The Strib report says enough about a planned plant coversion to isobutanol, in Minnesota. Apparently there are production advantages favoring the firm's shifting an ethanol plant to produce isobutanol. It is a four carbon chain with the -OH alcohol group on the second carbon not the ends. Ethanol is a two carbon chain, with one -OH unit. It would be less volatile than ethanol, and without checking the CRC Handbook, it should have a higher energy yield per unit weight [and per unit volume, important since pump prices are per gallon].
Legislation to allow it at the pump in Minnesota, and as a biofuel meeting the state's 10% biofuel requirement ought to be a bipartisan slam-dunk. Technically I do not think there is any drawback. The opposition would be current bio-ethanol producers having a cash cow interest [invested capital expense as well as cash-for-product]. The plant would also use corn as the feedstock, not switchgrass or any of the other sources being researched. It seems to involve a straightforward thing, not paradigm-shifting innovative technology. A matter of plant efficiency, and market dynamics.