What are the most relevant regulatory developments in 2026 for those buying or selling carbon credits?
2026 is a year in which many climate and procurement teams stop thinking in “silos”. The EU ETS and CBAM start to interlock in a more operational way, while the voluntary market is being pushed toward more verifiable quality standards.
The most concrete change concerns CBAM. After the transitional phase that began in 2023, CBAM entered its definitive phase from January 2026 (CBAM is the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, applying to certain imported goods). This does not yet mean that in 2026 everyone automatically pays for certificates: in the available excerpt, mandatory purchase of certificates is stated as starting from 2027. But from 2026 the direction is clear: anyone importing goods in covered sectors must treat emissions data as an “audit” topic, not as an administrative attachment.
The second point is the EU ETS under political pressure. Within a few days, in Italy the debate moved from a national measure affecting ETS-related costs in the power sector to a formal request to suspend the entire system. Even if suspending the ETS is politically complex, for those buying or selling carbon-linked instruments this translates into one simple thing: more regulatory uncertainty to log in the risk register.
The third point concerns the voluntary market. In 2026, B2B demand tends to shift toward “high-integrity” credits, i.e., with stricter requirements on governance, traceability, MRV, additionality, and permanence. This is where ICVCM comes in: the Core Carbon Principles (CCP) become a practical reference for drafting tender specifications, conducting due diligence, and defending choices if challenged.
EU ETS “under siege”: which reforms and political risks could impact prices, allocations, and compliance?
Political risk in 2026 has become explicit. The excerpt reports that Minister Adolfo Urso formally asked Brussels to suspend the EU ETS pending a deep review, including parameters, quota allocation mechanisms, and the timetable for phasing out free allowances (this refers to Italy’s national political debate within the EU framework).
Perceived volatility is part of the story. The same excerpt says the CO₂ price in January rose above €90 per tonne and then fell below €75 after political statements about a possible review or postponement of the system. Nothing more needs to be added: for budgeting or hedging, “headline risk” is real.
Effectiveness data remain useful in internal discussions. The cited article reports that emissions in ETS-covered sectors have fallen by 50% compared to 2005. If the board conversation becomes only “ETS cost”, this number helps bring the mechanism’s purpose back onto the table.
The ETS review is already on the calendar. The excerpt mentions a review expected in the third quarter of 2026, aimed at updating system parameters and addressing unresolved issues. For companies, this means preparing for scenarios, not a single trajectory.
Energy Decree and renewables: what effects could it have on investments, allowance demand, and corporate climate strategy?
The key news is the Italian measure that “touches” the ETS in the electricity sector (Italy-specific context: this refers to a national decree affecting how ETS costs are handled in Italian power markets). The ECCO excerpt and the Renewable Matter excerpt describe a mechanism that neutralizes the ETS cost for electricity producers using natural gas, via a reimbursement funded by a tariff component on electricity bills.
The first effect is regulatory, not technical. ECCO writes that the mechanism appears in explicit contradiction with the European regulatory framework because it would amount to selective state aid, contrary to the purpose of the ETS and distortive of the internal market. The same decree, according to the excerpt, makes the measure conditional on European Commission authorization under state aid rules.
The second effect is investment uncertainty. ECCO argues that the intervention risks slowing investments in renewables and increasing their development costs, precisely due to the uncertainty introduced around power-market mechanisms and compatibility with EU rules. If you are an industrial buyer using PPAs or evaluating long-term contracts, this kind of uncertainty feeds directly into clauses and pricing.
The third effect is on the price signal. Renewable Matter summarizes the criticism well: reimbursing CO₂ costs to gas producers is equivalent to neutralizing the carbon price signal, making fossil generation more competitive. Even without forecasting EUA demand, the operational point is that the readability of the “carbon signal” in power changes, and therefore so do Scope 2 decarbonization scenarios.
ICVCM and CCP-Eligible: what does it mean for credit quality (e.g., Rainbow Carbon Standard) and for due diligence?
CCPs are not a slogan. The Core Carbon Principles set requirements on governance, transparency, MRV, additionality, management of non-permanence risks, and tracking. The practical value is that they give you a “defensible” checklist when you need to buy credits and then explain them to auditors, legal, and communications.
“CCP-Eligible” should not be treated as a generic claim. ICVCM publishes an assessment status and, in the logic described in the notes, eligibility applies to programs and often to specific categories. In 2026, in a tender, the right question is not “are you ICVCM compliant?”, but “which Program, which Category, which vintage, and where do I see it in the registry and in ICVCM documentation?”.
On the Rainbow Carbon Standard case, the available excerpts do not allow a verifiable fact to be derived. The provided page contains only a title and an HTML fragment, without text confirming status. So the only correct approach is methodological: if a standard cannot be verified through primary sources and ICVCM assessment tables, it should be treated as a quality risk, with implications for pricing and contractual clauses.
How to avoid greenwashing and legal risks: which claims are allowed and which documentary checks are needed?
The rule more
Claims must be separated by nature and scope. “Reduced” means internal action and data. “Compensated/offset” means purchase and retirement of credits. “Net-zero aligned” means targets and a plan, not purchases alone. Every claim must state what it applies to: company or product, and which Scopes.
Minimum documentary checks are basic but often missing. You need the contract, proof of retirement with serial number on a registry, independent verification statements where available, a dossier on methodology and risks (including non-permanence), and checks on chain of custody and supplier KYC. If you want to sleep soundly, include audit rights and replacement obligations in case of invalidation or issues with the credit.
Operational checklist for companies and investors: how to set up procurement, contracts, and reporting in a way that complies with regulation
First, a well-written 2026 carbon procurement policy. You must clearly distinguish between purchases for compliance (allowances/quotas) and voluntary purchases, and define objectives and internal governance across CFO, Legal, and ESG. If you use CCPs as a tender criterion, you must translate them into verifiable requirements, not slogans.
Second, contracting. Put quality and standards in writing, representations and warranties on title and absence of double counting, remedies for invalidation or reversal, delivery schedule and vintage, and audit rights. If the market is volatile, also include pricing mechanisms that do not leave you exposed.
Third, “auditor-proof” reporting. Keep exportable evidence: registry screenshots and records, retirement certificates, due diligence memos, and quantitative reconciliation of tCO₂e. In 2026, the typical question is not “did we buy credits?”, but “what do we show in assurance?”.
Fourth, CBAM readiness. From 2026, with CBAM in its definitive phase, you need an internal process for supplier data and traceability. Even if mandatory purchase of certificates is indicated in the excerpt as expected from 2027, the real work happens earlier: clear internal responsibilities across trade compliance, sustainability, and procurement.
Fifth, ETS scenario planning. With public discussions about suspension and national measures that neutralize ETS costs in the power sector, you need to prepare scenarios and risk limits, not a single forecast.
