Hfc phasedown under the montreal protocol
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 18

HFC Phasedown Under the Montreal Protocol PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

HFC Phasedown Under the Montreal Protocol. OZONACTION NETWORK FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN OCTOBER 6-8 2010 Mexico, D.F. Canada, Mexico and The United States. Scope of Presentation. Trilateral Amendment Proposal Overview Legal Aspects Policy Rationale Comparisons Benefits

Download Presentation

HFC Phasedown Under the Montreal Protocol

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

HFC Phasedown Under the Montreal Protocol



OCTOBER 6-8 2010

Mexico, D.F.

Canada, Mexico and The United States

Scope of Presentation

Trilateral Amendment Proposal Overview

Legal Aspects

Policy Rationale



Financial Assistance

Path Forward

HFC-23 By-Product Emissions From HCFC-22 Production

Questions and Comments

Trilateral Amendment Proposal

Canada, Mexico & United States Proposal

  • Phasedown, not Phaseout of HFCs

    • Phases Down to 15% of Baseline

  • Phasedown is GWP-Weighted

  • Covers 20 HFCs, Including 2 known as HFOs

  • Limits By-Product Emissions of HFC-23

  • Leaves UNFCCC Obligations Unchanged

    • Supports Global Efforts to Reduce GHGs

  • MLF eligibility for Production & Consumption and HFC-23 By-Product Reductions

Montreal Protocol has Mandate with respect to HFCs

  • Vienna Convention Article 2 provides scope to address HFCs

    • HFCs result in adverse effects resulting from ozone layer protection, so Parties can harmonize approaches to reduce impacts

  • Trilateral HFC proposal includes provisions confirming obligations relating to HFC emissions continue unchanged under UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol

    • Complements but does not replace existing UNFCCC obligations

    • Addresses consumption and production to assist in reductions of emissions

    • Similar to aviation and maritime bunker emissions to be addressed by ICAO and IMO

Mandate of Montreal Protocol with Respect to HFCs: Policy Aspects (1)

  • Given HFC growth results from ODS phaseout, Montreal Protocol has special responsibility to address HFCs

  • Montreal Protocol has long history of concern with HFCs:

    • MOP Decision X/16 (1998): convened workshop, in collaboration with UNFCCC, with view to assisting establishment of information on HFCs and PFCs and potential ways to limit their emissions

    • MOP Decision XIV/10 (2002): called on TEAP to collaborate with IPCC to develop report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System; Issues Related to HFCs and PFCs

    • MOP Decision XX/8 (2008): called for report and workshop on high-GWP alternatives, principally HFCs, to ODS

    • ExCom Decision 60/44 (2010): allows for 25% funding increment, above cost-effectiveness thresholds, when needed for climate benefits, mainly to avoid selection of high-GWP HFCs

Mandate of Montreal Protocol with Respect to HFCs: Policy Aspects (2)

  • While Montreal Protocol has not controlled HFCs, historically, it has taken key steps developing information and understanding on HFC use and emissions at global level

  • Montreal Protocol has built world’s widest body of experience and expertise on sectors using HFCs

  • Therefore, it is not only appropriate, but incumbent on Montreal Protocol to take action on HFCs

    • In collaboration with UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol

  • Ultimately, atmosphere will not care if HFCs have been reduced through Montreal Protocol, UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol or both

Trilateral Proposal Phasedown Schedule

Federated States of Micronesia HFC Amendment Proposal: Differences

A5 Country baseline established with different methodology

Article 5 average 2007-2009 HCFC

Schedule differs

Reductions every 3 years until 2028, then plateau established in 2030

Plateaus at 10% of baseline

Includes by-product control provisions starting in 2013

Proposed HFC Reduction Steps for Article 5 and Non-Article 5 Countries

Overview of HFC Proposals

Non-Article 5 Parties Estimated HFC Consumption & Benefits from Phase Down

Projected HFC Consumption

First Effective Year of Consumption Cap

Climate Benefits

90% of Baseline

80% of Baseline

First Compliance




Estimated First Effective Year of Proposed Phase Down for Article 5 Parties

First Effective Year of Consumption Cap

90% of Baseline




Projected HFC Consumption



Substantial Climate Benefits

Global Trilateral Proposal Cumulative Benefits:

  • ~3,000 MMTCO2eq* through 2020

    • Non-Article 5 Parties = 3,000 MMTCO2eq

    • Article 5 Parties = 150 MMTCO2eq

  • ~88,000 MMTCO2eq through 2050

    • Non-Article 5 Parties = 43,000 MMTCO2eq

    • Article 5 Parties = 45,000 MMTCO2eq

      FSM Proposal cumulative benefits:

  • ~4,000 MMTCO2eq through 2020

  • ~93,000 MMTCO2eq through 2050

    EPA’s Analysis of HFC Production and Consumption Controls:



Trilateral Proposal Benefits

in Context



emission reductions



Financial Assistance to Article 5 Parties

  • Ensure timely financial assistance through MLF to address HFCs before huge growth takes place

    • Waiting longer makes it more difficult and costly to phase down HFCs see HCFC challenge

    • Waiting also increases damage to climate system

  • Effective incremental cost model of MLF can address HFCs

    • Many countries indicated preference for MLF model in various international environmental forums and negotiations

  • Allows short-term HFC growth to replace HCFCs when no other cost-effective alternatives are available

  • Most Article 5 countries would not actually need to reduce HFC consumption or production until 2018 at earliest

    • Recognizes short-term focus must be on HCFC phase-out

HFC-23 By-Product Emissions


  • HFC-23 is a by-product of producing HCFC-22

  • HFC-23 has highest GWP of all HFCs

  • Controlled HFC-23 emissions are decreasing but uncontrolled HFC-23 emissions are increasing, in Article 5 Countries (Montzka, et al)

  • CDM projects cover <50% HFC-23 emissions in Article 5 Parties

    Amendment Controls By-Product Emissions

  • Covers Emissions from HCFC-22 Production Facilities

  • Makes By-Product Obligations Eligible for MLF Funding

    • Would cover facilities not covered by CDM

  • Additional Benefits from HFC-23 Mitigation ~6,000 MMTCO2eq by 2050

Separate Decision on HFC-23 By-Product Emissions

Recognizes HFC emissions covered by Kyoto Protocol to UNFCCC

Requests ExCom of MLF to:

  • Update Information on Article 5 HCFC-22 Facilities, Including whether CDM-Covered

  • Develop Capital & Operational Cost Estimates

  • Formulate Guidelines by 64th ExCom Meeting

  • Facilitate Implementation of Projects

    Request TEAP/SAP to:

  • Study Costs and Environmental Benefits


HFC amendment proposals provide meaningful real opportunities for near-term climate benefits

Montreal Protocol appropriate vehicle for HFC Phasedown amendment

Successful experience

Effective financial mechanism

Sector expertise

HFCs used tied to ODS phaseout

  • Login