Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Greg Smith and Graeme Downie

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

I apologise, Mr Western, for getting ahead of myself. I went slightly cross-eyed as I looked down at my notes, and have two amendments back to back. I stand by what I said, and maybe we can save some time later as I have already made my comments on amendment 5. We all make mistakes; we are all human.

Turning to amendment 4, then, much has been made of the cost to the end user. We had a good debate on Second Reading in which all agreed, across the House and all political parties, that the challenge, as we decarbonise and move to net zero, is that everyone must still be able to do the things that they want to do—to fly and move goods around—but in a cleaner, decarbonised, and net zero way. We have been the first in the western world to legislate for that by 2050.

When I heard the Minister say—in both the private briefings that he gave before the Bill was introduced to the House, for which I am grateful, and then on the Floor of the House on Second Reading—that the net impact would be only plus or minus £1.50 on an ultimate airfare, I was delighted. I took him at his word. I thought, “Fantastic. That is something that consumers will surely be happy with”—particularly if it is on the minus £1.50 side of the equation. Yet, in the evidence sessions on Tuesday, I am not sure that a single witness was willing to put their own name to that plus or minus £1.50 fluctuation. Some witnesses went even further by saying they thought that was—I hesitate to use this word—a conservative estimate.

The point of amendment 4 is to try to ensure that we get something baked into the Bill that acknowledges the ultimate potential cost to the end user: the consumer, the person, any of our constituents who wish to book a flight to go on holiday or on a business trip.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The hon. Member reflects the concern that we all have to make sure that our constituents can continue to go on holiday, and that trade can continue to happen, but does he agree that, in addition to some of the information that we heard, there was also a concern about the cost of doing nothing? That could actually cause costs to go much higher than any estimate given by anyone in the evidence sessions, therefore we should proceed as quickly as we can.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point; I do not think that we are misaligned on that argument. Yes, we need to move to sustainable aviation fuel, preferably at the better end of that technology. It is this very Bill that will ensure that we can, as a country, move faster towards that aim with—I have used the phrase before—the other side of the coin of the Bill, which is the SAF mandate. When the Conservatives were in government, we were heading towards that, but I fully acknowledge that it is the new Government who have introduced it to the House. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a cost to doing nothing, but it is incumbent on all of us on behalf of our constituents, and the businesses that operate within our constituencies and require the use of air freight, to ensure that we are not legislating for something that will put an undue additional financial burden on them.

The point of the amendment is to embrace the Minister’s commitments at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and in the briefings beforehand—which, I repeat, I was grateful to him for putting on—and to ensure that as the Committee potentially allows the Bill to go on to Report, and further through the parliamentary process, we are confident in those numbers, and about the impact that we, collectively, as a Committee and ultimately as Members of Parliament, are putting on the statute book. It is in that spirit that the amendment has been put forward. I ask the Minister to ensure that the projections he has reported from the Dispatch Box come to fruition, so we do not end up looking back in probably a few years’ time, as opposed to a few months’ time, and discovering that the plus or minus £1.50 was much worse than that, as some of the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday suggested.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Greg Smith and Graeme Downie

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. Before we move on to the next witness, may I probe two elements of what you said? On your last point about costs ultimately being passed to the consumer, the Government stated clearly—the Minister said it from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading—that the Department for Transport believes that any addition to, or indeed subtraction from, airfares as a result of the Bill will be no more than £1.50. Do you agree with that point?

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 To pick up on an item raised by Mr Greenwood, we have heard the Government talking about how this is the first legislation of its kind in the world. What impact do the other members of the panel feel it will have on the global market for SAF, and for airlines more generally?

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.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Greg Smith and Graeme Downie

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Greg Smith]

Q It does. I have one brief additional question, mindful that we have only 20 minutes with you. Off the back of that protection of UK IP, do you think the Bill could be strengthened to bring in greater protection of technologies such as those that have been developed by Zero and other companies in the UK, so that when the strike price is set it does not end up with foreign-owned technology being incentivised in the United Kingdom? Do you believe that you, along with others that have similar technologies, can scale fast enough to meet the other side of the coin of this Bill, the SAF mandate?

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 This morning, we had a witness say that they did not believe the revenue certainty mechanism was required, that the market would essentially take care of the solution itself, and that the mandate was all that was needed. What is your response to that, and how would it affect your company in particular?

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. On one last point of clarity, when you talk about the long term for e-fuels, we can all put a different definition on “long term”. What do you mean by that—10, 20, 50 years?

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 Sitting in the audience, you will have heard me ask this question of the last person. We had a witness this morning who said they did not believe the revenue certainty mechanism was required, and that the market would essentially take care of this on its own. You described it there as “compelling”. Do you agree that the RCM is required in the Bill, or do you think the market could take care of itself?

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.