• 11 min de lectura
• 11 min de lectura
By 30 September 2026, shipping companies must surrender EU Allowances covering 70% of their verified in-scope emissions from 2025.
Our Carbon Markets team is here to help you understand your position and prepare for the deadline, whether you have traded EUAs with us before, are a marine energy client of ours, buying EUAs for the first time, or need support to meet your regulatory obligation.
EUA prices respond to changes in supply, demand, policy and the wider energy market. Having a clear view of your expected requirements gives you greater flexibility to consider when and how to buy, while managing your budget and compliance obligations.
EUAs are an increasingly important part of a shipowner’s broader fuel and compliance strategy, the surrender requirement will increase to 100% of emissions in 2026. making, not simply an annual transaction.
KPI OceanConnect combines carbon market expertise with an understanding of your fuel procurement, operations and wider regulatory exposure. This allows us to help you consider your EUA purchases in the context of your overall marine energy strategy.
Returning EUA customers
Review your 2025 emissions position, assess any remaining EUA requirements and build on the strategy already in place.
Existing marine fuel customers
Bring your fuel procurement and EUA strategies closer together, supported by one partner with experience into both markets.
New EUA customers
Get a clear view of the EUA volumes you require, the purchasing options available and the steps to take you through to surrender.
Companies without dedicated EU ETS resources
Access dedicated carbon-market support without the need for an in-house compliance or trading team. We work alongside your team to calculate requirements and plan purchases, support transfers and smooth the surrender process.
Our Alternative Fuels and Carbon Markets team can help you:
KPI OceanConnect supports more than 250 clients with their carbon and compliance requirements and has traded over 4.5 million EUAs.
Our carbon market specialists work alongside our global marine fuel teams, combining regulatory knowledge, market intelligence and decades of experience in marine energy trading. This gives you continuity across fuel procurement, EU ETS and the developing energy transition landscape.
Whether you need to complete this year’s requirements or develop a longer-term purchasing strategy, we can provide the level of support that fits your fleet and organisation.
For shipowners and operators whose vessels call at EU and EEA ports, European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and FuelEU Maritime obligations are increasingly interconnected with fuel procurement strategies. The fuel you burn shapes your carbon exposure, and your carbon strategy shapes what fuel makes commercial sense.
Managing multiple priorities requires understanding the risks and opportunities at play. This FAQ addresses the questions we hear most often from operators trying to bring these pieces together into one coherent, cost-effective strategy.
Yes. The fuel you choose to bunker has a direct impact on the volume of EUAs you need to surrender, because your EUA obligation is calculated from your vessel’s verified emissions. Lower-carbon fuels such as qualifying sustainable biofuels can reduce that emissions figure, which in turn reduces the number of EUAs you need to surrender.
At certain locations and points in time, the price gap between biofuels and conventional fuels has narrowed significantly and, once compliance costs are included, the total cost comparison may favour the alternative fuel. This highlights how fuel choice now needs to be a more considered decision, accounting for both compliance and costs.
This is particularly relevant because the EU ETS phase-in reaches 100% for emissions generated in 2026, with the corresponding allowances due for surrender in 2027. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions also enter the scheme from 2026, further increasing the importance of every fuel decision. Making fuel and EUA decisions in isolation risks locking in a higher compliance bill than necessary. By evaluating fuel options alongside their compliance-adjusted costs, operators can identify where a switch in fuel type may reduce total voyage cost even if the fuel itself carries a different price tag on paper.
EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime are separate regulatory frameworks that can apply to the same vessel, but they operate differently. EU ETS is a carbon pricing mechanism under which shipping companies must surrender EUAs corresponding to their verified in-scope emissions. The requirement covers 70% of emissions generated in 2025 and will cover 100% of emissions generated from 2026 onwards.
FuelEU Maritime, by contrast, sets progressively tighter limits on the well-to-wake greenhouse gas intensity of the energy used onboard, and to comply shipowners will need to bunker cleaner fuels. Compliance can also be achieved through pooling arrangements, which allow the positive compliance balance of one vessel to offset the deficit of another. In practice, this means a single fuel or operational decision can affect your position under both regulations. A fuel that reduces your EU ETS surrender requirement may also help your FuelEU Maritime position, but the two calculations, deadlines and penalty structures are distinct and need to be managed as such. Treating them as one undifferentiated compliance cost risks missing opportunities to optimise across both frameworks.
No. EUAs are only used for EU ETS compliance – they represent an allowance to emit a tonne of CO2 and are surrendered to cover verified in-scope emissions. FuelEU Maritime works on a different basis entirely, measuring the greenhouse gas intensity of the energy used onboard against a declining target. A FuelEU Maritime compliance shortfall cannot be covered by purchasing an allowance or credit on the open market in the way an EUA satisfies an EU ETS obligation.
