Home · Solutions · Management & planning · The biofuel blending target tracked all year, not in December
Solution · Management & planningThe biocomponent share is visible after every month, while it can still be steered
The biofuel blending target tracked all year, not in December
After every closed month a robot aggregates fuel and biocomponent volumes from batch documents, computes the running realisation and a year-end forecast, and shows how much is missing and what closing the gap costs at the current mix.
Executive summary
An obligated party must deliver an annual biocomponent energy share and document it with certificates. A calculation done at reporting time arrives when nothing can be changed.
Realisation is computed cumulatively after every month, with a year-end forecast at the current mix and the gap expressed in energy and in money.
Purchasing decisions happen while they make sense: management sees monthly whether it is on the path, what closing the gap costs now and what it will cost in November.
volumes and batch documents in the ERP; the sustainability certificate register; the realisation and forecast board in Power BI
Business problem
An annual target, December knowledge
The national indicative target is an annual obligation: a party placing fuels on the market must deliver, over the year, a statutory share of energy from biocomponents and renewable sources, documented with sustainability certificates. The penalty for a shortfall is computed from the missing energy and does not negotiate.
The arithmetic is complex just enough not to be done often: volumes by CN codes, biocomponent content per batch, calorific values, coefficients, certificates that must cover specific batches. The data lives in the ERP, in batch documents and in a certificate register, and assembling it into one number takes days.
So it is assembled when it must be: at reporting time. The trouble is that the target is steerable only while the year runs. Shortfalls are made up through the purchasing mix: more HVO, a B100 admixture, a batch with a higher share. Each of these levers has a price that grows with the calendar, because in the fourth quarter the missing energy is bought by everyone else who also counted too late.
A company without a running calculation sails the year on memory and habit: “we always closed it”. True, until the year the sales mix shifted, a supplier changed a specification or certificates failed to cover batches, and the December calculation showed, for the first time, a gap nothing could fix.
How it works today
Below is what the work looks like before anything is automated.
- PersonVolumes and batch documents are collected for the report, once, after the period ends
- PersonBiocomponent contents and calorific values are retyped from documents into a spreadsheet
- Risk of errorSustainability certificates live in a binder; nobody checks continuously whether they cover the batches
- WaitingTarget realisation is unknown for eleven months of the year
- Risk of errorA shift in the sales mix or a supplier’s specification affects the target unnoticed
- Risk of errorThe gap surfaces at reporting time, when purchasing levers are most expensive or unavailable
Why the current process costs more than it appears
The bill that never shows up in a budget.
- The price difference between closing the gap in September and in December can run to tens of percent: it is paid by everyone who counts once a year.
- The penalty on missing energy is absolute arithmetic: its size is not negotiated, its occurrence is avoided.
- A batch without a valid certificate is energy that does not count towards the target although it is physically in the fuel; nobody sees it until the registers are lined up.
- The December count happens under pressure, on a whole year’s data at once: errors surface in the report or, worse, after it.
Cost of inaction
The first row is the cost of late knowledge, not of the target: the same energy could have been bought cheaper, known earlier. The scale in the model is illustrative; yours depends on the gap and the market in a given year.
The third row deliberately carries no amount: penalty rates follow from the biofuels act and change; a sales page is no place to quote them. What matters is the asymmetry: the cost of counting monthly is negligible against any of these items.
A model organisation with realistic proportions – the numbers exist so you can run the same maths on your own data; they are not a client result.
A mid-sized obligated party: imports and trade in diesel and petrol, blending at an operator’s depot, SAP with batch documents, a certificate register kept in a spreadsheet, Microsoft 365.
Around 220m litres of fuels a year in a dozen specifications, hundreds of batches with quality documents and certificates to be paired.
The target computed once a year at reporting time, by two people over more than a week; during the year purchasing decisions made without reference to the target.
No running number: the board’s question “where are we on the target” has an answer once a year, and mix corrections happen in the fourth quarter, at fourth-quarter prices.
After every month the robot aggregates volumes and contents from batch documents, pairs them with the certificate register, computes the running realisation and forecast, and prices the gap at current lever prices; reports are built from the same data.
