PRESIDENT Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr’s. declaration of a state of national energy emergency in March of this year provided a mild push, at least rhetorically, to some energy initiatives that have not made much progress in recent years. One of the more interesting of these is the adoption of so-called Sustainable Aviation Fuel, or SAF, which is the aviation equivalent of the biodiesel blend for road vehicles. The goal is the same in both cases; diluting conventional oilbased fuels with biosynthetic alternatives will cut down on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, since the latter burns somewhat more “cleanly,” and will reduce reliance on imported fuel, since SAF and biodiesel could be produced locally.
In my opinion, I think everyone needs to dial back the use of the term “sustainable” by several dozen notches in most areas it is applied.
There is nothing particularly “sustainable” about blended aviation fuel; it still produces carbon emissions, although somewhat less than fully petroleum-based fuel, as do the processes of manufacturing and transporting it. The only thing “sustainable” about it is that the non-petroleum-based component, at least for the varieties of SAF that use some form of biomass, relies on a renewable feedstock in agricultural waste or purpose-grown crops, or waste cooking oil. But, for the sake of avoiding confusion, I will stick with the terms “sustainable aviation fuel” or “SAF,” semantically inaccurate though they may be.
The Philippines consumes about 16.25 billion barrels of aviation fuel annually, or about 44,500 barrels per day, according to data from the US Energy Information Agency (EIA). This accounts for about 3.4 percent of the country’s total fuel consumption annually and, of course, virtually all of it is imported. As things now stand, aviation is a comparatively low contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Philippines, accounting for only about 2.95 percent of emissions from the transport sector, or about 0.67 percent of the country’s total annual GHG emissions.
Nevertheless, it is an area where some emissions reductions could at least hypothetically be implemented, and more to the point, the Philippines, as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), has a legal obligation to try. Under the ICAO’s Corsia (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) initiative, Philippine air carriers are obliged to cap GHG emissions at 85 percent of 2019 levels by the end of 2027, or face penalties. All three of the major carriers here — Philippine Airlines, Cebu Pacific and AirAsia Philippines — have plans in place to meet their Corsia obligations, and while data is a bit hard to collect, what is available indicates that they have already met the 2027 benchmark, or are very close to doing so. The Corsia mandate does not necessarily require the use of SAF — although it assumes that will be a significant factor — so airlines have some options in cutting emissions, such as updating their fleets with planes equipped with newer, more efficient engines, or cutting or consolidating some routes to reduce fuel use.
The more useful priority in SAF initiatives, at least here in the Philippines, is its potential to cut down on fuel imports. Aviation fuel is not produced here, at least not in significant quantities, and so it is at risk from supply and price volatility; it is no surprise that fuel costs have skyrocketed since the beginning of the Iran War at the end of February.
The SAF initiatives pertain almost entirely to jet fuel, which is one refining step above diesel fuel; similar, but not quite the same thing as kerosene.
Avgas, which is fuel for piston- and turboprop-powered airplanes, is considerably more refined, being similar to motor vehicle gasoline, with octane ratings between 91 and 100.
In order to use SAF here in the Philippines, it has to be produced here, as importing it makes no sense at all, due to its price differential from convention fuel. According to a recent investment environment analysis by Lux Research, presented in a webinar earlier this month, the cheapest of the six varieties of SAF for which technology already exists, which is bio-oil — or more properly, hydro-treated esters and fatty acids (HEFA), which makes use of waste cooking oil and biomass from things such as rice straw, coconuts, oil palm, and non-food crops like camelina (false flax, which is not grown here, but if it was would probably be called huwad na lino) — is about 1.7 times more expensive than conventional jet fuel. It would still be more expensive if locally produced, but it would at least not be further compromised by transport costs or geopolitical effects.
At the Asean Energy Business Forum (AEBF) at the beginning of this month, the Philippines expressed its full support for region-wide efforts to incorporate the use of SAF, and offered its own modest goal to implement a 1-percent mixture in aviation fuel by 2030. That by itself is encouraging in the sense that, unlike other lofty energy or environmental goals, it is realistic and achievable, provided the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and other relevant agencies get off their butts and formulate a serious plan.
There is an interagency task force, or working group, or joint committee, or whatever they’re calling it, to study the SAF issue; the DOE referred to it during the AEBF, but only in an offhand way. There was supposed to be a “SAF roadmap” produced under DOE supervision in 2024, but to date that has not yet been completed, and there is no word as of now as to when we may see that. The Board of Investments (BOI), on the other hand, has had a brief for potential SAF investors, along with proposed investment incentives, since about 2022; the copy I have of that document was updated in July 2024.
Although the impact of the use of SAF will be small, I think it’s a good idea for the Philippines. The development of domestic production, particularly if it focuses on the more mature HEFA technologies, does have some positive environmental points, and could have significant economic benefits in terms of advancing industrialization, providing the agricultural sector with additional revenue streams, and creating jobs. There is no reason not to pursue this course.
On the other hand, the challenges are daunting; just like nuclear energy, the country is essentially starting from scratch, so that any investor, whether foreign or domestic, is going to have to contend with the usual quagmire of red tape and corruption. It can be done, however, and if it is, the payoff for the country will be substantial. As things stand now, the SAF aspirations are buried in details, but at some point, if the country wants to advance, it is going to have to square up and address those details, rather than let yet another ambition fizzle out due to a difficult-to-manage reality.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net Bluesky: @benkritz.bsky.social Website: www.badmannersgunclub.com
