EU ETS Price Forecast - 2026
EUA price is expected to rise by ~7% per year, potentially reaching €500 in 2045 as supply tightens
The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is rapidly becoming one of the most important cost drivers for shipping. As maritime transport is phased into the system and the total number of available European Union Allowances (EUA) decreases, carbon prices are expected to rise steadily in the coming decades.
Based on current projections and supply reductions under the EU ETS framework, allowance prices may increase by roughly 7% annually, potentially reaching €400–€500 per tonne of CO₂ by the 2040s. This increase is driven primarily by the declining supply of allowances, stricter climate targets, and growing demand from multiple sectors competing for the same carbon budget.
Why EUA price is expected to rise
The key mechanism behind EU ETS price increases is the gradual reduction of available emission allowances. Each year the total number of allowances issued by the EU declines through the Linear Reduction Factor (LRF). This mechanism steadily tightens the overall carbon budget for all participating sectors. At the same time, the EU is strengthening its climate ambitions under the Fit for 55 framework and beyond. As emissions caps become more restrictive, companies must either reduce emissions or purchase allowances from a shrinking pool.
Shipping entered the EU ETS in 2024, adding another large sector to the system. Over time, more emissions will be covered while the overall allowance supply continues to fall. In other words:
Price rise because more demand, fewer allowances.
This structural supply squeeze is the primary reason many forecasts expect long-term carbon prices to rise significantly. Most forecasts suggest carbon prices rising gradually toward the €400–€500 range over the coming decades. Personally, I would not be surprised if prices temporarily exceed €1,000 per tonne in certain periods. The reason is simple: EU ETS markets historically experience strong price swings when supply tightens faster than expected. If emission reductions lag behind policy targets or if multiple sectors compete aggressively for the same allowances, temporary shortages could push prices much higher than long-term averages.
In other words, the long-term trend may be steady, but the path toward it could be volatile.
-
This analysis is part of the Sustainable Ships Fuel Properties & Cost Guide, where we compare marine fuels based on:
Energy density
Storage requirements
Retrofit complexity
CAPEX and OPEX impacts
Regulatory compliance considerations
If you're working on fuel selection, newbuild design, or retrofit strategy, the guide may be useful.
Sign up for premium tools and benefits
The Fuel Properties and Cost Guide is a technical reference and strategic planning tool for evaluating marine fuels under today’s evolving regulatory landscape. Aligned with FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS, and the IMO Net-Zero Strategy, it benchmarks 22 fuels from HFO and MGO to e-methanol and bio-LNG on properties such as LCV, GHG intensity, flash point, CH₄/N₂O emissions, and VLSFO-equivalent cost.
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
Sustainable Ships - EU ETS
You might also like
If shore power projects were easy, every port would already have them. Instead, developers run into the same fundamental challenges: unpredictable vessel power demand, complex infrastructure decisions, and business cases full of question marks. In this blog we look at those problems, and how our tools help you tackle them.
With shipping now included in EU ETS, carbon prices are becoming a major cost driver for maritime transport. As the total amount of emission allowances gradually decreases, prices are expected to rise over time. Many projections assume an increase of roughly 7% per year, potentially reaching €400–€500 per tonne of CO₂ in the long term.
This Q&A session explores how transition fuels can support maritime decarbonization today, without major retrofits or new infrastructure. Together with Quadrise, we discussed MSAR® and bioMSAR™, oil-in-water emulsion fuels designed to improve combustion, reduce emissions, and support compliance under EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime. Relevant for shipowners and operators seeking practical solutions for the existing fleet.
When is it more cost-effective to use a B30 or HV30 blend as opposed to regular MDO? This article breaks down the economics of MDO versus biodiesel and HVO blends by comparing VLSFO equivalent costs of fuel over a range of EUA price scenarios. Results indicate that it becomes attractive to use blends at EUA prices above €85.
This Q&A session explores the role of book and claim systems in maritime decarbonization, featuring Himanshu Sharma from Vurdhaan, a platform providing independent registries for Scope 3 emission reductions. Himanshu explains how virtual crediting works, why transparency and verification are key, and how book and claim differs from compliance pooling under FuelEU Maritime.
Shipowners and operators face the challenge of navigating multiple regulatory frameworks - EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and IMO Net-Zero - each employing distinct methodologies and emission factors for assessing fuel emissions. This blog provides clear guidance on the differing emission factors and calculation methods employed by each regulatory framework.
Accurate assessment of marine fuel costs is becoming increasingly critical as regulatory pressure grows, especially given the recently announced IMO Net-Zero Framework. This blog uses a VLSFO-equivalent cost model to evaluate the impact of FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS, and IMO Net-Zero regulations on a wide range of fuels. By comparing fossil, bio-based, and synthetic fuels under realistic scenarios, the analysis shows that compliance costs - driven by emissions penalties and carbon pricing - are expected to exceed fuel prices by 2030 for many options.
