Event

You're invited to our Your FuelEU Roadmap: From Planning to Commercial Strategy to Pooling April 29, 2025

See you there! More events >
X
Trading places: shipping must manage new financial risks with transition to EU ETS, says OceanScore - OceanScore
< Back to Insights
emissions trading system eu
eu allowance eua
eu carbon
EU ETS
eu ets management

Trading places: shipping must manage new financial risks with transition to EU ETS, says OceanScore

Trading places: shipping must manage new financial risks with transition to EU ETS, says OceanScore

The concept of trading is about to take on a whole new meaning for shipping companies with implementation of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) for maritime from next year. As well as monitoring their emissions to meet reporting requirements, companies must now grapple with the complexities of carbon credit trading to manage and mitigate financial exposure to the EU ETS.

 

The new regulatory regime will require the ship owner or manager, as Document of Compliance (DoC) holder, to surrender to the authorities so-called EU Allowances (EUAs), or carbon credits, corresponding to fleet emissions based on reported MRV data for the previous year.

 

This means that shipping companies will have to start purchasing EUAs on an ongoing basis from 1 January 2024 in the run-up to an initial deadline of September 2025 to surrender EUAs. The industry will initially be liable for 40% of emissions in 2024, rising to 70% and 100% of emissions in 2025 and 2026, respectively, under the three-year phase-in of the EU ETS.

 

All emissions on voyages and port calls within the EU/EEA, and 50% of emissions on voyages into or out of the EU/EEA, will be subject to the EU ETS once fully implemented. It will initially apply to CO2 emissions from cargo and passenger ships over 5000grt, with methane and nitrous oxide emissions to be covered from 2026 and offshore vessels set to be included from 2027.

 

Exposure to EUA liabilities

There are hefty penalties for non-compliance, with an inflation-linked fine of €100 per tonne of CO2 equivalent for emissions not covered by EUAs, as well as the requirement to make up any shortfall of allowances. There is also the risk of an entire fleet being expelled from trading in EU waters if a company fails to surrender sufficient allowances for a single vessel over two consecutive years or more.

 

However, there are wider financial implications for shipping companies from the need to buy and sell EUAs as this introduces a new element of balance sheet risk with exposure to potentially huge liabilities, according to Hamburg-based maritime data and technology firm OceanScore. 

 

It is estimated the EU ETS could amount to an additional cost for shipping of anywhere between €8 billion and €10 billion annually once fully implemented in 2026 after a three-year phase-in period, dependent on a fluctuating market price that is currently around €90 for an EUA covering emissions of 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent.

 

“This can translate into millions of euros in liabilities for the party responsible for buying and surrendering allowances, especially when managing (or owning) a large fleet. It may also be difficult to pass on these costs to the charterer, as the ‘polluter pays’ principle dictates, due to possible disputes over EUA volumes or pricing,” explains OceanScore co-Managing Director Albrecht Grell.

 

Tackling trading complexity

“Therefore, shipping companies need to have administrative systems in place both to track fleet emissions and continually assess the volume of allowances required, as well as allocate these allowances or the related costs to relevant stakeholders as part of the EUA accounting process. Quality and timely availability of data become crucial, especially in voyage charter environments.”

 

“Critically, companies will have to determine the best strategy for acquiring EUAs, which will entail complex considerations related to price, volume, timing of EUA transactions and other issues.”

 

EUAs can be purchased at a fixed price in the primary market through auctions arranged several times a year by the European Energy Exchange (EEX) on behalf of the EU. They can also be bought and sold on the secondary market ‘over the counter’ through brokers or online trading platforms. 

 

While EUAs can be banked for use in future years, there is no risk of the market running dry. Shipping participates in the broader EUA market, contributing only around 5% of total demand.

 

Moving forward, though, the EU has announced it will reduce the number of available EUAs by 4.3% annually. While many expect this to lead to higher EUA prices, that doesn’t have to be the case, at least in the short term. EUA prices are highly volatile, having swung between €80 and over €100 in 2023 alone after falling to below €60 last year after the outbreak of war in Ukraine.

 

Finding the right price

Grell points out that achieving the optimal price for EUAs is clearly an important factor, especially if large volumes are being traded, though this is probably less of a priority if allowances are only being acquired for offhires or unemployed vessels, where volumes should be significantly lower.

