Home › Research › India Industrial Decarbonisation Competitive Position
India Macro · CompetitivenessIndia’s Industrial Decarbonisation Competitive Position: How Carbon Intensity Gaps, CBAM Default Penalties, and the CCTS–EU ETS Price Asymmetry Define the Decade Ahead
India’s BF-BOF steel sector averages 2.36 tCO₂ per tonne of crude steel — above China’s best-practice range of 1.8 to 2.0 tCO₂/t and the EU sector average of approximately 1.6 tCO₂/t. India’s primary aluminium sector averages approximately 16.98 tCO₂/t — above the global average of 15.1 tCO₂/t. India’s CBAM default steel emission factor is 4.32 tCO₂/t — before the 10% mark-up that applies from 2026 — which imposes over €200 per tonne in CBAM certificate cost on EU importers using default values for Indian origin. Yet India’s CCTS carbon price is expected at approximately Rs 600 to Rs 900 per tCO₂e — roughly USD 7 to USD 11 per tCO₂e — compared with the EU ETS at approximately €65 per tCO₂e. This asymmetry defines the competitive challenge of the decade: India’s production carbon intensity is above international benchmarks, its domestic carbon price signal is a fraction of international levels, and CBAM is the bridge that increasingly connects the two. This article maps where India actually stands on industrial carbon intensity relative to its peers, what the CBAM and CCTS cost signals mean in commercial terms, and what India’s 2035 NDC, green taxonomy, and public capital programmes must deliver to close the competitiveness gap before it becomes structural.
India’s BF-BOF steel sector average emission intensity is 2.36 tCO₂/t of crude steel, which is the CCTS sector baseline for FY2023-24 confirmed in the gazette. China operates at approximately 1.8 to 2.0 tCO₂/t for best-practice BF-BOF plants — a 15 to 25% gap. The EU sector average is approximately 1.6 tCO₂/t. India’s EAF sector, though a minority of production (approximately 23% of output at approximately 0.3 to 0.8 tCO₂/t depending on RE share), represents India’s most internationally competitive production route by carbon intensity. The 2.36 tCO₂/t average is dragged up by India’s aging BF-BOF fleet — many plants were built between 1970 and 2000 with older coke ratios and less waste heat recovery than modern Chinese and Korean plants.
India’s CBAM default steel factor is 4.32 tCO₂/t before mark-up — representing a punitive country average that includes both low-efficiency and high-efficiency plants. With the 10% mark-up applicable from 2026 (rising to 30% from 2028), the effective CBAM default for Indian steel rises to 4.752 tCO₂/t in 2026. After deducting the BF-BOF benchmark of approximately 1.543 tCO₂/t adjusted for 97.5% free allocation (97.5% × 1.543 = 1.504 tCO₂/t), the net CBAM exposure under default values is approximately (4.752 − 1.504) × €65 = approximately €211 per tonne in 2026. An Indian BF-BOF plant with actual verified GEI of 2.36 tCO₂/t faces approximately (2.36 − 1.504) × €65 = approximately €56 per tonne in 2026. The gap between actual-data and default-data CBAM cost is approximately €155 per tonne — a decisive commercial argument for establishing verified emission data right now.
India’s CCTS carbon price, expected at Rs 600 to Rs 900 per tCO₂e (approximately USD 7 to USD 11), is 6 to 10 times lower than the EU ETS at approximately €65 per tCO₂e. This asymmetry is not accidental — CCTS is an intensity-based system in its Phase 1 that explicitly allows for economic growth and targets relative efficiency improvement rather than absolute emission caps. The CCTS carbon price is expected to rise as Phase 2 targets tighten and as the market matures; the Rs 600 to Rs 900 range is a Phase 1 estimate. However, even at Rs 1,500/tCO₂e (approximately USD 18) — the level that many analysts believe Phase 2 will eventually reach — India’s domestic carbon price would remain well below the EU ETS. The policy question is whether this gap is a feature (preserving industrial competitiveness during transition) or a bug (failing to drive the technology investment India needs to close the carbon intensity gap by 2030 to 2035).
