Transport energy policy is rightfully judged by its targets: EV sales percentages, number of charging points, biofuel or SAF blending mandates, carbon intensity reductions, fuel economy and vehicle emission standards. Industry has operated against target timelines for decades. But in the auto, oil, and biofuels industries, the target itself is no longer the whole story. Especially now.
The more important question is now how that target gets adjusted when it butts up against physical, commercial and consumer realities. That adjustment process, including waivers, extensions, rollbacks, enforcement discretion, revised guidance, delayed implementation, and what I think is a dramatic uptick in litigation, is increasingly where the real policy lives.
Many policies are directionally and aspirationally clear but very hard for the affected industries to effectively execute. They assume that consumers, infrastructure, supply chains, capital markets, utilities, feedstocks, among other dynamics will all move on roughly the same timeline. In practice, they rarely do. In some cases, the policy design does not appear to account seriously enough for these interdependencies at all.
The result is not simply policy failure. It is a widening gap between what the policy requires and what the system can actually deliver. That gap is where compliance costs, competitive advantage and investment risk are now being decided.
Two Timelines, Not One
The mismatch is easier to see when both timelines are drawn on the same axis, shown in the graphic below. A typical transport energy policy is structured to reach full compliance within roughly eight years of the rule being finalized and sometimes faster. Most of the physical and commercial systems the policy depends on operate on noticeably longer clocks, and several of them, particularly on the demand side, extend a decade or more past the compliance date.
Figure 1: Policy Timelines Mismatch Execution Timelines
Note: Typical durations for transport energy execution timelines, against an illustrative eight-year policy compliance window. Six of the eight execution timelines extend past the compliance date; demand-side timelines extend ten or more years past it. Ranges reflect realistic durations for U.S. and European transport energy projects and adoption cycles, not a single program. Source: Transport Energy Strategies, May 2026
Every major transport energy policy contains two timelines running in parallel. The first is the policy timeline creating the legal obligations for regulated parties that include compliance years, percentage targets, phase-in schedules, credit expirations and sunset provisions. The foregoing is supposed to drive investment.
The second is a sampling of what an actual execution timeline might look like. How long does it takes for the physical and commercial system to respond? Other examples: how long does it take to permit and energize a charging site? How long does it take to bring new fuels or biofuels capacity online? How long does it take for a feedstock market to develop enough liquidity? How long does it take consumers to turn over the vehicle fleet? And finally, how long does it take agencies to issue guidance, process applications or resolve legal uncertainty? Those timelines are governed by capital cycles, supply chains, labor markets, utility queues, consumer behavior and the courts. None of those move simply because a statute or regulation sets a deadline.
When the two timelines align, policy can work as intended. I will admit that it’s been a very long time since there has been such alignment. When they diverge, the market gets a different pattern: targets that are technically in force but difficult to meet, compliance pathways that exist on paper before they exist at scale and companies caught between regulatory exposure and physical constraints. This is before we get to issues like political volatility, which is becoming more and more problematic for industries in the U.S. The pattern I’m describing is now visible across several parts of the transport energy transition. I present two examples for your consideration.
EV Charging in the U.S.: The Slowest Input Controls the Whole Timeline
The U.S. federal EV charging buildout under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program committed US$5 billion under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) enacted during the Biden Administration. It was designed around a policy timeline: approved state plans, funding obligations, corridor coverage requirements and the creation of a national fast-charging network.
The execution timeline has been slower and very uneven. Permitting, site approvals, utility coordination and interconnection, contractor capacity and each move on their own clocks and has complicated the ability to successfully implement the program. Interconnection is a particularly knotty issue – that’s a function of transformer availability, substation capacity, utility engineering resources and competition from other large loads. The last may end up being really problematic with the rise of AI and data centers. Execution was also impacted by litigation and politics.
The scale of the mismatch shows up in the numbers, shown in the figure below. Four years after enactment, only about 96 NEVI-funded stations are operational, and the vast majority of available federal EV charging funds remain unspent. The pace did accelerate in 2025 as operational stations roughly quadrupled over the year, but the program is now in its final fiscal year of original authorization, and the cumulative buildout is a small fraction of what the original timeline implied.
