search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
BUSINESS NEWS


The government says: ‘The revenue certainty mechanism is intended to provide first-of-a- kind UK SAF projects with a guaranteed price for their SAF over a defined period’


SAF scheme to be funded by levy on fuel suppliers


Government confirms basis for revenue certainty mechanism. Ian Taylor reports The consultation drew 76


A levy on aviation fuel suppliers will fund the UK sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) revenue certainty mechanism for fuel producers and be passed on to airlines and passengers. The government confirmed the


basis for funding the mechanism last week, rejecting calls for revenue from Air Passenger Duty (APD) or from the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) to be used. The decision, following a four-week


consultation in March, was not unexpected. The government confirmed in its response: “Industry will fund the costs through a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers [with]


48 22 MAY 2025


individual contributions determined by market share.” This would “allow costs to be


widely spread across the supply chain including airlines, freight companies and passengers”. The government noted: “The


aviation industry and its passengers, rather than the general taxpayer, will benefit most from increased SAF production. Therefore, industry should fund the revenue certainty mechanism.” Full details, including the size of


the levy, “will be subject to further engagement”, with the government insisting it is “committed to working closely with industry” on the details.


responses from airlines, airports, fuel and feedstock suppliers, energy firms, SAF producers, industry associations, academics and consultancies. The government dismissed calls to


redirect existing revenues “such as from the UK ETS or APD”, arguing: “We generally do not hypothecate taxes to particular spending programmes as it can reduce flexibility in spending decisions and lead to a misallocation of resources with reduced value for money for taxpayers.”


Continued on page 46 travelweekly.co.uk


BUSINESSNEWS


PICTURE: Shutterstock/Bulent camci


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52