This Q&A session explores the upcoming IMO Net-Zero Framework, featuring Rajat Bishnoi and Yuvraj Thakur from Normec Verifavia, an accredited verifier supporting shipowners with emissions reporting and regulatory compliance. They explain the new GHG Fuel Intensity and Fuel Standard requirements, compare them to FuelEU Maritime, and discuss penalties, registry systems, and practical implications for shipowners preparing for 2027–2028 enforcement.
Accurate estimation of shore power demand at EU ports has become essential due to strict regulations like AFIR, which requires electrification for 90% of port calls by container and passenger ships at TEN-T ports by 2030. This blog evaluates three methods—using EU MRV fuel data, Sustainable Ships’ ship-specific power database, and ICCT research—to estimate the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for shore power. Results show the total annual electricity demand across EU ports is between approximately 6 and 13 TWh, highlighting the significant scale of infrastructure investment ahead.
This case study explores a 100 kWp solar PV system installed on the hatch covers of a handymax bulk carrier. Operating primarily in Northern Europe, the system offsets auxiliary engine load during idle periods, leading to estimated savings of ~$350,000 between 2025 and 2035. With a CAPEX of $100,000, the payback period is around three years. Most savings come from fuel reduction, with additional benefits from EU ETS and FuelEU compliance. The business case is most sensitive to engine efficiency (SFC) and fuel price.
This case study evaluates a mobile shore power battery barge designed for an offshore construction vessel in the Port of Rotterdam. An average power demand of 2.4 MW and a peak demand of 5 MW is assumed. This results in the requirement of twelve 20-ft containerized batteries integrated into a High Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC) system. Total costs of the power barge are estimated at $9.5M with a yearly revenue of approx. $2.5M.
Operating an offshore workboat in the North Sea area until 2050 will impose significant financial and operational pressure due to tightening environmental regulations and mounting compliance obligations. Modelling of compliance costs shows a clear tipping point in 2040, with FuelEU Maritime becoming the dominant driver, although FuelEU currently applies to vessels above 5,000 GT only. Results for a large offshore workboat operating year-round in the North Sea show that the maximum projected cost exposure could reach up to $250 million between now and 2050.
This case study analyzes 10 marine fuels using an HFO-equivalent model to determine their full lifecycle costs, including fuel prices and regulatory compliance costs, from 2025 to 2050. The results highlight a critical tipping point in 2040, driven by the FuelEU Maritime regulation increasing carbon intensity reduction targets sharply from 14.5% to 31%. This blog provides shipowners with guidance on how to navigate these evolving cost scenarios and maintain competitiveness to ensure future-proof investments.
This case study determines the costs of compliance for a 3,000 TEU Panamax containership with respect to FuelEU and EU ETS. Estimated annual compliance costs for business as usual range from $2.5M in 2025 to $23M in 2050. Two different pathways are evaluated to determine mitigation options and OPEX costs: shore power and wind-assisted propulsion. Savings for shore power are approx. $400k per year in 2025, savings for wind-assisted propulsion are approx. $600k in 2025.
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 $54B (CMA CGM), $25B (Hapag-Lloyd) and $32B (COSCO).
This case study calculates and compares the compliance costs with regards to EU ETS and FuelEU for VLSFO, bio-methanol and e-ammonia. Results show that the averaged compliance costs for VLSFO between 2025 and 2050 are $966 per mT.
This case study determines the impact of FuelEU Maritime on a shore power refit for a RoRo Cargo ship under multiple loading and operational conditions. Pending on the amount of days connected to the grid and the average load while moored, it is estimated that shore power can save €250,000 per year.
This is a case study that determines the impact of FuelEU Maritime on a shore power refit business case up to 2050, taking several ships and varying input parameters to determine the impact under multiple conditions. As FuelEU Maritime will make shore power mandatory in 2030 for passenger- and containerships, this tool will help to determine the impact of that regulation on your business case.
The FuelEU Maritime pooling mechanism is complex. The FuelEU Pool Tool makes it simple. Use this tool to compare cost impact of FuelEU, EU ETS and the fuel itself when pooling up to ten different ships. Blend different quantities of fuel, change fuel properties and compare the cost outlook until 2050 to make your very own FuelEU pooling strategy.
FuelEU is complex. The FuelEU Case Maker makes it simple. Use this tool to compare cost impact of FuelEU, EU ETS and the fuel itself for up to five different cases. Blend different quantities of fuel, change fuel properties and compare the cost outlook until 2050 to make your very own FuelEU strategy.
Join Poul Woodall as we discuss the challenges of the upcoming Fuel EU regulations. It is one of the most stringent upcoming rules and regulations in terms of emissions for the shipping industry.
EMSA and DG MOVE are hosting a dedicated webinar series aimed at supporting maritime stakeholders in navigating the implementation of FuelEU Maritime and its broader regulatory context. The sessions are designed to provide practical insight into how the regulation will be applied in real-world operations, including its impact on fuel choices, compliance strategies, and commercial decision-making across different vessel types and trades.