Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 15th July 2025
(2 days, 18 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 July 2025 - (15 Jul 2025)
The Chair
I remind Members to switch off or silence electronic devices. As Members know, tea and coffee are not allowed during our sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 10.10 am Fuels Industry UK; Airlines UK; Renewable Transport Fuel Association Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 10.55 am International Airlines Group; Virgin Atlantic; EasyJet Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 11.25 am LanzaJet; Alfanar Projects Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 2.20 pm Zero Petroleum Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 2.40 pm Shell International Ltd Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 3 pm Heathrow Airport Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 3.20 pm Green Finance Institute Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 3.20 pm Green Finance Institute Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 3.40 pm Mr Philip New Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 4 pm Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 4.20 pm UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation Tuesday 15 July Until no later than 4.40 pm Department for Transport
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper; we will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions, before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 15 July) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 July;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 July;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 July;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule; Clauses 12 to 14; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 15 to 19; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 22 July.—(Mike Kane.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mike Kane.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Mike Kane.)
The Chair
Before we hear from the witnesses, does any Member wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I made this declaration on Second Reading as well; I do not think it is strictly relevant, but I wish to be very transparent: I got a donation of sustainable fuel, to use in a road car, from a company that does not produce sustainable aviation fuel. It is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I have met a number of the groups that will be presenting today. In fact, I met Rob only yesterday for information on the Bill and its content.
The Chair
That is noted and on the record.
Examination of Witnesses
Paul Greenwood, Rob Griggs and Gaynor Hartnell gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Paul Greenwood of Fuels Industry UK, Rob Griggs of Airlines UK and Gaynor Hartnell of the Renewable Transport Fuel Association. You are all welcome.
I remind hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. I will call colleagues to order if they wander outside the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee agreed; for this session, we have until 10.10 am.
Before I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly for the record, let me say that if I say, “Order, order” at the end, it is because we are on a very tight timetable, so please forgive any abruptness in calling you to order. Over to you.
Rob Griggs: Good morning, everyone. I am Rob Griggs, the director of policy and public affairs at Airlines UK. We are the trade association representing UK airlines.
Gaynor Hartnell: My name is Gaynor Hartnell. I am the senior adviser to the Renewable Transport Fuel Association and am its former chief executive. The RTFA is a trade association representing UK producers of renewable fuels.
Paul Greenwood: Good morning. My name is Paul Greenwood. I am the UK chair of ExxonMobil, ultimately responsible for all of Esso’s activities in the UK. I am here on behalf of Fuels Industry UK, the trade association for fuel producers and suppliers in the UK.
Greg Smith
Q
Rob Griggs: Our starting position as UK airlines is that we recognise that the Bill is principally an enabling Bill. Of the issues that we really care about, the revenue certainty mechanism is really important. We fully support the RCM: it is a critical way to drive the investment that we think we will need in the UK sustainable aviation fuel sector to support the advanced SAF industry in particular and that part of the mandate, which starts to become considerable by 2030.
We need to get the RCM right. The design matters to make sure that we get the most from it and deliver the most cost-competitive, efficient decarbonisation of the sector while supporting and protecting UK consumers as well as fliers. We think that we can do that with a well-designed RCM. We know that many of the design elements will come through in secondary legislation and further consultation after this point, so we do not see anything in the Bill that is particularly problematic.
At this point, we would not proactively suggest that any amendments are necessary. We recognise some of the important elements. We know that the levy will be on fuel suppliers, but we think it is really important that there is accountability in what happens to the money. In all likelihood, the costs of the levy will be passed through to airlines and ultimately to consumers and to the UK public, so there needs to be accountability about the levy and the funding mechanism. The Bill does not prevent that, but it will be important to get it right in future.
Greg Smith
Q
Secondly, you have talked about advanced SAF. Does the Bill do enough to safeguard any state involvement in encouraging the right long-term technology, rather than standing up earlier technologies that we can all see might well need to be stood down in 10 or 20 years when something better has come along?
Rob Griggs: We recognise the £1.50, and we absolutely welcome the commitment through the mandate that if there were price spikes as a result of SAF policy, steps would be taken to address that. For us, it is probably a little too early to say definitively what the price impact of the RCM will be. A lot of it depends on its ultimate scope and design, as well as the costs in the 2G market and the strike price.
We have to bear in mind that ultimately it is the market price of SAF that will drive the biggest impact on ticket prices and the costs borne by the sector. With the RCM, the costs relate essentially either to paying the difference between the cost of SAF and production or to the fact that money can come back the other way. Relatively speaking, although the RCM costs are very important and we need to do everything we can to make sure that they are kept as low and as efficient as possible, they are part of a bigger picture. There are a number of factors that will determine the cost of SAF for the UK. We need to get everything right; the RCM is just one part.
You asked whether the Bill will support the advanced 2G SAFs. The UK has taken a fairly unique route with SAF and the mandate. We have the sub-mandate for advanced SAF, which is about 300,000 tonnes by 2030. We think that it could be a pretty smart move for the UK to do that, because at some point 1G SAF will become feedstock-constrained. That could happen sooner rather than later. We could put ourselves in a really good position by having a domestic advanced SAF industry producing the scalable SAFs that will play an increasingly big role.
The Bill, as written, is technology-neutral. There a number of ways in which you can do advanced SAF. When we come to the design and how projects are chosen, allocated and prioritised, we think it will be really important that this RCM supports projects that are quickly deliverable, scalable and commercially viable to help us to meet the volumes that we will need come 2030. There is nothing in the Bill that says that that cannot happen, but the design stage and how we get into the detail will matter.
Gaynor Hartnell: I agree that no amendments are necessary for the Bill. It has a fairly discrete job, which is basically to get the counterparty established and engaged and to get the levy in place. All the detail on how the revenue certainty mechanism works will come through in secondary legislation. We are very engaged with the thinking and the development on that, as we have been in the lead-up to the RCM becoming a policy of both the former Government and this Government.
It is important to get the design right. Broadly, we are happy with this. The fuel producers are agnostic as to who pays the levy. It is good to hear you note that the cost is going to be small; indeed, it could go either way. There is quite a bit of confusion between the costs of the mandate and the costs of the revenue certainty mechanism. We are keen to make sure that the differences are understood.
Paul Greenwood: I fear I may be a slightly dissenting voice, after you have just heard some comments about how everybody is very supportive. I will start with our perspective at FIUK; I will talk very much as ExxonMobil, but please feel free to challenge me on how there may be some differences in view across the members of FIUK.
Let me start by saying that ExxonMobil owns and runs a very large refinery and petrochemical complex, the Fawley refinery in Southampton, which is actually the largest producer of jet fuel in the UK. We supply about 13% of the UK’s jet market and have recently invested $300 million in a new larger pipeline from Southampton to London. I say that just to highlight the fact that we take the aviation business and the supply of jet fuel very seriously.
One thing is absolutely clear: this is very well-intentioned. We all wish to decarbonise, but I think we have to call out some fundamental flaws in the Bill. I do so with the aim of saying, “Let’s make sure that we can be really clear about what this is doing and what some of the potential unintended consequences are.”
First, I think it is important to say—this might sound slightly controversial, but I do not wish it to be—that this is not a step that will decarbonise. It is a step that will increase the production of sustainable aviation fuel. The way you decarbonise is effectively by incentivising consumption of sustainable aviation fuel, which we already do through the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate is a reasonably well-developed tool that sets a volume threshold and a buy-out price. That is a major lever that you pull as a Government to incentivise consumption. Let us be clear that this is around incentivising production.
My question is not necessarily whether the Bill is right or wrong; I just do not think it is necessary. What you want is a market that functions and sends a signal, and then production will meet that demand signal and the sustainable aviation fuel will be supplied. My question is whether the Bill is necessary.
Let us look at some of the unintended consequences. The first is that there will potentially be an incremental cost, which will be put on the fuel supplier and then, in theory, passed over to the consumer. It is important to say that although that has been put under the principle of the polluter pays, the fuel supplier in this scenario is not the polluter; it is clearly the passenger on the aeroplane or the person who is booking freight on a cargo plane. They are the ones who are causing the flight to happen and creating the consumption. Our principle should therefore be that the cost of the levy goes directly to those entities, but the way we look at it now, it is structured in such a way that it is based on the market share of the fuel supplier.
That gives us two issues. First, it is not really on the polluter; it is on the fuel supplier. Secondly, we are very concerned about whether we will have the absolute transparency necessary to be able to pass 100% of the cost through to the ultimate consumer: either the passenger on the plane or the person who books the freight. We strongly urge you to look at that mechanism and perhaps look at something like the contracts for difference supplier obligation levy that exists in the electricity sector. That is one way of asking, “What are the actual costs? What are we going to impose as a levy?” It is published, it is transparent, the supplier knows what we are going to charge, and what we charge the supplier is 100% passed through. There are a lot of mechanics I think we really need to be clear on.
It is also worth saying clearly that if we have a mechanism that we do not believe is necessary, but which is going to incur incremental costs, we will be passing incremental costs to British consumers and to an area in the UK that is clearly a global market. Having a potentially higher jet fuel cost because of the levy will have some unintended consequences. First, it makes the UK less competitive. Secondly, planes can tanker in fuel, as we all know, so if fuel is more expensive in the UK than elsewhere, people will fill up with more fuel in France, for example, before they fly into the UK, thereby decreasing demand in the UK, decreasing revenues and ironically increasing consumption because more jet fuel is being hauled around the world. I think that those are important unintended consequences that we need to take into account.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Q
Rob Griggs: One of the key reasons why we support the RCM and see it as necessary is that we have a mandate that—unlike the EU mandate, for example—has an advanced subsection. We therefore require advanced SAF. At the moment, something like 85% of all the SAFs produced in the world are first-generation HEFA—hydro-processed esters and fatty acids. That is used cooking oil-type SAF; it is perfectly legitimate, but it is ultimately feedstock-constrained. The world will be drawing on more and more SAF, and at some point we will be likely to reach what people are calling a HEFA tipping point, where there just will not be enough of it.
The UK, through its policies, is focusing on second-generation advanced SAFs, which are technically more challenging and more expensive, but also more scalable. As airlines, the absolute worst-case scenario that we are trying to avoid, and that we think the RCM is really important in helping us avoid, is a situation whereby in 2030 the suppliers who are the mandated party simply cannot access through the market the advanced SAF they need to fulfil their mandate obligations. It is not being made anywhere at the moment. A lot of HEFA is being made, but not advanced SAF.
We need advanced SAF here in the UK. The US is making some advanced SAFs, but they have feedstocks that are not for our mandate—they are often crop-based. Without the RCM driving the production of advanced SAFs, we are concerned that we simply will not be able to access it. If that happens, the buy-out price kicks in for the suppliers, which is likely to be passed on to airlines.
The worst case scenario is that, in 2030, the mandate essentially fails because there is high buy-out, all the cost gets passed on to airlines, there are no SAFs, which means no decarbonisation, and then we are unable to claim our SAF against the emissions trading scheme obligations, for example. To be clear, we do not think that the RCM should cover all mandated volumes of advanced SAF; there needs to be competition. It should be there to get those first plants built, and to provide a quantity of that mandate—potentially a substantial quantity, but part, not all, of it.
If we can get a competitive scheme, where the market for advanced SAF is becoming competitive, and the RCM helps to get some of those first difficult plants built, the UK could be in an advantage position, because the global market for SAF, at some point, will need to expand into the advanced SAF area, and the UK could have got a head start on that through our approach. That is the upside of what we are doing, notwithstanding the challenges of getting it right.
Gaynor Hartnell: The question was about the impact on global supply. I think Rob is absolutely right that the UK’s policy is unique. It is very much envied. I have been at many conferences where the greenhouse gas basis, versus it being volumetric, was lauded. The existence of the RCM is envied by SAF developers in other jurisdictions. It is already having an influence globally by being visible in doing this special seeking-out of waste-based SAFs, which are incredibly challenging to develop. These projects are very complicated, which is why the RCM is totally necessary; I disagree with Paul Greenwood about that.
Paul Greenwood: Let me build on the question of necessity. To be clear, I know that everyone is trying to do the right thing here, but the reason this is being called for, for entities in the marketplace, is because it is very difficult to manufacture things in the UK, and that is because energy costs, carbon dioxide costs and labour costs are incredibly high. It is very difficult. Not very long ago, we used to have six refineries in the UK; one of them was shut down for operations and another has gone insolvent. There are four refineries left, so it is very difficult to manufacture things effectively in the UK at a profitable level.
What the Bill does is say, “Because of that problem, we’re going to incur more costs in a niche, new business, and we’re going to input that cost on to the existing fuel suppliers, which are already struggling to survive.” We need to be clear about what problem we are trying to solve. Effectively, I think this is a distraction. We need to look at the core fundamentals that are impacting our manufacturing base in the UK, because that is the primary struggle that we have.
Luke Taylor
Q
Gaynor Hartnell: There are really only two options for the levy: airlines or aviation fuel suppliers. A large part of why aviation fuel suppliers were chosen may have been because, administratively, they are the obligated party when it comes to the mandate. They are expected to pass the cost of the mandate through to airlines—their fuel customers. They would be expected to pass the cost of the levy to airlines, or indeed, if the levy actually brings in money—these are very small balances of money in comparison with the balances to do with the mandate—they would be expected to pass those costs back to the customers. The aim is to deal fairly with a fairly small amount of money. It is not the additional cost of the sustainable aviation fuel; it is just the cost of levelising and stabilising it, which is a sliver in comparison.
Rob Griggs: For us as airlines, the funding is a critical issue about fairness and accountability. As Gaynor said, the understanding is that the levy will be on the supplier. The issue for us is that we understand that the costs are likely to be passed through to airlines. We just want to make sure that that is transparent. We have seen through the early stages of the mandate that there is some concern that excessive compliance fees are perhaps being put on to the SAF. Voluntary SAF seems to be a lot cheaper than mandated SAF and there is not necessarily a clear reason for that. We want transparency in terms of how the levy is passed through.
As Gaynor said, in theory, if the market price for SAF is high—if there is relatively little of it—it is likely that the suppliers will actually pay into the counterparty. We want to make sure that if money is essentially being paid back to the counterparty from the producers, that money does not just go to the suppliers and sit there. There should be a transparent mechanism, however it works, through which that money then comes back to airlines and airline customers. It has to work both ways, essentially.
How do you do that? We have looked at ETS for a long time. You are right that in the European Union, the emissions trading scheme funds are used: for example, to help to close the price gap on SAF. We are not doing that, which has competitiveness implications for UK SAF, separate to the RCM. Of course there are ways to make sure that it is a two-way street.
Paul Greenwood: We have to recognise that if the desire is to pass the cost on to the passengers, the airlines and the people who are shipping freight around the world by plane, then we should put the charge on them. That is the most direct way of doing it. There are charges now that are put on airlines and on freight directly. There is no reason why you cannot do this as well. I do not buy the argument that it is a relatively small amount of money, therefore we should just put it on to the fuel suppliers and they should deal with it. I do not think that is right. I certainly do not agree with the idea that this is because “the polluter pays”—that is erroneous and a false statement.
We do not know how much this will be, because we do not know how many projects there will be, what the costs will be, or how the CFD mechanism will go. We do not know what the cost of this will be. I support what Rob is saying: if this is something imposed upon us, I do not wish to profit from it but I do want to pass 100% of it on to the consumer of my fuel. The only way I can do that is if I know what it is ahead of time, so that I can bill them the exact amount of money so they pay the exact amount. At the moment, this legislation talks about market share, but market share moves and changes. Therefore it is a very imprecise way of doing that.
