik, S. Prieler, M. Shah, and H. van Velthuizen. 2009. Biofuels and Food Security. Vienna,
Austria: OPEC Fund for International Development / International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Forest2Market. 2010. Delivered Price Benchmark Service. Available online at http://www.forest2market.com/.
Accessed February 14, 2011.
French, B.C. 1960. Some considerations in estimating assembly cost functions for agricultural processing opera-
tions. Journal of Farm Economics 42(4):767-778.
Galik, C.S., R. Abt, and Y. Wu. 2009. Forest biomass supply in the southeastern United States—Implications for
industrial roundwood and bioenergy production. Journal of Forestry 107(2):69-77.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1993. A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process. Washing-
ton: U.S. General Accounting Office.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2004. Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. Washington: U.S. General
Accounting Office.
GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2011. Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Govern-
ment Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. Washington: U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
Gardner, B.L. 1975. Farm retail price spread in a competitive food-industry. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 57(3):399-409.
Gardner, B.L. 1987. The Economics of Agricultural Policies. New York: Macmillan.
Gehlhar, M., A. Winston, and A. Somwaru. 2010. Effects of Increased Biofuels on the U.S. Economy in 2022. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service.
Glauber, J. 2008. Full Committee Hearing to Receive Testimony on the Relationship between U.S. Renewable Fuels
Policy and Food Prices before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, June 12.
Goodwin, P., J. Dargay, and M. Hanly. 2004. Elasticities of road traffic and fuel consumption with respect to price
and income: A review. Transport Reviews 24(3):275-292.
Graham, D.J., and S. Glaister. 2002. The demand for automobile fuel: A survey of elasticities. Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy 36(1):1-25.
Haynes, R.W. 2003. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1952 to 2050. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture - Forest Service.
Haynes, R.W. 2008. Emergent Lessons from a Century of Experience with Pacific Northwest Timber Markets.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Heaton, E.A., S.P. Long, T.B. Voigt, M.B. Jones, and J. Clifton-Brown. 2004. Miscanthus for renewable energy gen-
eration: European Union experience and projections for Illinois. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change 9(4):433-451.
Hertel, T.W., and J.F. Beckman. 2010. Commodity price volatility in the biofuel era: An examination of the linkage
between energy and agricultural markets. Paper read at the 2010 Annual Agricultural and Applied Econom-
ics Association Meeting, July 25-27, Denver, CO.
Hertel, T.W., W.E. Tyner, and D.K. Birur. 2010. The global impacts of biofuel mandates. Energy Journal 31(1):75-100.
Howard, J.L. 2007. U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics 1965 to 2005. Madison, WI:
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service.
Huang, H.-J., S. Ramaswamy, W. Al-Dajani, U. Tschirner, and R.A. Cairncross. 2009. Effect of biomass species
and plant size on cellulosic ethanol: A comparative process and economic analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy
33(2):234-246.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2008. Is inflation back? Commodity prices and inflation in World Economic
Outlook, October 2008: Financial Stress, Downturns, and Recoveries. Washington, DC: International Mon-
etary Fund.
IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2010. IMF primary commodity prices. Available online at http://www.imf
.org/external/np/res/commod/index.asp. Accessed September 22, 2010.
OCR for page 178
178 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
ISUE (Iowa State University Extension). 2010. Decision Tools—Crop Decisions. Available online at http://www.
extension.iastate.edu/agdm/decisionaidscd.html. Accessed February, 1, 2011.
Jenkins, B.M., R.B. Williams, N. Parker, P. Tittmann, Q. Hart, M.C. Gildart, S. Kaffka, B.R. Hartsough, and P. Demp-
ster. 2009. Sustainable use of California biomass resources can help meet state and national bioenergy targets.
California Agriculture 63(4):168-177.
Jensen, H.H., and B.A. Babcock. 2007. Do biofuels mean inexpensive food is a thing of the past? Iowa Ag Review
13(3):4-5, 11.
Jiang, Y., and S.M. Swinton. 2009. Market interactions, farmer choices, and the sustainability of growing advanced
biofuels: A missing perspective? International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
16(6):438-450.
Johnson, D.M., K.E. Halvorsen, and B.D. Solomen. 2011. Upper midwestern U.S. consumers and ethanol: Knowl-
edge, beliefs and consumption. Biomass and Bioenergy 35(4):1454-1464.
Johnson, S. 2008. Commodity Prices: Outlook and Risks. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Kempton, W., J.S. Boster, and J.A. Hartley. 1996. Environmental Values in American Culture. 1st MIT Press, pbk.
ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Khanna, M. 2008. Cellulosic biofuels: Are they economically viable and environmentally sustainable? Choices
23(3):16-23.
Khanna, M., and B. Dhungana. 2007. Economics of alternative feedstocks. Pp. 129–146 in Corn-Based Ethanol in
Illinois and the U.S.: A Report from the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of
Illinois. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Khanna, M., B. Dhungana, and J. Clifton-Brown. 2008. Costs of producing Miscanthus and switchgrass for bioen-
ergy in Illinois. Biomass and Bioenergy 32(6):482-493.
