The government’s sustainable available fuel mandate requiring a minimum 2% SAF use across all flights departing the UK this year came into force on New Year’s Day.
But meeting this target could present a challenge given there is only one SAF plant operating in the UK and Iata calculates worldwide SAF production will meet only 0.7% of aviation fuel needs this year.
Aviation minister Mike Kane insisted he is “reasonably confident” the 2% target would be hit, pointing out airlines “hedge quite a long time into the future” on fuel, and said: “We hope to see more production.”
The 2% target will be aggregated across the year and not mean 2% of fuel on every flight must be SAF. The mandate requires increased SAF uptake each year to hit 10% in 2030.
The first generation of SAF fuels, made from used cooking oil and household waste, are calculated to reduce aviation carbon emissions by up to 70% over the lifecycle of the feedstocks compared with kerosene.
However, the amount of CO2 emitted by an aircraft using SAF remains unchanged.
Kane told Travel Weekly: “The first thing I did as aviation minister was introduce the mandate to Parliament.”
He acknowledged there is insufficient SAF produced in the UK, saying: “SAF will have to be sourced from overseas.”
The previous government pledged there would be five UK SAF plants under construction by 2025, but Kane said: “None of the legislative work was done.”
He noted the last government also “talked about a revenue certainty mechanism” for SAF producers and investors but “made no announcements”.
Kane confirmed such a mechanism would be introduced by next year, saying: “I’ll bring in legislation when Parliamentary time allows. It’s an extraordinarily complex piece of work, and officials are working at pace to make sure we do this right. We hope it will come into law by the end of 2026.”
The HEFA process used to produce the first generation of SAF would form only “the first stage” of production, Kane added.
SAF currently costs three to four times as much as jet fuel, but Kane suggested the costs likely to be passed on to consumers would be “reasonably insignificant”.