Ours is a very fine margin business. If you get this wrong, you will make the UK a less attractive market. We have to understand that fundamentally people will do different things around their molecules. One data point worth remembering is that about 70% of the jet fuel consumed in the UK at the moment is imported. Effectively, we rely on people bringing jet to market to sell it profitably. If they are uncertain around the cost of that jet fuel, they will potentially look to sell it into different markets, which can lead to energy security and market dynamic issues. There are unintended consequences here that need to be thought through very carefully.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Rob Griggs: To take the second point first: on the environmental side, UK aviation is committed to net zero 2050. We have not wavered from that commitment, and SAF is a hugely important part of that. It is doing the physical and metaphorical heavy lifting for our road map to get there. We need to do a lot of things—there is no silver bullet—but the last industry road map we all agreed had SAF at around 40% of the decarbonisation to 2050. That number will obviously change, but it is hugely important. The UK has a world-leading aviation industry, which does a huge amount for the UK economy. We believe we can grow and decarbonise, but we cannot do that without SAF. It is hugely important for both its economic and social benefits.
In terms of next steps, we fully support the Bill, and we hope the process can go as quickly as possible to get that certainty for investors and help to get those first plants built. For us, it is then down to the importance of scheme design and ensuring that we look to get that balance right for the most cost-effective decarbonisation to meet all those objectives: what size of scheme, how many and what type of projects are supported, what proportion or volume of SAF it would be looking to support and, through that, how you ensure there is competitive tension between those projects that are bidding for support and those projects that do not think they need support. It is about getting that right to ensure that we are getting best value from the projects that will deliver best bang for their buck and can produce the volumes that we need quite quickly. There are a lot of different technical elements.
Then there is funding and the transparency around that—how do we ensure it works and is accountable? If we have a scheme in place that is delivering SAF as cost-effectively as possible, it is starting to produce some, we have the quantities we need by 2030 and we are avoiding buy-out—if all those things happen together, enabled by the RCM, that is the outcome we are looking for.
Gaynor Hartnell: In terms of what is next, yes, there is a lot of detail involved in thinking about how the contracts are structured. We expect to engage with officials in great depth on that.
You asked about the environmental benefits; do you mean the environmental benefits of SAF generally, or the specific environmental benefits of producing SAF in the UK, which is what the Bill is about?
Chris Vince
Q
Gaynor Hartnell: I think it is worth mentioning some of the environmental benefits specifically of producing SAF in the UK. They are focused on the second generation—that is, SAF that comes from waste. We have problematic waste to deal with in the UK, and it is better in terms of the proximity principle if we deal with our own waste domestically. There are various different feedstocks that the SAF mandate is seeking to encourage that have not traditionally been used, so it is aiming to expand the feedstocks to things such as end-of-life tyres. We currently export a lot of that waste to India, and we have heard in the news about the devastating environmental and health impacts that that has. If we deal with our own waste domestically, that is an environmental benefit; we will import somewhat less, but the aviation fuel we use at the moment is largely imported.
The main benefits of producing the SAF in this country are economic. The Government have realised that and they support it as part of their growth agenda, which it plays to.
Paul Greenwood: To round that out, if you listen to Rob’s comments, which I thought were very insightful, about the complexity of this and the need to ensure you get the right projects, with the right feedstock, at the right size and with the right basis, that to my mind is classic market distortion. Fundamentally, you are intervening in a market and saying, “I’m going to decide what is going to happen in this marketplace and I’m going to incentivise it to happen with a tariff.” The best way to do that is effectively to set a very clear demand signal, which happens through the SAF mandate, and let the market go and work that.
I do not buy into this idea that the market is incapable of supplying second-generation SAF; I had breakfast this morning—not because I was coming here today—with an Asian supplier who I deal with, who let me know that they had taken a final investment decision on a second-generation SAF plant in Asia that will be starting up in 2028. These things are happening; the market is responding. You are deliberately intervening in the marketplace with very good intentions, but it will distort that market signal. There is no doubt about it.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Q
Gaynor Hartnell: These projects are first of a kind, pretty much. This waste-based stuff is not being produced at scale anywhere in the world yet. It is very challenging to build one of these projects. There are numerous risks. You have Philip New coming later to give evidence; he has written a report on that, so you could ask him what those risks are. This addresses the showstopper risk if you like, which is the revenue certainty that a SAF producer can rely on when going to a bank and asking to borrow the millions or billions of pounds that it costs to build one of these projects.
In the UK, we now have many precedents of other large-scale projects that are driven by environmental requirements, from renewable electricity generation to carbon capture and storage. Those various different projects are all supported by some sort of equivalent to the contracts that will be let under this revenue certainty mechanism, whether it is a contract for difference for electricity or whatever. It is par for the course. We are not asking for this just because everyone else gets it so we should get it too. There is a competition for capital, among other things. If there are supported projects in terms of revenue stability, it will be easier for the capital to flow to those projects. This is a new mechanism. We are seeking new types of SAF production pathways. It is incredibly complex, and it is necessary.
Underlying all of this, the SAF mandate creates a market for greenhouse gas certificates, and the price of those certificates will be variable. It is very much built on a preceding policy—the renewable transport fuel obligation for road transport. That was just a demand mechanism without any accompanying equivalent to this revenue certainty mechanism. We import 85% of our road fuels, and we are not doing a very good job, I must say, given the opportunity, at preserving those early movers of projects that were built in the early days. Getting project funding is challenging, and it is not made easier by the fact that we have some early movers that are not managing to keep their renewable fuel projects going. I am talking about the bioethanol producers.
Rob Griggs: I agree with what Gaynor says. Ultimately, UK SAF projects are competing for investment against other renewable projects across the UK economy that have similar types of support—CFDs for energy and hydrogen and other types of things. In some way it is levelling the playing field a little for SAF compared with other forms.
I am here representing airlines; I am not representing producers. We want and we need SAF, and we want it as cost effectively as possible. We have seen all the evidence, given the nature of our mandate, its design, the global market and the work of Phil New that Gaynor referenced, which specifically asked that question: you have a mandate; why do you need an RCM? Everything suggests that given all those dynamics, without some form of revenue certainty you will not get that investment in the first-of-a-kind plants that we need to prove out the technology and get that initial set of volumes on a really aggressive timeline for 2030.
As airlines, on balance, we want the system to be competitive. We expect there to be imports as well as domestic production, but we think that without that UK 2G supply kick-started by the RCM, we will struggle and then we risk the buy-out. That is why we support it. On top of that, if it goes right, you get a UK industry better for your security, and jobs domiciled in the UK. It is a win-win, notwithstanding that as airlines, that is not necessarily our primary goal, but it is a huge benefit, so why not support it?
The Chair
We have six minutes left and two other Members want to ask a question. Mr Greenwood.
Paul Greenwood: I would take a look historically at the energy industry, which is a trillion-dollar industry. We have risen to the challenge of any technology that has been set and have managed to move from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline, and from high-sulphur fuel oil to low-sulphur fuel oil. New technologies come in all the time. We have the capability to deliver those if the market signals are right. I see no reason at all, as I look around the world, why sustainable aviation fuel, second generation, would not be the same.
The Chair
Because of the pressures of time, unusually, I will ask Euan and David to ask their questions together.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Q
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
To pick up on Mr Greenwood’s point about unintended consequences, at a time of increased international instability, the need to produce things domestically in the coming years has become more and more apparent. Do you think this will impact our traditional ways of producing those fuels that we will probably need in the UK?
Paul Greenwood: First, from an energy security point of view, and as Gaynor rightly pointed out, a very significant amount of the road fuels in the UK are imported. They are imported rather than refined here, as it is not economic to refine them here, because of all the cost issues we face in energy, labour and carbon dioxide. That has effectively driven refineries to not invest or expand, and in some places, to go bust. That is the major driver here.
If you are prepared to import 70% of your jet fuel now, I do not see why you need to increase local production of SAF. There is a very good reason for doing that—the creation of jobs—but there are unintended consequences in the costs and how you are going to pay for that, which need to be thought through seriously. I do not think this is an energy security issue, given the amount of product that you are importing into the country now. By layering cost on to refiners and fuel suppliers as you are doing now, you actually risk precipitating the decline and demise of the refining sector even more, which will mean importing significantly more fuel across the piece. To my mind, that is a quid pro quo.
Gaynor Hartnell: We import about 85% of our road fuels. Lamentably, that figure is going to go up, because existing biofuel and renewable fuel production facilities are falling away. There was a Greenergy announcement last week about the closure of the Immingham plant, and two bioethanol producers are at risk of closure. They are linked into the UK in so many different ways, from CO2 production to the market for grain that does not meet the required grade for milling, so it has to be used as feed wheat instead. We will suffer the consequences of not taking care of our domestic industry. We need production in the UK.
It is not just a question of saying, “We can simply buy it from overseas”. As Rob has pointed out, the SAF mandate creates a specific demand for waste-based SAF that is not specifically encouraged by any other mandate around the world, so we need this. If we are not going to make it, we cannot rely on other people making it, and the airlines and fuel suppliers ultimately rely on pulling that into the UK to avoid paying the buy-out for the mandate. Paying the buy-out for the mandate would be a really bad situation for everybody, so we need to safeguard against that happening.
You also asked about the waste hierarchy and what could be done to encourage residual municipal solid waste to find its way to the best carbon outcome, rather than being used to produce electricity, which is already going on to a largely decarbonised grid. Adjusting the waste hierarchy to recognise the carbon benefits of this route for residual solid waste would be really helpful. At the moment, local authorities are in a situation where they have a reliable route through just sending it off to an energy from waste project, against prospects of hopefully SAF projects coming down the line in future, if all else goes well, then RCM comes along and they win contracts. There is a lot more risk involved in choosing the SAF route. That has to be specifically encouraged, and the waste hierarchy would be a way of doing that.
The Chair
Mr Griggs, I am sorry—you have 35 seconds.
Rob Griggs: We fully support the changes to the waste hierarchy. On municipal solid waste, our key point is that our analysis suggests that there are plenty of UK feedstocks across the different technology pathways, of which municipal solid waste is a huge potential advanced pathway. The way the waste hierarchy and local authority contracts are set up, it is just not working as we think it could be to maximise your decarbonisation bang for your buck. When there are cheaper and better ways of making electricity, decarbonising is tough, and we think that we should be prioritising that.
That links to the question about domestic production. Again, we think that the UK is advantaged in that we have a lot of potential to be producing advanced SAFs through the wastes that we have available, and through the technology infrastructure that we already have in the UK.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonathon Counsell, Luke Ervine and Lahiru Ranasinghe gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jonathon Counsell: Good morning. I am Jonathon Counsell, group sustainability director at IAG. For those who do not know it, IAG is the owner of five airlines—British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberia, Vueling and Level. We also have a loyalty and a cargo business.
Luke Ervine: I am Luke Ervine, head of sustainability at Virgin Atlantic. We operate a fleet of wide-bodied transatlantic aircraft. We also have a cargo business and a holidays business. For us, having invested in decarbonising our fleet over the past 10 years, SAF is vital. It is now the only opportunity we really have to decarbonise further in the foreseeable future.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: Good morning. I am Lahiru Ranasinghe, the director of sustainability at easyJet. We operate an entirely short-haul network, with about 350 aircraft around Europe, more than 150 of which are based in the UK.
Greg Smith
Q
Jonathon Counsell: We are huge supporters of the Bill. As Luke has said, SAF is critical to decarbonising aviation. There is no silver bullet, but this gets pretty close. We think that by 2050, 70% of our fuel will be SAF.
There are three types of SAF: first, second and third generation. Quite clearly, the first generation is all that you can buy today, and 95% of it is from hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—used cooking oil. However, that will hit feedstock constraints in the early 2030s, so we are going to start to cap out on the amount of 1G SAF we can produce. That is why 2G and 3G are critical if we are to meet long-term decarbonisation targets. We expect that by 2050, 90% of SAF will be 2G and 3G, so it is critical that we have a policy mechanism that incentivises 2G SAF.
That is why I disagree with some of the comments from the oil company representative in the previous witness panel, who said that we do not need this policy intervention. We absolutely do, because without it we will not get 2G SAF on the mandate alone. That was shown in the work done by Philip New, the chief executive officer of BP renewables. He knows a lot about this market, and he wrote an extensive paper for the Government, which said that we will not get these SAFs without the revenue certainty mechanism. For that reason, we support it.
I will come on to the impacts shortly. We have no amendments to suggest at this stage, but we think that there are two points that could make it better in the next phase. One is that it has to be targeted. Not all 2G projects will need the revenue certainty mechanism; some of them will get funding without it, so it has to be targeted at the early-stage, first-of-a-kind projects that need it. That is how we can contain the total cost of the scheme.
Then, as mentioned during the previous panel, there is the funding question. We in the industry support polluter pays; we are part of the emissions trading scheme, and we have a global carbon offset scheme. Of course, the airlines will be paying for SAF from the 2030s onwards, and that is by far the biggest element of the cost. We talk about a figure of £1.50; to us, that seems a conservative number, but anyway, that is only for the RCM mechanism. By far the biggest cost is actually paying for the SAF.
Let me give some top line numbers: 10% by 2030 is 1.2 million tonnes; a conservative premium for the SAF is about £2,000 per tonne, so you are looking at over £2 billion of SAF premium that the airlines will be paying. We are paying for the SAF and also for our carbon emissions. The issue is that we know the levy on the fuel suppliers will come straight back to the airlines. I used to work for the oil industry—for Exxon, in fact—and I know how this works. That will come back quicker than you can imagine. Our view is that will result in double payment by the airlines. We are paying for the SAF and for emissions trading. We should not be paying for RCM as well. Our view is that if that money is passed back through to the airlines we should be compensated through the money that aviation puts in the UK emissions trading scheme, to avoid double payment.
Greg Smith
Q
Jonathon Counsell: No. We have not at this stage managed to fully analyse that number. We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10. We can take a close look at that, but I think the key principle is we should not be paying for that plus the SAF, hence we need to net that off against the UK emissions trading scheme costs.
Luke Ervine: I fully support Jonathon’s comments. We are fully supportive of the RCM, as we have been for the mandate. The mandate drives demand and the RCM drives the supply, and we do see a massive shortage in the 2G that we need. It is interesting from an oil producer’s perspective to state that the polluter must pay. Well, the oil companies are also part of that problem and must pay. We believe that our consumers will pay the price of SAF but we do not believe we should pay to underwrite the logistics and the production facilities. That is why there should be differentiation between paying for SAF and paying for the RCM.
We as a company have fully supported some of the potential producers in the UK and they are the ones saying to us, “We need an RCM; we need a level playing field to attract investment into producing 2G SAF in the UK.” When we say, “Let the market do what it wants to do,” we are hearing from the market and from producers, some of which do not want an RCM but some of which definitely do. In creating this Bill, you are allowing that opportunity for those that do need it. I do not think we need 100% of SAF covered by RCM for 2G production. We do need imports and to make sure that SAF in the UK remains competitive. That means balancing that need for investing in first of a kind 2G plants that require the investment certainty with the ability to create a competitive market and allow imports into the UK as well.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: From a strategic perspective, there are three things we are trying to do as an airline. We want to grow, to do so sustainably while decarbonising at the same time, and to keep fares affordable for consumers. For us to be able to do that, we need a functioning SAF market to develop over time, so that supply and demand are balanced and the market is working under its own steam. Right now, the 2G and 3G SAF technology has been developed but there is a key transition period it needs to go through, to get from technology demonstrations to commercial scale. That is where the market failure is which is being addressed by the RCM. Like my colleagues, we are supportive of the RCM. It is clear to us that the eyes of the world are on the UK to see how we make this work.