In the modelled case the biofuel conversation moves from December to every month, and HVO and B100 decisions are made when they are cheap. Model numbers, not anyone’s ledgers.
Proposed solution
We start by writing the calculation model down exactly as your report computes it: which volumes enter, which coefficients and calorific values, how biocomponent energy is counted, what a certificate must cover. The model has an owner and versions, and its first test is reproducing last year’s report to the decimal place.
After every closed month the robot pulls volumes and batch documents from the ERP, matches certificates from the register to batches and computes: the running realisation, the year-end forecast at the current mix, and the gap in energy. A batch without certificate coverage does not vanish into the total: it becomes a Teams case, because it is usually repairable paperwork, not missing energy.
The management board shows the three things that actually steer the decision: are we on the path, how much energy is missing, and what closing it costs today with the available levers. Annual reports and corrections are produced from the same data, so December stops being an audit of one’s own ignorance.
UiPath Orchestrator: post-close runs, batch queues, retries and an audit trail; UiPath Integration Service connector for Microsoft Teams; UiPath Action Center cases; a Microsoft Power BI board on a Teams channel
The versioned target calculation model, certificate-to-batch matching, the cumulative calculation with forecast and gap pricing, cases for uncovered batches, and reports from the same data
Volumes and batch documents from SAP via documented interfaces; the certificate register (spreadsheet, scheme system or DMS); lever price lists from your traders
How the automated process works
- SystemMonth-end close starts the run: volumes and batch documents come off the ERP
- AutomationThe robot computes biocomponent energy per batch by the versioned model
- AutomationCertificates from the register are matched to batches; coverage gaps become cases
- AutomationThe running realisation, the forecast and the gap in energy and money land on the board
- PersonManagement and trading decide the mix: HVO, B100, higher-share batches, at today’s prices
- PersonReports and corrections are produced from the same data, approved by a person
Human-in-the-loop model
Automation handles
- The monthly realisation, forecast and gap calculation by the written model
- Certificate-to-batch matching and cases for coverage gaps
- Reports and an archive with full lineage of every number
People decide
- The calculation model and every change after a regulatory amendment
- The purchasing decisions that close the target, and their calendar
- Explanations of uncovered batches and contacts with certificate suppliers
Before and after
Systems and integrations
The stack is short on purpose: one engine, one execution layer, one place where a person decides.
Inputs
- fuel volumes and batch documents in the ERP
- the sustainability certificate register
- the versioned calculation model
- purchasing lever prices
Automation layer
- UiPath Orchestrator
- UiPath Robots
- UiPath Integration Service
- UiPath Action Center
Target systems
- the realisation and forecast board in Power BI
- uncovered-batch cases in Microsoft Teams
- reports and an archive with lineage
Human touchpoints: the target board as a Teams tab; UiPath Action Center cases; a monthly forecast review with trading
Technologies used
monthly runs, batch queues, retries, audit
Acoverage-gap cases and results published to the management channel
Adecisions on uncovered batches where trading and compliance already work
Athe realisation board: path, forecast, gap in energy and money
Athe target definition, coefficients and sanctions follow from the biofuels act and secondary acts; we write the model to your advisers’ interpretation and version it
BHow we deliver this
From this description to a running process
We deliver this solution through our process automation service: first we measure the process on company data, then we build, test and maintain the robots. SAP integration is handled by our SAP team. Reports and KPIs tailored to the organisation are part of our custom systems and reporting service.
Illustrative economic model
Numbers you can check against your own data.
This is not a process saving but a market one: the same missing energy bought earlier costs less, because it is not bought in the fourth-quarter crowd. The scale of the difference belongs to the scenario; your value will be set by the first forecast you see in September instead of December.
Run the numbers on your data
An illustrative estimate based on your inputs. It models freed capacity, not promised savings.
