Home › Research › Aluminium › CBAM Indian Aluminium Scope 2 Electricity Risk
CBAM and Indian Aluminium: Why Electricity Source Will Become the Decisive Competitive Variable and What Every Smelter Must Do Before the 2027 Review
Right now, CBAM only covers direct Scope 1 emissions for Indian aluminium, which keeps today's financial exposure fairly manageable. However, a major European Commission review in 2027 will evaluate expanding this coverage to include Scope 2 indirect electricity emissions. When that expansion happens, Indian coal-based smelters carrying 12 to 18 tCO₂/t of embedded emissions will face levies that approach or exceed the entire production cost of aluminium. The window to prepare is open now, and investing in renewable electricity today builds the necessary insurance against a potentially catastrophic regulatory change.
Starting January 2026, CBAM covers only direct Scope 1 emissions for aluminium, explicitly leaving out indirect electricity (Scope 2) emissions for now. The European Commission confirmed in October 2025 that indirect emissions will remain outside of CBAM's scope for metals in the near term. A highly anticipated 2027 report will evaluate if and how to extend this coverage to Scope 2 for aluminium, steel, and hydrogen. This article deeply analyzes the current Scope 1 exposure, the massive gap between today's framework and a plausible Scope 2 future, and exactly what Indian producers must do now to avoid catastrophic exposure when that expansion occurs.
Key Takeaways
Today: CBAM for aluminium covers only direct Scope 1 emissions, which includes anode combustion, PFC emissions, and fuel combustion in ancillary processes. The CBAM benchmark for primary aluminium electrolysis is currently 1.423 tCO₂/t. Indian smelters operating at or near this benchmark face minimal certificate costs under the current framework. However, this is a temporary reprieve, not a structural advantage.
The competitive gap: India's coal-based captive power plants emit approximately 0.90 to 1.05 tCO₂/kWh. Because it takes 14,000 to 15,000 kWh to produce a single tonne of aluminium, Scope 2 indirect emissions add a massive 12.6 to 15.75 tCO₂/t to the footprint. This is eight to ten times larger than the direct process emissions. In contrast, a hydro-powered smelter in Iceland or Norway carries total embedded emissions of just 1 to 2 tCO₂/t. That massive gap isn't priced by CBAM yet, but the 2027 review exists precisely to address it.
The looming 2027 risk: If the Commission officially extends Scope 2 coverage to aluminium, Indian coal-based smelters would face brutal CBAM levies of €950 to €1,966/t at current and projected 2030 carbon prices. This compares to an LME aluminium price of approximately €2,000 to €2,500/t. A levy this high would make Indian primary aluminium economically non-exportable to the EU. No clever pricing or efficiency strategy can absorb a cost of this magnitude without a fundamental, structural change in electricity source.
A unique situation for aluminium: Unlike steel, where CBAM firmly excludes Scope 2 and renewable energy investments provide no immediate CBAM benefit, every unit of renewable electricity procured by an Indian aluminium smelter will directly and proportionally reduce CBAM Scope 2 embedded emissions once the extension occurs. Investing in renewables today simultaneously cuts electricity costs, improves CCTS GEI compliance, and builds vital CBAM insurance. This three-way financial alignment is entirely unique to the aluminium sector.
The open window to act: India's Big Four producers (Vedanta, Hindalco, NALCO, and BALCO) have publicly committed USD 5 billion toward achieving 20 GW of renewable energy by 2030. Vedanta's current RE share sits around 5%. Meanwhile, NALCO notably signed a fresh 1,080 MW thermal CPP MOU in February 2026. The actual pace of renewable energy adoption between now and the 2027 review will definitively determine whether Indian aluminium remains positioned for EU market access or gets locked out entirely through the 2030s.
The structural difference: Why aluminium and steel face CBAM so differently
The most important starting point is understanding exactly how aluminium and steel are treated differently under CBAM. This is not due to any current difference in Scope 2 coverage, as both currently exclude it. Instead, the difference lies entirely in what a future Scope 2 extension would mean for each sector's core competitive dynamics.
