ReFuelEU Aviation under scrutiny: the 2026 recalibration
For air operators, the ReFuelEU Aviation Initiative was never simply another environmental regulation. In effect, Regulation (EU) 2023/2305 is layered onto an already complex framework, intervening directly in day-to-day operational decisions: how aircraft are fueled, where fuel is sourced, how routes are structured, and how compliance risk is managed.
At the same time, it should be recognized that this level of intervention is not accidental. ReFuelEU was designed as a systemic response to a market that failed to scale sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) at the required pace. Its architecture – combining supply obligations, refueling rules and reporting duties across suppliers, airports and operators – reflects a deliberate policy choice to impose coordinated transition pressure across the value chain.
That makes the early implementation phase particularly revealing. A system that was politically sophisticated at the time of adoption is showing operational friction. From the perspective of airlines, this is not merely a matter of marginal inefficiency. It increasingly raises questions about how regulatory design interacts with operational reality during the ramp up phase of the emerging SAF market.
Recent developments at EU level underline that these concerns are no longer confined to industry stakeholders. At a public hearing of the European Parliament’s TRAN Committee on 5 May 2026, policymakers explicitly examined SAF availability, cost and the potential role of “book and claim” mechanisms, signaling increased institutional focus on the practical functioning of the framework.
While this does not yet amount to a legislative revision, it confirms that ReFuelEU has entered a new phase: from political adoption to critical testing.
A system built on shared obligations – but with an accountability tension
One of the defining features of ReFuelEU is that it distributes obligations across the aviation value chain. Fuel suppliers must ensure SAF blending, airports must facilitate infrastructure, and operators must comply with refueling rules and reporting requirements.
From a policy perspective, this reflects an intentional allocation of responsibilities. From an operational perspective, however, it creates an accountability tension. Airlines depend on upstream actors – in particular fuel suppliers – for the data required to demonstrate compliance.
Industry feedback reveals that missing, delayed or inconsistent SAF documentation from fuel suppliers can undermine airlines’ ability to demonstrate compliance and expose them to regulatory risk, even where operators have acted in good faith and fulfilled their operational obligations.
The debate therefore also touches on broader legal principles, including proportionality and legal certainty, particularly where compliance risk is driven by factors outside the operator’s direct control.
The anti tankering rule in a dynamic operating environment
The operational tension is most visible where the regulatory framework reaches directly into flight operations, in particular through the anti tankering rule. In essence, that rule requires an operator, over the relevant reporting period, to uplift at a given EU airport at least 90% of the fuel needed for the flights departing from that airport. It therefore does not impose a flight by flight obligation, but an average uplift requirement assessed over time.
The objective – to avoid emissions from fuel tankering and ensure a level playing field – is clear and defensible. However, aviation operations are inherently dynamic. Network adjustments, weather disruptions and geopolitical developments continuously reshape flight planning. In that context, a rigid uplift requirement may introduce operational inflexibility.
Airline groups have argued that the rule can be administratively burdensome and, in some cases, may lead to additional fuel burn and other operational challenges, prompting calls for more proportionate thresholds and harmonised exemption frameworks.
Recent guidance issued by the European Commission in response to the Middle East crisis confirms that such flexibility is not merely theoretical. It clarifies that operators may be exempted from the uplift requirement where fuel availability constraints or safety considerations so require. At the same time, the practical application of these exemptions remains fact dependent and may give rise to evidentiary challenges, in particular where operators must demonstrate fuel shortages through contemporaneous and sufficiently specific documentation.
These concerns are not uniform across the sector. Regional carriers and business aviation operators have indicated that documentation complexity, uneven SAF access and compliance requirements may disproportionately affect their operations and the viability of certain routes and services.
The key issue is therefore not the legitimacy of the rule itself, but whether its implementation – including exemptions and guidance – sufficiently accomodates operational diversity and ensures proportionality.
A strategic dimension: competitiveness and leakage
Beyond operational and compliance issues, a broader strategic concern is emerging around competitiveness.
Concerns have been raised that stricter EU sustainability requirements and associated cost differentials may lead to shifts in traffic towards non EU hubs or carriers not subject to comparable SAF obligations, with potential implications for both European competitiveness and the environmental effectiveness of the regime.
This is not an argument against ambitious climate policy. But it highlights a structural challenge: decarbonisation measures in a globally competitive sector must balance environmental ambition with the risk of shifting emissions rather than reducing them.
Book and claim: from theoretical option to policy test case
Against this backdrop, the debate on book and claim mechanisms has gained prominence. The TRAN Committee hearing of 5 May 2026 explicitly explored whether such mechanisms could address structural limitations in the current system.
In simple terms, book and claim means that SAF may be supplied and used at one airport, while the corresponding sustainability claim is transferred to an airline operating elsewhere. This could help address supply constraints and geographic mismatches, make the market more liquid, and allow SAF to be produced and delivered where that is most economically viable.
However, the attractiveness of book and claim depends on its design. From a regulatory perspective, the primary concerns are not economic but juridical: ensuring traceability, preventing double counting, and aligning with existing frameworks such as the EU ETS and renewable energy reporting systems.
The Commission’s focus on improving traceability and simplifying reporting mechanisms reflects this concern for integrity. The emerging policy line is therefore cautious: book and claim is being taken seriously, but its acceptance will depend on robust certification and verification frameworks that preserve environmental credibility.
Conclusion
Calls for a targeted revision in 2026 should not be interpreted as a rejection of ReFuelEU’s objectives. Rather, they reflect the reality that translating policy ambition into operational practice in a nascent market is inherently complex.
ReFuelEU Aviation remains a cornerstone of the EU aviation decarbonisation policy and its objectives command broad support. Yet its first phase of implementation highlights the challenges of regulating a complex, global and rapidly evolving sector.
Operational dependency, proportionality concerns, and the need to safeguard competitiveness all point to areas where the framework may require refinement. At the same time, the underlying policy rationale – accelerating SAF uptake and ensuring a level playing field – remains compelling.
The recent attention from the European Parliament confirms that this balance is now being actively assessed. The question is no longer whether ReFuelEU should evolve, but how it can do so without compromising environmental integrity or regulatory certainty.
For operators and other stakeholders, this means that compliance strategies will need to evolve alongside the regulatory framework.
The success of the regulation will ultimately depend on whether it can reconcile these objectives: maintaining credible emission reductions while creating a system that works in practice for a globally interconnected industry.
