European aluminium buyers face a pricing challenge as carbon-related costs become incorporated into selected market assessments, raising questions over how much of the liability is already reflected in contractual prices.
Fastmarkets incorporated CBAM costs into specified European secondary aluminium billet and Rotterdam primary extrusion billet premium assessments from 1 January 2026. The methodology was announced in December 2025 and continues to affect the interpretation of current contracts.
The change has implications for CBAM aluminium premium benchmarks, particularly where buyers use published assessments to establish delivered prices. The methodology states that certificate costs may not be fully reflected in, or passed through to buyers through, spot delivered-duty-paid transactions.
Premiums do not necessarily equal the full carbon liability
The treatment of Fastmarkets billet premiums does not mean that every transaction described as CBAM-inclusive contains an identical or fully recoverable carbon charge.
The amount incorporated into an individual transaction can vary depending on the origin of the aluminium, the timing of the import, the supplier and the terms negotiated between buyer and seller.
For purchasers of delivered duty paid aluminium, the distinction is particularly relevant. A premium that incorporates a carbon-related component does not necessarily establish how much of the underlying liability is ultimately transferred to the buyer.
Contract terms determine additional charges
The practical issue for buyers is therefore the relationship between the benchmark specified in a contract and any separate aluminium carbon surcharge.
Where an agreed premium already includes a carbon component, any additional charge should be clearly defined in the commercial terms. This makes CBAM contract clauses important in determining whether a buyer faces a separate payment on top of the benchmark.
A seller may also absorb part of the carbon liability. In that situation, the published premium alone may not show the importer’s complete economic exposure.
Market premiums reflect more than CBAM
The methodology also means that movements in regional aluminium premiums should not automatically be attributed to CBAM. Physical availability and other market costs can influence the premium independently of carbon-border charges.
For buyers, this makes carbon cost pass through a contractual and pricing question rather than a simple calculation based on the movement of a regional benchmark.
The methodology does not represent a newly announced regulatory change. Instead, it concerns how existing carbon-related costs are incorporated into specific market quotations and how those quotations should be interpreted in commercial contracts.
As carbon costs become increasingly embedded in aluminium market assessments, the key pricing question remains how much of the liability is assigned to each party and how much of that cost the agreed transaction price actually covers.
