yeah, something like that. It requires twice as much alcohol than gasoline to produce the same amount of power. Therefore, what's the point, when fuel economy will suffer? The emissions problem is the biggest bunch of bunk ever devised, because the only polluters are cars with incorrect tune up- that's where "unburned hydrocarbons" come in. Methanol/ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, but not by much given the fact we now have individual cylinder injection and adaptive spark controls. Alcohol wrecks havoc with the fuel systems and is a public nuisance because the burning of alcohol creates an odor of unexplanable variety.
In an engine with no catalytic convertor or electronic controls, adding ethanol to gasoline will make it burn much cleaner with only slight impact on fuel economy. Unfortunately, in cars with catalytic convertors and electronic engine controls, the fuel economy hit is worse than in a 'simple' engine and yet the pollution benefit is nonexistent since the engine control has to adjust the fuel/air mix to produce enough unburned hydrocarbons to feed the catalytic convertor.
It may be that use of proper gasoline additives would allow a car to burn as clean without a catalytic convertor as cars with normal gasoline do with one, but even if that were true the odds of the government letting people nix the catalytic convertor (thus gaining some fuel economy) are essentially nil.
Of course, it's interesting to note that the biggest place where these reformulated gasolines would usefully reduce emissions (i.e. farm equipment) is just about the one place their use isn't mandated.