Differences in policy implementation and feedstock availability has resulted in feedstock mixes that vary widely by country and region: 

• In Europe, biogas production was initially supported by feed-in tariffs and relied on energy crops as an important feedstock. Given the land use and biodiversity concerns associated with energy crops, this landscape has since changed, with several European countries implementing restrictions on their usage. The feedstock mix in Europe is now moving towards a mix of agricultural residues, animal manure, organic municipal solid waste and industrial waste.  
• In China, household and farm biodigesters were central to biogas policies of the early 2000s, supporting rural development or waste management. As provinces have gained gas and electricity connections instead, the focus has now shifted to mid- and large-scale plants with diversified feedstock mixes.  
• In India, government schemes exist both for biogas from livestock waste in rural areas and organic waste in municipal urban areas.  
• In the United States, landfill gas is currently the main biogas feedstock, but this is set to change as new policies have been introduced that support biogas produced from manure on dairy farms.  

Over the course of their life cycle, biogases both avoid and create emissions. The use of manure and landfilled food waste in particular captures materials that would otherwise release methane when decomposing in the absence of oxygen. However, estimates put the methane leakage rate of agricultural biogas plants between 2% and 5.5%, and wastewater treatment plants at nearly 8%. To put these figures in context, the global average methane emissions leakage rate for oil and gas production was around 1.2% in 2024. 

Several strategies exist for reducing methane emissions from biogas: best practices during production (e.g. reducing filling levels in the digester to avoid emergency pressure releases of gas), covered storage of digestate, combustion of off-gases during biomethane upgrading to capture biogenic CO2, and use of leak and repair programmes to resolve issues quickly.  

Frameworks setting maximum GHG emissions intensities for biogases and fuels – such as the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) – are a step forward in ensuring that biogases have a net positive impact in terms of emissions. The structure of these policies can also shape producer choices. For instance, crediting avoided manure by using it as a biogas feedstock could incentivise blending of feedstocks to meet emissions criteria set out by such regulations.  

Biogas projects tend to have a high degree of local specificity in their design and feedstock mix; they can also fall under a mix of environmental, agricultural and waste management regulations. Particularly in localities where there is a lack of biogas-specific regulatory pathways or a low level of awareness among local authorities, this can result in lengthy permitting times.  

Permitting can take between 2 and 5 years on average. Nevertheless, this is shorter than the average lead time for renewables projects such as utility-scale solar and wind, which are hindered by long wait times for receiving an electricity grid connection.

Connection waits for biomethane plants tend to be comparatively shorter (around 1 year). Proximity of the plant to existing gas infrastructure is an important factor here: accelerating permitting for targeted areas with dense feedstock potential and close proximity to transmission pipelines could boost the development of biomethane. Our analysis shows that 30% of Europe's biomethane potential is less than 10 km away from a transmission pipeline, compared to 10% in India and less than 5% in Brazil.

When pipeline infrastructure is limited, alternative arrangements such as virtual pipelines – transportation of liquefied biomethane to an injection site by truck – can emerge. When grid connection is possible, it can be incentivised by cost-sharing structures in which the system operator – or the government via subsidies – bears some of the connection cost. Such schemes for biomethane support have already been implemented in Europe, some parts of the United States and India.