Iron & Steel: Core Demand Anchor of India's CCTS

With 253 facilities and the largest compliance deficit, steel shapes the CCTS market's price trajectory.

By Abhishek Das • January 14, 2026 • 10 min read

In This Article

Steel's Position Under CCTS • Why Steel Is Structurally Short • Decarbonisation Pathways & Their Costs • From Compliance Deficit to Financial Exposure • Strategic Implications

Why This Matters

India's steel sector is the demand anchor of CCTS. With 253 facilities and a structural compliance deficit—projected to reach ~98.8L (9.9 million) Carbon Credit Certificates by FY29-30—steel producers are the primary buyers in the CCTS market, directly setting carbon credit prices for all obligated sectors. Unlike aluminium or cement, which face compliance challenges, steel faces a structural mismatch between production scale and emissions reduction capacity. This imbalance makes steel producers the central actors in CCTS pricing dynamics and financial exposure projections across the scheme.

India's iron and steel sector represents the largest and most diverse industrial cohort under CCTS. With 253 obligated facilities spanning integrated steel mills, direct reduced iron (DRI) production units, electric arc furnace (EAF) operations, and secondary steel facilities, the sector accounts for the dominant share of CCTS coverage by facility count and absolute emissions volume. Unlike sectors such as aluminium and cement where final GEI benchmarks have already been notified, iron & steel's facility-specific Greenhouse Gas Emission Intensity (GEI) benchmarks remain pending—making this sector the largest cohort still awaiting formal notification. Once notified, compliance obligations will operationalize immediately (Source: BEE, CCTS Framework & GEI Notifications).

Each steel facility will receive a facility-specific GEI benchmark measured in tonnes of CO₂e per tonne of crude steel produced. The intensity-based architecture means compliance exposure will scale directly with production volume. Higher production = higher absolute emissions = higher potential carbon credit deficit. For facility operators, the impending notification creates an urgent need to begin tracking facility-level emissions against expected intensity baselines, forecast compliance position across production scenarios, and develop procurement strategies for carbon credits—before the formal benchmarks arrive.

What makes steel unique, however, is not just facility count but the sector's role as the primary demand driver for carbon credits. Because steel is structurally short on credits—meaning production-level emissions consistently exceed facility benchmarks—the sector's purchase demand directly determines CCTS prices. Every other sector's financial exposure is derivative of steel's compliance deficit. This makes understanding steel compliance dynamics critical to comprehending CCTS pricing and financial risk across the entire scheme.

Steel's structural deficit emerges from the fundamental mismatch between India's production profile and CCTS reduction requirements. Coal-based production dominates: blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) and coal-based DRI account for 70-75% of national steel output. This production lock-in creates the core supply problem.

The result: India's steel sector enters CCTS with a structural asymmetry. Production volume growth and baseline emissions intensity create compliance deficits that cannot be closed through incremental operational improvements alone. This is why the sector is characterized as "NET SHORT"—a demand-side driver of CCTS prices. Unlike cement, which has supply pathways, or aluminium, which can shift to renewables, steel's structural deficit is more intractable and longer-lasting.

Understanding this structural imbalance is critical: steel will be a net buyer of carbon credits throughout the 2026-2030 period, potentially extending beyond. This buying pressure directly supports CCC prices, making steel producers the margin-setting buyers in the CCTS market.

Steel has multiple decarbonisation pathways, but each carries distinct capex, operational, and financial implications. According to CEEW's decarbonisation analysis, the sector faces a total CAPEX requirement of approximately USD 283 billion under the base case (hydrogen-inclusive scenario) (Source: CEEW, How Can India Decarbonise for Net-Zero: Sustainable Steel Production). Here are the principal levers:

