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
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
100%
90%
90%
Non-A5 Reduction Steps
80%
80%
Cap - Percent of Baseline
90%
80%
A5 Reduction Steps
70%
70%
70%
60%
50%
50%
50%
40%
30%
30%
30%
20%
15%
15%
10%
0%
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Years
2035
2040
2045
2050
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
100%
90%
Canada, Mexico & United States (Non-A5)
90%
85%
85%
80%
80%
Cap - Percent of Baseline
Canada, Mexico & United States (A5)
90%
70%
70%
60%
Federated States of Micronesia (Non-A5)
80%
70% 70%
55%
Federated States of Micronesia (A5)*
70%
55%
50%
50%
45%
50%
45%
40%
30%
30%
20%
15%
30%
15%
30%
15%
10%
10%
0%
2010
30%
2015
2020
2025
2030
15%
10%
2035
2040
2045
* Baseline = Average HCFC Consumption, 2007-2009 (all others Average HCFC+HFC, 2004-2006)
2050
Overview of HFC Proposals
Trilateral Proposal
Non-A5 Schedule
Micronesia Proposal
A5 Schedule
Non-A5 Schedule
A5 Schedule
Year
Cap
Year
Cap
Year
Cap
Year
Cap
2014
90%
2017
90%
2013
85%
2019
85%
2017
80%
2021
80%
2016
70%
2022
70%
2020
70%
2025
70%
2019
55%
2025
55%
2025
50%
2029
50%
2022
45%
2028
45%
2029
30%
2035
30%
2025
30%
2031
30%
2033
15%
2043
15%
2028
15%
2034
15%
Plateau
15%
Plateau
15%
2030
10%
2036
10%
Plateau
10%
Plateau
10%
Non-A5 Baseline
A5 Baseline
Non-A5 Baseline
A5 Baseline
HFC+HCFC from
2004-2006
HFC+HCFC from
2004-2006
HFC+HCFC from
2004-2006
HCFC from
2007-2009
Non-Article 5 Parties Estimated HFC
Consumption & Benefits from Phase Down
1,200
Projected HFC Consumption
First Effective
Year of
Consumption Cap
1,000
Climate Benefits
600
90% of Baseline
HFC
MMTCO2E
800
80% of Baseline
200
HCFC
400
First Compliance
Obligation
BASELINE
2009
2010
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
YEAR
HCFC Consumption
HFC Consumption
HFC Projected Consumption
North American Proposed Schedule
HFC BENEFITS
2019
2020
Estimated First Effective Year of Proposed
Phase Down for Article 5 Parties
First Effective
Year of
Consumption Cap
900
800
700
90% of Baseline
400
HCFC
500
First
Compliance
Obligation
300
200
100
Projected HFC Consumption
HFC
MMTCO2E
600
BASELINE
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
YEAR
2015
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2019
2020
HFC Consumption
HCFC Consumption
HFC Projected Consumption
North
American
Proposed
Schedule
Linear
(Step Down
Schedule)
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:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/downloads/Analysis_of_HFC_Production_and_C
onsumption_Controls.pdf
*MtCO2eq
Trilateral Proposal Benefits
in Context
consumption
reductions
emission reductions
emissions
100,000
90,000
MMTCO2eq
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
North American
Micronesia
Montreal
Proposal (2014- Proposal (2013- Protocol (19902050)
2050)
2010)
Accelerated
HCFC Phaseout
(2010-2039)
Kyoto Protocol
(2008-2012)
Copenhagen
Accord (20122020)
Annex I
Emissions in
2007
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
• Background:
– 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
Summary
• 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