FuelEU + EU ETS compliance costs for CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and COSCO
-
This case study calculates and compares EU ETS and FuelEU compliance costs for three major shipping companies: CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and COSCO. From 2025 until 2050, these three companies will pay a total compliance cost of:
CMA CGM > $16.7 billion EU ETS and $37.0 billion FuelEU penalties
Hapag-Lloyd > $8.0 billion EU ETS and $17.0 billion FuelEU penalties
COSCO > $9.7 billion EU ETS and $21.9 billion FuelEU penalties
The normalized compliance costs per mT of fuel from 2025 until 20250 are almost $300 per mT for CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd, and $200 for COSCO. Of greatest impact is the amount of time spent sailing in EU waters. Normalized compliance costs over this period can rise to $1,000 per mT and beyond in case all voyages are inside EU waters.
The absolute compliance costs are in the hundreds of millions per year for each company. Until 2035, compliance costs are dominated by EU ETS. After that, costs are dominated by FuelEU Maritime. By 2050, compliance costs for FuelEU alone are in the order of 2 – 5 billion USD. CMA CGM has the highest absolute costs due to its highest fuel consumption and EU exposure.
-
The Fuel Cost Calculator compares the use of up to three different fuels on a normalized and absolute cost basis. It compares fuel costs, EU ETS costs, FuelEU penalty and pooling benefits if applied. This tool helps shipowners, operators, and fuel suppliers assess the economic impact of different fuel choices while considering regulatory developments, in particular FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS.
The tool allows for a scenario-based analysis, allowing you to explore predefined fuel price evolutions (Steady State, Fossil Future, Biofuels Better, and Renewable Rise) or define your own price trends. It also enables dynamic selection of a start and end year, so you can focus on specific time ranges to analyse fuel cost evolution. A report of your analysis can be printed and shared to showcase different options all the way up to C-level for strategic decision-making purposes. In short, you can use the tool for …
✔ Operational Cost Forecast – Project fuel costs over time, incorporating EU ETS and FuelEU penalties or pooling benefits.
✔ Regulatory Compliance Assessment – Determine the cost implications of EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime penalties and identify cost-saving strategies.
✔ Investment Case Report – Create a structured analysis to present fuel cost scenarios and regulatory impacts to decision-makers.
✔ Feasibility Study – Assess the financial and regulatory impact of switching to alternative fuels before making investment decisions.
✔ Fuel Cost Benchmarking – Compare fuels on an energy-equivalent basis to understand which is most cost-effective for specific routes or operations.
Premium only
Members only
Premium tools and expert support at your fingertips
This purchase allows you to compare the cost of Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) with other fuels on an energy-equivalent and total cost basis. It includes scenario-based fuel price projections, regulatory cost assessments for EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime, and the ability to define custom price trends. Easily generate operational cost forecasts and investment case reports to support strategic decision-making.
Use Credit card, Stripe, PayPal or Apple Pay (only on iPhone). Contact the helpdesk for payment by invoice.
Don’t want to sign up? Check pay-per-use options
References
CMA CGM - CSR Report 2023
Hapag-Lloyd - Sustainability Report 2023
COSCO - Sustainability Report 2022
Hyperlinks for members only
You might also like
Fuel selection is not only about emissions or cost - tank space often becomes the limiting factor. This article compares marine fuels by volumetric energy density (VLSFO as reference), shows why HFO/LFO have historically dominated, and why methanol is a practical alternative fuel from a ship design perspective. Methanol still requires roughly 2–2.5× the tank volume of conventional fuels, but performs better than ammonia or hydrogen for volume-constrained ships.