The US biofuel mandate as a substitute for carbon cap-and-trade

We estimate GHG abatement costs of the mandate and compare them to a hypothetical cap-and-trade program targeting vehicle fuels. The mandate abatement cost is found to be higher than a hypothetical GHG cap-and-trade. Our results show that the RFS might be judged as a feasible substitute for a cap-and-trade regime that can deliver GHG reductions, but at a higher cost reflecting its multiple objectives.