Business benefits
- The target stops being an annual audit and becomes a monthly number with a forecast
- Purchasing levers are pulled when they are cheap, not when they are the last resort
- Batches without certificate coverage surface in the batch’s month, not in December
- Reports are built from data computed all year, so there is no December panic week
- Every number has a lineage: batch, document, certificate, model version
The management view
- The penalty risk on missing energy turns into a managed path with a forecast
- The cost of meeting the target becomes optimisable, because decisions have a calendar
- The board asks the target question of a dashboard, not of a department that counts for a week
Board-level KPIs
cumulative realisation against the path · the year-end forecast · the energy gap and its pricing · batches without certificate coverage · the cost of closing the target against plan
Security and governance
The automation has exactly the permissions it needs. Not one more.
- The robot reads the ERP and registers with a minimal-rights technical account; reports are approved and filed by a person
- Every calculation archives batches, documents, certificates and the model version, so every number can be seen backwards
- The calculation model is versioned; changes require the owner and take effect with a date
- No personal data is involved; the arithmetic deals in batches, volumes and certificates
- Boards and archives stay in your Microsoft 365 tenant, and the robots run in the EU region of UiPath Automation Cloud
Why now
Renewable energy requirements in transport are rising, not falling; each year the price of late knowledge climbs together with the target.
The biocomponent market gets shallower towards year-end: whoever buys in December competes with everyone else who also counted too late.
The data for the arithmetic already exists: batch documents, certificates, volumes. This is automation of assembling existing numbers, not collecting new ones.
Relevant executive roles
HVO and B100 decisions are made on a forecast, in the months when they price best
Penalty exposure and the cost of closing the target become planned numbers, not December discoveries
The report stops being a week of reconstructing the year; it is the approval of numbers seen monthly
Common questions and objections
You closed it, meaning: the levers worked. The question is what they cost in the quarter they were pulled. A monthly forecast does not change whether the target gets closed; it changes the price at which that happens.
The exceptions get written down together with the model, and they are the most valuable part of the implementation: today they live in the head of the person who counts the report. The test is simple and merciless: the model must reproduce last year’s report to the decimal place, exceptions included.
Common, and no obstacle: the operator’s register becomes a source, and the robot matches its entries to your batches. A coverage gap surfaces just the same, only the case travels to the operator, with the batch data attached.
When this is not the right solution
- A party below the statutory thresholds, or one meeting the target entirely through one guaranteed contract: contract control suffices
- Batch documents in no machine-readable form: documentary discipline first, arithmetic second
- The expectation of legal interpretation: the model computes by your advisers’ reading, it does not create its own
A question for the next management meeting
What is our target realisation after the last closed month, and what would closing the gap cost today versus in December?
Implementation approach
Scope without ambiguity, before anything is signed.
We deliver
- A versioned calculation model, tested by reproducing last year’s report
- The monthly cumulative calculation with forecast and gap pricing
- Certificate-to-batch matching with cases for coverage gaps
- The management board in Power BI and reports from the same data
- A parallel run against your current arithmetic for two months
We need from you
- Last year’s report with its full source data for the model test
- Access to batch documents in the ERP and to the certificate register
- A model owner and your advisers’ interpretation of the coefficients
Stages
Discovery
Last year’s report taken apart: where every number comes from, where the exceptions are, what hurt
Rules
The calculation model with exceptions and thresholds, approved by compliance and trading
Build
Collectors, the cumulative arithmetic, certificate matching, the board and the cases
Parallel run
Two months computed in parallel; the report reproduction test to the decimal place
Go-live
The management board and the monthly rhythm with a forecast review with trading
A quick win. Effort depends on the form of batch documents (structured versus scans), where the certificate register lives, and the number of exceptions in the model.
September’s forecast: the target is short of energy worth 380 thousand. The same gap in December cost 590.
Send us last year’s report with its source data. We return it reproduced by our model, with a monthly realisation curve nobody in your company has seen, and the months in which purchasing decisions would have been cheapest.
Compute your target as of todayThe neighbouring process usually has the same problem
The twentieth of the month stops being panic day for the licensing desk.
See the solution Legal & complianceCompulsory stocks calculated, the declaration awaits a signatureStock levels computed daily rather than reconstructed from spreadsheets.
See the solution Sales & marketingThe new wholesale price list in the ERP before stations openA producer’s 6 a.m. price change no longer means a day of selling on yesterday’s margins.
See the solution