For steel, electricity acts as a secondary emission source. A standard blast furnace-BOF route is heavily dominated by coke combustion and iron ore reduction chemistry, creating direct Scope 1 emissions of roughly 1.8 to 2.2 tCO₂/t. Even if Scope 2 were eventually added for steel, the incremental exposure for Indian mills would be meaningful but certainly not existential. For aluminium, however, the situation is fundamentally different. Electricity is the absolute primary input and the primary emission source. The Hall-Héroult electrolytic reduction process consumes a massive 14,000 to 15,000 kWh per tonne of aluminium. This makes electricity the dominant cost and the dominant carbon source simultaneously.
For steel, a Scope 2 extension would add a meaningful but manageable additional cost, as electricity is perhaps 10 to 15% of total embedded emissions for a BF-BOF producer. For Indian primary aluminium powered by a coal CPP, electricity represents an overwhelming 80 to 85% of total embedded emissions. Extending Scope 2 to aluminium is therefore not a marginal adjustment. It is a terrifying transformation from a €0 to €73/t CBAM cost up to a potentially devastating €1,500 to €2,000/t CBAM cost. No other sector faces a comparable step-change from a single regulatory decision. This brutal asymmetry is why every Indian aluminium smelter needs to treat the 2027 review as the single most important external risk event of the decade.
"Scope 2 indirect emissions are mostly going to be one of the key decisive competitive variables for aluminium in CBAM, as different smelters adopt different power sources. In hydropower grids compared to coal grids, indirect emissions differ by a huge margin, leading to most of the competitive difference between products imported into the EU from different geographical regions."
SMM Metal Market, Deep Dive into CBAM and Aluminium, December 2025
Current exposure: What CBAM actually costs Indian aluminium producers today
Under the current Scope 1-only framework, India's aluminium CBAM exposure remains wonderfully modest. It is concentrated entirely in the gap between each installation's direct process emission intensity and the 1.423 tCO₂/t benchmark, which was revised downward from earlier drafts under the strict December 2025 implementing act.
SEE (tCO₂e/t) = Carbon anode combustion + PFC (CF₄ + C₂F₆) + Fuel combustion + Embedded emissions from alumina precursor
Typical Indian primary smelter Scope 1 sits around 1.4 to 2.0 tCO₂/t.
Gap above the benchmark (1.423 tCO₂/t) is 0 to 0.58 tCO₂/t.
| Scope covered | Typical emission intensity | Gap above benchmark | Cost at €75.36/tCO₂ (Q1 2026) | Cost at €85/tCO₂ (2026 avg) | Cost at €126/tCO₂ (2030 consensus) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 1 only (current CBAM) | 1.4 to 2.0 tCO₂/t | 0 to 0.58 tCO₂/t | €0 to €44/t | €0 to €49/t | €0 to €73/t |
| Scope 1 + 2 (future) for coal CPP | 14 to 18 tCO₂/t | 12.6 to 16.6 tCO₂/t | €950 to €1,250/t | €1,071 to €1,411/t | €1,588 to €2,092/t |
| Scope 1 + 2 (future) for renewable power | 1.4 to 2.0 tCO₂/t | 0 to 0.58 tCO₂/t | €0 to €44/t | €0 to €49/t | €0 to €73/t |
The table makes the scenario stakes perfectly clear. Today's Scope 1-only levy of €0 to €44/t is extremely commercially manageable, acting as an annoyance rather than a crisis. However, a Scope 1+2 levy of €950 to €2,092/t under coal power is absolutely not manageable under any financial scenario. It approaches or violently exceeds the entire production cost of aluminium and would effectively close EU market access for all coal-dependent Indian primary producers. BloombergNEF's 2030 carbon price forecast of €149/tCO₂ would push the upper scenario well above €2,400/t.
That is certainly not a regulatory outcome the European Commission intentionally desires, but it is the cold mathematical consequence of extending CBAM to indirect emissions without Indian producers having properly transitioned their electricity mix. The only rational policy response from Indian producers is to use the current, quiet window of manageable Scope 1 costs to heavily fund the renewable transition that prevents the Scope 2 scenario from ever being weaponized against them.