There is a common misconception that overpaying on one regulation can offset a gap in the other. A FuelEU Maritime compliance deficit can only be addressed through fuel and operational choices that actually reduce GHG intensity, or through mechanisms specific to the FuelEU Maritime regulation, which include banking a compliance surplus for use against future deficits, conversely borrowing against future surplus to cover current deficit or pooling compliance status with other vessels to balance surplus and deficit within the pool.
The two regulatory obligations need to be managed separately, even as part of the same overall fuel and compliance strategy.
Not necessarily. EU ETS looks at in-scope emissions and requires EUAs to be surrendered against that figure, while FuelEU Maritime assesses the well-to-wake greenhouse gas intensity of the energy used on board, which is a broader calculation across the fuel’s full lifecycle. Because these two frameworks measure different things, a fuel that performs well under one doesn’t automatically deliver an equivalent benefit under the other.
Factors such as fuel certification, feedstock origin, production pathway and methane slip, for example, can all influence the outcome. This is particularly the case for fuels like LNG or biofuels where lifecycle emissions vary significantly depending on how and where the fuel was produced. Two batches of the same fuel type can therefore carry different compliance values. This is why fuel choice needs to be assessed against both regulatory frameworks individually, rather than assuming a single “low-carbon” label translates into a consistent benefit across EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime.
Your EUA requirement is determined by your verified emissions, calculated according to trade routes – whether a voyage is intra-EU or extra-EU and involving an EU port call – and the applicable phase-in percentage for the compliance year. From 2026, the scope of emissions covered expands beyond CO2 to include methane and nitrous oxide, which will increase the verified emissions figure for vessels using fuels where these emissions are present, such as LNG. Getting an accurate view of these inputs early gives a clear volume target to plan against.
Once that requirement is known, the buying strategy should be aligned with your expected compliance exposure, cash flow and risk appetite. Purchasing can be spread across the year to minimise budget impact or timed around periods of lower EUA pricing. Forward and limit-order structures can help manage price volatility.
The European Commission’s own guidance sets out the scope, calculation methodology and surrender obligations in detail, and is a useful reference point alongside your own voyage and emissions data. Working through both the calculation and the purchasing timeline with a partner who trades EUAs regularly can help ensure compliance is not left to the last minute.
Yes. The two are interconnected and require a strategic approach to optimise compliance. Fuel procurement decisions affect emissions and therefore EUA requirements, while EUA market timing and pricing affect the overall compliance-adjusted cost of marine fuel. A trader who understands both market dynamics and the compliance landscape can help identify where the combined position delivers the best commercial outcome. This is especially valuable for operators without a dedicated in-house carbon or compliance function, who may otherwise be reacting to EUA deadlines separately from their bunkering decisions. At KPI OceanConnect, our Alternative Fuels and Carbon Markets team works alongside our global marine fuel desks, so fuel procurement, delivery and compliance can all be considered as part of a single, coherent strategy.
EUA prices can be volatile and respond to changes in supply, demand, policy signals and the wider energy market, so it’s possible that a purchase made today could look expensive relative to tomorrow’s price. But because EUAs have no expiry date, purchased allowances can be used to meet future obligations that occur when EUA prices may be higher.
Short term price dips do, however, underline the value of managing the timing of purchases and avoiding reliance on a single market entry point. Working with a fuel trader can help you manage your position and reduce your exposure to short-term EUA price volatility.
At KPI OceanConnect, we have the financial strength to offer competitive pricing, trading on our own account and managing B2B trading relationships to provide pricing that’s structured to fit your specific strategy, volume and risk profile. Rather than reacting to each price movement in isolation, we can help you build a purchasing approach – spot, forward, or flexible-volume – designed to manage volatility over your full compliance timeline.
Regulatory responsibility and commercial costs do not need to lie with the same entity. Under EU ETS, the responsible shipping company is generally the registered owner, unless responsibility has been formally transferred to the company responsible for compliance with the IMO’s International Safety Management Code. Under FuelEU Maritime, responsibility rests specifically with the ISM company.
However, the party that ultimately bears the cost may be determined by the relevant charter-party arrangements. Depending on the contractual terms and how the vessel is operated, the owner, charterer or another commercial counterparty may be required to provide or reimburse the cost of EUAs or cover costs associated with FuelEU Maritime compliance.
This distinction can create a timing mismatch: the responsible company may need to procure and surrender EUAs before recovering the cost from the contractual counterparty. Clear contractual terms, accurate emissions data and a purchasing strategy aligned with cash flow and billing cycles can help reduce disputes and avoid an unplanned financial burden.
Whether you’re weighing up your alternative fuel options or working out your remaining EUA requirement ahead of surrender deadlines, a coordinated strategy makes the difference between reacting to the market and staying ahead of it. Get in touch with our Alternative Fuels and Carbon Markets team today to build a fuel and compliance strategy tailored to your operations.