To answer directly the question about the cost impact on consumers, let me split that into two things. First, there is the cost of SAF, full stop, and secondly, the potential cost of the levy. Fuel costs are about a third of our cost base. The cost of jet fuel today is about $750 a tonne. You are looking at upwards of $2,500 dollars a tonne for first generation SAF. When you go all the way to 3G or power to liquid SAF, estimates right now range from $7,000 to $8,000 in Europe. That is a massive increase in cost, which goes into the cost base. To keep flying affordable in the long run, we have to manage that carefully, because it risks the industry adding significantly to what goes through.
The cost of the levy is additional to what we would be paying for SAF, which is something that we do by fulfilling the mandate. A scenario that we are absolutely trying to avoid at any cost is one in which we cannot meet the mandate and therefore are paying buy-out prices with no SAF. In that case, those costs will be going through without any environmental benefit.
A step down from that, there is a not quite as bad, but still bad, scenario in which the market is short on supply, so there is little incentive for suppliers to charge significantly below the buy-out price. You would end up in a situation where the cost that being passed through to airlines, and therefore to consumers, is disproportionate to the decarbonisation that happens.
Finally, putting our ability to absorb those costs into context, easyJet’s profit margin is £6 per passenger—roughly 1.5 coffees in the vicinity of this building—and that is once we have paid several billion for new, more efficient aircraft, invested in the operation and paid for 18,500 employees. We have very little margin to work with without having to pass the cost on to the consumer. If an excessive cost gets passed on, the risk is that that disadvantages the consumer, but economically it would also mean that aviation cannot play the role that we intend to play in the UK’s growth.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Jonathon Counsell: This is very important. Generally, with 2G SAF there is an opportunity to have much lower carbon emissions than with 1G SAF, and that is one of the reasons that it is very attractive. We have a project up in Teesside, Project Speedbird, with LanzaJet and Nova Pangaea, that takes waste biomass, creates bioethanol and converts that into jet fuel; it also creates a co-product that goes into the ground, which is used by farmers to enhance the soil properties. The emissions from that whole life cycle are negative, because you are getting the benefits of the sequestration. That is a good example of the environmental advantages of 2G SAF.
When you start linking that with carbon capture technology as well, it can be even better. That is why we are funding it. There will not be enough 1G SAF to meet all our decarb requirements, and 2G is much lower emission. Then you get to 3G SAF, or power to liquid—the ultimate SAF, where you capture CO2 from the atmosphere and mix it with green hydrogen. That is where we ultimately want to get to, but we accept that that is a bit further away. Generally, 2G SAF is a lot better for the environment than 1G SAF, and that is why it is critical for us.
Another thing worth mentioning is that there is also a non-CO2 environmental impact, typically from contrails—the white lines that you see in the sky. They are believed to have a significant warming disbenefit. Early evidence has shown that using high ratios of SAF reduces the incidence of contrails, so there is a secondary benefit from using SAF. Many more trials need to be done, but that is another environmental plus from SAF.
Luke Ervine: In 2023, Virgin Atlantic ran the first ever 100% SAF transatlantic flight, and we did a lot of studies in addition to those on the carbon benefits. We worked with Imperial College and the University of Sheffield, and—to back up Jonathon’s point—the particulate emissions from that SAF were 40% lower than from traditional jet fuel. That has a direct correlation with the number of contrails that it can form. More studies need to be done, as Jonathon says, but there is a very direct correlation between particulate and contrail formation—and SAF provides that benefit. On Jonathon’s point, 2G SAF is better environmentally and sustainably than 1G. The UK Government have done a great job in creating a GHG-based mandate, which will reward lower carbon intensity SAF—and that can be monetised, as well. In producing those 2G SAFs, we can kick-start a very unique pot of SAF that has better environmental attributes and can drive better value for money for us and therefore consumers.
Alice Macdonald
Q
Jonathon Counsell: Definitely. All SAF has to be independently assessed for its life cycle emission savings. Before we purchased it, we have to prove that, and as I said, get an independent authority to test the life cycle emissions. We will be able to declare publicly, of any SAF that we use, the independent assessment of its life cycle savings.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: If you look at the mechanics of how it works for meeting the mandate, there is a minimum threshold that we set when buying compliant fuel. In this case, compliant fuel is kerosene: fossil-based kerosene blended with SAF. When we pay for the supply, we get the product transfer documents, which have the sustainability criteria associated with that specific batch of SAF. At that point we can very accurately calculate the emissions saving. In terms of planning, we have to set a range, because there is some variation depending on the pathway and the SAF provided. Building on what my colleagues here have said, there is an opportunity for the UK both in home-grown production and up and down the value chain in the development and export of the technology and the financing and trading of SAF in the longer term. We have what is seen as a gold standard for sustainability criteria, especially going to 2G SAF and the conversion of waste into usable fuels, which addresses multiple issues at the same time and is something that we can export to the rest of the world.
Mr Kohler
Q
Jonathon Counsell: We support the RCM: it is a critical mechanism and you will not get 2G plants funded in this country without it. We spent the last five years talking to investors who said that the mandate is not enough. The mandate creates demand; it does not create investment. If you have a mandate on its own, all your SAF will be imported. The RCM unlocks the investment to get the plants built—so it is absolutely an investment, but the issue for airlines is that we are paying for the SAF and also paying for our carbon emissions. If we then pay for the derisking of the infrastructure, we are double-paying.
The EU ETS first established that the key principle is that money is recycled to help decarbonisation of those sectors that fund it. It is not taxpayers’ money. Aviation puts £500 million into the UK emissions trading scheme. That money is supposed to come back to support the decarbonisation of aviation. None of it does. All we are saying is, is that not a perfect opportunity to use some of that aviation money to support the costs that are coming back to us through the levy? Then we would not be paying twice. Instead, we would be paying for the levy, but through the UK emissions trading scheme.
Mr Kohler
Q
Jonathon Counsell: Absolutely—we hope that eventually, as you scale up SAF supply, the cost will come down. Will it ever come down to jet fuel levels? I do not think it will, because of the factor cost element. I agree with Paul Greenwood, who said earlier that one of the disadvantages we have in this country is high energy costs. We are doing SAF contracts with SAF suppliers in the US, where their energy costs are one third of those in this country, so we are at a disadvantage.
On 2G SAF, however, I think we have some real advantages: we have some sites, we have expertise and we have feedstock, both waste biomass and municipal solid waste. We put 20 million tonnes of municipal solid waste into landfill; we even ship 5 million tonnes of it to Europe. That is energy. We should be using it to make SAF. Those advantages can overcome the energy disadvantage in the short term. Hopefully we will sort out that energy disadvantage, but as we scale up those plants that SAF price should come down. It is an investment, but we do not want to double-pay for it.
Luke Ervine: Just to add and clarify, I think Luke Taylor asked a question earlier about ways to pay for the SAF mandate. We have always been very clear about paying twice through things such as the ETS scheme. We would love to see those revenues used to reinvest in the decarbonisation of the aviation industry. Given the economic value it returns and the Government’s growth agenda, we believe that creating a SAF industry also creates jobs and a lot of economic prosperity. The Sustainable Aviation report in 2023 estimated that the UK SAF industry would create about 60,000 new jobs by 2050 and about £10 billion gross value added by the same time. There is a benefit here for the UK economy as a whole purely in terms of the SAF industry, and using some of the taxes we currently pay to fund the RCM would be very helpful.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: I do not have much to add to what has already been said, but the cost of SAF means that the cost of fuel will go up in the long run, even with the RCM. In our minds, the RCM is something that unlocks production, as opposed to something that brings the cost down. The primary role we see for it is in getting production up so that supply can meet demand in the short run. Ultimately, though, we will have higher costs because of SAF, especially as eSAF and power-to-liquid comes in, and those costs will have to be passed through.
We are doing a huge amount to try to be as efficient as we possibly can; that is where the investments in aircraft and how we operate come in. As they say, the best energy is the energy you do not use, and in that way we are trying to manage our costs in the same way we have for the past 30 years, but I completely agree that we have to be wary of adding on to the costs we are already paying in the name of sustainability, both right now and in terms of meeting the mandates.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q
Jonathon Counsell: From our modelling and analysis, we still want to have the flexibility to import SAF, because there is a global market there and we do not want to put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage by saying that all mandated SAF has to be produced in the UK. We still want access to imported SAF, particularly 1G SAF; we do not think the UK has much competitive advantage in producing 1G SAF. We think roughly 50% feels about right, and you have to compare it around that. Our view is that, of the mandated SAF, approximately 50% should be produced here in the UK—but, as I said earlier, not all of that will need the revenue certainty mechanism.
One of the key points that I want to make is that the revenue certainty mechanism is for those plants that cannot get funding: they are early stage, first-of-their-kind technology, and cannot get tracker funding because it is perceived to be too high risk by the investment market, and they cannot get that revenue certainty through any other mechanism, so therefore they rely on this mechanism. We think that roughly half of that 50% will need the revenue certainty mechanism.
A good example is LanzaJet in Teesside, the speedboat project that I mentioned earlier. That does not need the revenue certainty mechanism because we at IAG are providing the company with a long-term committed take-or-pay offer. We are giving the revenue certainty to LanzaJet, so that project does not need it; but other projects do, typically including the municipal solid waste projects that take black bag waste. They are at a very early stage, using less mature technology, and they are massively capital intense projects. They definitely need the revenue certainty mechanism, so we must ensure that it is targeted.
As Luke said, we think that by 2030 there could potentially be 10,000 extra jobs in the UK from that UK production. We can share a piece of analysis that we did through Sustainable Aviation that showed what that looks like for each region of the UK. We think there is certainly potential to build plants in Wearside, Teesside, Humberside and south Wales; if we get the policy right, we think there could be up to 14 plants within the next 10 years, which will deliver £1.8 billion in GVA by 2030.
However, the big prize will come in 2050: 60,000 jobs and £10 billion in GVA. We are creating a new energy industry for the UK. I have to congratulate the Government: we have potentially the most powerful package of SAF policy in the world, with the mandate, the revenue certainty mechanism and the advanced fuels fund. Taken together, they mean that we are the envy of the world and we have a huge chance to be a world leader on SAF production.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: To add to that, it would also enable UK aviation to grow. Our estimates are that each aircraft based in the UK supports around 400 jobs and £27 million of GVA. We have over 150 aircraft in the UK as it is, we have three aircraft going to a new base in Newcastle shortly and we absolutely intend to continue with the growth in the UK. By having the RCM unlock SAF production and SAF supply, that opens the doors to us to continue growing, while also decarbonising. That is a massive part of the economic benefit that the RCM helps to unlock, beyond the obvious effects of supporting jobs and production on the ground in the SAF industry.
Luke Ervine: Just to add a note on benefits, it is important to recognise the cost of not having the RCM. We have spoken a lot today about the buy-out. The UK is unique in its ambition to have a 2G SAF mandate, so the cost of not having the RCM is important. If we do not have it, we pay buy-out, and then we are going to lose out regionally to other areas, such as Europe and the US, that do not have those 2G SAF mandates, so it is important that we recognise that there is a cost of not having the RCM.
Luke Taylor
Q
Jonathon Counsell: That is a really strong point. There is a key question about the waste hierarchy, which Gaynor spoke to. Currently, waste going to SAF is treated the same way as incineration or energy from waste, but the analysis is clear that we can get twice as much energy capture from producing SAF than from producing energy from waste. We feel that you are getting a lot more bang for your buck from using waste to produce SAF than from other things, which we think should be reflected in aviation being prioritised in the waste hierarchy.
On renewable energy, last year the Sustainable Aviation road map made it quite clear that 3G SAF—where you basically electrolyse water to get hydrogen and you capture CO2 from the atmosphere—is going to take a lot of renewable electricity. We are going to need a lot more of that within the UK if we are going to support a domestic power-to-liquid market.
Luke Ervine: In addition to that, we need to think about other areas of SAF, when we talk about SAF having a nominal value associated with its ability to reduce greenhouse gases. We are working alongside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Business and Trade to understand how carbon can form part of the solution, and decarbonising the SAF that we are producing is also key. We are also working side by side with the Treasury to understand what the revenues from the ETS look like.
That has been quite successful in the last few years, especially since the advent of the jet zero taskforce, which was a really key turning point. I think we are going to continue in that vein to work cross-departmentally and across industry to work through some of these finer details. I think it has been very useful to be part of the Jet Zero Council; we are actually a co-chair, alongside Mike Kane, of the jet zero taskforce. Carrying on in that vein is very important and useful.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: This also enables us to reduce our dependence on used cooking oil imported from elsewhere in the world as a feedstock for first generation SAF. A strategic move towards 2G and 3G also gives more flexibility and capability for the market to scale up in the long-term, and allows it to use waste products from the UK, as opposed to having to ship it in from China or south-east Asia.
Graeme Downie
Q
Jonathon Counsell: On the customer perspective, we did a lot of surveying of our customers, and it is no surprise that there was a bit of scepticism about offsets and all the history with those. When it comes to SAF, I think there is general recognition and support: people think, “You burn a lot of fuel, so it just makes sense that you are trying to find a lower carbon fuel.” There is a lot more acceptance of that. We have always offered voluntary schemes for our customers to offset their emissions. We provide offsets, carbon removals and SAF. The uptake is very low, but SAF is proving quite popular, so I think there is greater acceptance of SAF as a solution for aviation than some of the others.
What I will say is that corporates have gone gangbusters—if I can use that technical term—on SAF, and we do something called SAF Scope 3. A lot of the big corporates set very ambitious net zero targets by 2030, particularly professional services firms such as consulting firms, banks and law firms. When they do their carbon footprinting, a huge proportion is from their flying activity, so they come to us and say, “I want to address my carbon emissions”, and we can offer them SAF. We can sell the carbon attributes as what they call a Scope 3, and that has literally taken off. Most of the SAF that we bought last year came with a SAF Scope 3 deal from a corporate. That is fantastic, because we can use that revenue to reinvest and buy more SAF. From a corporate market, there is definitely very good acceptance of the power of SAF to reduce our emissions.
The Chair
May I say that we want full answers, but we have three other Members who want to ask questions? We have 11 minutes left.
Luke Ervine: I agree with Jonathon; the corporate world is where we see most support for SAF, particularly in cargo companies. They are very mature in the way that they think about SAF, largely because they have clients—as freight forwarders, they have clients—that demand CO2 reductions. That is corporates and cargo.
We recently undertook a survey. I cannot remember, off the top of my head, what the split was, but a large proportion of our passengers really valued the ability to buy SAF—less so carbon credits; they relished the ability to buy SAF. In terms of competitive advantage, we are all working with the same levers, and there are not many of them in the aviation industry. We have invested in those fleet transitions to cleaner, more efficient aircraft. We are 82% transitioned into new NEO—new engine option—fleets at the moment, and we will be 100% by 2028. There are competitive advantages in this space, but we are all dealing with the same basic levers in order to drive our customer base and attract customers in.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: We probably have a slightly different customer base from the two airlines here. A large proportion of our travellers are people who travel once a year, or once every couple of years, on their holidays.
Generally speaking, we have asked customers, and they care about sustainability, and about easyJet and the airline becoming sustainable, but it is not something that those who travel infrequently engage with frequently enough for it to be a consideration. Also the question about SAF, for example, is a complicated one. I completely agree on the corporate side, but on the average customer side, it does not feel like a competitive advantage right now.
The Chair
I will call Chris Vince, then Euan Stainbank and Luke Taylor—will you go one after the other, please?
Chris Vince
Q
Euan Stainbank
We have talked about targeting. Would you support any further specific policy interventions to help to stimulate advanced 2G SAF technologies that might otherwise struggle to scale up?
