The bill mandates the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to include data on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in its Petroleum Supply Monthly, Weekly Petroleum Status Report, and any other EIA reports the Administrator deems relevant. Required data elements include the type, origin, and volume of feedstock used to produce SAF and totals for SAF produced and imported, disaggregated by State (or Petroleum Administration for Defense District where appropriate), the United States, and—‘to the maximum extent practicable’—by foreign country.
The requirement includes an accounting standard: EIA must use reliable statistical sampling techniques and ensure no double counting of feedstock or fuel. The bill defines SAF by cross-reference to section 40B(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and preserves the applicability of DOE Organization Act section 205 confidentiality and information authorities.
The result: more granular public data on SAF supply chains, with practical and legal friction points around data collection, commercial confidentiality, and cross-border reporting.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the EIA to publish SAF metrics — feedstock type, origin, and volume — and aggregate production and import totals in its monthly and weekly petroleum reports and other relevant EIA products. The data must be collected and reported using reliable sampling methods and must avoid double counting.
Who It Affects
EIA and the Department of Energy will need to expand data collection and publication; SAF producers, importers, and their feedstock suppliers may be the primary sources of the underlying information; airlines, state energy offices, investors, and regulators will be direct users of the published data.
Why It Matters
The bill fills a transparency gap in SAF supply-chain visibility that matters for compliance with low-carbon fuel policies, procurement planning by airlines, investment decisions, and oversight of tax credits and import flows — while leaving open how EIA will handle confidentiality, foreign data gaps, and implementation costs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act compels the Energy Information Administration to add SAF-specific fields to its existing petroleum reporting products — explicitly calling out the Petroleum Supply Monthly and Weekly Petroleum Status Report and giving the Administrator discretion to include SAF data in other EIA reports. That means the EIA must either expand existing surveys and data pipelines or build new data collection mechanisms to produce repeatable, public SAF metrics.
The bill specifies what EIA must publish: for feedstocks used to make SAF, the type, origin, and volume; and for fuel flows, production totals for each State and the United States, plus import totals by foreign country and in the aggregate. The statute frames geographic detail at the State level or Petroleum Administration for Defense District where appropriate, and it qualifies foreign-country reporting with the phrase “to the maximum extent practicable,” signaling realistic limits on collecting overseas data.To govern data quality, the statute requires an accounting methodology consistent with reliable statistical sampling techniques and makes a concrete demand to avoid double counting feedstocks or fuels.
That is an operational constraint: EIA cannot simply aggregate disparate reports without reconciling feedstock-to-fuel conversions, facility-level production, and blended fuel accounting. The law also cross-references the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of SAF (section 40B(d)), so the fuel types EIA reports will align with the tax-code definition used for credits and compliance.Finally, the bill includes a short rule of construction preserving the applicability of section 205 of the Department of Energy Organization Act.
Practically speaking, EIA retains its existing confidentiality authorities and obligations, which will shape how granular the public data can be and whether certain company-level detail gets masked, aggregated, or withheld. The net effect is a statutory push for transparency that still leaves significant implementation choices — data sources, frequency, aggregation thresholds, and interagency coordination — to EIA.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill directs the EIA to add SAF metrics to the Petroleum Supply Monthly and the Weekly Petroleum Status Report and any other EIA reports the Administrator determines relevant.
EIA must publish feedstock-level data for SAF showing type, origin, and volume, disaggregated by State or Petroleum Administration for Defense District, the United States, and, where practicable, by foreign country.
The statute requires totals for SAF production (by State and for the United States) and SAF imports (by foreign country and in aggregate).
Data must be produced under an accounting methodology that uses reliable statistical sampling techniques and that ensures no double counting of feedstock or fuel.
The bill defines 'sustainable aviation fuel' by reference to Internal Revenue Code section 40B(d) and preserves the applicability of DOE Organization Act section 205 confidentiality and information provisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act’s name: the 'Sustainable Aviation Fuel Information Act.' This is purely formal but signals the statute’s narrow focus on information and reporting rather than subsidies, mandates, or regulatory standards.
Mandate to publish SAF data in EIA reports
Requires the EIA, through the Administrator, to include SAF data in the Petroleum Supply Monthly, Weekly Petroleum Status Report, and any other relevant EIA reports. The provision specifies the categories of information — feedstock type, origin, and volume — and mandates geographic disaggregation (State or PADD, U.S., and, to the maximum extent practicable, foreign countries). Operationally, that means EIA must decide how to source SAF data (surveys, customs, industry reports, or modeled estimates) and how to integrate it into established reporting products with existing release schedules.