The CCTS–CBAM offset deduction mechanism, committed in the EU-India Strategic Agenda of September 2025, allows India’s CCTS-verified carbon price to be deducted from CBAM certificate costs for covered Indian exporters. This is significant: it means that every rupee of CCTS cost an Indian exporter pays under CCTS reduces their CBAM certificate obligation proportionally. At CCTS Rs 800/tCO₂e and an INR/EUR rate of approximately 90, a CCTS payment of Rs 800 = approximately €8.9/tCO₂e deduction from CBAM. This does not close the EU ETS–CCTS gap (€65 minus €8.9 = €56.1 still owed as CBAM) but it is a genuine and commercially material recognition of India’s carbon pricing effort — and it grows in value as CCTS prices rise.
India’s 2035 NDC, approved by Union Cabinet on March 25, 2026, commits to 47% GDP emissions intensity reduction and 60% non-fossil electricity capacity by 2035. For heavy industry, these commitments translate into approximately 2.5 to 3.5% annual GEI reduction across steel, aluminium, cement, and fertilisers — above CCTS Phase 1’s 1 to 3%. The gap between CCTS Phase 1 ambition and the NDC-required pace is a known policy tension that Phase 2 and Phase 3 target-setting must address. India’s strong track record — GDP emissions intensity declined approximately 36% from 2005 to 2020, ahead of schedule — provides credible foundation for the 2035 NDC. But the industrial sectors, not the power sector, are where the hardest remaining abatement must be achieved.
The carbon intensity gap — India versus peers sector by sector
India’s industrial carbon intensity profile is not uniformly disadvantaged relative to global peers. The picture is nuanced: some sectors are close to global best practice; others carry a structural deficit that reflects decades of technology vintage, energy source, and capital investment decisions. Understanding the gap precisely is the prerequisite for understanding how large a compliance cost hill Indian exporters must climb — and how much of that hill is paid in CCTS domestically versus CBAM at the EU border.
| Sector / Route | India average GEI tCO₂/t | China best practice | EU average | Global best in class | India position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steel — BF-BOF | 2.36 tCO₂/t (CCTS gazette FY2023-24) | ~1.8–2.0 tCO₂/t | ~1.6 tCO₂/t | ~1.4 tCO₂/t (modern integrated) | Above global avg — ~15–40% gap to peers; aging fleet, lower waste heat recovery, higher coke rates |
| Steel — EAF (grid) | ~1.2–1.4 tCO₂/t (CEEW estimate, grid-connected) | ~0.6–0.9 tCO₂/t (China grid-EAF) | ~0.5–0.8 tCO₂/t (EU grid) | <0.3 tCO₂/t (EAF + ~100% RE) | Above peers due to India’s coal-heavy grid (0.710 tCO₂/MWh); improves as grid decarbonises |
| Steel — EAF (RE-powered) | <0.3 tCO₂/t (Tata Ludhiana EAF, inaugurated March 2026) | ~0.3–0.5 tCO₂/t | ~0.2–0.5 tCO₂/t | <0.1 tCO₂/t (green H₂-DRI) | Competitive — India’s EAF with captive solar can match EU performance now |
| Primary aluminium | ~16.98 tCO₂/t (CCTS gazette FY2023-24 sector avg) | ~13–16 tCO₂/t | ~8–12 tCO₂/t (European hydropower smelters) | ~4–7 tCO₂/t (Nordic hydropower) | Significantly above peers — India’s captive coal power is the primary driver; RE transition is transformative |
| Aluminium (post-25% RE blend) | ~13–14 tCO₂/t (estimated with partial RE) | ~13–16 tCO₂/t | ~8–12 tCO₂/t | ~4–7 tCO₂/t | Approaching China — RE transition brings India to Chinese parity; each 25% RE slice cuts ~3–4 tCO₂/t |
| Urea / fertilisers | ~1.4–2.6 tCO₂/t fertiliser (CCTS draft range) | ~1.5–2.0 tCO₂/t | ~1.5–2.0 tCO₂/t (gas-based EU) | <0.5 tCO₂/t (green ammonia-based) | Broadly comparable to China and EU on gas-based route; gap is on gas cost, not process efficiency |