• • Energy Efficiency (5-7% reduction): Slag heat recovery, cogeneration, comparative differential pressure (CDP), and TRT (top recovery turbine) upgrades in BF-BOF. CAPEX: ~INR 66,897 crore for BF-BOF segment. These measures are relatively low-capex and can be deployed rapidly, but yield only incremental emissions reductions. Suitable as a near-term bridge but insufficient for meeting long-term reduction targets.
• • Alternative Fuels (Renewable Energy & Biomass): Substituting coal with renewable electricity or biomass. For BF-BOF, the renewable energy requirement is estimated at 18,286 GWh. Alternative fuels reduce scope 1 process emissions but require parallel renewable energy procurement infrastructure. Financial case is marginal without carbon credit price support.
• • Scrap-Based EAF Route (30-50% reduction vs. BF-BOF baseline): Electric arc furnace operations using scrap feedstock achieve 30-50% lower emissions than BF-BOF baseline. However, scrap availability is the binding constraint. India's scrap supply is limited, prices are volatile, and import dependency creates supply-side risk. This route is most viable for producers with secure scrap supply contracts.
• • Hydrogen DRI (Significant reduction, high cost): Green hydrogen DRI can replace coal-based DRI, achieving substantial decarbonisation. However, at USD 4.2/kg for green hydrogen, hydrogen DRI is cost-prohibitive without carbon credit support or policy subsidies (Source: CEEW, How Can India Decarbonise for Net-Zero: Sustainable Steel Production). BF-BOF plants can also inject hydrogen into blast furnaces, reducing coal demand. This is the most significant decarbonisation lever but carries the highest capital and operational cost.
• • Carbon Capture, Utilization & Storage (CCUS): CCS at USD 92/tCO₂ and CCU at USD 468/tCO₂. For full decarbonisation of BF-BOF, the sector would require 86.4 MTPA CCS capacity and 21.8 MTPA CCU capacity. CCUS is capital-intensive but provides an alternative to process redesign for legacy BF-BOF plants. Cost-effectiveness depends on carbon credit price trajectory.
• • Cost-Effectiveness & Route Optimization: According to CEEW's MACC (Marginal Abatement Cost Curve), achieving 10% reduction is profitable at -1.2% cost (i.e., cost-saving). At 21% reduction without cost increase, BF-BOF can achieve measurable but insufficient decarbonisation. Coal DRI-EAF achieves 30% reduction with zero cost increase. Gas DRI-EAF is the most cost-effective route overall, followed by coal DRI-EAF. Near-zero steel is 40-70% more expensive than baseline production.

The strategic implication: every facility needs a differentiated decarbonisation pathway based on its technology profile, feedstock access, capital availability, and product mix. For integrated mills with coal-dependent blast furnaces, the optimal near-term strategy is typically energy efficiency + renewable energy procurement, with hydrogen DRI or CCUS as medium-term additions. For producers with scrap access, EAF expansion becomes the primary lever. For greenfield capacity, gas DRI-EAF offers the best balance of decarbonisation and cost-effectiveness.

Understanding your facility's compliance position is necessary but not sufficient. Real financial exposure emerges from Carbon Credit Certificate (CCC) pricing and market dynamics. CCC prices are market-determined, and projections across multiple scenarios show dramatic variability. For CFO financial planning and risk management, understanding all three scenarios is critical to capital budgeting.

Climate Decode's market outlook projects CCC prices in the range of INR 1,035–1,980 per tCO₂e in FY 2025-26, rising to INR 3,900–4,000 per tCO₂e by 2030 (Source: Climate Decode, India CCTS Market Outlook, Annex B). For iron & steel specifically, the trajectory across 253 obligated facilities is material: the base case shows an initial surplus of ~4.87L (487,000) tCO₂e in FY25-26 that flips to a deficit of ~18L (1.8M) tCO₂e in FY26-27, deepening progressively to ~98.8L (9.9M) CCCs deficit by FY29-30. Under the supply-constrained scenario, deficits widen dramatically to ~145L (14.5M) tCO₂e, while the supply-heavy scenario limits deficits to ~23.6L (2.36M) tCO₂e. With a Weighted Average Reduction (WAR) of 1.85% annually, the sector moves progressively deeper into deficit as benchmarks tighten. (Source: Climate Decode, India CCTS Market Outlook, Annex B)

Climate Decode's modelling of steel-specific compliance costs incorporates:

• • Facility-level emissions intensity benchmarks (final GEI notification: pending)
• • Production technology profile (BF-BOF share, DRI-EAF, integrated mills, secondary units)
• • Production volume scenarios and domestic/export demand growth trajectories
• • CCC price discovery trajectories from early surplus (INR 1,035–1,980) to equilibrium pricing (INR 3,900–4,000 by 2030)

Across all three scenarios, the steel sector follows a consistent pattern: an initial modest surplus in FY 2025-26—driven by partial-year compliance coverage and early-stage benchmark relaxation—followed by a rapid and sustained shift into significant deficit. As Climate Decode's market outlook indicates, this early surplus is transitional, not structural. By FY 2026-27, as full-year coverage takes effect, benchmarks tighten at the 1.85% weighted average rate, production pressures mount, and CCC prices rise toward equilibrium levels, compliance costs escalate dramatically across all 253 facilities.

