You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Money is pouring in — and deadlines are approaching fast.

There’s no quick fix for decarbonizing medium- and long-distance flights. Batteries are typically too heavy, and hydrogen fuel takes up too much space to offer a practical solution, leaving sustainable aviation fuels made from plants and other biomass, recycled carbon, or captured carbon as the primary options. Traditionally, this fuel is much more expensive — and the feedstocks for it much more scarce — than conventional petroleum-based jet fuel. But companies are now racing to overcome these barriers, as recent months have seen backers throw hundreds of millions behind a series of emergent, but promising solutions.
Today, most SAF is made of feedstocks such as used cooking oil and animal fats, from companies such as Neste and Montana Renewables. But this supply is limited by, well, the amount of cooking oil or fats restaurants and food processing facilities generate, and is thus projected to meet only about 10% of total SAF demand by 2050, according to a 2022 report by the Mission Possible Partnership. Beyond that, companies would have to start growing new crops just to make into fuel.
That creates an opportunity for developers of second-generation SAF technologies, which involve making jet fuel out of captured carbon or alternate biomass sources, such as forest waste. These methods are not yet mature enough to make a significant dent in 2030 targets, such as the EU's mandate to use 6% SAF and the U.S. government’s goal of producing 3 billion gallons of SAF per year domestically. But this tech will need to be a big part of the equation in order to meet the aviation sector’s overall goal of net zero emissions by 2050, as well as the EU’s sustainable fuels mandate, which increases to 20% by 2035 and 70% by 2050 for all flights originating in the bloc.
“That’s going to be a massive jump because currently, SAF uptake is about 0.2% of fuel,” Nicole Cerulli, a research associate for transportation and logistics at the market research firm Cleantech Group, told me. The head of the airline industry’s trade association, Willie Walsh, said in December at a media day event, "We’re not making as much progress as we’d hoped for, and we’re certainly not making as much progress as we need.” While global SAF production doubled to 1 million metric tons in 2024, that fell far below the trade group’s projection of 1.5 million metric tons, made at the end of 2023.
Producing SAF requires making hydrocarbons that mirror those used in traditional jet fuel. We know how to do that, but the processes required — electrolysis, gasification, and the series of chemical reactions known as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis — are energy intensive. So finding a way to power all of this sustainably while simultaneously scaling to meet demand is a challenging and expensive task.
Aamir Shams, a senior associate at the energy think tank RMI whose work focuses on driving demand for SAF, told me that while sustainable fuel is undeniably more expensive than traditional fuel, airlines and corporations have so far been willing to pay the premium. “We feel that the lag is happening because we just don’t have the fuel today,” Shams said. “Whatever fuel shows up, it just flies off the shelves.”
Twelve, a Washington-based SAF producer, thinks its e-fuels can help make a dent. The company is looking to produce jet fuel initially by recycling the CO2 emitted from the ethanol, pulp, and paper industries. In September, the company raised $645 million to complete the buildout of its inaugural SAF facility in Washington state, support the development of future plants, and pursue further R&D. The funding includes $400 million in project equity from the impact fund TPG Rise Climate, $200 million in Series C financing led by TPG, Capricorn Investment Group, and Pulse Fund, and $45 million in loans. The company has also previously partnered with the Air Force to explore producing fuel on demand in hard to reach areas.
Nicholas Flanders, Twelve’s CEO, told me that the company is starting with ethanol, pulp, and paper because the CO2 emissions from these facilities are relatively concentrated and thus cheaper to capture. And unlike, say, coal power plants, these industries aren’t going anywhere fast, making them a steady source of carbon. To turn the captured CO2 into sustainable fuel, the company needs just one more input — water. Renewable-powered electrolyzers then break apart the CO2 and H2O into their constituent parts, and the resulting carbon monoxide and hydrogen are combined to create a syngas. That then gets put through a chemical reaction known as “Fischer-Tropsch synthesis,” where the syngas reacts with catalysts to form hydrocarbons, which are then processed into sustainable jet fuel and ultimately blended with conventional fuel.
Twelve says its proprietary CO2 electrolyzer can break apart CO2 at much lower temperatures than would typically be required for this molecule, which simplifies the whole process, making it easier to ramp the electrolyzers up and down to match the output of intermittent renewables. (How does it do this? The company didn’t respond when I asked.) Twelve’s first plant, which sources carbon from a nearby ethanol facility, is set to come online next year, producing 50,000 gallons of SAF annually once it’s fully scaled, with electrolyzers that will run on hydropower.
