Biofuel policy is usually described country by country as a blend percentage, which hides two things: what each rule actually covers, and which hydrogen it pays for. Ethanol and biodiesel blends do not touch hydrogen at all. Renewable diesel, sustainable aviation fuel and e-fuels do, because the oils are hydrotreated and the synthetic fuels are built from hydrogen. This piece maps the rules country by country, then looks at where hydrogen enters them and where hydrogen has its own incentive.

How much to trust it. Every figure comes from search-result summaries of law-firm notes, trade press and agency pages. No primary text was opened, several sources conflict, and some items were proposals or committee decisions, not law. Each table has a status column for that reason. Where a number could not be confirmed it is flagged, and some countries are missing because nothing reliable turned up.

Three ways governments force biofuel into the pool

Almost every rule below is one of three designs. A volumetric mandate sets a blend share (E20, B40) and puts the duty on fuel suppliers. A greenhouse-gas credit system sets a carbon-intensity target and lets suppliers trade credits (US RINs and state standards, Canada, Brazil’s CBIOs, the German and Dutch quota systems). A tax credit, levy or subsidy pays for the fuel instead of obliging anyone (the US 45Z credit, Singapore’s SAF levy, Indonesia’s palm export levy). The design matters for hydrogen, because a credit system can reward the hydrogen content of a fuel through its carbon intensity, while a blend percentage cannot.

Road fuels: who is covered, region by region

The United States has the most layered system: a federal volume standard, a federal tax credit and several state markets, all paid for by different parties. Brazil’s blends are the highest in the table. Two pending changes could matter next year: Canada’s domestic-content rule and Argentina’s higher blends.

In Europe the obligation sits on fuel suppliers and is set in national law, so the real picture is the 27 national texts, and the reported count of states that had legislated their e-fuel quotas ranged from 4 to 12. Germany and the Netherlands run the most developed quota markets; the German figures rest on one law-firm summary of the adopted text.

Asia-Pacific mixes high blends in palm-producing countries, aviation obligations in the rich economies, and policies that are still being drafted. China is the outlier: no domestic blending mandate turned up, and the main lever found was removing the used-cooking-oil export rebate, which pushes that feedstock toward home producers.

Aviation and shipping: the fast-growing coverage

The headline numbers are not like for like. The UK and EU figures are obligations in law. Japan’s long-stated 10% by 2030 is only a target, and the rule a METI committee approved in August 2026 would require 1% in FY2030-31, rising to 5% from FY2032-33. India’s 5% is indicative, and South Korea’s 2030 level is still to be confirmed. Brazil and Singapore are left out because their measures are a greenhouse-gas cut and a levy, not a blend share.

Shipping is the least settled. The IMO framework would set a global fuel standard, but its adoption was adjourned in October 2025 and the outcome of the autumn 2026 session was not found. Until then, the EU’s FuelEU Maritime is the only binding rule in the table.

Hydrogen incentives, as found

These incentives come in four shapes: a per-kilogram credit (the US, Australia, India), an auction or contract for difference (the EU, UK, Japan, Korea, Oman), an investment or tax relief (Canada, Brazil), and a demand rule that forces buyers to take hydrogen (the EU and German e-fuel quotas). The IEA found that announced public support fell by nearly two-thirds between its 2024 and 2025 reviews, to a cumulative $38 billion, and that supply-side support outweighed demand-side support by $1.5 to $1. A hydrogen producer that depends on a per-kilogram credit also faces a clock: the US credit needs construction to begin before 1 January 2028.

Where hydrogen enters a biofuel rule

1. Hydrotreating. Renewable diesel and HEFA jet fuel are made by reacting oils with hydrogen. One published figure is 25 to 50 kilograms of hydrogen per tonne of feedstock (a trade-press figure; a research paper cited by an advocacy group gives 35.7 kilograms for jatropha oil). No source gave a figure per tonne of product. This blog’s earlier pieces on India’s SAF hydrogen bill and refinery hydrogen work through this.
2. Refinery hydrogen. The EU rule text on industry requires 42% of industrial hydrogen to be renewable by 2030 and 60% by 2035, with exclusions that include hydrogen used as an intermediate in fuel production (the sentence was truncated in the source, so check it). Germany’s law is reported to oblige refineries to use e-fuel hydrogen in place of fossil hydrogen. Hydrogen Europe asks that all such hydrogen count toward the transport targets; that is an industry position, not the rule.
3. E-fuel quotas. The EU requires 1.2% synthetic jet fuel from 2030, rising to 5% in 2035. The UK’s power-to-liquid obligation is 0.2% in 2028, 0.5% in 2030 and 3.5% in 2040, with one source giving 4%. Germany sets a road-fuel e-fuel quota, and the Netherlands and Italy report one too. Japan, India and Korea showed no e-fuel sub-mandate.
4. Credits that stack, or do not. The only stacking rule found is American: one source says a facility cannot claim 45Z for a year in which it claims 45V, 45Q or the related section 48 credit. That is a facility-level rule, and how it treats a fuel plant buying hydrogen from a separate plant was not found. Washington’s clean fuel standard adds provisions for electrolysis energy for e-jet and marine fuel. The UK’s RTFO already gives all compliant hydrogen double certificates as a development fuel. Orrick reports that EUR 300 million of EU Hydrogen Bank money is earmarked for hydrogen used in SAF and marine fuel. For the EU Hydrogen Bank, Japan and India, no stacking rule with biofuel credits was found.
5. Ethanol and biodiesel. Blend mandates in India, Brazil, Indonesia and the United States have no hydrogen component. Their carbon-intensity treatment is a separate question, which this blog covers in the CORSIA and RIN pieces linked below.