Luke Taylor
I just have a pushback or challenge on the comments about SAF being popular. An earlier pushback, too, was on the £1.50 per passenger on top of tickets. Does that suggest that this might be easier to sell—easier to promote—to passengers than you might have suggested in the first place? I think the suggestion was that certain demographics and certain airline customer groups will be more or less in favour and able to pay it.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: To add to that, for us, the average leisure traveller would say—to put it in colloquial terms—“It’s your problem to solve. We want you to do it, but we’re not going to pay for it.” With corporates, they have their own corporate targets, so from a B2B—business to business—perspective, they want to hit those.
Jonathon Counsell: I will answer the risk question. Yes, without the policy, we have no 2G SAF, so we would be dependent on the 1G market, which will cap out in the early 2030s. We are not going to achieve our decarbonisation targets without 2G SAF. That is the biggest risk without the Bill.
The biggest risk with the Bill is buy-out. If the incentive does not produce enough SAF—we understand the buy-out is there to manage short-term supply shortages, but if we have long-term buy-out, which we have seen in the ground transport fuels market—that is policy failure. Essentially, that huge cost is £6,000 per tonne of SAF, and if that cost comes straight back to the airline, it will go on air fares, but you do not get any decarbonisation—you get huge cost and no decarbonisation. That is our biggest risk.
Luke Ervine: Some of the risks of the RCM that we need to be cognisant of include covering too much of the mandate with the RCM. We do not want to lock ourselves into high prices forever and a day. Obviously we want that to stimulate the part of the market that needs that support, so we want to leave enough room for competition.
The other thing we need to think about is how suppliers might bear some of the risk that is presented in the RCM—how some of the cost of capitalising the fund, or any cost of compliance failures that they may face, might be passed through to airlines and consumers. That key area of transparency is therefore important. This needs to be well thought through, but we also need to do it quickly because we are reaching a pivotal point in terms of buy-out where we will have to just pay for no decarb.
Lahiru Ranasinghe: Ultimately, the RCM is a derisking measure. It is a stepping stone towards what we want, which is a functioning SAF market. It is a complicated challenge. There is a lot of work to be done over the coming stages and throughout the process to make sure that we end up with a competitive UK SAF market so that producers can compete on a global scale, and, crucially, we as airlines can compete on a global and European scale by keeping flying affordable and continuing to grow in the UK. On an environmental level, if there is x amount of growth coming through the UK, which is supporting an environmentally robust SAF mandate, and production in the UK, as opposed to that going elsewhere in the world, that is driving sustainable growth on a global scale.
Jonathon Counsell: On the amendment question, I do not think we need to look at any amendments at this stage. On the targeting of the scheme, we should make it an opt-in scheme for the projects that need it. We do not want a blanket scheme to cover all 2G SAF because that is not needed, but we could have projects opt in with some qualifying criteria—for example, projects that are early stage, first of a kind or high risk, and that cannot get funding without the scheme.
I would not say SAF is popular—that is probably going a step too far. It is fair to say there is greater acceptance of SAF as a solution, but let us be clear: nobody wants to pay for it. However, we accept that there is a cost to the net zero transition, and our job is to minimise that cost as far as possible.
The Chair
We have two minutes left. Do the other witnesses have any final comments or do Members have any further questions? No. I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Sophia Haywood and Noaman Al Adhami gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Sophia Haywood from LanzaJet and Noaman Al Adhami from Alfanar Projects. We have until 11.25 am for this panel. Good morning to you. Could you introduce yourselves for the record?
Sophia Haywood: Good morning, everyone. My name is Sophia Haywood. I am the director of EU and UK Government affairs, policy and sustainability for LanzaJet. We are a US-headquartered alcohol-to-jet SAF producer, and we are developing our flagship project—Project Speedbird—here in the UK. Thank you for having me.
Noaman Al Adhami: My name is Noaman Al Adhami. I am country head at Alfanar, which is a global renewables and engineering and construction company. We are developing our Lighthouse Green Fuels project in Teesside. It is a second generation SAF from biogenic waste and residues. We are currently considered the most advanced globally in terms of development, and one of the largest globally in terms of capacity.
Greg Smith
Q
Noaman Al Adhami: Maybe I can answer this question. This comes with scale. The technologies that we are implementing currently have been implemented in other sectors, so they are not necessarily new, but with the scale, in terms of logistics and feedstock availability, it will take time. We think that when we potentially scale up production, we can recycle engineering and we can utilise other services to push the price down further.
However, in our case, because we are using the FT-SPK route, biogenic CO2 is produced in the process. If I capture that CO2 and connect to Net Zero Teesside, I will be able to generate more carbon certificates—actually, it is triple. For example, if I produced 100 carbon certificates without carbon capture, with carbon capture I can produce 300. By this process, we can reduce the cost of SAF to the offtaker or to the consumer, because then I will divide the capex with the overall cost; instead of dividing it by 100, I will divide it by 300. In our case and for our route, it is key to be connected to the carbon cluster in Teesside, because then I will be able to provide a lower cost for these carbon certificates, if we get the RCM potential.
Sophia Haywood: Just to build on that, scalability is absolutely key. We are looking at a global suite of different projects all across the world. With that, each time we are learning and improving, and becoming more efficient. For example, we built a demonstrator project in the US of our ethanol-to-jet process. From that, we have been able to learn and to become more efficient in spaces, so that when we then develop in Teesside with Project Speedbird, we are able to improve consistently on that basis.
The other thing I would add is that scalability takes you to one level, but I do not think that scalability alone will become completely identical with a market that has had years and years of operation and cheap access to crude oil, for example, to convert into jet. As for the idea that we will immediately be able to become competitive, that is where there can be another role for policy. The RCM is one of those tools.
Another example that we have seen in Europe is that they have been looking at things such as ETS allowances. These allowances basically help airlines to minimise that uplift in terms of the price of SAF. At the moment, that is time limited until 2030, but for biofuels you are able to take 75% of the cost difference between fossil jet and biofuel. For e-fuels, you are able to take 95% of the price difference. This could potentially be explored in the UK long term, again to help airlines to minimise the impact of SAF price increases. I think there is a role for scalability and time, but equally, in the short to medium term, there is still a role for policy in being able to support that.
Greg Smith
Q
Sophia Haywood: At the moment, we are not allowed to use the bioethanol produced in the UK, because the majority of it is technically first generation, whereby it is produced from crops. The bioethanol here is particularly produced from crops such as wheat. I am not sure about the exact proportion that is grown here and then converted into bioethanol here.
I think that SAF is a great opportunity for the challenge that the bioethanol sector is currently facing. If we were allowed to use in SAF the bioethanol that is currently allowed to be used in the road transportation sector, we would be able to take that and convert that into jet fuel at our facility Speedbird. I did some quick statistics—quick maths—looking at the total capacity that we have for bioethanol production in the UK today. If we took that additional capacity—not counting our current project, which is 2G or second generation—we would be able to build three and a half more Project Speedbirds in the UK, just taking that potential capacity, if that was all theoretically to come to us.
We see SAF as a great opportunity to fix the current issue that the bioethanol sector is facing. Certainly, we see it as complementary also to the scale-up of 2G, because for us it means that we can reduce the overall cost of project development and we could still transition to 2G over time, or indeed have blends of first generation and 2G together to increase roll-out. For our technology, as long as it is sustainable ethanol that is coming in, we are producing sustainable jet on the other side.
Luke Taylor
Q
As a follow-up question, similar to one that I asked the previous panel, what do you see as some of the challenges across Government that will hold back your ability to produce more SAF? You referred to the ability to use some of the feedstuff to produce second generation SAF mixing, but I think planning and energy will be among the responses as well.
Sophia Haywood: On sustainability and fraud, I have been working on sustainability certification over a number of different fuel types. We have ISCC, which is like an auditing process that we generally have to go through—there are other providers out there—to be able to prove the sustainability of our fuel. This is a very complicated and rigorous process, and I have gone through it many times on different types of fuels.
On the sustainability piece, the guidance that has been put out already in the SAF mandate is very high, and we have to go through a lot of that auditing process. To your point about the risk of fraud and other challenges around greenwashing that potentially could have happened in the past, I think the UK has done a good thing there with how it has approached this, so I support the approach that we are taking. That is not necessarily in this Bill; I would say that that has more already been laid out in the mandate rules.
On what else we would like to see, potentially, through this, as I said before, there is a piece around the SAF allowances—this is a scheme currently in Europe that is funded through ETS revenues. Obviously, you are always taking from somewhere with funding, but you are trying to take at least from a funding source that is coming directly from industry, and using that to then fund the industry back with SAF. I think that has good bones and good structure, and I would love to see that being fleshed out.
On a more practical level, for sure, there is planning. We have just had a recent example that some of my engineers have told me about: waiting two months for an answer on a very small question. It is not because of the quality of the planning teams; they are fantastic. It is the fact that they are quite constrained and there are not enough of them. I suppose there is a potential short-to-medium-term fix there, but also a longer-term fix in terms of thinking of the skills that we need moving forward. We automatically think of more engineering and STEM roles, but we also need the rest of the value chain to be adequate in terms of workforce and other things.
I alluded earlier to the details of the mandate being really good on the sustainability piece, but there are some very complex rules that we are still consistently trying to navigate six months on. There are different interpretations to different questions—for example, in the nitty gritty of how hydrogen is treated or the rules around electricity and displacement. They are more in the detail, but we end up spending quite a lot of time on them as a company trying to break through into this market.
Equally, it is a learning experience for my colleagues doing these projects all across the world. We have other projects going on in India and Australia. As a Brit, I want the UK to be our flagship and our first, and I am working hard to make sure that it is, but as I always say to people, I am competing with my colleagues in Australia and all over because lots of people want SAF. It is about how we can make it as efficient and easy as possible, keeping in mind all the good sustainability criteria, to get steel in the ground here in the UK.
Noaman Al Adhami: From our perspective, the route we are using—the Fischer-Tropsch synthetic paraffinic kerosene route—is an American Society for Testing and Materials route that is approved already. On sustainability, the feedstock criteria are well defined in the SAF mandate. All the types of feedstock that are eligible to produce SAF are well defined. We are complying with that. The greenhouse gas and carbon intensity are other factors for measuring sustainability. For our project, without carbon capture, we are at minus 80% or minus 85% from the fossil equivalent. With carbon capture, we will go negative—we will go to even more than minus 200%. That is key for us.
On what could be done better, planning is always an area where we need improvement in terms of time. There is also connection to the grid, for example—grid connections take a very long time. We decided to produce our own power on site using a biomass boiler rather than waiting for a grid connection because the answer we got was that we will get it by the end of the 2030s—2039—and we cannot wait until then.
Another requirement, which is very specific to us, is to get connected as early as possible to the carbon network once we start producing SAF by the end of 2029, especially when there is a unique benefit for the UK. By the way, that is very unique to the UK. No other country has a SAF mandate that is about carbon scaling and at the same time has the capability to capture CO2. That is also unique in Europe because the UK and Norway together have 75% of the carbon capture capacity in Europe. It is really very unique to the UK. Our ask is to get connected to reduce carbon intensity, provide a better price per certificate, and also pay, because we do not need subsidy for carbon capture. We are ready to pay the transport and storage costs to the Government for carbon capture. Those are the three main points.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Noaman Al Adhami: Our project is a £2 billion investment. We need the RCM to be able to reach FID. We already have lenders on board, and that is the requirement they have asked us to secure before reaching FID. Our project was part of the windows of the advanced fuels fund. The original plan was to start construction by 2025—this year. We were planning all our development activities to be ready to start construction this year. Unfortunately, that is now not possible, because the RCM is now pushed to the end of 2026.
Yes, immediately after I sign the contract—the day after—I will start constructing the site and reach FID. I will technically be ready by the end of this year. I am finishing FEED. We have invested more than £70 million in this project so far and we will finish FEED by the end of this year, so technically I am ready to start construction after the end of this year.
If there are delays, we are worried. We are broadly very supportive of the Bill; our issue is timing. If I do not get the RCM by the end of 2026, then the project will be delayed, and then I will not be able to produce SAF as planned starting from the end of 2029, and then provide the market with the SAF quantities by 2030, when it is required, as per the mandate. The second-generation SAF is required in 2030. I will not be able to do that if there are delays.
Sophia Haywood: We are currently in the FEED phase, which is front-end engineering and design—we are really good at acronyms in this space. Basically, what that means is that we are looking at the facility specific to the site and designing everything up with the site. It is a really important stage, before we then go to a final investment decision. We are expected to go to a final investment decision next year. That is what we came out publicly and said. Any policy uncertainty in this space, even if it is for a good thing, creates questions, but at the moment we are still working towards that timeframe.
One of the things we are hearing at the moment on access to finance is a lot of positivity towards when you get to that final investment decision space. But again, who knows the full impact that this will have on the broader markets in the financial space as well? All eyes are on the UK; they have been, first with the SAF mandate, and now with the RCM. Also in Europe, there is a lot of looking to what the UK is doing.
This is undoubtedly going to have an impact, but in all honesty it is very difficult to say right now what that impact could be until more details are available. From our perspective, the development of the scheme as swiftly as possible and, as Jonathon Counsell said, the competitivity within that, is important. It is about as much swiftness as possible. We are very supportive at the moment of what is happening.
David Reed
Q
Sophia Haywood: That is a great question. In terms of the international value chains, as I said before, all eyes are on the UK. For a lot of projects that are developing globally, even if they are being developed in countries significantly further away from here and Europe, we are going to see a lot of opportunity for product to be moved over to the UK, at least until other mandates in other countries are put in place, and then we will start seeing shifts in where this goes.
Instead of a blocker, perhaps, I would phrase it more as an opportunity about things that we could maybe do slightly differently. One example that we have just had is a project in Japan that we have done. We had a large amount of funding. It is quite similar to the advanced fuels fund principle, but a lot larger in terms of the quantity of funding that is available, albeit with a smaller number of participants. That has enabled a much larger-scale project in partnership with one of Japan’s largest oil companies to develop a SAF project. This is a transition, and they are going to move at the same pace as one another.
As much as we can support investments on existing sites with existing infrastructure, such as both of our projects in Teesside in terms of the regeneration, I think more activities like that could be a great opportunity for the UK. The steps that have been taken so far with Project Willow are a good example of how that could be taken to the next level. The project is looking at opportunities on the site of the former refinery at Grangemouth; maybe this could be a similar example, where you could take it to the next level. However, we will see increasing competition globally.
Coming back to the points around planning and electricity connections, anything that could help us to bring investments to the UK, where we have some of the highest energy costs, would be welcome. We saw a commitment in the industrial strategy to reducing electricity costs, which is fantastic. We would welcome greater clarity as to whether SAF can definitely be included in that. I saw that it is an extension to an existing scheme, which is why I am asking that question. These are some of the things that help us to compete better globally.
David Reed
Q
Sophia Haywood: It is not something that we have had great levels of conversation about, particularly when it comes to energy security. It is a really important part of energy security. Coming back to the point about access to locally produced bioethanol, I see it as another great example of something that would be sustainable, affordable and secure, if we are able to take wheat that is produced locally by British farmers, and convert it in local facilities and then at a SAF facility. With all the additional benefits on things such as CO2, that is a great opportunity on energy security, but speaking more broadly it has not been a huge part of the interest in SAF.
Noaman Al Adhami: I will focus more on scalability. When it comes to scalability, allowing all the routes to SAF and not focusing on one route will potentially enable SAF production to be scaled up. Green hydrogen will also potentially be there in large quantities with an affordable price, and that will contribute. For example, we could utilise green hydrogen to triple production if it were available, but currently it is not.