While Europe may have stricter, actually enforceable SAF requirements than the U.S., Flanders told me there’s a lot of promise in domestic production. “I think the U.S. has an exciting combination of relatively low-cost green electricity, lots of biogenic CO2 sources, a lot of demand for the product we’re making, and then the inflation Reduction Act and state level incentives can further enhance the economics.” Currently, the IRA provides SAF producers with a baseline $1.25 tax credit per gallon produced, which gradually increases the greener the fuel gets. Of course, whether or not the next Congress will rescind this is anybody’s guess.
Down the line, incentives and mandates will end up mattering a whole lot. Making SAF simply costs a whole lot more than producing jet fuel the standard way, by refining crude oil. But in the meantime, Twelve is setting up cost-sharing partnerships between airlines that want to reduce their direct emissions (scope 1) and large corporations that want to reduce their indirect emissions (scope 3), which include employee business travel.
For example, Twelve has offtake agreements with Seattle-based Alaska Airlines and Microsoft for the fuel produced at its initial Washington plant. Microsoft, which aims to reduce emissions from its employees’ flights, will essentially cover the cost premium associated with Twelve’s more expensive SAF fuel, making it cost-effective for Alaska to use in its fleet. Twelve has a similar agreement with Boston Consulting Group and an unnamed airline
Eventually, Flanders told me, the company expects to source carbon via direct air capture, but doing so today would be prohibitively expensive. “If there were a customer who wanted to pay the additional amount to use DAC today, we'd be very happy to do that,” Flanders said. “But our perspective is it will maybe be another decade before that cost starts to converge.”
No sustainable fuel is even close to cost parity yet — Cerulli told me that it generally comes with a “roughly 250% to over 800%” cost premium over conventional jet fuel. So while voluntary uptake by companies such as Microsoft and BCG are helping drive the emergent market today, that won’t be near enough to decarbonize the industry. “At the simplest level, the cost of not using SAF has to be higher than using it,” Cerulli told me.
Pathway Energy thinks that by incorporating carbon sequestration into its process, it can help the world get there. The sustainable fuels company, which emerged from stealth just last month, is pursuing what CEO Steve Roberts told me is “probably the most cost-efficient long-term pathway from a decarbonization perspective.” The company is building a $2 billion SAF plant in Port Arthur, Texas designed to produce about 30 million gallons of jet fuel annually — enough to power about 5,000 carbon-neutral 10-hour flights — while also permanently sequestering more than 1.9 million tons of CO2.
Pathway, a subsidiary of the investment and advisory firm Nexus Holdings, has partnered with the UK-based renewable energy company Drax, which will supply the company with 1 million metric tons of wood pellets, to be turned into fuel using a series of well-established technologies. The first step is to gasify the biomass by heating the pellets to high temperatures in the absence of oxygen to produce a syngas. Then, just as Twelve does, it puts the syngas through the Fischer-Tropsch process to form the hydrocarbons that become SAF.
The competitive advantage here is capturing the emissions from the fuel production process itself and storing them permanently underground. Since Pathway is burying CO2 that’s already been captured by the trees from which the wood pellets come, that would make Pathway’s SAF carbon-negative, in theory, while the best Twelve and similar companies can hope for is carbon neutrality, assuming all of their captured carbon is used to produce fuel.
The choice of Drax as a feedstock partner is not without controversy, however, as the BBC revealed that the company sources much of its wood from rare old-growth forests. Though this is technically legal, it’s also ecologically disruptive. Roberts told me Drax’s sourcing methodologies have been verified by third parties, and Pathway isn’t concerned. “I don't think any of that controversy has yielded any actually significant changes to their sourcing program at all, because we believe that they're compliant,” Roberts told me. “We are 100% certain that they’re meeting all the standards and expectations.”
Pathway has big growth plans, which depend on the legitimacy of its sustainability cred. Beyond the Port Arthur facility, which Roberts told me will begin production by the end of 2029 or early 2030, the company has a pipeline of additional facilities along the Gulf Coast in the works. It also has global ambitions. “When you have a fuel that is this negative, it really opens up a global market, because you can transport fuel out of Texas, whether that be into the EU, Africa, Asia, wherever it may be,” Roberts said, explaining that even substantial transportation-related emissions would be offset by the carbon-negativity of the fuel.
