KPI OceanConnect on EUAs: September is the deadline, but strategy is the bigger story

Jesper Sørensen, Global Head of Alternative Fuels and Carbon Markets of KPI OceanConnect, on Wednesday (8 September) wrote that while the 30 September deadline to surrender EUAs is approaching, managing exposure to EU ETS is about more than how and when allowances are purchased.

He said fuel choice and alternative fuels strategy should also form part of companies’ broader carbon-management approach: 

EUAs: EU ETS surrender deadline highlights rising maritime carbon costs, as higher compliance obligations and EUA exposure increase the strategic importance of biofuels, fuel procurement and integrated carbon management ahead of full shipping inclusion in the EU ETS from 2026.

As the 30 September EU ETS surrender deadline approaches, the immediate message for shipowners, operators and charterers is straightforward: make sure your verified emissions position is understood, your exposure is calculated, and your allowance needs are settled in good time.

But this year’s deadline should also be seen as something more than an annual compliance event. It is a reminder that carbon costs are becoming an increasingly important part of vessel operating economics, and that the most effective response is not only to buy EUAs but also to think more strategically about how fuel choices influence overall compliance exposure.

This matters because the cost of the same level of emissions is rising even before we consider market volatility in EUA prices. The reason is the phase-in of the maritime EU ETS. For 2024 emissions, shipping companies were required to surrender allowances for 40% of in-scope CO₂ emissions. For 2025 emissions, that rises to 70%. From 2026 emissions onwards, the obligation moves to 100%.

In other words, even if the EUA price were to remain unchanged, the compliance bill for the same emissions profile becomes materially larger. That is an important shift. It means carbon exposure is no longer something to address only at the end of the reporting cycle. It increasingly needs to be considered when making fuel procurement and voyage-planning decisions.

The EUA market itself reinforces that point. Price volatility remains a feature of the market, and that makes planned procurement more important than ever. The objective is not to predict the perfect entry point. It is to understand the exposure, settle the near-term obligation in a timely manner, and develop a strategy to reduce future risk. But managing EUA exposure is increasingly about more than how and when allowances are purchased.

Over recent months, the economics of biofuels, particularly B100, have become increasingly compelling in several trading scenarios. When assessed only on a headline fuel price basis, the picture can appear mixed. But when viewed through the lens of total compliance cost, the economics can look materially different.

Qualifying sustainable biofuels can help reduce EU ETS exposure by reducing the number of allowances that need to be surrendered, while also improving compliance under FuelEU Maritime. In other words, a well-structured biofuel strategy can support compliance across both regulatory regimes simultaneously.

It does not follow that biofuel is automatically the most efficient solution for every vessel, voyage or trading pattern. In many cases, purchasing EUAs will remain the right answer. In others, alternative fuels can reduce exposure across multiple regulatory frameworks and materially change the overall economics.

That is why the September surrender deadline should be viewed as both a compliance event and a useful point to look forward.

With 100% EU ETS exposure for 2026 emissions, an alternative fuels strategy can no longer be treated separately from carbon management. Fuel procurement, EUA procurement, and FuelEU compliance increasingly need to be considered together before the bunker decision is made, rather than after emissions have already occurred.

Photo credit: KPI OceanConnect
Published: 10 September, 2026