We are also designing our plant to utilise multiple types of feedstocks. It is mainly solid waste to SAF. I would start with a less challenging feedstock to prove the line-up and then explore much more difficult feedstocks, such as MSW. Even sewage sludge, chicken manure and grease, for example, could be used to co-fire the gasifier, so we think the supply chain will potentially build once it sees a home for their waste.
We will start with a safe option for the feedstock, but our objective is to explore all other potential feedstock and increase capacity. We have plans for at least phase 2. Our site in Teesside can accommodate phase 2 and we are already planning for that. Hopefully, once we reach FID, we will announce phase 2 of the project.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Q
Noaman Al Adhami: In terms of standards, as I mentioned before, our route is approved as per the ASTM route. The rest of the standards—mainly on feedstock—are already there in the SAF mandate with all the details, and we are complying with that. I think one of the big advantages of SAF, compared with other means of decarbonising aviation, is that it is a drop-in fuel. It is a liquid fuel, very similar to the jet fuel kerosene, so it is easy to store and transport; you can use existing pipelines.
Obligated parties, whom we may potentially supply with SAF, have the capability to blend it. Currently, it can be blended up to 50% drop-in, and they can do so using the infrastructure that is already available. If you compare hydrogen with SAF, SAF is much easier, because you can use the existing infrastructure in airports, storage and logistics. To be frank, we do not see any challenge there in Teesside, which is an industrial area with storage facilities. We do not see any issues. With hydrogen, as I explained, we can use hydrogen not necessarily to power the plane directly, but we can certainly use it to boost production of SAF. That is possible. I have the CO that I mentioned earlier, which I am currently capturing to reduce carbon intensity. I can convert this to CO, mix it with hydrogen, and produce more SAF.
The issue in the UK is the cost of producing green hydrogen. We, as a global developer of renewables, know the cost of producing green hydrogen in the UK is very high. If you have this valuable green electron, is it better from an efficiency perspective to use it to electrify cars and heat homes, where you can get up to 80% efficiency, or to produce fuel at 30% or 40% efficiency? But things are happening; once hydrogen storage and production costs advance—we think perhaps between 2035 to 2040—hydrogen will potentially be available in quantities. We will need large quantities, of course: for our project alone, we will need 1 gigawatt of hydrogen to fully utilise the biogenic carbon we produce.
The Chair
I am afraid you have just two minutes left.
Sophia Haywood: Just quickly on planning, it is more about boots on the ground than a lack of skills or particular challenges within planning. That is something I have heard from many other SAF producers all over the UK, so that would be my point there.
Similarly, in terms of standards, we also have ethanol-to-jet, ASTM approved, at 50%. That is fine for the current mandates, but as we move towards potentially greater blends of SAF in the mix, more work will be needed to increase the blend limit from an ASTM perspective. I am not aware of any issues on the diesel side—we produce 90% SAF and 10% diesel—but of course I can go away and check, and report back. The same applies to the storage of intermediates; ethanol is a well-transported product in many ways, shapes and forms. Again, I am not aware of any particular challenges there, but I can double-check and—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Photographs must not be taken of the Committee—I am absolutely clear about that. I am sorry to interrupt.
Sophia Haywood: No, thank you. Just on hydrogen, we need a small quantity of hydrogen for our project. The challenge we actually have at the moment is that we are not allowed to use hydrogen supported by the hydrogen business model, which is obviously supporting a lot of the hydrogen production out there. We also have to use green hydrogen in SAF, otherwise it would essentially be counted as fossil-based, and we do not want to produce any fossil jet—that is not what we are trying to do.
There could perhaps be some leeway in the short to medium term to allow us to access projects supported by the hydrogen business model. I think they are being treated slightly in isolation at the moment, but we are all very connected with one another. Whether it is CCS, hydrogen, or everything else, we are all interconnected in one shape or another. I get why we are trying not to double-incentivise, but in a way we are all reliant on each other’s—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for questions from the Committee. I thank our witnesses for their evidence this morning. As it is now 11.25 am, the Committee is adjourned. I look forward to seeing you all this afternoon at 2 pm.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 15th July 2025
(2 days, 18 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 July 2025 - (15 Jul 2025)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Doug McKiernan: On the first part of the question, given my knowledge of the sector as an engineer, I do not believe that there is a long-term solution other than power to liquid. At the moment, in the ASTM fuel standards, there are a lot of bio-based, sugar-based and food-waste solutions. In my view, those are not truly scalable, and their cost will only ever go up, because of the shortage of land and so on. The power-to-liquid side is truly scalable. The feedstock is air, water and renewable energy. It is extremely clean, and it gives the industry the opportunity—in, say, 10 or 15 years’ time—to move to fuels that are even more performant than current fossil-based fuels.
We are very supportive of the Bill, and we think it will be useful for us if it goes through. It will give confidence to the sector and bring investment, which then helps to bring capability to the UK. It is a great way to kickstart the e-fuels industry, which is the medium to long-term solution, not a short-term solution. We have been working in this sector for only five years. Because of our education system, we probably have some of the best talent in this sector globally, and we are able to recruit that.
We have already made significant inroads into the quality of the fuel, which is over and above anything else that is now available—and when I say that, I mean globally available. This little company that we have—and it is little—has been able to outperform some of the bigger competitors in the field. Towards the end of this year, we will submit our product to the ASTM governing body to get it certified. The intellectual property that we are generating is key to the UK. We need to make sure that the IP is generated here in the UK and kept here because I believe that in five years from now all the big decisions around e-fuels—all the important ones—and the freedom to operate will have been worked out, and we do not want that to be worked out anywhere other than in the UK. It will enable us to kickstart the energy generation within the UK so that we have a sovereign capability for energy generation. I hope that answers your question.
Greg Smith
Q
Doug McKiernan: That is a very good question. I think we are in a race. At the moment we need the Bill to give confidence to investors. That will help us to scale. That is the main benefit in the short term. With regard to the IP, there needs to be a mandate somewhere in Government to support core e-fuels development. A lot of small companies at the moment are not getting that, so we are at risk of going abroad with the technology. The Aerospace Technology Institute heavily sponsors hydrogen and electric, but does not really support the core technology of e-fuels. Although we have this mandate, which we think is great, there is a bit of a gap there that could do with addressing.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Q
Doug McKiernan: Without this Bill and the mandate and quotas that have been set, I think the investment industry will step back from that, which would hurt us as a company. We would not be able to scale up. It would make things extremely difficult and would push the pace at which we could get to net zero to the right.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Q
Doug McKiernan: Coming back to the IP, there needs to be some sort of support for e-fuels core technology development. That is very important. If you want e-fuels to be part of the future, we need to make sure that that research is supported in the UK and that when it is supported in the UK there is proper IP regulation of that. That needs to be mandated as part of the support from the Government.
What is happening in the aviation area is clearer cut, because you cannot get the energy density into an aircraft with hydrogen or electric, so it is kind of obvious, but I think it is a solution for a lot of the fossil-based fuels, including gasoline and diesel. I think what we will end up doing is that, if we can develop that core technology, it is then transferable to other sectors, and with that we will be able to deal with the real problem, which is the end-to-end solution of getting renewable energy to the consumer. That is the real challenge.
At the moment, we are talking about sustainable aviation fuel, but actually there is a lot of energy in the North sea that is not getting used because of the challenge of the cost of getting it from there to the consumer. This is where e-fuels come in. The Bill would help to move us in the right direction to start to tackle that problem, because you would have these companies with the new tech working out how to make that viable. There is a very good, well researched paper by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the US and the Department of Energy. It was done back in 2021.
I had a conversation with our CEO and the board one day and realised, “We’re not actually a fuels company, although we’re called Zero Petroleum and we’re making jet fuel and gasoline. We’re actually an energy transmission company, because all the problems we have with renewable energy are solved by liquid hydrocarbons”. If you look at the paper I referred to, done back in 2021, the cost of getting energy from the North sea in a cable to the consumer is probably forty to fiftyfold what it is if you wanted to do it with a liquid hydrocarbon. That is the fundamental problem that we are going to struggle with going forward. We are slowly going to morph as technology and engineering rather than policy dictate what the solution is.
Luke Taylor
Q
Doug McKiernan: Correct. Within that report, there were also comparisons to hydrogen—that was a sixfold increase over a two-foot oil pipeline—and to ethanol, methanol and ammonia. It looked at how you get energy from A to B in the cheapest operational expenditure and capital expenditure form. That is a fundamental. The cost of getting the renewable energy is what all the engineering will come back to. I believe the renewable energy will be in remote locations, a bit like oil today. Ultimately, we are going to put renewable energy in those places. Hopefully we do not cover all the fertile soil with solar panels and we can generate it elsewhere, and then use the power-to-liquids to get it from A to B.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Q
Doug McKiernan: To be perfectly transparent with everybody, with carbon dioxide at the moment I think the direct air capture, compared with where we are, is a bit of an Achilles heel. It is probably around two to four years behind in its scale-up, in terms of being able to keep pace with our scale-up, but actually there is plenty of biogenic carbon dioxide around for large-scale commercial plants here in the UK, which could be a stepping stone to the direct air capture. A lot of the work with direct air capture at the moment talks about the cost of it; you can sequestrate the carbon dioxide in the ground. That is not what we want to do as a petroleum company; we want to put that carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel, and then it is net zero. You have carbon dioxide and water coming out of the exhaust—whether that is a turbine or internal combustion engine. If you capture the carbon dioxide again with the direct air capture, you are then net zero.
When you integrate that direct air capture with our process, the cost of direct air capture is probably reduced by 80%, because we have an exothermic reaction going on, and the majority of the cost in direct air capture is in the de-absorption of carbon dioxide. Once you have absorbed it from the air, you have to heat up the catalyst again—or the material that has absorbed it—to get the carbon dioxide out again, and we have an exothermic reaction. We would not have those costs associated with our process. Integration of our direct air capture with our power-to-liquid solution in three to four years’ time would be quite a mature technology, and definitely scalable within the UK.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Q
Doug McKiernan: That is a good question. I am not a particularly good judge of financial investment—I am a technical person—but I looked at the quotas for the e-fuels, and if they went further, I believe they would drive the development of the technology harder, because it would bring more investment into that particular area. To me, 3.5% by 2040 seems quite low—I think that we could probably scale up and do blends where that would be significantly higher.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Doug McKiernan: There is no question about it. The people who we have recruited have been researching, and have done not only doctorates but post-docs in this area. They have been working in it for nine or 10 years, hoping that there was a company out there that would recruit them and turn their R&D into a reality. These people are very passionate about their career and what they want to do. They are not going to work for the money; they come to make a difference. We have recruited a lot of those people. They will go wherever the company is that will make what they want to do happen.
Mr Kohler
Q
Doug McKiernan: Our technology at the moment has to be scalable. When I go to the Jet A-1 ASTM committee at the end of the year, it has to be scalable. That is part of getting of getting the certification. We have to have a scalable process as well as a quality of fuel—so yes, we are there.
The Chair
We have a minute left, but there are no further questions from Members. I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Ruben van Grinsven gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Ruben van Grinsven from Shell International. This session will have until 2.40 pm. Can you introduce yourself for the record, Ruben?
Ruben van Grinsven: Good afternoon. My name is Ruben van Grinsven. I work for Shell and I am based out of the Netherlands, at The Hague—the former headquarters of our company, which has now moved across the street. Shell is active in quite a large part of the value chain of aviation refuelling. We provide both SAF and fossil aviation fuel to airline customers today. We do the blending, we do the transportation and we do sourcing, which means that we buy both aviation fuel and SAF from across the world to meet our customers’ needs. We are also actively looking at the production of generations 1, 2, and 3 of SAF.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: That is a really good question. We are looking globally at various opportunities to build SAF production plants. The second and third generations especially are more challenging than the first generation. To make the investment case robust, we need to solve a whole number of challenges—some are around ensuring that we can make the technology work, and some are around financing. But a lot of it has to do with the value of the product that we make, and the certainty around the value of the product.
The revenue certainty mechanism being discussed in the Bill is very compelling. There is always a combination of different factors. It is partially fundamentals about whether we can get the right feedstocks, but part of it is also about the certainty we have about the price we are going to get for our products. The revenue certainty mechanism is absolutely very helpful.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: There are two elements. One is whether we can invest in a UK plant. That is hard to tell at this point in time for two reasons. We do not fully understand all the details associated with the Bill. I think the principles are very promising, but there are many things that need to be detailed out, which, at the end of the day, will decide how appealing the investment is going to be. There is a lot of that.
Can UK-produced SAF be competitive in a global market? I think that depends a little bit on the type of technology, but it is also very timebound. At this point in time, this is not the cheapest place to make e-SAF, just because power is more expensive than other places in the world. But if we continue to build out the renewables, as I have seen in plans before, I think there are going to be more affordable electrons around that can then be converted into e-SAF. In the longer term, e-SAF can be competitive.
For other technologies, I think things are less location dependent. Ethanol to jet, for instance, is very feedstock dependent, and I think that the UK can be as competitive as other places. Again, the fundamental competitiveness is one element. The other element is whether the whole investment case makes sense, and part of that is financing —and part of the financing is driven by revenue certainty. It is not just the fundamentals but the whole package that determines the attractiveness of the investment.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: I do not know. I do not know exactly what the price projections are for renewable power in the UK. It is hard to guesstimate that, so I do not know.
Graeme Downie
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: Ideally, you want the market to take care of it. As evidenced by a lack of investment to date and by a lot of feedback from industry, it is difficult for investors now, without the revenue certainty mechanism, to invest. Is it essential? That is a very black-and-white question. I think it is going to be extremely helpful to convince people to invest.
We absolutely support the Bill because additional SAF production in the UK is going to be helpful for decarbonising the aviation sector, and we very much support that. Additional supply projects in the UK are going to be very helpful to meet the targets and help decarbonise the aviation industry. Yes, we very much support the Bill.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: I am afraid I cannot fully answer that question because it is not the part of the business that I am in. I am not importing SAF to the UK, so I do not know how trade limitations are currently impacting SAF supply. I would have to ask a colleague and come back to that question. It is also hard to predict what the future is going to bring for global trade and how protectionism will impact the global free trade of all types of fuels.
If you produce domestic fuels, that is, of course, going to be helpful if you want energy security. I must say, though, that if you look at the volumes that we are talking about today, the energy security element in the early days is going to be limited because of the volume of the fuels involved.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Q
You are a global company in a global marketplace. The airlines I have spoken to want to source SAF from UK markets. How attractive is that to your organisation as a global business—responding to your customers’ wanting you to deliver locally? How much does that play a part in that investment?
Ruben van Grinsven: I am going to answer in a slightly similar way. My role is very much investigating and developing supply assets. I am really looking at building SAF plans. I am not very familiar with how customers demand locally produced fuel. In general, customers look for affordability and, therefore, at price and eligibility legislation. At this point, those are the more driving factors for people to buy certain fuels.
Luke Taylor
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: That is a good question. First and foremost, the UK is ahead of pretty much everybody else when it comes to developing those mechanisms. I know the EU is basically inspired by the RCM and trying to come up with a similar framework, which it will be announcing in September in the sustainable transport investment plan. I think the initial thoughts are indeed to fund that through ETS.
I do not have a strong preference between ETS-funded or levy-funded. The most important thing is that it is clear, transparent, consistent and predictable. Once we know the details and find out how the whole mechanism will work, we can perfectly live with the levy mechanism—as long as it works practically. So we do not have a strong preference between ETS or levy funding.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: There are two elements. One is the fundamentals: affordable renewable energy, other feedstocks, then the cost of building plants, labour, and everything else. At the moment, in terms of the fundamentals of renewable electricity, the UK does not have a clear advantage because power prices are slightly more expensive, and most of the renewable power in the UK is intermittent. That is an important thing that needs to be overcome.