 

To determine the best price, it is necessary to establish the difference between the buying and selling price being quoted by the trader – the so-called bid-ask spread – that should not exceed a margin of 0.15% to minimise trading losses, he says.

 

“The ability to buy and sell EUAs via the same trading platform is essential so the shipping company can dispose of surplus EUAs if, for example, a voyage ended up requiring fewer allowances than expected. This means it can cash in these EUAs or take advantage of price fluctuations by buying when prices are low and selling when they are high,” Grell explains.  

 

“EUAs being a commodity though, buyers should not expect to gain much from shopping around. The markets are transparent and prices will differ only in the cents range. Price differences for EUAs will most certainly be way more significant from week to week than between different traders. Shipping companies should therefore focus on their trading strategy – on the timing of when to buy a certain volume of EUAs.”

 

The challenge will be “commercial alignment”, as Grell calls it. For a heavy-lift operator, for example, this would require to be clear – when fixing cargo – on when to expect the payment for this cargo and how many EUAs will be required to cover this voyage. 

 

This is where forward trading comes into the picture, or the ability to fix the price of EUAs for delivery at some future date. The heavy-lift operator could buy a forward for the delivery (and payment) of the EUAs needed for a particular voyage just after the date of the expected payment by his customer and then include this EUA forward price in his calculation, effectively hedging himself against the risk of price changes.

 

Similar forward strategies can be used to cover for redeployments and budgeted periods of unemployment.

 

A question of quantity

Grell states that quantities of EUAs to be acquired by or on behalf of the owner to cover for offhires and periods of unemployment tend to be small and that it is therefore important to be able trade odd volumes rather than the standard batches of 500 and 1000 allowances. Typically, there should not be a price penalty for these smaller volumes. 

 

This ability to buy non-standard volumes also means the costs of these EUAs can be directly charged by a manager to a third party (owner or even charterer if the charterer provides funds rather than EUAs for his emissions) to avoid unnecessary price disputes, in addition to avoiding the risk of price changes and constrained liquidity if large volumes are saved for later use.

 

OceanScore is working with long-established trader RWE Supply & Trading to develop the automated solution EUA Trader that is also integrated into its recently launched online application ETS Manager geared to helping shipping companies navigate a path to EU ETS compliance.

 

OceanScore’s co-Managing Director Rolf Garrn says: “EUA trading for shipping entails added complexity compared with land-based industry as there are multiple stakeholders involved. This demands a differentiated approach as shipping companies make the difficult transition to a new carbon trading regime.”

 

For more information contact:

Albrecht Grell, co-Managing Director, OceanScore.

Email: albrecht.grell@oceanscore.com

 

About OceanScore

OceanScore is a Hamburg-based provider of sustainability data and compliance solutions with a strong maritime background. The company offers a range of ESG solutions tailored to the industry’s unique needs.

 

Oceanscore in the news

  • March 6, 2025

    OceanScore has the answers to the maritime regulatory conundrum

    The maritime sector is facing increasingly stringent regulations aimed at reducing emissions, with FuelEU Maritime and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) taking centre stage. OceanScore, a company providing compliance solutions, is offering innovative ways to help shipping companies meet these challenges and optimise their compliance strategies.
    Read article
  • January 8, 2025

    OceanScore to launch combined EU ETS and FuelEU solution in Singapore

    Hamburg-based technology platform OceanScore will introduce the Compliance Manager, its new solution that will help effectively manage FuelEU Maritime Regulation and EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) on one platform, in Singapore. Albrecht Grell, Managing Director, and Leo Grayson, Head of Commercial, APAC, will discuss the FuelEU regulation in depth, what it means for Asian players, and best practices and strategies for efficient compliance. The event will be held from 3 to 5pm (Singapore time) on 23 January. The venue of the event will be at OceanScore Singapore, c/o Blue Net Chartering Asia Pte. Ltd., 20 Cecil Street, PLUS, #24-02.
    Read article
  • December 5, 2024

    OceanScore reviews the first year of EU ETS: what have we learned and what lies ahead?

