Arne Flachet on biomethane, energy security and Europe’s policy challenge

Job title: Head of RNG Trading

1. Should biomethane be treated as an industrial policy tool for sovereignty, not just an energy transition fuel?

Biomethane should absolutely be treated as a policy tool for sovereignty and energy independence, not just as an energy transition fuel. Recent events have shown how realpolitik is making a comeback. European dependence on imported energy is a weakness that is being exploited in negotiations on a geopolitical level.

This shift in the geopolitical landscape is forcing Europe to rethink how it approaches energy. Dependence on imports has become important not only from an economic perspective, but also from a strategic one that shapes political decisions.

We have enough waste streams available in Europe that could be upgraded towards renewable gas, making us largely independent. That potential is not theoretical. It is already being realized in certain markets and shows what is possible Denmark provides a good example. More than half of the gas in the Danish grid is from biomethane plants; in Europe, it’s only at 2%. Comparing these numbers, you realize how much growth potential there is. Half of our European gas is imported, so pushing production in Europe up to Danish levels has the potential to make us completely independent.  

Biomethane is also a practical drop-in replacement for fossil gas, allowing us to use existing infrastructure such as distribution and transmission grids, household gas boilers and industrial processes that rely on gas as their feedstock. This significantly reduces the need to overhaul entire systems to make it work.

This practicality is a major advantage. Biomethane allows Europe to move forward without rebuilding entire systems, making it one of the few solutions that can deliver both short-term impact and long-term strategic value.

2. What trade-offs should Europe be willing to accept between affordability and guaranteed domestic energy security when it comes to biomethane adoption?

Achieving energy sovereignty comes at a price, and biomethane is no exception. The key is to understand what that premium represents and what it delivers in return. Being dependent on fossil imports also has a high cost burden, although it’s sometimes less visible on the short term.

Biomethane is more expensive than fossil gas, typically by a factor of 2-3, often requiring at least 80-100 EUR/MWh to be viable, with some projects allegedly viable at levels closer to 60 EUR/MWh. That said, while there is a premium to be paid, it is still much more viable than other paths to decarbonization, especially when considering its ability to scale using existing infrastructure.

Current costs are still relatively high as infrastructure needs to be built, and the returns must cover the construction of digesters, upgrading facilities and associated logistics. In other words, current costs reflect the fact that the sector is still developing. Investment today is funding the foundation for long-term supply.

However, it is important to note that, once the initial investment has been recovered, the plant will keep providing energy and returns for decades to come.

To me, the real question for Europe is whether it is willing to accept higher costs now in exchange for greater stability and independence in the future.

3. How should Europe think about energy security in a fragmented policy landscape where member states move at different speeds?

European policy remains fragmented, with member states moving at different speeds. There are a few things the continent needs to do to ensure biomethane affordability and energy security:

At the core, this is a coordination challenge. The potential of biomethane is clear, but uneven policy implementation is slowing progress and creating uncertainty across the market.

Policies such as REDIII take care of creating incentives. However, when countries can delay implementation without consequences, it sends a mixed signal to countries that make the effort to comply.

Moreover, not all uses of biomethane are recognized as contributing to the energy transition, which I don’t understand. Removing barriers is a constant fight, as countries often try to shield their domestic markets from the rest of Europe, making the market less efficient and the overall decarbonization bill higher.

A notable recent example is the French CPB scheme, a domestic blending obligation that only recognizes French biomethane as eligible. This lack of alignment limits the effectiveness of the market. When countries prioritize domestic protections over open systems, it increases costs and slows down deployment. Luckily, the EU is taking steps to strike these barriers down and hopefully the consensus will grow that open markets and free flow of goods will benefit all market participants eventually.

4. If biomethane scaling depends on policy certainty, what happens to energy security if political priorities shift again in 5 to 10 years?

Political unpredictability can significantly undermine investor confidence in renewable energy projects.

Investing real money in an energy asset is a risky proposition to begin with, and it often takes 10+ years to recoup the initial investment. If changes in legislation can drastically alter returns, the risk becomes even higher and very few are willing to take the plunge.

This long investment horizon means that even small policy changes can have a major impact on project viability. Uncertainty increases the perceived risk and slows down decision-making across the board.

We have seen countless projects delayed or even canceled in Europe because supporting legislation was unexpectedly postponed or withdrawn. Many contracts have started including clauses to protect investors against these events. The Dutch blending mandate is a good example: this legislation was expected to come into force by January 2026 but now got postponed to 2027. Even now we see very slow investment in new plants, as nobody is ready for the trauma of further delays.

This adds unnecessary complexity and risk to the market, resulting in real costs through lost time, reduced investment, market paralysis and inefficiency. These are resources that could be much better spent elsewhere!

Ultimately, inconsistent policy does not just delay progress, it makes achieving energy security and decarbonization more expensive. If Europe wants to scale biomethane effectively, long-term policy clarity and stability will be essential.