You have a slight disadvantage compared with, for instance, the Nordics, such as Sweden and Finland; they have a lot of hydro and stable baseload renewable power. On the fundamental side, especially for power, I think there are other places that are currently a bit more competitive. However, many of the other elements, such as feedstock supply, labour and knowledge, are quite similar.
The biggest differentiator is probably the legislative and regulatory landscape. You are creating a market through mandates, which I think is extremely powerful. If you also increase investment certainty through an RCM, that element is unique and, at this point in time, very helpful.
Chris Vince
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: Especially for the second and third generation, SAF needs to develop. I think the consensus is that HEFA-based SAF is, at this moment, the most mature and affordable, so it is a great option. However, we also all believe that we are going to run out of feedstock at a certain time.
If you want to continue decarbonising aviation, you need additional forms of SAF—and that is where the second and third generations come in. We need to start developing those now, to learn how it is done and establish the technology and the fundamentals behind it. Starting that now is essential, and doing it in the UK could potentially give you a head start. If you do this before everybody else, you would have a technological and commercial head start, which could be an advantage.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: The principle makes sense: at the end of the day, additional cost will find its way to the end user. We do not have enough information at this point in time to calculate what the cost is going to be because a lot of the details of the Bill are unknown. We would like to better understand how this is going to work, what the volumes are, what the timing is going to be, and how we will organise the contracts between the supplier and the off-taker. There are a lot of things that we do not know at this point, and therefore it is difficult to model what the final cost of the levy is going to be for the end consumer. I do not know; it is difficult to answer.
On top of that, I think it is going to change over time. Over time, if the market is short and the prices are high, money might flow towards the levy, so it would be like a negative levy but then it might turn into a positive levy. It is very difficult to assess that and put a number on it.
Mr Kohler
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: Again, that is hard to judge because we do not have the full details of how this is going to be done. I agree that it is a very thin-margin business, so we have to make sure that the levy is distributed properly, and that we do not give certain people a disadvantage or advantage just based on calculation methods. We need to design it very carefully so we do not disturb the market too much. We will be able to assess that much better when we have more details about the Bill.
The Chair
I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Matt Gorman evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Matt Gorman from Heathrow airport. For this session, we have until 3 pm. Welcome, Mr Gorman. For the record, can you please introduce yourself?
Matt Gorman: Sure. I am Matthew Gorman, the carbon strategy director for Heathrow airport.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Gorman: Let me start by saying that we take this issue very seriously, for the reasons you have outlined. It is central to our business. SAF is key to delivering the industry’s net zero transition plan: it is about 40% of the solution. I do not think that anyone can forecast the future costs and prices with exact certainty, but I will say that we test all our demand forecasts for Heathrow against a range of different carbon price scenarios, from low to high—“high” being the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s high scenarios. We do that because it is important for us to understand and our investors to understand, and because climate disclosure legislation now requires us to share that information in our annual report. We have concluded that demand for flying from Heathrow remains robust even in high carbon price scenarios in future. We are confident about that.
The Government have shared their analysis on the revenue certainty mechanism and the reasons behind it. That is one of the carbon costs that consumers will bear—there are clearly others—but I come back to the point that all our forecasts have shown that demand is robust.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Gorman: It is a good question. We welcome the Bill. As SAF is so important, the sector and Heathrow have advocated over a number of years both the mandate, which was passed as legislation at the beginning of the year, and the revenue certainty mechanism. It has benefits for energy security, green jobs, growth and decarbonisation. That has been one of the drivers for the sector to support it. The decarbonisation benefits are clear. On jobs and growth, earlier witnesses talked about the industry studies showing up to £10 billion of GVA and 60,000 jobs by 2050.
Energy security is one of those reasons. As SAF is a key part of the industry transition plan around the world, there will be global trading of SAF. Kerosene is a global commodity today; SAF will be in future. We think we will import some. However, the sector is supportive of domestic production, which is why we are so supportive of the Bill. I should say that Heathrow is not directly in the fuel value chain—we do not buy, make or sell fuel—but we are very involved in the debate, because it is so significant. All the fuel producers and investors we talk to say that the revenue certainty mechanism will help to unlock investment decisions in the UK. I am not sure whether the Bill could be improved to do that even more. I do not have a view on that.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Q
Matt Gorman: That is a good question. We have not studied it in those terms. We have published a plan to get to net zero, and there are four key tools in the toolkit. SAF is one; zero-emission and hydrogen-powered aircraft are others. More efficient aircraft and more efficient operations deliver a huge amount, and there are greenhouse gas removals for anything that we cannot cut within the sector.
SAF is important. We have always said that a combination of a mandate requiring production and incentives to stimulate investment in the UK is important. We are delighted to see the Government progressing with the Bill: we would like it to be passed as soon as possible, and we would like the consultation on the implementation to move forward. I would simply say that SAF is very important and that the Bill is very important to driving UK production.
Julia Buckley
Q
Matt Gorman: It would be much more difficult to produce in the UK; all the investors and fuel suppliers we talk to say so. There are huge advantages in doing that—for jobs, growth and energy security, as well as for decarbonisation .
Julia Buckley
Q
Matt Gorman: Very confident, from everything we hear from fuel suppliers in this space. Looking at the different bits of infrastructure, starting briefly with aircraft and engines, the main aircraft and engine manufacturers are in the process of certifying all their aircraft to run on 100% SAF. In a sense, we do not have to worry about that problem immediately, because—apart from dedicated flights—we do not have 100% SAF flowing through pipes, but that is clearly their goal. I forget the exact dates, but I think that by the end of this decade they will all be doing it, if not before.
On pipelines and aircraft infrastructure, one of the main reasons that we have focused on SAF is that it requires upstream investment in production facilities, but it does not require changes in airport infrastructure or planes. That means that as soon as you can start producing SAF, you can start cutting carbon. As an illustration, at Heathrow, partly in anticipation while waiting for some of the Government market signals to develop and kick in, we introduced a landing charge incentive—a financial incentive. It started at 0.5% a couple of years ago, and now 3% of all the fuel being used at Heathrow is SAF, which has dropped into our systems without any issues. I should also say that 17% of the total global production of SAF is now uplifted through Heathrow.
Luke Taylor
Q
Matt Gorman: This Bill is part of a package of measures from the Government, and I think it is absolutely vital. I see the Bill and the SAF mandate as equally important, with the SAF mandate driving a requirement for 10% SAF and with the Bill encouraging investment in domestic production. Those are vital tools, and the Government are taking a range of other steps. I am not here as a spokesperson for the Government, but the jet zero strategy outlines a range of measures to support the ongoing development of more efficient aircraft, which is a key tool in our toolkit, along with modernising airspace with the new UK airspace design service, which is vital for more efficient airspace, and support for new hydrogen technology and greenhouse gas removal. This is a vital part of that package.
Luke Taylor
Q
Matt Gorman: I think this is a very strong start from the UK. I was smiling when the Shell representative said that the EU had been inspired by the measures that the UK is taking. Joking aside, I have talked to fuel suppliers and investors to get a sense of how they are seeing the market. They say that this package, with the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism, is a really strong policy package from the UK.
To answer your question, Heathrow has been invited by the Government to submit updated proposals for our expansion plans by the end of this month. Within them, we will be setting out our views on our future trajectory to net zero. We think that the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism are vital. The Government have already said that they want to keep the mandate levels under review; you are right that although we are more ambitious to begin with and the EU is less ambitious, the EU takes over. Our view is that heading more in the direction of the EU’s ambition over time will be important for Heathrow and for aviation generally, but we will keep that under review.
It is really important to get started and make a strong start in this decade, to show that as well as producing SAF globally for use in the UK, as we are already doing, we can produce it in the UK.
Tom Collins
Q
Matt Gorman: I think it would look broadly like what the UK is doing. We think about it in three buckets: the plane, the airport infrastructure and the regulatory environment. It is worth remembering that UK aerospace is one of the jewels in the crown of our manufacturing sector. We have a very long history in aerospace, and the Aerospace Technology Institute funds some of that technology development alongside the private sector. That is important.
With airport infrastructure, we have always said, certainly for Heathrow, that we do not want to be a blocker. We do not want a hydrogen plane to be designed but not able to fill up at our airport. We keep an active watching brief on technology developments. We have taken a stand at Heathrow to trial hydrogen technology so that we can understand and build understanding. That is partly to influence the regulatory environment so that we are supporting the roll-out of hydrogen.
The latest views from manufacturers are that we will probably start small with hydrogen—small plane sizes and small ranges—and build confidence there before getting bigger. However, that could play a real role in domestic connectivity. I think we are doing the right things, but it is a both/and with SAF and hydrogen, not an either/or. I would also say that SAF is the solution that we know exists today and that we can deploy today, so we need to get it moving.
Mr Kohler
Q
Matt Gorman: On the first question, I touched earlier on the fact that the EU and the UK have taken different trajectories, certainly into the longer term. I will be a little bit careful in what I say, because we are just finalising our thinking on what we submit to the Government, but increasing ambition with SAF will be important in the UK as we build confidence in production and scale-up of the technology. We can see a case in future to be more ambitious with the UK mandate. I think the Government said that they want to keep that actively under review, which we support.
On the question of tankering, it happens to a limited extent today. We do not fly the aircraft, but our understanding, from when we last looked at it several years ago, is that on short-haul aircraft in particular, where there is a very rapid turnaround and you do not necessarily want to take time to fill up the aircraft at the other end of the route, the CO2 penalty was not huge in terms of the industry overall. I am not close enough to comment on whether the levy poses a particular challenge there, but when the Government get to the stage of consultation on the detailed design of the mechanism and are working with the industry, it will be important to design it in a way that avoids that wherever possible.
Amanda Hack
Q
Matt Gorman: It is a great question. All the evidence from our polling of customers, as well as what we read in regular polls and consumer surveys, shows that people are broadly concerned about climate change and environmental issues generally. In terms of aviation, they see that there is a role for customers, but they are clear that the industry needs to set out a plan and take action. They understand that airports do not necessarily fly planes, but that we clearly have a responsibility. They expect us to set out the plan, communicate it and take action at the airport where we can. In that sense, all the evidence shows that consumers support us taking action.
As the answer to an earlier question alluded to, the net zero transition will have some costs to consumers. The challenge is how we keep those costs as low as possible while reaching the goal of net zero. I think the balance of the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism is well designed to achieve that. We think that domestic production in the long term so we are not reliant on imports—we have discussed the energy security angle—is a good way of helping to manage price certainty in future. Consumers are supportive, engaged and willing to pay a bit more to support the transition to net zero, but the industry and Government need to take action to manage it cost-effectively.
Mr Kohler
Q
Matt Gorman: If we start with the mandates out to 2030, we at Heathrow do not see a particular challenge in the UK’s adoption of a more ambitious mandate. We very actively supported the 10% mandate for the UK. As I say, it is really important that we start to get SAF flowing and to produce it in the UK, with the support of the Bill.
In the longer term, through the work we are doing and our submissions to Government, I expect us to say a bit more about the long-term ambition for the mandate in the UK, but we have not quite finalised that. I will be happy to update the Committee in writing later in the summer.
The Chair
There are no further questions from Members. Thank you for your evidence, Mr Gorman.
Examination of Witness
Josh Garton gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Josh Garton of the Green Finance Institute. For this session, we have until 3.20 pm. Good afternoon and welcome, Mr Garton. For the record, will you please introduce yourself?
Josh Garton: I am Josh Garton, technical director at the Green Finance Institute.
Greg Smith
Q
Josh Garton: I think that the revenue certainty mechanism that is being proposed is a really good start to getting finance into the sector. Undoubtedly it will not be the only thing that is required: there are other risks that need to be addressed. The revenue certainty mechanism addresses price risk, as it is designed to, but other challenges remain for the second and third-generation fuels, and they may need to be addressed as well. I think that it is the best solution for addressing price risk. As other witnesses have described, when we speak to our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere, they see the package of regulation that the UK is proposing as some of the most promising in the world. The UK will become a very promising place to invest in SAF.
On your question about the price for the end consumer, it is very hard to forecast what that will be. There are a lot of forecasts out there. It obviously depends on the cost of production, the blending of the fuel and many other factors, but the most important thing is that the mechanism for transferring the cost to the consumer be done in a very equitable way, so that you remove any competitive advantages or disadvantages resulting from airlines and other players in the industry potentially gaming the system. I would say that that is a more critical element to consider.
Greg Smith
Q
Josh Garton: I think that imports will definitely play a role, particularly for the first-generation fuels. The structure of the mandate provides space for second-generation fuels, which are quite novel with the sustainability requirements attached to them, so the UK will be a good place for producing them. The technical design of the mechanism, which is not set out in the Bill, will be what is most critical to ensuring that the mechanism is adequate for facilitating investment.
David Reed
Q
Josh Garton: We are most active here in the UK and Europe with sustainable aviation fuel and the investors that are interested. We deal with commercial banks, private equity and other investors, and they are all very enthusiastic about the prospect. Unquestionably, they want to deploy capital into this space, but they will not be throwing out their investment rulebook when it comes to their risk-return profiles and the way that they assess risk. For that reason, we need things like this revenue certainty mechanism in place to provide confidence that investors, when they deploy capital in this space, will get the returns they need to justify their investments, or that lenders providing debt capital into this will get the returns they need within the regulatory frameworks in which they operate.
Amanda Hack
Q
Josh Garton: Yes, I think there are. As I said, the revenue certainty mechanism seeks to address price risk primarily. The mandate deals with volume, and it provides that volume certainty in the market. When we think of the second and third-generation fuels that we need to develop to meet the aviation decarbonisation targets, these are somewhat novel technologies—in fact, they are novel technologies—and there is no market for the fuel at the moment. That means the technologies themselves are not commercially mature yet, so even with a revenue certainty mechanism in place, there is still a level of technology risk that some investors are not willing to tolerate at this point in time.
We need further support to help the first-of-a-kind projects get through FID, even with the revenue certainty mechanism in place. That can include deploying things like first-loss guarantees, or other forms of Government involvement, such as being the first lender through something like the NWF taking a slightly more risk-on approach to the financing of these first-of-a-kind projects. That way we can prove that the technologies are commercially viable, and then help scale the sector.
Ms Minns
Any international comparator.
Josh Garton: In green finance, we will all have observed that the geopolitical narrative is changing. In the UK and the EU there is a more favourable environment for green finance than over the other side of the Atlantic. There is still a great appetite here, albeit within those risk tolerances that the different types of investors require.
Greg Smith
Q
Josh Garton: To go there? Are you talking about the first-generation fuels?
Greg Smith
Well, first and second, until we get to third.
Josh Garton: It is certainly a consideration, but I think most investors are very cognisant of the fact that the third-generation fuel, while absolutely necessary in the long term, has some way to go to evolve to that point. There is a lot of space still for the first and second-generation fuels to develop, but there will be some consideration about not building overcapacity in those sectors.
Greg Smith
Q
Josh Garton: Certainly, the technologies are at that point. There are still commercial challenges; they have been proven at demonstration scale but not at the commercial scale. In the UK, we have a mandate that provides space for second-generation fuels. While that mandate remains intact, there will be a lot of space for that fuel over the long term. In the EU they have a different structure, where they do not have that same space for second-generation fuels.
