Most of the biofuels debate as of late has been about the merits and trade-offs of various fuels, be they corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, biodiesel or more advanced second and third generation fuels. But a new study suggests we need to take a step back and consider an alternate pathway for biomass: Electricity.

The research comes on the heels of California’s adoption of a low-carbon fuels standard, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency’s release of draft rules regarding the federal biofuels mandate. In both cases, regulators calculated indirect emissions from agriculture, but only California’s regulatory approach is flexible enough to capitalize on potential bioelectricity (see our story here)

For many, this is yet another reason to go with a low-carbon fuel standard: It sets standards without selecting technologies. The idea has support in the US Congress and the White House, but the question is how to transition from the current biofuels mandate. One way would be to simply translate the biofuels standard into generic emissions reductions units, thus allowing any technology to compete. Or Congress could let the mandate run its course until 2022, at which time a new standard comes into play.

In the meantime, ethanol producers are trying to figure out where to put their increasingly abundant product. Recent years have witnessed a vast expansion in the ethanol industry, and companies are now bumping up against what is known as the “blending wall.” Gasoline in the United States can only contain up to 10 percent ethanol at present due to fears about the impact on current engines, and in many areas that limit has already been reached.

Ethanol producers are naturally pushing the government to increase the blending limit to 15 percent (NYT). Some worry about the impact on vehicles (as well as increases in certain types of air pollution from ethanol more generally), but options are limited. Although several million “flex-fuel” vehicles on the road today can operate on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol, E-85 requires separate pumps and other infrastructure – not to mention cooperation from consumers who might or might not know they are driving such a vehicle.

Citing questions about emissions, food prices, air pollution and the like, some say it’s time to abandon the biofuels mandate altogether, but the EPA has so far held firm. Last year the Bush administration declined to scale back the mandate, and it doesn’t look like things are going to change anytime soon under Obama.