The SAF Book and Claim mechanism is seemingly gaining some traction, as the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) and Arab Air Carriers Association (AACO) have both publicly admitted it would help the sector.
The premise is simple. An interconnected system that would allow an airline operator in location A to buy some credits that would enable another airline operator in location B to use SAF because of production proximity. This would eliminate the need for the fuel to be transported which would incur more carbon emissions in the process. It would also help keep costs lower for SAF.
But let’s face it – this sounds like another one of those solutions that don’t achieve anything. The appeal is that the second airline operator, the one that actually used the SAF, will probably be able to purchase it at a lower cost – because the first airline operator only gets the credits chipped in with a financial contribution. How does that actually move the needle on decarbonization?
The limitation of this system is obvious. It is not possible for all airline operators to purchase enough credits to fully match their kerosene consumption and thus ‘decarbonize’ while no one actually uses SAF. Depending on who is in charge of this system and thus stands to benefit, can we trust that no one will double claim the same barrel of SAF? Consider also that the industry’s arm is being forced, as we all know the heavy imbalance between SAF demand and SAF supply.
In March, Lufthansa Group CEO Carsten Spohr estimated that powering the airline’s fleet with SAF would require all of Germany’s renewable energy. A September policy brief from Lufthansa urged the German government to abolish its SAF mandate, claiming it is unachievable. The government’s summer 2024 SAF tender failed due to a lack of bidders, attributed to underestimated contract value and duration compared to the significant investment and time needed to build Power-to-Liquid (PtL) plants. Some SAF projects have also been delayed, further complicating compliance with the mandate.