To overcome such feedstock constraints, there is widespread acceptance in industry that investment in power-to-liquid (PtL) fuels will need to complement other technologies. Yet only the EU and UK have, so far, set out explicit mandate sub-targets for e-fuels – and even those targets are increasingly being questioned by some as unrealistic (see Chapters 1.4 and 2.1). In reality, greater e-fuel capacity will be needed to boost the SAF pipeline and fill the supply gaps that HEFA pathways may not be able to provide. This analysis identifies potential SAF demand scenarios in 2040 and shows that the current SAF project pipeline is unlikely to be sufficient to supply either base or momentum scenarios, unless production capacity is boosted further. To meet mandates, additional investment is needed today, including in e-fuels. Only in the case of weaker demand (reduced scenario) might there be enough fuel volumes to meet likely mandates. Policy stability is essential For all scenarios, policy stability and long-term certainty on targets are essential to create the right investment environment. Any softening of government mandates and targets would reduce confidence in the sector and could affect investors’ perception of the feasibility and bankability of SAF plants. This could potentially exacerbate the risk that more SAF projects cannot secure the funding needed to progress to construction, reducing the likelihood of meeting even the demand that lower mandates would imply. Investment needs As a result, boosting SAF capacity across technologies, especially e-fuels, must be prioritized to help ensure mandates can be met beyond 2030. This will come at a cost. The capital required to build the entire current SAF project pipeline is significant, even before accounting for the additional capacity required to fulfil higher fuel demand under the momentum scenario. Considering the 37.6 million tonnes of production capacity under development as of February 2026 but not yet operational,207 and applying greenfield capital intensity assumptions from the Forum’s 2025 Financing Sustainable Aviation Fuels report, the sector could require around $120 billion of capital to translate this pipeline into operational capacity.208 To reduce capital investment costs and speed up construction timelines, some HEFA plants may be able to leverage the conversion of existing oil refineries and infrastructure, although feedstock costs are expected to remain volatile. While greater reliance on non-HEFA pathways, including e-fuels, will be needed, this will come at a premium, given the higher cost of producing SAF via power-to-liquid, gasification-Fischer-Tropsch and alcohol-to-jet pathways compared to HEFA. This highlights an increasingly important trade-off between SAF market growth and affordability, especially in emerging aviation markets, that is resulting in calls for pragmatism and extra policy support. Role of governments and financiers Governments and investors play a key role in supporting the conversion of a greater number of pipeline projects into operational capacity as well as funding new, additional plants. Governments can create appropriate risk management mechanisms to help reduce the technology risk of projects. Hence beyond mandates, which are needed to drive demand, policy should increasingly prioritize risk allocation and mitigation measures that can reduce the technology burden currently borne by SAF project developers and their contractors. At the same time, governments can introduce mechanisms to help stabilize the revenues of prospective SAF plants to make projects more bankable. This is particularly needed for non-HEFA SAF production pathways, whose technology risk is higher. When designing policy, governments should be pragmatic about acknowledging the different levels of technology risk and challenges faced by different SAF production pathways. Implications for future SAF plant development and investment Global Aviation Sustainability Outlook 2026 55