But alternative feedstocks such as forestry biomass are finite resources, too. That’s why many experts think that within the SAF sector, e-fuels such as Twelve’s that could one day source carbon via direct air capture and then electrolyze it have the greatest potential for growth. “It’s extremely dependent on getting sustainable CO2 and cheap electricity prices so that you can make cheap green hydrogen,” Shams told me. “But theoretically, it is unlimited in terms of what your total cap on production would be.”
In the meantime, airlines are focused on making their planes and engines more aerodynamic and efficient so that they don’t consume as much fuel in the first place. They’re also exploring other technical pathways to decarbonization — because after all, SAF will only be a portion of the solution, as many short and medium-length flights could likely be powered by batteries or hydrogen fuel. RMI forecasts that by 2050, 45% of global emissions reduction in the aviation sector will come from improvements in fuel efficiency, 37% will be due to SAF deployment, 7% will come from hydrogen, and 3.5% will come from electrification.
If you did the mental math, you’ll notice these numbers add up to 92.5% — not 100%. “What we have done is, let's look at what we are actually doing today and for the past three, four, five years, and let's see if we get to net zero or not. And the answer is, no. We don't get to net zero by 2050,” Shams told me. And while getting to 92.5% is nothing to scoff at, that means that the aviation sector would still be emitting about 700 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by that time.
So what’s to be done? “The financing sector needs to step up its game and take a little bit more of a risk than they are used to,” Shams told me, noting that one of RMI’s partners, the Mission Possible Partnership, estimates that getting the aviation sector to net zero will require an investment of around $170 billion per year, a total of about $4.5 trillion by 2050. These numbers take a variety of factors into account beyond strictly SAF production, such as airport infrastructure for new fuels, building out direct air capture plants, etc.
But any way you cut it, it’s a boatload of money that certainly puts Pathway’s $2 billion SAF facility and Twelve’s $645 million funding round in perspective. And it’s far from certain that we can get there. “Increasingly, that goal of the 2050 net-zero target looks really difficult to achieve,” Shams put it simply. “Commitments are always going up, but more can be done.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Activists are suing for records on three projects in Wyoming.
Three wind projects in Wyoming are stuck in the middle of a widening legal battle between local wildlife conservation activists and the Trump administration over eagle death records.
The rural Wyoming bird advocacy group Albany County Conservancy filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Trump administration seeking to compel the government to release reams of information about how it records deaths from three facilities owned and operated by the utility PacifiCorp: Dunlap Wind, Ekola Flats, and Seven Mile Hill. The group filed its lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, the national public records disclosure law, and accused the Fish and Wildlife Service of unlawfully withholding evidence related to whether the three wind farms were fully compliant with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
I’m eyeing this case closely because it suggests these wind farms may fall under future scrutiny from the Fish and Wildlife Service, either for prospective fines or far worse, as the agency continues a sweeping review of wind projects’ compliance with BGEPA, a statute anti-wind advocates have made clear they seek to use as a cudgel against operating facilities. It’s especially noteworthy that a year into Trump’s term, his promises to go after wind projects have not really touched onshore, primarily offshore. (The exception, of course, being Lava Ridge.)
Violating the eagle protection statute has significant penalties. For each eagle death beyond what FWS has permitted, a company is subject to at least $100,000 in fines or a year in prison. These penalties go up if a company is knowingly violating the law repeatedly. In August, the Service sent letters to wind developers and utilities across the country requesting records demonstrating compliance with BGEPA as part of a crackdown on wind energy writ large.
This brings us back to the lawsuit. Crucial to this case is the work of a former Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Mike Lockhart, whom intrepid readers of The Fight may remember for telling me that he’s been submitting evidence of excessive golden eagle deaths to Fish and Wildlife for years. Along with its legal complaint, the Conservancy filed a detailed breakdown of its back-and-forth with Fish and Wildlife over an initial public records request. Per those records, the agency has failed to produce any evidence that it received Lockhart’s proof of bird deaths – ones that he asserts occurred because of these wind farms.
“By refusing to even identify, let alone disclose, obviously responsive but nonexempt records the Conservancy knows to be in the Department’s possession and/or control, the Department leaves open serious questions about the integrity of its administration of BGEPA,” the lawsuit alleges.
The Fish and Wildlife Service did not respond to a request for comment on the case, though it’s worth noting that agencies rarely comment on pending litigation. PacifiCorp did not immediately respond to a request either. I will keep you posted as this progresses.
Plus more of the week’s biggest fights in renewable energy.
1. York County, Nebraska – A county commissioner in this rural corner of Nebraska appears to have lost his job after greenlighting a solar project.
