Marcos González, General Manager of IAM Carbonzero, has participated in the public consultation of the Draft Royal Decree for the promotion of renewable fuels 2025, presenting allegations with the objective of strengthening the coherence, transparency, and effectiveness of the regulation. The proposed text represents a profound change in the regulatory scheme for biofuels in the decarbonization of transport, moving from a system based on energy content to one based on emission reduction. Therefore, it is crucial to have a clear, predictable framework aligned with national and European decarbonization commitments. We highlight the most relevant issues from the suggestions made: 

Deficiencies in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Report (MAIN) 

The MAIN is considered insufficient: barely five paragraphs for a regulation of this magnitude. The shift from a scheme based on energy content to one based on percentage emission reduction requires a detailed study with energy balances, compliance forecasts, penalties, and economic impact analysis. A robust economic analysis is necessary, which should include:  

• Information on compliance, non-compliance, and penalties of the current system (SICBIOS). 

• Closing forecasts for 2025 and 2026, with energy and emission balances. 

• Aggregate economic impact, comparing costs, transfers, and sanctions.
  Without this detail, the new scheme becomes a “black box” that generates uncertainty among operators and unjustifiably favors some final consumption sectors (transport) over others. 

Lack of coordination with the PNIEC and partial vision of transport 

The Draft Royal Decree does not align adequately with the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC), which sets a 16.3% reduction in transport emissions for 2030, with a renewable energy penetration of 28%. 

Nor does it clarify the contribution of renewable electricity, the planned role of RFNBOs, or the use of biomethane (which should be differentiated from biogas). In the draft RD:  

• The role of renewable electricity and RFNBOs is not numerically broken down in terms of how they are expected to contribute to the emission reduction target—the obligation exists, but not the forecast of the volume they are expected to reach. 

• It does not establish differentiated targets for biomethane, despite it being a truly useful vector in transport compared to other biofuels, as has been practically demonstrated in Nordic countries. 

• It poses obligations today for transport and promotes decarbonization that has not even been outlined for other sectors (building, industry, tertiary sector, residential domestic uses), without adequate economic justification and added value for our economy. 

Marcos González warns us that this partial vision may lead to unequal treatment, discouraging decarbonization in strategic areas such as natural gas and other fossil boilers in residential, industrial, or commercial uses. 

Clarity in the formulation of objectives and penalties 

An arithmetic rather than merely syntactic definition of objectives and sub-objectives is necessary, with complete formulas, factors, and clear units. Flexibility mechanisms must be limited and justified to avoid excessive use that empties climate objectives of their content.  

Furthermore, it is necessary to have: 

• Forecast of surpluses and justification for their use. 

• Maintenance of a penalty mechanism similar to the current one, which encourages compliance and allows the participation of all operators. 

• Avoid delaying the definition of this scheme to future ministerial orders, as previous experience already exists in Order TED 728/2024 and deadlines are critical for the mobilization of investments and actions by economic agents and operators. 

Sub-objectives and development of biomethane 

The 5.5% sub-objective for 2030 groups advanced biofuels and biogases together, making it difficult to provide visibility for biomethane. This merger hinders:  

• Spanish biomethane from contributing effectively to national targets, as a large part is currently accounted for in other countries. 

• Planning for biomethane producers, who need certainty in volume and deadlines. 

The proposal is to set specific binding targets for biomethane production, consistent with the high national potential and its role in transport, but also in industry, building in general, and the residential domestic sector. 

Other relevant observations 

• Granting of leaderships: not only the absolute volume of renewables introduced should be valued, but also the percentage of the total and the reduction in emissions. Its use for branding purposes should be limited to one year and expanded to mere publication on the Ministry’s website. 

• National Verification System (SNV): it would make no sense to implement an SNV that does not have the approval of the European Commission, and it is a development that is arriving late. 

• Biomass fuels and biomethane: forcing them to go through a system of guarantees of origin represents an unjustified barrier. These operators must be able to participate directly in SICBIOS. 

• Target in cabotage navigation: a risk of double counting with international navigation is noted, along with a lack of clarity regarding its fit with FuelEU Maritime and ETS. 

• Railway target: it is set below the sectoral average without justification, despite affecting a single supplier and buyer. 

• Direct RFNBO (2.5%): it exceeds what is provided for in the RED III Directive without explanation, creating competitive asymmetries and risks of non-compliance due to lack of infrastructure and technological barriers. Flexibility is proposed to allow the use of biomethane as a substitute. 

• Intermediate RFNBO: it must be explicitly stated separately for transport and industrial uses, and aligned with the 2035 and 2050 neutrality targets. 

• Post-2030 targets: maintaining the current ones until new ones are approved is considered insufficient. It is recommended to set a stable horizon until at least 2040 to provide investment security. 

• Advanced bioethanol: it may compete with the national alcohol industry and requires greater and more efficient control over sustainability and raw material traceability. 

• Raw materials: the RD should set clear limits from 2027 for certain raw materials, along with an emission reduction analysis. 

• Renewable electricity credits: these must be incorporated with a valid certification and deduction of losses. 

• Flexibility mechanisms (Art. 20): a request is made to limit their application and establish precise rules to avoid a global failure in modal targets and sub-targets without real progress. 

• Sustainability verification: it should be integrated as an amendment to RD 376/2022, instead of being fragmented across several regulatory texts, as they are being included in the draft RD when it would be logical for them to be unified in a single regulation. 

As a final reflection, Marcos González considers that the Draft Royal Decree presents significant shortcomings in terms of economic analysis, intersectoral coordination, and regulatory foresight. There is a total absence of clear targets for biomethane and long-term stability, which may hinder the development of a key sector for the energy transition in terms of the final use of this renewable energy in Spain, which, being produced here, will be used abroad to decarbonize consumption in other productive sectors.  

To guarantee legal certainty, encourage investment, and take advantage of the national potential of renewable fuels, it is necessary to: 

• Improve the transparency and detail of the MAIN. 

• Align targets with the PNIEC transversally with other end-use sectors and in line with European commitments. 

• Define balanced penalty and flexibility mechanisms. 

• Establish a stable regulatory mandate beyond 2030. 

• Be consistent with the biogas roadmap and consider binding targets and obligations for the use of our biomethane. 

Only with these improvements can the Royal Decree become an effective tool to accelerate the decarbonization of transport and also of the Spanish economy as a whole.