Hfc phasedown under the montreal protocol
1 / 18

HFC Phasedown Under the Montreal Protocol - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' HFC Phasedown Under the Montreal Protocol' - sovann

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

HFC Phasedown Under the Montreal Protocol



OCTOBER 6-8 2010

Mexico, D.F.

Canada, Mexico and The United States

Scope of presentation
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
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
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
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
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

Federated states of micronesia hfc amendment proposal differences
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

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
Substantial Climate Benefits Article 5 Parties

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 Article 5 Parties

in Context



emission reductions



Financial assistance to article 5 parties
Financial Assistance to Article 5 Parties 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 By-Product Emissions Article 5 Parties


  • 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
Separate Decision on HFC-23 Article 5 PartiesBy-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

Summary Article 5 Parties

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