In addition to the costs of biomass energy, another and probably more impor­tant factor should be considered when assessing market prices for biomass energy and biofuels. It is the accumulated, tangible socioeconomic benefits of the com­mercial utilization of a local or regional energy resource for the local or regional economy. A detailed assessment of these benefits is perhaps best illustrated by the results of a projection done for the state of Wisconsin on the impacts of a 75% increase in Wisconsin’s biomass energy use by the year 2010 (Clemmer and Wichert, 1994). The study was referred to briefly in Chapter 2; more detail is presented here. Using indigenous biomass feedstocks, the projection consists of the impacts of 775 MW of new generating capacity and 379 million liters per year of new fuel ethanol production. This amount of biomass energy could supply electricity to 500,000 Wisconsin homes and 10 vol % ethanol-90 vol % gasoline blends (gasohol) to 45% of Wisconsin’s automobiles. Investment under this pro­jection generates about three times more jobs, earnings, and output (sales) in Wisconsin than the same level of imported fossil fuel usage and investment. This incremental increase in biomass energy alone is equivalent to 63,234 more job — years of net employment, $1.2 billion in higher wages, and $4.6 billion in addi­tional output. Over the operating life of the technologies analyzed, about $2 billion in avoided payments for imported coal, natural gas, and petroleum fuels could remain in Wisconsin to pay for state-supplied renewable resources, tech­nologies, and labor. Collecting and distributing the wood, corn, and waste feed­stocks correspond to 47% of the total net new employment for this industry and create permanent forestry, agriculture, and transportation jobs in Wisconsin’s rural communities. Operating and maintaining biomass energy technologies produce 27% of the net employment growth, and installing and manufacturing these technologies generate 13% of the newjobs on a temporary basis. Net savings in consumer income, with environmental regulations, account for the remaining 13% of newjobs. Five of the 11 biomass technologies analyzed for power produc­tion are less expensive to operate than a new baseload coal plant, without consid­ering incentives for environmental costs. When federal incentives and potential environmental regulation costs are included, 9 of the 11 biomass technologies cost less than a new coal-fired plant. Ethanol produced by established technolo­gies competes with gasoline at the federal incentive levels in place in the 1990s. Investing in biomass energy instead of fossil fuels in Wisconsin could save the state’s residents about $700 million in avoided environmental regulations to control C02 and S02 emissions from fossil fuels and $250 million in personal income. So it is evident there is more to development of a biomass energy industry that can compete with conventional fossil fuels than the basic costs of biomass energy.