The EU should preserve renewable energy targets for road transport and give European-produced ethanol a greater role in cutting transport emissions and import dependency when revising its renewable energy directive (RED), according to Laurent Donceel, the new secretary general of European renewable ethanol association ePURE.
Is ethanol use increasing for European producers?
Ethanol and biodiesel remain the leading renewable transport fuels in the EU, representing between 6-7pc of all road transport fuel consumed. More than 80pc of that volume is produced in Europe. The broader debate about energy security and "made in Europe" has put wind back in our sails.
Is this thinking being picked up in the forthcoming revision of the renewables directive?
We are somewhat concerned that the European Commission will oversimplify the framework and remove the specific renewable energy target for road transport. That target has existed since the first RED was adopted in 2009. It has been a key driver of investment and has provided the business case for Europe's bioethanol and biorefining industry. If those targets disappear, an important question arises: will Europe's roughly 50 biorefineries continue investing in renewable fuels?
The EU-US trade agreement made no commitments on market access for US ethanol. Why such a surge in imports?
Agriculture and ethanol were considered a strategic industry under the EU-US deal. That is very different from the UK's approach, which granted duty-free access to US ethanol and effectively undermined its domestic industry.
The US is the largest exporter of ethanol to Europe, and the sector there benefits from a red carpet of tax credits and production incentives. Compare that with Europe, where producers get red tape and increasing regulatory constraints for both conventional and advanced biofuels, including restrictions in sectors such as aviation and maritime. This creates a clear distortion in global competitiveness.
The commission just last month decided to prolong until 2029 its surveillance of fuel ethanol imports into the EU acknowledging the potential for a surge that could threaten the European ethanol industry.
Do you see trade distortion?
Clearly, there has been a major surge in imports. Trade distortions have occurred in the past. Last year, the commission decided to halt duty-free ethanol imports from certain developing countries, including Pakistan, under the bloc's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) framework. We also have concerns regarding imports from Mercosur countries, notably Brazil. But those volumes remain quite limited compared with imports from the US.
Is the EU prepared to go against the US? Aren't other trade and geopolitical issues more important in the grand scheme of things?
Ultimately, that is a decision for EU member states and the European Parliament.
But Europe is currently experiencing its third energy crisis in five years. For the last crisis, Europe shifted heavily towards LNG imports. That didn't take us very far with the strait of Hormuz blocked. Recent geopolitical events such as the closure of the strait have once again demonstrated Europe's vulnerability. Do we really want to swap one dependency for another or do we want to strengthen domestic supply chains?
Do you see Europe rethinking limitations on eligible biofuel feedstocks, notably food and feed crops?
Recent discussions are encouraging. One of the RED delegated acts, proposed by the commission but rejected in the EU parliament in July, acknowledged that indirect land-use change (ILUC) is not an issue for European ethanol production. Globally, there are 10 countries identified as having a high ILUC risk. None of them are in Europe. That provides a solid basis for future RED to incentivise home-grown fuels, including both conventional and advanced biofuels. We are also seeing discussions about harmonising the current 7pc cap on food and feed-crop-based biofuels. For many member states, that could represent an increase compared with existing national limits.
We also have good hopes that future discussions about RED in hard-to-electrify sectors will align on feedstocks, enabling ethanol-based biofuels to contribute to the energy transition of maritime and aviation.
Could changes to RED or shipping fuel mandates boost the use of biofuels?
Absolutely. Currently under certain EU laws, first-generation ethanol, like other biofuels, is given a grade equivalent to fossil fuels. As a result there is little incentive to use it because it does not contribute towards compliance targets.
As for Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs), the definition excludes crop-based biofuels. We need to reconsider how you pivot hard-to-electrify sectors. Upcoming legislative proposals affecting maritime and aviation are now expected in 2028. Those new proposals should recognise renewable ethanol's potential to cut import dependency and greenhouse gas emissions.
Could revisions to the bloc's 2035 phase-out of the internal combustion engine (ICE) also allow for continued use of biofuels in new vehicles?
The commission's original proposal to amend the CO2 standards for cars gave no continued role to first and second-generation biofuels.
Since then, voices in the EU parliament have increasingly argued that biofuels should play a more significant role in the future framework.
Even with increasing demand for electric vehicles (EVs), by 2035 around 50pc of the cars on European roads will not be fully electrified.
Our position is straightforward: Instead of lowering the climate ambition, broaden feedstock eligibility so that we can achieve the same level of ambition using more European-produced renewable fuels.
