As India prepares to launch carbon credit trading, weak price signals and institutional flaws threaten to turn a landmark climate reform into a paper exercise. Earlier this year, Union Power Minister Manohar Lal Khattar launched the Indian Carbon Market Portal at the Prakriti 2026 International Conference on Carbon Markets in New Delhi and told the gathering that India was “building a transparent and credible carbon market framework that will serve as a long-term national asset,” with formal carbon credit trading set to begin within four months. By any measure, that was a significant moment. But the question nobody at the podium answered is the one that matters most: at what price? India is now among the largest emerging carbon markets in the world. The World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026 report, released May 19, finds that direct carbon pricing globally covers 29 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions and generated over $107 billion in revenue in 2025. India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), which placed compliance obligations on roughly 490 industrial units across nine energy-intensive sectors from April 2025, will cover an estimated 700 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent once trading opens, per the International Carbon Action Partnership. The legal architecture is in place, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency administers the scheme, and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission will oversee trading. What that architecture still does not guarantee is a price signal strong enough to actually change industrial behaviour. Institutional Baggage The CCTS does not arrive without institutional baggage. It inherits its participants and its institutional weaknesses from India’s earlier Perform, Achieve and Trade scheme, which BEE launched in 2012. In PAT Cycle I, the non-compliance rate among Designated Consumers was 9 per cent. By Cycle II, it had risen to 56 per cent. The Designated Consumers obligated to purchase 86 per cent of the mandated Energy Saving Certificates were found to be unregistered on the trading platform. Across the first three PAT cycles, approximately 103 lakh ESCerts were issued against a mandated purchase of only 52 lakh, as documented by Prayas Energy Group. The structural oversupply was guaranteed from the outset, and every transaction that eventually happened did so at the BEE-mandated floor price because no credible scarcity existed to push prices higher. Firms responded rationally to what they actually observed: delays, extensions, and the consistent absence of meaningful penalty. The CCTS inherits exactly these participants. The CCTS is an intensity-based, baseline-and-credit system that sets emission intensity targets per unit of output rather than absolute emission caps. This suits a rapidly industrialising economy, but it carries an acute vulnerability to oversupply. First-year targets averaging roughly 2 to 3 per cent reduction across most sectors, combined with unlimited banking provisions, create conditions for a credit surplus before serious trading has even begun. Targets were also revised downward by 15 to 17 per cent between the draft notification and the final October 2025 notification, following industry consultation. A surplus suppresses the carbon price. A suppressed carbon price eliminates the financial incentive to invest in cleaner technology. The global record is instructive. The EU Emissions Trading System operated for 14 years before implementing its Market Stability Reserve in January 2019, during which Phase 2 and Phase 3 prices languished as low as 3 to 7 euros per tonne. Alberta’s TIER system accumulated more than 53 million surplus credits by 2023, with market prices falling 40 per cent below the official price. California avoided structural oversupply by launching its cap-and-trade in 2013 with a clear price floor and an Allowance Price Containment Reserve. India has announced none of these mechanisms. The IEEFA and Environmental Defense Fund recommended in October 2025 that the CCTS adopt a Price or Supply Adjustment Mechanism before trading launches, built around consignment auctions, vintage-based credit classification, and a price corridor. India has not announced any of these mechanisms. There is a structural problem beyond price mechanics. India’s thermal power sector accounts for nearly 39 per cent of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, yet the CCTS excludes the power sector entirely from its initial compliance mechanism. No timeline exists for its inclusion. This makes the scheme structurally incapable of driving economy-wide decarbonisation, no matter how well it functions in the industrial sectors it does cover. Commercial Urgency There is also a commercial urgency the government is underweighting. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism now applies to Indian exports of steel, cement, aluminium, and fertilisers. Indian exporters who can demonstrate they pay a domestic carbon price under the CCTS can offset part of their CBAM liability. A CCTS that produces certificates but no real price signal serves no CBAM-offsetting function at all. As analysts have consistently noted, credibility cannot be asserted; it can only be demonstrated through consistent enforcement. Three things need to happen before the CCC exchange opens in October 2026. BEE must announce a transparent price stability mechanism so that oversupply does not hollow out the market from day one. The ministry must publish an enforceable penalty schedule for non-compliance with actual consequences, not the procedural deferrals that PAT normalised. And the government must release a concrete sectoral expansion roadmap, including a target year for bringing the power sector into the compliance mechanism. None of these are radical demands. They are features that every functioning carbon market in the world has built in, usually after learning the hard way that a market without a price is just a registry. (The writer is a Research Scholar at University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, where her work focuses on climate change, environmental governance, political ecology, and public policy. Views personal.)
Comments