| Cement (OPC) | ~0.56 tCO₂/t cement (CCTS gazette estimate; India one of most efficient globally) | ~0.58–0.65 tCO₂/t | ~0.60–0.65 tCO₂/t | ~0.40 tCO₂/t (blended cements, CCUS) | Competitive — India’s cement sector is among the most energy-efficient globally due to dry process technology; not a competitiveness liability |
Two conclusions emerge from this comparison. First, India’s most significant carbon intensity gaps are in primary aluminium and BF-BOF steel — the two sectors where CBAM creates the largest financial pressure. Cement is not a CBAM liability in the competitiveness sense; India’s cement carbon intensity is actually below the global average and competitive with EU producers. Second, the technology routes that close India’s carbon intensity gap the fastest — EAF steel with renewable electricity, aluminium with captive solar — are already commercially viable and scaling rapidly. The competitiveness gap is not a permanent structural feature; it is a function of the incumbent technology vintage and the speed of the RE transition. CCTS and CBAM together create financial incentives to accelerate both.
The CBAM cost differential — what verified data is worth
The CBAM default value for Indian steel — 4.32 tCO₂/t — is based on the weighted average of India’s entire steel production, including both efficient EAF plants and the least efficient older BF-BOF plants. It is expressly designed to be punitive: by applying a 10% mark-up (rising to 30% from 2028), it creates a large financial incentive for EU importers to demand verified actual emission data from their Indian suppliers rather than accepting defaults. The calculation below maps what this means in commercial terms for an Indian BF-BOF exporter with verified data versus one relying on defaults.
= 4.752 tCO₂/t
CBAM cost at €65/tCO₂e
(2.36 tCO₂/t);
CBAM cost at €65/tCO₂e
(Rs 800/tCO₂e ≈ €8.9/tCO₂e)
(<0.3 tCO₂/t, near-zero Scope 1)
(~1.85 tCO₂/t)
The gap between China and India at verified actual data is approximately €33 per tonne in 2026 — significant but not commercially fatal for quality-differentiated Indian steel products. The gap between India at default values and China at actual verified data is approximately €188 per tonne — commercially prohibitive for most standard steel grades. This is why the phrase “CBAM is a data problem, not just a carbon problem” accurately describes the immediate challenge for Indian steel mills with EU exposure. The technology investment needed to close the carbon intensity gap takes years. The MRV investment needed to avoid default values takes months.
Under the EU-India Strategic Agenda commitment of September 2025 (confirmed through the Omnibus Regulation EU 2025/2083), India’s verified CCTS carbon price payments can be deducted from the CBAM certificate obligation for Indian exporters who can demonstrate they have paid a price under CCTS equivalent to an explicit carbon price in their origin country. The mechanism requires: (a) the plant is an obligated entity under CCTS and is in compliance; (b) the CCTS GEI target is verified by an ACVA; (c) the CCTS payment rate is documented. At CCTS Rs 800/tCO₂e (~€8.9/tCO₂e) versus EU ETS ~€65/tCO₂e, the deduction covers approximately 14% of the CBAM exposure — modest but real, and it grows as CCTS prices rise. For an Indian BF-BOF plant paying CCTS: net CBAM = approximately €56 minus €8.9 = approximately €47 per tonne in 2026. This deduction is the mechanism through which the CCTS-CBAM policy integration that India negotiated in the EU-India Strategic Agenda delivers tangible commercial value to Indian exporters. It is only available to CCTS-compliant entities with verified GEI reports — another reason why CCTS MRV is a commercial investment, not just a compliance obligation.