The future risk: What the 2027 Scope 2 review actually means in practice
The European Commission's hard commitment is to publish a detailed report in 2027 evaluating how to smoothly extend CBAM scope to indirect emissions for iron, steel, aluminium, and hydrogen. While this remains an evaluation exercise rather than a committed legislative timeline, the direction of travel is utterly unambiguous. The Commission has explicitly stated it does not consider the current CBAM scope to be permanent and has heavily signalled intent to expand coverage.
Certificate obligations become fully active, though they cover Scope 1 only for aluminium. Annual declarations and third-party verification are now firmly mandatory. The highly critical first declaration is officially due in September 2027.
The Commission actively evaluates extending indirect electricity emissions coverage to aluminium, steel, and hydrogen. The outcome could be: no change, a phased inclusion from 2028 to 2030, or conditional inclusion strictly linked to renewable energy documentation frameworks.
180 distinct downstream steel and aluminium-intensive products, like machinery, appliances, and vehicles, suddenly enter CBAM scope from 2028. Embedded emissions from primary aluminium inputs flow directly through into finished product CBAM calculations, wildly expanding compliance obligations for Indian fabricators and complex exporters.
If Scope 2 is aggressively included following the 2027 review, coal-dependent Indian smelters face terrifying levies of €1,000 to €2,000+/t at projected carbon prices. Free allocations for EU domestic producers will be fully phased out by 2034, putting CBAM at full scale. Producers without a solid RE transition will be firmly excluded from EU markets.
CarbonChain's advanced modelling clearly estimates that when CBAM finally expands to cover indirect emissions for metals, the average cost increase for importers could be as high as 500%. For Indian aluminium specifically, where dirty electricity accounts for 80% of total embedded emissions and almost all of that electricity comes from coal, the figure could realistically be far higher. While this is a modelled scenario based on current emission intensities rather than a final regulatory determination, the order of magnitude perfectly aligns with the cold arithmetic. Adding 12 to 16 tCO₂/t of additional Scope 2 exposure at €80 to €130/tCO₂e produces precisely this brutal cost range. The scenario is absolutely not alarmist. It is simply the direct mathematical output of current coal CPP emission factors meeting projected carbon prices.
The competitive gap: India versus hydro-powered producers
The harsh physical reality of Indian aluminium's emissions position relative to global competitors is already quite stark. The 2027 review would simply be the exact moment CBAM begins to price it. The comparison below clearly shows current embedded emission intensities under a scary Scope 1+2 scenario to perfectly illustrate what the regulatory change would expose.
The deep competitive gap between India's coal-based primary aluminium and players like Iceland or Norway is absolutely not a process efficiency question, as Hall-Héroult electrolysis remains broadly similar in energy consumption worldwide. It is entirely, 100% an electricity source question. A future Scope 2 extension would price that exact gap directly. Indian producers who have sluggishly failed to shift their electricity mix before that massive pricing occurs will be left structurally uncompetitive in the lucrative EU market, completely regardless of any other minor competitive advantages they might hold.
Why renewable energy investment is the only structural answer, and why aluminium is uniquely positioned
For Indian steel producers, heavy renewable energy investment provides absolutely no direct CBAM benefit today because CBAM currently excludes Scope 2 for steel, and there is absolutely no confirmed timeline to include it. For Indian aluminium producers, however, the situation is completely and fundamentally different. When Scope 2 is eventually included for aluminium, every single unit of renewable electricity smartly procured directly and beautifully proportionally reduces the massive CBAM Scope 2 obligation.
This dynamic creates a highly unique, three-way investment alignment specifically for aluminium that no other CBAM-covered sector currently enjoys.
The massive CBAM cost avoidance figure of €174 million per year for a single 500,000 t/year smelter remains a future scenario heavily dependent on Scope 2 inclusion, not an immediate current financial benefit. However, the deep electricity cost saving and the immediate CCTS compliance benefit are completely real and occurring right now. The rock-solid investment case for renewable energy in Indian aluminium absolutely does not require the 2027 review to go a specific way. It solidly stacks up on present economics alone, and then acquires massive additional magnitude if Scope 2 is officially extended.