Luke Taylor
Q
Josh Garton: Yes, absolutely there is. It feeds into the overall narrative in the UK on the direction of SAF. It is more than just at the regional level; there are murmurings around the strength of the mandate itself and its being upheld. All those murmurings impact the narrative and the appetite for investors. The more we can do to support those first-generation plants to get through to a final investment decision and through to production, the better we prove out the sector as a viable one in the second and third-generation fuels. That narrative then falls away, because we have proof that it is a commercially viable product.
Luke Taylor
I admire your faith that that narrative might fall away, but I agree with the rest of the answer.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, thank you very much indeed, Mr Garton, for your evidence today.
Examination of Witnesses
Philip New gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Philip New. For this session we have until 3.40 pm. Welcome, Mr New. Just for the record, could you introduce yourself?
Philip New: My name is Philip New. A couple of years ago I was commissioned to prepare a report for the Government on the development of a UK SAF industry. Before that, I used to be responsible for BP’s global renewable energy activities.
Greg Smith
Q
Philip New: The main conclusions from the report that I did were, first, that the SAF mandate as laid out—it was at a slightly more formative stage then than it is now—was a really smart way of trying to define the market mechanisms, the targets and the obligations framing a new market. The question then was what other mechanisms would need to be in place, having got the demand side largely mapped by the mandate, to enable supply to occur.
My first thought when I saw the RCM was that there was very little that was needed: if you believe that the market will be short of SAF, as many people do, with a buy-out price and a target, you would expect the product to price close to the buy-out price—that which is available. That sends a very strong price signal to investors. I was unfortunately thinking of that from my historical perspective as a strategic investor and had underestimated the conservatism of the banking community. It was clear to me that they were pushing very hard—perhaps because they had grown very comfortable with the idea of a CFD in other parts of the green transition—and they were really enthused and insistent on the idea of a revenue certainty mechanism. The way that the RCM has emerged so far is very highly aligned with the proposals that emerged in that original report. From that point of view I would say, “So far, so good.” The mandate is evolving well and the RCM feels pretty much where it needs to be.
The questions that are still out there, as I think Josh Garton was referring to, are specific to very first-of-a-kind technologies. Part of the issue with the second-generation products is that, while the feedstocks are already wastes, they are often already being used in other sectors. There needs to be, I think, some greater degree of comfort to enable some of those wastes to be bid away without wrecking the project economics of the SAF developer. A good example is black bin waste. The prospect is that by having more competition for black bin waste, we reduce costs for local authorities. It is really nice if we can get there, but for now, while these technologies are so uncertain and regarded as such a risk, it is difficult for local authorities to commit to them with enthusiasm, because they are afraid that they will end up paying landfill fees if they do not manage to do it.
That is one example suggesting that there should be some more comfort around feedstocks. The rest of the answer are the mechanisms that could be put in place to smooth some of the risk around the very first projects. The risks there are around integrating new technologies for the first time and then getting through some of the operating teething problems, because everyone involved will be coming across those issues for the first time. It took me about four years to get a much simpler plant up and running to a point of satisfactory operation. We should not underestimate the challenges of getting those initial assets over that first set of hurdles, but the RCM is an absolutely necessary part of the mix that needs to be put in place.
Greg Smith
Q
Philip New: When I first engaged with this, I had exactly the same thought. However, a few things are starting to emerge that sit on the more optimistic side of the balance of risk here.
First of all, over time there will be more and more pressure for the energy from waste manufacturers to access carbon capture and storage. It is not at all the cleanest way of generating an electron in this day and age. It would be reasonable to expect that over the next 15 years, we will see a number of those assets get to a point where the contracts are expiring. They will then need to contemplate refinancing, and if they do, whether or not they have access to carbon capture and storage will become important. Not all of them will be able to either afford or justify it, because they are too distant from where the carbon sinks are. There is a probability that enough capacity will start to come off stream for it to be picked up.
On top of that, the imposition of the emissions trading tax will start to free up some of the very difficult to recycle plastics, which could be used to make SAF. There is also an interesting stream of waste wood that will become available, particularly as some of the rocks start to fall away, which will start to happen in a couple of years’ time—and assets that at the moment are making renewable electricity out of waste wood will lose their rocks. We also need to remember that it is the local authority that is paying the energy from waste company to move it away.
I have recently been involved with some economic analysis. We assumed that for the first wave of sites there would be a 100% discount. In other words, rather than the local authority paying, it would get rid of the waste for free. The developer would not pay for it themselves, but the local authority would still save the money. We thought that would be necessary to give local authorities the comfort to take on the exposure. Later on, there might be scope for it to become a little more competitive, because people will get more comfortable and there will be more confidence in the technology.
I do not think that we simply have to bail them out. I think there might be something around a guarantee of some description that simply says to a local authority, “Look, if you give a contract to one of these companies and it fails—if it can’t live up to that contract—and you have to put it into landfill and pay the landfill tax, there could be some kind of keep-whole mechanism,” just to encourage them over the line.
The other thing that you could consider is looking at the waste hierarchy. Simply moving this from being recovery to recovery-plus would send a very strong signal to local authorities that putting it into SAF is a better use of their waste than simply incinerating it and turning it into electrons.
Ms Minns
Q
Philip New: This is quite a challenging conundrum. Right now, the safe place to put your waste is into an incinerator to make electrons. Is that the best place for the journey to net zero or for the local authority’s long-term economics? That is less obvious. It is difficult to put all the obligation on the local authorities to make the right, wise, long-term choice, when they are dealing with some very short-term pressures. This is where I think some extra signals—whether through some kind of mechanism that gives them comfort that they will be kept whole if things do not work out as planned, or some adjustment to the waste hierarchy—could play a helpful role.
David Reed
Q
Philip New: I think the key change has been in the United States. When I wrote that report, it was in the context of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The concern was that we might be out-competed by investment in America, and we would end up being a net importer of stuff from America, not just in first-generation SAFs but in second-generation SAFs. They have lower energy costs, which are very important in these sorts of industries, and their build costs are about 20% less than ours. That was a real worry then.
Especially coming out of the big, beautiful Bill, America is out of the game. That is kind of a good thing at one level, because it means that, particularly with the way the mandate is designed around second-generation SAFs, we now have a globally unique position. We could therefore become an incubator for a series of technologies that will have to play a significant role in aviation decarbonisation over the next couple of decades. The bad news is that if we fail to get this new industry kick-started, I do not think we can hope to rely on imports from somewhere else to get us out of trouble. It will mean that we will not meet our mandate targets.
David Reed
Q
Philip New: No. For most global markets that have started to look at SAF, the preferred mechanism has been to impose some form of mandate—even China has put in place the beginnings of a mandate mechanism. None of them are as ambitious as those in Europe and the UK, but that is the normal mechanism. The reason for that is simply that SAF costs more than aviation fuel. Left to its own devices, an airline in a very competitive industry is unlikely to voluntarily buy more SAF than it needs to buy. If it has big corporate clients that want to offset some of their scope 3 emissions and are willing to pay a premium to have their flights decarbonised, that is fine, but there is a real limit to how big, dependable and investable that market will be.
That is where America is right now, and it is because of the structure of the other incentives in the American mechanism. A critical part of that was a change in the big, beautiful Bill, in which the premium given to SAF producers was removed completely. They now get no more money than those making diesel for ground transport use, but it costs more money to make SAF. The airlines do not have an incentive to buy SAF because there is no mandate, and the producers do not have an incentive to make SAF because it costs more to make and they get less credit from the American mechanisms in place to support renewable fuels.
Luke Taylor
Q
I have questions about the big picture. It has the potential to disincentivise recycling. Does the increasing value of SAF feedstock undermine the efforts to recycle? Another, more technical question is: could plastics recycling be better diverted into this process to solve a lot of the problems we have with exporting plastics for recycling and the energy used to do that?
Many of our energy from waste facilities are now linked to heat networks. Is that bigger picture being considered—not just producing electrons, as you say, but using waste heat for district heating networks? There is a bit of additional complexity.
That leads into the bigger question of the holistic view across different Departments and the incentives that the Bill creates, which I am sure are all positive. It promotes better, more sustainable options in different Departments. Is enough work being done elsewhere for this to work within the bigger system? You have 15 minutes.
Philip New: My roots are as a fuels and energy guy, so I will not be able to respond with much expertise to the more specific questions about the waste sector. However, I will do my best by starting with the general statement that I think you are quite right that the second that waste becomes more valuable than an alternative use of that waste, you have to start questioning whether it is really waste. Funnily enough, that is more of an issue in some of the first-generation products that we are using, where the waste is becoming more valuable than virgin vegetable oils. That is a different issue, but it is very important.
In this case, as long as people either do not get anything for waste or have to pay to get rid of it, the risk of it distorting other parts of the hierarchy is manageable, particularly with a sensible degree of oversight and monitoring. I would not lose too much sleep about that. You will have to help me with the other part of the question.
Luke Taylor
Q
Philip New: First, I challenge the suggestion that this is an incentive. I think of it more as an insurance policy. If you are a recipient of the insurance policy, if it turns out that the market price is higher than you contracted for—your strike price—you will end up paying. The counterparty will be in receipt of money from the participants in the scheme. It is not a one-way incentive.
One of the charms of the RCM is that it is nicely balanced. If you are worried that the market will go long and there will be lots and lots of lower-priced product that undermines your economics, the RCM is a great way of giving you insurance that your investors will stay whole and happy.
On the other hand, by taking it on, you are sacrificing your exposure to the upside. That is the premium you are paying. I think the balance that has been designed into the RCM is a really attractive way of keeping everyone honest while still enabling investment to flow into the sector. I do not think it should distort the underlying drivers or mechanisms.
That having been said, I worry about the range of sectors that a successful SAF industry will touch. It has the potential to touch them in a very positive way, but it is also exposed to some inadvertent—I would not call it negligent—inattention in somewhere that does not feel a very strong ownership of the space, which could really mess things up. A degree of conscious, whole-system understanding of what it takes to enable a brand-new sector to emerge, and providing some co-ordination of that, would be welcome. Whether that looks a little like mission control in the electricity transition or something else, I do not know, but something to provide more comfort would be important. It touches many parts of the economy and many Departments.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q
Since your report, of course, we have had a change in Government, and who knows if there might be another one over the investment cycles we are talking about here? Could you say a little about your assessment of how a Bill—putting something in primary legislation, as this does—helps to provide the political confidence that you believe investors are looking for, and also, frankly, helps to mitigate the actions of the varying parties in Parliament as we approach this issue?
Philip New: There were two big pushes from the investment community when I was writing the original report connected with the RCM. The first was that it would just be nice to have that revenue certainty in the first place, and that is what we see in other parts of the green transition.
The other speaks directly to this point. They were very nervous that there might be a change to the mandate design, the mandate targets or something at some stage in the future, and that that would so change the market dynamics and the pricing dynamics that all their assumptions would go out of the window. They were not going to be satisfied with any number of assurances from the Government, because Governments change their minds, so they wanted a bilateral contractual arrangement, which is another feature of the RCM. A big driver of its original definition was precisely to respond to that very concern.
The Chair
Thank you for your evidence, Mr New. We will now move on to the next panel. Before I call our next witness, Mr Geoff Maynard, I say to colleagues that there may well be a Division around 4 pm, or perhaps 4.05 pm, so we may or may not get through the whole of this session before then. If there is a Division, we will go and vote. Return within fifteen minutes maximum, please. If there is another vote, which I do not think there will be, it will be a further 10 minutes.
Examination of Witness
Geoff Maynard gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Geoff Maynard: Good afternoon. I am Geoff Maynard, a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and a member of its aviation policy group. We meet regularly, maintaining links with universities, industry, airlines and environmentalists to assess developments in the sector, and to advise and inform Governments and the aviation sector on the best way forward, balancing the needs of the environment and the airline sector.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: I think the short answer is yes. It meets that requirement because, unless there are some incentives for SAF—which will cost more than the kerosene that would otherwise be used—there is no incentive for the aviation industry to use it. That presents a problem because there is then no environmental benefit, which we desperately and quickly need. The Bill is a good way forward, as we see it.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: But production is important. You could have a situation in which there is a mandate but nobody can acquire the fuel, except at a totally extortionate price. There would then be pressure on the Government to revise the mandate. That is how we see it.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: It depends on where you are within the mandate. If you are looking at low mandates, up to about 10%, then the £1.50 figure is probably correct, but as we move further on, it seems unlikely that it will be quite as low as that.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: On the face of it, you would expect the cost to fall, but the problem is that there is only a limited amount of raw materials for the generation 1 and 2 fuels to proceed. You will have to move forward to meet the requirements; you will have to move to power-to-liquid fuels, and they are going to be more expensive to produce. Therefore, at some point, as they kick in, to meet the overall figures, the cost base will rise. That is why we believe that, in the longer term, it will be slightly more expensive because there are not the cheaper feedstocks that are currently available.
Tom Collins
Q
Geoff Maynard: The short answer is yes, I do. I think it will be very effective. As many previous witnesses have said, it provides a guarantee to investors that they will get a return on their money. A point that perhaps has not been made is that it gives quite a lot of authority to the Secretary of State. If he sees that the process of moving to SAF is slowing, he can instruct the counterparty to let additional contracts and thus speed up the process and the amount that we have. There is a considerable degree of confidence that, properly used, it will produce the desired results.
David Reed
Q
Geoff Maynard: We have had some discussions around the edges with the RAF, if I can put it like that. They recognise the need that, at some point, they perhaps ought to be using SAF. It is certainly possible for them to do so, albeit not necessarily to the same percentage that you can use it in commercial jets, as I understand it, because the engines have not been designed for it. There are some issues to resolve before they can use it in the way that the commercial sector does. Does that answer your question?
David Reed
Q
Geoff Maynard: Yes, because the use is much greater. There is a lot more SAF to be used in the commercial sector than there is in the military sector.
The Chair
Any other questions? No. Mr Maynard, thank you very much indeed for your evidence this afternoon. We are grateful to you for taking the time to meet with us.
Examination of Witness
Professor Mark Maslin gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Mark Maslin from the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. We have till 4.20 pm for this session. Welcome, Professor Maslin. Would you state your name and so on for the record?
Professor Maslin: I am Professor Mark Maslin. I am a professor of Earth system science at University College London and the founding director of the Centre for Sustainable Aviation.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Maslin: We take the very large view that the only way to make the international aviation industry net zero is by SAFs. Electric short haul—possible in the next 20 to 30 years. Hydrogen—forget it; it is never going to work and any pilot will tell you, “Not a chance.” That is just so we have that laid out there.
We need SAFs both UK-wide and globally, and we are talking, as an academic institution, with very large airlines that want to produce SAFs in their own country. As academics, my colleagues and I would not pick one technology. What you need to do is what you are doing, which is having a levy that says, “If you produce SAFs, you will then have this benefit.” Then, you will work out which technology comes to the fore, whether that happens to be alcohol production or waste. You should stay agnostic to the successful SAFs output.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Maslin: Our analysis is slightly different because it is looking at the industry as a whole. On the airline side, there is a worry that these costs will literally be shoved on to the airlines. Many of us do not realise that the difference between this industry and others is that it is a very narrow margin industry. If there is any change in geopolitics, companies can go bust—for example, Finnair. Airlines are worried about this levy system, not necessarily because of the extra cost, but because they are not reassured that when there is a surplus, which goes back to the actual producers, it will be then be passed back to the airline. Again, they are happy with the up and down mechanism, but there seems to be no way of shunting that back to airlines to say, “Okay, you have done well, so you can get some money back.” That is more the concern.
