Clean fuel faces unique challenges Clean fuel investments face a unique set of challenges compared with traditional energy capital projects. Their value chains are complex and interdependent, often spanning multiple feedstocks, conversion technologies, logistics networks and end-use markets. Progress in one part of the chain often depends on another part maturing at a similar pace. For example, scaling-up biomass feedstocks requires coordination between refiners, farmers and waste aggregators. Beyond these structural challenges, their financial risk profiles also differ significantly. Clean fuel projects are typically capital-intensive, expose investors to technology and market development risk, and rely on policy frameworks that are still evolving, do not provide sufficient incentives or lack stability. Even modest changes in perceived risk can significantly improve project economics and investability. For example, de-risking a bio-SAF project to reduce the total cost of financing by three percentage-points – from 15% to 12% – can reduce the levelized production cost by up to ~15% per barrel of jet fuel.57 Policies and market rules have not yet caught up with this complexity, where fragmented standards, inconsistent certification systems and uncertainty around policies add friction. Taken together, these factors explain why many credible projects remain stuck between feasibility and FID. The barriers identified can be grouped into four broad categories: project economics and finance, supply chain, customer demand, and policy and standards (see Figure 11). Their impact varies by pathway. For example, mature fuels such as HEFA are often constrained by supply chain bottlenecks, while emerging technologies face greater exposure to technical and cost risks. Stuck between feasibility and FID: six barriers hampering project progress TABLE 1 Project economics and finance 1. High costs and technology risks: High capital intensity, limited economies of scale, conversion inefficiencies and early-stage technology risks lead to higher initial costs and project delivery risk. 2. Inadequate financing, high price premiums and de-risking mechanisms: Few instruments can cater to clean fuel risk dynamics or bridge the gap between venture-like risk and infrastructure-type projects. Supply chain 3. Uncertain feedstock and uncoordinated supply chains: Fragmented feedstock, production and logistics create bottlenecks and timing mismatches (e.g. scaling-up waste collection in line with production ramp-up). Customer demand 4. Misaligned contracts, high price premiums and nascent market structures: Differences between producers and customers on contract terms (e.g. price, volume, tenure), combined with lack of established platforms to standardize and benchmark agreements, lead to delays. Policy and standards 5. Policy instability and fragmentation: Lack of stability and credibility in future policies requires balancing ambitions with realistic and competitive implementation. 6. Incongruent standards and certifications: Disparate definitions and certification standards (e.g. on LCA) and limited mutual recognition hinder interoperability across jurisdictions and trade. Note: LCA = lifecycle assessment. Innovative mechanisms and coordinated action are essential to overcome market barriers and mitigate investment risks. Encouragingly, proof points already exist – including current projects that demonstrate effective ways to improve revenue visibility, pool and distribute risk, and internalize the societal value of clean fuels in line with regional energy goals. The public and private sectors have distinct but complementary roles in helping unlock these solutions. Based on engagement with private and public stakeholders from the Future of Clean Fuels community and broader industry stakeholders, thisreport has identified nine solution areas across three major levers: policy, public-private collaboration and business (see Figure 12): 1. Policy measures: Policy sets the rules of the game. Predictable, durable and performance- based frameworks let clean fuels compete in a technology-neutral way and convert societal value (e.g. lower emissions, stronger security, improved economic competitiveness) into price signals. Countries will weight these goals differently given regional priorities and contexts. To enhance trade in fuels and feedstocks, interoperable standards and certifications across borders are essential.3.2 Three levers to unlock investment Fuelling the Future: How Business, Finance and Policy can Accelerate the Clean Fuels Market 22

Fuelling the Future 2026