Crucially, massive renewable energy capacity reliably takes 2 to 4 years to successfully develop, contract, and commission at utility scale. A smart smelter that begins the aggressive procurement process in 2026 to 2027 can successfully have meaningful RE capacity beautifully operational long before the potential Scope 2 extension takes harsh effect. A lazy smelter that nervously waits for the 2027 review outcome before acting will suffer, at a minimum, a brutal 3-year gap during which it faces full, agonizing Scope 2 exposure with absolutely no hedging in place.
The Big Four: Where each major producer currently stands on CBAM readiness
| Producer | Smelting Capacity | Current RE Share | RE Target & Actions | CBAM Readiness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vedanta Jharsuguda + BALCO | ~2.4 MTPA production (FY25) | ~5% | Targeting 30% RE by 2030, exploring complex group captive models. The new 4,900 MW CPP energy mix is deeply critical for new Odisha capacity. | Committed but nascent |
| Hindalco Renukoot + Hirakud | ~1.3 MTPA | ~10 to 15% | Hold 190 MW installed RE (March 2025). Targeting 300 MW by FY2026 including 100 MW RTC with storage. Deep Novelis EU ETS experience. | Most advanced of Big Four |
| NALCO Angul, Odisha | ~0.46 MTPA | <10% | Hold 198 MW installed wind and evaluating 200 to 300 MW with storage. But terribly signed a 1,080 MW thermal CPP MOU with NLCIL in Feb 2026, heavily extending coal dependence. | High risk: Wrong direction |
| BALCO Korba, Chhattisgarh | ~0.57 MTPA | <10% | Firmly part of Vedanta group targets. The deep Chhattisgarh coal belt location adds severe grid RE transition complexity. | Very high exposure |
NALCO's February 2026 thermal CPP MOU deeply warrants particular attention. A brand new coal-based CPP commissioned after 2028 will possess an operating life of 25 to 30 years, extending well past the dangerous point where Scope 2 inclusion for aluminium becomes highly likely. Every single tonne of aluminium produced from that dirty plant's power will carry massive embedded Scope 2 emissions of approximately 12 to 15 tCO₂/t. At projected 2030 carbon prices of €126/tCO₂e, that represents a terrifying potential CBAM liability of €1,512 to €1,890/t per tonne of aluminium heavily exported to the EU. The stranded asset risk is absolutely not hypothetical; it is the brutally direct consequence of commissioning long-lived, highly carbon-intensive infrastructure in the current, shifting regulatory environment.
Odisha, proudly home to Vedanta's massive Jharsuguda and NALCO's Angul smelters, comfortably offers one of India's significantly better industrial open access frameworks for huge consumers. The progressive state's RE Policy 2022 beautifully provides a 50% CSS exemption and a 25% wheeling exemption strictly for in-state projects. Wind-solar hybrid paired with heavy battery storage delivered via open access in Odisha currently costs a very reasonable Rs 3.5 to 4.5/kWh all-in. This is highly comparable to dirty coal CPP electricity at Rs 4.5 to 5.5/kWh for surprisingly equivalent reliability. The real economic barrier to aggressive RE transition at Odisha smelters is now mostly grid reliability and banking policy, no longer raw cost. Wind-solar hybrid heavily paired with battery storage neatly addresses the reliability constraint. The clever ISTS waiver easily allows procurement from sunny Rajasthan or windy Gujarat where renewable resources are vastly superior. The investment case is incredibly strong in the present tense, and the looming CBAM case strengthens it even further.
Secondary aluminium: The structural CBAM advantage that is already entirely real
Secondary aluminium, cleverly produced from scrap rather than intense bauxite reduction, carries dramatically lower embedded emissions than any primary aluminium from any electricity source, simply because the dirty electrolytic reduction step is beautifully bypassed entirely. Remelting aluminium scrap only requires an easy 500 to 750 kWh/t, which is roughly 5% of massive primary smelting energy. Even a completely coal-powered secondary producer proudly carries embedded emissions of only about 0.5 to 1.5 tCO₂/t, sitting well below the strict 1.423 tCO₂/t CBAM benchmark for primary aluminium electrolysis.