Figure 2: NEVI Status
The mismatch is straightforward. Federal and state policy timelines have generally assumed that charging will be available when vehicles are ready to use it. The execution timeline says the grid connection, site development and local permitting process may outlast the planning horizon of the fleet decision itself. That remains underappreciated in policy design, and yet without widespread, reliable public EV charging, it will be difficult to grow the U.S. EV market beyond early adopters. The fact that consumers can home charge won’t be enough.
SAF: The Mandates Move Faster Than the Molecules
The same pattern shows up on the fuels side, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a good example. SAF mandates and incentives around the world assume a production ramp that depends on feedstocks, conversion capacity, project finance, certification, airline demand, and policy certainty all moving together in concert, among other dynamics. That is not what is happening. Of the SAF capacity announced for completion by end of 2025, IATA estimates roughly 30% has actually been realized, while another 30% has been paused, cancelled, or gone without status updates.
Global SAF production reached 1.9 million tonnes in 2025, equivalent to 0.6% of jet fuel consumption with growth projected to slow in 2026. The next-generation pathway is further behind: of 46 commercial-scale e-SAF projects announced globally, only one has reached final investment decision.
The policy timeline in the EU and elsewhere says SAF obligations rise on a defined schedule. The execution timeline says feedstock availability and conversion capacity may not arrive on that schedule, particularly at a cost the airline sector can absorb, especially in the current oil-price and geopolitical environment. That mismatch creates a predictable sequence: mandate, scarcity, price pressure, policy adjustment, and then a harder conversation about credibility. This is not a new dynamic. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) program has spent almost 20 years reconciling statutory volumes with what the production base could actually deliver with mixed success at best.
These are “American examples.” But I could as easily have come up with examples from the EU, China and elsewhere.
Pay Attention to the “Adjustment Mechanism”
This is the point senior leaders should watch most closely. When a transport energy policy depends on waivers, deadline extensions, enforcement discretion, midterm reviews, revised guidance or litigation outcomes to remain workable, the real policy is not just the target. The real policy is what I’m calling the “adjustment mechanism.” The number on the page is the starting position. What actually determines compliance cost, market structure, and competitive outcomes is the process by which that number gets reconciled with physical reality over time.
Most strategic analysis still treats this backwards. The target is treated as the policy. Adjustments are treated as exceptions, delays, or political noise. That framing is increasingly incomplete. In the current environment, the adjustment mechanism is often where value is allocated. It determines who gets flexibility, who carries compliance risk, who can monetize credits, who absorbs higher costs, and who has enough time to adapt.
This has three practical implications. First, implementation matters as much as, and sometimes more than, the original policymaking. Companies and trade associations that invest only in shaping the target, then treat implementation and the execution timeline as a secondary issue, may miss the most consequential decisions. Invest in both.
Second, scenario planning should be built around adjustment outcomes, not just target outcomes. The relevant question is often not, “Will the target be met?” It is, “How will the target be reconciled with what the system can actually deliver, on what timeline, who absorbs the cost of the gap, and what does that mean for us?”
Third, policy credibility becomes harder to rebuild once repeated adjustment becomes the norm. Targets can always be revised. But capital is more cautious the next time if the last target proved unrealistic, unstable, or dependent on late-stage relief. We are seeing this in the auto industry, for example, where several OEMs have taken multibillion-dollar write-downs on EV investments and others have pulled back planned investments in EV manufacturing. We are also seeing it in biofuels, where some producers, especially in biodiesel and renewable diesel, have reduced or halted production and/or delayed investments.
There are many policies at the state, federal, and international levels that affect the auto, oil, biofuels and alternative fuels sectors. Many of those policies have targets that remain in place. The harder question is whether the physical systems, capital flows, infrastructure, feedstocks, and consumer demand needed to deliver those targets can move on the same timeline.
Policymakers need to recognize the mismatch more clearly. The regulated community should do the same. In transport energy, the target still matters. But the adjustment mechanism may increasingly determine who pays, who gets flexibility and who is best positioned to compete.
Need help understanding how these shifting dynamics, and the legal and regulatory risks behind them, impact your business?
I provide the strategic insight companies need to navigate change, avoid costly missteps, and protect investments. Learn more here.