Khanna, M., X. Chen, H. Huang, and H. Onal. 2010. Supply of cellulosic biofuel feedstocks and regional produc-
tion patterns. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(2):472-280.
Kior. 2011. SEC Filings. Available online at http://investor.kior.com/sec.cfm. Accessed August 1, 2011.
Kløverpris, J., H. Wenzel, and P. Nielsen. 2008. Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop con-
sumption. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(1):13-21.
Koplow, D. 2009. State and federal subsidies to biofuels: Magnitude and options for redirection. International
Journal of Biotechnology 11(1/2):92-126.
Lazear, E. 2008. Hearing on Responding to the Global Food Crisis before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
May 14.
Leibtag, E. 2008. Corn prices near record high, but what about food costs? Amber Waves 6(February):11-15.
Lipsky, J. 2008. Commodity Prices and Global Inflation: Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 8,
New York City.
Lustig, N. 2008. Thought for Food: The Challenges of Coping with Soaring Food Prices. Washington, DC: Center
for Global Development.
Manomet (Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences). 2010. Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon
Policy Study: Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Brunswick,
ME: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
Miranowski, J., and A. Rosburg. 2010. Using cellulosic ethanol to “go green”: What price for carbon? Paper read
at the 2010 Annual Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, July 25–27, Denver, CO.
Miranowski, J., M. Khanna, and J.R. Hess. 2011. Economic of feedstock production, harvest, storage, and transport.
Proceedings of the Sustainable Feedstocks for Advanced Biofuels Workshop.
Mitchell, D. 2008. A Note on Rising Food Prices. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
NAS-NAE-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council).
2009a. America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
NAS-NAE-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council).
2009b. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental
Impacts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Neeley, T. 2010. Biodiesel industry asks for reinstatement of tax credit before election. Available online at http://
www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/view/blog/getBlog.do;jsessionid=6798D52B11E8AD50A8797C9A
D6AB4F3A.agfreejvm2?blogHandle=ethanol&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc2a8c8730012b445bc23e08ec. Accessed
February 10, 2011.
NHDRA (New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration). 2010. Average Stumpage Value List. Con-
cord: New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2010. Budget of the U.S. Government: Fiscal Year 2011—The Budget.
Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview. Accessed October 26, 2010.
OCR for page 179
179
THE ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
Perlack, R.D., and B.J. Stokes (Leads). 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioprod-
ucts Industry. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Perlack, R.D., L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, and D.C. Erbach. 2005. Biomass as Feedstock
for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Perrin, R.K. 2008. Ethanol and food prices: Preliminary assessment. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Reinbold, D. 2008. Price Increases Keep Local Food Banks Busy. Available online at http://voicesweb.org/
node/1674. Accessed November 2, 2010.
Roland-Holst, D. 2010. Will emerging markets decide the food-fuel debate? Presentation to the Committee on
Economic and Environmental Effects of Increasing Biofuels Production on October 7.
Rosegrant, M.W. 2008. Hearing on Biofuels and Grain Prices: Impacts and Policy Responses before the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, May 7.
Ruttan, V.W. 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Schick, A. 2000. The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. Revised ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Schmit, T.M., R.N. Boisvert, D. Enahoro, and L.E. Chase. 2009. Optimal dairy farm adjustments to increased utiliza-
tion of corn distillers dried grains with solubles. Journal of Dairy Science 92(12):6105-6115.
Sedjo, R.A. 2010. The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): Some Implications for the Forest Industry. Wash-
ington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Sedjo, R.A., and B. Sohngen. 2009. The Implications of Increased Use of Wood for Biofuel Production. Washington,
DC: Resources for the Future.
Smith, C.E. 2010. Special Report; Pipeline construction plans slow for 2010. Available online at http://www.ogj.
com/articles/print/volume-108/issue-6/technology/special-report-pipeline.html. Accessed March 8, 2010.
Sohngen, B. 2010. Forestry carbon sequestration. Pp. 114-141 in Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing
Costs and Benefits, B. Lomborg, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sohngen, B., and S. Brown. 2006. The influence of conversion of forest types on carbon sequestration and other
ecosystem services in the south central United States. Ecological Economics 57(4):698-708.
Sohngen, B.L., and R.W. Haynes. 1994. The “Great” Price Spike Of ’93: An Analysis of Lumber and Stumpage
Prices in the Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service.
Sohngen, B., J. Anderson, S. Petrova, and K. Goslee. 2010. Alder Springs Biomass Removal Economic Analysis.
Arlington, VA: Winrock International and U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service.
Solomon, B.D., and N.H. Johnson. 2009. Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass etha-
nol. Ecological Economics 68(7):2137-2144.
Solomon, B.D., J.R. Barnes, and K.E. Halvorsen. 2007. Grain and cellulosic ethanol: History, economics, and energy
policy. Biomass and Bioenergy 31(6):416-425.
