Editor's Note: This article is 4 in a 5 part series by Alexis Madrigal, coming to us via Spot Us. Read part I here, part II here and part III here.

The California Energy Commission expects ethanol to continue to become more integrated into the state's energy system. In response to Federal legislation, ethanol blends are expected to increase from about 6 percent now to 10 percent by 2012. That will drive demand from 1 billion gallons of ethanol this year to 1.7 billion gallons by 2012. Put in perspective, if the expected changes occur, ethanol use will have grown 1.6 billion gallons in a decade. The total ethanol market will be larger than the Netherlands' entire gasoline market, and only a little smaller than Thailand's.  As rapid changes in industrial infrastructure go, it's spectacular.

But now a host of new regulations are forcing even more changes to liquid fuel in the state.

Our dependence on oil, rightly called an addiction, has given rise to a strong movement to kick the habit. The coalition pushing for an end to crude oil derivative use for transportation fuel comes from an odd variety of corners with distinct interests.

Responding to those concerns, the California legislature and governor have promulgated a cluster of laws and regulations designed to change the fuels you put in your car. The following table summarizes these overlapping desires made law.

What you might note about the list of regulations is that they all focus on different pieces of the problem with oil. AB 32 directly addresses the problem of carbon dioxide emissions, which scientists have identified as the primary driver of what they call "radiative forcing" and what the rest of us call global warming. AB 1007 directly addresses alternative fuel use and AB 1493 calls for a reduction in petroleum dependence.

The problem is that different types of infrastructure at the refining and logistical levels are going to be needed to meet different types of requirements. For example, the best solution to Executive Order S-01-07, which requires that fuel carbon emission intensity decrease 1 percent a year for a decade, might not be the best solution for AB1007's requirement to decrease dependence on petroleum.

"What is the priority that we're trying to meet?" asked Mahon of Kinder Morgan. "Let's pick our poison and stick to it."

As pressure ratchets up to change the mix of components that go into gasoline, Mahon worries that lawmakers won't take into account the difficulty of rejiggering the already stressed energy infrastructure of the state.

"California has to say, 'How do we make sure this system doesn't break?'" Mahon said.

But in the search for a quick solution, dry-mill grain ethanol produced from ears of corn from Iowa could find itself being called upon to deliver results that stretch the limits of the possible, plausible, and wise.

"The market has carried corn ethanol so far that people are looking to it to do things that it was never designed to do, like answer the climate crisis or replace oil," said Iyer, a founder of Primafuel.

The best that ethanol can probably provide is a temporary and necessary fix to some of the problems that cheap oil created. Beyond that, ethanol will create more problems than it solves.