Adding £1 or £2 to the price of a flight does not concern the airlines from the passenger point of view—it will not put passengers off. What will put them off is when the airlines suddenly realise that if you multiply that by 550, which is the number of people in an A380, you suddenly start to bankroll quite a lot of extra money that has to be found. I am hedging my bets, so I will not tell you that it will be higher or lower than £1.50. That is a very small amount per individual, but for the companies that are trying to make aviation work and are positive about trying to move to net zero, this is the perfect time to push, as they have suddenly woken up to the fact that they are laggards.
Tom Collins
Q
Professor Maslin: Other levy systems that have been used in the energy sector have been very successful, so I am personally very positive about this because it gives a guarantee. We have seen what I call the solar rollercoaster: suddenly everyone has solar panels, and then suddenly all the companies go bust. What you are doing, very sensibly, is trying to level those bumps in the road. That worked for offshore wind and it should work for this, but there also needs to be support through other mechanisms, such as R&D and mechanisms designed to support small and medium-sized enterprises, so they can get the research they need, to go from “Wow! That’s a brilliant idea!” to being world leading. This is a great mechanism, but the Government need to use the other mechanisms to fund those companies to develop as well.
Tom Collins
Q
Professor Maslin: I have been very lucky, because in the past I have been able to get funding from Innovate UK and even from the TSB before that—that is how old I am. Innovate UK needs direction, with top-down prioritisation of this sector for the UK. Sometimes Innovate UK has stuff coming in, then selects what it thinks is good, but I think you need to mandate, in concert with the Bill, that it focuses on SAFs and makes that one of its priorities.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I have realised that Professor Maslin was an undergraduate tutor of mine quite a few years ago.
Professor Maslin: Oh, this is becoming a real embarrassment; it just makes me feel really old. But it is great to see you in a position of power.
Joe Robertson
Q
Professor Maslin: I think that is deflection. The Bill is absolutely required. You need to support this fledgling industry; as with any of our green industries, we need to support it so that we can be world leading.
SAFs are going to be the future. There are 14,000 planes in the air at any moment, and in 30 years’ time they will hopefully all be flying on SAFs. If we can get our industrial might to actually produce the technology, patent it and push it forward, we will be ahead of the curve, because everybody else is starting to throw money at it.
Amanda Hack
Q
Professor Maslin: That is a huge, huge question.
Amanda Hack
Sorry.
Professor Maslin: No, no, I think it’s great. Forgetting schools, I think we need reinvigorate engineering in universities—and I say that not coming from an engineering background. The reason is that, at UCL, we have a huge faculty of engineering and some real areas of expertise, but we need to build those up. We need the chemical engineers who can train the next generation to go into SAFs. We need to energise that.
At the moment, the problem is that the university sector is creaking and underfunded, and top universities are doing things on a shoestring. It seems slightly ridiculous that I am going out to the middle east to get funding to support research into SAFs, but we are having to be entrepreneurial and sell our talent around the world.
David Reed
Q
Professor Maslin: The first thing is that we have to work out a way of being self-sufficient in SAFs. If you want the mandate and the Bill to work, we have to have that self-reliance. The problem that is the quality, quantity and supply of SAFs around the world are highly variable. They are not as good as you think they are. We therefore need to be able to protect our own regulations by having a homegrown community.
On weaponisation, no, I have not seen any evidence that hostile states are going after SAFs at the moment, because they are a very small percentage of the aviation mix. At the international level, it would be helpful if the Chicago accords could be renegotiated so that you could tax aviation fuel internationally, even if the tax was small—$1 per tonne, or something like that—to shift the balance away from aviation fuel and towards SAFs being more accountable. I doubt that will be possible in these interesting political times, but that is the problem we have. We are able to tax aviation fuel internally but not internationally. Therefore, at the moment, there is no aviation fuel tax on international flights, which would be a really nice mechanism. Of course, you can see that as weaponising against the fossil fuel industry.
Luke Taylor
Q
From my discussions with industry on the Bill up until now, I am not quite sure that I am convinced about being agnostic to SAF production, source and mechanism. My worry is that it does not give enough ability to shape the environmental benefit of that SAF stream and to incentivise the most beneficial SAF production, such as PTL compared with the earlier gen SAFs, even 2g SAFs. Does the Bill as presented give enough of the right mechanisms to incentivise the right sort of SAFs that will be most beneficial and provide us with the greatest environmental benefit?
Professor Maslin: The Bill provides financial security for industries producing SAFs, which I think is essential. I do not think it has real tweaks to favour particular SAFs—whether you want to do that or not is another matter. The problem is that some SAFs have a better environmental signature, and they are better, but we are going to run out of those.
Ultimately, the real SAFs that we are going to be looking at globally are massive algal productions and artificial kerosene, whereby you produce huge amounts of energy, and you use water and CO2 from the atmosphere to actually create kerosene. That is extortionately expensive at this moment in time. However, as I said, if there are 14,000 planes, going up 4% per year, by 2050 you will have a very large number of planes in the air at any one moment in time. There will not be enough waste, cropland or algal stuff to produce the SAFs we need. Generations 4 or 5 will be the ones that ultimately look after the aviation industry. I would still say to be agnostic; I cannot believe I am saying this, but let the economics work its way through at the moment to see who comes out on top in the UK, and then take through the next generation.
The Chair
Professor, thank you for your evidence and for illuminating us with the alumni in our midst.
Professor Maslin: It is amazing where my students end up.
The Chair
Thank you, Professor, for a very interesting contribution. We very much appreciate your time today.
Examination of Witness
Mike Kane MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to the Minister, and we have until 4.40 pm for this session. I suspect that we will be interrupted shortly by a Division, but I think we should proceed. Minister, while you have been active in our proceedings today, taking notes and so on, could you please introduce yourself for the record?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane): Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I am Mike Kane, and I am the Minister for aviation, maritime and security.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Kane: As the Minister, may I start by thanking all Committee members and witnesses for their time today? I think it is a great question. We have a world-class aviation sector and, if we want to stay world class, it is absolutely essential that we pass this Bill. It is part of our manifesto commitment. We introduced the mandate on 1 January for 2% on the demand side, and this now begins to give investment to the supply side.
You are absolutely right; we have to remain competitive in the aviation market if we are going to remain the third largest on the planet, and one of the most advanced. The figure we have from the departmental analysis teams is that it is plus or minus £1.50 of the price of a ticket over a year. That is less than my Bee Network bus fare, where Andy Burnham keeps the cost below £2. That is what we are looking at.
You ask how we are going to look at this. To answer in all seriousness, we are going to continue to monitor and control by managing the scale of the number of contracts we let. This gives the Secretary of State—whoever it is, from whichever party it is in the future—the power to look at what is happening and scale up or down if the market is badly distorted. We feel that there is no big impact on consumers taking their annual holiday to the south of Spain once a year. They will continue to do that unaffected.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Kane: As we said, we are agnostic to the technology. As we let the contracts, that is where the innovation will come.
There is a wider question across Government and UK security about intellectual property, and of course we will keep in contact with our colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade who look at that. The world is looking to us at the moment, as Lahiru from EasyJet said this morning, because we are the first doing this. We want to maintain the intellectual property by being first in the world to do this and then, as the companies come forward with the innovative technology, we want to properly IP that and maintain the competitive advantage in the UK.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Kane: As the Minister leading on the Bill, I would say, “My kingdom for a chemistry degree.” Actually, Mark said something that I thought was very pertinent towards the end: we just have to allow the technology to emerge. That way, as we get to the power-to-liquids and the harder piece to do, in five, 10 or 15 years, there will be a market for it. The beauty of the Bill is that we can let contracts over five or 10 years.
Personally, even though Exxon has reservations about this measure, the only emotion I would convey to Exxon is thanks for producing this fuel now, in this country. Exxon is happy about the SAF mandate; its issue is with the revenue certainty mechanism. That is an area where, once the market is established, the Government have an exit strategy; once the market begins to work, the then Secretary of State will have ways out of it, because Government will not need to be in it once we have established it.
Chris Vince
Q
Mike Kane: First, I thank you, Chris—you have been a great advocate for aviation since you came to Westminster in 2024, with Stansted airport near your constituency. The No. 1 risk is not doing this—that is the risk. I think Matt from Heathrow and Rob from Airlines UK said that in our approach to getting to net zero by 2050, we have a number of Government policies—airspace modernisation, leadership at CORSIA, the emissions trading scheme, the £2.3 billion investment in the Aerospace Technology Institute and hydrogen regulatory development—but that 40% of that pathway is the Bill. If we do not pass it, we are in serious trouble about decarbonising the industry. That is the key risk.
Tom Collins
Q
Mike Kane: When we came into Government in July, we had two key aviation policies. The first was airspace modernisation, and we set up the UK Airspace Design Service and passed it into legislation just the other week. In addition to improving resilience in our skies, we hope that that measure will stop planes circling and allow those that currently do not fly in a straight line to fly in a straight line, which reduces the cost of fuel—to go back to the shadow Minister’s point. Lahiru from easyJet said in his evidence that the best energy is the energy we do not use, and airspace modernisation helps us with that piece.
The second part of our manifesto commitment was SAF. After we were elected, we laid the mandate for 2% of all aviation fuel in the UK to be SAF. That came into force on 1 January. Airlines are sourcing SAF and getting supplies of it, but too much of it comes from abroad. While we have a good industry in the UK, companies need the confidence to scale it up.
I will make no party political points, but four or five years ago we were promised that by 2025 five plants would be up and running. If I were going there, I would not be starting from here, but we are getting on with doing this now. I think everyone on this Committee can be extraordinarily proud that this will be the moment that we stepped up and began to decarbonise the aviation industry.
Luke Taylor
Q
Mike Kane: To get any Bill this far, as any Member will know, it has to have consent right around Government. The Government know exactly what we are doing in a joined-up way. To answer your mission question, we have said that we want to be a clean energy superpower, and this Bill helps us to do exactly that. It gives us sovereign capability here on UK shores to do that; not only is that the right thing to do, but, in the increasingly uncertain geopolitical situation we face, it is becoming almost essential.
The other mission that we have is growth. Today, I heard some very big figures on what that could mean. Our Department figures show at least £5 billion GVA added if we do this, and about 15,000 jobs—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am suspending the Committee for a Division in the House. We will try to get back as quickly as possible.
The Chair
We now continue with our proceedings. I call Luke Pollard to continue—[Interruption.] Sorry, you are not a Minister of State yet, but you will be soon, I am sure. I call Luke Taylor.
Luke Taylor
Q
Mike Kane: As the departmental Minister, I want to avoid the pitfall of commenting on Treasury policy, but I did hear some earlier evidence that £500 million came in from the ETS. What did they get back for it? Well, £2.3 billion of investment in the ATI, which is looking at engine capacity, hydrogen and reduced noise technologies. We are investing more than we ever have in that area. We are also now aligning, or are in negotiations to align, our ETS with the European Union. That would give us a bigger market, and therefore help aviation in this space.
In addition to the £2.3 billion, the Chancellor recently announced £63 million for the advanced fuels fund. The Government are putting their money where their mouth is. As part of the work that I have done this year to restart our confidence in aviation, I set up the jet zero taskforce, which is jointly chaired by me and the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), at DBT. There is an awful lot of joined-up thinking in this area.
Amanda Hack
Q
Mike Kane: Indeed, and Amanda, you are a great champion of East Midlands airport in your constituency—I have Manchester airport in mine, and I see from day to day the benefits that growth brings in terms of jobs, skills and inward investment. You make exactly the right point. Good strategy is turning what you have into what you need to get what you want.
We have industrial heartlands dotted right across our nation, including in our coastal communities. They are almost oven-ready to host the technology, inward development and jobs. Our analysis, which was a minimum compared with those of everybody else in the room, is that this would create 15,000 jobs in the next few years and £5 billion in GVA. Those jobs are in many of our run-down coastal communities and industrial heartlands, so this is a win-win on many levels—in terms of decarbonisation, carbon capture, production and the regeneration of parts of our nation that have been left behind for far too long.
Mr Kohler
Q
Mike Kane: I think clause 6 gives us flexibility. That is what is key in letting the contract. We have made some principle statements here. This is industry-funded; we do not think the taxpayer should pay for the decarbonisation of aviation. We know that at the moment it is a small amount of what transport emits nationally, but because it is one of the harder-to-decarbonise areas, we know that the graph will go up over time. That is why we are funding the fuel suppliers, at the top of the chain here, so that the costs are spread as this goes lower down the chain and eventually to the passenger.
Mr Kohler
Q
Mike Kane: The first thing I would say in response to your question, Paul, is that this is a very technical, short Bill, but there are huge challenges ahead. I want to compliment my officials, who have worked extraordinarily hard to get to this point, and also industry who have worked with us to get to this point. As we go to the strike price and the levy, we will continue to work with industry to make sure we get that right.
Somebody described it earlier—I think it was Mark again—as being like a seesaw. It will go up, it will go down; but by letting the contracts or drawing them in, we can keep that balance in equilibrium, as far as humanly possible. That is the quality of this. While that is not the answer you might want to hear about the end piece, there will be scrutiny of the Secretary of State and of this, and of the legislation, and that will be covered by the Competition and Markets Authority. There will be many levels of scrutiny of how well Government are delivering this.
The Chair
I am sure Hansard will pick it up, but just for the record, Minister, you have mentioned Mark twice. I believe it is Professor Mark Maslin you are referencing, rather than the Chair, who of course remains neutral—and is not in a seesaw chair.
Mike Kane: You are always Mr Pritchard to me.
Graeme Downie
Q
Mike Kane: First, you are a great champion for Edinburgh airport in your constituency. You know the value of aviation to local communities in particular and you have championed that since you have been here.
Does the Bill give you innovation? I am not sure it does. I think it gives you a platform for what you want to do, in terms of the contracts that we will let going forward, which are about going from HEFA and first generation, to second and third generation. This gives you the substructure to build that capacity for intellectual property, inviting bids for various ways of doing things, and then protecting and supporting that, and bringing new entrants into the market. I think that is what the Bill does.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Mike Kane: This will depend, again, on the contracts. I know that you are a neighbour to the Grangemouth refinery, where there could be potential in the future. We know that SAF can be made from a wide range of feedstock, including household waste. The SAF pathways are developing rapidly, and will do even in the weeks and months while the Bill goes through. We just need to make sure that this legislation adapts to the technology and pathways that are coming forward, which will involve further discussions with DBT, other parts of Government and possibly local authorities.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Mike Kane: The requirements to support specific technologies’ feedstock today may be out of date. Again, if we were to pass this legislation and get to Third Reading, that gives us flexibility, as the Secretary of State has ability to change it. If we feel that the HEFA cap needs to change, we will be able to change it. If we want to move up the gradients of the types of SAF that we use, it gives us the ability to do that through the letting of the contracts.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Mike Kane: First, you have been a big supporter of sustainable aviation fuel in your constituency, because you have the Wastefront tyre-to-fuel plant, so your constituency is already benefitting from jobs that have been created by that company. The Bill also allows us to scale up the technologies that we want to use, which could be of particular benefit to the north-east. I am also the maritime Minister, and we have announced £1 billion investment at the Port of Tyne for LS Cables, and Teesport is about to announce big investments in sustainability as part of our clean energy mission. The mayor, Kim McGuinness, is absolutely tied into this agenda, and using the whole north-east coast to support our green energy mission is vital.
You are absolutely right that the pressure on ticket prices could be downward. Very recently, there was an article in The Sunday Times by the International Airlines Group, which hedged its SAF supplies a long time ago in advance of this. It says that it will now, as an airline, have a competitive advantage in the price of ticketing over the next few years, because it got SAF at the right price at the right time.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, thank you, Minister, for your evidence this afternoon. That brings us to the end of today’s session. The Committee will meet again at 11.30 am on Thursday 17 July to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kate Dearden)