Spelter, H., and D. Toth. 2009. North America’s Wood Pellet Sector. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Forest Service.
Stebbins, C. 2011. Analysis: U.S. biodiesel on life support, but smiling. Available online at http://www.reuters.
com/article/2011/02/04/us-usa-bi0diesel-idUSTRE7130H920110204?feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA
-GreenBusiness. Accessed February 10, 2011.
Steenblik, R. 2007. Biofuels—At What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel in Selected OECD
Countries. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Stubbs, M. 2010. Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP): Status and Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service.
Swanson, R.M., J.A. Satrio, R.C. Brown, and D.D. Hsu. 2010. Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production
Based on Gasification. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Swinton, S.M., B.A. Babcock, L.K. James, and V. Bandaru. 2011. Higher US crop prices trigger little area expansion
so marginal land for biofuel crops is limited. Energy Policy 39:5254-5258.
Taheripour, F., T.W. Hertel, and W.E. Tyner. 2010. Implications of biofuels mandates for the global livestock industry:
A computable general equilibrium analysis. Agricultural Economics 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00517.x:1-18.
TCPA (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts). 2008. Government financial subsidies. Pp. 367-402 in The Energy
Report 2008. Austin: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Timber-Mart South. 2010. South-wide Average Prices Available online at http://www.tmart-south.com/prices
.html. Accessed February 14, 2011.
Timilsina, G.R., and A. Shrestha. 2010. Biofuels: Markets, Targets and Impacts. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Tomek, W.G., and K.L. Robinson. 1983. Agricultural Product Prices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Trostle, R. 2008. Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent Increase in Food
Commodity Prices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service.
OCR for page 180
180 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD
Tyner, W.E. 2008. The U.S. ethanol and biofuels boom: Its origins, current status, and future prospects. BioScience
58(7):646-653.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. New Residential Construction: Building Permits, Housing Starts, and Housing Comple-
tions. Available online at http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html#. Accessed Novem-
ber 9, 2010.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2009. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory. Washington,
DC, and Ames, Iowa: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service and Center
for Survey Statistics and Methodology.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2011. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2020. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
USDA-ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service). 2007. Major Land Uses: U.S. Cropland
Used for Crops. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/MajorLandUses/. Accessed February
14, 2011.
USDA-ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service). 2011a. Feed Grains Database: Custom
Queries. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Feedgrains/CustomQuery/. Accessed August
29, 2011.
USDA-ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service). 2011b. Food CPI and Expenditures:
Analysis and Forecasts of the CPI for Food. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/
CPIFoodAndExpenditures/consumerpriceindex.htm. Accessed February 10, 2011.
USDA-ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service). 2011c. Price Spreads from Farm to Con-
sumer: Marketing Bill and Farm Value Components of Consumer Expenditures for Domestically Produced
Farm Foods. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmToConsumer/Data/marketingbillt-
able1.htm. Accessed February 20, 2011.
USDA-FAS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Foreign Agricultural Service). 2010. Data: Current and Archived
Reports. Available online at http://www.fas.usda.gov/data.asp. Accessed February 8, 2011.
USDA-NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2007a. Agricultural
Prices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service.
USDA-NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2007b. Agricultural
Prices: 2006 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
USDA-NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2010. Data and Statistics:
Quick Stats. Available online at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp.
Accessed February 14, 2011.
USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission). 2009. The Economic Effects of Significant U.S. Import Restraints.
Sixth Update, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. International Trade Commission.
USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission). 2010a. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev.
2). Washington, DC: U.S. International Trade Commission.
USITC (U.S. International Trade Commission). 2010b. USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb. Available
online at http://www.dataweb.usitc.gov/. Accessed February 14, 2011.
von Braun, J. 2008. High and rising food prices: Why are they rising, who is affected, how are they affected, and
what should be done? Paper read at the U.S. Agency for International Development Conference on Address-
ing the Challenges of a Changing World Food Situation: Preventing Crisis and Leveraging Opportunity, April
11, Washington, DC.
Warren, D.D. 2010. Production, Prices, Employment, and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries, All Quarters 2009.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service.
Wiggins, S., and S. Levy. 2008. Rising Food Prices: A Global Crisis. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Wilson, M.A., and S.R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States:
1971-1997. Ecological Applications 9(3):772-783.
Wise, M., K. Calvin, A. Thomson, L. Clarke, B. Bond-Lamberty, R. Sands, S.J. Smith, A. Janetos, and J. Edmonds.
2009. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324(5931):1183-1186.
Wright, M.M., and R.C. Brown. 2007. Comparative economics of biorefineries based on the biochemical and ther-
mochemical platforms. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 1(1):49-56.
Wright, M.M., J.A. Satrio, R.C. Brown, D.E. Saugaard, and D.D. Hsu. 2010. Techno-Economic Analysis of Biomass
Fast Pyrolysis to Transportation Fuels. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Xu, Z., and D.N. Bengston. 1997. Trends in national forest values among forestry professionals, environmentalists,
and the news media, 1982-1993. Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 10(1):43-59.