Why quotas and credits are needed is in the cost gap. The three estimates found differ in year, basis and currency, but all put electric kerosene well above fossil jet, and the most recent index above HEFA by a multiple. For comparison, one source puts HEFA SAF at about twice fossil jet, up to five times in mandated markets, and IATA estimates global SAF output at 1.9 million tonnes in 2025 and 2.4 million in 2026, which is under 1% of jet fuel.

What changed in 2026, and what is only proposed

• Done: the US 2026-27 volume rule took effect on 15 June; Singapore’s levy started selling on 1 April; Vietnam’s E10 date was set for 1 June (rollout unconfirmed); Australia legislated its hydrogen incentive.
• Adopted but unconfirmed in force: Germany’s revised quota; Japan’s SAF obligation; the UK SAF Act.
• Proposed: Canada’s domestic-content rule; Argentina’s higher blends; Australia’s fuel demand mechanism; E21 and E25 in India; the EU’s post-2030 transport rule and its ETS and FuelEU revisions.
• Contradictory: Indonesia’s B50, Malaysia’s B15 or B20, Korea’s auction results, and the first Brazilian hydrogen auction.

What this means for India

India’s ethanol blend reached 20% and the compressed biogas obligation is mandatory, but the post-E20 steps and the SAF targets are indicative, and no green hydrogen consumption obligation for refineries or fertiliser plants was found notified. The country’s hydrogen support is a per-kilogram incentive that tapers, plus refinery awards. Compared with the EU and UK, which tie hydrogen to fuel with a numbered quota, India pays for hydrogen in one box and sets SAF targets in another. See the blog’s pieces on the three credit systems, CORSIA values and the cost of hydrogen.

Where the data stop

1. No primary text. Every figure is a summary of a summary; check the statute or notice before quoting a number.
2. Conflicts left open. US biomass-based diesel 2026 (9.07 or 8.86 billion RINs), the German 2040 e-fuel quota (8% or 10%), the UK 2040 power-to-liquid share (3.5% or 4%), Indonesia’s B50, and the Global Biofuels Alliance membership (19 or 28, both old).
3. Missing countries and items. New Zealand, Nigeria, Colombia, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland, Poland’s targets, Saudi biofuel and SAF policy, Kenya’s hydrogen, CORSIA’s numeric default values and phase dates, and the text of the EU refinery-hydrogen counting rules.
4. Not found anywhere: a stacking rule between the EU Hydrogen Bank, Japan’s contracts for difference or India’s SIGHT and any biofuel credit.
5. Dated by source. The 60-country blending count is end-2023; the cost estimates are different years; the UK SAF percentages come from one ICAO slide deck.

What would fix this

• The IEA and REN21 should publish a single, dated table of national blending and SAF obligations with a legal-status column (in force, adopted, proposed), so figures like the 60-country count are refreshed past 2023.
• The European Commission should publish the counting rule for e-fuel hydrogen used in refineries toward the transport targets, and a table of which member states have legislated their e-fuel quotas.
• The US Treasury should say in the final 45Z regulations how the 45V exclusion applies when a fuel plant buys hydrogen from a separate plant, so the stacking question has an answer.
• India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas should state whether a green hydrogen consumption obligation for refineries has been notified, and at what levels, so the missing link to the SAF targets is either closed or acknowledged.
• Japan’s METI should name the legal vehicle and entry-into-force date of its SAF supply obligation, so the gap between the 10% target and the 1% to 5% rule is clear.
• ICAO should publish a default life-cycle value for power-to-liquid fuel in its CORSIA table if one exists, or state that none does, so e-fuel mandates have a common yardstick.

These are proposals from this blog, not recommendations any agency has adopted.

Sources and caveats

About this article: Researched, written and edited by Umashankar Triplicane Dwarakanathan, with AI research assistance; every figure is meant to trace to the primary source cited. See the Editorial Policy for how sourcing, AI use and corrections work.