Aggregate production and import totals
Directs EIA to publish totals for SAF produced in each State and for the United States, and totals for SAF imported from each foreign country and for all foreign countries combined. This creates an expectation of time-series production and trade statistics that users can slot into market analyses, but it also imposes a burden to reconcile facility-level production, blending, and trade data so totals are accurate and comparable.
Required accounting methodology
Mandates that published SAF data come from an accounting methodology that uses reliable statistical sampling techniques and that ensures no double counting of feedstock or fuel. This clause requires EIA to document sampling approaches, estimation methods, and reconciliation steps — and it constrains quick, ad hoc publication of raw, overlapping datasets that would otherwise risk counting the same feedstock or output multiple times.
Rule of construction and definition of SAF
Section 2(c) states that nothing in the reporting requirements changes the applicability of DOE Organization Act section 205, meaning EIA’s existing confidentiality and information authorities remain in force and may limit public granularity. Section 3 defines 'sustainable aviation fuel' by cross-reference to Internal Revenue Code section 40B(d), so the EIA’s reporting universe will reflect the tax-code criteria for qualifying fuels — an important alignment that affects which pathways and feedstocks are included.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Airlines and fuel purchasers — gain better visibility into regional SAF supply and import sources to inform procurement, compliance strategies, and contracting for low-carbon fuel commitments.
- Federal and state policymakers and regulators — obtain public data that can inform program design, monitor impacts of SAF incentives (including tax credits tied to IRC 40B), and identify geographic gaps in production capacity.
- Investors and market analysts — receive new, standardized time-series data to value facilities, assess project economics, and forecast SAF supply and pricing dynamics.
- Academic researchers and NGOs — can use more granular, public data to validate lifecycle analyses, trace feedstock origins, and evaluate environmental claims.
- State energy offices and economic development agencies — can benchmark local production and attract investment with publicized state-level production figures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Energy Information Administration / Department of Energy — must allocate staff and systems to collect, validate, reconcile, and publish new datasets, plus potentially redesign surveys and IT systems.
- SAF producers, feedstock suppliers, and importers — may face new data requests or survey responses, and risk having commercially sensitive information aggregated and published unless protected under DOE confidentiality rules.
- Small or early-stage SAF facilities and feedstock aggregators — could incur disproportionate compliance costs to supply facility-level or origin-traceability data required for granular statistics.
- Customs, CBP, and interagency partners — may need to coordinate with EIA to reconcile import statistics, adding administrative complexity and potential data-sharing challenges with foreign counterparts.
- Foreign suppliers and trading partners — may be unable or unwilling to provide origin-level data, creating diplomatic or commercial friction and limiting the completeness of country-level reporting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the public interest in detailed, auditable SAF supply-chain transparency (for policy oversight, market functioning, and emissions accounting) and the commercial and practical limits of producing that transparency: protecting trade secrets, the cost of data collection and standardization, and the reality that foreign-origin data can be incomplete or inconsistent.
The statute pushes for public, granular SAF information while simultaneously preserving EIA’s existing confidentiality authorities, producing a practical tension: EIA must decide how much detail can be released without revealing competitively sensitive company-level information. The bill’s 'to the maximum extent practicable' phrasing for foreign-country data is pragmatic but vague; it invites a case-by-case approach that will produce uneven international coverage and creates expectations that might be hard to meet for importers who do not track origin at the required level of detail.
The accounting-language requirement to use reliable statistical sampling techniques and to prevent double counting is sensible but operationally demanding. Avoiding double counting requires reconciling feedstock flows with conversion yields, co-processing and blending practices, and cross-border trade data — tasks that typically require interagency data sharing (customs, IRS, USDA) and clearer standards for attributing feedstocks to final fuel volumes.
The bill ties the SAF definition to IRC section 40B(d); aligning the EIA’s reporting universe to a tax-code definition simplifies cross-use with tax and incentive oversight but risks excluding fuels or pathways that stakeholders might still want to track for environmental or market reasons. Finally, the statute contains no explicit enforcement mechanism compelling private parties to report new data to EIA, so implementation may rely on existing mandatory EIA surveys, voluntary data-sharing, modeled estimates, or statutory changes to reporting authorities — each of which has trade-offs for accuracy and timeliness.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.