Switzerland’s CO₂ Act Aligns with EU's ReFuelEU Rules But Market Readiness Remains in Question

Switzerland’s updated CO₂ Act mirrors the EU’s ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, setting ambitious mandates for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) blending. However, despite regulatory clarity, significant questions remain about the industry’s readiness to meet these targets.
July 9, 2025
Switzerland’s new CO₂ Act mandates increasing shares of sustainable aviation fuel, pushing the aviation sector toward net-zero targets. Picture: Unsplash
Switzerland’s new CO₂ Act mandates increasing shares of sustainable aviation fuel, pushing the aviation sector toward net-zero targets. Picture: Unsplash

Switzerland’s revised CO₂ Act introduces a binding blending mandate for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), aligned to the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation of 2% by 2026 and 6% by 2030, with progressively higher yearly minimum shares of synthetic aviation fuels starting at an average 1.2% share in 2030-32 (Annex I ReFuelEU Aviation regulation). Article 28f of the CO₂ Act, further detailed in Articles 92a-b of the CO₂ Ordinance establishes obligations on fuel suppliers, Zurich and Geneva airport operators, and aircraft operators to ensure compliance with SAF blending quotas and deadlines.

More specifically, fuel suppliers must provide and blend SAF in accordance with the mandated minimum shares. Zurich and Geneva airport operators are required to facilitate access to the minimum SAF quotas. Aircraft operators must refuel at least 90% of their annual aviation fuel needs at Zurich and Geneva, or at designated EU airports.

Enforcement and Penalties

Non-compliance triggers substantial penalties (Art. 28g). Fuel suppliers face a financial penalty equivalent to twice the price gap between SAF and fossil jet fuel for any shortfall, plus an obligation to compensate for the missing volume the following year. Airport operators that fail to provide adequate infrastructure incur a fine of CHF 0.50 per departing flight annually, a relatively low sum, amounting to about CHF 65,000 for Zurich. Aircraft operators failing to meet their refuelling obligations must pay twice the average annual market price per tonne of aviation fuel for the untanked quantity. All collected penalties are earmarked to support the expansion and adoption of SAF.

The updated CO₂ Ordinance articles concerning the blending mandate will take effect on January 1, 2026. The ordinance refers to the Renewable Fuels and Combustion Fuels Ordinance (IBTV) for specific definitions of eligible SAF types and compliance verification, including certification via guarantees of origin.

Addressing Competitive Distortions

To prevent competitive distortions, aircraft operators using SAF may be compensated for the higher costs through free allocation of emissions allowances under the Swiss emissions trading scheme (CO2 Act, Article 19a4); this is mimicking the EU ETS provisions.

Market Reality: Ambition Versus Action

Despite a clear regulatory roadmap, discussions at our reFuel.ch roundtable in October 2024 revealed a sobering disconnect between ambition and action. While airlines publicly commit to net-zero targets, there's little indication that they are willing to absorb the current SAF price premiums — beyond the limited supply of HEFA from used cooking oil. Major fuel producers such as Shell remain hesitant to invest in SAF production, citing high costs and claiming unpredictable offtake, despite the strict blending rules of the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation. Exceptions are small start-ups like Synhelion and Solarbelt, but they will not be able to deliver the quantities needed.

Recent developments underscore these concerns. CEOs of four major European airlines have reportedly urged the European Commission to delay SAF mandates due to supply constraints1. This reflects a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: fuel producers are reluctant to invest in SAF production without guaranteed offtake, while the offtakers (i.e., the airlines) cite insufficient production as a barrier to compliance. Although the European Commission has reaffirmed its SAF targets for now, it remains to be seen whether the political resolve will hold — and whether this will be enough to unlock the large-scale investments urgently needed for SAF production.

Conclusion: A Critical Juncture

The risk is clear: prolonged delays in investment and compliance increase the likelihood that policymakers will be forced to dilute blending mandates and weaken enforcement — jeopardizing the achievement of net-zero targets. For our SWEET consortium reFuel.ch, this means that although regulations are in place and high penalties suggest strong incentives, we cannot take their effectiveness for granted and must account for uncertainties in our modeling of suggested pathways for SAF deployment in Switzerland, as well as reflect those concerns in our policy recommendations.