    OceanScore says many shipping companies struggle to track whether invoices have been accepted, EUAs delivered or payments made without a centralized system. OceanScore client Hammonia Reederei states: "As a high-quality third-party manager, transparency is at the core of how we work with our customers - no hidden charges, no hidden fees. Managing ETS exposure across multiple owners and charterers is a complex task, but OceanScore's ETS Manager has made it efficient and straightforward. Their solution not only streamlines our processes but also helps us provide clear, transparent cost breakdowns around ETS compliance to our customers, reinforcing our commitment accountability to trust and accounting. Looking ahead, Grell says "temporary solutions may suffice for now in tackling some of these challenges, but they are not sustainable long-term", especially with implementation of FuelEU from next year that he believes will amplify pressure for automated data-driven systems to cope with the complexity. "The lessons from these challenges highlight the need for systematic, scalable solutions to manage emissions compliance effectively, ensuring long-term success under the EU ETS framework. The growing need for robust tools is clear. Transparency, efficiency and collaboration across stakeholders will be crucial to tackle the challenges ahead," he concludes.
    Read article
  • December 2, 2024

    UK eyes expanding its ETS to deepsea shipping – closing EU loophole

    Apart from the hit to the EU’s decarbonisation goals, OceanScore MD Albrecht Grell said the UK loophole would tie-up ship capacity, inflate freight rates and could cause disruption as carriers queue up at UK ports. “We need to consider that UK ports do not have the capacity to handle significant increases in throughput, so more port congestion, time lost, would have to be considered,” he said. Mr Grell added that he did not expect the loophole to last for long at any rate, as the EU is planning to review its ETS from 2026.
    Read article
  • November 29, 2024

    OceanScore reviews BIMCO FuelEU clause for time charter parties

    The current BIMCO draft provides a foundation but leaves substantial room for improvement and charter party specific clarifications, said Hamburg-based technology platform OceanScore on Wednesday (27 November). OceanScore added it is already working with customers to implement forward-thinking FuelEU strategies that fill these gaps, supporting smart decision making and efficient processes between the different stakeholders.
    Read article
  • November 14, 2024