The domestic carbon price gap and what it means for investment decisions
The Rs 600 to Rs 900 per tCO₂e CCTS price expected in Phase 1 is approximately USD 7 to USD 11 — or approximately €6 to €10. This is the carbon price signal that Indian industrial decision-makers will actually face domestically. At this level, CCTS creates genuine compliance cost pressure and generates real CCC revenue for outperformers, but it is insufficient on its own to drive the capital-intensive technology shifts — H₂-DRI for steel, carbon capture for cement, full RE transition for aluminium — that would close India’s carbon intensity gap with global benchmarks by 2030 to 2035.
The EU ETS at approximately €65 per tCO₂e drove the industrial decarbonisation investments visible in European steel and aluminium over the past decade — and even at that price, IEEFA’s analysis shows that the public cost of green steel remains USD 110 to USD 1,168 per tCO₂e abated, meaning EU ETS alone was insufficient and required Contracts for Difference, Horizon grants, and H2 Business Model support. India’s CCTS at USD 7 to USD 11 per tCO₂e is approximately 6 to 10 times below a level that has already been found insufficient in Europe for deep technology transitions. The domestic carbon price is necessary for market discipline and relative performance differentiation — it is an essential foundation — but it is not and cannot be the primary driver of the technology investments that India’s 2035 NDC requires.
This is not a counsel of inaction — it is a diagnosis of the right policy instruments for each task. CCTS does three things that EU ETS level prices cannot do in India’s development context: it creates verifiable plant-level GHG data (critical for CBAM and for investment analysis); it incentivises relative performance improvement within each sector (plants that invest in efficiency outperform targets and earn CCCs); and it signals to capital markets that India is building a carbon compliance framework that will tighten over time. These are legitimate and commercially important functions, even at Phase 1 price levels. The policy gap that must be addressed separately — through the National Mission for Sustainable Steel, Green Public Procurement, credit guarantees, and Contracts for Difference — is the financing of deep technology investment that no Phase 1 carbon price can drive alone.
India’s 92% of steel capacity expansion (from 180 to 300 Mtpa) not yet built is simultaneously a risk and an opportunity. If this expansion goes in on BF-BOF, it locks in the 2.36 tCO₂/t gap for 25 to 30 years — and increases India’s CBAM exposure as EU carbon prices rise through 2034. If it goes in on EAF with RE, it closes the gap at commercially investable economics right now, since EAF-scrap with 50% RE can achieve 0.4 to 0.6 tCO₂/t — closer to global best practice than the current BF-BOF average. The JSW Kadapa greenfield EAF (Phase 1 target January 2029) and the wave of EAF capacity announced for 2027 to 2032 represent exactly this opportunity. Aligning financing conditions, CCTS incentives, and green taxonomy recognition with this investment pipeline is the single most impactful action available to Indian industrial policy in the next three years. India can close the steel carbon intensity gap not by decarbonising its existing BF-BOF fleet at prohibitive cost, but by building its expansion in the right direction.
What the 2035 NDC requires — and the pace India needs to sustain
India’s 2035 NDC, approved by the Union Cabinet on March 25, 2026, commits to a 47% reduction in GDP emissions intensity from 2005 levels by 2035, with 60% non-fossil electricity capacity. Between 2005 and 2020, India reduced GDP emissions intensity by approximately 36% — demonstrating a genuine and sustained national decarbonisation trajectory ahead of prior NDC commitments. The 2035 targets are ambitious but credible given this track record.
