The world wants sustainable aviation fuel. The harder question is who will sign the cheque before the first litre reaches an aircraft.
Sustainable aviation fuel has no shortage of supporters. It has a shortage of financiers willing to convert declarations into refineries.
The International Air Transport Association expects global SAF output to reach 2.4m tonnes in 2026, only 0.8% of aviation fuel use. It estimates the bill to airlines at $4.3bn. These are forecasts, not year-end production figures, and IATA represents airlines that will pay much of the bill. Still, the gap between ambition and supply is not in doubt.
Europe offers a useful counterpoint. Fuel suppliers reported that SAF made up 2.8% of fuel supplied at EU airports in 2025, above the bloc’s first 2% ReFuelEU requirement. The European Aviation Safety Agency says production capacity is on track for the overall 6% target in 2030. A global shortage and a successful regional mandate can both be true. The first describes scale, the second shows that rules can direct scarce fuel towards a market.
The decisive question is not whether an airline supports SAF. It is whether someone has committed enough money, for long enough, at a sufficiently predictable price to get a plant through final investment decision.
Consider three projects. In Gujarat, Essar Future Energy proposes a hydrotreated biofuels plant that would process about 1m tonnes a year of fats, oils and greases, mainly used cooking oil, into around 800,000 tonnes of combined SAF and renewable diesel. The developer has described an initial investment of roughly Rs51bn, with a larger phased commitment potentially reaching $1bn. It has spoken of starting production in late 2028 or early 2029.
That is a large industrial intention, but not yet a fuel plant. Publicly available information has not established financial close, final permits, construction or a binding third-party airline offtake at a disclosed price. Essar has a potential route to market through its Stanlow refinery in Britain. Yet a route to market is not the same thing as a lender’s assurance that the fuel will earn enough to repay debt. A flight plan is not an aircraft in cruise.
In Johor, Malaysia, the Pengerang biorefinery is further along the runway. Petronas, Enilive and Euglena took final investment decision in 2024 for a project estimated at about $1.3bn. Ground was broken in late 2025. Operations are planned for the second half of 2028.
The plant is designed to process up to 650,000 tonnes a year of renewable feedstocks, including used vegetable oils, animal fats and residues from vegetable-oil processing. That is feedstock capacity, not dedicated SAF output: the refinery will also produce renewable diesel and bio-naphtha. Yet it has what most SAF announcements lack, an investment decision, construction activity and committed funding from industrial partners.
The project also has customers. Malaysian Aviation Group has reportedly agreed to buy substantial volumes of SAF, while its shareholders will take product proportionally. But the most important detail remains private: the price. Public announcements do not reveal whether contracts include firm take-or-pay obligations, price floors or mechanisms that protect investors when oil, feedstock or electricity costs move against them.
In Denmark, Project ENDOR shows why offtake alone does not solve the problem. Arcadia eFuels plans to produce 80,000 tonnes a year of synthetic fuel by combining captured carbon dioxide, renewable electricity and water. It has completed front-end engineering, gained an environmental permit and received European grant support. Uniper has agreed to buy 40,000 tonnes annually for more than ten years, roughly 60% of planned output.
That is more than a handshake. The agreement is legally binding. Yet the plant has not reached final investment decision, and deliveries are conditional on its construction and commercial operation. The price is undisclosed. In aviation’s new fuel economy, a long-term buyer is necessary, it is not always sufficient.
So who pays? The answer is everyone, though not equally. Airlines initially pay fuel suppliers. They may recover the premium through higher fares, surcharges or reduced margins. Corporate travel buyers and cargo customers can pay separately for SAF’s environmental attributes through book-and-claim systems. Governments can narrow the gap through grants, tax incentives, guarantees or contracts for difference. Britain’s SAF framework, for instance, is designed to provide revenue certainty through a government-backed mechanism ultimately funded by a levy on fuel suppliers.
Passengers may pay too, whether visibly or not. But an airline’s 'SAF-supported' ticket needs careful reading. The fuel may enter the particular aircraft; it may be blended into a shared fuel system at another airport; or its environmental attributes may be allocated through book and claim. These are not identical claims.
ICAO’s CORSIA system requires eligible fuels to be certified, their life-cycle emissions assessed and emissions-reduction claims verified. That matters because SAF is not automatically green merely because it is called sustainable. Its climate value depends on the feedstock, processing energy, transport, land-use effects and supply chain. A litre made from waste oil, a litre derived from crops and a synthetic litre powered by marginal fossil electricity can carry very different carbon stories.
Synthetic SAF-e-SAF, makes the financing challenge sharper. The EU and Britain have power-to-liquid obligations for 2030. But announced capacity is not committed capacity. Europe has many prospective projects and too few that have crossed final investment decision. ENDOR is the revealing case with an approved site, grant support and a serious buyer, but still no fully financed construction decision.
The strongest SAF story is therefore not that fuel is scarce. That much is obvious. It is which promises have crossed from presentation slides to steel, contracts and cash.
The questions should be plain: Has final investment decision been taken? Is construction funded? Is the purchase agreement binding? At what price? Are feedstocks secured and certified? Is the life-cycle saving independently verified? Can the fuel reach an airport’s tanks? And who owns the emissions claim?
The energy transition will not be powered by press releases. Refineries need runway, thrust and a buyer prepared to pay for the climb.