Margin Shields: Feedstock Optionality in HEFA, AtJ, PtL Plants
- Aug 25
- 4 min read
Updated: Sep 7
Why Feedstock Optionality Matters Now
By mid-2025, the SAF market has crossed 800 million gallons globally, with HEFA accounting for more than 80% of operational capacity. Policy support remains strong, but fragmented: the U.S. is recalibrating its IRA incentives under OBBBA, while the EU tightens ETS and mandates higher SAF blending thresholds.
Yet one recurring blind spot in investment committee memos is feedstock dependency. Too often, diligence focuses on technology pathway or offtake agreements while underweighting how plants protect operating margins when feedstock curves move against them.
I call these protections “margin shields” — the ability of a facility to switch between feedstocks or input streams without breaking its business case. For investors, the difference between a facility with strong margin shields and one without can mean the gap between a 14% IRR and a stranded asset.
HEFA – The Saturated Pathway with Hidden Optionality
Hydrotreated Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) has been the dominant SAF pathway, scaling fastest because it builds on refinery-proven hydrotreating. Its challenge is well-known: heavy reliance on used cooking oil (UCO), tallow, and vegetable oils, all of which face volatile pricing and strong competing demand from renewable diesel.
However, what’s less appreciated is the expanding feedstock boundary:
Brown grease, fish oils, and rendered fats are beginning to appear in compliance credit systems.
Emerging pre-treatment technologies are enabling higher tolerance for impurities.
Several U.S. refiners are already piloting partial substitution, targeting LCFS credits by demonstrating lifecycle intensity improvements.
Investor takeaway: HEFA is not “done.” Its margin shield comes from developers who engineer flexibility into their pre-treatment systems and build relationships with municipal or rendering waste suppliers, not just traders of UCO. Facilities with brown grease access can secure spreads 20–30% better than those tied to soybean oil curves.
AtJ – From Ethanol Lock-In to Diversified Pathways
Alcohol-to-Jet (AtJ) has often been reduced in pitch decks to “sugarcane or corn ethanol to SAF.” That view is outdated.
Today, AtJ’s evolution is toward feedstock pluralism:
Corn stover, rice husk, wheat straw in the U.S. Midwest and EU.
C6/C5 sugar cocktails that reduce reliance on a single agricultural stream.
Experimental routes using captured CO₂ + engineered microbes to produce ethanol intermediates.
It’s true: no AtJ facility is yet operating at meaningful commercial scale in the U.S. or EU. But several are in advanced pilot and demonstration phases with financing underway (notably in Illinois, Spain, and Scandinavia). Investors who dismiss AtJ as “non-bankable” miss the nuance: optionality here is less about chemistry than geography and logistics. Plants co-located with abundant agri-residue or municipal waste streams are building a shield against ethanol commodity swings.
Investor takeaway: AtJ projects are higher-capex, but the feedstock strategy could determine whether the first movers become low-margin experiments or genuine margin-resilient assets.
PtL – Optionality Hidden in the Inputs
Power-to-Liquid (PtL) is often misrepresented as “feedstock-free.” In reality, its economics are feedstock-intensive — only the feedstocks are inputs, not biomass:
Renewable power (off-grid wind/solar vs grid-linked PPAs).
Hydrogen (PEM vs SOEC electrolyzers, hub vs captive sourcing).
CO₂ (industrial flue gas, biogenic CO₂, or direct air capture).
Each input carries volatility. Green hydrogen costs alone still range $3–6/kg across hubs, translating into a >40% spread in PtL production costs. CO₂ sourcing introduces additional exposure: industrial contracts can be revoked with plant closures; DAC remains technically promising but commercially immature.
Investor takeaway: PtL optionality lies in contract structures and sourcing strategies, not just technology. Developers with long-term hedges on green power or CO₂ offtake will weather shocks far better than those reliant on spot exposure.
The Margin Shield Framework
Across HEFA, AtJ, and PtL, margin shields can be mapped using three dimensions:
Flexibility Index – How many viable feedstocks or input streams can be processed?
Switching Cost – What level of capex/opex is required to pivot feedstocks?
Credit Stack Impact – How does switching affect eligibility for LCFS, RINs, 45Z, or EU ETS credits?
Illustrative contrast
A HEFA facility locked to soybean oil faces extreme margin compression in high-veg-oil markets.
A facility designed with brown grease pre-treatment and diversified waste contracts shields 20–25% of its EBITDA against the same price curve.
An AtJ or PtL developer with secured long-term offtake for ethanol or green hydrogen demonstrates IRR resilience under commodity stress scenarios.
Margin Shield Framework (Investor Lens, 2025)
Pathway | Flexibility Index (Feedstock/Input Diversity) | Switching Cost (Capex / OpEx to Pivot) | Credit Stack Impact (LCFS, RINs, 45Z, EU ETS) | Margin Shield Rating* |
HEFA | Medium–High (UCO, tallow, veg oils; emerging brown grease, fish oils) | Moderate (requires advanced pre-treatment, supply contracts) | High (brown grease/fats often score better CI → more LCFS/RIN value) | Strong if diversified; weak if locked to veg oils |
AtJ | Medium (sugarcane, corn ethanol, cellulosic residues, waste-to-ethanol, experimental CO₂-to-ethanol) | High (feedstock changes often linked to logistics and fermentation adaptation) | Medium (cellulosic ethanol earns stronger credits; corn ethanol penalized in EU) | Emerging; resilience hinges on siting & logistics |
PtL | Low–Medium (inputs: renewable power, H₂, CO₂ — but limited diversity in each stream) | High upfront (electrolyzer choice, PPA structure, DAC vs flue gas capture) | Medium–High (LCFS/ETS favor low-CI inputs; DAC could unlock premium credits) | Still unproven; resilience rests on long-term input contracts |
*Margin Shield Rating: a qualitative synthesis combining feedstock flexibility, switching cost, and credit stack leverage.
Implications for Investors
For buy-side teams, the due diligence checklist should expand:
What is the secondary feedstock strategy?
How fast can the plant switch?
How are offtake contracts structured to account for feedstock substitution?
Does the credit generation model change with alternative inputs?
Most models we review remain over-sensitive to single feedstock curves. This exposes funds to asymmetric downside in a policy-supported but still volatile sector. Resilience, not technology label, will distinguish the long-term winners.
Closing Insight — Feedstock Agility as the New Moat
Technology readiness has been the primary lens for SAF investments over the past decade. As of 2025, the sharper differentiator is feedstock agility.
The strongest margin shields are not necessarily the largest projects or those backed by household names. They are facilities engineered to be feedstock-agnostic and paired with intelligent contracting strategies that align inputs with compliance credits.
For investors, the question is no longer just “which pathway scales?” but “which developers are future-proofing margins against feedstock volatility?”
In the SAF market, feedstock optionality is not a side note. It is the moat.
Comments