This is absolutely not a wild future scenario. It is a highly powerful current competitive advantage thriving under the existing Scope 1 framework, and it only becomes vastly more valuable as primary aluminium CBAM costs inevitably escalate. Hindalco's brilliant 300,000-tonne scrap recycling facility in Gujarat and India's rapidly growing domestic scrap pool as older aluminium stock gracefully ages are heavily enabling this cleaner pathway at massive scale.
The tricky pre-consumer scrap anti-circumvention rule formally introduced under the 2025 Omnibus package does add a mild constraint. Pre-consumer scrap originally originating from dirty, high-carbon production lines must honestly include those upstream embedded emissions in its CBAM calculations. This perfectly prevents sneaky secondary producers from claiming zero embedded emissions on scrap heavily sourced from coal-based primary smelters. However, post-consumer scrap retains much more favourable treatment, as its upstream embedded emissions have already been correctly attributed to the original product lifecycle.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does CBAM currently strictly include Scope 2 indirect electricity emissions for aluminium?
No. CBAM starting from January 2026 safely covers only direct Scope 1 emissions for aluminium. This explicitly includes anode combustion, PFC emissions, and fuel combustion strictly in ancillary processes. The European Commission confidently confirmed in October 2025 that indirect electricity emissions will remain completely out of scope for metals for the foreseeable future. A critical 2027 report will officially evaluate if and exactly how to extend Scope 2 coverage to aluminium, steel, and hydrogen. There is currently no committed legislative timeline for this massive extension.
Why exactly does the 2027 review matter vastly more for aluminium than for steel?
For heavy steel, electricity only accounts for approximately 10 to 15% of total embedded emissions, making it a meaningful but absolutely not dominant source. A Scope 2 extension for steel would simply add a significant but highly manageable cost. For primary aluminium, electricity dominates 80 to 85% of total embedded emissions coming from a coal-powered smelter. A massive Scope 2 extension for aluminium totally transforms the CBAM from a simple, manageable compliance cost (€0 to €73/t) to a potentially devastating, existential trade barrier (€1,000 to €2,000+/t). No other CBAM-covered sector currently faces a comparable step-change stemming from a single regulatory decision.
What is the specific current CBAM benchmark for aluminium and what does it financially mean for Indian smelters?
The official CBAM benchmark for primary aluminium direct emissions sits at 1.423 tCO₂/t, having been revised downward from earlier drafts under the strict December 2025 implementing act. Indian smelters easily operating at or very near this figure on Scope 1 direct emissions face extremely minimal certificate costs today. The separate benchmark for secondary aluminium is a tiny 0.091 tCO₂/t, heavily reflecting the amazing energy efficiency of recycling. Under the current framework, many Indian smelters' direct process emissions are remarkably close to the benchmark, meaning their immediate financial exposure is delightfully low. The deep, latent risk sits entirely in the massive Scope 2 gap that the 2027 review may eventually address.
If an Indian smelter bravely signs a renewable energy PPA right now, does it immediately benefit under CBAM today?
Under the strict current Scope 1-only framework, there is absolutely no direct CBAM benefit, simply since Scope 2 is not currently priced. However, the smart smelter gains an immediate, powerful benefit under India's local Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), where Scope 2 GEI operates as a core compliance metric. They also gain a beautiful electricity cost benefit if the renewable tariffs remain competitive with dirty coal CPP costs. If and precisely when Scope 2 is officially included in CBAM for aluminium following the 2027 review, a smelter with proudly documented RE delivery will boast dramatically lower embedded emissions and therefore experience dramatically lower CBAM certificate obligations. The brave PPA signed today successfully becomes the massive CBAM competitive advantage of 2028 to 2030. Please note that RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) alone, completely without physical renewable electricity delivery, absolutely do not reduce CBAM Scope 2 embedded emissions.