    OceanScore supports tricky bunker selection process under FuelEU Maritime

    “Fuel selection is the most important lever under FuelEU,” said OceanScore Managing Director, Albrecht Grell. “Your choice of fuel can either create a surplus or a deficit in your compliance balance, directly affecting your costs.” Grell added: “Choosing the right fuel can help avoid penalties and even create revenue by pooling surpluses. But not all alternative fuels are the same, and their viability often depends on future pooling prices, which are hard to predict.” FuelEU charts a course for reducing emissions in shipping, with a target near net-zero by 2050. For now, two main options are available to meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) threshold of 89.3g CO2e/MJ until 2029: LNG and LPG: These fuels, when used in dual-fuel engines, will meet the rules and can generate surplus compliance balances. However, their benefits will decline until 2040 as limits tighten. Biofuels: These are a good option for most vessels. They are usually used in blends (eg. B20-B30) with conventional fuels. These blends will be compliant until 2040; higher blends or pure biofuels will be needed thereafter. One issue is that EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime treat biofuels differently. Under EU ETS, biofuels are considered zero-emission, meaning companies do not need to buy carbon credits. But under FuelEU, the rules are stricter. “FuelEU doesn’t count all biofuels equally,” Grell explained. “Fuels made from food or feed crops are treated like conventional fuels in terms of emissions. Only waste-based biofuels are fully compliant, and even then, their specific GHG values are above zero.” This difference matters. Standard biofuels, such as those from rapeseed or sunflower seeds, still benefit from ETS discounts but fall short under FuelEU. For full compliance, waste-based biofuels are needed, such as those from used cooking oil or animal fat. Further complications are added when considering the different rules behind the 50% discounts applied to voyages to and from the EU under the two regulations. OceanScore, which provides advanced solutions to facilitate efficient regulatory compliance, is assessing the impact of alternative fuels based on their relative carbon intensities, calorific values (LCVs), prices, and ETS cost incurred, reflecting these in its FuelEU Planner. The challenge goes beyond selecting fuels with low GHG intensity and factors such as the vessel's ice class or whether voyages are intra-EU or international also influence compliance balance. If companies bunker more expensive alternative fuels like biofuels, there is no guarantee it will always pay off. “FuelEU allows for pooling of compliance surpluses and deficits,” Grell added. “Surpluses generated by using compliant biofuels can be sold in the compliance market to vessels in deficit.” OceanScore’s analysis indicates that the compliance market will be in surplus by 1 January 2025. “This surplus will put downward pressure on pooling prices, meaning it might be cheaper to buy a compliance surplus in the pool rather than generate it through compliant bunkering on your own vessels,” Grell said. “Both approaches would be compliant with FuelEU regulation and need to be considered at least from a commercial angle.” Given this, any sound compliance strategy must look beyond fuel selection alone and consider the broader market dynamics. “Our FuelEU Planner integrates these variables into a comprehensive scenario simulation,” continued Grell. “This is crucial because tackling FuelEU successfully requires charterers, managers, and owners to collaborate using a shared, fact-based approach.” Grell outlines several key steps for shipping companies to optimise their compliance strategies. First, they must gain a thorough commercial understanding of the economics of different fuels, considering their prices, LCVs, EU ETS costs, and the cost of pooling FuelEU compliance balances. At the same time, the technical and operational feasibility of using biofuels across different vessels should be assessed. While tests so far indicate that biofuels can be used without significant issues, lingering concerns over engine compatibility and tank systems remain. “Engine manufacturers need to give the green light, and bunker providers must be identified in key ports,” Grell noted. “For now, many companies focus biofuel usage on a smaller portion of their fleet to simplify operations and reduce risks.” However, one of the biggest hurdles remains contractual. “How do you protect the DOC holder, who is responsible for penalties, from the fuel decisions of the charterer? How do you fairly share the costs of biofuels and the value of surpluses? And how do you manage uncertainties tied to deployment patterns and fuel accountability under FuelEU?” Grell asked. Without clear contractual terms, companies risk major financial and operational pitfalls. “To align incentives across owners, managers, and operators, you need clauses in agreements like Shipman and Charter Parties,” he stated. “The ‘polluter pays’ principle is not embedded in FuelEU, so a robust data-driven understanding of the entire value chain is essential to avoid costly disputes.” OceanScore’s FuelEU Planner provides a clear path through the complexity. By simulating fuel use, compliance costs, and pooling options, the tool enables companies to budget effectively and negotiate data-driven contracts. “We make the complex FuelEU regulations easier to manage,” Grell concluded. “With our solutions, companies can understand the commercial impacts of their fuel choices, gain full transparency and confidently manage their compliance strategy.” You might also like Veolia, Enagás, and Barcelona City Council inaugurate first urban cold recovery network from LNG terminal
    Read article
  • September 20, 2024

    欧州燃油規制への対応最適 化 オーシャンスコアが新ツール、都内セミナーで紹介

    アルブレヒト・グレル専務は「FuelEUはEU-ETSに 比べると極めて複雑で、海運会社は燃料選択など難しい選択を求め と説明する。 サイトの利便性向上 FuelEUは、個船のGHG排出量の過不足(コンプライアンス・バランス)を、
    Read article
  • September 20, 2024

    EU―ETS排出枠 日本管理船 年1億ユーロ オーシャンスコア試算 370 隻・170万枠

    船舶のGHG(温室効果ガス)データ管理サービスを提供する独オーシャンスコア(本社・ハンブルク)の試 算によると、EU―ETS(欧州連合の排出量取引制度)の100%適用が始まる2026年以降、日本の船主・船舶管理会社が管理するEU寄港船の排出枠(EUA)コストは年1億ユーロ(約165億円)規模に上る見通しだ。EUに寄港する日本管理船約370隻のEUAは年170万枠に達する見込みで、世界の海運全体のEUA年8
    Read article
  • September 12, 2024

    OceanScore calculates €175m potential costs for Greek shipping with FuelEU Maritime

    Greek shipping companies are set to face a total bill of over €175m in penalties incurred under FuelEU Maritime after it takes effect next year but can also capitalise on the use of alternative fuels both to curb their financial exposure and generate compliance surpluses, according to OceanScore.
    Read article
  • September 11, 2024

    OceanScore Pulls Crowd with Launch of FuelEU Planner Amid SMM

    OceanScore has launched a new planning, simulation and budgeting tool for optimising compliance with FuelEU Maritime from a commercial standpoint. Its FuelEU Planner is the first in a suite of solutions geared to supporting complex decision-making processes with the upcoming regulation.
    Read article

    Ensure Your Shipping Operations are Compliant and Sustainable