The critical point: these are non-discretionary, recurring costs. Unlike one-time capital investments, carbon compliance costs recur annually and compound. As benchmarks tighten at 1.85% per year and CCC prices move from INR 1,035–1,980 toward INR 3,900–4,000 by 2030, the sector's cumulative compliance liability could reach ~INR 3,860–3,960 crore annually by FY29-30 under the base case. Under a supply-constrained scenario, exposure widens further as deficits grow to ~145L (14.5M) tCO₂e. This financial trajectory fundamentally reshapes production economics, capital allocation decisions, and competitive positioning across the Indian steel sector.

For steel producers, CCTS exposure cascades into strategic decisions across multiple dimensions, with particular urgency given the structural deficit position and rising carbon credit costs:

• •Route Optimization & Technology Selection: Facility-level production routes must be reassessed against decarbonisation potential and carbon cost exposure. BF-BOF plants should prioritize energy efficiency and renewable energy procurement (lowest capex, modest reduction). Producers with scrap availability should evaluate EAF expansion (highest emissions reduction per tonne, best cost-effectiveness). Greenfield capacity should strongly consider gas DRI-EAF or hydrogen DRI pathways, even at higher capex, given long-term carbon cost trajectory.
• •Scrap Strategy & Supply Chain: Scrap is the binding constraint on EAF expansion. If EAF is in your decarbonisation roadmap, secure long-term scrap supply contracts now. This may require forward purchasing, vertical integration of scrap collection, or import partnerships. Scrap availability directly determines EAF production upside and carbon cost mitigation.
• •Renewable Energy Procurement & Long-Term Contracting: RE procurement is now a financial lever, not just an ESG initiative. For BF-BOF facilities, renewable PPAs directly reduce Scope 2 emissions and improve GEI positions. Long-term PPAs at favorable rates improve project economics on capital allocation calculations. Quantify the carbon cost avoidance benefit alongside energy cost savings to justify PPA investment.
• •Carbon Credit Procurement Planning & Price Hedging: Because steel faces a structural deficit, carbon credit procurement becomes a recurring, non-discretionary cost. Develop multi-year credit procurement strategies—decide whether to purchase credits opportunistically (betting on low prices) or lock in forward prices through term contracts. Evaluate credit price hedging strategies to manage volatility. Given projected prices of INR 3,900–4,000/tCO₂e by 2030, forward contracting at lower current prices may be financially rational.
• •Production & Capacity Planning Against Carbon Economics: Production planning must incorporate carbon cost sensitivity. A high-margin order may become economically marginal once carbon compliance costs are added. Conversely, low-carbon routes (EAF, hydrogen DRI) become strategically attractive despite higher capex if carbon prices remain elevated. Build carbon cost inputs into all capacity expansion and production mix decisions.

The overarching insight: CCTS is not a compliance exercise to be delegated to the ESG team. For steel producers, it is a core strategic variable that shapes technology roadmaps, capital allocation priorities, supply chain decisions, and production economics. Integrate it into business planning, financial modeling, and capital budgeting at the executive level.

Ready to Integrate CCTS into Your Strategic Planning?

Climate Decode develops facility-specific compliance models, decarbonisation pathway analysis, carbon cost scenarios, and capital allocation frameworks tailored to steel sector dynamics. We help you quantify compliance deficit, evaluate route optimization options, model carbon costs, and align technology strategy with financial planning.

About the Author

Abhishek Das Co-founder, Climate Decode Co-founder of Climate Decode, with 8+ years of experience across carbon markets, pricing analytics, and policy interpretation spanning compliance and voluntary systems. His work sits at the intersection of regulated carbon markets and long-term decarbonisation strategy, translating complex market and policy signals into decision-grade insight. He has worked extensively across the global Voluntary Carbon Market and key compliance systems including the EU ETS, UK ETS, and WCI, covering carbon pricing and valuation, supply–demand analysis, offset project assessment, and financial modelling. At Climate Decode, Abhishek leads the analytics layer underpinning TerraNova and Canopy, developing India-specific carbon price scenarios, CCTS compliance pathways, and forward-looking decarbonisation roadmaps that integrate regulatory trajectory, market risk, and long-term capital planning. Speak to Abhishek → LinkedIn →

Related Articles in This Series