For the industrial sectors that Reclimatize.in covers — steel, aluminium, fertilisers, freight, power — the 2035 NDC translates into the following minimum GEI reduction rates. The IEA estimates that hard-to-abate sectors require 2.5 to 3.5% annual GEI reduction to align with 1.5°C pathways by 2035. CCTS Phase 1 targets approximately 1 to 3% annually in the first two years. The gap between the Phase 1 ambition and the NDC-required pace must be closed by Phase 2 (FY2027-28 to FY2029-30) and Phase 3 (FY2030-31+) target-setting, which BEE will calibrate based on Phase 1 MRV data, technology maturity, and carbon market price feedback.
The April 2026 milestone — submission of 5-year climate action plans by obligated entities — is the first moment at which the CCTS framework formally captures what each company’s technology and investment roadmap actually commits to. These action plans, aggregated by BEE, will provide the most authoritative bottom-up view of what India’s industrial decarbonisation pipeline actually contains. They are also, notably, the same plans that investors, CBAM verifiers, and CSRD-reporting EU buyers will want to see as evidence of a credible, long-term decarbonisation commitment. The 5-year action plan submitted through the ICM Portal in April 2026 is therefore simultaneously a CCTS compliance obligation, an investor communication, and a CBAM risk management document.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does India’s steel carbon intensity compare to China and the EU?
India’s BF-BOF steel sector averages 2.36 tCO₂ per tonne of crude steel, which is the CCTS gazette-confirmed sector baseline for FY2023-24. China’s best-practice BF-BOF plants operate at approximately 1.8 to 2.0 tCO₂/t — a 15 to 25% gap. The EU sector average is approximately 1.6 tCO₂/t. India’s aging fleet, higher coke consumption rates, and lower waste heat recovery explain the gap versus modern Chinese and Korean plants. India’s EAF sector (approximately 23% of output) operates at approximately 1.2 to 1.4 tCO₂/t on the current grid, and at less than 0.3 tCO₂/t with captive renewable electricity — placing it at or below EU benchmark performance. India’s cement sector, with a carbon intensity of approximately 0.56 tCO₂/t, is actually competitive with or below Chinese and EU averages.
What is the commercial impact of CBAM default values for Indian steel exporters?
India’s CBAM default steel emission factor is 4.32 tCO₂/t before mark-up (set in IR 2025/2621, published December 31, 2025). With the 10% mark-up applicable from 2026, this rises to 4.752 tCO₂/t. After deducting the CBAM BF-BOF benchmark (approximately 1.543 tCO₂/t) adjusted for 97.5% free allocation (1.504 tCO₂/t), the net CBAM certificate cost for an EU importer using Indian default values is approximately (4.752 − 1.504) × €65 = approximately €211 per tonne in 2026. An Indian BF-BOF plant with actual verified GEI of 2.36 tCO₂/t faces approximately (2.36 − 1.504) × €65 = approximately €56 per tonne in 2026. The gap of approximately €155 per tonne between default and actual-data CBAM cost is the commercial incentive that should drive every Indian steel mill with EU exposure to establish CBAM-compliant MRV infrastructure immediately.
How does India’s CCTS carbon price relate to the EU ETS, and what does the EU-India CBAM deduction commitment mean?
India’s CCTS Phase 1 carbon price is expected at approximately Rs 600 to Rs 900 per tCO₂e (approximately USD 7 to USD 11, or €6 to €10), compared with the EU ETS at approximately €65 per tCO₂e — a gap of 6 to 10 times. The EU-India Strategic Agenda of September 2025 included a commitment by the EU (confirmed in the Omnibus Regulation EU 2025/2083) to allow deduction of verified carbon prices paid in third countries — including CCTS payments — from CBAM certificate obligations for the corresponding exporters. At CCTS Rs 800/tCO₂e (~€8.9/tCO₂e), this deduction reduces the CBAM cost for an Indian BF-BOF plant with verified data by approximately €8.9/tCO₂e — or approximately €7.5 per tonne of steel exported (at 0.856 tCO₂/t net CBAM exposure). This covers approximately 13 to 15% of the remaining CBAM liability, and grows as CCTS prices rise toward Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,000/tCO₂e in later phases.