1: European Airlines Push to Delay Green Fuel Mandate. EU Says No : Link

Share this post
PUBLICATIONS

Latest findings from research

Research Paper Energy & Environmental Science
Papers

Haber–Bosch 2.0 for low-carbon ammonia production: a global techno-economic and environmental assessment

Decentralized ammonia production via electric Haber–Bosch (Haber–Bosch 2.0) could support shipping, chemical manufacturing, and local fertilizer supply chains. Unlike conventional Haber–Bosch systems, Haber–Bosch 2.0 technologies operate at lower pressures (∼30–60 bar) and temperatures (∼400 °C), enabling smaller, modular ammonia systems powered by low-carbon electricity. However, its economic viability and environmental performance under diverse conditions remain unclear. Here, we apply techno-economic and environmental life cycle assessment using a novel, open-source framework to optimally design ∼13 000 grid-connected, hybrid, and off-grid electric Haber–Bosch configurations worldwide. Our results demonstrate that decentralized ammonia production costs are between €740–4100 tNH3−1, which is substantially higher compared to centralized ammonia production (∼300 tNH3−1 historically with recent spikes up to ∼€800 tNH3−1). Hybrid configurations exhibit the lowest costs (€740–2090 tNH3−1), particularly in regions with low grid electricity prices, low capital costs, and/or abundant renewables. However, their GHG emissions vary widely depending on the GHG intensity of the local grid. Off-grid systems exhibit the lowest life cycle GHG emissions (on average 0.70 tCO2-eq. tNH3−1), but demonstrate high costs (more than €1100 tNH3−1), driven by oversized renewables and energy storage media to enable continuous Haber–Bosch operation. Cost parity may be achieved by 2050 through technology learning, especially for hybrid systems (€325 tNH3−1). To realize this potential and secure low-carbon fertilizer supply, policymakers should; (1) accelerate the decarbonization of national power grids, (2) provide early-stage deployment support for flexible, electric Haber–Bosch technologies, and (3) establish clear certification standards for low-carbon ammonia.
July 23, 2026
Research Paper Energy & Fuels
Papers

Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Alternative Fuels and Carbon Capture in Swiss Gas-Fired Power Plants

Carbon-neutral energy systems will rely heavily on electrification and intermittent renewables, thereby increasing the need for flexible technologies such as gas turbines. Using alternative fuels in gas turbines could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support net-zero goals, but their full life-cycle emissions impact has not been evaluated yet. This study presents a prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) of simple cycle gas turbines (SCGTs) in Switzerland, evaluating their performance with various alternative fuels and the potential integration of carbon capture technologies. The analysis considers domestically produced biomethane (from wood chips or biogas) and four e-fuels─e-hydrogen, e-methane, e-ammonia, and e-Fischer-Tropsch (e-FT) fuels─synthesized in regions with cost-effective renewable electricity in Spain, Iceland, and the Netherlands. Regarding carbon capture, we investigate both storage (CCS) and utilization (CCU), considering storage sites in Italy and Norway. The assessment covers multiple impact categories across 2035 and 2050. The results show that domestic biomethane provides a practical and climate-friendly option, reducing life-cycle climate impacts by nearly 80% in the near term and approaching 90% in the long term. In contrast, e-methane does not exceed an 80% reduction in the long term even under its most favorable production pathways. Both biomethane and e-methane can offer net-negative emissions if combined with CCS. Domestic CCU does not offer any environmental advantage if liquefying and transporting hydrogen (H2), instead of directly importing e-methane via pipeline. Multimodal transport increases environmental impacts compared to pipeline transport across several categories. Beyond climate impacts, alternative fuel production introduces trade-offs across most categories compared with natural gas. This study underscores that minimizing greenhouse gas emissions alone is insufficient and that system-level assessments are essential to minimize overall environmental impacts in future flexible power systems.
July 23, 2026