2. St. Joseph County, Indiana – Down goes another data center!
3. Maricopa County, Arizona – I’m looking at the city of Mesa to see whether it’ll establish new rules that make battery storage development incredibly challenging.
4. Imperial County, California – Solar is going to have a much harder time in this agricultural area now that there’s a cap on utility-scale projects.
5. Converse County, Wyoming – The Pronghorn 2 hydrogen project is losing its best shot at operating: the wind.
6. Grundy County, Illinois – Another noteworthy court ruling came this week as a state circuit court ruled against the small city of Morris, which had sued the county seeking to block permits for an ECA Solar utility-scale project.
A conversation with Public Citizen’s Deanna Noel.
This week’s conversation is with Deanna Noel, climate campaigns director for the advocacy group Public Citizen. I reached out to Deanna because last week Public Citizen became one of the first major environmental groups I’ve seen call for localities and states to institute full-on moratoria against any future data center development. The exhortation was part of a broader guide for more progressive policymakers on data centers, but I found this proposal to be an especially radical one as some communities institute data center moratoria that also restrict renewable energy. I wanted to know, how do progressive political organizations talk about data center bans without inadvertently helping opponents of solar and wind projects?
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Why are you recommending we ban data centers until we have regulations?
The point of us putting this out was to give policymakers a roadmap and a starting point at all levels of government, putting in guardrails to start reeling in Big Tech. Because the reality is they’re writing their own rules with how they’d like to roll out these massive data centers.
A big reason for a moratorium at the state and local level is to put in place requirements to ensure any more development that is happening is not just stepping on local communities, undermining our climate goals, impacting water resources or having adverse societal impacts like incessant noise. Big Tech is often hiding behind non-disclosure agreements and tying the hands of local officials behind NDAs while they’re negotiating deals for their data centers, which then becomes a gag order blocking officials and the public from understanding what is happening. And so our guide set out to provide a policy roadmap and a starting point is to say, let’s put a pause on this.
Do you see any cities or states doing this now? I’m trying to get a better understanding of where this came from.
It’s happening at the local level. There was a moratorium in Prince George’s County [in Maryland], where I live, until a task force can be developed and make sure local residents’ concerns are addressed. In Georgia, localities have done this, too.
The idea on its own is simple: States and localities have the authority and should be the ones to implement these moratoriums that no data centers should go forward until baseline protections are in place. There are many protections we go through in our guide, but No. 1, Big Tech should be forced to pay their way. These are some of the most wealthy corporations on the planet, and yet they’re bending backwards to negotiate deals with local utilities and governments to ensure they’re paying as little as possible for the cost of their power infrastructure. Those costs are being put on ratepayers.
The idea of a moratorium is there’s a tension in a data center buildout without any regulations.
Do you have any concerns about pushing for blanket moratoria on new technological infrastructure? We’re seeing this policy thrown at solar and wind and batteries now. Is there any concern it’ll go from data centers to renewables next in some places?
First off, you’re right, and the Trump administration wants to fast-track an expansion that’ll rely on fossil fuels: coal, oil and gas. We’re in a climate crisis, and we’d be better off if these data centers relied entirely on renewable energy.
It’s incredibly important for policymakers to be clear when they’re setting moratoria that they’re not inadvertently halting clean, cheap energy like wind and solar. This is about the unfettered expansion of the data center industry to feed the AI machine. That’s what the focus needs to be on.
Yes, but there’s also this land use techlash going on, and I’m a little concerned advocacy for a moratorium on data centers will help those fighting to institute moratoria on solar and wind. I’m talking about Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. Are you at all concerned about a horseshoe phenomenon here, where people are opposing data centers for the same reasons they’re fighting renewable energy projects? What should folks in the advocacy space do to make sure those things aren’t tethered to one another?
That’s a great question. I think it comes down to clear messaging for the public.
People are opportunistic — they want to get their passion projects no matter what. We as advocates need to consistently message that renewable energy is not only the energy of tomorrow, but of today. It’s where the rest of the world is headed and the U.S. is going backwards under the Trump administration.
The data center issue is separate. Data centers are using way more land – these massive hyperscaler data center campuses – are using more land than solar and wind. We can be creative with those energies in a way we can’t with the data center expansion.
We need to make it absolutely clear: This is about corporate expansion at the expense of everyone else in a way that solar and wind aren’t. Those bring costs down and don’t have anywhere near as much of an environmental impact.